Book-burners are rattled by weapons of mass instruction

Tone says:

07:53am | 14/09/10

I agree.

Negating the texts should not negate the essence of the essence is strong enough.

Nihilism can mean a few things, mostly depending on degree, such as negation of meaningful aspects of life, so one has to wonder if freedom of speech or censorship is being negated.

Carneyfolk says:

11:12am | 14/09/10

Pretty much what I thought the guy was saying -
Someone’s beliefs shouldn’t be tied up in bits of paper they are written down on. He wasn’t attacking the religions per se, but the people who believe their religion is harmed by destroying the books.

After WW2, the U.S.A. decided the heathen Japanese needed to be converted to Christianity, (ironic since Nagasaki had something like 80% of Japan’s Catholics). So they sent them bucket loads of bibles. Due to shortages and the thinness of the pages, the Japanese tore them up and used them for cigarette paper.
(not really relevant, but I love the story)

Anyway Mr Stewart doesn’t understand religious fruitcakes have been refining their zeal for thousands of years, so any actions such as his will be fruitless.

Gavin says:

02:48pm | 14/09/10

Ok no arguement from me about objects and artefacts not actually being the religions themselves. But was his method necessary. Did he HAVE to be a dickhead about it?

KH says:

08:28am | 14/09/10

for once I agree with you….........

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:34am | 14/09/10

Then you are in favor of the showing the $30,000 pro-euthanasia TV commercial, that was recently pulled before it aired? We already have censorship in Australia, thanks to the Liberal Party and Christian right…..

TheRealDave says:

08:46am | 14/09/10

you mean the Internet Filter thats got about as much chance of being implemented as Work Choices has under the Labor government?

Jakke says:

09:21am | 14/09/10

Censorship as you call it, is called protection of the community by others. Why do you accept that free-to-air TV channels cannot show hardcore pornography, do you think papers should be able to print ads like “Kiddie wanted by pedophile”. Do you want me to post your address, tax file number and bank details on Facebook, or would you like that information censored maybe? “Censorship” is about respect for others, just like not burning something that’s dear to somebody else, even if you think it is crap.

Ill be buggered! says:

10:09am | 14/09/10

Dangerous thoughts followed by murderous retaliation.?
Some books deserved to be censored.
We are what we are fed? So rubbish in Rubbish out.
Ethical corruption seems to breed ideas like ” some words are worth dying for”.
No they’re not. They’re personal beliefs which I would say need to be debated.
But as Voltaire was supposed to have uttered   “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
Why be so murderously dramatic about it. Why not say I will defend your right to say it..
No one needs to die if its worth discussing. We may all come to a proper conclusion instead of a nasty end with no solution.

L. says:

10:26am | 14/09/10

“Why do you accept that free-to-air TV channels cannot show hardcore pornography”

Because TV is a broadcast service… The Internet is a “request” service. You have to actively request the porn.

“Do you want me to post your address, tax file number and bank details on Facebook, or would you like that information censored maybe? “

You already can… No censorship will stop that as it’s not illegal.

“Censorship” is about respect for others”

Why are the “others’ wishes more deserving of consideration than mine..?

I believe that all material should be classified at M15+. If you want your film / book whatever to be classified lower, then you pay for that.

Society is more than “Disney”.

KH says:

08:29am | 14/09/10

Being sacked is the least of his problems now.  We’re dealing with the most extraordinarily backward people on earth today.  One of them will probably do him in…........

the Apologist says:

09:37am | 14/09/10

religion isn’t the problem, people are.

HappyCynic says:

10:02am | 14/09/10

You don’t know of many religious texts then do you?  The books or scrolls themselves are not the problem anyway.  The problem lies with the individual people and communities and governments who choose to use powerful symbols to justify violence.  The real cause of that violence, in all its shapes and forms, is that people think they have a right to shape the world as they see fit, whether they’re religious or non, idealists or the naive, governments out to avenge terrorist acts or just plain greedy, thinking that “my way is the only right way” is the only true cause of ALL the wars and suffering.

It’s easy to scapegoat the religious and I admit you’re right these symbols do have a lot of blood on their pages, but treating the symptoms instead of the cause is no way to cure the world of its ills as any good doctor will tell you.

Andrew says:

10:54am | 14/09/10

Happy Cynic, have you actually read any of these texts??  If you take them at all literally, which I’m assuming a good follower should, the world would be a bloody mess.  Stonings, executions, and the like would be commonplace, as punishment for the most trivial of offences.  We should be VERY glad that most people are intelligent enough to realise that their ‘holy books’ aren’t actually the real word of god.

So in reality, religion IS the problem, and people’s common sense what is saving us from religion (most of the time).

HappyCynic says:

12:20pm | 14/09/10

Andrew I know a good many of the texts better than you’d like to think.  I’m Jewish and before you jump down my throat about the violence of the Old Testament or Israel or whatever other pathetic excuse you’re going to try and pin on my religion, know this.  A good follower shouldn’t take them literally, literalists are either people with no imagination or no education and they don’t represent any religion faithfully.  A good follower of religion has one responsibility and one only.  Live a good life according to your own individual interpretation.  The rest is just excess baggage, but hey there are lots of things in life that are unnecessary, but it doesn’t mean they can’t be good and that’s why I choose to continue being Jewish.

Even if you successfully took all religion from this world we’d still have selfish, arrogant, violent, psychotic, megalomaniacal nutters who ruin the fun for everyone else, including, but not limited to, the people who say all religion should be wiped from the face of the Earth

Tedd says:

12:37pm | 14/09/10

HappyCynic, “if you successfully took all religion from this world” we’d have many less “selfish, arrogant, violent, psychotic, megalomaniacal nutters” as ideas would be less extreme, education would be less divisive, and the need to control and abuse would be much less.

Michael says:

03:26pm | 14/09/10

Tedd that is absolute rubbish, and a display of complete naeivity. Removing religion (impossible as that realistically is) would not get rid of extreme ideas, divisive education and needs of some to control or abuse. There are still other institutions where these elements could and would still thrive. There would still be secular political extremism, there would still be corruption, lunacy, war and misery. There is nothing pure about secularism either, and if you honestly believe that abolishing religion would automatically create a utopian world, I recommend you have a half shot of whiskey to open your eyes and wake yourself the hell up. While human beings continue to possess an ego, these same problems will continue to exist.

DG says:

03:43pm | 14/09/10

Tedd - I disagree entirely, people are passionate about their football teams, money, their football code, oil, the brands they wear and their race - religion is just another in a long list of things that people are willing to use as a justification for their violent behaviour towards others.

Happy Cynic:
When you say a “good follower” you actually mean someone who shares the same interpretation as you. You said:

“A good follower shouldn’t take them literally, literalists are either people with no imagination or no education and they don’t represent any religion faithfully.  A good follower of religion has one responsibility and one only.  Live a good life according to your own individual interpretation.” - If you are sincere about the latter a person who reads the Hebrew bible, interprets that as a justification for killing non-beleivers and the goes and kills a bus-load of Islamic kids is a ‘good follower’. Because they have behaved as you have said that a good follower should (behaving in accordance with their own interpretation of the holy text).

You can not disown followers of a religion just because they do not express their faith in the same way that you do. They are Jewish/Islamic/Christian/Buddhist or whatever, but they are also violent extremists. They are not mutually exclusive, nor at they dependent on each other. Extremists exist in all areas not just religion, need we look further than “English football fans”?

Chris L says:

04:12pm | 14/09/10

I have to agree with Michael, even though I think religion is having more negative effect on our society than positive getting rid of it won’t stop wars and abuse. Stalin replaced worship of a god with worship of the state and was still able to massacre his own people, and we know where worship of racial purity can lead (trying not to evoke Godwin’s law here).

On the other hand, true atheistic countries like Denmark and Sweden suffer next to no crime when compared to places like Australia, America or Iran, and this is despite (or perhaps because of) their liberalism in regards to nudity, prostitution and drug use.

acotrel says:

11:26pm | 17/09/10

religion isn’t the problem, people are.

Religion doesn’t kill people, guns kill people. AND IEDs

As an atheist could I be diagnosed as having religous mania?

Tedd says:

10:56am | 14/09/10

I disagree about Stewart’s reasons - it was a parody on the overt responses to Terry Jone’s threats to burn the Qu’ran, to say the books are not the essence, and to parody Jones directly.

JEQP, don’t you mean “if you do something deliberately designed to offend people you should *not* profess surprise when they *do* get offended”? - I just think he wasn’t expecting the degree of coverage, leading TV news bulletins, etc. and thus upsetting his employer’s executive.

There are plenty who say books per se deserve more respect, too; especially books revered such as those.

Confucius says:

12:00pm | 14/09/10

As he wasnt doing anything illegal he would have a good case of unfair dismissal.
But a stand like that can cause retribution.
Beware!

Nathan says:

11:19am | 14/09/10

I love your reasoning here, “You are stupid for believing in God but a big bang happened but I have no clue why”
 
Damn, thanks for answering the age old questions there. There is no scientific evidence anywhere proving or disproving that God exists. It’s fine that you believe that a big bang occured for no apparent reason, but ridiculing others for disagreeing just shows your ignorance and immaturity. Dog.

Chris L says:

12:30pm | 14/09/10

At least the theory of the Big Bang is backed up by the observable movement of celestial bodies and composition of matter. Whereas after thousands of years there is still not one piece of evidence in favour of your theory Nathan.

Nice point you made by calling someone a dog. Very christian of you.

DG says:

03:57pm | 14/09/10

Chris L:

Firstly, Nathan didn’t express a theory - he criticised Dog’s position.

Secondly, Dog call’s himself Dog.

Finally, you do exactly the thing that you accused Nathan of by your sarcastic remark about Nathan’s Christian behaviour.

Please, if you must engage in such debates, do so with tact, sensitivity and accuracy.

Nathan:
I think that you’ll agree that, most here in the board are not in a position to enter complex discussions on M-theory or the shortcomings of string-theory that led to the 11 dimensions of M-theory.

Instead, some of us work on a system of trust (as opposed to faith - faith being belief in the absence of evidence). We trust that the research has been done, we trust that other experts in the field have conducted peer reviews, we know that we have access to the data and trust that the experiments can and have been replicated. We do not take a book as authoritative because of who the author is, or who it purports to be about, but because of our knowledge of the peer review system, by the knowledge that we (the human race) have accumulated and by the testable hypotheses that have been demonstrated and upheld or falsified and dismissed. Our trust is in the capacity to demonstrate, and provide evidence in support of a theory.

While I agree that Dog’s analysis was not as comprehensive as it could have been nor was it sympathetic to the conflicting views that others may have (whether or not those other had evidence to support those views*) , You could have avoided the ad hominem attack and instead simply asked Dog to justify his claim, rather than accusing him of being immature and ignorant. Neither of which is conducive to debate - even if he is ignorant and immature, it does not make his point wrong.

Chris L says:

04:23pm | 14/09/10

Good points DG. I am fairly rebuked.

Dog says:

04:29pm | 14/09/10

Nathan

Go and read all of the works and papers written by Stephen Hawking and his colleagues and then get back to me.

They could not be printed here because it would be too long and complex for this discussion.

Dog

DG says:

11:16am | 14/09/10

As an atheist (I believe that there is no God as there is insufficient evidence to support the God hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis has more credibility in my opinion) I would really rather that people didn’t go around making claims such as this which are demonstrably false. Hawking proved that God is not necessary, not that God does not exist.

Firstly, to disprove god you need to first define it - Hawking makes no such attempt. He instead provides a hypothesis that does not require a god to begin ‘creation’, by expanding on some of the previous work done in relation to the idea of a singularity immediately before the big bang.

Secondly, whether or not God exists is irrelevant. Why does it matter to you if people believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus or Yahweh? Surely their belief does not matter, only their behaviour. So long as persons behave in accordance with the law does it really matter if they believe in something without proof?

I completely agree that, to the extent that they make claims that are demonstrably false, that persons making those claims should be open to critique for their false claims, just as any other merchant or trader is required to justify their claims and face criticism if their claims are not supported by evidence.

However, belief if not the problem. The problem stems from the belief that one persons world view is more important than any other, and that all others are in error. It is appropriate to criticise those who break the laws, but it is inhumane to criticise a person for the beliefs that they hold that are not demonstrably false. Even then it is a fine line between education and respect - if a person takes comfort from the belief that they will see their loved ones again, should we criticise them for that? While there is no evidence to support that belief, I do not consider it desirable to criminalize religion as a ‘thought crime”.

A Dose of Reality says:

12:32pm | 14/09/10

DG:  By far the most thoughtful and intelligent post I have read on punch.

I too am agnostic and therefore atheist.

I personally would add this sentence to reinforce what you have touched on “So long as persons behave in accordance with the law does it really matter if they DO NOT believe in something without proof?”

I feel that all discussions on this subject do not take into account the “other option” and that there are those of us who are not superstitious, and contrary to the uneducated rants of “religious” executives, this does not necessitate us to be evil.

Tone says:

01:31pm | 14/09/10

Good post, DG.  The problem is the extent to which people “make claims that are demonstrably false”, as the extent and degree at which one stops criticising is not clear.

The issues around creationism/intelligent design and the way those that push this negate evolution as a now accepted process (supported by genetics, breeding studies, palaeontology, etc, etc.) tend to spill over into other areas such as education,  psychology, anthropology, etc, etc.  that create further divisions in society.

DG says:

02:42pm | 14/09/10

Tone -

OK, we don’t know if something is demonstrably false under we attempt to demonstrate it, but that does not mean that we shouldn’t have the debate.

The person making the claim - ie the person claiming that creation-science is real needs to support that claim with evidence, or accept criticism for making a claim without evidence. If they offer evidence, that evidence should be subjected to scrutiny.

So when Darwin puts forward his hypothesis regarding evolution he composes “on the Origin of Species” which uses examples and facts that are observable by other persons, experiments that he conducted and the results of his research. He then faces critique of his work and ultimately, the evidence in support of his hypothesis wins out and he now has a ‘theory’. By now it is fair to say that his theory (evolution by the process of natural selection) is a fact as his works made very specific predictions by applying his theory, which have since been observed and confirmed.

Divisions in society are not inherently bad. we all know things that are false, the question is how we, as individuals, respond when our knowledge is challenged. We all have our ‘sacred cows’. Things that we believe in without any evidence, or evidence that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The most obvious is that we believe our “mum and dad” are actually our “mum and dad” based on their word alone. There’s nothing wrong with that, but the evidence you have is from 2 sources one of who may not know if they are the father, and one who has a vested interest in the “father believing that they are the father. make of it what you will, I am simply pointing out that we each have our unjustified beliefs and it is up to each of us how we respond.

If someone accuses you of being a bastard, you can either go toe-to-toe, ignore them or challenge your views. Most people would be quite content to ignore the allegation on the basis that the claim is made without any reasoning and as such is probably less reliable than the word of your parents (despite their interests outlined above).

The problem with the world is those who, when faced with a challenge to their beliefs*, seek to go toe-to-toe (either directly or on a broader scale - consider any number of Holy wars).

Ultimately, I am of the opinion that a person wishes to have their personal beliefs shielded from scrutiny, do not share them with any one else.

Secondly, if a person does challenge you your choices are (in the order I consider appropriate, but may depend on the circumstances): justify your position, seek further information, accept the claim or ignore the claim. In my opinion, no challenge to your belief system justifies an act of violence. However the fact that people use violence towards each other demonstrates that my view is not held by everyone).

*People often find a person who does not share their views as a challenge to their belief. Simply put: If you do not share my belief you oppose it or, at the very least, you believe that it is unjustified (for if it were justified you would share the belief).

Tone says:

03:19pm | 14/09/10

One of the first thing to support Darwin after he published On the Origin of Species was the iconic work of Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel, using 29,000 pea plants, to study inheritance, yet ironically that work was largely ignored for 30-40 years, and not really put together until the ‘Modern Evolutionary Synthesis’ was conceptualised in the 1940s.  Work on chromosomes was also iconic.

Andrew says:

03:22pm | 14/09/10

Excellent post, DG.  My main criticism of religion is that it abuses children, by forcing them (yes, if you tell a child they will burn in hell if they don’t believe something, that IS forcing them) to believe something that is almost certainly not true.  Yes, there’s a minute chance that god exists, just like there’s a minute chance that there’s no such thing as gravity, only invisible fairies pushing everything down all the time.  But to teach children that this is FACT, and a truth never to be questioned, fits any definition of child abuse.  I contend that if any reasonable human is removed from all religious influence for the first 20 years of life, they would laugh at religion when it was presented to them as an adult.  We have a duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and we are failing in this duty very very badly by allowing religious indoctrination of children to continue.

DG says:

03:02pm | 14/09/10

Would you support a “National Day of Celebration”, “Nationhood day” or even “Cook Day”?

The name doesn’t change the fact that the day you wish to celebrate is the day on which Cook perpetrated the greatest fraud in Australia’s legal history. Simply put he claimed that the land belonged to no one. This was demonstrably false. In that single action he stole a country from its inhabitants, established a legal system that did not apply to the original inhabitants and waged a war (in various manner) against them for some 150+ years. Now, personally, I have no trouble with acknowledging the day that the flag was first planted, but I do think that Australia is far to noble to perpetuate that fraud.

Just as nationhood means different things to different people, so too European occupation means different things to different people. So long as this nation celebrates that fraud, people who were swindled out of their homes will feel justifiably aggrieved. Whether that is grounds for changing the name is a moot point. The day it symbolises remains the same.

Secondly, in response to your statement: “Political Correctness as a term has become as insane as discrimination”. Given that you are of the opinion that discrimination is a good and proper function of an individuals freedoms, how could politically correct ever be anything other than “insane”, accordingly, your statement is internally inconsistent. Either “political correctness” was always insane and as such discimination was always good and proper exercise of a persons freedom, or political correctness has become insane, in which case there was a time where discrimination was not appropriate, but it now is. Which is your position?

Given that the UN prohibits slavery (See the Declaration of Human Rights), how do you justify the use of “slavery” in a description of the UN objectives?

If discrimination is acceptable - as you have said above “there is nothing wrong with discriminating”, how do you justify your claim “I will not be discriminated against in this way any more.”, Surely if you think that there is nothing wrong with discrimination, you surely are unjustified at feeling that you have been discriminated against.

I await your considered answers with interest.

DG says:

04:21pm | 14/09/10

*A point of clarification and correction. Cook perpetrated the fraud by claiming the land for Great Britain when cook had already identified inhabitants. That was a necessary precursor to the first fleet which arrived on the day we celebrate as “Australia Day”.  As such the celebration is not of the day of the declaration - but is a celebration of the events that followed from that ‘discovery’.

DG says:

12:20pm | 15/09/10

Firstly -

I did not ask you to change, nor do I expect you to change - my only desire is that you will comply with the law . Nothing more nothing less. I asked you to defend your position on a number of points, to engage in a discussion on your points and a number of statements that I did not necessarily think were supported. I do not think that your reply has supported those statements so I has endeavour to clarify my questions.

Secondly - I did not express my opinion on the change of name. I suggested that the change of name would not appease all Australians as some Australians are opposed to the date on which it falls for historical reasons.

Without going further I must ask what you mean when you say “my kind” in the third paragraph and specify that I am not of that kind. Perhaps your answer will allow me to better phrase a response.