Life, liberty, and the pursuit of total stupidity

Paul says:

02:40pm | 13/09/10

I see what you did there…...

E says:

05:27pm | 13/09/10

Major philosophical issue:
1) Freedom of religious expression
2) Freedom from opression (essp womens rights)
3) Some interpretations of Islam deny 2) and use 1) to defend their right to cut their daughters genitalia into pleasing (to them) shapes
...hmmm…
4) Ahh well 3) is just ONE INTERPRETATION of Islam, and so we can decry 3) while protecting 1) and 2) *smug*
..but..
5) If religeous expression emanates from religious interpreation then we have a problem, since if we restrict the ‘protected’ forms of religious interpretation to those which dont conravene 2) (or other modern secular western liberal values MSWLV) then we are in effect restricting freedom of religious expression to only those expressions which conform to MSWLV, which is of course is tantamount to saying ‘Im right and you are wrong nyah nyah nyah’, which is exactly what everyone else who liberal lefties like to belive they are better than (by claiming that they are not) are decried by liberal lefites for doing (who are of course oblivious to the paradox, not being very bright).
Discuss…

Peter says:

07:04pm | 13/09/10

@ E, i don’t think female circumcision is a “muslim” thing, rather its something that exists in very few cultures. I saw a doco not long ago where a mother was planning her daughters circumcision. I don’t recall any reference to Islam in it. To these women, it’s just what they do. It’s very strange and bizzare, i’ll give you that..

T.Chong says:

12:30pm | 13/09/10

agree nothsow, “true"christians are just as nice as “true muslims , “true"jews, buddhists, hindus, etc
Just as Jones was no example of cristianity, neither is al qeda representative of islam.
Relyng on extremes to justify the ongoing hysteria is what the extremists of all sides rely on.

Chris L says:

12:39pm | 13/09/10

Actually, Nosthow, he used his own copies of those books, not someone else’s. He also turned them into fake joints as a joke so I don’t think he’s “taking things too seriously”.

Kudos to Paul, though, for attaching a clip that ridicules the old christian tradition of burning people at the stake for the most ridiculous of reasons. If you can laugh at yourself I don’t think Alex’s clip was directed at you.

Peter says:

04:37pm | 13/09/10

Chris L, the whole point of stopping that pastor in the US was to not give ammunition to terrorist groups for recruitment purposes or to put soliders lives at risk. I think he finally saw some sense.

Taking the above into account, i dispute that fact that those joints were fake…

I don’t want to see this bloke losing his livelyhood, but some common sense is required here…

Barry Pattrick says:

04:38pm | 13/09/10

Just another reason why smoking is no good for you .It could be harmful to your job

Chris L says:

05:37pm | 13/09/10

I understand what you’re saying Peter, and there is a risk. However, if we curb our freedoms for fear of the terrorists we become the losers. Also, if these people are incited to kill by the burning of some pages I would still consider them responsible for such actions, not some guy at UQ.

Peter says:

05:54pm | 13/09/10

@ Chris L, your right, i can never invisage a situation where i would want to kill someone. But this is the crazy world we live in..

GJ says:

05:56pm | 13/09/10

agree nothsow, “true"christians are just as nice as “true muslims , “true"jews, buddhists, hindus, etc
Just as Jones was no example of cristianity, neither is al qeda representative of islam.
Relyng on extremes to justify the ongoing hysteria is what the extremists of all sides rely on.

Correct!  Except Jones is an athiest, not a christian, and muslims do have a habit of blowing people up, lots.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

06:56pm | 13/09/10

T. Chong & Nosthow :  Wow ! here is an amazing first , i agree with you guys for once. !
I have recently returned from the U.S. and visited Ground Zero simply to pay my respects , not that there is anything to see. The site is now well under new construction and they will have buildings restored to the old site of the Trade Centre Towers.
It was very emotional to view the tributes to those who died in the conflagration .
There are extreme elements in most religions who manage to create the hatred and bigotry that still exists today .  I note ( see below )
GJ states ” .........and Muslims do have a habit of blowing people up….”
yes that’s true , but this is not a full reflection of the Islamic Faith , just as the the ” burnings at the stake ” were not a full reflection of Christianity hundreds of years ago.
As Steve ( see below ) states ” Militant athiests and religious fundamentalists are as equally moronic and stupid as each other “
I agree , and Steve’s view is sound common sense .

Peter says:

07:31pm | 13/09/10

@ GJ, if you believe only muslims bomb people, then you are a bit to one eyed i think. How many muslims launched bombs in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq..

What about IRA? These guys knew how to bomb places..

You know who the first group to use a car bomb as a weapon don’t you? And if i recall correctly it was used against muslims..

Tedd says:

11:31pm | 13/09/10

Peter, I think the first car bombing was on Wall St; yet the King David Hotel bombing in 1948 was one of the next few terrorist attacks after that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing - note one of the key players later became a prime minister.

GJ says:

09:14am | 15/09/10

but this is not a full reflection of the Islamic Faith , just as the the ” burnings at the stake ” were not a full reflection of Christianity hundreds of years ago

Ridiculous and totally irrelevant analogy. When was the last time a western christian nation burnt someone at the stake?

GJ says:

09:22am | 15/09/10

@ GJ, if you believe only muslims bomb people, then you are a bit to one eyed i think. How many muslims launched bombs in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq..

What has WW1, WW2, and Vietnam got to do with the current conflict in afghanistan? I’m not seeing Lancaster bombers over dresden anymore, nor B52s over hanoi. Once again, a totally irrelevant analogy.

Lets look at facts hey? Yes, the IRA used to blow people up, but no matter how you try to justify or spin it, the vast majority of bombings these days are committed by Muslims. In fact, it’s hard to even think of an occasion where someone other than a Muslim has committed a cowardly bombing attack.

Yes, Muslims. Not Hindus or Presbeterians or catholics or Buddhists. Or rastifarians or wiccans.

Inescapable fact.

Tedd says:

01:07pm | 13/09/10

They might be as zealous as each other, but you would need to provide evidence for your assertions.

What Alex S did was controversial, and not everyone’s cuppa tea, but it is being blown out of proportion, which is a common thing around religious adversary.

Steely Dan says:

03:05pm | 13/09/10

Tedd’s right.  And what’s more, Stewart was being the opposite of a fundamentalist:
“It’s just a f—-ing book”“Who cares? It’s your beliefs that matter. Quite frankly, if you are going to get upset about a book, you’re taking life way too seriously.”
That doesn’t sound like fundamentalism to me.

PaulB says:

07:07pm | 13/09/10

What is a militant atheist Steve?  BTW, didn’t see the same media frenzy when “fundamentalist” Jews were burning Bibles in 2008.  Maybe some burnings are less worthy of our attention, if they are done by those supposedly on our side?

Peter says:

07:46pm | 13/09/10

@ Tedd, if your football club was playing against somebody and someone in your team came out and said ridiculous statements that gave ammunition to the opposition to “fire up” he’d probably be dumped from the side…

Well, that’s what this funny guy did by smoking the Koran. He has fired up the opposition and some solider might pay for this… or some innocent civilian caught up in a terrorist act in retaliation to it.

Alex S might have been sincere when he said burning religous texts is harmless, it’s not your copy, so what the worry? Well, i know people who want others locked up for burning a flag (it’s just a piece of cloth after all, what’s the drama?). In this world, Islam and Christianity is MUCH bigger than any flag, so Alex S must have realised he was playing with fire..

I am a 100% believer in freedom of expression/speech/beliefs, but like all things there are appropriate times to do and say things. And while we are at war, it’s probably not a good thing to give the enemy something they can work with..

Now let’s bring the troops home. If people power was capable of bringing down the Soviet Union without a bullett being fired, then other people from other nations can fight for their own democracy if they really wanted it…

jf says:

01:08pm | 14/09/10

Steely Dan

He is committed enough to his believes to risk his job and potentially his life for no reason other than to promote his own belief system. Sounds fundamentalist to me.

Still, at least he appears to know that the terms atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive.

Steely Dan says:

07:49pm | 14/09/10

@ jf

“He is committed enough to his believes to risk his job and potentially his life”
Risking his job might have been stupid.  Risking his life?  I can’t see that happening.

“...for no reason other than to promote his own belief system.”
To make a point - that books are books.  You don’t have to be an atheist to believe that.

“Still, at least he appears to know that the terms atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive.”
They are coloquially.  But agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive if you use them properly.  ‘Agnostic’ addresses what you claim to know (or in this case don’t claim to know), ‘atheism’ addresses what you believe in regards to god/s (or in this case, don’t believe).

jf says:

08:42am | 15/09/10

“Risking his job might have been stupid.  Risking his life?  I can’t see that happening.”

The risk may be low, but I’m not convinced that the same people committed to killing Salman Rushdie or Theo van Gogh may take the view that burning the Koran is equally abhorent. For that matter, I wouldn’t want to do something like this in America’s bible belt. Either way, he was committed enough to making his point to genuinely risk his job and potentially his life. Even if the risk to his life is low this is to much of a risk to make a fairly banal and contentious point. For, to you and me, books might be books. However to many people, the Koran and the Bible are sacred.

“...for no reason other than to promote his own belief system.”
To make a point - that books are books.  You don’t have to be an atheist to believe that.

I don’t for one moment refute that he is an atheist. I do think that he is a fundamentalist.

“Still, at least he appears to know that the terms atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive.”

They are coloquially.  But agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive if you use them properly.  ‘Agnostic’ addresses what you claim to know (or in this case don’t claim to know), ‘atheism’ addresses what you believe in regards to god/s (or in this case, don’t believe).

Agnostic doesn’t address what you don’t know. If you are agnostic you concede that your knowledge isn’t sufficient to form a view. So, how could you not believe in a god if you, as is required of an atheist, if you don’t have sufficient knowledge.

Steely Dan says:

11:51am | 15/09/10

@ jf

“The risk may be low, but I’m not convinced that the same people committed to killing Salman Rushdie or Theo van Gogh may take the view that burning the Koran is equally abhorent.”
Sure.  But even if the risk was high, I don’t think you need to be a fundamentalist to stand up for what you believe in.  I wouldn’t call somebody in the armed forces a fundamentalist simply because they face great risk of death defending Australia or other nations.

“I don’t for one moment refute that he is an atheist. I do think that he is a fundamentalist.”
A fundamentalist what? Antitheist?

“If you are agnostic you concede that your knowledge isn’t sufficient to form a view.”
I still disagree with that definition, but even if I accept it, an agnostic does not believe in a god.  ‘No view’ is not belief. 

“So, how could you not believe in a god if you, as is required of an atheist, if you don’t have sufficient knowledge.”
Here’s a quick example: two people walk past a high chain wire fence.  On the other side is a metre cubed box, out of reach and closed up.  Person A says that there’s a cat in the box.  Person B says since neither person has looked in the box and they can’t hear any noise from it, there is insufficient evidence to say that there is a cat, though it’s quite possible that a cat is inside.  Person B is ‘agnostic’ in that they don’t claim to know that a cat is inside or not, but they are also an ‘atheist’ in that they do not believe that a cat is inside. 
Remember that atheism is the absence of a belief in god/s, not the belief that god/s is/are absent (though anybody who holds the latter is necessarily an atheist too).

jf says:

10:14am | 16/09/10

“I don’t think you need to be a fundamentalist to stand up for what you believe in.”

I couldn’t agree more. However, there is a difference between standing up for what you believe in. There is a difference between a man who risks his life to save a person and a man who risks his life to save a kitten. This guy wasn’t standing up for what he believes in. He was showboating in a self-serving, juvenile fashion. To suggest that he was standing up for what he believes in trivialises and demeans those that have truly stoop up against oppression, bigotry and intolerance.
Fundamentalism only refers to religious fundamentalism in its coloquial interpretation.

“atheism is the absence of a belief in god/s, not the belief that god/s is/are absent (though anybody who holds the latter is necessarily an atheist too).:”

Fair enough. I will have to read the definitions but something for me to think about.

Steely Dan says:

11:12am | 16/09/10

@ jf

“To suggest that he was standing up for what he believes in trivialises and demeans those that have truly stoop up against oppression, bigotry and intolerance.”
Would you say that Rosa Parks refusing to get off a bus ‘trivialises’ those who fought to the death against racism?  I think it only trivialises those heroic actions if you try and say that making a YouTube video that you know will piss people off is equivalent to standing in front of an army - and I’m not making that comparison at all.

He is making a good point, whether you think the execution was bad or not.  Books are books, not the ideas that get typed into them, and people are nuts if they want to fight about it.  As I’ve mentioned before, he would have made the point better if he’d done what PZ Myers did and included a copy of ‘The God Delusion’, ‘God is Not Great’ or some text he agreed with in the burning as well.

“Fundamentalism only refers to religious fundamentalism in its coloquial interpretation.”
Agreed.  So he’s a fundamentalist what?

jf says:

04:26pm | 17/09/10

SD

“Would you say that Rosa Parks refusing to get off a bus ‘trivialises’ those who fought to the death against racism?”

Not at all. Her actions were heroic and necessary. She was being refused a basic human right and pushed back. What basic human right was this knucklehead being refused? To him, to you and to me the bible, the Koran and other religious books might just be books. To others, they are sacred. I take no more offence at a Muslim holding the Koran to be sacred than I do to an American holding their Bill of Rights to be sacred or a thespian holding the scripts of Shakespeare to be sacred. Rosa Parks was taking real action against a real hurt. What hurt was this guy suffering because a Christian held the bible to be sacred or a Muslim the Koran. It was an obnoxious, self-serving and offensive thing to do.

I don’t disagree that he was making a point. I don’t disagree that books are just books - to me in any case. I do, however disagree that his point is an important one. Certainly not important enough for him to expose himself to serious consequences or offend people unnecessarily.

So unimportant do I regard this topic that I will waste no more time on it. See you at the next topic.

Steely Dan says:

03:20pm | 19/09/10

@ jf

“She was being refused a basic human right and pushed back. What basic human right was this knucklehead being refused?”
So direct persecution is required to be allowed to protest for what you believe in?

“To him, to you and to me the bible, the Koran and other religious books might just be books. To others, they are sacred.”
That’s his point.  They’re not actually sacred.  The ideas are (to the religious), but not the books.  That’s why he pointed out that he was not destroying the concepts within them.

“It was an obnoxious, self-serving and offensive thing to do.”
And it got seen because of it.  And everybody who got riled up has seen the argument that burning your own copy of a religious text hurts nobody, and some will have realised that burning a book or a flag is not the same as burning a nation or a religious person, it is just a book.  Some will realise that turning the other cheek is an option.

austin 3:16 says:

02:10pm | 13/09/10

He bought a couple of books and burnt a couple of pages that’s it. He’s not going out into the neighbourhood and knocking on doors trying to tell other people about his beliefs. He’s not running adds on the TV or putting billboards by the side of the road, he’s not trying to infulence political decisions or lobby political parties. He’s not even sending atheist missionaries to foreign countries.  He just put a video clip on you tube.

To compare his actions with that of organised religion is laughable.

James says:

04:10pm | 13/09/10

The fact is, he’s used the attention to preach his beliefs. Instead of saying you’ll go to hell if you don’t believe, he’s saying you’re naive and boring. How is that any better than what churches do?

I’m not saying this single act is as bad as anything churches have ever done to attract worshippers. All I’m saying is this man and anyone else who has no respect for other people’s beliefs is a jerk.

Austin 3:16 says:

07:28pm | 13/09/10

Hey James, why do beliefs automatically deserve respect ? That seems a bit silly to me.  Heck if I had a set of beliefs that couldn’t stand up to some mild criticism on the internet I’d be worried.

James says:

08:05am | 16/09/10

Any belief should be supported by research and evidence. But it can’t be denied that people don’t like to have their religious beliefs questioned. It serves to do nothing but create anger and violence. When has anyone ever renounced their faith from a reasoned argument? Is it even possible to have a reasoned argument when faith is involved?

Faith and spiriitual beliefs are a choice that people have to make themselves. And since the only result of criticism can be provoking anger, that pretty much categorically makes you a jerk if you do it.

Austin 3:16 says:

05:29pm | 16/09/10

Hey James,

It’s my belief that beliefs are not automatically deserving of respect. Some people for example have the firm belief that it’s ok to supplement their own income by appropriating other people’s property. I don’t respect that belief at all. Some people believe that it’s ok to hit their spouse when he/she doesn’t do what they want, again I don’t respect that belief at all.

I realise I’ve chosen some “extreme” examples but either a belief deserves respect automatically or it doesn’t. I think it doesn’t

Yep some people might get mad if there beliefs are questioned. I kinda see that as more their problem than mine.  Personally I’m happy for my beliefs to be questioned. They can make their own way in the world, they are rough and tough enough to handle it. And sometimes I find out they weren’t all that I thought they were and they get changed.

James N says:

02:50pm | 17/09/10

I agree Austin, a belief shouldn’t go unchallenged just because someone believes it, or even if a lot of people believe it.

But if someone’s faith or belief isn’t affecting anyone, then why bother trying to get them to change their mind?

Matt says:

12:30pm | 13/09/10

its not being built at ground zero but rather a few blocks away. regardless that arguement would hold more sway if there hadn’t already been numerous protests about other mosques being built all over America, and other countries including our own for that matter, based on no reason other than “we dont want one”

Sam Spade says:

12:31pm | 13/09/10

I condemn the Australian’s actions and also do not agree with the protests against the mosque.  Americans should be ashamed of themselves, especially considering the fact that they hold up their country as the ideal to reach for with regards to freedom and tolerance - yeah right.

Bobster says:

12:45pm | 13/09/10

Which is odd, because they’re all as bad as each other.

Steely Dan says:

02:13pm | 13/09/10

“Yet many of the people who condemn the former, nevertheless support the latter.”
I support both.  No inconsistency here.  And my view affirms the freedoms of speech and religion.  You can call that a “self-satisfied attitude” if you want.

Eric says:

06:00pm | 13/09/10

Matt, the Victory Mosque site is that of a building which was hit by an engine from one of the aircraft that slammed into the towers. Therefore, it is actually a part of Ground Zero. As for mosques in general, there are plenty of good reasons for people not to want one - but this one, in particular, is designed to be offensive.

Steely Dan, it’s good to see that you’re consistent. Barack Obama is the biggest hypocrite - since he supports the building of the mosque on grounds of freedom of religion, but opposes the burning of the Koran - even though it’s an expression of freedom of speech.

Jim says:

02:09pm | 14/09/10

@Eric - I do not think that President Obama is being hypocritical, as both of his statements are consistent with freedom of religion. Obviously, stating that a mosque can be built and should be tolerated is supporting of freedom of religion. Condemning the burning of the Koran is also supportive of freedom of religion. “Why?”, you ask. Well, building a mosque - or any other place of worship - is supportive of religion, but burning a holy book, regardless of the religion, is denigratory towards religion. Also, burning books has very, very uncomfortable echoes of pre-WWII Germany, with its intolerance towards Judaism and any belief which did not support Nazism.

Zatnikatal says:

12:46pm | 13/09/10

I only got my faith when I lost the religion. We need to tolerate the idiots and let the police and soilders deal with the violent ones and have faith it will eventually all work out. Paul you come across a little defensive, if you have true faith nothing will rattle you.

Matthew says:

01:19pm | 13/09/10

That’s the problem.  Both sides argue that they’re better, and because you watch tennis instead of football, you’re instantly neutral and they can convert you to their side but at the end of the day you just want to watch tennis.

What makes me mad (and a lot of atheists) is the fact that they still try to convert you.  It’s hard to remain neutral when someone comes to your door with a bible (or any other holy book).  You try arguing your neutrality without appearing like you don’t hate everything else.

JP says:

10:21pm | 13/09/10

*tongue in cheek, because I never assume levity translates into text*

I heard his mother will only give him one minute to talk to the people (and then that the Youtube masses and his mother will argue over whether it was a minute or not).

*sigh* When stupid acts like this happen, you’ve just got to look on the bright side of life, I guess.

*tongue in cheek ends*

Both atheism and theism suffer from the same problem, ironically - they rely on belief of some sort to answer that question of “why do we rely on the sources of truth we do” - for the atheist, logic, science, observation or humanism; for the theist, the Creator, wiseman oracle or holy Book.

Living with your own moral code may be harder for the atheist or agnostic - but they have the potential to be even more moral through thought independent of teaching. This also can give them the potential for greater immorality or amorality - which is probably the real reason people jump to religion: it’s easier, and your actions and others become more predictable. It’s only with the luxury of time to devote to thought that alternatives to organised religion become easily accessible.

*a more cheerful ending, I hope*

Even as a sceptical agnostic, I have no more or less time for Dawkins and Hitchens then I have for the Dalai Lama or the Archbishop of Canterbury. I get the feeling they’d all be interesting conversations.

Steely Dan says:

03:31pm | 19/09/10

@ jf

““How is opposing a party’s stance on separation of church and state is criticism of their policy.”
Sorry, that was two sentences, I must have accidentally removed the middle bit.

“... any more than they should be sensitive of being criticised by a cotton farmer for their anti-chemical policies? Being critical of someone who doesn’t hold the same fundamental values and beliefs as you seems pretty natural.”
Because disputes like that (I’m not actually aware of that policy) aren’t fundamental.  Separation of church and state is. 

“It is a pretty crude bow to draw… they want a Church governed state.”
I’m not saying that’s what they want.  But anything less than actual separation of church and state isn’t on.

“In any case, all major parties in Australia (and most of the others) are secular.”
By and large, they are, mostly.  No party is arguing that we become a theocracy.  But most argue that religious institutions should have a special role and special privileges that other institutions do not.

papachango says:

01:21pm | 13/09/10

It’s called cultural relativism, as been fashionable amongst the leftwing, inner-city Green voting types for a couple of decades now.

Markus says:

02:20pm | 13/09/10

Cultural relativism, also known as white guilt.
Apparently being born in a well developed, rich nation with high levels of equality and civil rights is something we should all be ashamed of.

Steely Dan says:

02:21pm | 13/09/10

@ papachango

...Yet the Greens are criticised by many religions for being explicitly secular.

papachango says:

03:11pm | 13/09/10

@ Steely Dan - secular? You’re kidding me aren’t you? They worship Gaia.

Steely Dan says:

03:18pm | 13/09/10

@ papachango

Boom-tish.  But seriously, if you want to blame somebody for cultural relativism, don’t pick the party who (along with Nick Xenophon) are constantly being attacked for keeping the most sacred cow of culture (churches) separate from the state.

Jon says:

04:20pm | 13/09/10

Postmodernism is yesterday’s dogma. But for nearly two decades it managed to stupefy large sections of the intelligentsia and the left, and the hangover is still being felt. Its rejection of enlightenment values, for example, gave space and succour to more potent anti-enlightenment forces. It’s no coincidence that in the past decade we’ve witnessed a rise of religious - including Christian - fundamentalism in the West, coinciding with a spike in jihadist violence.

papachango says:

04:20pm | 13/09/10

@Steely Dan -

Separation of church and state is an estalished part of Western culture, and has been around for centuries before the Greens were ever dreamed up, so I don’t see what that’s got to do with anything.

It’s not like the Greens are singlehandedly holding back the tide of Christian fundamentalism from turning us into a medieval theocracy or anything. We’ve managed four odd centuries of liberal democracy quite well without them.

Steely Dan says:

05:03pm | 13/09/10

@ papachango

“and has been around for centuries before the Greens were ever dreamed up, so I don’t see what that’s got to do with anything”
The Greens and Xenophon actually want to uphold it, that’s why it’s relevant.  Most other parties believe in a little bit of separation of church and state (they believe that some churches should have special status), and the Greens (and Xenophon) are called insensitive for opposing this.

papachango says:

10:53pm | 13/09/10

@ steely dan - splitting hairs a bit with that distinction. I like some of their opposition to say the ACL, but as I said it’s hardly turning back the tide of religious fundamentalism.
Of more concern is the quasi-religious nature of some of the green beliefs.

Steely Dan says:

08:47am | 14/09/10

@ papachango

“splitting hairs a bit with that distinction.”
Nice dodge.

“but as I said it’s hardly turning back the tide of religious fundamentalism.”
It turns it back as far as the state can and should.

“Of more concern is the quasi-religious nature of some of the green beliefs.”
Accepting science of climate change = Gaia worship?

jf says:

01:22pm | 14/09/10

...Yet the Greens are criticised by many religions for being explicitly secular.

Really?

Got any references to support that SD?

Steely Dan says:

08:06pm | 14/09/10

@ jf
Try ‘Why hasn’t the tax office gagged Cardinal Pell?’ SMH, August 11, 2010; interview with Peter Jensen (see comments pertaining to prayer in parliament), ABC Local Sunday Profile, 8 August 2010; and there’s obviously plenty from Exclusive Brethren and other smaller churches.

Alternatively, have a look at what Pell and Jensen have said about secularism in general.

jf says:

09:02am | 15/09/10

“Try ‘Why hasn’t the tax office gagged Cardinal Pell?’ SMH, August 11, “

2010; interview with Peter Jensen (see comments pertaining to prayer in parliament), ABC Local Sunday Profile, 8 August 2010

You would have to be a pretty hyper-sensitive Greens member to take anything from either article for it to be read as criticism. The worst Pell said was that the Greens were anti-Christian. Hardly withering criticism or criticism at all.

Jensen, on the other hand, seemed be far more supportive of the Greens than the Liberal Party, particularly in relation to public education and personal responsibility.

However, whilst I still fail to see that “the Greens are criticised by many religions for being explicitly secular” my real point would be “so what”.

Steely Dan says:

11:57am | 15/09/10

@ jf

“You would have to be a pretty hyper-sensitive Greens member to take anything from either article for it to be read as criticism.”
How is opposing a party’s stance on separation of church and state is criticism of their policy.

“However, whilst I still fail to see that “the Greens are criticised by many religions for being explicitly secular” my real point would be “so what”. “
Separation of church and state is a good thing, jf.  It’s also a fundamental part of our constitution.

jf says:

10:50am | 18/09/10

“How is opposing a party’s stance on separation of church and state is criticism of their policy.”

Huh?

Separation of church and state is a good thing, jf.  It’s also a fundamental part of our constitution.

I couldn’t agree more SD. But back on the point, why would the Greens be sensitive of being criticised by a Christian for not having Christian values any more than they should be sensitive of being criticised by a cotton farmer for their anti-chemical policies? Being critical of someone who doesn’t hold the same fundamental values and beliefs as you seems pretty natural. It is a pretty crude bow to draw that it follows that the Church’s criticism of the Greens secularity (if it were to ever happen) that, ipso facto ,they want a Church governed state. In any case, all major parties in Australia (and most of the others) are secular. Once again, from your evidence, it seems that the most damning slapping with a lettuce leaf was by Jensen on the Liberal Party. That said, I am yet to see any evidence of any of the major religions attacking the Greens for being secular let alone advocating that the Church should govern the State.

Bobster says:

01:58pm | 13/09/10

I can explain that for you. It’s because until relatively recently voicing such views has been a criminal offence and often punishable by slow-horrible death. In many places it still is.

So, it’s understandable to think atheists may have developed strong views on freedom from religion - especially given the prevalence of claims like; Australia/America is a christian nation or questioning how one can be moral but irreligious.

Like it or not, those statements are incredibly offensive but believers, especially the proselytising type, look at you with incredulity whenever (and this happens much more often than you might think) you have the temerity to tell them you believe there is no more reason to think a god offers a moral code than there is to think cervical cancer can act as a deterrent for teenage sex.

It’s still probably not a helpful attitude, but I think it’s at least understandable.

Chris L says:

03:26pm | 13/09/10

Where’s the intollerance from atheists AdamC? Do we lobby governments to have our views enforced upon the populace. Do we send members to schools to indoctrinate the young? Do we fly planes into buildings?

As for dogmatic arrogance, which group threatens the other with eternal hellfire for having a different opinion?

I hear you calling Stewart a “narrow-minded moron”. How enlightened and christian you are. (sarcasm intended… just in case you couldn’t pick up on that).

AdamC says:

09:07pm | 13/09/10

“Where’s the intollerance [sic] from atheists AdamC? Do we lobby governments to have our views enforced upon the populace. Do we send members to schools to indoctrinate the young? Do we fly planes into buildings?”

I think you are answering your own question there, Chris L. And, just to clarify, I am not a christian and thus feel no obligation to act in a christian manner.

Bobster, I think you would have to go back in time a few centuries to get killed for not believing in God. And I would use the word ‘predictable’ rather than ‘understandable’ to describe atheists’ hostility towards religion. It goes to show that people take their spiritual belief system seriously, even when they supposedly don’t have one.

Danny B says:

01:29pm | 13/09/10

Michael,

Those are good points, but I’d like to point out it’s not just a mosque.  It’s a community centre - for all comers - which includes a mosque.

papachango says:

01:53pm | 13/09/10

Actually Eric’s analogy is entirely apt. Both acts are not illegal but will offend large numbers of people, and in both cases I think the the level of offence taken is unreasonable.

The only distinction you make is that the Koran burning appears to be a deliberate provocation, whereas the mosque building allegedly wasn’t designed to provoke. I’d agree that’s probably the case, but I’m not convinced that intention matters and its difficult to prove anyway. Maybe the pastor was just burning the koran to keep his house warm and is wondering what the fuss is about? Yeah OK probably not - he’s trying to make a point in an admittedly stupid and ill-thought out way, but if we banned anyone from voicing an opinion because some may take offence to that opinion it’s a recipe for Orwellianism. Also, I’m not suggesting this is the case, but imagine if it was later found that the mosque was deliberately built at that site to provoke the infidels an establish Islam’s dominance over America, funded by some nutbag cleric in Saudi or wherever. It’s unlikely but not totally impossible and it would kill off your differentiation.

Burning a single copy of the Koran that you legally purchased is hardly ‘discriminatory’. Incredibly stupid, but not discriminatory, and I don’t see how you can argue that it is. As well having the ‘freedom of religion thing’, America also has the ‘freedom to do what you like with your own property’ thing

Finally, another anaglogy which I think is pretty apt. Imagine if some Germans bought a property in Poland, 180 meters from the gates of Auschwitz, and set up a German cultural centre. Nothing neo-Nazi mind you, but lots of German symbolism, maybe a military museum and a beer hall. While no-one would think that all modern Germans are evil anti-semites or were responsible for the atrocitied committed in their name 60 years ago, it would be understandable if many Jewish people and others found this choice of location a bit offensive. The Germans would of course be in their right to do so, provided they bought the property legally, but it might be a better idea to pick a different location.

Mike T says:

03:12pm | 13/09/10

As a believer in freedom of religion i have no problem with the building of mosques, however, we should also be driven by respect (that means all of us). To say that those planning on building a mosque in this place is not dissrespectful is just PC Crap. The sad thing is that it has gone to the point where idiots like this pastor act in such a way. Those proposing the building should have the decency to say “you know what, people died in this place due to islamic fundamentalists, lets just build it a few blocks away out of decency for those that died” ....  unfortunaltey many of you are not questioning thier sense of decency, it seems that many of the lefties on this page are only interested in freedom of expression regardless of offence of distaste

Steely Dan says:

03:36pm | 13/09/10

@ Mike T
“you know what, people died in this place due to islamic fundamentalists, lets just build it a few blocks away out of decency for those that died”
Muslims died in 9/11 too, Mike.  So their families can’t have a cultural centre a few blocks from the Twin Towers site because the perpetrators were Islamic fundamentalists?  Would it be ‘dissrespectful’ to build a Christian community centre next to the site of the Waco siege?

“it seems that many of the lefties on this page are only interested in freedom of expression regardless of offence of distaste”
Man, we ‘lefties’ do everything wrong.  Most of the time I’m told I’m a ‘bleeding heart’ - now my heart’s not bleeding enough!

Mike t says:

05:26pm | 13/09/10

@Steely Dan.

“Would it be ‘dissrespectful’ to build a Christian community centre next to the site of the Waco siege”

To answer you question, yes it would. It would also be dissrespectful to build a colonial musuem next to Ayes rock, a German cultural centre next to dachua concentration camp, a rifle range next to tiananmon square…etc etc.

Mate it’s a shame that in your world you cant have freedom of expression and human decency…. whilst i would never stop a person from building any dwelling that was peacful to say that i am erring by suggesting that they should consider the feeling of those that died there is STUPID.

I actually felt a little sad that i had to post those comments as i felt it was just common sense that a an organistion would have to be told that this course of action would be disrecfpectful to those that died at 911 (including the muslims). I think it’s even sadder that you felt that that suggestion was so wrong you felt the had to post your dissargreement.

Zeta says:

01:15pm | 13/09/10

He wasn’t make fun of it though. Making fun of the Koran is as easy as reading it out loud. He wasn’t tearing it apart figuritively either - again, the Koran is as flimsy a religious text as those mysterious tablets the Mormons claim to have found buried by angels, or Operating Theten Level IV.

He was disrespecting it, in a public forum for the world to see. Now if you want to use a Koran to roll smokes with in the privacy of your own home, that’s cool. But if you want to film yourself doing it and send it out to the world, at a time as religiously sensitive as now, you have to take responsibility for it. This dribbler isn’t. He’s basically saying ‘get over it lolz’ and that’s not cool.

Serious atheist thinkers don’t need stupid stunts to get their point across. And neither do people with genuine faith.

Shama says:

02:04pm | 13/09/10

So he was disrespecting it.  So as Eric pointed out does Piss Christ, even if its presumably done by a Christian.  People in the Middle East are always burning something or the other to express their displeasure.  All are public forums. Pfft. 

The point is not that it is stupid.  The point is he is free to do it and make a point his own way.  Even if its the Koran. Even if some idiot somewhere issues a fatwa. Even if Paul here bemoans it. 

And the point is Paul’s article is a very laboured shot at atheism, not a defence of being respectful about religions one and all (including thetans).

N says:

01:21pm | 13/09/10

Phil I suspect your reading a little too deep into it, especially if it’s an act akin to a 5 year old. To me it seems that people are angry that someone has attacked something that society deems untouchable, and to do so is taboo. The next few days will confirm if we have moved past the age of burning the heretics, or if we are still relegated to times of yore.

Andrew says:

01:36pm | 13/09/10

Wow Phil, you’re dead right!  Because that’s exactly what anybody with a shred of intelligence thinks of religious people.  (a) you were brainwashed as a child when your mind was at it’s most vulnerable, making you believe utterly ridiculous things (and I feel sympathy for people in this position, because it really was a form of child abuse), (b) you are extremely depressed, and will believe anything to make your miserable life seem a bit brighter, or (c) you are plain stupid, and can’t see the blindingly obvious truth.  Replace the word ‘god’ (or any of the other variants) with ‘invisible pink unicorn’, and your religion makes just as much sense.

Why is it that people look back at ‘ancient’ religions (greek gods, roman gods, egyptian gods, sun gods, incan gods, mayan gods, pagan gods, etc, etc, etc) and think “how could those ancient people have been so stupid to believe such nonsense?”, but can’t see that they’re doing EXACTLY the same thing?!  Yes, in the future (sadly, it might be quite a while in the future) people will look back and wonder “how on earth did anybody believe this ridiculous bible/koran was true?!”.  And worse, “how could society have spent so much of it’s precious resources on such nonsense?”.  Religion isn’t free, it costs money.  A LOT of money, and a ridiculous amount of time and productivity.  at least 8 billion per year in lost tax revenue (that’s for Australia alone) due to ‘religious’ exemptions.  The billions in lost productivity because people spend their lives in ‘religious pursuits’ instead of contributing to society.  The incredible amount of lost time because people are ‘worshipping’ when they could be out doing something productive.  If the money that was spent/lost on religion each year was instead devoted to cancer research, or renewable energy research, or any other scientific endeavour, the world would be a MUCH better place right now.  Instead we have wars, stonings, intolerance, hatred, terrorism, benny hinn and his ilk of scammers, “intelligent” design, burning of abortion clinics, sharia law, persecution and degredation of women, AIDS in africa, the pope, child sexual abuse, bashing of homosexuals, george w bush, palestine and israel fighting over the ‘holy’ land (ooh, desert, i want it!), death threats against cartoonists, jihad, cults, mass suicides, and worst of all, a culture of complete ignorance.  Cure for cancer, or all of the above?  Yes, religion is such a nice, harmless, pure thing….

Phil says:

02:52pm | 13/09/10

Thanks for that insightful analysis of me, Andrew.

(a) No, I grew up an atheist

(b) I have never suffered from depression

(c) Maybe I am plain stupid, but then how do I hold down a well-paid job if that’s the case? Presumably you’re suggesting the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams is plain stupid too? I’d rather be stupid like him than wise like somebody such as you, frankly!

You missed out (d) Maybe the atheists have got it wrong?!

Steely Dan says:

04:21pm | 13/09/10

@ Phil

Andrew was wrong to say that you are ‘plain stupid’ (I’m sure that you are very reasonable in general), but I’m more than happy to say that yourself and Dr Rowan Williams may be entirely irrational when it comes to the specific case of religion.  In fact the more intelligent theistic people are, the more likely they are to hold to the belief that religion is ‘off limits’ for logic.  It’s called ‘compartmentalisation’.  You could be supremely rational in nearly all aspects of your life, but make a very irrational exception.

I’m not saying that this is what you’ve done, but given my experience talking to highly intelligent religious folk I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the case.  But I’m happy to be corrected.

Bobster says:

04:26pm | 13/09/10

@ Phil,

So because atheists might be wrong you subscribe to one extremely specific set of beliefs?

Elaborate.

Andrew says:

04:51pm | 13/09/10

Yes Phil, maybe we have.  The difference is, if compelling evidence comes to light that there IS a god, I am prepared to change my mind.  But since there is no evidence, the only logical course of action is to not waste my entire life on something that there is no evidence to support.  The world’s (and my) limited resources are best spent on something that is a little more real.

As for the good Mr Williams, while I’ve no doubt he is a ‘good’ person, his academic qualifications are ridiculous.  Receiving a Doctorate in “theology” is like receiving a doctorate in “making things up”, since there is no verification, no validation, no advancement of knowledge, and absolutely no academic merit.  As somebody who does in fact have a PhD, I find it insulting and offensive in the extreme that this degree actually exists, and would never grace the holder of such with the title “Dr”.  Clearly he is a very intelligent man, his views on creationism represent that, and I will most certainly put him into category (a) above (raised in a christian household, educated at christian schools and colleges his entire life).  If he had been raised in a secular household, I’ve no doubt he would have achieved wonderful things in another field, instead of wasting his intellect on the pointless advancement of ignorance that is known as religion.  I cannot speak to your own intelligence, but having a ‘high-paying job’ certainly has no great correlation to intelligence.  I am, however, very curious as to why you suddenly decided to believe in sky fairies, and at what age this transformation occurred.  I’m even more curious as to why you chose whatever religion you chose, as opposed to the millions of others that are available, and what makes you believe that you have made the ‘right’ choice?  I ask because I simply cannot understand such thinking, I couldn’t believe in such nonsense even if I wanted to, my brain just wouldn’t let me.  So if there is a ‘god’, he’s made me in a way that ensures I go to hell, since it is impossible to believe in something by choice.  But he loves me anyway, right?

Austin 3:16 says:

02:17pm | 13/09/10

I can think of some religions where the believers shoot doctors who’s work they don’t agree with. That would be the Chrisitan religion. The same religion that gave us the “troubles” in Northern Ireland.

Or the National Liberation Front of Tripura a Chrisitan terrorist organisation based in India, the Lord’s Resistance Army of Uganda, the Russian National Unity organisation. All Christian based organisations, all violent terrorist based organisations and all operating a lot more recently than 600 years ago.

Your cult might not be different to the other cults after all.

Phil says:

03:44pm | 13/09/10

Austin, Austin, Austin, don’t fall for that rubbish about the Irish “troubles” being about religion! It was about suppression of the Irish by the British, pure and simple. The fact that one group was nominally protestant and the other catholic is simple historic fact, but their respective religions were never the basis of the conflict. I thought we Christians were the meant to be the stupid ones?

Matthew says:

04:14pm | 13/09/10

Hey Phil, Ever though that maybe it was religion that drop the British to suppress the Irish?  Personally I don’t know a whole lot about that war and don’t claim to, but I must say “Two can play at that game”.

Bobster says:

04:28pm | 13/09/10

@ Phil

Do you live on the same planet as the rest of us. There’s an oppression aspect to the troubles sure, but to claim religion has nothing to do with it is a blatant display of stupidity.

Steely Dan says:

04:42pm | 13/09/10

@ Phil

You don’t think religion has significantly aggravated the situation?  Do you think that the Israel-Palestine conflict is just over land?

stevie p says:

01:50pm | 13/09/10

Exactly, I think Mr Stewart should be a little bit worried about the reaction around the Muslim world to this stupid incident. I mean Salman Rushdie has had to spend a good deal of his life looking over his shoulder and all he did was write a novel not set fire to or abuse a religious text. Not a very clever or sensible thing to do Mr Stewart.

Steely Dan says:

02:34pm | 13/09/10

@ Fed up

“I always thought that there is a racial component to Atheism, in other words, it is something white westerners do.”
Like democracy?  That doesn’t make atheism racially motivated.  That’s an absurd statement.

“As such It scores quite low in my intellectual interests”
Why not evaluate the position on its merits?

“... as their main argument is that God does not exist and people who believe in God are idiots…”
No and no.  Atheism is the position of non-belief, not a belief that the opposite is true.  And as an atheist I don’t think that people who believe in gods are idiots, but I’m happy to say that in regard to that belief I think they are completely unjustified.

“Well that is a bad argument to make as the reason why God doesn’t exist is often a question avoided by atheists”
Why don’t fairies exist?

“…they say you can’t prove a negative. If you can’t prove a negative then to do not make an assertion you can’t prove I say.”
Which is why most atheists like myself are ‘agnostic atheists’ - I don’t know that a god doesn’t exist, but I see no reason to believe in one.

“The existence of God has never been ruled out by any reasonable field of human knowledge such as science, law and others….”
You can’t prove a negative, as you said. The onus is on those making the claim, and for good reason.

“plus the majority of the world believes in God so does that mean most of the world is composed of idiots and only Western Whites can tell us the truth?”
The majority of the world disagrees with your religious views, Fed up.  You don’t have to think they’re idiots to think that they’re mistaken.  And the vast majority of the world has been wrong before.

“Other than that I don’t think I ‘ve ever seen a convincing atheist argument.”
Try this one:  God/s have not been shown to exist.

“I do expect Christians to react with anger but Muslims might well issue a fatwa against him.”
That doesn’t make him the immoral one in that equation.  The people who call for violence are the ones you should point the finger at.

Paul says:

02:51pm | 13/09/10

“plus the majority of the world believes in God so does that mean most of the world is composed of idiots”

I’d say that is true by definition even if you are religious, assuming you are willing to label people who believe something that simply isn’t true as idiots.

It’s a simple undeniable fact that most religious people are wrong in their beliefs.

Even in the best case scenario for the idea of religion only one religion can be true and even in that situation there would be more wrong religious people than right ones (even if you ignore the many factional breaks and group people in major religions).

Personally I’d go further and suggest that if most religious people are demonstrably wrong and absent any real evidence for one over another it isn’t unreasonable to take the position that they are all wrong.

Is there any other field where where a class of people who are demonstrably wrong more often than they are right are considered to be worthy of respect when they present no reasonable evidence?

N says:

03:10pm | 13/09/10

Fed Up; the answer to your questions is funnily enough; the Bible.  Nothing converts a believer to atheism faster!

Consider Noah managing to get every animal on his ark (we are talking billions of species here) then deposited them around the world, such that Australia is the only country with marsupials, etc. Then we can consider the miraculous parting of the Red Sea by Moses, subsequent to the 10 plagues of Egypt and the slaughter of the entire first born (quite a compassionate god there…).  Not to mention the fact that gospels were left out of the bible, the supposed ‘word of god’ edited out; so it’s undeniably slanted by those who compiled it.

Religion is nothing more than a controlling mechanism for the masses, plain and simple.

However if you’re religious and you believe the bible is real because of faith, no argument to the contrary can touch you, which in itself is somewhat dangerous.

Fed Up says:

04:46pm | 13/09/10

@Steely dan
Democracy? So democracy was given to us by whites?? Are Greek people whites? There is question mark there historically, I think a much better description of Greeks would be ethnically Greek ( a tip: they’re the ones who came up with the concept of Democracy), however the best answer to that is perhaps that democracy now exists around the world in many formats and many ethnicities…so your argument loses steam…as for the other parts of it. I would not find anything you said really challenged my positions. I knew it wouldn’t.  Atheism lacks intellectual fortitude and that is why I can’t accept what it says. It can’t show me that their perspective is a better position than that of a believer. If an Atheist cannot prove their assertions and a believer cannot prove their assertions what makes one better than the other?? Nothing I say…although religions provide hope, collegial and social integration, group help and sometimes other deeper human needs to the majority of humans as species for thousands of years.
What on earth Atheism provide to people? Not much…smugness for a white majority of its practitioners maybe but that is cold comfort for those in need.
A last observation : do not presume to know what my beliefs are or even more heroically to presume whether the world agree or disagree with them…they’re also happen to be entirely irrelevant to the argument I am making.
@Paul - Thank you for being honest. You proved every point I made.
@N - I have to tell you I could take up every point you raised and debacle it but I won’t…I will just tell you that I have read the Bible and the Koran a fair few times…and I haven’t been in the least converted to atheism…maybe it is because I sought deeper roots and ethical readings of both religions(and others as well..It would be interesting to remember that Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism are also major world religions)...maybe it is because I researched in the area further so I could clarify my doubts. Maybe it is because I have no discriminatory feelings towards religions or any other fields of human knowledge. Religions are human based systems. But sometimes it says a lot more about our humanity than other areas of knowledge in my view.
It is traditionally with us for several thousands of years. And there are no good reasons to bash it.  Not for those of us who can keep an open mind and think with integrity.

Matthew says:

04:47pm | 13/09/10

That would be a hard argument to make given all the other lovely stuff white westerners gave the planet earth…like racism, slavery, people burning, people trafficking, diseases, polution and the list goes on…

I’m sorry, western whites created disease? Which western white developed malaria?  Pollution? Methane makes up a large part of pollution, does it not? So which western white made cows fart?  Racism? Sounds like you’re the racist one to me.  People burning?  Don’t Indian people burn young women for refusing to pay additional dowry?  (Google Bride Burning if you disagree).  (From Wikipedia) Slavery was known to occur in civilizations as old as Sumer, as well as almost every other ancient civilization, including Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, the Akkadian Empire, Assyria, Ancient India, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, and the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas.

Need I go on?  Atheism has nothing to do with racism.  In most cases, Atheism ‘attacks’ (is forced to defend itself against believers, imo) Christianity (followed mostly by western whites according to you, despite the fact that most African Americans and probably Native American Indians practice it as well) MORE than any other religion.  Of course, you seem to have the believe that there’s only 2 religions, right?  As an atheist I treat all religions equally in my unbelieving.  Whether you respect Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Scientology or any other religion.

Fed Up, *YOU* are the reason that Atheists are forced to defend themselves and then are forced to prove there is no God, despite the fact you equally refuse to prove there is a God.  Maybe it’s just me, but the fact that there’s multiple religions, inequality among humans (natural or man made) and poverty in the world proves that there is no God, at least not in the “love all equally” form that all the religious people seem to believe.

Peter says:

07:15pm | 13/09/10

@ Fed up, im of Greek background but im pretty white, whiter infact than the occasional Anglo with olive tanned skin.. Hmm Greeks not white and history has question marks over it? If you understood Greek history you would know the classical Greek was quite white with depictions of many blondes. I think we have problems if we are starting to prejudice against different shades of white. Well, there is no such thing as a white person unless your an albino… pink would more a more accurate description…

Agnostic-Boy says:

12:29pm | 02/02/11

@ Kirk - What would you say to a religion that completely agrees with science, such as Islam does? I bet you would still be against it, because you are against anything that does not suit you’re lifestyle choices.

TheRealDave says:

03:16pm | 13/09/10

Maybe Mr Stewart should have remembered a couple of other ‘rights’. Namely ‘Respect’ and ‘Tolerance’ as well as ‘Liberty’ ??

You’re perceived ‘Liberty’ or ‘Freedom of Speech’ isn’t a right you can use to screw over a bunch of other rights and freedoms just because you feel like it.

Rights come with Responsibilities.

NK says:

03:46pm | 13/09/10

@TheRealDave

Read the constitution & point 1 I made above, hopefully this will save you from further error, though I cannot guarantee you’ll comprehend the logic involved, as you’ve demonstrated thus far.

Like I mentioned above, what you’re arguing is a cop-out to abrogate personal responsibility in favour of some wish-washy, subjective definition of collective responsibility.

Stop making excuses for your inability to deal with different opinions. Words do not hurt you, they do not burn your brains out; it’s OK you don’t need to be afraid.

Chris L says:

03:51pm | 13/09/10

@TheRealDave, I agree with Tolerance. Everyone has a right to be tolerated. So… how are you going with tolerating us atheists, and Alex in particular?
As for Respect… ah… no. You don’t have the right to be respected by everyone. That’s something you have to earn, and even then you’ll find a lot of people still don’t respect you. Have a read of a lot of the comments from religious people and you’ll see the lack of respect that they accuse atheists of having. Then again, that’s their right.

Mayday says:

04:58pm | 13/09/10

The Catholic Church has masses of Respect, Tolerance and of course Liberty for the 50 percent of the population, women some of whom would like to become priests…...NOT.

Same goes for priests leaving the Catholic Church because they are not permitted to have a basic human right and have a relationship with another person and God help us, procreate…..oh forgot women are involved in that practice.

Finally the Rights come Responsibilities line, now lets think about the children and some of the treatment inflicted on them by the church?

Andrew says:

02:16pm | 13/09/10

I would say the opposite is true, Jim.  Us “Athiests” (how I hate that word) have put up with religion squandering our money, teaching our children rubbish, claiming unfair tax advantages, and generally shoving their crap down our throats for thousands of years.  If anybody has shown ‘restraint’, it is us.  Now ONE person stands up and says “religion is a load of rubbish”, and there is public outcry.  Religion is a GIANT offense to my intelligence, and one that I have to put up with every single day of my life.  Perhaps I’ll start the “church of worshipping nothing”, and try claiming tax-free status?  Oh, and go door to door, shout from street corners, and basically shove my ideas down everybody’s throat.  Please send me your phone number and address, Jim, and I’ll make sure to start wtih you.  After all, religious organisations, for whatever reason, are curiously exempt from the do not call register…

Steely Dan says:

02:52pm | 13/09/10

@ Jim

“So far the religious community have been restrained and calm, despite the offense.”
So far…  And so far I’ve been restrained and calm, despite your claim that my absence in the pews is likely to make me an unforgiving person.  And Alex Stewart is not my ‘representative’.

Roja says:

05:40pm | 13/09/10

@Jim - By your logic Terry Jones represents all of Christianity.  So all Christians should be burning copies of the Koran.

Your argument, if it can be called that, is inflammatory and offensive to people who don’t believe in religion.  I don’t know if God exists, however what I am utterly convinced of is that if he does he has absolutely nothing to do with man made religion - which covers all 40,000+ of them so far manufactured.

If I had to pick one god it would be Zeus or Odin as they were at least original.  Islam was a pale copy of Christianity, which in turn was a splinter group of Judaism (with a few stolen concepts such as the ‘virgin birth’ thrown in from several other religions no longer with us).  In fact that whole path was a hodge podge collection of other religions that they had annihilated (the old testament gives the go ahead for genocide of non believers) and most of them (Koran, New Testament) were written by people several centuries after they happened by people who were not even there.

Of course those that weren’t there but wrote the books seem to have done really, really well out of the whole deal. 

To me, it all sounds like bullshit.

Dianne says:

03:32pm | 13/09/10

I totally agree with you Steely Dan.

He has every right to do what he did. I am an Atheist, I would not do what he did, but I defend his right to do what he did, he did not break any law.

You know what an atheist would say if a Christian or Muslim or anyone else for that matter smoked or burned ‘The God Delusion’?

“meh…”

Dave Sag says:

03:37pm | 13/09/10

You’v heard of DNA right?  It’s actually pretty basic biology now to be able to do comparative analysis of the Earth’s living things and see what has what in common with what.  Roses and apples, people and chimps, we are all just strands of DNA, evolved to suit our particular niches.  It seems so obvious to me that I am often surprised to hear that there are still some people out there who deny that evolution works to focus randomness, that the Earth goes around the sun (and is roughly spherical), or that CO2 emissions cause global warming. These are all well established theories with hundreds of years of evidence and so far not a single shred of evidence shows these theories are wrong.

But of course the theists (of any stripe, one god or more), being in general a hyper-conservative lot who fear modernity and change (just my guess there, but there’s got to be some reason surely) can always say “no no its in my holy book(s)”.

Mr Colgo claims “This is typical of a self-satisfied attitude in the atheist movement which insists that people who believe in a god are idiots,” but really what else can one make of adults who still believe in fairy stories, while denying the most obvious scientific truths about the real world that can be more beautiful than any invented afterlife.

Douglas Adams (may he rest in peace) famously said “It is enough to know that the garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it.”

Chris L says:

04:06pm | 13/09/10

I’ve missed you Peter.

You’re wrong, by the way

Peter says:

04:15pm | 13/09/10

@ Dave Sag, you are typical of the type of person Paul writes about by accusing us adults of believing in fairy tales, just like you believe in anything that a person in a white lab coat will tell you.

I am not arrogant enough for one minute to suggest i know the secrets of the universe, but i am quite comfortable that our scientist really don’t have any idea either..

I’ve heard of DNA, but i’ve heard of how eggs can be used to make omlettes and the important role eggs play in making some cakes. Same ingredient, different products. “It seems so obvious to me that I am often surprised to hear that there are still some people out there who deny” God exists..

In this garden of Douglas Adams, did the fairies make it? or was there some human intervention?

I haven’t denied the earth is round, or that C02 causes global warming. I know scientists in the 80’s told us that the sahara desert was going to take over most of Africa, where in fact these days we are seeing the forest moving into the desert. Quite opposite of what scientists told us..

Scientists are people just like us, sometimes they are right, and others they are wrong.. Scientist told us during the 1800’s that the sun was made of coal, or are you going to blame religion for that as well?

Peter says:

05:20pm | 13/09/10

Hi Chris L, im happy to be told im wrong by you. Your cheerful makes it fun…..

Austin 3:16 says:

06:59pm | 13/09/10

Hey Peter, isn’t that the beauty of science though, it self-corrects.  Unlike religion.

Peter says:

09:56am | 14/09/10

@ Austin 3:16. I think it’s great you realise science can be wrong. We shouldn’t assume that today’s scientists aren’t as prone to error of judgement like those in the past.

Religion has stood it’s ground. The bible never said the earth was flat nor did it make any other scientific claims. But this need by some scientists to disprove God whenever they observe something is ridiculous. These days scientist try to tell us that fossil records disprove God, exo-planets disprove God. Really? Surely science can do better than that..

What self-correction do you think religion has to make?

Austin 3:16 says:

06:52pm | 14/09/10

Hey Peter well the Christian religion could start with genesis and start correcting the record from there. Any chance you could get back to us when that’s done ?

Jon says:

04:11pm | 13/09/10

An immature Internet poster helps free speech maintain our licence to bring religion to account and particular Islam for some of its despicable practices.

Maryam Namazie recently stated that, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani has again been flogged 99 times for an unveiled photo mistakenly attributed to her. She has also been threatened with execution, and denied visitation rights. Even, her lawyer’s home (Hatoun Kian) has been ransacked and his computer and documents seized. Court documents pertaining to Ms Ashtiani’s husband’s closed murder case have also gone missing.

Long may we be disrespectful of religions behaving badly.

Andrew says:

05:02pm | 13/09/10

He’s been coming ‘soon’ for the last 2000 or so years.  Maybe he forgot to set his alarm and overslept?  Personally, I think he’s been gone long enough to be declared legally dead..

Chris L says:

05:52pm | 13/09/10

You don’t spend much time on YouTube do you Zeta?

Also, is it very christian to wish someone dead? (I realise you didn’t mean it, but blowing things out of proportion seems to be the theme)

Mayday says:

06:19pm | 13/09/10

Such a Christian act wishing someone dead.

Christopher Hitchens won’t ‘spin in his grave’ we knows its a physical impossibility just like raising oneself from the dead…...now who did that?

Sam says:

12:18pm | 14/09/10

If he lived in quite a few states of the USA he would definately be in grave danger from the ‘christians’.

Jacky says:

12:43pm | 02/02/11

Actually, Atheism is a lack of belief in a higher power.

Well, look at that, guess that makes it a belief system huh?

Do some study before thinking you’re all that.

Roja says:

12:26am | 14/09/10

There are plenty of smart people in religion, such as those in the upper echelons of those evangelical churches who have a pretty good deal.  Of course some smart criminals trying to avoid a sentence or lessen an impending one.  Those two are also not mutually exclusive.

cameron says:

11:02am | 14/09/10

Davido, by your own account you must be a very smart person.
Intelligent people should be envied, as should wealthy people, as should those from privileged backgrounds.  Would you agree that most poor people are dumb, or that dumb people are poor?.....*sarcasm*  Intelligence measures favour those with access to education.  Your statements are ignorant and exclusive and are indicative of all that fuels the growing inequality in this world.
By it’s very nature Christianity is ideally for the disadvantaged and oppressed, not for those that think themselves better than others.

Davido says:

01:58pm | 14/09/10

Cameron… I am just smart enough to get into trouble but not out of it (haha!)

I am not really sure why you think smart people should be envied. IQ is neither a measure of economic or any other type of success in life (outside of academia).

I merely state that there is plenty of empirical research showing a negative correlation between intelligence and a belief in religion.

The interesting question is which comes first? Are idiots attracted to religion or can we say religion makes idiots of us?

The point is this: the act of taking the Koran and the Bible and smoking them was not an act of idiocy. But rather it was quite clever given the context. It was a political statement made as a counterpoint to the destructive feuding between two religions.