Yesterday evening, while I quietly watched some television, tweeted and wrote some blog posts about the UK's archaic Sunday trading laws and the fact that there is nothing about the Christian festival of Easter that holds up to any scrutiny, someone sent me a message:
"I bet you daren't criticise any religion that isn't Christianity..."
It struck me as a rather perverse observation on my frequent anti-faith and anti-religion comments, and all I can assume is that they only live those which are aimed directly at Christianity and haven't noticed, or choose not to notice,those which have a much broader target.
After all, there is just as little factual basis and archaelogical reord for Islam as there is for Christianity - i.e. there is none. There is absolutely nothing to support any of the stories in the Holy books of Seikhs or Hindus, in the same way that there is hardly a single word in the Bible that can be substantiated by cold, hard fact. Nd as for Buddhists, well, from what I understand, there may well have been a man who was known as the Buddha but his stories and teachings are fanciful and whimsical fairy stories in much the same way as anything about gods and heavens and an after life are.
Nobody today believes in the Norse gods of Thor and Odin, they are accepted as nothing more than an ancient mythology, and, of course, the same is true of the numerous gods worshipped in Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt. And yet so many of those who are happy to see these ancient gods as just mythologies, hold that THEIR god is true - even when they share so many basic facts (if you have spare time, do google Horus, Mithras and Jesus and revel in the number of simarities shared by all three).
And my same criticism applies to the umpteen smaller religions that exist around the world. All have been invented by primitive societies to try to understand the world and their existence, and all should have been superseded by science and reason, if it were not for the manipulaters and controllers, the abuses of the vulnerable and ignorant, who readily take on the mantle of church leadership.
No, I am more than happy to criticise evil lies whenever or wherever they come from.
I guess, though, that the person passing judgement on me has a tiny point in that I do, probably, criticise Christianity slightly more than the other superstitions. The reasons for that are simple: the UK has an established church, the Head of state is also the Head of one sect of the Christian church and that religion still holds considerable sway and power over parliament, with more than 70 unelected bishops in the House of Lords, able to impose their will and their bigotry on the whole of society, whether the rest of society believes in the same god,a different god, or has worked out that no gods exist.
And, sadly, in the UK our calendar is still dominated by Christian festivals: Christmas, Easter, Whitsun - despite the fact that few people actively take part in regular church ceremonies and fewer and fewer people now accept the lies that the church puts out.
Yes, I criticise Christianity because it is divisive and evil, some of its core tenets are blatantly bigoted, and, historically, the church has done much more to harm others than any good it has achieved. How many wars have been fought in the name of atheism compared to those fought to defend an imaginary friend?
I criticise all faiths and all religions, because they are all untrue and we, as a society,should be educating people away from such dangerous nonsense.
Showing posts with label islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label islam. Show all posts
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
OPINION: The Firebombing of Charlie Hebdo
The firebombing of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in the early hours of this morning should send a shiver down the spine of all right-thinking and responsible people.
The editorial team had decided to make the next edition of the weekly magazine an "Arab Spring Special Edition" - to celebrate the new freedoms countries like Tunisia now had. The cover cartoon mocked the fact that Tunisia's new "freedoms" included the imposition of Sharia Law and had a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad saying: "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter".
The "Arab Spring Special Edition" hadn't even hit the newsstands yet.
Of course, cartoons of the prophet have been known to cause controversies before; the Jylands-Posten cartoons of 2005 caused no end of trouble with death threats, etc. The editors at Charlie Hebdo could, perhaps have thought things were different in France where, in 2007, their right to re-publish the Danish cartoons was upeld.
The Quran does not explicity outlaw images of Muhammad.
In fact, it is only in some supplementary teaching, called hadith, that Muslims are forbidden from making visual images of figures. Somehow, though, the fundamentalist and fanatical Muslims have decided that images of the prophet are a bad thing and to make such an image makes you a target for violent retribution.
Any sane person can see this is a nonsense. Can you imagine a ban on images of Jesus or the Buddha? Those religions not only allow for artists to create imagery of their religious figures but cope when those images are used to mock their religion. Why can't Islam be the same? Is Islamic belief that fragile?
And why make up extra rules that aren't in the Quran? It's not like art wasn't around before Muhammad had his revelations.
The Christian church has been worryling quiet about the Charlie Hebdo firebombing today. I realise that Rowan Williams is a bit busy trying to dig himself and St. Paul's Cathedral out of the huge hole they have created for themselves with their tepid response to the Occupy London protesters (and the huge finiancial investments and links the catherdal has with the City of London), and the Pope, well, he's always busy trying to cover up the wrong-doings of his clergy - but, surely, they should have stood strong and spoken out against this evil and dangerous fundamentalism?
Let's hope that politicians can stand up to this aggressive bullying by lunatics. No one should be in fear of their life because they draw or published a cartoon. No society should tolerate these extremists.
The story of the Arab Spring is yet to unfold - let's hope it is not the story of how fanatical lunatics took over a large amount of the world.
The editorial team had decided to make the next edition of the weekly magazine an "Arab Spring Special Edition" - to celebrate the new freedoms countries like Tunisia now had. The cover cartoon mocked the fact that Tunisia's new "freedoms" included the imposition of Sharia Law and had a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad saying: "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter".
The "Arab Spring Special Edition" hadn't even hit the newsstands yet.
Of course, cartoons of the prophet have been known to cause controversies before; the Jylands-Posten cartoons of 2005 caused no end of trouble with death threats, etc. The editors at Charlie Hebdo could, perhaps have thought things were different in France where, in 2007, their right to re-publish the Danish cartoons was upeld.
The Quran does not explicity outlaw images of Muhammad.
In fact, it is only in some supplementary teaching, called hadith, that Muslims are forbidden from making visual images of figures. Somehow, though, the fundamentalist and fanatical Muslims have decided that images of the prophet are a bad thing and to make such an image makes you a target for violent retribution.
Any sane person can see this is a nonsense. Can you imagine a ban on images of Jesus or the Buddha? Those religions not only allow for artists to create imagery of their religious figures but cope when those images are used to mock their religion. Why can't Islam be the same? Is Islamic belief that fragile?
And why make up extra rules that aren't in the Quran? It's not like art wasn't around before Muhammad had his revelations.
The Christian church has been worryling quiet about the Charlie Hebdo firebombing today. I realise that Rowan Williams is a bit busy trying to dig himself and St. Paul's Cathedral out of the huge hole they have created for themselves with their tepid response to the Occupy London protesters (and the huge finiancial investments and links the catherdal has with the City of London), and the Pope, well, he's always busy trying to cover up the wrong-doings of his clergy - but, surely, they should have stood strong and spoken out against this evil and dangerous fundamentalism?
Let's hope that politicians can stand up to this aggressive bullying by lunatics. No one should be in fear of their life because they draw or published a cartoon. No society should tolerate these extremists.
The story of the Arab Spring is yet to unfold - let's hope it is not the story of how fanatical lunatics took over a large amount of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


