![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
pastorlenny.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics2011-07-14 08:38 pm
A Final Solution to the Problem of Religion
We have to rid the world of Judaism. Judaism is based on the stupid notion that some particular god exists. We know that this cannot be the case, because we can detect everything that exists with our senses and/or the various devices we build for detecting things. Also, if the god the Jews made up existed, it would never have allowed Hitler to kill so many of them. As a matter of fact, if there was a god, nobody would ever die—because no real god would have ever allowed any life to end. Ever.
Also, we can appropriately hold Judaism responsible for the emergence of those other two horrific belief-systems: Christianity and Islam. Christianity is responsible for more wars than any other belief-system ever in history. And believing in Islam makes you blow yourself up to get imaginary girls in the next life. So we should nip Judaism in the bud before it creates some other disastrous belief-system—like one that makes you want to get as much money as you can in life no matter how it affects others. If that ever happened, the world would be screwed.
Please understand that I am not advocating the execution of Jews themselves. Instead, I am saying that we should become more diligent and aggressive about making sure everyone knows that Judaism is a delusional and destructive belief-system that no decent, rational person would ever accept. If we can teach this in our schools, if we can get our message out through the media, if we will not be ashamed to state these obvious truths in our daily social conversations, we might be able to eliminate the cancer of Judaism from human discourse within a generation or two.
Now I know there are those of you who are going to claim that Judaism is not entirely bad. After all, Hendrix couldn’t have recorded “All Along the Watchtower” if a Jew hadn’t written it first—and we all have a soft spot for at least one Seinfeld episode. But Judaism, as the root-cause of Western monotheism, must be viewed on balance as perhaps the greatest single evil ever foisted on humanity by a tribe of superstitious, bloodthirsty savages.
So who among you is willing to step up to the plate? Or do you want to go on pretending to be rational people—even as you continue to tolerate this singularly pernicious crime against reason itself?
no subject
Again, this is not really what I've done. But since you're reading it that way, it might make sense to deal with the issue substantively -- rather that going off on all these other tangents.
Because you're trying to play the victim card here by comparing ALL religious people to persecuted Jews
No, I'm not. This is a tangent.
This is a bullshit loaded question, and YOU YOURSELF KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.
No, it's a rather straightforward inquiry.
What I WANT is for religion to get out of my fucking face.
This post doesn't seem to be about religion being in anyone's face. Another tangent.
so that when you ask me, "Would you like to see human beings continue to embrace, participate in and identify with Judaism -- or would you not?", I can say, "I DON'T CARE, because it makes NO DIFFERENCE to me."
So, at this point, you are not prepared to give that as your answer? So, instead, your answer would be...?
No.
Then why do you still decline to answer the question -- and instead go off on these tangents?
no subject
You compared criticism of religion to anti-Semitism as soon as you used the words "Final Solution" in the title of your post, and you KNOW this for a FACT. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that you could believe otherwise.
No, I'm not. This is a tangent.
Your entire post was about how Judaism is responsible for all the evils of the world. In the context of the real world, in which Jewish people have historically been persecuted by pogroms and been villainized by propaganda such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, you KNOW for a FACT how loaded it is to try and lay the blame for the transgressions committed in the names of Christianity and Islam at the feet of Judaism. Your ENTIRE GOAL is to put critics of religion as a whole on the defensive, by implying that the ONLY way they could criticize the transgressions of the other Abrahamic faiths is by villainizing Judaism.
No, it's a rather straightforward inquiry.
I devoted the bulk of an already extensive post to detailing all the reasons why the REALITY of this world is NOT as straightforward as your question makes it out to be. Either take the time to refute the specific reasons that I gave or go fuck yourself.
This post doesn't seem to be about religion being in anyone's face. Another tangent.
No, it is INDIVISIBLE from the subject at hand, as I ALREADY EXPLAINED in the post to which you just replied, because as I ALREADY STATED, but you either COULDN'T or CHOSE NOT to understand, I want freedom FOR religion, but I also want freedom FROM religion, and right now, the world offers NEITHER. Right now, we live in a world in which many people (including the Jews in many cases) don't have the freedom to practice their religion, and ironically enough, it's precisely because certain OTHER religions don't allow people the full freedom to be religious (or NOT, as the case may be), as they see fit. Thus, attempting to conflate Christianity and Islam with Judaism is both logically and MORALLY wrong, because a great deal of the oppression of Jews is coming FROM Christians and Muslims. Sorry that this doesn't fit your either/or false dilemma. Actually, I'm not sorry at all, because fuck you for insulting the plight of oppressed people by framing the issue in such offensively Godwin-invoking terms in the first place.
So, at this point, you are not prepared to give that as your answer?
No, at this time, I'm not prepared to give THAT as my answer, because I already explained, AT LENGTH, all the reasons why I don't have the FREEDOM to say that I don't CARE about religion yet.
Then why do you still decline to answer the question -- and instead go off on these tangents?
I DID answer the question, AT LENGTH, in the ONLY way, I could answer it, because my answer is INCAPABLE of falling into the stupidly simplistic yes/no "Have you stopped beating your wife?" binary that you're insisting upon. Your QUESTION ITSELF is both logically and MORALLY wrong, and I STILL gave it a better answer than it deserved. If you STILL can't parse out my position on this issue, after I've explained it to you so EXHAUSTIVELY, then you're either illiterate or you're trolling, and the fact that you claim that I "still decline to answer the question," after I devoted a shit-ton of text to doing the exact OPPOSITE of DECLINING to answer it, by explaining as many of the intricacies of my position as I could within that limited time and space, indicates to me that you're INTENTIONALLY misreading my statements to try and get a rise out of me. If so, then congratulations.
What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish here? If your GOAL is to make advocates of religion look BAD, then you're doing one hell of a job, but otherwise ...
no subject
No, I dont think you did. Most of what you've been typing has been irrelevant and somewhat hysterical tangents about people who say atheists can't be patriots and other such nonsense.
No one says you have to give a binary answer. A simple answer that does not introduce a bunch of non sequiturs or capslock ranting about people shoving religion in your face would make sense. This is why in my previous comment I asked you to clarify the one sentence out of the entire comment that was germane to the issue at hand.
But I understand your reticence to do so.
no subject
If you honestly believe that, then you're both mentally deficient and morally defective. I could not possibly explain my position any plainer than I have already done.
Most of what you've been typing has been irrelevant [...]
I already explained its relevance, exhaustively, at length, and in detail. You have responded to exactly none of the specific points that I made in doing so. After all the reasons that I have already supplied, it is inherently impossible for you to honestly believe that
A simple answer [...]
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, and I have already explained why this is so, repeatedly, with reasons that you refuse to even acknowledge that I've offered.
This is why in my previous comment I asked you to clarify the one sentence out of the entire comment that was germane to the issue at hand.
It was ALL RELEVANT to the topic at hand, and I ALREADY EXPLAINED the reasons why it was so.
But I understand your reticence to do so.
I DID answer your question, but it wasn't the answer you WANTED. Too bad; it's the TRUTH, and if it doesn't fit into your "narrative," then YOU'RE the one who's wrong.
no subject
I want the FREEDOM to not have to GIVE A SHIT about religion, so that when you ask me, "Would you like to see human beings continue to embrace, participate in and identify with Judaism -- or would you not?", I can say, "I DON'T CARE, because it makes NO DIFFERENCE to me."
Personally, I think you already have this freedom. But your answer was subjunctive. You described the answer you would like to be able to give, if certain conditions were present.
Apparently, you believe those conditions are not present now. That is why I asked you to clarify your position with another rather simple question, to wit:
"So, at this point, you are not prepared to give that as your answer? So, instead, your answer would be...?"
No one is insisting you answer with a simple "yes" or "no." But it is reasonable to suggest that somewhere between a simple "binary" answer and a 200-word diatribe about every other topic except the one at hand would be a reasonably clear and honest declaration regarding whether it is your preference or not that people continue practicing Judaism.
no subject
And that's why I'm saying that you're wrong, for a number of reasons that I've already stated, plus more.
Apparently, you believe those conditions are not present now.
Yes, because even in supposedly secular institutions such as government, education and the military, I have witnessed firsthand the oppressive influence of religion, in particular Christianity, upon both competing faiths and non-believers alike, and I've received more accounts than I can count confirming this same institutionalized bias.
But it is reasonable to suggest that somewhere between a simple "binary" answer and a 200-word diatribe about religion generally would be a reasonably clear and honest declaration regarding whether it is your preference or not that people continue practicing Judaism.
No, it's not reasonable, because in order for me to do that, I would have to accept your premise that I and all other members of society already have the freedom to ignore religion completely, due to it being neutral enough in in terms of its societal influence that it is utterly irrelevant to our lives, and as long as literally every single American president must claim to be Christian in order to get elected, and as long as various nations and terrorist groups alike wage wars and set global policies based on their religious beliefs, rather than on the simple precepts of whether their actions serve the best interests of a) their own citizens and b) humanity as a whole, then one CANNOT be indifferent to religion.
As I've already said, I want freedom FOR people to practice their religions, but I also want freedom FROM those religions. And again, we currently have NEITHER. This reality necessarily precludes me giving any "simple answer" to your question, because the world itself is not that simple, and as long as you keep insisting that it is, then we won't even be able to find enough common ground to agree on the QUESTION, let alone the ANSWER, because the ways in which you and I see the world are so inherently irreconcilable that they cannot coexist.
These matters are indivisible. It is impossible for me to remain consistent with what I see as reality and my own ethical code, and at the same time agree with you that they can be parsed out and treated as isolated issues that have no impact on each other. Not only do I see that as factually incorrect, but as a betrayal of proper morality.
no subject
Missed this specific phrasing the first time around. I feel like we're not even speaking the same language anymore, because not only have I already stated that I see all those matters as being DIRECTLY CONNECTED to the topic at hand, but I've also EXHAUSTIVELY EXPLAINED all my reasons for seeing those matters as being directly connected to the topic at hand, NONE of which you've specifically refuted. It is literally beyond my ability to comprehend how you could not understand the validity of the reasons that I've already given.
The following was pastorlenny's PM to me:
So, good to know that all the time I spent on approaching this debate in good faith, and actually trying to think through my own answers rather than just dismissing you as a troll, was all a big waste.
The following was box_in_the_box's PM to me:
Go fuck yourself then, you sanctimonious sack of shit. I actually approached this debate in good faith, and all you wanted to do is troll.
I feel sorry for any congregation that has a fuckstain like you as its pastor.
no subject
The only reason I didn't repost my full comment from the PM onto the board was because I didn't want to post what would have constituted an uncivil attack (even by my own relatively crude standards) on the comm itself.
As far as I know, though, there's nothing against the rules about me tearing you a new asshole in PM, especially after it was in response to you admitting that your only purpose was to troll.
Thus, I've followed the letter for rule 1, whereas you've broken rule 2.
And I stand by every single word I've said.
But thanks for letting me say that about you in public, in a way that allows me NOT to be held accountable for any of it. :)
no subject
I am, however, glad that we have been able to demonstrate once again that it is religious people who are irrational and full of venom -- while those who rise above religion inexorably assume the role of rational peacemakers.
no subject
Except that you DIDN'T suggest that I "chill out." NOWHERE in your comments to me did you EVER type those words. Instead, you expressed your AMUSEMENT over how much I was "freaking out," in response to a PM in which I specifically asked you what your goals were in engaging in this line of discussion. There is NO OTHER POSSIBLE WAY to interpret your statement.
I am, however, glad that we have been able to demonstrate once again that it is religious people who are irrational and full of venom -- while those who rise above religion inexorably assume the role of rational peacemakers.
What a typical response for a privileged person — you do everything possible to intentionally and repeatedly misinterpret and misrepresent my point of view, no matter how many times I attempt to clarify my position in good faith, and then, when I ask you POINT BLANK what the point of what you're doing is, you "LOL" over the fact that I'm "freaking out," and THEN, when I FINALLY let my last shred of civility drop, in response to you ADMITTING that you're purposefully engaging in bad-faith arguments, you trot out the tired old refrain of "Oh, you're just too IRRATIONAL and EMOTIONAL for me to respond to as though you're an adult," as if you'd been acting like anything even remotely approaching a logical or moral human being toward me at any prior point in this discussion.
THIS is the playbook that you just followed. (http://www.derailingfordummies.com/)
And yes, not only do your multiple logical fallacies prove how irrational you are, but your deliberate attempts to mischaracterize my arguments, coupled with your admission that you were only doing so to provoke my ire, likewise proves that you were acting on enough malicious intent to qualify as being "full of venom," even if it does keep manifesting itself in such a cowardly passive-aggressive fashion.
no subject
Where did I mischaracterize your arguments?
no subject
You did so every single time you asserted that my responses were irrelevant tangents that did not relate to the topic at hand, even after I pointed out repeatedly how they were indivisibly linked to the topic at hand, and every single time you claimed that I had "declined" to answer your question, even after I had done so in exhaustive detail.
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I will keep on arguing, because literally everything about how you see this issue contradicts my perception of reality and offends my morals.
There is no possible common ground to be achieved between us on this issue.
no subject
no subject
Anyway, I don't think I'm responsible for your apoplectic rhetoric. ut just in case anyone ever asks you the question "Would you like to see human beings continue to embrace, participate in and identify with Judaism -- or would you not?" in the future, let me suggest a simple, reasonable answer that will spare you much arterial strain:
"Yes, I unequivocably and without reservation would like for there always to be Jews in the world."
See how easy that is?
no subject
Every single argument you made whose basis lay in your objectively, factually wrong-headed assertion that I have the freedom NOT to care about religion, which you yourself contradict just below ...
Anyway, I don't think I'm responsible for your apoplectic rhetoric.
Except for the fact that you admitted to intentionally trying to provoke the same.
"Yes, I unequivocably and without reservation would like for there always to be Jews in the world."
To my mind, this is a morally wrong statement.
Why should I, as someone whom you yourself claimed upthread (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1087837.html?thread=87125085#t87125085) has the freedom to NOT CARE about religion, feel compelled to LIKE Judaism, or ANY religion?
Are you saying that I should unequivocally and without reservation always like for there always to be religion as a whole in this world? WHY? Why should I HAVE to like it, when I don't BELIEVE in it? Why shouldn't whatever religion exists in the world LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE instead, as YOU YOURSELF insisted was my right?
Or are you saying that I should ONLY care about whether there are always JEWS in the world, and to NOT care about any of the OTHER religions' continued existence? Why should I, when I'm neither Jewish nor even religious in general, want for just ONE religion to always have followers, when neither that one religion nor any of the others reflects my own vales or beliefs?
That's like saying that I should unequivocably and without reservation like for there always to be Catholics in the world, and sorry, but I don't. Even though both of my parents were raised as Catholics, and even though a number of my relatives are still practicing Catholics, the state of the Catholic Church is such that my only interest in its future is that it either FIX its problems or else GO EXTINCT quickly enough to put US out of ITS misery. If it can't hold itself accountable for its pedophile priests, or get the fuck out of women's reproductive rights, then I say FUCK Catholicism, and I HOPE it dies.
no subject
So no, I WON'T endorse the "correct" statement that you were trying to shepherd me toward all along, because as far as I'm concerned, it's MORALLY wrong to demand that I actively DESIRE the continued existence of ANY ideological group whose views I don't subscribe to, no matter how much you preemptively invoked Godwin to try and BULLY me into doing so by implying that anyone who DOESN'T repeat your contemptible fucking Shibboleth is an anti-Semite.
I want the Jews, and the Christians, and the Muslims, and every other religion to LEAVE ME AND EVERYONE ELSE THE FUCK ALONE. THAT is my criterion for determining whether or not ANY of them deserve to exist. If they CAN'T do me and everyone else that very basic courtesy, then no, as far as I'm concerned, they DON'T deserve to exist.
Fortunately, I've known quite a few religious folks who actually ARE capable of extending that simple decency to others, but then again, we still have global political policies being determined by people who, in spite of being deeply anti-Semitic, actively support the state of Israel because, by their own explicitly stated admission, they're attempting to fulfill Biblical prophecies about Armageddon, which would constitute the exact opposite of "NOT shoving their own religion into everyone else's faces."
If the live-and-let-live folks can wrest control of their own religions out of the hands of those who have forced their religions into countless aspects of secular governance, education, military operations and society as a whole where they do not belong, then yes, I'll be able to get along with those religions' continued existence. Otherwise, FUCK 'em.
no subject
no subject
So, I'll ask again: Should I desire the continued existence of ALL the current religions, or JUST the Jews? If ONLY the Jews, since you yourself insist that you're discussing the Jews specifically, and NOT those other religions, then WHY should I care about the Jews to the EXCLUSION of caring about those other religions, aside from your own religious chauvinism?
My STARTING position on EVERYTHING is INDIFFERENCE. To say that I should CARE about or LIKE something necessarily means that they must have some MERIT or RELEVANCE in my own life. I'll ask again: WHY should I WANT for Judaism or ANY religion to continue to exist?
If you can't JUSTIFY it to me, then fuck off.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I am logically and morally incapable of liking ANYTHING "unequivocably and without reservation," including MY OWN CONTINUED EXISTENCE, or even the continued existence of HUMANITY AS A SPECIES, because past certain points, and under certain conditions, I believe that the continued existence of ANYTHING could potentially qualify as WRONG.
EVERYTHING in this world must EARN its continued existence. If it is corrupted or perverted, or if it can no longer fulfill its purpose, or if it's hurting that which it was intended to help, then there's a case to be made that it needs to go away, no matter how good it used to be. It's why I support the legalization of suicide, because even though I tend to see most suicides as all-too-permanent solutions to temporary problems, there are a number of people for whom merely EXISTING becomes too painful to endure, because of either incurable illnesses or profound personal losses, so ultimately, who am I to stop them from easing that pain?
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)