A Final Solution to the Problem of Religion

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Actually, the OP specifially distinguishes between the Holocaust and a more reasonable program for ridding the world of Judaism.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Bullshit. You specifically chose to use the words "Final Solution" to remind readers of the Holocaust, and you specifically used Jews as your religion of choice to compare all criticism of religion to pogroms against the Jews. That sort of shit is precisely why it's considered poor form to invoke Godwin.

Repeating the exact same line a second time doesn't make it any more true. Even as satire, this is shamefully intellectually dishonest on your part. You KNOW the guilt-by-association games you're playing by painting with such a broad brush, and then, you have the gall to disingenuously wonder why people are less willing to criticize religion under the terms that you've set up.

Actually, this isn't Carlos Mencia-level comedy at all. It's much worse. You've written the world's first ironic Jack Chick tract.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

you specifically used Jews as your religion of choice to compare all criticism of religion to pogroms against the Jews

First of all, "Jews" is not a religion.

Second, I am not comparing "all criticism of religion" to anything. I am focusing on a very specific category of criticism of religion -- and not comparing it to anything.

Third, if you can make a substantive refutation of the OP by positively asserting that you, in fact, favor the ongoing participation of human beings in the religious tradition we know as "Judaism," then say so. But if not, then simply admit that you would like to see Judaism come to an end. I think that would be intellectually honesty on your part.

Perhaps this is the reason you and others seem to be struggling with the substance of this post.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

First of all, "Jews" is not a religion.

"Judaism," yes. Way to pick nits to try and dodge my point.

Second, I am not comparing "all criticism of religion" to anything. I am focusing on a very specific category of criticism of religion -- and not comparing it to anything.

There is no possible way that you can believe this statement. You are intentionally and repeatedly invoking the imagery of the Holocaust and anti-Semitic propaganda that has been used to justify pogroms against the Jews over the centuries. Merely by invoking that imagery, you are NECESSARILY comparing criticism of religion to anti-Semitism, and YOU KNOW THIS.

Third, if you can make a substantive refutation of the OP by positively asserting that you, in fact, favor the ongoing participation of human beings in the religious tradition we know as "Judaism," then say so. But if not, then simply admit that you would like to see Judaism come to an end. I think that would be intellectually honesty on your part.

Oh, look, it's a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) to go along with the rest of your bullshit logical fallacies.

Perhaps this is the reason you and others seem to be struggling with the substance of this post.

Actually, in my case, it's because, regardless of whatever point you think you might be making with this attempt at satire, I've already encountered far too many religious people who have been entirely serious in attacking my criticisms of religion with face-to-face ad hominem attacks and uses of offensively anti-rational arguments like Pascal's Wager to find any of this funny, up to and including the time when, after being stupid enough to answer one preacher's questions about my faith honestly ("I don't think I believe in God, and I'm not sure I would want to"), he took the time to repeat George H.W. Bush's line that "atheists can't be patriots" while I was wearing my Navy uniform, complete with my ribbons of service from Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom.

So FUCK this little trolling "social experiment" of yours, because I consider it MORALLY offensive.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

OK, but I'm not making an ad hominem (which may not mean what you think it means) or offering Pascal's Wager. Nor am I asserting that atheists can't be patriots. I ma not sure why such silliness is even relevant to the matter at hand. I'm presenting a simple question to you: Would you like to see human beings continue to embrace, participate in and identify with Judaism -- or would you not?

It's not a false dilemma. It's a rather straightforward question. Do you fear your own answer?

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Comparing criticism of religion to anti-Semitism, which you knowingly and intentionally did by invoking Holocaust imagery, is guilt by association, which is indeed one of the definitions of ad hominem. Looks like YOU don't know what certain terms mean.

Nor am I asserting that atheists can't be patriots. I am not sure why such silliness is even relevant to the matter at hand.

Because you're trying to play the victim card here by comparing ALL religious people to persecuted Jews, which is insulting to the plight of persecuted Jews in light of the inordinate amounts of power and privilege that Christianity as a whole, by comparison, wields in this country. Christianity is STILL viewed as the DEFAULT for Americans, to the point that you can't even get elected president unless you loudly profess to be a Christian, and as in my example, even if you serve in two foreign wars against terrorists, many average Americans STILL believe they're entitled to refute your patriotism for no other reason than your faith (or lack thereof).



See this? Talk to me when Christianity gets to be as slim a section of the pie as Judaism. Until then, recognize that attempting to conflate the respective treatments to which Christianity and Judaism are subjected is both logically and MORALLY wrong.

What's amazing is that, in spite of having known some very rational and admirable pastors and ministers in my time, literally every single word you've typed on this comm to try and defend religion has made me want to be an atheist or a maltheist, because your smug, self-satisfied, intellectually dishonest arguments remind me of the worst type of faithful that I've been forced to put up with over the years, in countless settings where they held enough of the majority that they could get away with imposing their own beliefs on others.

Would you like to see human beings continue to embrace, participate in and identify with Judaism -- or would you not?

This is a bullshit loaded question, and YOU YOURSELF KNOW THIS FOR A FACT. Especially within the Godwin-infected context that you've gone out of your way to set up here, it is the DEFINITION of a false dilemma.

What I WANT is for religion to get out of my fucking face. What I WANT is for our elected leaders to make their decisions based on what's best for their own citizens and for the rest of humanity WITHOUT invoking God. What I WANT is the words "One Nation, Under God" scrubbed from our Pledge of Allegiance, and "In God We Trust" scrubbed from our currency, to recognize that you can indeed be faithful to your country, and engage in commerce with its money, WITHOUT God coming into it. If you can be a Jew or a Christian or whatever the fuck else WITHOUT making the world a more hostile faith for atheists, agnostics or members of religious faiths other than your own, as many members of those faiths are good enough to do, then by all means, worship and believe as you see fit, but if you're going to pull bullshit like flying planes into buildings or imposing limits on reproductive rights for non-medical reasons, then yeah, you're in the wrong.

What I WANT is for this world to become a place in which religion's place in society is NEUTRAL enough that it will have absolutely no impact on my or anyone else's lives whether people are Jews or Christians or Muslims or Buddhists or anything else. 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."

THAT'S what I want, and THAT'S why it's NEVER going to be a simple yes-or-no question.

Do you fear your own answer?

No, what I fear is the prevalence of simplistically minded people who only care about playing gotcha-games with their perceived ideological opponents, because they see complex issues as either/or binaries.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Comparing criticism of religion to anti-Semitism

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?

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Again, this is not really what I've done.

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 ...

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I DID answer the question

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.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

No, I dont think you did.

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.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

No, the closest you came to answering my question was when you finally wrote:

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.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think you already have this freedom.

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.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

diatribe about every other topic except the one at hand

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:

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

"LOL. Dude, you're freaking out."

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:

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

So, this WAS just to get a rise out of 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.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

You're reposting my PM comments as though I said anything that I should be ashamed of.

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. :)

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I was simply responding in kind to your comment. By the way, my suggestion that you chill out was in no way evidence that I made my post simply to upset anyone. My point still stands.

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.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

By the way, my suggestion that you chill out was in no way evidence that I made my post simply to upset anyone.

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.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

your deliberate attempts to mischaracterize my arguments

Where did I mischaracterize your arguments?

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Where did I mischaracterize your arguments?

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.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

You don't give a goddamn about having a debate that consists of an exchange of ideas. All you want to do is try and score points off the critics of religion, by throwing out so many wrong-headed arguments that frustration with that idiocy becomes inevitable, and then painting that frustration on their part as proof of superiority on your part. You should go work for FOX News.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

What wrong-headed arguments?

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?

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

What wrong-headed arguments?

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.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

I only support ANY institution's continued existence as long as it's not doing more harm than good, and both religion as a whole and any number of individual faiths are, at best, tiptoeing on the edge of that line. While you're at it, why not insist that I should unequivocably and without reservation LIKE for there always to be Republicans, or Mormons, or Tea Partiers, or Scientologists? It all makes as much sense to me, because I see ALL of them as being similarly bullshit that I shouldn't have to be forced to deal with.

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.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

If it helps, let me further clarify:

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?