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

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.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Someone telling you that an atheist can't be a patriot is not an argument about whether there should be Jews.

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

Except for how I already REPEATEDLY pointed out how those two issues are linked, along with any number of OTHER points which you STILL refuse to acknowledge, because they don't fit your "narrative." To which I say, FUCK your narrative, because the most basic aspects of how you see the world are so logically and MORALLY wrong to my eyes that I will NEVER agree with them, or even respect their EXISTENCE.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

No, you have not pointed out how someone making some ridiculous statement about atheists not being able to be patriots is at all related to whether there should be Jews in the world. You simply asserted it.

Why are you worried about whether someone thinks you are a patriot or not, anyway?

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

Yes, I did. Go back and read my post. I repeatedly pointed out that it is an example of the religious privilege that religious people have over non-religious people, that it is considered societally acceptable. Of course, even though you keep coming back to that individual example far more times than I ever originally mentioned it, I also pointed out, in SEVERAL posts, several OTHER examples of the undue influence of religion in non-religious people's lives, including the fact that global political decisions are made based on people's religions, a point to which you STILL haven't replied, because you find it more convenient to harp on the ONE point that I made while IGNORING all the others, because you KNOW FOR A FACT that you are wrong.

Why are you worried about whether someone thinks you are a patriot or not, anyway?

Because I have the right to be considered a patriot regardless of what my religion is or isn't, without people dismissing it simply because I don't subscribe to their faith. This is a privilege that members of certain religions receive automatically, without ever even having to think about it. That is an inequity, and a relatively minor one compared to some of the other unequal treatment to which the non-religious (and those whose religions are not in the majority) are regularly subjected.

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

You're never going to win this argument, by the way.

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.

[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.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Yeah, those Jews are bothering the crap out of you. They're worse than tampon commercials!

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

Thanks for responding in such a glib and dismissive manner to the numerous real-world examples I've given of how religion as a whole, and certain religions in particular, are unacceptably oppressive in the personal and global existences of non-believers. It really shows your true colors as someone who's blinded by your own privileged entitlement.

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.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I'm only asking about Judaism right now.

But it is rather odd to take the position that you are indifferent to things that have no merit of relevance to your own life. That sounds almost pathologically sself-centered. Do you not care about starving children in Africa either?

I mean, what "merit" or "relevance" does an 18-month-old Sudanese child have in your life?

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

I'm only asking about Judaism right now.

No, I'M asking YOU. WHY should I care about ONLY Judaism. YOU answer the fucking question.

I mean, what "merit" or "relevance" does an 18-month-old Sudanese child in your own life?

A child is a human being. As a fellow member of humanity, I should want for my fellow humans to enjoy at least some level of amenities, opportunities and dignity. THAT is that child's relevance to my own life. Religion, by contrast, is a CONSTRUCT. The limits of its worth are whether it benefits humanity more than it harms it. The fact that you would even conflate the two shows how utterly wrong-headed and immoral your priorities are.

[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?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I guess your position on suicide would be relevant if all the Jews in the world suddenly decided to kill themselves.

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

My position on it is relevant precisely because I want you to understand that, when you insist that I should ALWAYS want for Judaism to exist, you're insisting that I confer a privilege upon Judaism that I literally don't confer on anything else in existence, including my own life, because I refuse to say that I would ALWAYS want ANYTHING to exist.

But it's just like you to deliberately miss the fucking point, so I shouldn't be surprised that you've remained so true to form.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

It is interesting that you are unable to distinguish between making a decision to end your own life because you don't think it's worth living anymore -- and wanting Jews to no longer exist because you don't think they're worth having around anymore.

I just hope they don't put you in charge!

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

And once again, you're oversimplifying my position, and doing so intentionally.

I already stated my criterion for Judaism and every other religion to justify their continued existences, which is a bit more than "they're not worth having around anymore," and which is certainly different than the criteria that I explicitly stated for why I could consider supporting someone's decision to end their own lives (you know, the stuff that you once again glibly dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion?). But then, that would actually require you to ADDRESS my points, rather than AVOIDING them, which you've been doing throughout this conversation.