October 30th, 2007
Why one particular atheist is angry.
I agree with pretty much everything she had to say.
So I'll just add, "amen."
Current Location: work
Sorry, but my reaction is "LOL, stupidest thing I've ever read."
I've been a bunch of different religions and I've been no-religion, but she's just throwing a whole batch of different and complex social issues in one trash bag, massively oversimplifying to the point that she's nonsensical, and crying persecution.
Not impressed. I'm not impressed when religious sects do it, and I'm not impressed when unreligious groups do it. It's dumbing down the issues.
|Date:||October 30th, 2007 04:17 pm (UTC)|| |
Hmm, I totally disagree. Of course, I come to that blog post already on her side, so I acknowledge my bias, but the vast majority of the issues she talks about are tied inalterably to religion and its impact on society. Where are you getting nonsensical? And really, I'm not sure how she's supposed to avoid oversimplication in a 4,000+ some word blog post about the history of religion. Be that as it may, I didn't find her points to be inaccurately summarized. Could you explain more what you're talking about here (or in my blog, if you'd like).
For example, I think the complex issues surrounding abortion can be summed up better than with a photo of a wire coat hanger.
As a woman, I'm insulted.
It's not about the issues, you're missing the point.
It's not about diving deeply into, say, the complex issue of abortion and everything that surrounds it. It's exactly what it sets out at the beginning; an explanation of and defense of atheist anger, and an answer to the question we get all the time of "why are you atheists so angry?"
Consider it the flip-side of the coin that says "everyone not in $RELIGION is going to hell, and there's no redemption, so it's ok to kill them in the name of $GOD."
You may not be sitting on that side of the coin, but that doesn't mean the coin's not there.
It's not the flip side of the coin. It's intolerance and bigotry, dressed up with the name of no-god instead of God. She's practicing exactly what she claims to be condemning and blaming a vague "religious people" for.
Oh, the irony.
|Date:||October 30th, 2007 04:14 pm (UTC)|| |
Wow. Reposting for extra viral transmission...
And she thinks only atheists are upset about 9/11 and that Christians believe the red stripes on a candy cane "represent Christ's blood"?
These sweeping generalizations she makes about "religious people" are straw-man arguments. "Religious people" don't treat prayer as a personal shopping list for God. At least none of the ones I've ever met (including Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Druids) do. This reads like a caricature.
And even if that were the case, why would she care if she really doesn't believe in God?
If you've never met a biblical literalist, if you've never seen a classroom history timeline that begins with Adam and Eve in 10,000 BC, if you've never had someone tell you that Christianity is not a religion but the One Truth, if you've never seen Mel Gibson interviewed to the effect that his wife, all non-catholics, and all mainline Catholics after Vatican II are going to burn in hell... then maybe you don't quite grasp what that woman is talking about. Growing up around that kind of crap can poison you against even the mildest, kindest, most intellectually engaged religious people.
The following links do not represent the only kinds of religious practice in the US today, but they certainly represent actual people, and not just a few of them:http://www.slate.com/id/2176547/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5464505634137914176http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpWTujwSlj8
And she thinks only atheists are upset about 9/11
I don't think I saw anything in her article that said she felt only atheists had the right to be upset about 9/11. Nor did I see anything saying that she felt all Christians thought candy canes were covered in Jesus Juice. She expressed anger towards a particular incident. Each statement was a seperate bullet point on her list of grievances.
All I saw in this article was someone writing a rant with a particular slant. If I rant about the general religious leanings of this country, I'm usually looking at it through Jew-colored glasses. It's my general religious inclination, so I frequently look at things from that stance. She rather vociferously claimed herself an atheist; ergo she writes from that slant.
Of course, what that is doing is taking a bunch of issues that have arisen as a result of certain religious people and certain religious organisations and labelling it all as God's fault, which is unfair. I am of the belief that God exists, but wouldn't term myself as religious - does that make it legitimate for the kind of overarching assumptions made in the entry to which you link to be levelled at me? Also, what does making a bunch of overarching assumptions prove? That the people she's angry with aren't the only ones who can discriminate?
I'm sorry, but to me, it's a load of tosh. I'd condemn any similar article about atheism on exactly the same grounds.
(Also, the statement that I discuss in this entry
was made by an atheist in a discussion on this topic on a friend's journal, and I had massive trouble following her logic. The comments are, in my opinion, worth looking at.)
Oh, as an added point, why can't religious people be angry about twats in the world who are religious? Why is it just atheists that she says should be angry? I'm fucking furious about some of the discrimination in that article, does that not count because of my faith (and if so, how is that argument not discriminating against me)?
I'm just curious. It seems very knee-jerkish to me.
the whole POINT is that it's a knee-jerk.
It's also defensive, not offensive. She's not denying anyone else their anger about things, she's explaining her own.
Context = important.
But by making her anger at these injustices about being atheist, she's lumping all non-atheists into a category she can label as 'not angry about this' - can you honestly not see that?
|Date:||October 30th, 2007 05:49 pm (UTC)|| |
I don't see that either. She's explaining her anger as an athiest, not denying you your anger about the same issues (nor even denying you your anger back at her over the same issues if you disagree).
You don't have to be an atheist to be mad about the same things she mentions, even if you're mad for the same reasons.