Against reverence and awe the best argument is sometimes not logic,
but mockery. Structures of oppression that may not be susceptible to
rational debate may in the end yield to derision. When people see that
a priest, rabbi, imam or uniformed official may be giggled at without
lightning striking the impertinent, arguments may be won on a deeper
level than logic.We should never, therefore, relinquish, nor lightly value, our
right not to argue in the face of other people’s gods — but to fart.— Matthew Parris, in the Times Online
I find much to agree with in this editorial, including the following passage:
Now it’s very easy to murmur “I am not a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu”
as though not being something was terribly inoffensive — a sin, at
worst, of omission; a way of avoiding an argument — the suggestion,
perhaps, that “your” religion may be “true for you” but, as for me,
I’ll sit this one out. But let us not duck what that “I do not believe”
really means. It means I do not believe that there is one God, Allah,
or that Muhammad is His Prophet. It means I do not believe that Jesus
is the way, the truth and the life, or that no man cometh to the Father
except by Him. I do not believe that the Jews are God’s Chosen People,
or subject to any duties different from the rest of us. It means I do
not believe any living creature will be reincarnated in another life.In my opinion these views are profoundly mistaken, and those
who subscribe to them are under a serious misapprehension on a most
important matter. Not only are their views not true for me: they are
not true for them. They are not true for anyone. They are wrong.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
I found this section more informative re his mindset:
“Nevertheless, a conclusion some draw is that for the sake of a quiet life we might as well refrain from voicing criticisms we may feel towards any supersensitive group or cause, because our private thoughts, our private arguments, and those of our readers, remain our own, and uncensored. Others draw the conclusion that we should at least avoid gratuitous insults — the “damn your God” as opposed to the “I doubt His existence ” expressions — because they hurt real, decent people. I think this latter form of polite restraint is what Ben Macintyre was proposing.”
Yes, mockery is a funny thing. Alls I’m sayin is that in general it’s better to be precise in what you’re targetting, sometimes. Smart jokes don’t bomb?
Your derision of all religionists is disturbing. Just when I thot I had you figured out …
For the record (we’ll pretend someone asked), I only take issue with the devil horned man (see http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21127). Way too generic for my tastes. There’s prolly at least a couple in there that fly right over my head anyway, if only cuz of language, but beyond the one, I don’t see how any “real” muslim would take offence.
Ok, me shaddap now.
I guess I’m really not worth the time to figure out. I muddle along with a sense of the divine in every person, a god is love kind of thing, respecting some of the people who find themselves enthralled by dogmatic practice, contemptuous of others. But I am convinced that as it was dark before my birth so shall it darken, for me, after my death and an acceptance of this does not excuse Nietzschean posturing, excess, or depression. An acceptance of this bounded circumstance of human existence is like chalk lines on the grass. This is where we play the game. So what?
This is all a grand conspiracy, Hitchens & Co. got pissed (UK version) one night some journo (steak knife) conference and agreed with some Danish folk there that it would be a hoot to stimulate some form of ‘debating vaccuum’ into which the writings of the likes of Hitchens would flow forth.
I have to say that I think I respect Hitchens. Having read (and listened to him debating the bufoon George Galloway last year), the guy seems a damn sight more awake than most of what passes itself off as ‘writin’ these days. As with all publicity seeking media-whores, there’s a degree to which you should click that endorsement back a few notches on the dial, but you know what I mean.
There’s a lot to respect there, fp. It’s a funny game, man. To get from here to there, it’s easier to stick to primary colours to define the teams, but it’s more interesting to use a big palette. And that goes equal for the sabre-wavin killers and the god mockers alike.
Gary, Hitchens loves the neocons and the international war crime known as the Iraqi invasion and occupation. Galloway actually see through that bullshit and says so, rather eloquently. I think you got them mixed up or something.
(make that “Iraq” and “sees” — the editor)
But for the fact that Galloway’s stance is entirely predicated upon his self serving, publicity seeking personal enrichment agenda - in other words, he’s a parasitical politician the likes of which probably makes every good intentioned, principled politician - wait a minute, is there such a thing? - wince every time his name is mentioned, I’d agree with him.
I admit that felt a patriotic sense of oneness with Galloway when he took the stand in front of the Senate Committee last year, but that’s shallow brethren talk from a fellow Scot who likes seeing other oppressed kinfolk stickin it to the man. Hitchens - also a publicity whore - show me a writer that isn’t? - at least changes his mind, admits he was wrong and may be wrong again and compared with Galloway seems to speak from the heart, rather than the pocket or ego.
Gary, I don’t hold out much hope for Hitchens admiting how wrong he’s been in trumpeting neoconservative ideas (which I’d call sycophantic and hideous, rather than awake). And from what I’ve read of Galloway (and heard on Democracy Now), I see no reason for him to have to admit error, unless his error is to make other politicians wince.