Category: the Rant Board
Now, on saturday night the BBC, our nationa's publicly funded state broadcaster, chose to broadcast 'Jerry Springer: the Opera'. Some will doubtless be aware that this portrays Jesus in a manner that might be considered offensive to some christians, and that is likely to anger and disgust certain members of that and other religions. it certainly portrays Christianity in a negative way. Unfortunately, this has led to a tide of the most sickening fundamentalism I have ever heard of in britain with the exception ot terrorism. Christian Voice, the leading group of crazed nutters in the UK, staged street protests and even had 500 people outside Television centre to protest against the show's being aired. Fr more serious, however, was the immature and irresponsible act of releasing the names and addresses and telephone numbers of fifteen of the BBC's leading executives and publishing them on the internet. households have received threats of bloodshed and violence, as well as threats that something bad could happen. And now, to cap it all, these lunatics want to prosecute the BBC for blasphemy. Do we really have so many nutters in this country, so many sickening fundamentalists? I know that in the US god-fearing evangelists stalk the streets prosecuting their rumours of destruction and pontificating aobut righteousness and repentance, but I never thought this would happen here. The picture becomes more scary when one looks at their aims: Steven Green, the director, justified the release of private details on the grounds that the BBc had been warned about what would happpen, and said that this nation had strayed from the path of the true faith. The Sikh community, who have also declared themselves to be in support of the protests and who last month successfully forced the abandonment of a controversial play Bezthi' which has something negative to say about Sikh culture, issued a statement saying that enteraainment has a duty to promote faith in a positive manner. So, the long and the short of it - and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - is that religious extremists want to destroy our free speech and intimidate us into silence, is that not right? And yet these people are the first to moan if we start portraying ritual Paganism in a positive light, aren't they? As far as I'm concerned if you don't want to see such performances, don't watch them! don't go to the theatre! However, if you're really arrogant enough to dismiss everyone who wants to watch such critiques of various faiths as infidels, then you are a fundamentalist of the type I find, quite frankly, sickeningg, and may the devil take you! it's these maniacal fools who would have us walking and thinking as repentant automatons, uncritical and unquestioning. I am aware that in the US, these relics of a bygone age still have a hold in groups such as the bible belt' or some such rubbish: I pray that the same will not happen here.
Beautifully said LawLord, just have to agree with every aspect of your ranting
LL.I also saw the protestors and quite honestly the behaviour of some make me think of maladjusted children however your worries concerning the religious funadmentalists are well founded have you heard of the JESUS ARMY if not be glad. I know of 1 instance where they used nubile young women to lure men in to their trailers to be "reducated for Jesus!" Believe me pal we are in the grip of this nightmare already....what america has we must have but I will be damned if I will kneel down to these cretins!.
Extremism and Fundamentalism stalk the country like .. two jiant stalking things.
down with this sort of thing! Careful now!
exactly, and there's no logic to it either! On the one hand, the christian fundamentalists say 'love thine enemies' and on the other, they are quite content to trash people's homes because those people are saying bad things about their ideas; and note that very carefully, zoners: religions are no more than ideas. Maybe they are ideas shared by billions, but they are no more than ideas, and no idea can claim supremacy to the exclusion - and in some case the violent exclusion - of all others. i repeat, the may the devil take the fundamentalists and condemn them to the fate they deserve!
It's sad that the world is becoming ever more polarized because of relegion, then again I think religion is just (for the most part) the uniting force and a convenient banner to unite people around a cause whereas the real reason for the unrest and wars that are going on right now are the increase in population on the planet and the ever growing consumption of the resources and those are dwindling very fast. The U.S. is really being challenged by China whose oil consumpation has grown almost expoenentiallly in recent years now the effects of this are being felt (see the recent oil price s hock) globally and the U.S. in its bid for continued well being and consumption neeeds to secure oil producing facilities outside the country to insure supplise. Whether it's a coincidence that Bush comes from a family that is very tightly associated with oil mining and production, dunno, leave that up to individual judgements.
Cheers
-B
With the greatest respect Wildebrew old lad, I can't agree that religious fundamentalism is connected with oil or anything of that sort, purely because religious fundamentalism has always been around and has always been the cause of wars. The way I see this current trend of maniacal devotion and the force-feeding of ideologies is that it is history repeating itself: religions in all their strong forms have in the past tried to intimidate people into silence. The catholics in Europe, then the protestants, the Mongals, the Ottomans etc. Such fundamentalism resulted in the expulsion of the Moriscos in Spain, the french wars of religion, the english civil war, and the most dramatic was the thirty years war. The fact is that fundamentalism never has sat easily with society, save in cases of a very primative society. Nowadays, we surely have moved on from this preoccupation about ideas being the be all and end all, and we are right to regard such fundamentalist claptrap as the ravings of madmen.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that fundamentalist is a direct result of the insecurity created by the struggle for resources, but I think that Wildebrew has a point in so far as it seems that religion is never really the driving force behind conflicts, but it is always very quickly (and by both sides) adopted as a motivating force to go out and bash in as many heads belonging to the rivalling population group as one can possibly find. It appears that usually the actual root of the conflict is inspired by much more pragmatic considerations than by such lofty ideals as religion. Sometimes it's oil, sometimes its ancestral land, sometimes it's slaves, sometimes it's the fear of losing one's way of life, sometimes it's simply glory, but either way, it gets framed and steeped in religion. I guess it seems more worthy, more morally right, less wasteful that way. I mean, who wouldn't prefer to say they were slaughter for God rather than ot uphold thier king's decadent lifestyle?
Jerry Springer Opera? Is this about that wacko trashy TV show host in the States who was running for senator? Confused.
what really gets me is these ppl who come up to you on the street and preach in your face. God will say you! they say. I say "Bollocks! You try to have an intelligant conversation wtih these ppl and they can't see beyond their narrow world view. They, in actual fact, are more blind than I am, and that's impossible, or so I thought. *smile* at the risk of changing the direction of this topic, have you noticed the way some religious ppl wear their religion as a badge? some religious ppl write emails to me saying such things as: "I Believe war is wrong because I am a christian and god says love thy neighbour." I say, and here I get really pissed off, "bugger me matie, I believe that too, but it ain't because god said to me love thy neighbor, I decided to love thy neighbour because it is the right thing to do, not because god told me to. I get told that I should pray to god so he can restore my sight. I say to these ppl, I think you need to get out more and maybe you'd see better yorselves!
LawLord
Yes, I was thinking more along the lines of Susanne's reply. It's true what you said too though, just as a recent example look at the Taliban movement and downfall. Of course it was motivated by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan but the undergrounf dorces were there to begin with and they actually overthrew the taliban with only minimial support from the U.S. People don't like strict moreals and, dobbin, I couldn't agree more with what you said. I gave up going to a church in CT because of the fear the preachers continuously tried to impose on us, if we didn't show up to this fund raising on Wednesday we'd not be in the group and the sheep that's not in the group is the victim of the wolf .. get the idea, and we should read the bible to x number of people per day. This isn't right, you need to do kindness because you find it within your heart to be kind, not for fear of eternal damnation. Terry Pratchett wrote a brilliant book called "Small Gods" that takes place on an imaginary world where everyone warshipped a God. However no one really believed in that God, the God was simply used to justify the decissions of the men in charge and torture those who opposed the "church" i.e. the idea that the superior clirks had everything and taxed the general population. The actual God itself was alive and only one person yet believed in him. This is an interesting book with a very interesting message, I recommend people read it, it's absolutely brilliant, it's funny but it has a serious message and I think it's very relevant these days.
cheers
-B
Dobbin I have been the victim of the same treatment unfortunately more than once and I get this sickening urge to land a punch when these so called christians called insult our intelligence by asking us to pray for the feckin impossible! Of course our ranting makes us sound like bitter and twisted objects of pity which we certainly are not but I think they seek to reduce us to that so they feel more at ease with our situation..its all down to deep insecurity and inadequacy on their part if they weren't leaning so hard on the crutch of religion then it would be drugs tobacco or booze!.
LL.can I ask you to have some Sympathy For The Devil he's overworked and undervalued I think we should leave these fundamentalists to wander condemned never to rest and tormented daily by the truth concerning their lies and insecurities I'd say that's a far worse fate than dumping them on poor old Satan.
Wow, LL, this is wild! Protests, just about somethign that was aired on television? If they didn't like it, why not just use the clicker and move away? Lol! That's so insane. And threats of bloodhsed and violence? That's really not good! How nuts is that?
Caitlin
its insane but ..and the 1's protesting are supposedly christians! Caitlin perhaps you could give us the American view on hard line religious groups are they as powerful as we are led to believe or is religion losing its grip .
The problem with any fundamentalists or extremists who claim to be part of a majority religion is that they make so much fuss and noise that they make the lot of religious folk look bad adn actually turn people away. I say you don't get that when you're an agnostic, and that's my choice. I don't ahve to go around asking that this or that be banned in the name of everybody's soul. Live and let live, for cring out loud!
Wildebrew I have read your reply and Susanne's contribution above and I am in partial agreement, but no more than that. There are some wars, mainly historical but whose legacy impacts on wars today, that were almost entirely caused by religious fundamentalism. Getting back to the topic propper, the arrogance of these people is breathtaking as I said, but worst still, there's no logic to their ravings! How can someone be trained to love his enemies on the one hand, and yet be quite happy to see his enemies burn in hell after death on the other? surely the notions of love and watching loved-ones suffer are not compatible! Of course, the stock response of these madmen is to say 'God knows best, or Allah, or whomever you may worship, and how dare you question him in the way you do!' I am very concerned about the government's proposals in this country for laws that will in effect seriously inhibit criticism of religious beliefs. It is a fundamentalist's charter and license to intimidate if ever I saw one, and it cannot be allowed particularly as we have not yet purged the country of extremist scum.
Lawlord, I cynically claim that any given war in human history can be shown to have been caused, at the most basic level and once all pretexts have been stripped away, by a struggle for some resource or another. Naturally, it is quite possible that I am wrong. Do you have any particular war in mind as an example of a war that was caused, in your words, almost entirely by religious fundamentalism? This is really very interesting, and these kinds of discussions are what helps me justify to myself all the time I waste on here :-) Cheers, guys.
Hi All. In response to Goblin's asking me to comment on religion in America, I must admit that I know very little. I know that there are fanatics and stuff, I guess there are everywhere, right? But I don't reay know. Lol. Sorry!
Caitlin
Well, Caitlyn, thank god that this sort of claptrap is not tolerated everywhere. In Holland, for instance, after the vial murder of a Dutch film-maker who made a film criticising Islam, they have ended their toleration of this nonsense. I do hope that we cotten on and do the same. Now, in furtherance of my raising the idea of a law against incitement to religious hatred which is a very loosely worded provision and which could be interpreted in a manner to silence religious criticism: there is a book currently on the market, written by a Muslim, entitled 'The trouble with Islam' which comments unfavourably on the subjugation of women under Islamic law. similarly, two years ago, an excellent but extremely depressing film entitled 'The Magdalen Sisters' was made, exposing the appalling practices in the so-called 'Magdalen Laundries' in Ireland. these were nunneries where Catholic girls were sent by devout Catholic families for bringing disgrace on the families. They were worked to death and basically forgotten about and all was done in the name of religion, in this case Catholicism. Now, I ask you, would this new law, combined with the nonsense that entertainment should portray faith positively at all costs, outlaw these valid and worthwhile criticisms of various aspects of religion? Quite possibly. If I'm right about this, I can only say that it reflects the insecurity that these fundamentalists feel, in that they have to run to the law to protect them from discussion and debate, because their ideas are so fragile that to cast but one straw at them would precipitate their crumbling into ruin. Such nonsense can't be allowed to dominate our society.
And to respond specifically to your question, Susanne, I have in mind the 30 years war, the English civil war, the 1685 rebellion and the glorious revolution. In modern times, one could suggest the situation in Yugoslavia, as indeed the war crime stribunal into that conflict has suggested.
that's ok pal dont worry...the irreverant Scottish comedian Billy Connolly has a great way of getting rid of these eejits...it consists of talking to them through the letterbox and asking a simple question ..."are you selling religion" ...they will waffle however you insist on an answer when they reply yes! You then respond by saying "I'm bollock naked and have an erection in 10 seconds I will open the door ....10...9...8...7" then you should hear them f..kin off in to the distance at high speed.
I prefer to actually discuss the intellectual foundations of fundamentalism with these people. much more effective and makes them feel much more stupid, as they are forced to admit that in fact, their logic is non-existent, they don't have a leg to stand on and that they are in no position to sit in judgment over me.
Woa..I read about this earleir today too. But hang on, lawlord..can you actually prosecute somebody for "blasphemy" in the UK? What kind of charge is that? If blasphemy is a charge I'm in for life! Hail Satan!
anyway, I'm as surprised as the Beeb was about all this. haven't these fundy wankers heard of that highly praised and respected invention, the off switch? Nobody has to watch! Wouldn't they rather tune to their damned evangelists? Then again, they're probably all up in arms because their wives sit in front of the tube every afternoon guzzling pepsi and smutty low-brow un-christian entertainment.
Can't say that "hail Satan" sounds all that appealing/smart either, it's also religious, even if you decide to stick to the flip side. If, in the Christian imagery Satan stands for all things evil, yes, I'd rather deny him and avoid following his doings, but it's all subject to interpretation. I mean, I'm against any religious believe the promotes violence or infidelity or harm to anyone, on the simple logical grounds that, you know, I want to be happy and secure and in as a safe environment as I could hope for and, we got to face this, religions have very well played their part in insuring to at least somewhat dampen the darker side of human nature. And, again, there's nothing wrong with Christian entertainment per say, or any religious entertainment, as long as legally and socially accepted media can stand outside these religion based programs and that religions are not so "holy" they can't be criticized, to simply write off any people who question a belief as sinners and blasphemous folks, to me, implies the faith is so weak it can't resist scrutiny and e.g. the Christian faith still stands strong despite 2 millenia of criticism from many different standpoints.
LawLord, I will have to take one of the wars/rebellions you mentioned and study it in detail to see if I can find any other obvious reason besides simply religion alone. I think my homework for the weekend will be to take a look at the 30-year war and see what it brings. I've always thought religion was used as auniting symbol and front for what really where more "worldly" ambitions. E.g. the raid spread of the Lutherine sector of Christianity largely had to do with the brilliant way it was sold. Under this religion the church had no rights to be such a huge establishment and heads of state jumped on this opportunity to grab the huge assets the church had amassed over the years (Iceland/Denmark a good case in point). I think the church was definitely somewhat spoilt and had abused its power at the time, selling forgiveness etc, and this "marketting" apppealed well to some heads of state, why this did not work in the South of Europe is hard to say, perhaps because the church was more firmly established there and had a stronger hold on the elite. :)
Anyways, just somet thoughts on this.
cheers-B
Yes yes, but it's blasphemous, and that was the point.
Besides, Satan is metaphorical, and evil is relative!
we got to face this, religions have very well played their part in insuring to at least somewhat
dampen the darker side of human nature."
Maybe, but is it a case of "which came first, the chicken or the egg"? Either way, I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs when humans need to lean on that particular crutch in order to be "good" people.
First thing's first: Harbinger of Metal, which username I consider a novel one to put it bluntly, a prosecution for blasphemy can be brought at common law in the UK, and it stems from when church and state were inseparable back in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries. Secondly, let me deal with a number of Wildebrew's observations: You could explain the reformation on the grounds of underlying nationalism, but that isn't a full explanation. the reason for this is that the most powerful nation at the time of the reformation in Europe was spain, and yet spain and all her empires were the most powerful adherents to the catholic faith i.e. the established church in Europe. Furthermore, the Holy Roman Empire was also staunchly Catholic. The German princes, it is true, embraced the nationalism that the Lutheran doctrine seemed to accord them, but my view is that it is wrong to talk of nattionalism pure and simple at a time when every ruler believed that he was answerable to god anyway, as evidenced by Charles II of England converting to Catholicism on his deathbed. They had supremacy yes, but that supremacy was limited as they had no alternative but to recognise. Henry VIII, the most powerful advocate of royal supremacy to articulate his support for the doctrine through his deeds, nonetheless beat a h hasty retreat in his latter years and repealed much of the Lutheran liberal reforms of recent times. The thirty years war was in effect the climax of the very unsatisfactory state of things following hte peace of Augsburg between the Catholics and the protestants. when you do your homework you will find that there are of course other reasons which might well be said to be causes. some say that the English civil war was caused by the king suppressing parliament, not calling it to sit between 1629 and 1640. They are, of course, correct: but why did the king do it? why did he feel he did not want parliament around? Why did he take the constitutionally extraordinary measure of raising taxes without a parliament to fight his wars? Answer, because he believed in the divine riggt of kings: he was the ruler chosen by god and the landed gentry who had gained lands as a result of the dissolution of the monasteries had got too big for their boots. In addition, one must ask why parliament felt the need to go to war, was it not due to the fact that they were displeased at no being summonned by the king? Well partly yes, but not really. Parliament went to war with the king for two main reasons: one was to shake his conviction in the divine rigght of kings, which even then seemed dated and religiously extreme, and another was that the king had moved the English church from protestantism to catholicism by reintroducing ceremonies; or so, at least, they believed. A pamphlet of the time accuses the king and his men of 'popery, painting and playacting'. So, whilst the constitutional grand remonstrance of November 1641 complains of the king's officers unlawfully raising taxes and imprisoning people, as well as forcing the gentry tolend money to the crown, the deeprooted suspicion was that of popery, exacerbated by the divine right of kings which, to the parliamentarians, was absolutism. They saw the ceremony involved in Catholicism as an affront to purity, and the asssertion of the divine right of kings as religious extremism. So, wildebrew, I don't say that religion has to be the sole cause, and it may not be a cause at all with some conflicts,: but my argument is, and always has been, that religious beliefs, and the assertion thereof, are far more often than not a substantial cause behind a conflict, if not the predominant one.
And as it might seem that we have strayed from the topic, let me bring us back to it by asking this: had it not been for two competing ideas battling for supremacy to the exclusion of all others, which, after all, is the aim of any fundamentalist school of thought be it religious or no, how much less likely would the conflicts have been? I stand by what I said before viz. that fundamentalism is extremely dangerous, it has long been recognised that it has no place in society, save in the most despotic or primative of regimes, and that we should not allow the crazed maniacs masquerading as messengers of the true master of righteousness, to establish themselves.
Well, as to the question about why don't fundamentalists just turn it off, the way I figure it, it isn't that simple. These people aren't against such material because they are personally bothered. My guess is that they are bothered by it in principle because they think it's no good for anyone, even those who would be entertained by such stuff. They see the world at large to be totally corrupt and evil and they have to be the ones to save us from ourselves. Mind you, I'm guessing here. Would love to hear from a true-blue fundamentalist, but I doubt they'd read such a thread in the first place.
I don't think we're in any doubt as to the motivation of fundamentalists. they believe that their mission is to save us from ourselves. That in my view doesn't make fundamentalism any less objectional. nay, it is in fact the very problem that I have with it.
Yep, I agree with ya, LL. Now, here in the States, I'm not sure how much actual power the fundies have, but of course, as I said up the thread, these types seem to be the squeakier wheel what gets the grease. I would suspect there are folks with these beliefs who would want only their ideas taught in schools and their strict morals upheld all over the country. They're the worst kind of idealist, because they can't understand that everybody has free will, which means not every last American will go along with their plans, and they just can't stand this. They're looking for some kind of Utopia based on their ideas, and they will be disappointed when they find out it just can't happen in the real world.
LL
Well said, I certain do not tend to disagree about religious extremism and the risks thereof. I've seen a glimpse of such extremism in action and it made me feel uneasy. Anything that basically urges you to follow along without using your judgement and by turning of your mind, to me, is unhealthy and dangerous, I mean, after all God gave us a brain (for those who believe in God) and how would God not expect us to use it.
Excellent stuff, LL, and I agree. Religion is a double edged sword, but even the benefits of it are dubious and questionable. In the long run, do they really benefit humans or do they stunt them?
Ok, let me get this straight (hm, annoying that you can't use paragraphing in these posts)...does it have to be blasphemy against the C of E, or if you insult a muslim's faith can you be charged with blasphemy as well? The latter doesn't really make sense, since there is a huge difference between the concepts of "blasphemy" and "personal offense" including verbal insults, etc. Blasphemy implies a rigid system in place that everyone is expected to follow. Why hasn't this been struck out of the law yet?
oh yes, speaking of sickening fundamentalists...and this is kind of off the original topic, but it's not really worth a thread on its own. Anybody from hotbraille remember lo and behold? I miss her inane rantings. They always got my anger fueled and my blood boiling, which I think is most healthy.
Blasphemy may only be committed against the church of England or perhaps Christianity in general. The reason it has not been struck out of the law yet is that until recently it was not at all on the agenda. there has only been one successful prosecution since 1922, brought by Mary Whitehouse against a poet named Mr Lemon in 1977. a Muslim group attempted to prosecute Salmun Rushti in 1991, but the action failed as the offence does not apply to Islam. The judges cannot change the law here as there is authority of too longstanding, so it is up to parliament.
hhahah. mary WHitehouse. hahahaha. What a c*nt! hahahahaha.
Sorry, I need to get my breath back now. Yeah, i've heard a lot about her particular antics in the late 70s. So what happened with the Rushdie case? Did the Muslim prosecutors just not do their homework, or was there honestly some question as to what this "blasphemy" thing actually meant? I find the whole notion of all this very odd in the extrme.
The court of appeal held that the offence of blasphemy did not cover religions other than Christianity, and most particularly the church of England, so the prosecution could not be brought as the offence had not been committed. The court of appeal so held applying the House of Lords' decision in Lemon a few years earlier, as they are bound to do, given that the House of Lords is the highest court in the land and the court of appeal must treat its decisions on analogous facts as binding authority.
Wow. This topic is still going strong! Lol. Very interesting. Keeps me up to date with the news ehheh.
Caitlin
Yes Caitlyn, it still is going and it is an important issue indeed. It's all dying down a bit for the moment, but parliament is about to consider religious hatred again, and I'm sure that at that point it will be whipped up again by the nutters who claim to be ruining averyone's lives in the name of the lord.
Yesterday, a man was awarded £10000 damages from his former employer for unfair dismissal. He had, it is reported, been sacked following his taking six weeks off to visit the holy city of Mecca. He had saved the six weeks up through his statutory holiday entitlement so he was perfeclty entitled to go. Now, the result is quite right, but already the fundamentalists have started on this one. The tribunal unfortunately mentioned the words 'religious discrimination' in its judgment. Now we have the various religious organisations insisting that even the smallest companies allow Muslims to take the whole of Ramadan off so they can fast, allow catholics to take certain feast days off etc. This is getting ridiculous!
Bullshit, people do not deserve Ramadan off, I have good friends who selibrate that holiday, you know what, you go to school, and eat when the sun goes down, that's just the way it works. It's not an entire day thing, so I don't know where they get that people should get an entire month off.
Blindguy this is actually a serious topic. You would do well, therefore, to read it properly before you contribute. Then you would realise that there is a lot more to it than taking the whole of ramadan off.
They have the right to protest and do whatever they deem fit. After all, we are not living in communist countries.
Sometimes, even if people have saved up x number of days through their vacation time in the U.S. they are not allowed to take thse days all at once because of the negative effect off their absence on the day-to-day operations of the company. Here this is an understood rule and any vacation for any length of time has to be approved by team mates and manager, whatever the reason is. I don't see why religious vacations should be any exception from this rule and just because the vacation was taken for such reasons why it should be subjected to a special treatment.
And, after all, it would take you no more than 8 hours by plane to get there, why would you need 6 weeks off.
Cheers
-B