"No one is more insufferable than he who lacks basic courtesy."- Bryant H. McGill
"But the key thing to note in all these cases is that it is no longer just the religious who would inhibit our freedom of expression: increasingly, secular bodies are buying into this invidious idea too, all in the name of 'tolerance' or 'community relations' or 'respect'."Let's try a little of that reason for a moment, shall we?
Now, now children - no punching, no biting:
Do atheists not teach their toddlers not to hit other people? If so, what reasoning is used?
I grew up in a relatively secular home, and I was certainly taught to not hit other people. It was taught with the underlying principle that getting hit hurts, and that if I didn't want other people to hit me I should extend the same courtesy to other people.
There was no reference to a higher being that would sentence me to an eternity in hell for hitting other people, just the simple premise that I shouldn't do to others what I didn't want done to me. Does being an atheist make it that the basic tenet of human society no longer applies to you. Does your science and reason tell you that because you don't believe in a deity you can run around hitting people and not expect to be hit yourself?
It seems to me that atheists love to trot around treating anyone who believes differently than they do with contempt and disrespect, and the second they get called out on it they go scurrying behind the skirt of Ms. FreedomOfExpression.
Let's take one of the situations Ms. Kirby was speaking of as an example:
facebook and Mr. Morgan:
Rhys Morgan reports in his article that the University College London -ASH Society posted a poorly drawn cartoon of 'Jesus and Mo' at a bar in support of their weekly pub meet and were asked to take it down. In a "show of solidarity," Rhys Morgan did what the true social activists of our time do: he changed his facebook profile picture.
Eventually, someone asks him to remove it from his facebook profile entirely (even after he had changed his profile picture back). Of course, as he's an atheist, he doesn't have to consider anyone else. He doesn't have to deal with someone mocking his faith - so he has no qualms about mocking/disrespecting the faith of others, since it's impossible for them to do it back to him.
Watch out for female atheists! If it's okay to injure people as long as they can't injure you back in atheistic culture, atheist women are likely to run around smacking guys in the testicles all willy nilly.
So, without empathizing in the slightest - without considering what it might be like to believe that his eternity is being determined by his adherence to rules in an old book and have his beliefs mocked publicly, he refuses to remove the picture from his facebook profile. He states it was:
The Parable: Yo'mama's so fat
There were two little boys, Billy and Gomez. Gomez loves his mother very deeply. Billy grew up without knowing his mother and has no sentimental feelings toward her. One day, Billy says:
"Gomez, your mother is as fat as a cow!"
Upset, Gomez demands that Billy take back what he said. Billy refuses. Billy has no concept of what it's like to have a mother and love her. Billy is also an insufferable little prick, and doesn't care that Gomez has feelings and is upset by what Billy has said. Billy replies:
"I can say whatever I want. You're stupid for loving your mother."
Now, I readily acknowledge that there are a lot of religious nutjobs out there that are going to give atheists crap for their beliefs. I would love to stand along side them against that intolerance... it's just really hard to be on the side of the guy running around talking shit about people's moms, or - more accurately, it's hard to be on the side of the person who doesn't take the time to consider how their actions impact other people.
But Grimmie, what about my freeeeedoms?:
You are completely entitled to freedom of expression. However, if you use that freedom to be an insufferable prick - you're on your own when the consequences of being an insufferable prick come back to haunt you. So don't come crying to me to help protect your freedom of expression. If that's how you're going to use it, as far as I'm concerned you don't deserve it.
Additional evidence of atheist intolerance:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/113821933403987466320/posts/ScpmEs7Py4S
Note: This post has changed from it's original version:
I've edited the title of the blog to be less of a generalization (added the word "These"). I've also edited in the image in question for multiple reasons.
I grew up in a relatively secular home, and I was certainly taught to not hit other people. It was taught with the underlying principle that getting hit hurts, and that if I didn't want other people to hit me I should extend the same courtesy to other people.
There was no reference to a higher being that would sentence me to an eternity in hell for hitting other people, just the simple premise that I shouldn't do to others what I didn't want done to me. Does being an atheist make it that the basic tenet of human society no longer applies to you. Does your science and reason tell you that because you don't believe in a deity you can run around hitting people and not expect to be hit yourself?
It seems to me that atheists love to trot around treating anyone who believes differently than they do with contempt and disrespect, and the second they get called out on it they go scurrying behind the skirt of Ms. FreedomOfExpression.
Let's take one of the situations Ms. Kirby was speaking of as an example:
facebook and Mr. Morgan:
Rhys Morgan reports in his article that the University College London -ASH Society posted a poorly drawn cartoon of 'Jesus and Mo' at a bar in support of their weekly pub meet and were asked to take it down. In a "show of solidarity," Rhys Morgan did what the true social activists of our time do: he changed his facebook profile picture.
Watch out for female atheists! If it's okay to injure people as long as they can't injure you back in atheistic culture, atheist women are likely to run around smacking guys in the testicles all willy nilly.
So, without empathizing in the slightest - without considering what it might be like to believe that his eternity is being determined by his adherence to rules in an old book and have his beliefs mocked publicly, he refuses to remove the picture from his facebook profile. He states it was:
a request I declined because I do not follow Islamic scripture or rules.Clearly, poor Rhys was the victim here. These horrible, horrible people were persecuting him for not adhering to their religious customs... I think it's time for a parable:
The Parable: Yo'mama's so fat
There were two little boys, Billy and Gomez. Gomez loves his mother very deeply. Billy grew up without knowing his mother and has no sentimental feelings toward her. One day, Billy says:
"Gomez, your mother is as fat as a cow!"
Upset, Gomez demands that Billy take back what he said. Billy refuses. Billy has no concept of what it's like to have a mother and love her. Billy is also an insufferable little prick, and doesn't care that Gomez has feelings and is upset by what Billy has said. Billy replies:
"I can say whatever I want. You're stupid for loving your mother."
Now, I readily acknowledge that there are a lot of religious nutjobs out there that are going to give atheists crap for their beliefs. I would love to stand along side them against that intolerance... it's just really hard to be on the side of the guy running around talking shit about people's moms, or - more accurately, it's hard to be on the side of the person who doesn't take the time to consider how their actions impact other people.
But Grimmie, what about my freeeeedoms?:
You are completely entitled to freedom of expression. However, if you use that freedom to be an insufferable prick - you're on your own when the consequences of being an insufferable prick come back to haunt you. So don't come crying to me to help protect your freedom of expression. If that's how you're going to use it, as far as I'm concerned you don't deserve it.
Additional evidence of atheist intolerance:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/113821933403987466320/posts/ScpmEs7Py4S
Note: This post has changed from it's original version:
I've edited the title of the blog to be less of a generalization (added the word "These"). I've also edited in the image in question for multiple reasons.
So what you are saying is that the death threats and abuse Rhys was subject to (and his family and his home) were justified because he had the audacity to express how silly he thought the idea of religion is... riiiight, I'm sure Jesus said that was totally ok in that bible thing...
ReplyDeleteI didn't address the backlash that resulted from the actions, as it's blatantly obvious it's vastly inappropriate. I'm not particularly familiar with Islam, but I know for a fact the people that call themselves Christians and participate in that sort of backlash should work a lot harder on incorporating the teachings of Jesus into their behavior.
DeleteSo, no - that's not what I'm saying and I don't think I even accidentally implied as much.
What I'm saying is that someone having beliefs that are different from yours is not a license to treat them as if they are less than human, and that proponents of tolerance aren't trying to stifle freedom of expression - just trying to get people to be nicer to each other.
Unless that person's beliefs are those of an atheist, in which case people who claim to belong to a religion of peace and love are perfectly justified in threatening to kill said atheist, even though the atheist in question was being entirely passive and the "offended parties" chose to go routing around in his facebook profile to find the image in question
DeleteNo unless. (Though I do have it on near unanimous authority from the boys over at Logos: https://plus.google.com/u/0/113597371072379913045/posts
Deletethat atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief :p )
For what feels like the thousandth time,
condemning an action /= approval of reaction to the action
That aside, to nitpick: changing your profile pic is not passive. Pretending an insult is a picture of puppies is intellectually dishonest.
This despite the fact that he had already changed the profile picture to something else, which meant anyone who wanted to see it would have to go hunting through his facebook profile to find it. I would class that as passive, as opposed to, say turning up at a serviceman's funeral to harass and intimidate mourners with placards and chants, or preaching on Hyde Park Corner that homosexuals are to be punished to eternal torture and suffering by one's imaginary friend, both of which I would class as extremely aggressive and unpleasant actions.
DeleteReligious folk have a long history of violence and horrific crimes against those who do not believe in the same bunch of prehistoric mumbo jumbo as them.
And the intolerance hidden within the satire is indication we can expect the same towards those that do believe prehistoric mumbo jumbo should the atheists achieve majority.
DeleteYour reasoning is painfully flawed here. Nobody was forced to look at the image of Mohammed. Just as nobody is forced to hear the religious doctrines against homosexuals or atheists when preached inside their respective places of worship.
ReplyDeleteThat is the principle of freedom of speech: say what you want so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.
Nobody has the right to not be offended.
Well I'm not advocating that it be illegal to offend, which seems to be the impression you got based on your comment.
DeleteI am, however, advocating considering people other than oneself when deciding what to send out into the world. Preaching against homosexuals and publicly mocking religion are similar. As atheists tend to profess admiration for intelligence and reason, when they lower themselves to the same level of disregard for other people that religious bigots demonstrate, it reflects poorly on others who value intelligence and reason.
"without considering what it might be like to believe that his eternity is being determined by his adherence to rules in an old book and have his beliefs mocked publicly" Great line. But what if he is considering it? It is interesting to consider what the social function of scorn is. Scorn creates an aversion to the behavior being scorned. It is one of the levers we use to elicit change in the case of social nonconformity or in the case of shoddy performance. Most atheists believe that religion is not benign, which can put empathy and tolerance at odds with each other.
ReplyDeleteIf he considered it at all, he made no mention of it in his post on the subject. Since he made a post on the subject and stated his reasons for not removing the pic, and those reasons did not include such consideration - it seems fair to assume he did not.
DeleteIs the minority capable of using scorn as a social lever? From an objective viewpoint, after hearing this story which behavior would a person be more likely to have an aversion to(publicly mocking religion -or- believing ancient texts)?
Erm - somewhat missing the point I feel. Rhys Morgan has been treated unfairly. The picture is no longer his profile pic - people will have to actively search his profile to find it. They also don't have to be Facebook friends with him and could also block his posts from appearing in their timeline. If someone is actively searching for ways to be offended, well, they can go fuck themselves.
ReplyDeleteAs Jerry Coyne has pointed out (here http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/u-s-supports-uns-suppression-of-free-speech-that-criticizes-religion/):
"We need the right to freely and publicly criticize politicians, religious people and their beliefs, and historians—indeed, even those historians who affirm the Holocaust. I’ve learned a lot listening to Holocaust deniers, including ways that they resemble other conspiracy theorists, the methods that Nazis used to suppress information about the gas chambers, and the paucity of direct written links between Hitler himself and the extirpation of the Jews. It should not be a crime to promulgate such denialism, odious though those viewpoints may seem."
As the anonymous poster above says, no one has the right to not be offended. Pullman makes this point quite eloquently here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=youtu.be
*Given the above blog post, I fear I may have to point out that the "fuck themselves" is deliberately meant to be offensive, because the subject of the sentence is looking to be offended. Therein lies the humour.
I'm criticizing his actions, are you trying to suppress my right to do so?
DeleteAlso, and more the point I was trying to make, there's a difference between criticizing and insulting/mocking. I respect the former and believe the latter is indicative of bully mentality/personality.
Meh.
ReplyDeleteOffence is easy to take. People seem to get offended more and more these days, over less and less.
Death threats and angry response are stupid against practically anything, but especially against something you don't have to see. Rhys posed something on his facebook wall for pity's sake. No-one had to see it unless they went to his profile.
It's the equivalent of a church posting "Atheists are Damned" on the billboard outside. I personally find that quite offensive, yet I wouldn't dream of complaining as they are allowed to spout whatever rubbish they like.
The most important point was the ridiculously angry response Rhys got for what is basically a picture posted on a wall somewhere people could easily avoid.
P.S. if you really want to play the Who posts offensive images/posts game there are plenty saying atheism= nazism or bestiality or the end days of civilisation and anything in between.
Just because people are idiotic enough to post such rubbish doesn't mean I threaten them physically.
Your post is evidence: Our attention is drawn to the most-inappropriate behavior. That's part of why I posted this.
DeleteOf course the backlash is ludicrous. However, that doesn't mean Mr. Morgan is a saint.
What I find interesting is that he said he originally posted it as a sign of solidarity with the people receiving death threats for originally posting it, yet when politely asked to remove it those weren't the grounds for his refusal.
He didn't say "People are receiving death threats for displaying this image which I find completely unacceptable, so I am displaying it to let them know they do not stand alone." Instead, he chose to make it about himself and the lack of respect he has for the religion and the people that would ask for it's removal.
I think I'm going to edit in the picture itself. I'm curious if I'll receive death threats for doing so. I'd really like to have a conversation with the people that would make such threats to try and understand where they are coming from and why they feel murder or the threat of it is in accord with their religious beliefs.
My thoughts and feelings summed up succinctly here:
ReplyDeletehttp://atheism.about.com/od/aboutreligion/p/RespectReligion.htm
If someone out there is so offended by that cartoon on Rhys's Facebook page, why did they make a big thing about it? Plenty of things offend me: when that happens, I don't make death threats about them, I just don't look at them. Unless Facebook has implemented some feature I don't know about, if there is a page on Facebook you don't like, you can always not look at it.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how the article started with a discussion of childrens' behaviour and became more childish and pathetic as it went along.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I think you are being an insufferable prick, does that mean I am free to make physical threats against you now?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. I hope you're willing to explain the motivation for them though, as I'll be asking.
DeleteAtheists are not bullies. Bullies are the ones who deliberately look for reasons to be offended by atheists, and then use this to criticise or threaten.
ReplyDeleteAtheists are taught to respect other people and that they are allowed to have whatever personal beliefs they want and to express them as long as those beliefs don't interfere with the lives or rights of others. Respect is something you show to people, not to a religious doctrine, and respect is a mutual thing. Respecting someone might mean you don't go out of your way to offend them, but it doesn't mean you avoid offending them at any cost. Offence is very subjective and "taking offence" is more often than not used to manipulate. Very often it's a sign of selfishness and indifference to, or (worse) the desire to suppress the views of others.
"Taking offense" is the #1 tool used by bullies.
Many religious zealots are hypocritical: they want religious freedom as long as it's for the benefit of their particular belief system, but they will complain vigorously (even violently) against competing religious beliefs invading their cosy little culture (consider US Teabaggers). Try to twist it as you might, atheists have the moral high-ground when it comes to respect.
Back to Rhys, his did not outwardly mock or criticise any religion or post or promote any hatred. He posted a fairly benign picture, that is all. It wasn't intrinsically offensive by any normal standards. People have the right to be offended by anything, but that is a personal choice. In this case people actively had to seek it out and interpret it in a specific way to be offended. That was a deliberate act. That was bullying.
Saying that it was acceptable for Rhys to be criticised and threatened over this or, worse still, claiming he was doing something wrong by posting in the first place is crazy: it is the thin end of a very fat wedge. I know people who are offended by people proselytizing Christianity. By your logic, any Christian who posts an image of Jesus could be offending people with other beliefs.
I find the moronic, bullying and bigoted crap you write in posts like this offensive. It mocks and criticises atheist beliefs far more than Rhys did with his picture. The difference is I respect your right to post it. I'm not going to threaten to burn your house down because of it.
Where are atheists taught "to respect other people and that they are allowed to have whatever personal beliefs they want and to express them as long as those beliefs don't interfere with the lives or rights of others."?
DeleteMr. Morgan aside, as his posting was a repost: Other than provocation/mockery/insult, what motivation could the ASH have had for posting the image in the first place?
1. Satire 2. A political response to threats to free expression.
Delete"You are completely entitled to freedom of expression. However, if you use that freedom to be an insufferable prick - you're on your own when the consequences of being an insufferable prick come back to haunt you."
ReplyDeleteI think this statement needs to be broken down a bit. If the "consequences" you speak of are the disapproval, anger and shunning of private individuals Im inclined to agree with you. If I find someones actions offend me--like when I am told by a evangelicals that myself and my family will spend eternity in hell--Im free to call him a jackass and defriend him on facebook without offending his right to "free speech".
If the consequences are sanctions or threats of sanctions by state and quasi-state--like Mr. Morgans school--you no longer have freedom of speech.
On another note, satire in comedy and politic has a long history in western societies. Satire often offends. But as long the ends are comedy (as unfunny as we may find it) while sensitivites are just collateral damage its not "intentionally offending". At best its being negligent or reckless to the feelings of others. But the point is that satire has value to individuals and society and is worth defending (IMHO). It is not the same as offending for offence sake.
Do you want to treat the symptoms, or do you want to cure the disease?
DeleteThere are three possible outcomes:
1. Continued conflict.
2. One side kills off the other side.
3. Mutual understanding and enlightenment.
Which of those three does using that cartoon serve at present?
Would it still have been worth using the cartoon for the event page if Mr. Morgan was killed rather than threatened? The late teen years make a compelling age for martyrdom.
Should one be able to post a benign cartoon without having to face death threats or worse? Of course. That's not the world we live in though, and wishing and hoping isn't going to bring that world into being. Behaving as if the world is already how it should be is getting in the way of it becoming how it should be - and that's why I made this post.
Personally I think the western tradition of free speech and satire is something worth fighting for. I dont necessarily accept your trichotomy (is that a word?). The fourth option is those Muslims demanding censorship learn to accept satire of their religion as Christians have (for the most part) over time. Another enlightenment if you will. Remember that there was a time when blaspheming Christ would earn one the full wrath of Christendom. Some Muslims are just going to have to get used to that. Things can get better and the key is desensitzation--although admittedly we have a long way to go. Thats the purpose of things like "everybody draw mohammed day" and reprinting the Danish cartoons. There is strength in numbers and it is much more difficult to silence us all. Hopefully some day we will create a society where it is not, as you say "the way it is", that threats of violence follow the publication of extremely benign cartoons.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteHi Griswald, masked man of god. Surely if your god is any good you won't worry too much what anyone else might say about him. I mean, it's kind of your god's problem and I'm sure he's big enough and smelly enough to be able to take care of himself without you having to weigh in on his side.
ReplyDeleteThe Jesus & Mo cartoons are very amusing and I feel promote tolerance of other views through the time honoured method of mocking the more extreme and foolish tendencies of your rather bloodthirsty religions.
I suggest you take the blindfold off and go see if you can't grow a sense of humour. Not a quality we associate with religious exremists as they appear to be happiest when killing and maining anyone who they feel might have offended their god in some way or another.
Dear Stuff:
DeleteFirst, it'd be super if you'd spell my name correctly if you're addressing me. Just super.
Second, as far as I'm concerned, I AM God (see this post: http://grimgriz.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-i-found-religion-through-science.html
for more info).
So, this thing you're defending that promotes tolerance - yet your hear making unfounded inflammatory accusations because of it. Maybe Atheists define 'promoting tolerance' differently than most people...