Monday, July 7, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Degrees of religion

by Kia Abdullah, Guardian

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/07/july7.religion

I believe in God. It seems that this isn't a very popular thing to admit lately what with Dawkins, Hitchens and others repeatedly naming religion as the root of all evil.

Today is the third anniversary of 7/7 and commentators across the nation will no doubt name God equally culpable for the attacks as the four men who carried them out. Journalists, politicians and religious leaders will once again dissect and deconstruct the actions of the bombers in a bid to further understand their motivation.

As a writer who happens to be Muslim, I have publicly denounced the attacks partly to articulate my genuine disgust but mainly to respond to the clamour of voices demanding louder condemnation from moderate Muslims.

This year, I am not finger-pointing, condemning, mediating, or even commenting on 7/7. Instead, I am reflecting on my own belief in Islam and trying to reconcile it with my western values. After all, no British Muslim can truly integrate into western society without this elusive balance.

As a woman whose full name translates into Arabic as "Daughter of the Prophet, Servant of Allah", I should be the picture of piety. My name indicates that I, as a "Servant of Allah", have unwavering faith in Allah; pray five times a day; fast for the entire month of Ramadan; give 2.5% of my wealth to charity; and am planning to go on pilgrimage to Hajj as soon as possible.

The truth is that of those five criteria, I only really fill two. I know I am not alone in my shortcomings. Many British-Muslims struggle to balance western values with eastern roots. This is due not only to political reasons but also personal ones. Many of our habits, actions and characteristics do not tally with the religious ideal. Many of us are walking contradictions. I, for example, do not cover my hair but dress relatively conservatively; I enjoy partying but do not drink alcohol; I talk openly about sex and mix freely with men but have always harboured a hang-up about premarital sex.

One could say I am still searching for that balance but therein lies the problem: can that balance even exist? Surely religion, particularly one like mine, is all encompassing with no room for manoeuvre or flexibility? With Islam dictating every tiny part of a person's life, how can there be room for change? Doesn't any attempt at compromise dilute my faith, leaving me as a hypocrite?

Technically, the answer is yes; adapting my faith to suit my western values does make me a hypocrite but I do the best I can. It sounds lazy and simplistic, even to my ears, but we need to practice tolerance not only towards others but towards ourselves.

Religious partisans have criticised my attitude, questioning why I bother doing things by half, and labelling me as a "part-time Muslim". It is this type of attitude that lends credence to the actions of terrorists who wish to control others. While extolling the virtues of God, some seem to forget that only He is a position to judge. After all, as the old adage states, only those without sin may cast the first stone.

Yes, religion is inherently a way of life but I believe it can exist in degrees. I know that picking and choosing which parts we adhere to goes against the fundamentals of faith but I truly, honestly believe that as long as a person is doing their best, they are doing enough. Some will say that's a cop-out but religion isn't a vehicle for gathering kudos from dogmatic worshippers; it is there as a personal bond between a human being and God. As long as a person's actions do not harm anyone and stay within the range of their moral barometer, I think they deserve respect.

It may not be a highly insightful or revolutionary philosophy but if a few more of us believed it, there would be far less pain, conflict and terror not only in the city of London but all throughout the western world.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, July 7, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 80 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #205929 by Ascaphus on July 7, 2008 at 11:53 pm

...I truly, honestly believe that as long as a person is doing their best, they are doing enough...

So why do we need religion?

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

2. Comment #205932 by YesSir on July 8, 2008 at 12:02 am

I think there are a lot of "believers" who think like this - at least this woman is open about it.

Other Comments by YesSir

3. Comment #205934 by acs on July 8, 2008 at 12:11 am

Cultural theists are ok - but easily converted to fundies when under pressure.

Other Comments by acs

4. Comment #205935 by Logicel on July 8, 2008 at 12:12 am

She wants to believe in the god of her ancestors (hence the need for religion for her, she believes in belief) and she wants to fit in a modern society at the same time.

Instead of merely criticizing harshly the muslim extremists she is doing something much more canny, she is declawing them and reducing their fangs into a mushy mass of toothless gums, by stating that religion is only meaningful and workable if she can shape it in a form that speaks to her.

This is how a religion becomes moderated from the ground up.

Other Comments by Logicel

5. Comment #205939 by kraut on July 8, 2008 at 12:19 am

"Yes, religion is inherently a way of life but I believe it can exist in degrees."

The best degree is 0.

Other Comments by kraut

6. Comment #205942 by alovrin on July 8, 2008 at 12:30 am

Dawkins, Hitchens and others repeatedly naming religion as the root of all evil.

She left off the question mark.

I must disagree with her as to what is going on at present.
This is really the first time in human history(I think) that the privilege accorded to religions has been openly questioned/criticised and on a large scale, and is striking a chord in the minds of many people, who previously would have keep quiet.
She can continue her minor self flagellation about her failings in living up to a religious ideal, if she wants, strangely it doesnt arouse much sympathy in me.

Other Comments by alovrin

7. Comment #205957 by notsobad on July 8, 2008 at 1:18 am

A straw man in the first sentence already ... not surprising.
The author mentions god, but talks about religion. She doesn't offer any evidence for the first, nor any evidence that the latter is valuable and necessary.

Other Comments by notsobad

8. Comment #205958 by AdrianB on July 8, 2008 at 1:22 am

Yes, religion is inherently a way of life but I believe it can exist in degrees. I know that picking and choosing which parts we adhere to goes against the fundamentals of faith but I truly, honestly believe that as long as a person is doing their best, they are doing enough. Some will say that's a cop-out but religion isn't a vehicle for gathering kudos from dogmatic worshippers; it is there as a personal bond between a human being and God. As long as a person's actions do not harm anyone and stay within the range of their moral barometer, I think they deserve respect.

We might not agree with her beliefs, but she does deserve respect.

If everybody that believed in god was as wishy washy as Kia, I doubt The God Delusion would have been written.

Keep picking and choosing Kia, that's what I did. Keep picking and choosing until there's nothing left to pick.

.

Other Comments by AdrianB

9. Comment #205960 by 8teist on July 8, 2008 at 1:28 am

"I talk openly about sex and mix freely with men "

I think she should hope that no male members of her family read this and decide that she needs to be killed to uphold their honor .

Women in islam have been murdered for less.

Other Comments by 8teist

10. Comment #205970 by phatbat on July 8, 2008 at 1:43 am

Makes you wonder what the point is really. Still it would be good if all muslims did things like this.

Other Comments by phatbat

11. Comment #205974 by mordacious1 on July 8, 2008 at 1:51 am

Is this the 2008 Kia Abdullah? The 2007 got shitty mpg's.

Other Comments by mordacious1

12. Comment #205975 by gcdavis on July 8, 2008 at 1:52 am

Religion, and especially islam, often exerts such a strong cultural hold over people that even a more sophisticated person as the writer appears to be cannot see their life without it. I guess when you start to pick and choose you have loosened the reigns a bit but persuading people to give up the habit altogether is a big challenge for us atheists.

Reason is a pretty lightweight weapon to use against centuries of cultural indoctrination, the maxim that you cannot reason someone out of position that they did not reason themselves into, still hold good.

With the exception of the immigrant population, here in the UK the young show little interest in Religion. So maybe this is our best hope, that faith based religion will eventually die out because it is so uncool and youthful hedonism doesn't leave much time for it.

That doesn't mean that superstition will die with it, as you often hear people say "it was meant to be" or see them "touch wood", but at least they are not buying into the religious rule book.

http://www.whengodsonyourside.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by gcdavis

13. Comment #205994 by LaTomate on July 8, 2008 at 2:34 am

I thought the article was ok all round, except for the last phrase:

It may not be a highly insightful or revolutionary philosophy but if a few more of us believed it, there would be far less pain, conflict and terror not only in the city of London but all throughout the western world.

Sounds like a threat (as usual). As usual what they want is respect (no criticism). No books, no drawings, just act like nothing's happening when they painfully circumcise their women (which are also our sisters, since they are British), insult our homosexual brothers and sisters, fight for the ruin of our values and our education system, force our sisters to wear tents, etc...

I have no problem with the author, who seems like a decent person (my parents who are Muslims are decent people too).

I have no intent on "insulting" her personally by any means. But people like her ought to stop acting as a shield for those who deserve criticism and insult, and join us in fighting them.

In most countries in the Muslim World she would not have the right to write whatever went through her mind (and I know, I spent 17 years there), and many of those extremists wish it were the same here - and here she is supporting their claims.

With or without the support of those like her, free speech is one of the rights our forebears have fought and died for and we should not give it up just because some people feel "insulted". If their belief is incapable of taking criticism and requires a judicial prop to survive then it is weak and insignificant.

Other Comments by LaTomate

14. Comment #205998 by King of NH on July 8, 2008 at 2:40 am

This type of wishy-wash is almost worse than outright fundamentalism. Kia should read The God Delusion and Varieties of Scientific Experience. Then she might see how a willful and purposeful ignorance is an evil unto itself, perhaps the greatest threat to human civilization. Where action is needed, she will pray. Where education is needed, she will pray. Where support is needed, she will pray. I pity her, but I despise her worldview.

Other Comments by King of NH

15. Comment #206013 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 3:05 am

I agree with Adrian; keep picking at the seams and the whole thing may eventually unravel. I experienced something similar when I lost my faith.

What I find frustrating about this article is the lack of intellectual integrity. The author seems to know perfectly well that her faith is untenable, that she is leading a double life and is guilty of self-confessed hypocrisy. Yet she insists that she must tolerate this in herself and in others, indeed she prescribes this as some sort of panacea for the world's problems. It annoys me to think of the number of well-meaning but deeply confused Guardian readers who will seize upon this article to find solace for their own cognitive dissonance.

Is it really so difficult to be honest with oneself; to cease swallowing camels whilst straining out gnats; to lift the bull's tail and look the facts in the face?

Apparently it is but I'm at a loss to understand why this is so. I experienced my own loss of faith as briefly painful, but ultimately it was profoundly liberating; no more circles to square, no more unanswerable questions, no more absurd guilt about having sexual desires, no more intellectual acrobatics in order to reconcile unsupportable beliefs with scientific fact.

Kia Abdullah, come on in, the water's fine!

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

16. Comment #206015 by nalfeshnee on July 8, 2008 at 3:06 am

As a writer who happens to be Muslim, I have publicly denounced the attacks partly to articulate my genuine disgust but mainly to respond to the clamour of voices demanding louder condemnation from moderate Muslims.

Nice to see where this "moderate"'s priorities lie.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

17. Comment #206028 by irate_atheist on July 8, 2008 at 3:23 am

I can no longer be bothered to respond 'properly' to articles like this. They, and the authors that write them, are a waste of space.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

18. Comment #206031 by Damien Trotter on July 8, 2008 at 3:26 am

"(I) fast for the entire month of Ramadan..."

Nope, she only 'fasts' during the daylight hours of Ramadan. A quite pathetic badge of honour to be parading around.

DT

Other Comments by Damien Trotter

19. Comment #206036 by serendipity1 on July 8, 2008 at 3:33 am

I'm still not quite sure what the core point of this article is? It would appear simply to be a "why can't we all just get along and respect each others beliefs" type appeal.

The point, however, is that we evidently cannot all just get along. Nor can you expect your beliefs to be respected solely on the basis that they are YOUR beliefs. Whether you like it or not, publicly professed beliefs will be subjected to scrutiny and will be thus accepted or criticised. You are, of course, quite entitled to continue to profess your belief in the face of contrary evidence or criticism, however, you are not automatically entitled to anyone's respect for those beliefs.

I could claim to believe that I am actually a large tub of chocolate sauce, however, I could not claim an entitlement to your respect for this belief simply because I hold it. Upon due consideration of the evidence for my belief, you would quite likely think yourself justified in considering me to be mentally disturbed and you would likely adjust the nature of your interaction with me accordingly. Similarly, upon due consideration of the evidence for your Islamic beliefs (albeit apparently moderate in nature), I think I have some justification for considering you to be ................ well, maybe we should all just try to get along ...........

Other Comments by serendipity1

20. Comment #206038 by alfonso on July 8, 2008 at 3:34 am

She says:

My name indicates that I, as a "Servant of Allah", have unwavering faith in Allah.

Not true. Servant of Allah means she is a slave to an imaginary being. And because she has faith, she will always be a slave, thus a servant. Not the other way around.

Other Comments by alfonso

21. Comment #206040 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 3:37 am

Damien Trotter wrote:

Nope, she only 'fasts' during the daylight hours of Ramadan. A quite pathetic badge of honour to be parading around.

Yeah, well, don't denigrate it until you've actually done (or attempted) it! It's not very easy, especially the "no liquids" bit! ;-)

I have to say I kind of identify with the author; I might have written something similar not so long ago.

mixmastergaz wrote:

What I find frustrating about this article is the lack of intellectual integrity. The author seems to know perfectly well that her faith is untenable, that she is leading a double life and is guilty of self-confessed hypocrisy. Yet she insists that she must tolerate this in herself and in others, indeed she prescribes this as some sort of panacea for the world's problems.

A better description of my state of mind at the time could not have been written, with special emphasis on the bolded part!

Still, I wouldn't be too hard on her. Giving up one's faith can be a very difficult and scary thing, especially in an Islamic context.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

22. Comment #206046 by Damien Trotter on July 8, 2008 at 3:46 am

Re: Layla Nasreddin, post 206040...

Before I became diabetic, one meal a day - at night - was my modus operandi for years. It's easy.

DT

Other Comments by Damien Trotter

23. Comment #206056 by Peacebeuponme on July 8, 2008 at 4:03 am

I believe in God. It seems that this isn't a very popular thing to admit lately what with Dawkins, Hitchens and others repeatedly naming religion as the root of all evil.

The very first sentence is tripe!

Actually it seems to be more popular that ever to state ones religious convictions. Just take a look at the number of flea books.

And Dawkins and Hitchens have never even once said that religion is the root of all evil.

More arse from the Guardian. I'm really not a fan of that organ.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

24. Comment #206058 by Apathy personified on July 8, 2008 at 4:05 am

I believe in God. It seems that this isn't a very popular thing to admit lately

Ah yes, religion is the victim, let me break open my songbook and find the worlds saddest song.

She would be a lot happier if she just admitted to herself what she already knows - there is no god - ah well, maybe in the future she will.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

25. Comment #206061 by Peacebeuponme on July 8, 2008 at 4:08 am

Stop calling yourself a muslim then, love. Its that easy.

We can deal with your "personal bond" with God later, and on better terms.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

26. Comment #206064 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 4:17 am

Layla: Of course you're quite right, giving up one's faith in an Islamic context is categorically different from my own abandonment of Christianity, and much harder, so I concede I may have spoken too harshly. But the frustration I feel about those who seem to be aware of their own hypocrisy is real. I suppose this serves to underline the point that reason is only useful up to a point in this context. If the professed beliefs were not arrived at through reason then reason will not suffice to overturn them. I find this frustrating because it's difficult to see a way forward from this point.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

27. Comment #206067 by Peacebeuponme on July 8, 2008 at 4:24 am

Apathy Personified

Ah yes, religion is the victim, let me break open my songbook and find the world's saddest song.

Can I accompany you with the world's smallest violin?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

28. Comment #206068 by Opisthokont on July 8, 2008 at 4:27 am

This is the sort of thing that I wish we would hear more of from Western Muslims, but I would rather it be without the copious apologies. This article almost makes it seem like its author feels guilty for not being more militant (in the proper sense of the term). Secularist Muslims should be proud of their stance, not ashamed of it! That cannot help but be far more effective overall than to try to apologise one's way into civilisation.

Other Comments by Opisthokont

29. Comment #206081 by bucketchemist on July 8, 2008 at 4:48 am

I really don't understand why the test of the validity of any statement is the 'belief' of the person making that statement. I really don't care what people believe, in fact, most of the time, I'd rather not know. And I'm certainly not about to inflict the beliefs that I have on anyone else outside of very specific contexts. Isn't a belief just some particular neural state? I would hate to think that the neural state of any individual, or groups of individuals, was the ground on which judgements about reality, or morality, was made. I am reminded of something Philip K. Dick said, something to the effect that 'reality is the stuff that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it'. The whole point of secular society, it seems to me, is that its laws and ordinances are based solely on the stuff that doesn't go away. Believe anything you like, my respect for you is as a fellow human being, active in the world of other humans, not as the possessor or this or that neuronal firing pattern.

Other Comments by bucketchemist

30. Comment #206094 by Apathy personified on July 8, 2008 at 5:09 am

Peace

Can I accompany you with the world's smallest violin?

Of course, but you have to dress as if you are going to a funeral and set your face to 'sad'. :) [or should that be :(]

Other Comments by Apathy personified

31. Comment #206099 by Stublore on July 8, 2008 at 5:17 am

And therein lies the problem, the "moral barometer" of the truly faithful, esp in islam is not what I would consider moral. Discriminating against women, kaffirs, marrying 9 yr old girls, etc is in no way deserving of respect.

Other Comments by Stublore

32. Comment #206102 by alexhouse on July 8, 2008 at 5:28 am

bucketchemist - do you believe in Human Rights? Do you believe that the golden rule is a good one to follow? They are undoubtedly cultural creations. They too will go away if we stop believing in them. Secular humanists have beliefs too - you better be prepared to defend them.

Other Comments by alexhouse

33. Comment #206109 by epeeist on July 8, 2008 at 5:34 am

Comment #206102 by alexhouse

Do you believe that the golden rule is a good one to follow? They are undoubtedly cultural creations. They too will go away if we stop believing in them.

You are sure that the Golden Rule is a cultural creation? What do you then say to altruism in animals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

Other Comments by epeeist

34. Comment #206111 by serendipity1 on July 8, 2008 at 5:38 am

Touché (sorry epeeist, couldn't resist ....)

Other Comments by serendipity1

35. Comment #206118 by alexhouse on July 8, 2008 at 5:48 am

epeeist - extension of it to the whole of the human race - and beyond - is definitely a cultural creation.

Nobody seriously doubts that altruism can be shown to be an evolutionary advantage these days - the point is what do we do with it.

I believe in universal Human Rights - and even Animal Rights. There are certainly an awful lot of people who don't. QED.

Other Comments by alexhouse

36. Comment #206122 by Stella on July 8, 2008 at 5:54 am

If this article had been written by a Christian, the Guardian would never have published it. It is pretty void of content, not well written, and, as far as I can see, was published only because of the British press's ceaseless hand-waving and finger-pointing at so-called "moderate Muslims". Look, here's one!

Phooey indeed.

Other Comments by Stella

37. Comment #206126 by TIKI AL on July 8, 2008 at 6:02 am

Should a masochist follow the golden rule?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

38. Comment #206148 by Johan on July 8, 2008 at 6:18 am

Layla wrote;

"Still, I wouldn't be too hard on her. Giving up one's faith can be a very difficult and scary thing, especially in an Islamic context."

I'm sure coming out is hard. But it will be easier the stronger and less compromising
the non-religious community is. Having a politically correct kind of "love all" attitude will only be a disservice to the people who really want to turn their backs on their religious baggage.

Other Comments by Johan

39. Comment #206177 by v4ri4bl3 on July 8, 2008 at 6:41 am

I hope, as I have not yet read all the other comments, that I am not parroting someone else's opinion. With that in mind, I would like to point out that this article is very useful to all of us who hope that the global Islamic threat will be eliminated. Granted, she isn't exactly asking for her fellow "moderates" to rally in protest against those imams and clerics who enabled the July 7 attacks, which she should be, but she is putting her life in danger in an attempt to justify moderation. What more has anyone else done?

It is great that we have brave allies like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but she isn't taken seriously by Muslims anyway. They will just write her off as an apostate, look for someone to murder her, and go on about their business. This woman, on the other hand, actually claims to be a Muslim. This hurts those individuals who are trying to unify Muslims against Western society. And anything that upsets the mullahs, is probably worth savoring.

Other Comments by v4ri4bl3

40. Comment #206187 by alexhouse on July 8, 2008 at 6:50 am

Actually - I agree with Kia most of the time. I have a perfectly nice life thankyou very much, I just wish all these weirdos would stop rocking the boat. If we could all just get along fine, the world would truly be a wonderful place.

I might even buy into the intellectual dishonesty required to ignore the idiocy of organised religion if you could gaurantee it.

Unfortunately those weirdos do keep rocking the boat. In the context of her religion, those weirdos can claim they have the moral high ground. That can't be right. And then there are the inequities and moral depravities propogated in the name of religion that don't impact us directly....

I hope Kia's approach remains tenable for the forseeable future - because if it does, it will probably mean that somebody has managed to defend her right to be a harmless fool. Long may it continue.

Other Comments by alexhouse

41. Comment #206209 by Peacebeuponme on July 8, 2008 at 7:10 am

TIKI AL

Should a masochist follow the golden rule?

I don't see this as a defeater of the golden rule. The rule is about treating others in a manner they would like to be treated: just like how you would like someone else to treat you.

You may love peanuts. This does not mean you should offer peanut butter sandwiches to those with a nut allergy.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

42. Comment #206213 by Peacebeuponme on July 8, 2008 at 7:13 am

alexhouse

I hope Kia's approach remains tenable for the forseeable future - because if it does, it will probably mean that somebody has managed to defend her right to be a harmless fool. Long may it continue.

There is one thing terribly wrong with Kia's approach: she calls herself a muslim. She then adds her name to the countless others giving justification to the edits of hateful, misogynistic imams and protesters who wish to curtail our freedoms.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

43. Comment #206214 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 7:14 am

Before I became diabetic, one meal a day - at night - was my modus operandi for years. It's easy.

Well, it's easy once you're used to it (which would take me a few days). Doing without food all day wasn't THAT hard. But what really made it difficult for me was the "no liquids" -- in a desert, with 95-degree temperatures (fortunately, Ramadan is only now starting to shift over to summertime...). Yikes!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

44. Comment #206219 by Diacanu on July 8, 2008 at 7:18 am

Religious victimhood having you break out the songbooks and violins?

Try Shmegalamonga!!

http://dickynoo.blogspot.com/

You'll still be blubbering for Jesus/Allah, but your adorable little tears will come in several lovely fruit flavors!

Other Comments by Diacanu

45. Comment #206247 by Raiko on July 8, 2008 at 7:38 am

Why not take the miniture leap and be a good person without thinking someone will end up judging you for it?

It would give you the special extra of not feeling guilty for refusing to act like a lunatic.

Other Comments by Raiko

46. Comment #206248 by padster1976 on July 8, 2008 at 7:38 am

Well I read that and thought 'that's 5 minutes i won't get back'.

What was the point of that?

Apologist 'look! i'm not a terrorist see' moan about a 'conflict' with our values. Er, sorry, but then either adopt or find a place that doesn't have 'conflict'. Why put yourself through that type of anguish on the grounds of man's religion? I just don't get it.

How far removed from the issue of islamic fundamentalist can you get? A female (not highly seen in muslim society) for starters who states herself she covers only 2 of the 5 parts to be a muslim.

Why keep the last 2? Which 2 were they anyway?

Its the guys who hate us for not being them and find it ok to kill us for it. The minority I'm sure but this type of article does not address the issues.

We should humiliate them publicly for their views along with every other fundamentalist, or 'traditionalist', there is. Especially the ones that issue dickhead statements about floods being punishment for our tolerance.

I mean, if that isn't religious hate speech, what is?

Other Comments by padster1976

47. Comment #206256 by justaperson on July 8, 2008 at 7:45 am

The author writes: "While extolling the virtues of God, some seem to forget that only He is a position to judge."

The problem with following any holy book, which after all is the instruction manual for its religion, is that the supreme being has provided such a garbled message that its interpretation is solely in the mind of the reader and enforceable only by mortals having sufficient power to do so. In such a situation, how is it possible for that Being to judge one "fairly" for his beliefs?

As Bertrand Russell and others have said, "If there IS a god, he's got a lot of explaining to do."

Other Comments by justaperson

48. Comment #206261 by Steven Mading on July 8, 2008 at 7:52 am

She at least deserves a lot of respect for the fact that she phrased what she is doing honestly as cherry-picking, and admitted that doing this is not technically allowed by her religion, but she thinks it's okay to do it anyway. Most religious moderates do not admit that they are doing this. I firmly believe that the failure to admit that they are doing this (and have been for centuries now) is the primary reason so many people falsely attribute everything good about humanity to religion.

Getting the religious to tell the truth about the cherry-picking they do is the first step toward convincing them to drop religion. As long as they refuse to admit to the cherry-picking, and instead use the Obi-Won Kenobi dodge (*), they will continue believing the topsy-turvy notion that their blasphemous beliefs are actually part of the religion. This blinds them to the fact that blasphemy is actually a good thing.

(*) - The Obi-Won Kenobi dodge: When something spoken in a literal objective context is false, you try to salvage it by pretending after-the-fact that it was actually meant in the loosest, most flowery subjective poetic type of way possible with plenty of wiggle-room, even though it clearly was not presented that way originally. I coined this term after the scene from Star Wars where Luke confronts Obi-Won about how he lied and said Vader killed his father when Vader actually was his father. Obi-Won tries to claim that it was spoken in a flowery way (it wasn't) and that it was true "from a certain point of view". This sort of dishonest dodge I now refer to as "the Obi-Won dodge".

Other Comments by Steven Mading

49. Comment #206265 by Corona Dave on July 8, 2008 at 7:57 am

>Yeah, well, don't denigrate it until you've actually done (or attempted) it! It's not very easy, especially the "no liquids" bit! ;-)

What has easy got to do with it? It's a retarded thing to do, full stop.

I hear that Seppuku is difficult too, doesn't mean I have to respect people for trying it, or that I need personal experience before I criticise those who do it.

>But what really made it difficult for me was the "no liquids" -- in a desert, with 95-degree temperatures (fortunately, Ramadan is only now starting to shift over to summertime...).

Changing to summertime to make it easier!? If that doesn't show how absurd and meaningless the whole thing is...

You're an idiot for doing it and ought to be ashamed of yourself. However, it's far more likely you'll rationalise your self-harm into some meaningful experience. Even cutting yourself has the 'benefit' of releasing endorphins so self-harm is easily rationalised, but it doesn't mean we should respect those actions by people.

Other Comments by Corona Dave

50. Comment #206277 by Corona Dave on July 8, 2008 at 8:08 am

A great Hitchens clip where he argues the case against 'moderate religion':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DKfJfKb5y0

Other Comments by Corona Dave

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last