Censorship | Way of the Mind

Archive for the 'censorship' Category

Self-censorship, and the fear of offending

Published

on January 9, 2007

in atheism, censorship, religion and way of the mind (site)

. 12 Comments

Note: this one is big (note the “Continue reading…” link, if you’re on the blog’s front page), and is kind of a rant. It will also, probably, make some of you leave this blog for good, though that’s not my goal.

Since August 2006, this blog has been mostly about atheism and what’s wrong with religion. I’ve been criticized for that, and lost some of my previous regular readers, though I also gained some new ones. But it’s what I’ve wanted to write about… I’m still allowed to do that, right?

And, yet, every time a post of mine, criticizing religious belief, is more popular than usual, I get the same kinds of criticism - sometimes, “trolling” would even be a better word. Many commenters don’t even read what I write; they simply think “atheist… enemy!”. You can see, for instance, that most of the replies on my 16 Common Myths about Atheists post weren’t about the myths themselves, or about whether they existed or not, or about whether atheists were like that or not. No, most were about whether God existed or not (and almost everyone said he did, of course). And a lot of replies called me - and atheists in general - “arrogant” - again, not because of what I wrote, but simply because I, like other atheists, have the nerve to say that there is almost certainly no god, and that millions of believers are, therefore, wrong. Because, again, it’s not arrogant to believe without evidence, but it is arrogant to disbelieve due to that lack of evidence, apparently…

It is not in my nature to deliberately offend. It is, however, in my nature to be as honest as I can, and to say what I believe to be true. And, yet, with so many accusations such as the ones I’ve read in several months of comments, I have found that I have been more “careful not to offend” than, I, perhaps, should have been. Because people who get offended when I say that they have no real evidence for the existence of God, and, therefore, are guilty of wishful thinking, are usually the same ones who say that atheists are pure monsters living on earth, putting their “faith” in science, being too “arrogant” to believe in God, and disbelieve (or say they do) simply because they don’t want any rules of morality above them.

That, dear readers, is a much greater insult than saying “you are wrong”. Even than saying “you are deluded”, or “you are refusing to think”. And yet, it is I who have been, perhaps, saying less than I should, who have been censoring myself.

Continue reading ‘Self-censorship, and the fear of offending’

Christianity isn’t special

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on December 22, 2006

in censorship and religion

. 14 Comments

Something which has been bugging me for a while, that I noticed in several conversations and comments (for instance, these ones by Jay Bird, and others not on this blog) is this: Christians, especially the more fundamentalist ones, believe that Christianity is special.

And I don’t mean “special” just in the sense of “well, it’s true, and the others aren’t”. I mean “special” as in being different, original. Something new. Christians believe that Christianity is unlike every other religion before and after, that its miracles were never seen before, that its teachings are original, and so on.

They aren’t.

Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and takes its Old Testament from it. It replaces the Judaic concept of Messiah (or “anointed one” - “Christós”, in Greek) with that of a “savior”, and no longer believes in the concept of “chosen people” that was so integral to Judaism.

Modern Christianity, though most Christians don’t realize it, does not come from Jesus, but from Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul. While managing to repudiate most of Judaism, except the parts that fit with his own beliefs, he was also able to “make” Jesus divine, without ever mentioning anything Jesus did or said. And what were his beliefs? From Wikipedia’s Mithraism article:

“The resemblances between the two hostile churches were so striking as to impress even the minds of antiquity” (Cumont, 193). Like Origen (an early Christian writer and in this respect a peculiarity among the other patristic writers), Mithraism held that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions with God, and inhabited a body upon birth. Similar to Pythagorean, Jewish, and Pauline theology, life then becomes the great struggle between good and evil, spirit and body, ending in judgment, with the elect being saved. “They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones. . .and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth” (Cumont 191).

Both religions used the rite of baptism, and each participated in an outwardly similar type of sacrament, bread and wine. Both Mithra and Christ were supposedly visited by shepherds and Magi. It has been claimed that both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, though for different reasons, although the evidence that Mithradists practiced weekly worship, any more than any other pagan religion of the time, is lacking. Many have noted that the title of Pope (father) is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have significance in Mithraism.

Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were similar (though Mithraism was more dualistic), including a great and final battle at the end of times. Mithraism’s flood at the beginning of history was deemed necessary because what began in water would end in fire, according to Mithraic eschatology. Both religions believed in revelation as key to their doctrine. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead.

Nice, isn’t it? But there’s more.

Most Christian holidays were “stolen” from pagan religions. December 25th, for instance, was the day of the celebration of Sol Invictus in Rome. Early Roman Christianity, in fact, has a lot to do with the cult of Sol Invictus, and virtually nothing to do with a guy called Jesus who lived about 300 years ago on a distant part of the Empire.

(Incidentally, the holy day was moved, at that time, from Saturday (the Sabbath) to Sunday. SUN-day. Sound familiar?)

The Catholic worship of the Virgin Mary was little more than a way to absorb the pagan cult of the Goddess into Christianity. Of course, I don’t think many Catholics realize it these days.

Before Jesus, mythical characters like Dionysus, Romulus or (again) Mithras had similar stories: born of a virgin impregnated by a god, turned water into wine, healed the sick, died and resurrected after 3 days, and so on. Early Christian storytellers, it seems, were unable even to invent new plots.

One could say that Jesus’ teachings are original. It has been argued, however, that some depictions of him as meek (”turn the other cheek”, “render unto Ceasar”, and so on) were introduced there to please a mostly Roman world; if you suffer, remain meek and obey your rulers, and wait for something better after you die. Besides, some parts of the NT contradict that depiction (e.g. Luke 22:36, where Jesus tells his followers to buy a sword).

If Christianity has one thing different from all other current religions, it’s its popularity. Of course, that same popularity has caused an interesting effect: from time to time, someone decides that the Christianity around him isn’t real Christianity, and that he will recreate “the real thing”. This has happened for about 2000 years, and so there are probably thousands or surviving variants (I’m not even counting the ones that didn’t survive) of Christianity around. Some just diverge on minor points, others are so different that the only thing they have in common is that some guy called “Jesus” was pretty important to them (and even that particular point isn’t strictly required). Therefore, if we were to be precise, there’s not such a thing as “Christianity”; it’s a type of religions, not a religion.

Anyway, my point is: Christianity isn’t special at all. There’s nothing in it that hasn’t been seen before, and people in Western countries (even many non-Christians) only think of it as “special” because of their lack of knowledge.

Anti-Religion "bias"?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on October 20, 2006

in atheism, censorship, christianity, religion and way of the mind (site)

. 62 Comments

This blog has, recently, been described as having an ”anti-religion bias”.

While I disagree that “bias” is the correct term, I feel I must address this.

The dictionary definition of “bias” is: “a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.”

Is that the case here? I think not.

Yes, I’m an atheist. And not just because I felt like it, or because I wanted to “rebel”, or anything like that. I’m an atheist because I thought about it. Both atheism and religion are subjects that interest me, so it’s natural that I write a lot about them. Some commenters have, indeed, complained that this site has turned into “all atheism, all the time”. I’ve tried to write some posts about other subjects, but I can’t be condemned for writing, most of the time, about what I currently want to write about.

About the “bias” thing, let’s consider a different situation. Instead of being a Portuguese blogger in 2006, imagine I was an American writer for a newspaper, in 1800. Slavery, then, was still considered accepted and “normal”. I, however, was repulsed by it, and while the newspaper I wrote for wasn’t about slavery, most of my articles were. It was a subject that concerned me, and I wrote about how wrong it was, often. I denounced several particular situations I observed, argued about why slavery was wrong, and refuted pro-slavery arguments.

It’s quite likely, in that situation, that I, as a writer, would be accused of an “anti-slavery bias“. But how is such a “bias” different from having an opinion, a strong, considered one, and sticking to it? Should I be writing some pro-slavery articles as well, to maintain the “balance”? I don’t think so. Slavery was wrong, even if society didn’t see it; slaves are as human as myself or anyone else, and have the same capacity for both suffering and joy. Treating them as cattle, as property, as pieces of equipment is wrong - and I’d say it, even if it annoyed people. After all, anyone who though slavery was a good thing could always just read another newspaper.

I think the situation here, concerning religion, is similar. And, yes, I hope that some day religion will go the way of slavery, though I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime.

Am I “biased”? No. I simply have a strong opinion about the matter, and my writing reflects it. I won’t do any kind of self-censorship. If my anti-religion posts annoy you, you can always stop reading and move on to the next post as soon as you see the “atheism“, “religion” or “christianity” categories.

Because I won’t stop speaking my mind. Sorry.

Lieberman lost. Good.

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 9, 2006

in censorship, politics and principles

. 1 Comment

I’m not American, so why do I care?

Because America influences the rest of the world, like it or not. And Lieberman’s loss may finally mean that things are changing for the better over there.

Funnily enough, I’ve long disagreed with Lieberman, before the Iraq war, before even the Bush administration. Because I remember: Joe Lieberman is an advocate of censorship.

He’s the kind of sleazy politician who promotes censorship and other controls of media like video games, without really knowing anything about them, just to show soccer moms and conservatives how much “a guardian of moral values” he is. In other words, he despises the first amendment, individual choice, and freedom.

People, censorship is wrong. Always. And in this particular case it’s even worse, because it’s not censorship based on something that is actually there, but on a lie repeated so often that people accept it as true without even checking. The lie that “there are video games where you are rewarded for raping and beating up women”. I’m a gamer, and I tell you, there is no such thing in mainstream video games, no matter what Lieberman, or Hillary Clinton, or one of the most disgusting creeps in the world, say.

Video games are just like comic books in the 50s, or rock music in the 60s: they’re unknown to older, scared people, and dishonest politicians take advantage of that, promoting such entertainment as “deviant” and “dangerous”, and attempting to appear as guardians of morality. And people keep falling for it.

But Joe Lieberman is even worse. Let’s take one of his more recent comments, about the war in Iraq:

“In matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”

(source)

Excuse me?!? Isn’t that the same as saying “if we’re at war, the president is our supreme leader and cannot be questioned”? What kind of absurdity is that? Isn’t he, in effect, saying that any president can start a war, and is then allowed to do whatever he wants, that he actually becomes above the law? Clever, then: start a generic “war on terror”, without a defined end.

And that man had the nerve to call himself a “democrat”. Last time I looked, “democracy” didn’t exactly go for supreme leaders…

Good thing he lost. I hope he loses again, when he runs as an independent.

Google and China

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 26, 2006

in censorship and freedom

. 4 Comments

I saw the following in a Slashdot post, and couldn’t resist posting it here:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen+square (”International” Google)
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen+square (Google China)

See for yourselves…

I actually don’t blame Google for this. It was either accept the government censorship, or not do business in China at all. And would the Chinese gain anything by that? It’s not as if what they already have there is uncensored…

Some people on Slashdot said that Google should have taken a stand and not be in China at all, that the Chinese would become more aware of the censorship because the world’s no. 1 search engine wasn’t available. The thing is, Google is not number one in China. Its market share, there, is quite low - about 25%, from what I’ve read. It simply wouldn’t have worked.

And no censorship is perfect. It’s still possible that Google will make it possible for some Chinese to become more aware of the truth about their regime, and of what the rest of the world is like.