Fanaticism

Archive for the 'fanaticism' CategoryPage 3 of 3

Ahh, religion…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 24, 2006

in fanaticism, religion and violence

. 1 Comment

From Herald Sun:

Muslim clerics are demanding an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed

and:

Clerics have warned that if the Afghan Government caves into Western pressure and frees him, they will urge people to “pull him into pieces”.

and, of course:

“Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die.”

Apparently, George W. Bush is “angered”. It is a start… but would he be angered if the man, instead of moving from one superstition to another (which happens to be the same as his), had become an atheist? I doubt it. I bet he’d believe, instead, that “the godless heathen had it coming for insulting religion”.

Islam: a religion of peace?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 15, 2006

in fanaticism, religion and violence

. 1 Comment

As I said in the previous post, I have my reasons for speaking more against Christianity than against other religions, as it’s the one I “see” around me. But, in a way, Islam is even worse (and I am grateful that there are very, very few Muslims in my country).

Islam’s apologists say that it’s “a religion of peace”. The Martian has a great post refuting that, so I won’t repeat those arguments here - just read his post.

What I want to add is this: some people say it’s just the “extremists” that commit acts of fanatical violence and terrorism, and that “true” Islam isn’t like that. But… what’s true Islam? It should be what’s in the Koran, right?

If so, here’s what the Koran has to say about violence. And here’s what the Koran says about (in)tolerance.

“Religion of peace”? Maybe in the sense of “we’ll kill anyone who disagrees with us, then we’ll have peace”.

"Anti-Christianity"?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 15, 2006

in fanaticism, mysticism and religion

. 2 Comments

This site’s religion category, currently, has a lot of posts where I condemn Christianity and its doings. Am I anti-Christian? Do I have a bone to pick with Christianity? Is that it?

Not exactly. You’d be slightly more correct if you said I was anti-religion, but that’s still not the entire truth.

What I really am against is irracionality. Religion is just one particular case of that.

Religion, and mysticism (here I use this word in the sense of “any belief in the supernatural” - I am aware that some people use the word for a specific type of beliefs), are irrational - they’re wishful thinking, they’re the (comforting) belief that reality isn’t real, but is changed on a whim. As Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no religion has any evidence supporting, it, other than “it’s written so in some old books” and “a lot of people believe it”. Therefore, to believe in something so extraordinary (it’s no more believable than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny) without evidence is absolutely irrational.

I also say that while a few religious people may have done some good, as a whole, religion has only harmed the world, has only held back the advancement of humanity, and is guilty of more death and suffering than anything else in the world.

Why my focus on Christianity, and not, say, Islam? Personal experience, I guess. Islam is just as bad as Christianity, if not worse (more about that in a future post); it’s just that, living in Western Europe, it’s Christianity that I see around me. And when I study history, again, it’s Christian atrocities that come up. The United States (I don’t live there, but I read a lot of American blogs and news sites) are becoming more and more fundamentalist and irrational (just look at the choice of president) because of Christianity. I was raised a Christian. Is it any wonder that I speak more against Christianity than against other religions?

The "War on Christmas" in America

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on December 21, 2005

in fanaticism, religion and society

. 16 Comments

First, a disclaimer: I’m European (Portuguese, in fact). I read a lot of blogs and sites from the U.S., though.

A current controversy in the U.S. seems to be the so-called “War on Christmas”. In short, it’s like this: Americans tend to be quite fanatical about everything related to religion - including the lack of it -, and are also easily offended. (No, I’m not saying all are like this, but these are certainly the ones who make the most noise.)

So, some time ago, it was “decided” that saying “merry Christmas” is endorsing Christianity - which, of course, means insulting all other religions. After complaints, and since store chains are paranoid about offending anyone, many chains made it a nation-wide policy not to say “merry Christmas”, but something like “happy holidays”, or “season’s greetings”.

Naturally, the other side didn’t like it, and speak of a “War on Christmas” by “ultra-liberal organizations” (what does that mean, anyway?). And polemic ensues - it’s “us against them”, it’s a battle between the “forces of secularism” trying to “destroy Christmas” (and Christianity, in general), and those who “stalwartly defend” it.

Now, thinking rationally for a while… don’t you think that all of that is a bit ridiculous?

In Europe, we don’t tend to be so fanatical. Neither our Christians, nor our atheists, nor those of other religions. “Merry Christmas”, to most people, doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with religion - Christians may celebrate the birth of Jesus, while everyone else has a holiday where the family eats codfish (in Portugal) or turkey or something else, together, then give gifts to each other. Simple as that.

“Merry Christmas” doesn’t offend anyone. Why should it? It’s a holiday, except to Christians.

Or am I oversimplifying things?

Ideals or fanaticism?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 25, 2005

in definitions, fanaticism and ideals

. 0 Comments

Have you ever been called a “fanatic”? (I’m assuming, of course, that you are not one…)

I have. Several times, by different people. They could never justify their affirmation: they just “felt” that I was one, because of some ideal I had (and possibly have), or because I cared a bit about something that nobody cared about.

It wasn’t something I annoyed people with. I’ve never been a “preacher” of any kind. I believe in complete honesty, yet I never went around preaching honesty or attacking people for not being 100% honest 100% of the time. I don’t pirate music, software or movies, yet most people I know do so, and I’ve never bothered them about it. If they ask my opinion, I give it, but no more.

I’ve never attacked, or told people to attack, someone for disagreeing with me. I certainly don’t intend to become a martyr and kill myself in a blaze of glory to prove some point.

But I still am labeled a “fanatic” from time to time. Why?

Continue reading ‘Ideals or fanaticism?’

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 25, 2005

in definitions and fanaticism

. 3 Comments

Another one from my wiki…

Fanaticism, or being a fanatic, can be described as being so sure about something that you refuse to ever think about it again for even a millisecond. That thing is, or becomes, the most important thing in your life, its “driving force”.

Some people confuse fanaticism with merely an intense love or belief. I believe the difference is mostly the above: a fanatic never thinks about it again, his “certainty” encompasses everything. If you love something or someone, or intensely believe in something, but can still think rationally about it, see its faults, its “chips in the armor”, then you are not a fanatic.

A fanatic is not only incapable of admitting he is wrong about something, but also incapable of admitting it is possible for him to be wrong about it.

Not all fanaticism is about religion or beliefs: it doesn’t really depend on the importance of the subject. You can be an absolute fanatic about something unimportant (like a sports club), and you can have a true belief in some philosophy, religion or creed, or intensely love something or someone, without being a fanatic about it.

Being ready to die for a belief doesn’t necessarily make you a fanatic (I believe some things are worth fighting for and even dying for), but if you’re ready to kill for it, then you certainly are one.

It’s absolutely impossible to argue with a fanatic, as he’s incapable of rational thought about it. No matter how many contradictions you reveal in his belief, no matter what proof you show him that he is wrong. If you ever get any near to provoking the slightest doubt, he will violently defend his belief, sometimes becoming murderously violent. His belief is his life; without it it wouldn’t make sense to go on.

Liar, liar, pants on fire…

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 25, 2005

in current events, fanaticism, honesty, pat robertson, religion and violence

. 0 Comments

Pat Robertson now: “Wait a minute, I didn’t say ‘assassination’. I said our special forces could take him out. Take him out could be a number of things, including kidnapping.”

Riiiight…

Pat Robertson a couple of days ago: “If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

Tough luck, Pat. Video recording is a wonderful thing.

Violence, religion and Pat

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 24, 2005

in fanaticism, pat robertson, religion and violence

. 0 Comments

Thinking about the current events with that madman Pat Robertson (see below) made me realize one other thing: that there is a reason why probably nothing will happen to him.

Religious violence, even in this “enlightened” age, is still very much around. You’ve probably heard about attacks on abortion clinics. But religions also fight among themselves - sometimes even among sub-sets (or sub-sects?) of the same religion. Lynchings, bombings and so on are common, and not only in Arab countries or in Ireland.

But… have you ever heard about religion-related violence by non-religious people? (note the “religion-related”). Have you ever heard of a “fanatical atheistic” group bombing churches or kidnapping / killing priests? Or, to put it in another way: it’s common to be a target of violence for having the “wrong” religion at a particular time and place, but it’s not common to be attacked for having a religion, by non-religious people.

Why? Because these same non-religious people tend not to be fanatics. They tend to think that one’s beliefs are his own choice, and not a reason to hurt anyone.

That’s why there probably won’t be any violence against a guy who wants to kill a democratically elected president for religious (and political, of course) reasons. He’s probably safe… because his opponents are a lot better than he is.

Technorati tags: Pat Robertson

Why do we put up with it?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 24, 2005

in current events, fanaticism, pat robertson, religion and violence

. 0 Comments

Maybe you have heard about it.

Pat Robertson, an American ultra-conservative “Christian” televangelist, has just said, in a broadcast, that the U.S. should assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.”, the idiot said. Why? Well, according to him, Chávez is “going to make (Venezuela) a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.”.

Now, I’m not a Christian, but what confuses me is how anyone can believe that such a monster is one. I mean, this is not the age of the Inquisition, Crusades and so on, right? Christians today are supposed to have remembered the Thou shalt not kill Commandment, apparently forgotten in the Middle Ages. How can any Christian not instantly condemn that imbecile when he says “oh, let’s go kill that guy - he annoys us, and it’s cheaper than going to war again”? How can he still have listeners?

Remember that he’s the same guy who said feminism is a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

He’s also the same guy who agreed with another nutcase televangelist that the 9/11 attacks were the fault of “pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU and the People for the American Way.”

And yet I’m sure that little, if anything, will happen to him, or to his very successful (!) TV program.

Technorati tags: Pat Robertson