Posts Tagged ‘fanaticism’

Nine Eleven

Monday, September 11th, 2006

Five years ago today, something terrible happened. Without warning, thousands of innocents were killed by a terrorist attack, which changed the world… for the worse.

Even though I’m not American, I remember feeling shocked and horrified that day. Things like that simply didn’t happen in a civilized world… or did they? And all those deaths. It was something dreadful, and anyone who says that America “deserved it” – whether it’s other terrorists, fundamentalist Muslim leaders, or Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson – is a moronic, disgusting human being.

Yet, to a group of people, it was the best thing that could have happened.

What’s changed since 2001?

People remain paranoid about terrorist attacks. People believe that terrorists may strike at any moment – much like the climate of nuclear fear in the 1950s.

America is more nationalist than ever, up to a “my country, right or wrong” point; anyone who says the United States may have acted wrongly is a “pinko commie liberal traitor”, or something like that.

The world economy is worse than it was in many decades. In the 90s everything grew, in the 2000s everything shrank. Things are still so bad that many people believe that employers do employees a favor by employing them, instead of it being a fair trade which benefits both sides, as any employment should be.

America is more religious and fundamentalist than ever. Many attempts against science have been made by religious groups, for religious purposes. Stem cell research and abortions are fundamentally “evil”, but a brain dead woman must be kept alive at all costs. Separation between church and state is increasingly becoming a myth, and the Constitution is constantly spat on by lying politicians who insist that “America was founded on Christian principles”. And no, it wasn’t.

By assuming a state of “perpetual war” against a concept such as “terror”, instead of a tangible enemy, a war which has already lasted longer than the US’s involvement in WWII, the government has successfully obtained “carte blanche” to do just about anything it wants. After all, in times of war, it’s “traitorous” and “unpatriotic” to criticize the government or the president. They say so, and people believe it. The president actually becomes above the law. Gee, why not be at war at all times, then? Which, of course, is exactly the case today.

The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. Illegal wiretapping. Arrests and imprisonment without trial. Secret prisons. Torture. Need I go on about the huge loss of freedom? And yet they say they’re fighting for it…

A couple of wars have been started, and at least one of them was based on lies, greed for oil, and the “be in a permanent state of war” absolute power that I mentioned above. A lot of people were fooled by those lies, and whoever wasn’t was, again, branded “a traitor” and “unpatriotic”. Or “a liberal”, or “an appeaser”, or…

Before, he was an unpopular president who had “won” an election in uncertain terms, and had his “victory” handed out to him by a court. But George W. Bush, in a couple of hours, became a “hero” and a “savior”, the “defender of the land of the free”. And won the next election, which would never have happened if Americans were judging him for the state of the economy, the conditions of living, and so on. Hmm, I bet he was really sad when 9/11 happened…

The rest of the world isn’t much better. By not standing up to the United States’ policies, both the EU and the UN lost most of their credibility. Almost everyone outside the US knew that the stated reasons for the Iraq war were obvious lies, and yet nobody had the courage to do a thing about it.

In short, the world is now much worse than it was.

Blame the terrorists first? Sure. Note that I haven’t mentioned any of the theories that say that the Bush administration knew about 9/11 and let it happen, or actually did it. It’s certainly possible – they’re the ones who benefitted by it the most – but I don’t know enough to make any accusations about it. So I won’t.

What I know is that they’re responsible for what happened afterwards. The climate of terror, the loss of civil liberties, the wars, the religious fundamentalism, the international bullying, the “either you’re with us or against us – and therefore a traitor” attitude… I blame Bush and everyone around him for that.

I don’t know about you, but if I had lost someone in 9/11, I’d despise anyone who used my pain for his own gains. Even if he was the president.

"All things are possible"…

Friday, August 11th, 2006

The Martian has already commented on a great comment (!) from a thread in the God Is For Suckers blog, so I won’t repeat what he said; he’s obviously right. :)

However, another comment caught my attention as well. It’s the 2nd one, by Lynda:

And if she does fail she blames herself for not having enough faith in gawd or Jeebus. She will set unrealistic goals based on fairy tale expectations because some book promised that she would succeed if she just has enough belief in the “all powerful”. The end result is self-loathing and mistrust of her own abilities. She won’t be able to rejoice and take pride in any real accomplishments because they won’t measure up to the “all things are possible” standard.

See the problem? God is supposed perfectly good and all powerful, and the Bible says that “faith can move mountains”, that “with enough faith, all things are possible”.

So what if you pray for success in something… and fail?

Christian fundies will never doubt the existence of God. Nor his omnipotence, or his goodness. What remains, then? Lack of faith. With all the guilt it implies.

Say you have a sick son and pray for his recovery. He dies. But… how could that happen, since the Bible states that “God notices even the fall of a sparrow”? What about the promises of our prayers being heard? And aren’t all things supposed to be possible to God, and therefore to anyone with God on his/her side?

If you don’t doubt God, then only two explanations remain. One, “it was God’s plan” – which would make God an evil sadist, worthy of contempt, lower than most human beings, if he existed. The second explanation is “your faith wasn’t enough”. Or, in other words, “you deserved it”.

A lot of Christians say that they don’t think they could go on through life without their faith in God. Yet they’re the unhappy ones, always feeling guilty, because if something bad happens to them, their lack of faith – their “wickedness” – is to blame. After all, God is perfect, and he promised… if only you had enough faith…

(Now, some people will say that “God helps those who help themselves.” It’s an improvement… but it’s a modern interpretation, absolutely contrary to what it says in the Bible. I thought it was supposed to be the word of God?)

La la la, I can’t hear you…

Sunday, April 9th, 2006

From this article:

The Emmy-winning scientist angered a few audience members when he criticized literal interpretation of the biblical verse Genesis 1:16, which reads: “God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”

He pointed out that the sun, the “greater light,” is but one of countless stars and that the “lesser light” is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light.

A number of audience members left the room at that point, visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence.

“We believe in a God!” exclaimed one woman as she left the room with three young children.

As usually, any bothersome fact that contradicts their narrow view of the world is ignored. “La la la, I can’t hear you, you evil secularist enemy of religion…”

I guess that idiotic woman believes the moon is actually a source of light?!

Really, how can people be so stupid?

Workaholics

Wednesday, April 5th, 2006

Definitely, I don’t like workaholics.

I may like people who are workaholics, but it will be despite that, not because of that. It will always be a part of their personality that bothers me.

On top of that, I have had the misfortune of knowing a lot of them!

Many people (even non-workaholics) don’t really understand the concept, and they confuse “workaholic” with “responsible, hard-working person” – which are positive qualities. But they’re wrong. Being a workaholic is something irrational, unhealthy.

Some people also think that it’s just a case of someone loving what he does. But it’s not that – many workaholics spend most of they time depressed, stressed, and with health problems (both physical and mental). It’s a compulsion, an obsession.

What does being a workaholic tell about a person? In my opinion, one or more of the following: (more…)

Ahh, religion…

Friday, March 24th, 2006

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?

Wednesday, February 15th, 2006

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"?

Wednesday, February 15th, 2006

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

Wednesday, December 21st, 2005

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?

Thursday, August 25th, 2005

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?

(more…)

Fanaticism

Thursday, August 25th, 2005

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…

Thursday, August 25th, 2005

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

Wednesday, August 24th, 2005

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: