Another assertion you can't support. Please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, explain how insult equates to bigotry. But before you even do that, please explain how these two acts were an attempt to denigrate a religion rather than mock the governmental practices in relation to those religions. That takes a deal more effort than just crying "hate speech," but it's well worth it. That is, if you actually intend to make a point, which I'm not entirely convinced of here. This all might just be about making noise
There is no actual theology to the CFSM. It's a parody, a satire. The object of getting themselves photographed on official government identification cards was to demonstrate the absurdity of government when it comes to religious concessions. They weren't demanding religious freedom because they really believe a blob of pasta created them, in other words. I hope you can see the difference here...
impediment of religion by state-established standards would be the death of free religion. But we both know you aren't saying that, because that would be ridiculous. Yet your argument mandates it.
As you well know, the above is not an explanation of what makes their practice bigoted, but yet another assertion that it is.
(1) Are you actually suggesting that the denigration of women is a more noble practice than the denigration of religious people?
(2) That was not the purpose. Their purpose was, as I and other have said before, to mock governmental practices as they relate to religion.
Of course, even if it were meant as an insult, it wouldn't be directed at religious people, but a particular
practice. Whether people are insulted by this should be of no consequence, let alone a disqualifier. But I'm not stupid; I'm aware that we live in a politically-correct and overly-sensitive society, and attitudes such as this are precisely the reason the CFSM exists: We can't have a legitimate discussion about religion when criticism is involved, because all someone has to do is say they're offended--or, as is the case here, be offended
on someone else's behalf--and out come the accusations of bigotry, hate speech, and, ultimately, the cessation of any meaningful discourse.
I would suggest you're missing a few things. In the first place, there is a difference between the statement—
It is also affirmative evidence toward a thesis emerging over recent decades, that the modern atheistic movment isn't about any question pertaining to God, but, rather, self-empowerment through bigotry.
—and your summary:
Again, you've made the leap from "Here's what happened," to "They're all bigots" as if no explanation were necessary.
There really isn't. I mean, sure, if you want to argue that there may be some theoretical difference between people who employ bigotry and
actual bigots, feel free, but it's not worth my time since it amounts to the same thing.
From
#6 in this thread:
The historical origins of what we recognize today as atheism were philosophical and rather quite astutely expressed. In recent years, however, atheists have rightly grown weary of religious supremacism to the point of objecting. Unfortunately, the resulting loose coalition of common identity politics has jumped onto the well-established supremacism carousel.
The atheistic monument? Okay, whatever. I understand. But two wrongs don't make a right.
It isn't intended to make a right, it's intended to make a
point.
Messrs. Nový and Alm, however, have gone even a step farther. As Mr. Nový's case reminds, the underlying justification for being a Sievehead is contradictory to the religion itself.
It's not a religion. It's a parody. Why is that so hard to understand?
Whatever commentary Mr. Nový might be trying to make ...
And therein lies the problem. Because you construe the comments as being insulting to Muslims, Sikhs, or whoever, you've immediately disregarded the
point. Perhaps you should abandon the facile mantra of wrongs and rights and start paying attention to what people are trying to say.
While Nový would reject religious freedom for others, he demands it himself,
That's not accurate. He isn't demanding it for himself while rejecting it for others. He's saying "If you're going to give it to them, you better give it to me." You see the difference? I'm sure you do.
and what he has convinced Czech officials to do is put a state endorsement on his open mockery of billions of religious people.
The Czech government was simply doing what it was supposed to do. Pastafarianism is a professed religion. You're moving in the right direction here, however, by referring to it as "open mockery" rather than "open bigotry." It's not mockery of religious
people, of course, and that's the last hurdle you need to jump before you finally get the point.
This has been an ongoing process. And it does, in some ways, seem related to the rise in political and juristic influence of organized atheism.
The underlying problem might well be something that is not unique in any way to atheists; it is a disregard for history.
Indeed, you have fallen into that pit, as well:
What history have I disregarded, exactly?
(1) Mocking religion is not bigotry — Generally I agree, though there are some exceptions; mocking anything for something that isn't true is problematic.
What isn't true in this case?
earning state approval of that deliberate insult against billions of religious people is the problem here.
Again, the insult (if you want to call it that) was directed at the government. And even if it was directed at religion, it would be at a religious
practice not religious
people. You seem to think that just because a person feels insulted that (A) the insult was intended, and (B) anyone should give a shit. Oh, and you also think that it's automatically bigotry. Sure, you
say you don't think that, but here we are.
(2) mockery of how the state trips over itself to appease ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression — This is where important history is absent from the consideration. Wearing a headscarf, or even abaya, is nothing like, say, human sacrifice. We prohibit religious sacrifice because it requires one to inflict religion on another through murder.
No, we prohibit religious sacrifice because it's murder. The inflicting of religion on another never enters the discussion. And it's irrelevant, since it's also illegal in cases where the person being sacrificed is of the same religion and a willing participant.
The argument of ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression overlooks not only the long, historical debates within various religions, the cultural differences between peoples within a religion, and essentially treats diverse religions and cultures as a monolithic bloc.
You'll have to enlighten me: Of what value are the historical debates and cultural differences between peoples within a religion to this subject?
This rhetorical sleight is absolutely inappropriate, but is also required for the justification of Nový's "mockery of how the state trips over itself to appease ridiculous requests made on behalf of religious expression".
This assumes that it makes a whit of difference as to what scriptural or ecumenical reasons why Muslims wear headscarves, or why the ID movement insists upon their lies being taught in public schools. Unfortunately, no one has provided a valid argument as to why it should.
(3) and you're so practiced at it by this point you don't even bother explaining your asinine assertion — Well, maybe that wouldn't be laughable if you hadn't opened with, "I couldn't bring myself to slough through all four pages of this nonsense, so you'll have to forgive me if I ask questions to which answers have been given on previous pages." I mean, that's not a question. That's a straight-up assertion.
I was referring to the OP, though I admit it was a bit premature considering there were 3 more pages of text to read through. And yet, here were are, on Page Four, without being any closer to an explanation...
It would probably be helpful, then, for you to acknowledge the proposition of an emerging thesis.
To call it a "thesis" would be like calling what the IDers do "science." There's no meat on them bones, T. In other words, you aren't the first one who couldn't connect the dots between insult and bigotry, nor the first to rely on misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
I would also note
Quinnsong's post at #68. Setting aside the egocentric glow such praise can inspire, one might note the post offers very few solutions; that's just fine, as it's a complex issue. But the post also recognizes
history, something absent from many atheistic theological assertions; see point (2) in the prior section of this post.
All I see is rambling nonsense. No, really, what am I supposed to take from that post?
The problem history presents those who would support Mr. Nový's action is that once history is introduced and properly considered, the difference between the contradictions inherent in a monolithic view of religion and a deliberately-constructed rhetorical sleight intended to empower state-endorsed mockery of billions of people becomes apparent.
Again, only if you assume that irrelevant things matter, which I don't.
Refusing history is exceptionally problematic, both argumentatively and ethically.
I agree.
I would also ask you the same question I've put to Mr. Nový's defenders: Are you willing to take a one-question pop-quiz?
(Some background on that inquiry, since you haven't read through the thread: This is an effort to get atheists to demonstrate their superior grasp of religion, which has been largely implied in this thread, and in at least one case explicitly proclaimed. As that superior grasp of religion is absent in this thread, I'm trying to find a way to allow those who would hold such a view an explicit opportunity to demonstrate the claim, since the implicit opportunities to show that intellectual power is apparently too subtle in such discussions as these for them to recognize.)
I have no idea what you mean by "superior grasp of religion," or what that has to do with any of this. But okay, what the hell.
