blogs at nineteen paces...
I commented on a blog item over at Daniel's blog but he deleted my comment, apparently because it contained spelling errors (can you believe that?) I suspect it was because I exposed the utter bullshit in his post.
So, here's his blog post, in its entirety, and under it is my new, spelling-improved and slightly longer comment. Read both and then you'll be able to figure things out for yourself, something Daniel tried to deny you the opportunity of doing on his blog:
Well, let's think about it for a bit... He wants to get rid of religions and nations. He seems to be suggesting a global atheist dictatorship (now where have we heard that one before?) Does he think anything other than a dictatorship (with him at the helm perhaps) could demolish religions and people's sense of nationality?
A global government which outlaws religions? Is this the old marxist/stalinist/maoist/polpotist dream revamped?
I knew Daniel was an atheist, but I didn't know he was planning a global purge of religions. What would he purge next? Falun Gong? Feng Shui? Reflexology? Astrology? Aroma Therapy? Critical comments on blogs? The mind boggles.
But Daniel is running a bit of a scam here. He wants us to believe that atheists with world-conquering aspirations don't engage in bloody wholesale butchery.
Excuse me!
Communist Vietnam waged a brutal war against Communist Laos. Communist Vietnam even invaded Communist China (go figure that one).
Then there's what Atheist Stalin did to his own people. Ditto Atheist Mao. Ditto Atheist Pol Pot. I could go on, and on, and on... No, Daniel, atheists are bloody mass murderers for their cause just like anyone else. No frigging difference.
I notice it completely escapes Daniel's attention that the real problem is how people resolve their differences, not that they have differences. Religions can co-exist peacefully and generally do when extremists are not at the helm. Extremism (like that which would seek to purge the world of religions), is the real problem. Moderates cause no trouble at all. In fact, the nonviolence movement is made up of moderates from all religions and most "isms".
Daniel would do well to read up a bit about conflict resolution methodologies. And then he could read the writings of Cesar E. Chavez, Mahatma Ghandi, and Martin Luther King Jnr. And then perhaps he could stop being a war-mongering extremist control-freak pretending to be interested in world peace.
(Hope there's not too many spelling mistakes in this)
So, here's his blog post, in its entirety, and under it is my new, spelling-improved and slightly longer comment. Read both and then you'll be able to figure things out for yourself, something Daniel tried to deny you the opportunity of doing on his blog:
NINE SEVERED HEADS!Daniel tries to narrow the causes of war down to religion and nationalism. So what are we to make of this neat and tidy idea for achieving world peace?
The nine severed heads found near Bagdad are something that most normal people would find grotesque, entirely unacceptable. But then so are the results of an American or British bomb falling on an Iraqi civilian's house (except there is probably far less to identify).
Trying to imagine what type of people could commit such atrocities is beyond me yet once they were happy, loveable children playing with toys. What changed them? What motivates them? How do they manage to live with themselves?
Two main causes stand out: RELIGION and NATIONALISM. Both involve belief:
1. Belief in the fantasy of some supernatural God (one of many) who is waiting around with a grand list of rewards for the true believers when they die and
2. Belief in the imagined superiority of a nation (or race or racial group within a nation).
The outcome of conflicting beliefs is mirrored in the daily horror of Iraq. The Muslim Shiites and Sunnis, ironically, are at each other’s throats (obviously with swords) because of racial and minor religious differences.The ‘Christian’ Coalition of the Willing, who believe fervently in their twin Gods (the one in the Bible and the one in Wall Street), and also believe they are superior beings and deserve a far greater share of the world’s resources than anyone else, are doing their fair share of killing too (but, modestly, they don’t keep casualty figures of Iraqis). And all the time Ben Laden’s radical Islamic crew is stoking the fire.
What can we learn from this unresolvable nightmare, this repetitious human catastrophe? Perhaps that religion and nationalism between them create most of the world’s problems.
Getting rid of, or negating, the influence of both religion and nationalism might just lead us to world peace!
Well, let's think about it for a bit... He wants to get rid of religions and nations. He seems to be suggesting a global atheist dictatorship (now where have we heard that one before?) Does he think anything other than a dictatorship (with him at the helm perhaps) could demolish religions and people's sense of nationality?
A global government which outlaws religions? Is this the old marxist/stalinist/maoist/polpotist dream revamped?
I knew Daniel was an atheist, but I didn't know he was planning a global purge of religions. What would he purge next? Falun Gong? Feng Shui? Reflexology? Astrology? Aroma Therapy? Critical comments on blogs? The mind boggles.
But Daniel is running a bit of a scam here. He wants us to believe that atheists with world-conquering aspirations don't engage in bloody wholesale butchery.
Excuse me!
Communist Vietnam waged a brutal war against Communist Laos. Communist Vietnam even invaded Communist China (go figure that one).
Then there's what Atheist Stalin did to his own people. Ditto Atheist Mao. Ditto Atheist Pol Pot. I could go on, and on, and on... No, Daniel, atheists are bloody mass murderers for their cause just like anyone else. No frigging difference.
I notice it completely escapes Daniel's attention that the real problem is how people resolve their differences, not that they have differences. Religions can co-exist peacefully and generally do when extremists are not at the helm. Extremism (like that which would seek to purge the world of religions), is the real problem. Moderates cause no trouble at all. In fact, the nonviolence movement is made up of moderates from all religions and most "isms".
Daniel would do well to read up a bit about conflict resolution methodologies. And then he could read the writings of Cesar E. Chavez, Mahatma Ghandi, and Martin Luther King Jnr. And then perhaps he could stop being a war-mongering extremist control-freak pretending to be interested in world peace.
(Hope there's not too many spelling mistakes in this)
posted by The Editor at
12:44 AM
4 Comments:
I have never deleted a blog comment, and have only the once corrected somebody's spelling. Their comment was a good one but the typo detracted as it always does.I wish others would do the same for me occasionally. We bloggers could all benefit from a good editor.
Bloggers who delete or refuse to publish comments becase they don't agree with them and 'Someone with an opinion' is guilty of this, from my POV lose all credibility intantaneously.
errrmmm, does following the teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni fit into the concept of atheism? Or are the various brands of soapbox atheists also dividing up into 'battlefield' tribal groupings? Come off it folks, it's getting as bad as 'christianity' vs 'the rest'. Peace and Love. (I know, i know.. am having a 'good' day, for a change :-))
I never understand a bloody word you say. I just come for the spelling practise.
I never delete comments, idiots should be able to come back and see their idiocy.
(I've had to re-do this comment because it was full of very bad spelling. :-)
Yes, Link. But then there's Gerry... The enigma... He deilberately trashes his "credibility". And this creates a BIG problem. All of a sudden, the only people left on his blog are those rare individuals who can think for themselves. Shock! Horror! Those who can read what I'm ACTUALLY saying and not reacting to HOW I'm saying it. They are the true treasures of this world, and the rest can go and get...
Credibility? Only a control freak would would try to cultivate such a thing.
I think I need a new caveat: Offence freely given to those who wish to take it. Beats having to delete idiots' comments and leads to a better class of commenter. Spelling Nazis? Shoot them. This is only happening because not enough are getting shot, Link.
I'm all for moderate behaviour. Extremists? Shoot them I say. This is only happening because not enough of them are getting shot!
Overpopulation? That's only happening because not enough of them are getting shot! Bring back Rule 303, I say!
Now, girls and boys, who still wants to come here to read or write shit, eh? [evil snicker]
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========