Re: Canadian revolution

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Brian Loe wrote:

> On 10/25/06, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:
>
> > Sadly, that's what happens. You pass laws based on what your imaginary
> > friend told you, which I then have to comply with. You distort the
> > education of my children by having compulsory superstition classes in
> > schools, and you fight wars, in which I get caught up, in order to spread
> > your superstitions. Most of what is happening in Iraq today, for example,
> > seems to be one lot of superstitions fighting another lot, with our
> > soldiers caught in the middle of that, wondering what on earth they're
> > supposed to be doing there.
> That is some hate you've got for religion.
 
Righteous indignation, rather than hate. And I'm certainly willing to 
forgive anyone who abjures their superstitious ways and gets their shit 
together. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Maybe you haven't lived to see the Catholic/Protestant war in Nothern 
Ireland, or the "ethnic cleansing" of Muslims in the Balkans, or the 
Sunni/Shia war currently in Iraq, or the Israel/Palestine war that's been 
rumbling along for 60 years now. Religions aren't the only reason why 
people go to war, but a difference in opinion about who is the correct 
imaginary friend, seems to me to be the most lunatic reason possible.

Currently, we're having a debate in England about faith schools (schools 
run by a group of people who share the same imaginary friend and who want 
to fill their children's heads with the same nonsense), and whether they 
should be required to admit 25% of non-believers. 

My contribution to this is that these superstition schools should not be
allowed to discriminate on grounds of race, ethnicity or religion, which
is the law here for any other organisation.  Why should superstition
schools be given a free ride? 

And furthermore - why do we require truth in advertising, except for 
religious organisations? If you claim that your cream will reduce 
wrinkles, you have to prove it (or at least show good experimanetal 
evidence), but if you claim that your superstition will make you live for 
ever, you're allowed to get away with it.

Why do we give tax breaks to organisations like Scientology (which, as far 
as I can see, is a religion designed entirely to fleece its members). Why 
do we allow organisations like the Catholic Church to get away with hiding 
pedophiles, without the organisation being prosecuted for aiding and 
abetting this crime? 

Some people might see major distinctions between all these thousands of
religions, and some might even think that one of them is the One True
Faith, but all I see is a difference of opinion on who is the correct
imaginary friend, or on the best way to talk to him, or on what he said in
his imaginary conversation with someone several hundred years ago, and the
conflict that this engenders is as absurd as a war over which side of the
egg you should open when starting a boiled egg, the big end or the little
end.

Read "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins for more details. He says it 
quite well.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.