The Club

Imagine a club. 

There are lots of rules in the guidelines of the club.  The rules tell you a lot about what you can do, and a lot about what you can't do. They tell you how you need to treat people who never joined that club, and how to treat people who were in the club but decided to leave. By "how to treat them", it means killing them. It says so, right there in the pages of the club's guidelines. 

Some people who are in the club follow all the rules of the club, including the parts about killing people. They're called "extreme". Some people follow some of the rules of the club. They're called "moderate". They don't kill people because of the club. But some of them sympathise with those who do. 

No one knows if the boss of the club is real or the leaders of the club just pretend he is so they can rule over people. But if the boss of the club *is* real, it's clear that he wants people to follow all of the rules of the club, not just some of them. 

Sometimes when members of the club, following the rules of the club, kill people, people from outside the club claim the killings have nothing to do with the club. Even when the members of the club say that what they're doing is on behalf of the boss of the club. 

People from inside and outside the club have taken to using derogatory terms to describe other people who highlight that the club plays a part in the killings, even though the people doing the killing say the rules of the club play a role in the killings. 

Some people have even said that criticising the rules of the club is racist. Even though members of the club are not a race. 

Many people, both inside the club and outside the club, think that the club isn't a problem because not many members of the club follow all of the rules of the club. They say that if only a small percentage of club members take the rules literally then the problem is with them, not with the rules of the club. 

I would suggest that even if NO ONE followed the rules of the club literally, if the rules of the club call for people to be killed, then surely the rules of the club are problematic and should be questioned and criticised.

I wonder how you feel about the club. I wonder if you think it shouldn't be criticised and that people who do so are racist. I wonder if you think it's okay for children to join the club, and to be told that the rules of the club are how everyone should live. I wonder if you're okay with children being forced to join the club -  a club which is homophobic, sexist, and discriminatory. 


Imagine Islam. 

There are lots of rules in the guidelines of Islam.  The rules tell you a lot about what you can do, and a lot about what you can't do. They tell you how you need to treat people who never joined Islam, and how to treat people who were in Islam but decided to leave. By "how to treat them", it means killing them. It says so, right there in the pages of Islam's guidelines. 

Some people who are in Islam follow all the rules of Islam, including the parts about killing people. They're called "extreme". Some people follow some of the rules of Islam. They're called "moderate". They don't kill people because of Islam. But some of them sympathise with those who do. 

No one knows if the boss of Islam is real or the leaders of Islam just pretend he is so they can rule over people. But if the boss of Islam *is* real, it's clear that he wants people to follow all of the rules of Islam, not just some of them. 

Sometimes when members of Islam, following the rules of Islam, kill people, people from outside Islam claim the killings have nothing to do with Islam. Even when the members of Islam say that what they're doing is on behalf of the boss of Islam. 

People from inside and outside Islam have taken to using derogatory terms to describe other people who highlight that Islam plays a part in the killings, even though the people doing the killing say the rules of Islam play a role in the killings. 

Some people have even said that criticising the rules of Islam is racist. Even though members of Islam are not a race. 

Many people, both inside Islam and outside Islam, think that Islam isn't a problem because not many members of Islam follow all of the rules of Islam. They say that if only a small percentage of Islam members take the rules literally then the problem is with them, not with the rules of Islam. 

I would suggest that even if NO ONE followed the rules of Islam literally, if the rules of Islam call for people to be killed, then surely the rules of Islam are problematic and should be questioned and criticised.


I wonder how you feel about Islam. I wonder if you think it shouldn't be criticised and that people who do so are racist. I wonder if you think it's okay for children to join Islam, and to be told that the rules of Islam are how everyone should live. I wonder if you're okay with children being forced to join Islam -  a religion which is homophobic, sexist, and discriminatory. 

When *do* we talk about Paris?

We see it regularly in the US in the aftermath of a mass gun shooting...'now's not the time' or the more graphic 'not while the bodies are still warm'. 

Of course people are sensitive, emotions are heightened. The bodies *are* still warm and for thousands, if not millions, the tears are still flowing. 

So we hear cries of not speaking about it, because that would be distasteful, don't you know? 

At some point, though, the conversation has to be about what the problem is and how to fix it, rather than just expressions of sympathy for the victims.

Well may we say "at the appropriate time" or "not while the bodies are still warm." But new bodies are added while the previous *are* still warm. There is no break in the massacre. 

So tell me, when *is* the right time to say this has got to stop? 

When *is* the right time to say your God is NOT helping? That *people* need to act? 

They say 'Pray for Paris' but to whom and for what? Are we praying to tell 'god' what happened because he doesn't yet know? Or he knows, but doesn't know it's bad? One thing is clear - either god is not real, or he simply doesn't care to intervene. Pray if you really must, but people need to wake up, the prayers are NOT working. 

This by @Godless_Mom sums it up succinctly...

Prayers are expressions of faith. When faith is the problem, adding more faith isn't the answer. 

We can pretend we don't know what caused a group of men to murder over 100 people in Paris. We can pretend we don't know what caused a group of men to murder 200 students in Syria. We can pretend we don't know what has caused Islamic state to murder thousands and thousands of people. But we don't have to pretend two things:

1: They're doing it because of what they believe, what they have faith in. 
2: No one is speculating as to whether or not they are secular humanists. 

Whatever their driver, be it religious, or political, it is not reason based, logically worked out, nor compassionately discussed. 

Whilst the world continues to value faith and superstition over reason and logic, tragedies like this will continue to occur. 

We need to keep promoting reason and logic. We need to keep expressing the values of secular humanism. Lives are at stake. We need to do it all the time, and not be shamed for doing so. 

Sure, we could wait until the bodies are cold, but if we do, it'll never happen. Because they're killing people every single fucking day.

Offence

When it comes to being offended the quote that I see most often (Apart from 'I'm offended!') is this gem, from Stephen Fry....

I'm pretty much on board with Stephen here. Why should *I* care that *you're* offended? 

Well....because you're my friend would be a good starting point. For example I have friends who are creative, whether it be music, writing, or painting. If they were to show me some of their work and I said it was shit and never wanted to see any of their work again, they'd be offended, and rightly so. 

There's also the situation of having a conversation with someone about a topic where you disagree. Obviously for me that would be atheism/theism. If I want to have a good dialogue with someone and I begin with 'so, you believe God is real? You must be some kind of fucking moron' they're going to be offended, and any hope of reasonable conversation is gone. 

But, I'm not sure that's what Stephen is getting at here. Without the benefit of being able to ask him directly, I think Stephen is talking more about being offended by things that, essentially, have nothing to do with you. I don't think he's talking about personal insults such as being called a disgusting pig, or talking about insulting one's work or effort. 

I would suggest that Stephen is talking about things such as the controversial art work, by Andres Serrano, titled Piss Christ...

The title being an obvious give-away, this is a plastic Jesus on the Crucifix submerged in urine (Serrano's own). 

As stated in the photo's Wikipedia article, when this photo was to be exhibited in Melbourne in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, tried to prevent it from going on public display. The Supreme Court refused his request. Someone tried to steal it, and then it was attacked by a teenager with a hammer (some irony there). 

The problem? The Archbishop, the attempted thief, and the vandal, were offended, and wanted it off display. 

I'm definitely with Stephen here.

If the photo was to be displayed in their house or their superstition building (I think they call it a 'church'), then I could completely understand their objection to it. One should certainly have the right to decide what is and is not displayed on their own property. 

But Piss Christ wasn't set to be displayed in a church or someone's home. Piss Christ was put on display in an art gallery - independent of any religion. There's no reason that a church representative should have any say over what an art gallery can display. What right does an archbishop have to decide what other people can and can't see in an art gallery? I can't see that they have any. 

An individual decides what they put on twitter or what they post to Facebook. A writer decides what they write about. A podcaster decides what they talk about. Likewise, the art gallery decides what exhibitions it puts on. People decide for themselves whether  to follow on social media, whether to listen to a podcast, or whether to go and see an exhibition. I shouldn't be denied the right to see art just because George Pell, or anyone else is offended. 

You're offended George? 

So fucking what?