It is sad that major institutions like the Roman Church and the US Republican Party promote homophobia. In a place like the US, medieval monotheism + promiscuous gun laws lead to mass murder.
The problem Fox News doesn’t recognise is that perpetrator’s motives directly overlap with those of arch-conservative religious institutions and conservative politicians in the US. All share a common hatred of homosexuality. Fox News has long provided a platform for bigotry, especially
religious freedom “anti-gay” bigots such as Mike Huckabee.
Mr Trump has promised to ban immigration from many countries, to establish full diplomatic relations with the NRA, and to establish a Muslim Stasi. Anything to avoid sensible gun safety legislation to replace the promiscuous gun laws on the books.
To paraphrase Kant: English is the language of commerce; German, the language of philosophy; French, the language of poetry.
MDMA is making a comeback. It’s safe to bring out your pacifier and glow sticks.
The most dangerous drug is monotheism.
It’s no surprise that Mr Trump stiffed the Veterans, got caught, and was forced to pony up.
The law & order, family values Republican Party is throwing its support behind a twice divorced harlequin, who is also a grifter and a cheat.
We are not even close to peak Bond watch. It’s time for a non-binary Bond.
Mr Messi towers above all others. Only a bribe to FIFA can deny him the gong.
Mr Ronaldo is a gift to his own mirror.
One sees masculine anger in medieval monotheist violence against modernity. One sees it in the Bundy bandits menacing Oregon with their guns and their meth. And one sees it at the political rallies of the Trump and Sanders campaigns, with the exception that the anger at the latter’s rallies is more erudite and coherent. The anger at Trump rallies, fueled by Cialis, is an unhealthy quiche of diabolical diction and misogynistic ideas.
Men want their masculine entitlement back. #notallmen
The assumption of the infallibility of Mr Corbyn and his grassroots cadres is the end of democratic politics and the beginning of organised religion.
American popular culture has always been a counterfeit form.
Royals are more attractive today than they were in prior centuries.
The archbishop of Dublin is saying the Church must do a better job of indoctrinating children. This is an example of how medieval monotheism loses the plot in the modern world.
In breaking news, John McCain is angry. Again.
Politics isn’t rocket science. It’s easy to spot a political buffoon.
I’ve noticed a number of articles in popular journalistic outlets on the “New Atheism” or the “New Atheists” which is (or are) conceived as a “movement.” Usually, these pieces take a critical perspective, even pointing to the “violent extremism” within this alleged movement. In contrast, a new article, which is supportive of “New Atheism,” argues that
It’s time for atheists to move past theoretical questions about the existence of God and onto more practical pursuits – like how to fight for justice.
The atheist community is quickly coming up against the limits of debating whether God is real. The New Atheist movement made a splash in the early 2000s with its brash assertion that the existence of God was a hypothesis that can be examined, debated and critically analyzed like any other, and rejected if the evidence is found wanting. Its critiques, targeting both the feverish imaginings of fundamentalism and the stale platitudes of conventional piety, were as cleansing and welcome as a cool breeze in a stuffy room…
As the atheist community becomes larger and more diverse, attracting a broader range of people from different backgrounds, this is a natural direction for our activism to take. It’s also a step that both atheists and people who care about social justice should applaud, because our alliance makes both causes stronger. Our opposition is largely the same: the socially conservative faction, bolstered by religion.
That’s why the more that the atheist community moves beyond purely philosophical debates to embrace the practical pursuit of justice, the more we can establish a reputation for ourselves as a force for good in the world.
From a distance, and from a speculative position on the matter, I wonder over this argument because it takes for granted the general orientation of the critics of a “New Atheism,” which find it to be homologous to organized religion (i.e., as just another religion, albeit without god). Hence, a few responses:
(1) As long as a variety of medieval monotheisms promote killing in the name of god, I’d say that posing “theoretical questions” [sic] about god’s existence is a “practical” contribution to the “fight for justice,” just as empirically debunking the belief in white or masculine supremacy is a necessary component of anti-racist and feminist politics.
(2) This imagined “New Atheist” movement (rooted in the imagination of people like the author of this piece quoted above) usually boils down to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, whose books are apparently on the march.
The real movement is known by a simpler name: modernity.
(3) On the assumption that “New Atheism” or atheists in general are a “community” or “movement,” one must make a case that it/they actually comprise a “group.” So, for instance, three ways of categorizing an atheist group identity are possible:
Is there an atheist catechism?
Is there something like an atheist conversion ritual?
Is there an atheist baptism?
Is there an atheist confirmation?
Is there an atheist bible?
Is there an atheist synod?
Do atheists carry identification cards?
If the “hard” identifiers in category A aren’t appropriate, perhaps atheists are more like a “subculture”; similar to goths or hipsters, do atheists have an identifiable appearance (vampirish for goths; artistic tattoos, robust beards, and knit caps worn in any weather for hipsters) or lifestyle (The Cure on CDs for goths; Carsick Cars on vinyl for hipsters)? Do atheists follow particular bands? Is there an atheist fashionable “look” (“nogodcore” or “reasoncore”)? Do atheists tend to live in urban areas or are they “back to the land” folk? Do atheists tend to shop at Whole Foods or Kroger?
Perhaps atheism is closer to a “preference,” one in a series of likes and dislikes an individual might hold (e.g., “I like unfiltered Camels and microbrews”; “I dislike modern dance and action films”).
If an atheist “group” can’t be defined by the “hard” identifiers from category A or the progressively more “soft” identifiers from categories B and C, what exactly is the sociological basis for the “groupness” of atheists?
Critics and proponents of the “New Atheism” would do well to sort out this question of “groupness” before assuming the existence of such a chimerical animal.
(4) To those who would point to the positive role religion plays in “progressive politics” (such as the Civil Rights Movement of yore), I would suggest some parsing. There are elements of Christianity in the USA that are associated with liberal and/or left wing politics. The difference is that liberal Christianity lends its religious resources to secular ends. In contrast, conservative American Christianists seek to destroy secularism (and modernity in general) and to institute their own particular brand of theocratic government.
I had been under the impression that the leather kilt was made famous by Kimye. However, a google search reveals Axl Rose wearing the leather. Yet another strike against Kimye!
Egyptian street posh (i.e., neo-dandyism) is a vital weapon against the medieval monotheism.
From Emailgate in America (Hillary Clinton) to Kitchengate in England (Ed Miliband). Can contemporary journalism sink any lower than this?
Re alleged misandry: Men hate other men, and often kill each other wantonly. Why then should men care whether women hate them.
Making little headway and facing the wrath of the Greek electorate, the new government has reached the point of desperation (see Nikos Paraskevopoulos’s reference to German “war reparations”). Greece is looking for any excuse to default.
From afar (NYC), Mr Farage sounds like an extremist. He appears to stand in a long line of politicians who willingly demonise a minority of the population in order to gain political power. In other words, he seeks British unity through the promotion of division. Quite the paradox. On this side of the pond, he would be indistinguishable from the Palins, Bachmanns, Huckabees, etc.
The Napster generation (e.g., Kim Dotcom, Pharrell etc.) thinks piracy is OK. Arr!
Medieval monotheism in its various forms must be combatted using the symbolic weapons of reason, ridicule, and irony.
Not everyone is a cinephile or aesthete. Arts appreciation can’t be forced through administered merriment.
I admire a politician who admits she’s in it for the money.
Armed police too frequently short-circuit procedural due process.
Once again: One day critics will discover that films are fictional. I hope that day arrives soon.