54 Responses to “Reader Mail | Point Somewhat Missed”

1. Dean Says:
   May 31st, 2008 at 5:58 am

   Well said!

   So is Josh your first name?

2. Felis Says:
   May 31st, 2008 at 8:04 am

   Gah! Gaaah! GaAAHH! There are SO many things wrong with what Rabbi Herschel Bergenstein-Schmidt said there, I don’t know where the hell to begin.

   Can’t you just ignore it? Yes, we take the piss out of belief systems, but can’t you just IGNORE IT!? Yes, you probably will respond to this and try and convince us of things (that we already know), but can you just IGNORE THE MOCKERY!? PLEEEEASE.

   And, also, Josh,

   “And in general, people two thousand years ago were substantially less educated and less knowledgeable about the workings of the world, and there were a greater number of illiterate and innumerate people than there are today.”

   Bush and Brown are going to ‘protect’ our children from anything ‘bad’, such as sports, or the fear of bad grades (and they won’t abuse or stress our kids with those horrible exams or education)!

   So don’t worry, and have no fear! Soon, they’ll have this lack of illiterate people all cured!

3. nepphie/ascendance Says:
   May 31st, 2008 at 10:17 am

   Kind of him to give you permission to continue making fun of your target.

   Here’s a statement for your “tolerant” colleague;

   Religious belief is the death of reason inasmuch as it substitutes irrelevant superstition and ineffective ritual for personal will and reasoned action. It is a plague upon humanity, and we would be far better served were it to cease to exist tomorrow.

4. commodorejohn Says:
   May 31st, 2008 at 3:57 pm

   “They often don’t even like ritual, and think that it’s stupid.”

   Haha, while most of the guy’s letter is pretty good, this could only be said by someone who hasn’t spent that much time around Fundies. Despite whatever claims they may make about believing in “faith” rather than mindless repetition, they love ritual. They cling to their sacraments and rituals with such single-minded zealotry that an entire church can split over whether to have a “pastor” or an “apostle,” despite there being no discernable difference in either camp’s stated job description (no, seriously.) They just don’t like anybody else’s rituals.

   #3 nepphie/ascendance – Ah, well I’ll just nip off and shoot myself then, shall I?

5. dingo Says:
   May 31st, 2008 at 5:38 pm

   #3 – Randian much?

6. Lipman Says:
   May 31st, 2008 at 6:04 pm

   Josh, yip, that makes sense. I think the critic felt it was unfair because many people indeed equate traditionally living Jews with Christian fundies. Unfortunately, some Orthodox Jews confuse that, too.

   Felis, I think it’s outrageous to use this name in a classical context of anti-Semitic hate. I don’t mean Rabbi Herschel Bergenstein-Schmidt (never met a Jew with the German name of Schmidt), I mean Felis.

   nepphie/ascendance, you might overestimate humanity. I wonder, but can’t answer, how the world would be if Christianity had never existed, or all religions, including all atrocities. A rational civil society of happy, free and thinking people? Or the most brutal amoral society of social darwinism? I haven’t the foggiest. The next question is whether starting with today’s world, you can safely abolish all religions (provided it would be possible).

7. Linhasxoc Says:
   May 31st, 2008 at 6:23 pm

   I agree with Lipman. There are just too many people in the world as it is now that, if they have no religion to guide them, will sink into amorality, because they have no fear of being cast into hell/equivalent?
   On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how various parts of history would have changed without religion. The American slave history, for example. Both slaveholders and abolitionists used the Bible to justify their claims (though IMO the abolitionists were absolutely right and the slaveholders were crazy).

8. Felis (what's wrong with the name?) Says:
   May 31st, 2008 at 7:50 pm

   Lipman. Could you answer a few things for me?

   1. That name wasn’t actually meant as hatred against the Jewish religion, and certainly not against the Jewish (Now Israeli) ethnic group.

   I referred to him using that stereotypical name because he’s trying, from the letter, to claim to represent all Jews everywhere – he’s putting himself up as what we think of as the stereotypical Jew and claiming to speak for all Jews.

   It’s satire, and I admit it was very convoluted so it could/would be a little to hard to pick up on.

   Because he claims to repesent all theists – including Christians – should I change his title from “Rabbi” to “Reverend”, so there are multiple, different religious groups indicated?

   2. What made you think I was using “Rabbi” in any context of classical racial or religious hatred?

   3. What made you think I was using “Felis” in any context of classical racial or religious hatred? I post with that name all the time.

   4. What exactly is wrong with that name in the first place? I’ve never known it to have any connotations of anti-Semitism, religious or racial.

9. Daniel Says:
   May 31st, 2008 at 7:50 pm

   Linhasxoc: Well, various parts of the Bible could be used to support both sides over the slavery issue.

10. Katz Says:
    May 31st, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    Dude, don’t joke about The Moose. My family has been protecting It since Time Began. Three of us died leaping in the way of gunshots last year alone.

    Intolerant bastard.

11. Felis (what's wrong with the name?) Says:
    May 31st, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Linhasxoc:

    Interestingly enough, I’ve noticed that sometimes people who move away from religion (usually in rebellion, rather than due to scientific or moral questionability of the texts) do end up becoming very immoral, or even amoral.

    These people then, have some sort of mental illness (even if it is minor enough to allow them to be “normal”). I say this because although they’ve left the religion, they assume that “God exists, but he doesn’t have control over me”. This implies that they still believe the texts of their former religion, but only have rebelled against it.

    They haven’t really got out of the religion mentally, have they? And, if this is what happens when they do “leave”, it implies they are still thinking religiously, and also that they cannot truly leave under their own will – they are still, in effect, brainwashed; like the people who join and become “culty”.

12. Djur Says:
    May 31st, 2008 at 11:38 pm

    #5 dingo:

    Yes, nepphie is a big fat Randroid at heart. I try to be careful in religious discussions; even though I’m a hard atheist, I don’t have any truck with the Randroid dismissal of religion as a betrayal of some huge cruisy principle of rationality.

    Linhasxoc:

    In my experience, more people are held back from true human decency (accepting the friendship and love of homosexuals/promiscuous/infidels/etc.) by religion than those who are restrained from horrific abuses by religion. It doesn’t take a lot of rationalization to depict your own inner beast as the voice of God exhorting you to rape and destroy His enemies. Atheism requires you to recognize the animal within and deal with it in the context of your own morality.

13. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 12:44 am

    Etjabberwock:

    Thanks for posting my response. I hesitated to post it as a comment on your blog, because I didn’t want to sign it either with real name, or with my (fairly well-known) internet handles, because I felt that some of the ideas contained therein could possibly jeapordize certain job opportunities for me.

    Before I say anything else, I want to underscore the fact that I really meant my comment only as a gentle criticism of your discourse, and not of the content of your argument. We probably agree about far more than you think.

    to ensure that I’m being moderately clear about the fact that I’m referring specifically to fundamentalists

    Good, good. Please try to be a bit more clear, though.

    You seem to have missed the fact that the bit about spitting into cheesecloths was an intentional misrepresentation — for humor purposes (a.k.a. a joke) — of Christianity done in precisely the same way Chick misrepresented the theory of evolution.

    Yes, I could tell that it was a misrepresentation, but I didn’t understand that it was intended to be a precise parody of Chick’s misrepresentation of the Theory of Evolution. As they say, SDWOTN (sarcasm doesn’t work on the net). In fact, when I re-read it in that light, I find it quite amusing.

    And I don’t even know what a cheesecloth is. I recall hearing the expression only twice before your post: Once when I was doing research on how to cook with marijuana, and once when some friends of mine were talking about their (unsuccessful) experiments in making cheese.

    And you still didn’t really refute the fact that [...] six thousand years is almost certainly inaccurate….

    YES. OF COURSE. I KNOW. THE FUNDAMENTALIST DATE FOR THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE IS RETARDED.* My point was that it doesn’t help your argument to throw in random inaccuracies about the level of mathematics at the time when the various books of the Bible were written. (Incidentally, do you have any idea when that was?)

    [*When taken literally. If it's taken as simply one given datum in the context of a particular mythic grand system, then it works just fine. The problem is that this type of thinking only works inside the box. If Fundamentalist Christians [or, for that matter, Chareidi Jews] don’t want to be able to think also outside the box, that’s they’re prerogative. They shouldn’t be forcing this into the curriculum of the public schools, though.

    And we’re still a pretty ignorant and idiotic bunch.

    Well, I think that’s pretty obvious, considering who the president of our country is.

    Just don’t be evangelical about it, is my primary concern. Particularly, keep faith out of the law books for the general public (but feel free to abide by your own faith-based laws as an individual or as a group), and out of general government. And don’t think that because you (not you, specifically, but the general “you”) have a belief system, it somehow makes you the authority on morality, especially the morality of people other than yourself. (I’m working on a couple essays about this concept, but they’re not finished yet.)

    I agree with you on all these points. However, I do think that an exception can be made in certain very limited cases, where we are talking not about laws that restrict individuals, but laws have to do with general promotion of culture.

    Whether or not we like it (and I feel somewhat conflicted about the issue), governments do promote their own particular cultures, and often the intersection between culture and religion can be blurry. Is it wrong for the American government to give public schools vacation on Christmas? No, I don’t think so. Is it wrong for public schools to actually teach about the history of Christmas, and the mythology behind it? I don’t think so, as long as they make it clear that this is the mythology which SOME people believe, to various degrees. It is wrong for them to teach that the Christmas story is true history? Absolutely. And is it wrong for them to promote prayer in the schools? It’s terrible.

    nepphie/ascendance:
    What Lipman said.

    Linhasxoc:
    There are just too many people in the world as it is now that, if they have no religion to guide them, will sink into amorality, because they have no fear of being cast into hell/equivalent?

    And there may be just as many people who blow up buildings because they feel it will send them to heaven. The “morality” argument for religion is a pretty shitty one, since it can be twisted in so many different ways.

    The important thing to remember is that various people choose various systems under which to organize their lives. (Are their people who have no guiding system at all? Yes, but their lives quickly descend into entropy.) Some of these involve allegience to ancient texts, and some involve allegience to modern text, and some involve allegience to the ideas of particular leaders, and so involve allegience to particular political ideas– or whatever. And I really think that any of these is fine, provided that IT WORKS. For me, Orthodox Judaism works. (More technically orthoprax would probably describe me better, since I’m probably too much of a relativist and nihilist to really be called “orthodox”.) It provides me with a community, fascinating topics of study, rituals which add meaning to my life, and job opportunities. [And no, none of this has anything to do with faith. I'm basically a nihilist.]

    Felis:

    Gah! Gaaah! GaAAHH! There are SO many things wrong with what Rabbi Herschel Bergenstein-Schmidt said there, I don’t know where the hell to begin.

    Thanks for inventing an absurd name for me. I see that already from step #1, you’re interested in having a civil conversation.

    Can’t you just ignore it? Yes, we take the piss out of belief systems, but can’t you just IGNORE IT!? Yes, you probably will respond to this and try and convince us of things (that we already know), but can you just IGNORE THE MOCKERY!? PLEEEEASE.

    Felis, do you know how to read? My criticism had nothing to do with the mockery of belief systems. (Sure, such mockery is rather puerile, but I admit that it’s incredibly fun.) The only thing that I was trying to convince anybody was that Etjabberwock’s discourse was hurting his own argument, by lumping together various groups, who have very little in common. And indeed, Etjabberwock seems to have accepted my point– because he, unlike you, knows how to read.

    he’s putting himself up as what we think of as the stereotypical Jew and claiming to speak for all Jews.

    ???????? Where did I say that? Do you know how to read?

14. Lipman Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 5:59 am

    Guy who shouldn’t use that name,

    I know, I know – DFTT, but what the heck, so

    ad 1. The presupposition is incorrect, so mu. Concerning the part before the actual question, this is like shouting at a shop assistant who you think looks like a Native American “Hey, Chief Slow Bear, can I have my receipt now or what?”. You might, of course, actually do stuff like that and find it satirical.

    Other points: Of course everybody understood you were attempting to be satirical – that wasn’t really hidden. Just went wrong and showed more than you wanted.

    There is and was more than one Jewish ethnic identity – no serious ethnologist would have lumped together 1930 Berlin Jews, Moroccans, and “mountain Jews” from the Caucasus, let alone Indians, Chinese and Ethiopeans. Well, some racists did, of course. And nobody would claim American-born Jews who never spent time in Israel are ethnic Israelis – that’s stupid and uninformed on so many levels. Well, some racists do, of course.

    ad 2. Using it constitutes the context. But I was talking about using Felis in such a context, remember?

    ad 3. Oh, so did get that. Well, I like cats. I’m an irregular visitor to this blog, and hardly ever read the comments, so I don’t know in what other annoying contexts you misuse the good name of cats.

    ad 4. Not sure which you mean, but it should be clear to you by now.

    Daniel,

    important point IMO, and that’s why it irks Original Commenter and me when traditional Jews are called fundamentalists. The whole point is traditional Judaism doesn’t go to the street, shows the first person who never saw a bible a random excerpt in a biased translation and asks them what that means, using no knowledge but only common sense and fluency in contemporary English. That’s basically what fundamentalists do, except for the common sense part and that meanwhile they have their own arbitrary but fixed interpretations.

    Jews have a) an oral tradition of what that all means, and b) a continuous development. (Reform Jews rather don’t, they like to go “straight back to the bible”. That’s what makes fundies, not oversized black hats.)

    As an example, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is interpreted by Christian fundamentalists as “you hurt mine, I’ll knock out yours”, while every traditional Jewish child knows it means “I hurt your eye, I’ll have to refund you medical costs and pay compensation for an eye, and the amount’s to be appropriate, and so different for a tooth”. Mind you that’s not an apologetic modern Reform twist, that’s so since the earliest (and well) documented sources, and probably was meant like that right away, contrary to other Middle Eastern cultures.

    There are no slaves in the bible. “Slaves” (rather menials or servants) had more rights in Jewish law than employees for most of human history. For one, there was no idea of ownership of a human being, the very definition of slavedom. And what’s more – there haven’t been any such “slaves” in Jewish households for how long? A millenium and a half? Two?

15. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 7:52 am

    contrary to other Middle Eastern cultures

    According to Prof. Barry Eichler, expressions in Hammurabi such as “rittishu inakkisu” (Akkadian, “they shall cut off his hand”) are probably nonliteral, or even hyperbolic. What serious society wants to have a bunch of invalids walking around.

16. nepphie/ascendance Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 10:08 am

    #4 Actually, I think humanity is diminished when people die. I’d far rather you come to an understanding that doesn’t require unsubstantiated belief and lay aside fairy tales in favor of reality.

    #5 I’ve been saying this about religion for two years before I ever heard the name Ayn Rand.

    #6 Who knows? Humanity isn’t going to inherently order itself to a society that respects freedoms and liberties, I’m not that naive. You’d have your varying degrees of liberty and freedom here and there, and your varying degrees of tyranny in other places, and assortments of the two in between. Humans are complex creatures, with complex ways of asserting what they believe.

    #12 Randroid? Really? Is it that hard to make an actual rebuttal as opposed to just carting out tired buzzwords? I’m far more Dawkinsian than Randian anyway. I admire everything Rand accomplished, and like a great many things about her philosophy, but I’m more self taught than you might think.

17. Lipman Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    # 15, I know. In fact, there’s even the same eye-for-an-eye etc. in Hammurabi, but AFAIK, it’s usually understood by scholars to be more literal, not “An eye? [Pay for] an eye!”

    Concerning serious societies – do you take societies that have been ruled according to Sharia law for many centuries serious? I think one has to. Where, still today, a thief’s hand will be cut off? I haven’t occupied myself enough with it to come to a well-informed opinion, but I’m afraid more “humanistic” readings of Hammurabi are wishful thinking.

    I heard there are even barbarian states that kill people who are more or less reasonably suspected to have killed somebody else against the rules.

18. Lipman Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    I meant to bracket: An eye? [Pay] for an eye!

19. t6by Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    “Where we are talking not about laws that restrict individuals, but laws have to do with general promotion of culture.”

    No, once you legislate religion (even seemingly harmless aspects of it) into your culture you must be unfairly restricting someone… would it not be better to have your holiday when you wanted it during the year rather than at the time your Christian boss dictates?

    This is an insignificant example any way and in my opinion accepting this argument would be the tip of the iceberg. As jabberwock says you are free to believe as you wish but just because a bunch of mutters clump together does not make their notions any more legitimate.

    You may find more or less reasonable religious people but as far as I am concerned they are all labouring under a delusion. That is MY belief and it is surely just as valid as anyone else’s.

    So, yes, I will have a laugh at the expense of others… maybe I’ll even tell some off colour jokes (if you haven’t done it at some point you’re not human) my advice?—- Grow a thicker skin, as an atheist /agnostic I’ve had to because no one privelages my ideas. Also loose the paranoia—I don’t care how you refer to all atheists, I’ll only take your opinion personally if you are rude or derisive when we actually meet (I am not my group… the trouble with jews is they take everything personally {this is irony please just try to get the joke and not be too offended I don’t know you so how can it be a personal statement… hmm that would have been funier if I didn’t have to explain that though}.

    Before they get on the high horse religious people (particularly orthodox jews ) should realise that I have to daily tolerate and humour a bunch of people who sound just plain nuts to me and who never even think while they bleat about their right to free expression and belief, that if I truly enjoyed the same privilege to the same extent that I would be laughing in their faces….

    You have every right to be proud of being a jew/christian/ trekkie but if you ask me to respect the institutions as a whole, their histories(oppressive and violent—however you might try to re-interpret eye for an eye or chop off a hand) or their rights to pass ANY law that affects my life then… NO, NO and NO

    and no one should have to justify their decision not to buy into a philosophy indeed you should have the right to deride an idea that you do not like. The accusation of ignorance is just insulting since it presumes I cannot know what you know and still find your religion absurd. Well for a moment please give the critics the benefit of the doubt.Not doing so is like someone saying “go on try the coffee ice cream” — and responding “but you don’t know what this coffee ice cream tastes like” when someone patiently explains that they don’t like coffee or ice cream for that matter.

    What basically cheeses me off about religious philosophies is that when someone takes something on faith they are rarely able to appreciate that their worldview is only a matter of opinion, I cannot say I have convictions about the whys and wherefores of the universe and that I Know how good people should live and in the same breath say but of course it’s just as likely to be all about the spaghetti monster and there was never any reason to deny yourself the pleasure of a bacon sandwich (though cursed be he who eats the macaroni cheese and thrice shall he be denied the digestive tablets… on which are written….).

    Don’t get me wrong I would not try to insult you just for what you choose to believe but Jabberwock is only expressing what he believes and indeed has even clarified his meaning. I respect individual spirituality (philosophy) but by it’s very nature organised religion cannot avoid fundamentalism and dogma…. Hence it is not only deserving but ripe for parody.

20. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    t6by,

    First of all, I don’t think you know how to read. This puts you in the same league as Felis– and believe me, that’s not something you want to be.

    Yes, I too may have mis-read certain aspects of Jabberwock’s original post, but (a) I think that I managed to express my concerns without insulting him, and (b) when he clarified his meaning, I basically backed down. Also, I think that I have made him a bit more aware of the existence of non-fundamentalist religions, and that he has acknowledged my point.

    No, once you legislate religion (even seemingly harmless aspects of it) into your culture you must be unfairly restricting someone… would it not be better to have your holiday when you wanted it during the year rather than at the time your Christian boss dictates?

    I see your point, but I’m really not sure you’re right. Personally, I do not celebrate Christmas at all. In fact, I un-celebrate it. However, if I were ignorant of its existence, I would be ignorant of a large part of the general (read: Christian) American culture. I think it is a good thing for me to be aware of the culture around me. Does that mean that the government MUST legislate for Christmas to be a national day-off? Of course not. I’m not even comfortable with the day, or the common observances of it. Would I rather that no Christmas decorations, Christmas songs, or Christmas programs bombarded my city each year? Of course. (Fortunately, it’s getting better.) But do I think it is objectively BAD for government to legislate such things on a communal level, as long as it does not explicitly encourage individuals to take part in them.

    What about something like “Jesus Day”, which George W. Bullshit legislated when he was governor of Texas? That’s a stickier issue. I am incredibly uncomfortable with such an institution, and it makes me want to puke. This is because this crosses the line between culture-based-on-religion, and pure religious observance. I would grant you that such an institution is dangerous, especially in a country such as the United States, which has a constitutional amendment prohibiting the “establishment” of any religion by the states.

    You have every right to be proud of being a jew/christian/ trekkie but if you ask me to respect the institutions as a whole, their histories(oppressive and violent—however you might try to re-interpret eye for an eye or chop off a hand) or their rights to pass ANY law that affects my life then… NO, NO and NO

    You may have a legitimate point. As you might be able to figure out from my remarks, I feel rather conflicted on this issue. (Oh, forget it. You didn’t read my remarks in the first place, so how could you have noticed this?) My current thinking on the issue is that it’s probably not a problem for governments to legislate certain cultural aspects of a religion, on a communal (rather than inidividual level.) If you have a legitimate argument against that position, I would be happy to hear it, and you might be able to convince me of it. However, you have yet to show me that you are capable of writing a coherent argument. All that you have done so far is scream about your faith.

    You may find more or less reasonable religious people but as far as I am concerned they are all labouring under a delusion. That is MY belief and it is surely just as valid as anyone else’s.

    Yes, of course it is valid as a “belief”. But that’s precisely the point– it’s an unsubstantiated belief of yours, and therefore, well…, could also be classified as a delusion.

    (I am not my group… the trouble with jews is they take everything personally {this is irony please just try to get the joke and not be too offended I don’t know you so how can it be a personal statement… hmm that would have been funier if I didn’t have to explain that though}.

    Asshole. Maybe it would be moderately funny if it weren’t the rallying cry of anti-semites all around the world. But it is. And your parenthetical self-righteous “apology” doesn’t really make things any better. If you said: “Black people simply have smaller brains, and stronger muscles– don’t take this personally, because it’s just a joke”, you would be an asshole, too. But we already know you’re an asshole, so that wouldn’t really be a surprise.

    and no one should have to justify their decision not to buy into a philosophy indeed you should have the right to deride an idea that you do not like.

    As I said– you don’t know how to read. Did I ever say that you had to justify not buying into my, well, orthopractic system?

    Before they get on the high horse religious people (particularly orthodox jews ) should realise that I have to daily tolerate and humour a bunch of people who sound just plain nuts to me

    Oh, now I see. You have to deal with people who seem nutty to you every day, and therefore

    What basically cheeses me off about religious philosophies is that when someone takes something on faith they are rarely able to appreciate that their worldview is only a matter of opinion

    I never said that my worldview was anything more than a matter of opinion. In fact, I don’t think I even mentioned my worldview. So— fuck you.

    I cannot say I have convictions about the whys and wherefores of the universe and that I Know how good people should live and in the same breath say but of course it’s just as likely to be all about the spaghetti monster and there was never any reason to deny yourself the pleasure of a bacon sandwich (though cursed be he who eats the macaroni cheese and thrice shall he be denied the digestive tablets… on which are written….)

    Keep mumbling to yourself. You’re obviously not talking to anybody on this comment thread (especially not me), because nobody here said any of the things which you are attacking. So, keep mumbling to yourself. I’m sure it makes the world a better place.

    I respect individual spirituality (philosophy) but by it’s very nature organised religion cannot avoid fundamentalism and dogma….

    Again, that’s an unsubstantiated claim. And, in my opinion, WRONG. But that’s just my opinion– far be it from me to force it on anyone else. I could provide evidence against your claim, but if you want to believe it– believe it in good health.

21. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 4:45 pm

    I wrote:

    You may have a legitimate point.

    This was meant to refer only to the bit about the right of governments to pass laws about religious culture. I would “ask” you to respect my people’s history and institutions, though I recognize that you are perfectly within your rights to not respect it. (Similarly, I have no respect for the history of certain other groups, but I would expect them to want me to respect it. And, no, I’m not going to name what those groups are.

22. F***s (what's wrong with the name?) Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    Lipman, just a few minor things. I’m pretty busy at the moment, so I won’t be long. Comment #13, I’ll get back to you later when I have time.

    So, Lipman.

    1. Like I said, the fellow insists on speaking for every Jew, so he’s almost imitating them in what he wrote, to the point where he becomes the stereotype. If he was a Christian, I would have referred to him as “Reverend Archbishop Billy-Bob Falwell Tutu-Williams” or something equally ridiculous.*

    And I like your implications that I’m racist.

    I “revealed more than I wanted to,” despite the fact that the only possible reading of what I said was as satire. Obviously, you knew that calling my remark a racist jibe, in itself, wouldn’t cut any mustard (because it isn’t one), but you can detect that the motivations were racial!

    Oh, and in case that didn’t work, you threw in another, much more subtle accusation of racism: accusing me of believing all Jews to be of the Jewish ethnic group as well!

    I didn’t assume that, and you know it full well: but, people generally refer to the Israeli people as the “Jewish People” because Judaism has been passed down the family lines by teaching, along the same paths as the Hebrew (Jewish people’s) genes.

    So people refer to them as the Jewish people as an improper term meaning the Hebrew ethnic group. Practically everyone does, and this can be confusing (”Do you mean the ethnic group or the religion?”)

    I was asking if YOU meant them. And you know that.

    So, I smell troll.

    Also, there is nothing wrong with my presupposition. The American “Indian” (sorry, American Aboriginee is the correct ethnological term) scenario you posited – that implies my presupposition is wrong – is bunk, because it claims that I would just call the guy “Big Chief” for no reason.

    *However, the fellow who wrote the letter to Janet was trying to represent — make himself out to be — *the* Jew, and in fact, *the* theist (even among non-Jewish theists). He is doing so to the point of looking like a stereotype. I was satirising that.

    I am repeating this from the bold paragraph at the start of point (1.), above this, so that it sinks in. Sorry for not explaining it this clearly in my first post.

    2. I know, but I was asking that as an “aside”, out of curiosity; could you please answer it?

    3. You haven’t answered the question. What is wrong with the name? As far as I remember, it is Latin for the Cat genus. If there are some Nazi or anti-Semitic connotations attatched to that name, please, tell me.

    Notably, you haven’t quite done that yet, despite the fact you’ve had a chance. Couple this with the accusation that I deliberately post with this name to deliberately irk other Jews (and this is the first post ever that’s discussed Judaism at all), you know what?

    I smell troll.

    So, unless you respond, and respond seriously, I’m not going to take a moment’s notice of you. So, again, please answer my questions.

    4. Yes, I meant “Felis”.

23. F***s (what's wrong with the name?) Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Addendum: for the record, notice my remark 9back up in a comment several above) about “changing the name from “Rabbi Herschel Bergenstein-Schmidt” to “Reverend Herschel Bergenstein-Falwell”?

    Like I said, that’s to reflect that he is trying to put himself out as *the* representative of not only all the Jews (to the point of stereotype), but as *the* representative of other religious groups (all the theists) as well, also to the point of stereotype.

    For example, Christians as well.

    If you ignore that completely, I will have to assume you’re a troll. If you don’t asnwer my questions at some point, and I mean seriously, I will have consider you a troll then as well, and as such ignore you.

    So please, respond to them.

    It’s when people such as Janet’s client claim to represent everyone of a particular group that I get annoyed. And that was why I responded.

    Janet’s client is so desparate to speak for all of them, that heclaims to do so, even when he obviously doesn’t; and, worse, he insists on trying so hard to look like he represents them that he only ends up looking like the stereotype. Even if he doesn’t mean to.

    This, of course, is the last thing any group of people needs: someone trying so hard to look like he represents them ALL that he becomes a stereotype. And it angers me.

24. Jabberwock Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    1. Thanks, and yes. But don’t tell anyone.

    2. I agree with what other people have said, regarding the “Rabbi Herschel Bergenstein-Schmidt” thing. It really is akin to calling a Native American “Chief Slow Bear”.

    3. I wouldn’t necessarily agree. There are a good number of people who hold religious beliefs who are also very rational and intelligent people, and who embrace science and reason and don’t feel there’s any conflict with their belief in God.

    In any event, I see no reason why the healthier varieties of spirituality and religious belief should be any less (or more, for that matter) tolerated than subscription to any other philosophy or ideology, some of which can be equally dangerous if not more so.

    4. You have a point. There’s a lot of ritual all around, and I think fundies — while perhaps less into ritual than, say, Catholics, who are just rife with such behavior to the extent that it really resembles Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (and I’m speaking as someone with very mild OCD, though it used to be far more intense in my teens) — still have a good quantity of it.

    6. Exactly; it’s not like religious beliefs are the only dangerous kinds of philosophies that exist. And I do think it would be impossible to abolish religion at this point. (Even if we did, what would end up taking its place?) Also, what was said in comment #7.

    8. I take it you’ve never read Maus. (If Lipman’s referring to what I think he is.)

    9. The Bible can be used to justify basically any action or perspective, depending on how you interpret it. For the most part, fundamentalists (and even some who aren’t) don’t derive their beliefs from the Bible, but rather use the Bible to justify existing cultural prejudices.

    10. I’m terribly sorry.

    11. Well, the issue there is that there are many Christians — fundamentalist or no, but fundamentalists especially — who are convinced that it’s impossible to have morality without religion. If something then happens to shake their belief system, it’s possible some of them end up retaining that perspective that no faith means no morals, and that’s when you end up with a bunch of problems.

    However, there are also many — even more than the aforementioned, I’m sure — who are able to recognize that it’s possible to have morality without requiring belief in God. Depends on the individual. There are idiots who can cause problems whatever they believe in.

    13. Well, one of the great things about the internet is that you can usually be as anonymous as you want to be. You don’t have to post with an identifiable handle. In fact, there are some people who comment here who I know in other places but don’t recognize by the pseudonyms they use here until they end up pointing it out.

    I know we likely agree about a lot. It’s just that I wanted to clarify that a) for the most part, this is about humor, in many cases an ironic variety thereof (which I’ll concede doesn’t always work well over the internet); b) I think I generally make it clear enough that I’m targeting fundamentalists specifically, save for when I’m analyzing the Bible itself and the God depicted therein, or just generally taking a literal look at the Bible.

    A cheesecloth is a thin, loose cotton sheet, originally developed to make cheese, but can be used for any number of things. (Like, for instance, making horchata, a Spanish/Latin-American rice drink that is fucking delicious.)

    My point about the mathematicians was sort of exaggeratedly paraphrasing Lewis Black’s bit about how “the Bible was written when people were even dumber than they are today.” Even today, if you asked someone to give a large number (not infinity), you’d probably get answers like “a hundred million”, “a billion” whatever, even though we know there are much larger numbers (10^999999, for instance). And if you asked them to name something “really, really, really old”, you’d get even smaller numbers, even though we generally — and experts specifically — have a much clearer idea of the ages of things than people did in the past.

    I’m aware that humorous exaggeration is likely to undermine my arguments. But again, in this situation, especially when nearly all the people reading agree with the sentiments I’m expressing and most of the arguments I make, I don’t mind sacrificing argumentative credibility for entertainment value every so often.

    And, what, Old Testament between about 200 BC and AD 50 or so, and New Testament between AD 50 and AD 200? Though there are earlier Jewish texts that date back to much earlier in the first millennia BC, I think.

    Mandating general promotion of culture as law has some… I don’t know, rather unnerving implications. Sure, there’s a difference between “hey, let’s give kids some time off around Christmas” and “every porch is required to sport an American flag”, but when you begin to mandate cultural elements, you can open yourself up to making some crazy things into law. I also believe that culture will develop and persist — and has done so throughout history — on its own, without needing any help from law books. In fact, taking a prescriptivist approach and trying to form culture from written law is likely to stifle cultural evolution.

    I’ll get to other comments in a bit, but I figure I’ll split up my replies here, in part because it’s a lot of writing.

25. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    And, what, Old Testament between about 200 BC and AD 50 or so, and New Testament between AD 50 and AD 200? Though there are earlier Jewish texts that date back to much earlier in the first millennia BC, I think.

    Actually, the earliest parts of the Hebrew Bible (known to Jews as the Tənakh, and to Christians as the Old Testament) consists of books composed from about 1500ish BCE to about 165 BCE.

    Traditionalists, both Jewish and Christian, will say that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) were given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai around 1450 BCE, whereas virtually all academic scholars will say that these books were composed by a number of authors from about 1000 BCE until about 586 BCE, or even later. However, virtually all agree that there are vraious pieces of poetry which date back to 1450 BCE or even earlier.

    The latest book of said collection seems to be Daniel. The traditional date for the composition of this book is in the reign of Cyrus the Great, who was Emperor of Persia from 540 BCE through 529 BCE. However, the book shows telltale signs of having been composed by an anonymous writer (with certain political views) during the Antiochus IV’s Persecutions, and Daniel’s supposed prophecies are actually retrojections after the fact.

    The New Testament, considered sacred only by Christians (and reviled by Jews) was composed in the first, and possibly early second, Century of the Common Era. The earliest Epistles of Paul are from the mid- to late 30s, whereas the Gospels were written later on in the century, or even into the next century. The Book of Revelation, too, seems to have been written in the later decades of the first century.

    The situation is complicated by the fact that there is a whole group of books which Catholics consider to be part of their Old Testament, but are not included either in the Jews’ Bible nor in the Protestants’ Old Testament. Scholars call these books The Apocrypha. These books were composed between about, I dunno, 450ish BCE to about 50 CE.

26. Jabberwock Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    14. I really like that interpretation of “eye for an eye”, and actually never thought about it that way.

    15. Yeah, it’s sad when people end up misinterpreting things like that to such an extent that it’s so damaging to everyone involved.

    16. Re: #4: The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. If you take the fairy tales as inspirational literature (”divinely inspired” or not) as opposed to, say, using them to supplant reality in a schizophrenic way that, for instance, believes that fossils aren’t real but tools of Satan, there’s not really a conflict or a problem.

    17. I think there comes a point where a society must concede that human rights must absolutely come before interpretations of religious doctrine for such a society to be taken seriously and not just considered backwards and in need of profound cultural change. That’s why, while I feel that, for instance, the Kurds should have every right to believe what they do, they should be prevented from being able to participate in the aspects of their belief that severely violate the rights of other people in their society, particularly women.

    This is part of my argument against “laws that promote culture”: You really don’t want to be promoting those elements of culture.

    19. Well, you’re kind of confusing business policy with legal policy, here. Regardless of the religious beliefs of your boss, they could just as much give you a “holiday” week off in the middle of September to celebrate the Feast of the Moose or whatever and then no special breaks at the end of December. There’s no law that says that a business HAS to give people certain holidays off. Retail is an excellent example of this. You’ll probably find relatively few businesses — even those owned by adamant Atheists — who would give you a holiday “when you wanted it during the year”.

    In any event, I’m not sure that’s exactly what TOC was talking about when he meant “general promotion of culture”. Actually, the only thing that would really be the promotion of culture by giving children time off at the end of the year would be officially deeming it “Christmas break” instead of “winter break” or “holiday break”.

    I do agree that legally mandating culture or cultural practices and attitudes is scary and unnecessary and smacks a bit of an essence of cultural superiority that’s unhealthy to promote. I also agree that nothing is necessarily beyond reproach, and just because someone’s very serious about their own beliefs or belief in general, it doesn’t mean everyone else has to be so as well. But I think you might be misreading what TOC meant a bit, and I think people in this thread in general are viewing him as somehow a hostile and aggressive force, when really he’s not. (Looking at you, here, Felis. )

27. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    Mandating general promotion of culture as law has some… I don’t know, rather unnerving implications.

    Yesyesyes, the whole issue is interesting, and I don’t know where I stand on the issue. It’s hard to discuss the topic dispassionately, because I am uncomfortable — often profoundly uncomfortable — when such legislation is enacted by a country in which my religious group is the minority, but usually comfortable when such legislation is enacted by a country in which my religious group is the majority. Obviously, my own subjective experience is irrelevant to the objective question of whether or not such legislation is acceptable.

    I don’t really have an answer to the question. It is definitely an interesting topic of conversation, and you could perhaps post it as a separate post on this blog. I think it is clear that we have strayed far from the original topic of this post.

28. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    rife with such behavior to the extent that it really resembles Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

    The key word is resembles. Please click here before reading further.

    I’m not going to go Googling it for now, but there’s a whole psychiatric literature out there on how to identify people with true OCD in communities where ritually is very important. Such a task is often hard, because superficially, all the people in the group are filling their days with rituals. The key distinction is that for most of them, these rituals do not prevent them from functioning well in the world and having happy lives. The ones with OCD, on the other hand, are truly suffering, and feeling paralyzed.

    But you said resembles, so you’re off the hook.

29. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 1st, 2008 at 9:33 pm

    But I think you might be misreading what TOC meant a bit, and I think people in this thread in general are viewing him as somehow a hostile and aggressive force, when really he’s not.

    Well, I never realized it before, but now that I have read this thread I realize that I clearly am a hostile and aggressive force.

    I am promoting the death of reason; laboring under a delusion; claiming to represent all members of the Jewish religion, or perhaps the “Jewish (now Israeli) ethnic group”– nay, all theists, including Christians; actively and unequivocally trying to get governments to write laws which promote Christian culture, and thereby make members of my own religion profoundly uncomfortable; unable to appreciate that my worldview is only a matter of opinion; and arguing that because advanced mathematics existed at the time when the Bible was written, the universe must be 6,000 years old. And perhaps I’m also advocating laws which legislate slavery and the amputations of the hands of homosexuals.

    Interestingly, I never knew any of these things about myself until I read this thread. I guess I’m a really fearsome character. (And even those traits — aside from the stuff about advocating certain laws — don’t really hurt anyone.)

30. Janet Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 am

    Okay, even though I sort of started this I haven’t been commenting at all. I apologize. I don’t like arguing, much, and right now this thread is looking more and more like dudes trying to piss on each other and miss. Luckily, at this point, the original pissers are efficiently wetting the ones who like to piss on made-up versions of the other people, and are thereby stinking up everything with anti-Semitic stupid.

    I am promoting the death of reason; laboring under a delusion; claiming to represent all members of the Jewish religion, or perhaps the “Jewish (now Israeli) ethnic group”– nay, all theists, including Christians; actively and unequivocally trying to get governments to write laws which promote Christian culture, and thereby make members of my own religion profoundly uncomfortable; unable to appreciate that my worldview is only a matter of opinion; and arguing that because advanced mathematics existed at the time when the Bible was written, the universe must be 6,000 years old. And perhaps I’m also advocating laws which legislate slavery and the amputations of the hands of homosexuals.

    THIS IS IRONY, everyone. Big sign reading IRONY right here. Could have been useful in Jabberwock’s original parody, which functioned from generalizing based on his limited experience in Catholicism (an entirely different cultural institution from both evangelicals and orthoprax Jews) toward all Christianity, much as Jack generalizes from his limited exposure to sanity.

    Thanks for putting up with this piss party, smart people – especially TOC.

31. Jabberwock Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 am

    

32. Lipman Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 am

    Just a few points, I’m really tired:

    First of all, I didn’t think of Maus. I do think that Felis is challenged in a way, but I certainly don’t have reason to call him/her a Nazi. (The cats in Maus are the Nazis – and in fact, I rather have a similar reproach to Spiegelman. )

    Then, has anyone noticed the argument in this thread isn’t between the blogger vs the observant Jews or something, who, after an initial misunderstanding about irony seem to be in agreement about the basics and exchange themselves about details? The argument shifted to rational/sane vs idiots who insinuate non-existing positions and try to fight them, or draw the thing to sidelines. Waste of power to react to those, but one nice example is that TOC wasn’t speaking for all theists or even “just” all Orthodox Jews; his whole point was that it’s not useful to lump them all up together.

33. Jabberwock Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 am

    Hah. Sorry, it’s just that when you said Felis shouldn’t have used the name “Felis” in this particular context, my thoughts went to “Cat” => “Mouse” => “Cat vs. Mouse” => “Maus” and then etc.

    Though, now I’m confused: What is wrong with the name Felis?

    And yeah, I’ve noticed that the discussion really shifted. TOC originally mostly just missed certain intentional ironies and exaggerations (which I think is an easy occurrence online) at first, and I just wanted to clarify. I think people took TOC as substantially more hostile/aggressive than he actually was (perhaps in part because of how I may have framed it in the original post? I do have rather an aggressive way of writing), and misread or misinterpreted some things TOC said (even I’m guilty of this with misinterpreting the point of the 6,000 years thing), and… I don’t know what happened.

    I think we should maybe step back for a second and take a look at this discussion in perhaps a less serious light. I’m not talking about what we’re all saying, but about the discussion itself — it’s an argument on the internet. That’s not to say we’re not worthy of each other’s respect and serious consideration; it’s more that there are few arguments that warrant getting genuinely angry and upset with one another, and this certainly isn’t one of them.

34. Lipman Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 am

    Cats are nice. (S)he isn’t. (S)he still chose the name “cat”. Really nothing of importance, probably the most insignificant among the side shows here.

35. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 7:22 am

    Sorry, it’s just that when you said Felis shouldn’t have used the name “Felis” in this particular context, my thoughts went to “Cat” => “Mouse” => “Cat vs. Mouse” => “Maus” and then etc.

    In fact, those were exactly my thoughts, as well.

36. nepphie/ascendance Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 8:32 am

    #26 As long as people understand the fairy tales are just that, fictional, then find all the inspiration you like in them. I like a good yarn as much as anyone, I’d be a bit loony trying to be a writer if I didn’t. At the same time, creating a belief structure out of the fairy tales is just unhealthy. It leads otherwise rational people like my father to say ignorant drivel like “Science hasn’t explained everything yet, so God must be the answer.”

    I’m with Richard Dawkins on this. People can practice their religions all they like, I really am not bothered that they do. But humanity at large would be best served in a world of reason, rather than one of superstition. Any time you substitute the tiniest bit of superstition for any part of reason, you hinder the process of learning about your world and embracing everything that’s just waiting to be discovered.

37. Lipman Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 am

    As so often, it boils down to verantwortungsethik vs gesinnungsethik (more).

38. Djur Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am

    #12 Randroid? Really? Is it that hard to make an actual rebuttal as opposed to just carting out tired buzzwords? I’m far more Dawkinsian than Randian anyway. I admire everything Rand accomplished, and like a great many things about her philosophy, but I’m more self taught than you might think.

    And here in the world of the sane, that makes you a Randroid.

39. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 11:34 am

    As long as people understand the fairy tales are just that, fictional, then find all the inspiration you like in them. I like a good yarn as much as anyone

    Nice condescending term, “fairy tales”. Do you consider all literature “fairy tales”? Hamlet? The Remembrance of Things Past? Ulysses?

    I’d be a bit loony trying to be a writer if I didn’t

    You’re a writer, and you think that it is unhealthy to create belief structures out of literary texts? Sheesh.

    Any time you substitute the tiniest bit of superstition for any part of reason, you hinder the process of learning about your world and embracing everything that’s just waiting to be discovered.

    Is that true also when you kill brain cells by ingesting one or another chemical (e.g. alcohol)? Or when you sit on the couch watching mindless commercials on television? Yup– you hinder the process of learning about your world.

    Dare I point out that many scientific discoveries have been made by individuals who were inspired to do so by their religions? For example, many religions have calendars– and in order to figure out accurate dates for calendars, one must be knowledgeable in astronomy. A number of important discoveries in the field of astronomy were made in the context of fixing a religious calendar. If I recall correctly, one of these was Copernicus’s Heliocentric Theory.

40. t6by Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    k man (origional comentator) unless I am missing some other threat on another site I think I did actually read what you said…

    I certainly read the insults and profanities you directed my way and I’ve got to say I’m a bit pissed off… I was not directly insulting you… In fact the point I was trying to make is that having met you I could hardly produce a convincing character assasination. I was attacking the concept of religion and in particular its cultural privalage…

    fistly you moan that I did not read what you said… I did where I did not refer to your argument I was expanding on the point (I felt your defence of other religious groups was a bit vague and might be missinterpreted). I did not know you were so special that my every comment had to relate to you.

    Two I thought I had already pointed out that just claiming that any one who interprets your argument in a way you did not want them two must be ignorant or unable to read is disengenous to say the least.

    Three FUCK you mate, I am not anti-semetic not that I would apologise to you if I was. I don’t care if you beleive me one way or another but my joke/apology was ment to make the obvious point that often brevity and wit go hand in hand. How is Jabberwock supposed to make a joke… which lets face it alway has to have a but (if not an arsehole aparently, thanks for that… I can’t read… but it’s okay for you to missinterpret my meaning and then lay on the insults)… how can Jabberwok make a joke and at the same time fulfill your request for clarity.

    If I ask the question ‘what’s the diference between a truck load of bowling balls and a truck load of babies” the line “you can’t unload a truck load of bowling balls with pitch fork’ falls short of funny if I also have to explain that I don’t really mean I want to kill babies while delivering the punch line.

    much of Jabberwocks ranting is funny because it is absurd… you shouldn’t need a lable. Its IRONY

    Like the irony that you have decided you can lump me in with “anti-semites all around the world” (for a start I was attacking religion not the jewish faith!) . Who in all this made you the frikkin judge? Would it help if I pointed out that one of my grand parents was in fact jewish? It shouldn’t! it was just a joke and further was makeing a point you totally missed.

    Anyway I was just trying to point out that religious peolple often do not realise that athiests are already tolerating them and the leat we ask for is the right to have a laugh at their expense some time…. I really have no malice when I do this but unless you have never told a blond/cathololic/sexist joke stop coming the raw prawn.

    But what’s the point eh? Your’e right and I’m an ignorant arshole heathen … sorry if I ever said religious people might have the tentancy to dissmiss the opinions of others. I will end on this note:

    a catholic priest and a rabbi are sitting on a park bench when a small boy runs by.

    “Lets Screw him” whispers the catholic priest
    “Out of what?” asks the rabbi

41. t6by Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    ‘thread’ in the begining sorry typing too fast

42. Janet Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    t6by, while I can read, I can barely read what you write. This makes it hilarious when you correct a single spelling error in a long, rapidly-typed post rife with grammatical and spelling errors.

43. The Original Commenter Says:
    June 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    I am not anti-semetic not that I would apologise to you if I was.

    Wow! You’re basically saying: “I am not an anti-Semite, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with anti-Semitism.”

    Does that make any sense? I guess it basically means “I don’t hate Jews, but I think that hating Jews is OK.” And that is passive anti-semitism.

    Would it make sense for someone to say: “I don’t support the death penalty, but if I did, that wouldn’t be a problem. I don’t think it’s wrong for anyone else to support the death penalty.”

    BTW, I really love the completely incoherent comments, which use almost no punctuation. It makes it more of a challenge to read them.*

    *That was irony.

44. t6by Says:
    June 3rd, 2008 at 2:18 am

    Sorry tired after work… oh and dyslexic by the way while we draw the dagger on bigots… do you guy kick cripples too??? Oh or is that rediculiosly emotive like your shit comenter?

    Because and here’s the point I did not say what you have said….Nor would I endorse it (thanks for yet again proving that you feel your interpretation means more than what the person speaking actually says) Are you so fucking dense or close minded that you do not see the point that a true anti semite would hardly apologise to a jew for his view? did you futher yet again miss the point that a joke with a disclaimer is not a joke?

    I was attacking the concept of religion and making a point about the practicalities of humour… now I have to be an anti semite? (because you’re with us or against us right???)

    I say I have distaste for ALL organised religion and you pick yours from the mix to try to moraly bash me (A: you took it personally which was the joke and B: how fucking choosen do you think you are? C: just a logical point you cannot link having a distate for religion to racism {Kind of proves my point about privilage that you think you can} You do not choose to be a race you do choose to be religious.)

    As the makers of South Park so correctly put it “either all mockery is correct or none of it is.” Don’t you think fundies would feel offended by your opion of them… big whoop you still laugh! Just because I can laugh at something abstract does not mean I hate people or have canisters of psyclon gas in the basement. Is every one who laughs at Cartman and kyle an anti semite? Should each joke be followed by a disclaimer? The idea of ‘jew gold’ for instance is absurd I laughed but I also knew it was not reality.

    As to how religion helped culture and science … ever heard of sherria law? Why did lenardo divinci have to write backwards and why was socrates killed?

    I appologise for any spelling mistakes here in advance BTW hopefully though you will try to understand what I am trying to say without simply othering me for questioning your view point— I am not antisemetic exccept in as much as I am anti religion— that’s just a statement of fact and far from an apology.

45. t6by Says:
    June 3rd, 2008 at 2:21 am

    Ps what kind of goy do you think I am?

46. Lipman Says:
    June 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 am

    DFTT

47. t6by Says:
    June 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 am

    last time I’m comenting on this one… I promise…
    If I am the Troll you are refering to lipman then I am sorry if seems that way to you. I really did not start out trying to be aggressive and I would like to apologise to anyone who has been offened apart of course from the lad who called me an asshole and got me going in the first place.

    I had a re-read and I agree with something Jabberwoke said, that there is really nothing here worth getting too upset about… for the most part I simply treat my religious friends like health fanatics… I roll my eyes and find a nice place on the wall to focus on when the start talking about carots/god.

    I got upset because I really felt that I did not start out insulting anyone personaly and did not see why I needed to have my inelegence and character attacked (hopefully I have not cast these aspects of myself in too bad a light with my response). I felt that there was a tendancy here to not only withhold the benefit of the doubt but to prejudge any disent as anti-semetic (exibit A the name ‘felis’ which had nothing to do with anti-sematism but was cheerfully disected by the paranoid!)

    All things being equal though I do not wish to waste any of our time with anger and negative feeling thus I ask anyone who feels I might have offended them to forgive me, honestly I was never serriously trying to have a go at anyone mearly respond to the falisy that religion ‘only shaping culture rather than legislating for individuals’ was a minor issue (I still do not feel it is).

    Perhaps I also vented some steam but thats because as an atheist I can’t help but notice that I belong to a group that gets no protection for its ideas while being told it is wrong for it to question others… “you can’t say that it might offend the jews/christians/ muslims”… ever heard that applied to athiests who have to listen to everyone elses gumph?… I have just heard ‘jesus is lord” once too often. (bless budists for having no concept of blasphamy)

    So yeah, bye and apologies to those who deserve them.

48. Felis Says:
    June 3rd, 2008 at 8:21 pm

    Jesus Christ, motherfuckers, what the motherfucking motherfuck happened here!?

    I’ll motherfucking respond to this motherfucking thread when I get motherfucknig time to drop a post all up in this motherfucking thread.

49. Jabberwock Says:
    June 4th, 2008 at 1:43 am

    t6by: I think Janet’s point was more that without knowing that you have dyslexia (which she didn’t), when you only correct a single mistake out of many, it creates rather a funny juxtaposition, as opposed to if you pointed out that the reason there are so many mistakes is that you’re dyslexic, which is far more helpful and comprehensive an explanation.

    It’s sort of like a blind person stumbling into a room full of strangers, tripping over a table, breaking a vase, rolling into the fireplace, running headlong through a sliding glass door, coming back inside, bumping into a wall and then saying “oops, didn’t see that vase there.”

    I guess most of us misinterpreted what you were saying as that you wouldn’t apologize for antisemitism, when I think your point is that you wouldn’t apologize specifically to TOC because you don’t think much of him.

    In any event, while the whole point of this post is to explain that I’m often being ironic or exaggerating for humor purposes and it shouldn’t be taken literally, that’s a little different from telling a bunch of racist jokes and then going “just kidding”. And, I mean, though it’s difficult to tell, there’s a difference between ironic racism and racist jokes that actually do express a genuine racist sentiment beneath.

    I’ll admit that people may have taken you a little too personally, especially after you explained that you weren’t being serious, and I think maybe we’re all taking different things far more seriously than we ought to. (For instance, perhaps you’re taking others too seriously as well.) You do make some excellent points, and I think it’s unfair to dismiss them out of hand.

50. t6by Says:
    June 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am

    yeah obviously I lied about not comenting again , I’ll stay off the topic and just agree with Jabberwock. I know I don’t start off by telling people that I am dyslexic, in fact when I was a child the prognosis was that I would never learn to read. The thing is I don’t like being defined by disability and I don’t like having to mention my weakness.

    I know that’s pride but hey we all got some and maybe thats why I take esspecial exception to people playing the you can’t spell/read card. Not that anyone was to know but still it kind of was my point its easy to hurt people and some hurts you just have to live with without moaning…and yeah I’m not a hypocrite I get the joke.

    Beleive it or not with a spell checker behind me I’m a fairly decent writer but some times I’m stubourn (lazy to) and like the guy with the limp who refuses a cane I want to function without explaining that I might have problems. I just expect people to penetrate my meaning (get to the meat rather than worry about the syntax) My bad I know but as I said it was exaserbated by the speed with which everyone jumped to the WRONG conclusion.

    I also felt angry because I feel that there is a diference between being neutral or indiferent to something and anti it particularly when my beef is with instutions rather than specific individuals. I would like to restate that the jokes were not ‘racist’ there is a fundemental diference between laughing at someone for something about themselves they cannot choose or affect and laughing at someones life choices. Religion is a choice. It shouldn’t matter but I have jewish ancestry of my own I don’t see it as a racial identity nor could I safly make any ‘racial’ coment without including myself

    Again I do apologise if I upset any one with the jokes, but only in as much as I don’t want to upset anyone some of them made me genuinly laugh the first time I heard them and I don’t think I’m a bad person, perhaps ‘otherly good’ .

    You can find something funny and not be ANTI it in any strong sense. As I say there is an unnumbered list of jokes and comedy programes that would run afoul of the strict criteria that the origional comentator was using and strangely enough while I am not particularly impressed with judasim… I said I rejected all organised religions equally I beleive (the only reason I commneted on jeudaism specificly was that the comentator said it was ‘diferent’ from other religions that I might cheerfuly mock). I really don’t care if he’s jewish or beleaves in that moose you mentioned REALLY so I didn’t like being lumped in with ‘every other anti-semite world wide’ who lets face it include some pretty underirable people in their ranks

    any whoo probably over reacted… definitly spelt badly … try not to do the first again … will almost certainly repeat the second.

51. Jabberwock Says:
    June 5th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Well, that’s the thing, though: Jews aren’t just followers of the Judaic religion; the term is also used to refer to Jewish ethnicity. Thus, jokes you make about Jews could be construed to be referring to either, and particularly when you say things like “Jews are cheap”, it’s like saying “blacks steal a lot”. To claim to be joking about the religion, you’d have to be talking more about things like particular guidelines, like joking about a Catholic making the sign of the cross every time they read a lower-case ‘t’. You can’t say “nice nose, Shecklestein” (not that I’m saying you did — this is just an example) and then claim you’re making fun of them because of their religion.

    And again, there’s ironic racism, but it’s really hard to pull off and best to avoid — especially in text — if you’re not confident about it.

52. t6by Says:
    June 7th, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    No I don’t take that point, because I have been at pains to state that my attack is on religion. Not only should it be impossible to make this mistake but any misinterpretation could be cleared up buy simply asking my meaning (rather than assuming it and being genuinely abusive).

    I started off disliking the first commentator’s attempt to extract his faith from the morass of other world religions and I still think this is a cheap argument, are we dealing with a faith or are you genetically Jewish? One of my grand parents was Jewish and I am sure that there are plenty of ethnically Jewish people who have lost their identity as Jews due to the practice of adopting Christianity to prevent persecution in Europe. The tribes of Israel have been scattered around the world for quite a while and I am sure that many more people than are practicing Jews could be called ethnically Jewish.

    I have no problem with ethnicity, but to me (and it is just my opinion I’ll admit) organised religion is inherently corrupt and about hierarchy. For every value someone might say might say a religion has taught us I’m sure I could give you an example of atrocities to go with them if not examples of how the priesthood had broken their own laws for power or money. Take the example given of an eye for an eye for instance. The commenter might have tried to offer what sounds like a suspiciously modern interpretation to that. (I’m not against his sentiment there but how many ‘eye doctors’ were there at the time this was written?) . You must concede that the statement is at least ambiguous enough to allow the spilling of blood under religious auspices should priests choose to use it that way. The Christians certainly did why would Jews be any better?

    I have in fact spoken to Jewish friends who have lived in Israel and they say that the social climate is highly oppressive because religion is taken so seriously in the country. I can’t personally confirm this one way or another but I sure as hell have a problem with the concept of theocracy which ever religion is selling the idea. If I took your point to heart how am I ever going to be able to properly criticize any bad behaviour on the part of the Jewish religion and its followers?

    I don’t believe I ever used physical characteristics in any of the jokes I wrote. I don’t have a racial picture in my head when I talk about Jews, there are Jews of every ethnicity, hue and social background (funnily enough the Nazi’s would have firmly disagreed with this idea so I’m not sure how PC categorising Jews as a race could really be).

    Now you might not think much of me telling a Jewish joke… fair enough and I have apologised for any insult (I mean it BTW) but I do not apologise for perhaps finding something unPC funny or accept that I must be referring to Jews as a race. Also you would be guilty of hypocrisy to have a go at me here because “either it’s all right or none of it is!” If I must think about the feelings of Jews that might be hurt by a negative stereotype I have put forward how can you defend yourself from the same complaint from Christian fundamentalists? Bottom line you don’t care if they don’t like it but that does not make you a monster or mean that you would want to cause anyone real harm or upset.

    This discussion has only reinforced my belief that people are too quick to judge and alienate. I meant one thing but there seemed to be an active eagerness to interpret things another way as I said things for me are just not as simple as “you are with us or against us”

    It is not about goodies and bodies. I can be aware of stereotypes and laugh at them without believing in them. I can dislike religion and not want to harm Jews. Even find Judaism ridiculous and not hate or want to harm individual Jews.

    If the term Jew is loaded and has conisations then the phrase ‘anti-Semite’ has inferences that are truly abominable. Certain people were quick enough to slap that label my way and accuse me of personally endorsing it why is it only me who should be sensitive because someone might misinterpret me and take it on themselves to get insulted, surely a direct personal insult is worse than a few jokes directed at your general group (which I took to be so absurd that they had to be false in the first place “the trouble with Jews is that they take everything too personally” is an adaptation of a John Cleese joke about women. The whole point is that you can’t react to it without making it seen true there lies the humour in that irony not in any opinion I have about Jews because frankly I have none more than a general dislike for organised religion)…

    We all need the benefit of the doubt and if at any time someone doesn’t like what they think I have said then I’d say it would be up to them to ask me to clarify my point. Even if they still think I am wrong after that they loose any moral high ground when they start with the abuse. What good did my over reaction or the commentators actually do?

    Just accept that however you might have initially interpreted things I have now made it as clear as I can that there was another way to see things. I did not start out seeing jews as a race and I still don’t I can only take responsibility for what’s in my own head and I’m also probably the best person to explain it…

53. Felis Says:
    June 8th, 2008 at 3:34 am

    In short:

    jokes pertaining to the Jewish faith, e.g. ” You could make a lampshade out of that foreskin!” = mocking the religion;

    jokes mocking actual genetic characteristics of the Jewish ethnic group, e.g. “Hey, Big-Ears, how was syngogue!?” = mocking the ethnic group = racist.

    Something that always interested me: during the Holocaust, what group did the majority of the German Jews that were killed fall into? Were they mainly German natives who belonged to the religion, or where they ethnically Jewish (Israeli)?

54. t6by Says:
    June 9th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    em sorry to contradict but I think the lampshade thing is not a great example since it attempts to derive humour from the holocaust.. not just jewish religious practice + the holocaust was inherently racist. (perhaps we should be more worried about a calamari shop next to a synagog)

    Not that something awful can’t be a source of humour if you are apealing to my sense of dark comedy (sometimes, at least speaking for myself, things can be so terrible that you either have to laugh or cry.) … I would entirely understand if someone got upset by this particular reference though! (not that I am saying you had to mean it to be offensive…)

    Indeed I think we should all stop looking for eneimes (and inevitably makeing them with preemptive attacks… I’m looking at you Bush supporters.) Plenty of people have made non-PC jokes, I’ve laughed at many of them. The real question that should be asked (and then you should only have to answer to yourself) is “why did you make the joke?” and “did you enjoy it for the right reasons” …

    The trouble with all of us is we take everything too personally ….

Leave a Reply