Saturday, February 28, 2015
In yer ol' perfesser's opinion, religion is a mass infatuation with delusion.
It has NOT 'caused" violence among humans.
It has merely become the MOST convenient excuse for it.
It should be recalled that, through our known history, we humans are not "peaceful."
At best, they/we are ambivalent; at worst, murderously hostile, to other members of our species to whoim we do not happen to be related.
This condition, this predisposition toward violence, clearly PRECEDED the establishment of "religion"-- though possibly by not a very long time, in evolutionary terms..
The matter of "Religion/"God", because it typically has--by DEFINITION--no concrete referent in "reality," can be disputed as endlessly and as bloodily as desired.
Believers also typically assert certain privileges on the basis of their faith.
Of course, this is philosophically unwarranted and unacceptable as a practical matter, and this does occasionally lead to social friction, which COULD stimulate violence.
So, I again propose the following bargain which, I know many faithless/godless folks would welcome and accept immediately.
Here it is:
I promise never again to inveigh against, or criticize, or deplore, or revile, or otherwise calumniate or publicly deprecate ANY god-blighted bible-babbler for their idiotic delusions, stupid rituals and ignorance, ever again!
...If, and ONLY if...
Those same god-bothered 'faithful' will refrain, forever, from bringing their holy baggage into the public sphere, and if they will never again demand public prayer to their 'gods'; if they will forswear trying to use their "god" to seek advantages or privileges or entitlements NOT available to those NOT proclaiming their particular brand of theosophic allegiance...
I haven't had any takers.
I'll be (metaphorically) at the beach if you want me...
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
I received this in response to a comment I posted on someone's Fbook page.
Mr. Konopak, I sincerely respect your formidable intellect. I always read your posts when I am on Facebook, and very often your comments. You, as well as a notable couple of your friends on this social media site, are, I think, (and your grossness aside,) the most brilliant people, especially in political matters, that one could possibly ever have the good fortune to know. But when you go out of your way to so rudely correct anyone who disagrees with you it seems like a kind of verbal bullying. And I disagree, but would do so in a civil manner. I simply think we can accomplish more, in an exchange of ideas that way. And for me, that is what FB is about. I think your relentless cynicism is again and again a defense of the current state and a the very reason things do not change. Cynicism, like anger, seems to me to be a form of cowardice. (As does attacking people online, as you can not face-to-face, which is why it is so prevalent,) And I have a right to my opinion, whether you like it or not. But no matter what you say to me, I will still post whatever I like, Bernie Sanders and others. (At least he is out there doing something, not just sitting at a computer, popping off a shot at every head that sticks up.) I have been threatened with beating, by someone who could easily find me and do so, on this site for my political views, and I am still here. So if you disagree with me, fine, but I hope you use your intellect, and not a viscous attempt at force. Lord knows, I am not in your league intellectually. Would that I were.
^^^Whatever...I have never treated you disrespectfully, that I know of. if I have, or you have taken offense, I apologize. As to my cynicism, I am a 69-year-old veteran of BOTH the US military and the counter-culture. I have paid ALL my dues, and if by doing so I have lost most respect for "ordinary" people, it is both unfair and dishonest to label me a coward. I have faced the police, I have face the bared bayonets of the National Guard, I've been to war. When your CV contains those details, I shall acknowledge your right to describe me so disrespectfully.As it was her page, I politely refrained from my normal profanity. The first message is, however, a textbook sample of the 'ham sandwich" approach to employee discipline. It's in the books; handbooks and shit.... It is. No, really, I've seen it... First you butter up the mark, flatter 'em. Then you drop the hammer. Then you end with a little more flattery and some self-disparagement: "that hurt me more than it did you." Was it good for you, too?
"Communications"and business majors write like that...