|Posted: Post subject: Censorship Secularism and Radical Extremism
|I have been running into an increasing problem with atheist debaters, and perhaps noting a flaw in rational thinking that is even present among the most respected atheist representatives. The ideas is the boundary between what atheism can be responsible for vice what religion can be responsible for.
I have heard numerous times the quotations of Pol Pot, Stalin and, Hitler as atheist that committed atrocities. In the case of Hitler at the very least it is nothing more then an atrocious lie, but in the other two cases, while I would argue atheism WASN'T the motivating factor, Atheism still played as much a part in the atrocities as religion did in many other things we make the religious account for.
The views of atheism as support have quite a bit to do with the ideals that religion is a corrupting influence on society, and we unfortunately by and large do support those views or placate them rather they are true or not. Thus rather we would support the views of any of these Extremists or not, they can use us as references and often even hide among our ranks comfortably and unnoticed.
As with all ideas the extensions of atheism are just as prone to Radical Extremism as any other ideas, and while technically they may not be called atheists when behaving like that, and another title may be more appropriate, it is really just semantics, as atheism is the root of their knowledge just like religion is the root of Religious extremists.
I also worry on a separate subject that Secular communities are beginning to walk dangerous lines in censorship. Mr primary example in this case is going to be one of the most extreme, and that is Anjem Choudary, a devout extremist Muslim Priest living in the UK who runs a 'technically' non-violent organization trying to implement the concepts of Shariah into western civilization.
The fact is while we all disagree with this mans views, and he makes it clear he supports terrorism and terrorist acts, and may even indirectly fund such actions by supporting people and giving money to people who are extremist and likely to join Al'Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, he is still doing nothing illegal and well within his rights to have his opinions and share them. I freely admit these are dangerous ideas that need to be fought fervently, but any limitation on freedom only moves the governments of the western world closer to the sort of society these sorts of people wish to create anyways.
The fact is from the perspective of an Islamic literalist even Anjem Choudary for all of his anti-western, and clearly immoral views, is very composed and very civil in his discussion. He is an extremist, and the perfect sort of extremist since we can use him to relay this message of society. The problem we have with him, is he represents the fact that even extremists are capable of being civil and intelligent in arguments, it is an endless aggravation that he isn't some raving mad man running around shouting 'Jihad' at people and swinging an AK-47 in front of crowds of innocent people. However, the world isn't that black and white, and given his strong belief, and what that strong belief is based on, he is as reasonable as we can possibly expect a literalist to be.
It doesn't help that the war we are involved in is quite unjust in many ways, and that he frequently points out western bias, violent tendencies and many other problems we have proving that in reality while we aren't as bad as the Extremist Muslims we aren't terribly much better. I'm growing tired of the endless biases.
Now on a separate point, a very good argument to make would be that Anjem Choudary, and other Islamic fundamental groups shouldn't be receiving the government attention they do. Take it one step further, I would argue religious organizations in both the UK and America should not receive a bit of government money, and should most definitely not be tax exempt. Further the individuals serving under these organizations shouldn't be allowed to be on welfare if provided for by their organizations (Although honestly I'm opposed to welfare to begin with).
Further laws limiting the rights of anybody to make society more acceptable to religious individuals should be ignored, as religion is just a belief like any other no different from a political ideal or anything else. Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity, and any other bull---- law designed to prevent discrimination when there are good and clear reasons to discriminate against a group should be abolished. If a rule has a legitimate reason for being in place then no one is exempt, and further if your beliefs impede your ability to work at an establishment in any legitimate way, they should be allowed to reject you on the basis of those beliefs. That's common sense. I'm not going to hire a vegetarian to do my restaurant reviews if steakhouses are on the list am I?
Finally if you wish to arbitrate to people what can and can't be said, what qualifies you to be the arbiter? Or for that matter who is qualified?
Just my two cents.