johanna_alice: (Default)
[personal profile] johanna_alice
Or rather do we need scientific fundamentalists to take on their religious counterparts?

I FB'ed a comment about seeing a slogan reading, 'Try praying.', on the side of a bus and talked about how I found it disturbing. Didn't get any religious replies, but did get an agnostic trying to justify the positive aspects of prayer. Saying that faith is a matter for individuals, not advertising on the side of a bus didn't seem to make my point strongly enough. Other people seemed to get it, whilst distancing themselves from the other extreme - Dawkinism as I shall term it.

I'm pretty much a Dawkinist apart from when it comes to an individuals choice to hold a faith. That's freedom of thought. But to plaster slogans that non-religious people may find offensive on the sides of buses seems crass and commercialised.

So I've been bad. Take one Darwin Fish. Place on FB. Ask if anyone finds it offensive and tell them they have to say why it's offensive (or I'll just delete the comment - it's my FB after all). If you want to justify religion as a thing that can be commercially advertised, then you have to allow that atheism should be treated the same way and that adverts that offend the religious in society are just as permissible as those that offend the non-believers by promoting religion...

Equality is a dangerous thing. Some people think it give them the right to impose their beliefs on others. That's wrong, that's oppression. Equality gives us all the right to present our views in an equal and balanced way and to have the right to make informed choices about our beliefs - be they Evolution or christianity - but only for ourselves, never anyone else.

So perhaps extreme anti-religion positions like Richard Dawkins' are inevitable in a world where religious extremism is still allowed to organise itself and proselytise openly. After all the commercialism of the, 'Try praying', advert has tipped me a little more towards Dawkinism, where by myself I would have been more moderate...

So imagine if you will, a row of Lothian Buses all with Darwin Fish on their sides. Imagine the anti-atheist bigotry (and most likely vandalism and violence) that would surface were we to do that. Yet religion seems to be free to
offend a portion of the population freely. This is not equality. This is not the world I want to live in.

Religion is for individuals and creationism, Darwinism is for scientific recognition and an understanding of how the world around us came to be. We're all free to choose and the more one side says there should be penalties for choosing the other the more I'll kick out against it. Wonder how many replies I'll get to my question of is the Darwin Fish offensive...

...I'm guessing none. Evolution is a done deal and there's no religious mileage in trying to sell i.d. or creationism to a non-believer.
From:
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
User
Account name:
Password:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
Subject:
HTML doesn't work in the subject.

Message:

 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.

Profile

johanna_alice: (Default)
johanna_alice

May 2014

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
1112131415 1617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags