Free Speech and religion

Who would dare support anti-defamation of religion? 1) It's subjective. 2) Laughing at retards is fun!

After all, at one point, especially with religion, any discussion about a new faith was dangerous. You could be killed for it. Hypocrites. Their take is defamation is intolerance. I say anti-defamation is intolerance.

It's the same side of the same coin.

Source: Pharyngula

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-05-19

So many posts, so little time.

I can appreciate the attempt to give an encouraging message to the sheep but the short space makes for some damn funny clauses. This is one of them. I could be wrong, and this is the pure message as intended. Yikes. Let's start, as I always like to do, by analyzing the language. It is always a source of amusement.

Actually, the clause itself is fine but for two single words, pay and sacrifice. They give it a rather explicit meaning that is disturbing. All the speaker had to do is move who up to the first line and replace pay with make to make the clause acceptable. As it is, it reveals much about the psychology of the writer.

A person can make a sacrifice or pay a sacrifice. Paying for something implies that the object is something that the person wants but must perform a transaction to acquire it. Something tells me this is an impulse buy. Maybe they person wants the item but do they really need it? My main problem with the use of pay here is that the transaction involves the individual's life itself, as opposed to some form of legal tender or bartering with something of equal value. One's life is not. Apparently, the boogieman for this cult only accepts payment in death.

Next is the word sacrifice. Sure sacrifice fits the usage, if you change the verb, but one could just as easily-and effectively-use the word price. It definitely works with the verb pay. Pay the ultimate price has a shred of dignity to it. Make the ultimate sacrifice has a bit of dignity but also implies that the person knew that this would happen, thus performed the act willingly. That would be okay, but we are dealing with cultists, so there is an understanding of deception and/or coercion. What is the reward? Death. What is the cost of this reward? Death. Sounds like a death cult to me.

Then there is the other aspect of sacrifice. Of the two possibilities, this is usage is definitely literal: the person is literally sacrificing themselves, just like in the "good ol' days." People nowadays still make sacrifices but they are most often figurative. Wearing one's Sunday finest to the cult facility is a figurative sacrifice that pagan cults used to do. The Athenians would offer bolts of fine cloth to Athena as a sacrifice. What they do today is the same thing, just figurative—and very pagan. With this statement, however, it is implied that it is literal. It has to be-it is a death cult.

Towards the end of the writing, the word willing leapt out at me. There is not much to say about it other than it reinforces the supposition of dumb sheep being tricked into marching to the slaughter. All I can do is shake my head at the potential lost if these people were not fettered, neutered, and shamed into submission. They have no true respect for themselves.

On the other hand, taking the message as it reads, it is asking the reader to extol the virtue of someone so delusional as to believe that one person having holes shot in to their carcass makes a substantial difference. How many does it take? When have enough sheep been sacrificed to make one say: "maybe we cannot win this one?" Such arrogance. Such stupid sheep. Sounds like a match made in....ah, crap.

Squirm, selfish cultist, squirm!

No matter which way I turn when I leave, I have to pass by a church. When I do, it starts my mind to race and my blood to heat. Today was no different. What popped into my head today was the phrase, "my personal relationship with <your brand of pasta here>..." I then responded, "yes, it is a personal relationship. Mine is different. Howdy Doody's is different. Why are you talking to me?"

As I have said in the past, a cultist's faith is unique to them and solely for that individual's benefit. Of course, they may tell you that they want to share their joy with their faith. Why does that individual think that anyone else cares? Does the mad cultist share every time it is overcome with joy, say, from Blue Bell® Dutch Chocolate ice cream? How about when it wins the temporal, financial lottery? I've never seen it. I want some ice cream, too. Then, I am happy to chat with it, but only about ice cream.

Next time a cultist approaches you, wanting to share their faith, steer the conversation this way...

"I want to share with you about knowing <your brand of pasta here>."

"Wow. Before you do, do you consider yourself a most excellent practitioner of the pasta?"

"I try, through the grace of the pasta sauce."

"Do you think, right now, that I am going to be denied the unending pasta buffet?"

"Well, friend, by knowing the pasta..."

"No, that is not what I asked. Take a snapshot and put it on the scale. This is it, right here. Will I be denied the unending pasta buffet?"

"I cannot say for certain (This assumes an intelligent, non-raving cultist), but without constant attention, we all are in danger of that."

"Fair enough. For the sake of argument, let us agree that the answer is 'no.' Now, with that same snapshot, do you believe that you will enjoy the buffet?"

"I hope that I will be invited to the buffet when the time comes."

"Okay. Again, for the sake of argument, let us agree that that answer is 'yes.' Now, would you, right now, make a complete swap of the disposition of our souls in your afterlife?"

If the cultist answers yes, then the reason is one of the following:
1) They are truly genuine, but probably expect that their sacrifice will earn them another spot.
2) They are lying because this not something that one can do, according to the cult's manifesto.

If the cultist immediately answers no, then you know it is either #2 from the Yes group, or they have no intention of giving up their reservation.

If the cultist pauses before answering no, it was stunned by your question and denial is just a programmed response since all cults are about denying the individual. Most likely, the cultist will give you some excuse.

If the cultist does not give a direct answer to this clearly simple, non-confusing question-what a shock-and instead starts to ramble about the job of the happy, good cultist, take that as a no.

No matter the answer given, a cultist pursues its faith for purely selfish reasons. It does not care about your disposition. Maybe it constantly questions its own faith and now, you just attacked the sole reward for its foolish behavior. For an added bonus, you can tell the cultist, except the ones that answer Yes#1, "Well, that doesn't sound very pasta-like," and watch them squirm and likely become belligerent.

I ask again, why are you talking to me!?

Pat Condell: godless and Free

Technorati Tags:
atheism, fear, freedom, Pat Condell, religion, Youtube, faith

Pat Condell: The Curse of Faith

Spirituality, faith, religion, children, and Jesus hates you.





Link: http://www.youtube.com/v/EPG3-1gogXU