Well JLA, I really do not want to debate this at length. But you do bring up a reasonable point. In my opinion it does not apply to me. I certainly agree under general circumstances that it is wrong to call people names. Even under these circumstances I did no such thing. I called a religion a name (lots of them).
I think if someone submits their own identities, whether racial or religious, to actually claim it somehow represents self-evident truth, then that thing is open to be squashed in no uncertain terms. After all, we are talking The Truth here. Imagine a fellow claiming his race represents self-evident truth, and that he regularly throws his race around as such a representation. Perhaps you would then be prone to call that person a nitwit, goofball, idiot, dolt, and all manner of other well deserved names. Well from my perspective Brees did the same thing with his "messengers" and his "Quran," and so I showed him just how self-evident I thought they were. It is just best that we not sell religion as the truth if we cannot handle having it brutally hammered.
Try to see the thing as closely from the top as you can.
The term "self-evident" is fine if we are all knowingly working or at least attempting to work under the same assumptions. If we all agree that 2+2=4, then it is fine to argue the self-evident nature of 4-2. But brees certainly does no such thing. Where "self-evident truth" or "The Truth" is concerned, we simply are not in agreement. This is why there is such heated debate even today between religionists, including Atheists.
Brees often waltzes around parading his religion as if everyone is in agreement with it, or at least as if it is acceptable to other folks' sensibilities, in the process subtly (and not-so-subtly) controlling ultimate "truth" such that it accommodates his religion. And PCism has apparently infected everyone, even those who believe Islam a heathen religion the adherents of which will perish, such that they now apparently think it unkind to reject it as openly as it is presented. So then a Muslim is free to flatly throw his religion around to control truth (and that really is what is happening), and no one has freedom to kick his religion in its pants just as flatly. I simply refuse to be under such restrictions. No one is bound in like manner toward my religion. People literally insult Christians all the time, and few folk cry about it. You have seen the names, names like "Fundies" or "Fundamentalists" or "Fanatics" and all manner of insulting names. Even brees himself has referred to some of them as "Bible Thumpers," and yet I heard not one dang person here whine.
Why is this? It is for many reasons. I will give only two. One is that many folk in this country are a lot more open to heathen religions than they once were. But perhaps the main reason is that Christianity boldly aims to define Utter Truth, causing many folk to instinctively lash out against it. And this really is fine. Many of the Christians do not seem to care because they know they see "The Truth." Nevertheless I hear no dang body ever claiming it completely off-limits to call them names.
I would not call someone a towelhead simply to put them down or generally marginalise them, because I sincerely think no one a towelhead, even folks who wear turbans.(grin) I used the term to brutally denounce Islam as any sort of representative of "self-evident" truth for me. It indeed is the opposite for me. You see (and keep in mind we now speak on the level of "The Truth") I believe those who embrace Islam will not survive the time when Ultimate Might normalises everything to Himself. In plain language, such folk will by necessity perish. This is no new belief. It has been the belief of Christians since the very day Islam raised its head, some 600 years after Christ. Now how is it that I, with such beliefs, can even tacitly accept what is anathema to my God, as a representation of Ultimate Truth? I cannot.
I long ago realised that to promote harmony I should not go throwing around ultimate beliefs as if they represent other folks' ultimate beliefs. And I do not do this, at least not on purpose. Brees should have been at least as much a gentleman if he wanted not his religion trashed. I would have played the game just as well as anyone, and here not mention what to me is the truth that there will be a Grand Normalisation of this non-reality of ours, with true reality. And that many, indeed most, will perish at that time. Nevertheless if someone puts into my mouth an ultimate truth that is indeed opposite of my ultimate truth, then on that level I am simply able to spit out the falsity with utter force. I simply have no other choice. If you want peace, then keep your ultimate truth to yourself. If you want a war, then put it into someone else's mouth.
So now here I believe all this, and you tell me that brees has freedom to define the truth for me, literally assuming that his religion and his "messengers" actually represent truth for me? That his messengers are truly my messengers? You tell me I must calmly accept or ignore having The Truth defined in Muslim terms? No, my good friend (if you still think of me thus, and if not then that really is fine too.) I will not sell my truth to anyone for fleeting harmony.
It is better that we not use our religion to represent ultimate truth for other folk, unless we are prepared to have folk treat our religion as they will. I think one can present religious perspective (i.e. truth as one sees it), but this is nothing more than prosyletising. I nevertheless reserve the right to brutally and even openly reject all other perceptions of ultimate truth should they be presented to me. If they are not presented to me, then I will not slam them. It is better that we not define The Truth unless we are willing to have our religions spat upon. I am certainly willing to have mine spat upon, but have here refrained from overtly selling religion because I think it an inappropriate place to do it.
Whenever folk strive to define self-evident truth, they inch toward war. Indeed the entire concept of mutually assured destruction is based upon the fear that should someone attempt to define truth (truth of a way of life, truth of government/economy, truth of religion, etc.) no one will live. This is a lot worse than calling names. I did us all a favour by limiting my response (grin).
(By the way. I am not arguing brutally against you in the least, as I think you are quite an excellent fellow with apparently a great deal of integrity. I respect this. I am arguing for my point-of-view. I think I am right and that you are completely wrong. Disagreements happen.) |
