Hate Speech 2 or The Tyranny of Scripture

Pat Condell is an entertaining atheist widely followed on Youtube. I like most of what he publishes but I do cringe when I hear him use certain words like "idiot" and "moron", which aren't necessary to make his point. I also don't always feel comfortable with his certainty about religion because I'm an agnostic. He often makes blanket statements about religion and religious people as if they were a monolithic group. However, I do agree with so much of what he says that I can't help but enjoy listening to him.

I apologize to any believers out there that this video may offend. I don't like it when religious people quote scripture or prosletize to me. I post this video only as an offering of entertainment with some ideas in it that I share so people will understand that my widely known screen name has nothing to do with a religious belief, because I have none.

I do believe though, like Pat, that scripture has and is used to marginalize,codify and legitimize bigotry for some people that already have these beliefs to begin with.

Comments

[AnneC]

I do believe though, like Pat, that scripture has and is used to marginalize,codify and legitimize bigotry for some people that already have these beliefs to begin with.

I agree with this. Bigotry feeds on anything that people can latch onto as supposedly lending their views power beyond one's own ability to justify them. Religious tenets (or particular interpretations of them) can certainly serve this function for some, whereas others lean upon ideas like behaviorism or utilitarianism or other non-religious but still dogmatic "isms".

The key I think some miss is that they don't get a free pass to hate by claiming that they are just following a "higher authority", religious or otherwise. Ultimately, it is still up to the person to choose to take a particular source as authoritative and follow it. Figuring out what is right can be a difficult and uncertain process, to be sure, but latching dogmatically onto anything in that process seems a sure way to hinder, not help, that process.

[chaoticidealism]

I don't think it's religion; it's just people in general. You don't need scripture to marginalize anybody; plain language will do it just as well. Consider the label "low-functioning". There's nothing scriptural about that, but it's been used a hundred times over to marginalize people, to say that they'll never amount to anything.

I'm a Christian because I think Christianity is most likely true and have decided to act on it. I often do cringe when I see other Christians assuming that people who don't agree with them are stupid or amoral.

I do not see why some people find it impossible to respect someone they think is wrong. After all, when you make an absolute statement, it's either true or false--somebody has to be wrong. But nobody wants to be wrong; it's impossible to believe something you know is false, because if you knew it was false, you would no longer believe it.

Atheist, agnostic, religious, or don't-care, we all believe we are right and others are wrong--even if the belief in question is, "It is impossible to determine the truth of a religious statement." (It's also impossible to determine whether your own hand exists... We are all playing the odds, really. You can't live without acting on things you don't know for sure.)

If everyone were to understand that other people are acting on the things they believe are true, we might begin to get along a little better--in understanding, if not agreement.

[LeaEdinburgh]

I consider myself as atheist, however, although I may reach the same conclusions that Pat Condell in that clip and yes some of his views are entertaining I find myself slightly uneasy about him making statements without adopting a demonstrative range of arguments. In a way, making a statement such as: everyone who believe in scripture is an idiot is as extreme as saying that scriptures are the truth. In either case it’s extremist and non demonstrative. I think the question of whether God exists or not is a scientific question which can be answered with a logical deduction and with scientific facts and arguments. In that regard, I share much of Richard Dawkins’s views. His book The God Delusion is very thorough, impressive and highly entertaining and I recommend it to anyone interested on the matter.

Brave of you to discuss the subjects- America can bit a little too passionate about God!

[Bad mommy]

You are right - he does discuss all religious people as though they were a monolith of stupidity. I couldn't possibly agree less. Rather, I'd argue that the people about whom he complains are not actually Christians at all, in the sense that they seem soooo certain that they are (ie, followers of the teachings of Christ). I see none of what he advocated in their behavior.

I actually am religious. Indeed, I'm an Episcopalian (who thinks we should ordain anybody who can handle the strain -- without a genitalia check). That's because, as I see it, Christ said none of that matters and I should work from a premise that we are all human and equally worthy (or unworthy, and redeemed by grace) before God. To me, the great danger of the pseudo-Christians is that they seem to have utterly confused their rules for holiness with the rules of God. The God I worship doesn't need my help with enforcement: she's kind of got that covered.

I'm ok with the guy calling me stupid for believing - no sweat. But to lump the evil done in the name of religion in with simple, harmless belief is not necessary to his argument any more than the name calling. Perhaps they can't be separated because some will always do evil in the name of belief. But in the absence of religion, wouldn't these same folks do evil in some other name?

And definitely, the US is armpit deep in hypocritical despots. I'm too unfamiliar with most other places to say for sure, but it seems to be a rather typical problem in a lot of places once you scratch the surface. In short, I agree with the last poster - entertaining, very articulate, but extremist.