I know that 60s feeling. I personally don't want to ban anything - or
we'd have to start banning lots of the sacred text people hold dear
because it incites violence. But calling something hogwash or whatever
seems to me an inalienable right, not to be interfered with by academic
servers or anyone else. I am actually slightly disquieted by the idea
Randolph has put in my head that these discussions are being monitored
for political and religious propriety - I mean I know the CIA & Uncle
Tom Cobley & all are checking the text for coded messages about
*#%!ß´/~, that's OK, they're only doing their job and Tony Blair does
his best to help, but propriety sucks, like piety, sobriety, anything
else ending in -iety, anxiety, society (doesn't exist on Maggie's farm),
I'll keep contrariety & variety.
best
mj
Roger Day wrote:
>Call me a romantic fool, but I always understood - no, wanted it - it
>to be a two-way street, that respect should go both ways, that they,
>the religionists, should realise the ramifications of their remarks,
>that they should be prosecuted with the full weight of the law if they
>cross agreed boundaries, like inciting hatred to kill people, like
>pointing guns at people's heads saying convert or die. Oh, hang on,
>there's the much-maligned (by both sides of the debate, comedians and
>evangelists) racial hatred law hoving into view. So, in my view, the
>websites that you cite should be closed down, much as the French
>prohibit nazi memorabilia being sold to the French from a website.
>
>Yes I know that there are religionists out there who wish me dead for
>merely existing but all because they go around wanting to blast
>peoples heads off for believing in what they see to be the wrong
>things, doesn't mean I should do the reverse. I'd rather, in my heart
>of hearts, wish that people did not believe in such things, and I
>think they are misguided and foolish to do so and eventually, in
>Dawkins words, we will "grow up" collectively, however, in the
>meantime, if people are to have such beliefs then the more positive
>aspects of those religions should be emphasised, encouraged and
>brought out. In this sense, calling texts which are dear to people
>"bollocks" isn't very helpful. Wouldn't we be happy if we all got
>along? Ah well, I can dream. Maybe I should never have left the
>sixties.
>
>I suspect such people view me with contempt. That's their problem not mine.
>
>Roger
>
>On 11/6/05, MJ Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>>Have I got you right here, Roger? Normative bullshit is OK when a large
>>number of holy rollers pronounce it to be sacred & ruthlessly attempt to
>>foist it on others, it's "symbolic" you see & must never be dissed;
>>whereas individuals' excentric habits & beliefs, which one might also
>>think "symbolic", are traditionally up for licensed mockery &
>>persecution by the (moral) majority. What exactly do you mean by "the
>>ramifications of one's remarks"? What have been the ramifications of the
>>remarks made in various "holy" scriptures dissing the members of all
>>other groups? Does anyone stand up for the rights of the Amalekites or
>>the Baalists? If someone says "Jezebel" as a term of revilement or
>>mockery, who says "Hey, she was the sacred representative of Asherah on
>>earth"? But a modern fundamentalist website can drool over & approve the
>>massacre of Baalists described in the Good Book and say "The experience
>>of Israel shows us how we must be diligent in our maintenance of the
>>purity of the faith." Oh Christ, oh sweet Jesus.
>>mj
>>Roger Day wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>seconded.
>>>
>>>Sometimes I think people view atheists as having no
>>>understanding/belief/appreiciation of symbols. Not true, at least with
>>>me. I understand the power of symbolic acts and signs. I just don't
>>>invest them with the same power, which is probably why I try seek
>>>either to subvert their usage or ignore them, to give them no power.
>>>OTOH, Robert Hughes defined "multiculturalism" as being able to read
>>>each others signs and symbols. By "reading" I suspect he meant
>>>treating them with respect; that means, to me, realising the
>>>ramifications of ones remarks.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>>On 11/6/05, wild honey press <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear David,
>>>>
>>>>I'd prefer if you didn't call what some regard as sacred texts as a load of
>>>>bollocks.
>>>>
>>>>best
>>>>
>>>>Randolph
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "David Bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 11:37 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: [POETRYETC] Thought for the day
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dear Granpa
>>>>>
>>>>>now i dont listen to that thing daily, i just catch it now and again, BUT
>>>>>you are wrong - they have had at least one atheist talking, i know because
>>>>>i
>>>>>heard that one, point two, the emphasis in recent times has not been
>>>>>churchy, the star turns are a Sikh and a Jew, it does matter, in our
>>>>>society, that bridges are offered, i'm thinking this time about the
>>>>>terrible
>>>>>inter-racial violence that has beset Brum, that between Anglo-Caribeaeans
>>>>>( can't spell that right this time of night) and Asians.
>>>>>
>>>>>These matters are scary, I had to occasion the other day to actually read
>>>>>the Qu'ran - in translation - it reminded me nothing so much as the Book
>>>>>of
>>>>>Mormon - i.e. a load of bollocks - but unfortunately a load of b. that
>>>>>justifies, exhorts in fact, violence. I thought parts of the Bible were
>>>>>nuts
>>>>>but this is in a class by its own.
>>>>>
>>>>>Best
>>>>>
>>>>>Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>--
>>>http://www.badstep.net/
>>>http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>M.J.Walker - no blog - no webpage - no idea
>>
>>Nous ne faisons que nous entregloser. - Montaigne
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>http://www.badstep.net/
>http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
>
>
>
--
M.J.Walker - no blog - no webpage - no idea
Nous ne faisons que nous entregloser. - Montaigne
|