It's interesting when two words which apparently appear very similar in meaning get used to refer to different things. Take, for instance the phrase coined after the London 7/7 bombings by a passer by commenting on emergency measures. She said "we should be prepared to give up some of our liberties for freedom". What does that even mean?
What she meant was civil liberties within our borders and freedom from oppression from without.
The article this morning made me think of this phrase again. The Muslim being interviewed took offense that being a good catholic is to be devout - which is seen as a good thing. But a devout Muslim is labelled 'fundamentalist' which is seen as a bad thing.
I think I agree that these are inconsistent but where my thoughts differ is that I think both are bad. The closer you get to the 'extreme' end of a religious spectrum the more dangerous you are, and I don't think it matters much which religion. Compare the Taliban with Christians in the Bible Belt. Both groups use an extremely fundamental view of the world and force this world view on those around them.
The Old Testament and the Qu'ran both have some pretty gruesome teachings (some of the same stories actually) and moderates leave out the bits which modern society deem inappropriate or just silly.
Of course the old stories are good if you're racist and looking to back that up, or if you think women shouldn't drive or own property. Again, society hasn't quite made these inappropriate or silly just yet but I'm optimistic.
For now I'll remain a devout atheist, dedicated to the rational and logical analysis of our world and our behaviors within it.
No comments:
Post a Comment