Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule

by "they" in #80, I mean your uber capitalist friends among the elite

tahmed writes "stopped taking Marxists theories seriously..."

Oh but they are taking Marx's theories very seriously their whole manipulation game is constructed around those, as was the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act, they preempt based on his predictions in that way they are more avid Marxists than those that call for revolution...

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

tahmed writes "Google "Marxist theory of development" and you will get 622,000 websites referring to it"

What a sorry excuse. Since when did "googling" something become the standard of academia? And go ahead and google it, the first page will not show you any "Marxist theory of development" whatsoever, read at how google fetched it byt combining Marxist theory and "development" is reproduced in a separate line, not to mention "theory of economic development" is even more absurd in what you had stated. You are a total ignoramus where it concerns Marx, equations or not and I bet your "assets" you wont remember a single one of those now even though you claim to have read them. You can't discuss sh** about Marx with me Ahmad mian....

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

Quin,

There is validity to what you say … in that one needs to be careful in drawing conclusions and not paint with too wide a brush. At the same time, it is easy to see, at least partly, why Mahers of the world adopt extreme anti-religion views: The way religion is shoved in their faces perhaps has something to do with it.

If one believes in the garden, the snake, and talking bushes, arguably he has little business being the head of a state. If a state official suggests that foreign policy is the will of god, one may be justifiably annoyed with, or completely scared of him. Religious nutcases have a tendency of making such statements without contextualizing them. The best way to contextualize such statements, when one holds a public office, is to simply shut up. The born-agains are just as annoying as the ummah in this regard.

Comedy thrives on a heightened sense of suspected reality … and comedians play on this aspect of collective human psychology. I would give Mahers a little more slack. While he does make a lot of political sense, I see his views on religion mainly as humorous that implicitly, correctly, warn us of the dangers of taking it all too seriously and literally.

masadi's points about capitalism - I take it as directing our thoughts towards the deep influence the economics exerts on the socio-political realities. In that respect it is a point worth noting, worth pursuing ...
... have to rush ...
thanks all ...more later

Re: # 4 akcheema,
I fully endorse the idea that there should be complete freedom of expression. In particular, I have no problem with humour being used against religion. That is the ultimate test of any faith's grandeur. When people have learned the proper civilized response to anything - (coming to think of it - this is Ghandian approach to religion bashing I am thinking of) then they have become mature in faith or civility. Humanity will reach to that level one day, if we can survive the present destructive course brought upon ourselves.

What I don't agree in your comments is the approach that all our problems stems from religion. This is an over sweeping, generalized approach which is contributing towards creating the fog which hides the real issues.

Beside, I don't understand your last comment. If you have such an aversion about things published at Chowk what you is the point of engaging in the discussion. Is that like those tablighis who consider it their duty to make themselves heard?

Re: # 74 hamidm2,
I don't think the movie bashed Islam more than Christianity. I am not saying that. In my article I have mentioned that it is only last one quarter which relates to Muslims. What I am saying is that painting the possible apocalypse because of Islamic fundamentalism is misleading. Roots of present violence in the world cannot be solely blamed on current resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism only.

I got actually much more worth of my buck. I did enjoy the genuine ridicule – whether Muslim or not - and I have said so in the article. However, also I could clearly see the flaws in the atheistic religious bashing. Not that I want to do any atheistic bashing, but because it warns me of the dangers of one-sided approach. I believe atheistic approach is an important element of our growth. But grow we must - from this teenage arrested phase of development.

The biggest flaw in the arguments on these interacts is that assertions are made which are not implied in my article. This is atheistic paranoia finding its easy preys.

When emotions are stirred quickly, logic gives way to Logiculous.

That is what I mean when I say, atheism is turning into its anti-thesis.

quqinn mian,

"For example, he does not give as much time to Christian fundamentalism of Bush as to Islamic fundamentalism which, as every one knows was fed and pampered by no one other than Imperialist forces and their medieval counterparts and their money "

.... so now i get it! .... your real beef is with him bashing islam more than christianity .... do you remember how much time was devoted to islam vs. other religions? ..... was it one sixth of the film since mohammedans constitute one sixth of humanity ? ..... would you have complained about discrimination if he had not paid any attention to islam and ........ you moslems are pathetic and paranoid ! ....

......it was a good film and i got my nine bucks worth - the real scam was the twenty bucks spent on popcorn and soda ...

#3: tahmed32:
I hope you are not implying that my article in anyway construes that movie is an “anti-muslim propaganda�.

I have described many of the instances where he has ridiculed other religions too. However, he does have a more militant approach towards ‘muslim instances’. For example, he does not give as much time to Christian fundamentalism of Bush as to Islamic fundamentalism which, as every one knows was fed and pampered by no one other than Imperialist forces and their medieval counterparts and their money (How all the madrass came into existence).

I would appreciate if you watch the movie and see if my commentary makes sense.

More later:

#2. pinku: please substantiate your claim;
“seems like an apology on behalf of all religion�

My article is a critique of the movie. It is not critique of atheism per se, neither there is any attempt to justify any religion. I do have my certain convictions about religion; but what I am saying in this article is not expressive of those – it is a critique of the movie and nothing else.

Reading more into what is said, a trait often exhibited by atheists always reminds me of religio-zealots. Both appears to be suffering of paranoi of some sort.

Yes, you can ridicule anything as you may fancy. However, that does not defile the reality. I remember once watching a classical Indian raga by a renown Ustad. A teenage son of my friend, who also happen to be in the room, burst out laughing. The uplifting ‘taans’ of the raga sounded so hilarious to him. Perception about religion are no different. But that aside, my criticism is about the narrowness of producer’s approach + the misleading tactics to camouflage the real issues behind the present socio-political mess.

Again, no one is defending anything – there is no need for such defending in my view – because generations come and go – this transient stage will be gone in an instant – I don’t worry about if someone is bashing religion or not. Neither have I talked in general terms. I am specifically reviewing the movie and assessing it for what it is.

I would appreciate if you would be specific and show that where in my article you see what you claim.

I agree humour is one the most powerful device to expose the flaws and weakness of any attitude including that of religion – any religion – I am not a zeolot either of religulous kind or atheistulous type. In my article I have commended Maher for exposing those fringe element of religion which truly are worth ridiculing. My point being that he selected only the fringe elements for his benefit. And more than that, even they were tricked into – as per report I cited from Los Angles Time. This is artistic dishonesty and reflects on producers’ integrity.

I apologize for late participation in the discussion. There are only some ineracts that directly relate to the topic of the article. I will focus only on those.

#1. Sattar2, Agreed, Maher is humorous and perceptive, but his perceptivity is shallow, seeing only partial truth; and his humour is warped by his sense of ‘holier than thou’.

One of the points discussed in my article is how atheism is becoming its own anti-thesis in hands of some atheists – like Maher. Narrowness of their approach is not very different than the narrowness of religious fundamentalist approach. Both lack comprehensiveness in their approach, both are exclusionist and each cannot tolerate the other.

Carlin lives!

religion explained

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

hamidm2...
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Light-drinking-during-pregna ncy-leads-to-wellbehaved-babies/379817

quite contrary to the advice of arabic moon god...

Re: # 65 Lol!

Re: # 51
hamidm2...
ultimate capitalist...
tax rate in israel and scandinavian countries are very high compared to usa...