Posts Tagged ‘religion’
September 13th, 2009
Karim Arbaji has just been sentenced to three years in prison for defending human rights in Syria. Meanwhile, the Syrian blogosphere is bustling with posts advocating admirable and worthy campaigns. There’s the astounding campaign against masturbation, the noble Blogging Week for Moral Decay, and the enlightening campaign for Blogging Against Fossilized Thinking.
The background of this story is this post by Abu Fares, a response ridiculing the infamous call for a campaign against masturbation. The commentators on that post eventually came up with their own ideas for random blogging campaigns. In essence to further mock that blogger, and the perceived religious bloggers he’s associated with.
I have to say that upon reading about the anti-masturbation campaign I cracked up. Also, I posted about it on Global Voices, sans-sarcasm. Some people were amused by the idea and tweeted the link of the article and a friend of mine wrote to me saying that the campaigner is likely to have a crowd supporting his campaign that you could fit in a phone booth. So, many people find – me included – that idea outrageous, But does that warrant the ridicule of the blogger? Does that make it ok to put aside all the great words and thoughts I’ve seen many Syrian bloggers write on each of their blogs to combine forces to fight this supposed “common enemy” called religiousness?
Read the rest of this entry »
March 21st, 2009
I was really disappointed, although not surprised, by the recent campaign against homosexuality launched by a number of Syrian bloggers.
I see this only as generating from plain xenophobia. As humans we’re genetically coded to be afraid of those who are different from us, and the herd mentality is hard wired into our brains that we don’t even want to acknowledge it. We, as humans, are instinctively to feel safety in numbers, numbers of those who are similar to ourselves and we label those who are different as dangerous, outsiders, abnormal, or even immoral as our consciousness advanced.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when that freedom is stretched to the extent of demoralizing groups of people based on grounds of religious or racial, or in this case sexual preference, differences that’s freedom gone too far.
Bloggers who participated in this campaign recycled the same old rhetoric eternally used by homophobes. Although I genuinely don’t believe in the efficiency of ‘dialogue’ with people entrenched behind a certain belief I will respond to the arguments that are most irritating to me personally:
- “Homosexuality is immoral”: homosexuality is in no way synonymous with promiscuity or lack of morals in any sense PERIOD.
- “Homosexuality is a sickness requiring treatment”: a sickness is defined as a disorder hampering the being’s ability to function properly. and that’s in no way the case with homosexuality; it doesn’t affect a person’s well being or their ability to be an active contributor to any given society.
- “Homosexuality is a sin“: hmm, all I can say is this, if everyone stopped trying to impose their religious belief, which of course they are entitled to have, the world would be a better place. All religions are creeds of love not hate, yet people always find a way to utilize religion to their own purposes.
- “Homosexuality is abnormal/against nature”: who defines what’s normal and what’s not? deviation from a majority doesn’t make those who are different as abnormal based on this difference. As for it being against nature? seriously? if the sole purpose of human sexual intercourse is reproduction would someone explain to me the abundance of birth control practices and products. Over more, I don’t think any one should fear that homosexuality could endanger our species survival, Earth already harbors 30% more humans than it can provide for.
- “Studies showed that Homosexuality is not normal”: such studies were conducted with no intent of original research, but for the sole purpose of finding a scientific looking ‘proof’ to support a false claim, such studies are best described as “junk science.”
Is it that hard to live and let live? And were there no more worthy issues to be addressed under the third Syrian blogging week? I ask rhetorically.
September 24th, 2008
The following argument will be based on the theorem that the masses are genuinely stupid. Therefore, the notion of choosing a leader of a given group or organization by the process of popular vote is mistakenly called a democracy while in fact it is utter idiocracy.
Let’s take the current US elections for example; the general public are willing to believe that cows fly if they were told that by someone they “trust”/like. This is the main problem: How can we trust the masses that display room temperature IQ to choose the leader of the American Empire? How could this be a wise decision when it comes from a majority of Idiots? The crowds have not spared an effort to display how gullible they are, and how easy it is to wash their minds; assuming they have them in the first place. It is very often that they take their facts from media sources that are as shameless as the communist propaganda machines.
“But what is the answer?” You say. Well, the answer is to have representatives [will be referred to as "the reps" from now on] of both nominees for the president pick the people who are eligible to vote, the same way that those lawyers you see on T.V. choose a jury for a trial. Here’s a possible set of rules for the Neo Democracy:
- The reps have the right to ask the voters any questions, nothing is off limits.
- Each and every rep has the right to VITO VETO person’s eligibility to vote [The phrase "right to vote" was not used on purpose].
- To be eligible to vote reps of both parties should approve the person in question.
- All voters should under go the afore mentioned assessment process.
- At least 15% percent of the population that are old enough to vote should be deemed eligible, thus canceling the possibility of the reps denying eligibility of voters out of spite and ending up with no voters at all. Minimal agreement must be forced through.
A presumed selection process would go like this:
Q: Do you think Obama is a Muslim?
A: Ummm… Sure, he made oath on the Quran when he got office.
*BEEEP* a red light goes that has VITO VETO written in capitals all over it, a big security guard yells “neeeeeext”
Q: Wouldn’t it be great to have McCain the war hero as president and that sexy fox Palin as his sidekick VP?
A: HELL YEAH!!
*Beep* (You get the drill)
Q: Do you know what are the religions of presidential candidates?
A: Sorry, but I don’t see how’s your question relevant.
(Now this last guy just might pass under the rule of 15% minimum)
Now wouldn’t we all be living in a better world if Neo Democracy were implemented? Isn’t it the best model to pursue? Then again, why should we even care? Can we even guarantee an honest tamper-proof cast of vote would take place in a best case scenario?