06 December 2006

The New Authorised Version

 
And yet, not a word about secondhand smoting....

     Marx was wrong when he said that religion was the opiate of the people; it's the crack-cocaine, complete with its dependency, agitation and paranoia.  Oh, and its persistent insistence on having its demands met.  

5 comments:

RK said...

WHY -- the geezer wonders -- is it Utterly Reprehensible to insult the faith of Mulims, Buddhists, Hindoos, Shintos, Confucianists and Animists (not to mention Socialists and Commercialists), but is it perfectly OK to walk all over Christianity with lead boots? Is Christianity the one faith that really, really needs the boot in the face, and/or the snicker behind its back?

Anonymous said...

Similarly, it is reprehensible to make fun of "ethnic" people, but perfectly fine to mock Caucasians, etc.

Vixen said...

Tee-hee, I really love the disclaimer on the grand old book. I only wish that I had that disclaimer years ago....

Dr J said...

I believe in mocking all things equally-- or at least in their proper proportions. ;-)

As for Christians and Caucasians, they're trod on for two reasons, both from the realm of the schoolyard; they've been big dogs for so long, there's (wrongly) no equity or sympathy in their regard, so beating up on them is tacitly considered legitimate; and, in the more central lesson of the playground, those that don't push back against abuse will find it visited on them time & time again. I'm a White Anglo-Celtic Agnostic (Waca, Waca, Waca...), so I'm roughly being mocked or scorned everywhere, and being implicitly told not to fight back or take umbrage against any of it. I believe the current koine for this injunction is, and forgive me if I flub it slightly, "Eat it, bitch." (Or should that be bee-yotch? I never know anymore.)

Christianity, unfortunately, has lately been ill-represented by literalist (but not literal) fundamentalists who proclaim piety and practice intolerance. (Got a gay marriage amendment we can vote against anyone?) Such people use religion as the crack-cocaine I mentioned; they're agitated and irrational, and often Holier-Than-Thou-And-Thou-And-Thou. Remember the nutbar visitor here that thought Nancy Pelosi would be the figurehead for NAMBLA? Oy vey.

The leading proponents of content advisories are also those that would never, ever, think of applying same to The Good Book. After all, it's not as if ta biblia have any sordid elements in them, or any history of being grossly misinterpreted to justify deplorable behaviour. Rap tunes and Romeo and Juliet on the other hand....

Anonymous said...

Don't we all have demands?

Q

Blog Archive