When I started this blog, I decided that some things shouldn't be on it. First of all, politics and religion. Today, however, I discovered a piece of material online that was grossly mocking religion. It was a performance by some American comedian. And it's not even him, but a whole cohort of people who earn cheap popularity, shocking the audience. In particular, it has recently become fashionable to mock religion.
But this applies not only to faith, but also many other important areas for society. I think this is a rather alarming trend. Because the people who do it, often go beyond all bounds of decency and permitted. At the same time, they do not understand what they are talking about, what their statements and actions lead to.
Decided to lead some number of arguments, why their behavior unacceptably.
The Civil peace argument”
What do these people achieve when they begin to say publicly offensive things for many believers? To then resent that they quite naturally ratted on the head?
Do you think if you go up to a person on the street and start insulting them, is there a chance of being beaten? Very high. Of course, people will not have the legal right to strike, but we live in the real world, where words can still be answered physically.
So why are many surprised that calling believers and their values the most bad words, or carrying out offensive actions, they are rebuffed? Do they not understand that by such statements and actions they incite an entire social group against themselves and their own kind?
Many people think that the state, introducing laws like the "law on the protection of the feelings of believers," is trying to protect only believers. In fact, it also protects the safety of the "blasphemers" themselves. I believe that the state intervened in this case correctly and very timely, nipping the social conflict in the Bud.
In any social group there are very nervous and aggressive personalities, which can be easily provoked to undesirable actions for the state. Even if you choose some harmless group, for example, cyclists, insulting them, we can get a "response". Therefore, it is necessary to do everything to avoid friction between social groups on any grounds: racial, ethnic, religious, gender and so on.
It would be better for the state if questions about differences between social groups were not raised at all. After all, such conversations and rude statements inevitably raise the degree of aggressiveness in society, create completely unnecessary excess potentials. Any state that cares about civil peace will react to such things in a strictly negative way.
The “Don't talk about what you don't understand " argument”
"Atheists" usually like to bring the following argument that, say, believers say about existence of the phenomena which atheists don't recognize. And so they find it necessary to call those fools and fools. In such cases, you want to ask a person: is he sure that he does not meddle in his business? Is he sure that his truth (if it really is true), someone needs?
After all, there are many examples when the truth can bring huge harm. For example, only the last blockheads will come to mind to inform the adopted child that “your mother is not real.” Does it occur to people that by mocking religion they are doing something similar?
The Argument Of “Historical”
Another argument militant atheists is the next: "from religions one animosity and war. Religions divide. Inquisition, Crusades, etc. " and therefore, in their opinion, religion should be fought.
I want to say the following. What are some areas of human activity that would not be stained with blood, deceit and death? You won't find them. Fanaticism can take any form: political, religious, secular, ethnic and so on. Do not confuse the form and essence of the phenomenon.
At the same time, critics of religion forget or do not understand what it has given us. For example, for many it is a discovery that science came out of religion. The scientific method was forged in theological disputes, and only then passed into secular life. It was theologians who developed the techniques of how to think in order to obtain consistent conclusions. Yes, they used ancient practices (for example, logic), but they were able to build a system of training in this thinking and put such training on stream.
That is why all the famous scientists who worked in the 16th and 17th centuries, almost all were deeply religious people. It was in theological universities that they were taught the methods of thought that enabled them to make discoveries.
The argument " Historical and political”
Third, what militant atheists do not understand: for centuries, religion provided the only way in which States could exist at all.
Consider that in the past only religion provided the cohesion of the state: linguistic, cultural, moral and legislative. No state can exist on the basis of a mere apparatus of repression. The existence of the state requires some unifying idea.
In order to translate this idea into the heads of citizens, we need the appropriate infrastructure. In the past, this infrastructure could only serve as meeting places, which we now call temples. That is why temples have always been the most majestic buildings in cities, because in fact they were the main infrastructure that allowed States to exist.
Suddenly, there are some people who begin to say that all this is fiction, thinking that they have some originality of thinking. It should be noted that such “originals” were at all times, and modern detractors are often much less educated and intelligent than those whom they criticize for obscurantism.
Of course, among religious people there are people narrow-minded, as well as among any social groups. However, the question arises: is it worth judging all representatives of this group by individual representatives of a social group? I wanted to give vivid examples, but decided not to go to the person in his blog.
Now, in addition to religion, there are other ways to convey information to people: radio, television, the Internet. Religion has lost some of its functions and is therefore weakened. However, religion is still strong in communicating moral behavior to people. Religion is the best thing we have in this field.
The Parenting Argument”
I often hear various statements of people who do not climb in any gate. Chasing momentary popularity among young people, they use various abusive expressions, sometimes even from the stage. They say sarcastically about what they do not understand. They dump their own internal conflicts on the listeners ' heads, blaming religion for everything.
And if you look at the form in which it is expressed, it becomes clear that such people have reached the bottom and do not even understand it.
Rudeness is now often considered honesty, and talking with the use of a Mat is funny originality.
I hope that society will gradually realize that such behavior does not carry anything positive, and those who exploit people's interest in shocking, will again be considered those who they really are — low-grade clowns.