Political Discrimination - And Piss

This is a natural extension to yesterday’s post.

Religious people demand that they should not be discriminated against because of their beliefs (despite the fact they are the worst discriminators themselves). Belief is belief – i.e. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. A religious belief is thus identical to a political belief (as otherwise we wouldn't have numerous political parties each holding different views) and if religious people have legal dispensation against criticism of their beliefs, then political beliefs should similarly and logically be legally immune from criticism.

I don’t think so!

Belief in a specific religion, like a political belief, is not something one is born with (although it could be argued that if born into a Muslim or Christian fundamentalist family there’s little choice involved, but that’s more to do with enforced indoctrination). One has conscious control over the choice of one’s religion, as evidenced by the fact that people can easily lose their religion, trade it in for another or even come to religion late in life. Given that taking to religion is a conscious decision based on choice (although not necessarily a rational one), it cannot be logically argued that religion should be included in any list of attributes that should be immune from discrimination or criticism; in fact the more ridiculous and untestable the belief the more rigorous the criticism should be. Simples, as they say in a well known advert in the UK.

My recipe for attempting to cure someone of religion is to get them to read their espoused scripture from cover to cover, note the inconsistencies, hypocrisy, logical fallacies and physical impossibilities and analyse the result using their rational faculties. The problem is they are invariably unwilling to do so, as it would destroy their belief and thus their carefully constructed view of themselves, creating an uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance in the process. No-one, except the emotionally robust, likes to be told they are wrong about a belief in which they have invested much emotional effort, even when they themselves are doing the telling.

Before questioning anyone about their belief in God, you should ask them which God - there are so many to choose from.

The new kitty was racing around the caravan last night doing the wall of death, followed by a touch of ghost wrestling.

An extract from Wiki that may educate you – it did me:

The word "urine" was first used in the 14th century. Before that, the concept was described by the now vulgar word "piss". Onomatopoetic in origins, "piss" was the primary means of describing urination, as "urinate" was at first used mostly in medical contexts. Likely, "piss" became vulgar through its use by lower class characters such as the reeve and the Wife of Bath in Geoffrey Chaucer's 14th century work The Canterbury Tales. "Piss" and its association with vulgarity has led to its current classification as obscene, as well as its use in such colloquial expressions as "to piss off", "piss poor", and others.

I'm thinking of auditioning for the position of Old Sodbury Village Idiot. Do you think I stand a chance?