• That argument does not have a basis in science. That argument has a basis in prejudice which is justified by a pseudo-scientific explanation. I appreciate that what you originally wrote was just clumsy, and you're not really an anti-semite, but please be a bit more careful with what you're saying.....

    I don't want to sound arsey but the section you are referring to was not clumsy on that point, it was brief.

    **…responding to the comparison of ancient religious texts to Mein Kampf… **

    Is it [Mein Kampf] based on thousands of years of studying and teaching? IMO it is not. It follows a modern anti-Semitic line that was born out of science, as opposed to traditional anti-Semitism that stems from religion...

    There is a widely accepted distinction between traditional and modern anti-S rhetoric. I did not say there is a scientific explanation or justification for anti-S. I was saying that the shift in discourse stems from a scientific rationalization rather than religious. In their simplest terms they are the same.

    I was also making the un-subtle point that anything - religion, science or politics – can provide a framework for hate. Many of the negative attributes people associate with religion – *“religion is shit, look at how many people have died because of it…etc…etc…”** - can be levied at any number of things, and the ‘causes’ that people refer to are more to do with how individuals decide to categorize and classify.

    *personally this statement really fucks me off, because it completely ignores the fact that the last century has seen a stupidly large number of deaths as a result of non-religious philosophies. It’s basically a stupid persons version of Stephen Fry’s argument – which is clearly brilliant. And also if you listen to Fry's closing words, he actually makes the point that the RC+ *could *be a force for good.

About

Avatar for hugo7 @hugo7 started