The secret of successful journalism is to make your readers so angry they will write half your paper for you.
C.E.M. Joad

ANGRY MOB

We read the papers everyday


Search this site


Your Ad Here

Stats since 7/04/09

http://www.wikio.co.uk

Notice
  • Guest user account is not properly configured. Please set 'Username of Guest' option to the Username of registered user. guest_username="guest"

    --
    yvComment solution, version="1.24.0"
Intolerance? We'll show you intolerance! PDF Print E-mail
Written by Uponnothing   
Thursday, 13 August 2009 10:00

I'm an atheist. I do not think that this is a big deal, for me it seems the only logical position to take if you actually engage your brain and look at the matter of religion with any kind of objectivity. In some ways I have a problem with the whole label 'atheist', why does anyone have to make a declaration that they are not a believer in religion? I don't believe in fairies, Santa Claus or Unicorns, should I also have some kind of label to indicate this as well?

The reason the label exists is to imply that atheism is some kind of significant choice, as if everyone has undergone a soul searching battle between belief in religion and the barren wilderness that atheism is so often painted to be. The label tries to validate religious belief by implying that if you do not believe then you deserve some kind of label so everyone knows that you are an outsider, that you are somehow different to them. I personally have very little tolerance for religious people in as much as if they knock on my door and try to convert me (which seems to happen about 4 times a year in Wales) I'll make it pretty clear to them - in polite terms - that I think they're not in touch with reality and that I treat the bible like any other work of literature - fiction.

However, the vast majority of religious people are peaceful human beings who are not out to do me any harm and I have to try to understand that the power of religion lies in indoctrinating the young, so most people hold these beliefs because of the way that they were nurtured and it is difficult for them to change. I therefore try to sympathise with religious people, I may not agree with their beliefs but if I was to try and force my worldview upon others I would become as intolerant as some religious people are and consequently no better than them.

Intolerance is something that Muslims are supposed to practice according to the Daily Mail and its readers, so you'd imagine that Daily Mail readers would take the high ground and be tolerant of others, otherwise two wrongs wouldn't make a right would it? Naturally, Daily Mail readers are about as tolerant towards Muslims as Hitler was towards disabled, Jewish, immigrant gypsies: 'Muslim woman banned from wearing a 'burkini' in a French swimming pool'. Now the headline (for a change) is actually a fair summation of the article: a swimming pool in France has banned a Muslim item of clothing from a swimming pool. Of course, the Daily Mail readers are keen to praise the French for 'not bowing down' to evil Muslim women who want to cover up whilst swimming.

Now, again, in my opinion women should be able to wear whatever the hell they want, but at the same time, by wearing this swimming costume I am not being inconvenienced in any way whatsoever, so why would I want to ban it? Daily Mail land is a strange place, on the one hand a women wearing a skimpy swimsuit is probably a slut and is asking to be raped, whilst a women who - for her faith - wants to remain largely covered whilst swimming must be banned for... well, for what exactly?

I pity the poor women who have to wear these outfits, it makes me sad that religion causes human beings to deny their essential being (in as much as they have to hide their physicality from the world) so why would I want to add to their perceived misfortune by demanding that the authorities ban articles of clothing that make an enjoyable pastime like swimming accessible to these women?

Daily Mail readers are misanthropes, they want everyone to wallow in misery, regardless of whether the activity benefits or hinders them. This article is about a human being having the ability to swim taken away from them because the French authorities are trying to battle intolerance with intolerance. Yet the comments under the article seem to imply that the French have found the cure for cancer:


So, France respond to a swimsuit that is representative of religious oppression and intolerance... by acting intolerantly and repressively by banning it... and Daily Mail readers cheer.

Muslims have been dehumanised to such an extent that a women who lives in a supposedly liberal and civilised society cannot go for a swim in a large swimming costume without hordes of right-wing shitkickers demanding that she be banned from doing so - without a hint of irony. Muslim women are repressed by their religion and Daily Mail readers can't wait to join in with a good kicking: 'You what? You want to swim? Not in that costume. Now fucking get it off or get out of the pool'.

And I thought Muslims were supposed to be the intolerant and backward ones.


Some might suggest that this website is intolerant or preaching intolerance towards Daily Mail readers / writers. I think that is probably a fair accusation, but at the same time I have never demanded that the Daily Mail be banned or that Daily Mail readers should all be punched, hard, in the face - no matter how much they deserve it.

 
Comments (4)
4 Thursday, 18 February 2010 22:40
Oh dear - you do take yourselves so seriously! I haven't had such a good laugh for ages that your thinking is that all Mail readers don't have an independent opinion in their head. Do you know, when I stopped laughing, I actually felt pretty sad for you. Sad that you are so cynical really....
3 Tuesday, 18 August 2009 13:01
I think the reason for this is that they don't want people wearing 'street clothes' in the pools for hygiene reasons. So baggy board shorts which can be worn travelling to & from the pool are banned, and only clothes which are only for swimming in are allowed. Given that the so-called 'burkini' (what a terrible name!) is designed to be worn only for swimming, and wouldn't be used to walk the streets in, then I can't see why it's not allowed. The only difference between a 'burkini' and a wetsuit is that the neck's covered. But perhaps wetsuits are not allowed either? And perhaps my instinct is correct and it's really done to make life slightly more awkward for Muslims women who want to dress 'modestly' (though I don't believe that 'modest dress' is really to do with modesty but more to do with forging an Islamic identity).
Aye
2 Friday, 14 August 2009 12:36
I don't know many atheists who don't tolerate other people's beliefs. Respect, however, is something that must be earned. I personally believe it to be far more respectful of someone's views to treat them as a serious topic for debate, rather than a ring-fenced area that I should shy away from. Robust religious beliefs should be able to stand up to criticism on their own merit anyway, otherwise why would you believe in them?

I'm constantly amazed at the average Mail reader's ability to jeer along with their paper at "cheese eating surrender monkeys" one minute and then be praising them the next. You're right about them being misanthropes, but in recent months I've come to pity them more than hate them. Oh I absolutely despise Mail writers of course - they know exactly what they're doing as they put finger to keyboard - but I'm starting to think that readers of the Mail do actually believe this stuff. Go for a week with your only news source the Daily Mail, it will scare the crap out of you. From that perspective, the UK is under siege, everything you hold dear is going to develop cancer, or cause you to get cancer and the Thought Police are just waiting for you to slip up and call something "gay" before they'll nab you and throw you in jail (though not a cushy, 'hotel' style jail that the ordinary crims get put in, naturally)
1 Thursday, 13 August 2009 12:29
To be fair, all French public pools have had a "no baggy swimwear" rule for decades now, it's considered unhygienic. Men have always had to wear Speedos - they get turned away for wearing swimming shorts. Up until now the rule has only ever been applied to men because women very rarely wear baggy swimwear.

The mayor's comments were extremely unfortunate, though.

Add your comment

Your name:
Your website:
Subject:
Comment (you may use HTML tags here):
 
Joomla 1.5 Templates by Joomlashack