Private definitions of “love,” “hate,” and the like

More on the stolen-atheist-sign story out of Washington State:
PZ Myers notes that there was a protest against the sign over the weekend. (Stealing it apparently didn’t work, and prayer evidently hasn’t either, so the sheeple are now reduced to making good old-fashioned ordinary bleating noises.) The entire thing was obviously a fifth-degree freak show:

The rally was accompanied by a wide array of religious expression, including some religious banners, one or two anti-religious banners from members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, speakers on bullhorns calling for sinners to repent, and one sign proclaiming that God loves everyone, including atheists.

The Rev. Kenneth Hutcherson described the sign as intolerant, while State Rep. Jim Dunn categorized atheists as “evildoers.”
Surprising? Well, here’s your starting point: Huge numbers of people subscribe to a superstitious belief system positing that people who commit trivial offenses or fail to “give themselves” to the superstition’s central figure will suffer eternal torment. These same people somehow believe that the same belief system is all about…love.
Therefore, no one should be shocked or even moved when the same people view even-handed criticism of their mythology, like that etched on the purloined sign, as “hateful” or “intolerant.” Their entire world view is rooted not only in believing ridiculous things about the origins of life and the universe itself, but in contradiction and hypocrisy.
PZ’s post was labeled “Irony alert!” and understandably so, but pointing out examples of irony perpetrated by the faithful is as superfluous as making noise about the tendency of athletes caught doping to lie and make excuses for their positive drug tests. It’s part and parcel of the whole corrupt enterprise. So, viewed in this light, blinkered, floor-humping knockabouts like the Rev. Kenneth Hutcherson are at least being consistent.

3 thoughts on “Private definitions of “love,” “hate,” and the like”

  1. If you believe one impossible thing, you’ll believe anything. To paraphrase… somebody or another.
    Since they “believe” this stuff, can we really say that they are being hpyocritical? Their base belief is non-scientific, non-logical, nonsensical – so anything that flows from such a belief could be said to be consistent.
    Makes my head hurt. Perhaps this calls for a festivus drink!

  2. Well, I’m thinking more along the lines of distinctly terrestrial matters. A lot of Christians have no problem trying to tell everyone (including non-followers) how to live their lives, what they’re not allow to do with their reproductive organs and systems, etc., and they try to get legislative backing (even though the Bible tells them not to). But offer simple criticism of them and they behave as though a crime were committed. Can you imagine what day to day life would be like in this country if non-Christians responded with howls and protests every time a Christian did something intrusive? You wouldn’t be able to drive a fucking car or get in the door of your workplace.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: