More Responses to the Pope’s Tour

Oh my Zod That’s the section of the protest I was at. My sign said “Papal Bull” which none of the reporters seems to get, though it drew a smile from some of the other protestors.

Proof reading fail.
Want option to edit comment.
Think is suppose to be thing.

Hindus and Catholics working together? American president protecting the burning of a Koran? The Pope defending Jews?

All this circling of the wagons looks like the beginning of the end to me. I’ve read their books, these religions aren’t compatible. They might think that if they present a unified front against atheism, they can withstand secularization, but they are wrong. When the leader begin compromising their faith, the true believers will splinter and separate from the mother churches.

I’d be willing to bet a box full of jelly doughnuts that historians 400 years from now will point to the first decade of the 3rd millennium CE as the beginning of the end of religion in humanity.

That is, if were not extinct by then.

Well, yes, it’s possible he thinks the spread of atheism is “not good”. But he doesn’t seem to have the seething hatred that so many other religious have, and he seems to be of the opinion that it’s not appropriate for a religion to try to gain and retain followers by lashing out at some scapegoat. How often do religious leaders just use us as some kind of convenient whipping-boy every time they want to win some points, get an edge, or just distract people from some inconvenient truth (evolution, for example) or some criminal act (catholic child rape, for example).

So many religions are like those kinds of people who would rather trample what others have to get ahead, rather than improve themselves. So often they think that’s how to win arguments too–look at the whole evolution/creation thing, where creationists think that to prove creation you need to discredit evolution, as if the truth of their POV depends on the weakness of the opposition. At least Rajan Zed seems to have the opposite angle, one that encourages improvement of oneself rather than the tearing down of the opposition. It’s all the difference between someone who wants to win legitimately of their own merit vs. someone who is perfectly happy to win by default alone or have the win handed to them. Or is willing to cheat or stack the deck to ensure an easy, unmerited win.

Other religionists: We’re failing, and it’s all the fault of (insert demonized group here to distract the followers and whip up hatred). We need to stop them/crush them/destroy them before the world comes to an end!

RJ: We’re failing, and it’s probably our own fault. If (insert group here) is winning, it is probably because they are doing (insert method or idea) better. How can we improve ourselves to fix our problem?

I’d say that Rajan Zed’s perspective on how to go about business is a lot more intelligent and mature than the perspectives that many other religionists advocate. It’s much harder and takes more character and strength to improve yourself, and it’s a lot easier to just smash what your neighbor has. And at least he has some confidence in his beliefs, as opposed to so many other religious leaders who think that any atheistic influence will destroy their Omnimax God, who must be protected as if he were a seven-year-old girl. He doesn’t seem to be afraid of the existence of atheism, as so many others are.

Plus, I’m not sure he’s pushing an “atheism is not good” angle. Why is it that he says the religious leaders are failing? Because the leaders are not making it “vibrant, attractive and engaging” enough. Which might be suggestive that he thinks atheism is making itself increasingly “vibrant, attractive and engaging”, and that that is what is attracting people. A lot of religions are becoming increasingly irrelevant–the inevitable fate of any organization that shuns change of any kind–and he could be saying that we are doing something positive and relevant for modern people that the religions no longer seem to accomplish, and that rather than crush us and demonize us that perhaps the religions need to look at this phenomenon and figure out what people actually need rather than tell them what they need.

And again, many other religionists say something similar, but with a decidedly “atheism is evil” tone. How often does some religious leader say something like “We’re failing because the atheists are leading people into selfish sinfulness/evil worldly pleasures and eroding the stigmas and taboos that the Church worked so hard to establish, and that is making them reject God, and if only we could replace our free secular societies with Godly Religious Dictatorships, we could stifle and crush the atheists and bring people back to God”, for example?

On top of that, isn’t he the one who did the prayer in the Capital that that Christian nut-job group opposed? If it is, then this is also the same guy who defended atheists against the Church before. Can’t remember if it was that last fun atheist-bashing that came directly from the pope or whether it was the “atheists aren’t human” chestnut from that one bishop though. So if this is the same guy, I’m not surprised he’s telling the pope to lay off of atheists.

He reminds me of the Slacktivist, who has also said a few things that could be taken wrong (such as “good works spring from faith”), but his overall behavior and attitude seem to bely that (such as his statement arguing against “no atheists in foxholes” and his admission that deconversion was understandably more prevalent in the foxholes of WWI).

I think that even the best religious person is going to whip out one or two of these sorts of comments without realizing what it can easily sound like to others.

On an unrelated note, my spellchecker doesn’t have “deconversion” on it, but it does have “reconversion”. Go figure.

It was nice of a Hindu leader to speak up against the Pope, but his complaint seemed to be all about tone. He made no mention of Pope Indulgence being wrong on the facts.

Hemant, as an ex-hindu and atheist blogger, I used to follow the “eminent Hindu spokesperson” Rajan Zed for number of years. He is one conceited publicity hog. I have so little respect for him that for me to use any words like clown or loon would be too much respect.

Please google his name and you will be amazed at his speeches/talks and public statements. I don’t think he is sincere in his support for atheists and I think the only reason he spoke against the pope is to get publicity for himself and to make him look important. He issues self aggrandizing statements at any criticism of Hindus or hinduism and feigns hurt sentiments at any such slight to hindu feelings – whatever that’s supposed to mean.

In short he is the hindu equivalent of muslim imams who protested the danish cartoons. Please don’t take him seriously.

We (including the Pope) need to do a better job to make religion more vibrant, attractive and engaging to keep people in God’s fold.

Argh. They just don’t get it. We need a new billboard campaign to address this issue. So many theists seem positive that if they just fix what’s “wrong” with their religions, then atheists will be only too eager to join them. They don’t understand what’s wrong. It’s not their image. It’s not their clergy. It’s not their services. It’s not their actions. It’s their theology. Unless they’re changing their theology to get rid of the supernatural, they’ll never attract atheists.

Why can’t they understand that? I don’t believe in gods because I have never seen a shred of evidence for the supernatural, and nothing their religion can do will change that. Unless they’re suddenly going to provide solid, verifiable evidence of the supernatural, we’re at an impasse. It doesn’t matter how vibrant, attractive, engaging, hip, progressive, and/or relevant their religious groups are. If they’re not based in reality, that’s a dealbreaker.