US Senator Lindsay Graham has just tweeted an article titled “Greta Thunberg sets sail with Gaza flotilla that aims to break Israeli naval blockade,” adding the comment, “Hope Greta and her friends can swim!”
Australian Zionist think tanker Arsen Ostrovsky somehow outdid Graham, tweeting “Oh look, the little jihadi Greta Thunberg is trying to get into Gaza, to show solidarity with Hamas. It would be so sad if something were to happen to her flotilla…”
There’s not a lot that can shock me about Israel and its supporters these days. But if you’d traveled back in time a few years ago it would be hard to explain to someone how we got to a timeline that includes Israel supporters openly advocating the assassination of Greta Thunberg.
In modern day there is no excuse for religion to be a part of any conflict or political discussion whatsoever. Instead every abrahamic religion has doubled down on the violence and oppression.
I agree that religion has no place in government, what I’m getting at is that there isn’t anything unique about the Abrahamic religions that makes them more susceptible to being used to justify violence and oppression. In India right now Hindu nationalism forms the basis of their fascist government. In the past there have been countless belief systems of all sorts that were used as justifying dogmas for all manner of atrocities. I would argue that the Abrahamic religions have been shaped by the violence and oppression they’ve been used to justify and not the other way around, and that’s true of all justifying dogmas which causes them to share many similarities.
And I say all this to push back against the idea that repressing the Abrahamic religions - or any religion for that matter - will do anything to stop the violence. In fact, repression of specific religions and of religion in general is quite common throughout history, and as I said before, it tends to form the basis of a new justifying dogma for violence and oppression rather than stopping it.
That’s possible, but the argument from everyone so far has been “its not the religion!”
Hypocritically, when some dick shoots up a school or nightclub they insist that its the guns and not the ideology of the people doing the shooting
Well my argument is more than just saying “it’s not the religion!” I’m saying that it’s more than that. Religion is an effect, not a cause. The distinction is important because it helps us know what to do about it, and trying to eradicate religion isn’t it. That’s just like the “war on drugs” or the “war on terror.” It’s a fight that you can never win and that only causes more harm.
So what is the rational argument against “one of our people paid a few sheckels 4000 years ago so that land is rightfully ours and we have the Divine Right given by God to kill every single fucking man, woman, and child on it!”?
If it isnt the religion, what is it?
There isn’t a rational argument for that. I’m not defending religion or even private property, I’m simply pointing out that religion is not something you can eradicate because it is an idea that emerges spontaneously from human psychology. Even if you murdered every follower of religion it will eventually re-emerge in a new - but still familiar - form. In addition, the idea of private property is not exclusive to religion. Religion just provides a convenient framework for justifying it.
Like I said, the underlying problem is greed and lust for power. There is no easy solution.