At various times in this blog my own views on religion have been stated in no uncertain terms and to be honest the gobbledygook is not worthy of the effort that a riposte a la Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens might require. Still, Christopher, now as dead as a dodo, made a few bob with his writings and, to the best of my knowledge, Richard and Sam are still doing the occasional little money spinning lecture tour while simultaneously working on various variations of their themes. Therefore, credit where credit is due and these boys are making a living …. except Christopher, of course, he is dead and, as he himself knows, or would know if he had been wrong with his hypothesis, he is as dead as a dodo.
The point, of course, has to be if those who find it necessary to formulate long-winded arguments against the gobbledygook are themselves a bit of a superfluous bane, what about the gobbledygookers themselves; the believers in the various variations of the great pie in the sky? Well, while there might be a lot of good souls among them, as well as, of course, bad souls, they are on this one point all suffering from a serious case of mass delusion. Nevertheless, as that first clause in that last sentence implies, there are the good souls and ego has to come to the conclusion that, as long as they don’t try to impose their sharia on him, as long as the inquisition doesn’t come knocking at his door, as long as they don’t try to invoke their gobbledygook theologies per se as the sole basis for their arguments, they are most welcome as friends, fellow travellers and yes, even, comrades.
Today, on perusing Gilad Atzmon’s writings I stumbled on a certain Kevin Barrett and, never having heard of Kevin Barrett, I decided to google him. Having done so, I discovered that Kevin is an erstwhile Unitarian who converted to Islam. However, when we read what Kevin says, the evidence would appear to suggest that he might agree with the sentiments just uttered and for my part it is, an, alright Kevin if religion is your thing and if you keep it to yourself, at least in my company, …. well live and let live and all the more so when your hypothesis is that the “one argument the Zionists cannot possibly win: The argument over whether there should be a “Jewish state” in Palestine in the first place” and all the more especially when you substantiate that hypothesis by contending that Defenders of Zionism,:
“…..must argue that it is perfectly fine for a religious-ethnic group to invade and occupy another group’s land, halfway across the world, on the basis of the aggressor group’s ancient mythology. And that it is perfectly fine for the aggressor group to dispossess and destroy the people living on that land, and to create an ethnic-specific apartheid system under which the invaders are first class citizens, while the victims are either second-class citizens or permanently exiled from their homeland.”
It really is that simple, it is not so complicated, it has nothing to do with the great pie in the sky, it has got nothing to do with Judaism, Islam, Christianity or whatever and I really don’t mind a gobbledygooker telling me this. Indeed, when the live and let live gobbledygookers talk sense like this, they all of a sudden become preferable to their long-winded, verbose, detractors. In fact, if we are forced into a corner where we have to discuss religion, it would much preferable to be discussing it with a Kevin Barrett than with a Dawkins, or a Harris, or a Hitchens.