It was not until I first started watching videos on YT that I encountered the word “facepalm.” Since then, I have found it delightfully broad in its application.
At one point, in the comments on I-don’t-remember-which video, I asked someone why Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in
As the protests in
The Republican fondness for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is quite well documented. “Event B followed event A. Therefore, event A must have caused event B.”
“Well, you know, the wonderful economic prosperity which characterized the
Right. Or perhaps they were a delayed reaction to the policies of Polk, or better yet, the policies of Caesar. After all, it takes a long time to build a strong, prosperous economy.
Here’s another explanation that makes just as much sense. Perhaps the wonderful economic conditions which characterized the
“God was angry about healthcare reform and unleashed Hell in the form of a volcanic eruption in
Hmm. So when a natural disaster happens in one country, it means that God is angry about something someone did in another country. I wonder what country God was angry at when He caused the earthquake in
It is just as likely, if, indeed, God is responsible for that eruption, that it was because he was angry for Xerxes sending his forces into the
Great. So if something bad happens to me, I have no way to tell whom God is angry at. If something bad happens to someone, somewhere, it’s because God is angry about something, someone did at some point.
What’s going on here? Maybe those on the other side of these debates are trying to get us to spend so much time with our faces buried in or palms that we end up suffocating.
But it’s not just politics that gives me occasion to facepalm. The other day, I came across an attempt to glorify religious pluralism; that is, the attitude that one religion is as good as another. I agree with the technical details of this argument, but not the spirit of it. The spirit of it is that all religions are equally good while mine is that, well, that’s true, but that’s not saying much. For me, equally good means equally ridiculous.
Presumably, one who practices Christianity does not practice Buddhism, and vice versa. If it does not matter which of the two one practices, then it also does not matter which of the two one does not practice, so why practice either? There are thousands of religions in the world. If it does not matter which one practices, then it also does not matter which thousands one does not, so what reason has one to practice any?
This played a part in my deconversion. My father, a Mormon, tried to raise me with the notion that Mormonism is the best religion. My mother, on the other hand, a Christian, but very pluralistic about it, raised me with the notion that one religion is as good as another. They are all part of what Mitt Romney would refer to as “the chorus of faith.”
But then... if all religions are equally valid, how come only one of them is asking me to spend all this time with its practitioners? How come only one is asking me to prepare for some mission? How come we are only attending services with and making donations to one? How come we are only celebrating the holidays of one?
This started me thinking, and once that happened, my religious belief was effectively doomed.
But with this particular “poem,” that was not the cause of my facepalm. The cause was its choice of words. Basically, it was about the god of all faiths. “The God of Adam. The God of Noah. The God of Abraham. The God of Moses. The God of Mohammad. The God of Hindu.”
Who the hell is Hindu? Even the Hindus don’t know!
“You know. Hindu. The god of Hinduism.”
FYI: Hinduism is polytheistic. That means it has several gods, not a single one of whom has the name Hindu! Am I to infer that the individual who wrote this “poem” did any research at all on this subject? Am I to believe that he or she attached any priority whatsoever to a little thing like getting the facts straight?
No comments:
Post a Comment