between drafts

creed of reason

The presentational and rhetorical style of Pat Condell of “Godless Comedy” fame were never for the faint-hearted or the feeble-minded; rather, it’s pretty close to what could be called the atheist version of Fire & Brimstone. But for all the highlights I could name from Condell’s œuvre, and for all their entertainment value, I think that his clip “The Arrogance of Clergy” (embedded below) does count among his best. Not only because it is highly political, which of course resonates strongly with me, but because so much of it is so blatantly true, like the difference between faith and being spiritual on the one hand, and religion and the policing of thought on the other.

But is this a rational approach? I’d say yes—what Condell says and how he says it is highly emotional, obviously, but the opposite of “rational” is “irrational,” not “emotional.” (I forget who originally said that but it’s something one has to keep in mind, like, always.) And you can’t put the label “irrational” on any of Condell’s arguments and lines of attack. Also, any form of rhetoric, from the alliterative to the most outrageously hyperbolic, can certainly be put in the service of the most irrational ideology, but rhetoric per se isn’t irrational either.

Then, is it “reasonable”? Again, “emotional” isn’t the opposite of “reasonable” although one has to allow for the meta-argument that this kind of approach isn’t reasonable insofar as it doesn’t exactly invite tempered or meaningful discussion, and points could be made more calmly. But then, “reasonable” also isn’t the first thing that comes to mind when listening to, say, ghastly goons like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bill Donohue, Joachim Meisner, or Glenn Beck—and neither does “tempered” or “meaningful.” And that’s not a tu quoque argument but purely a practical consideration because that’s the default mode of the clergy from Moshe onward whenever they encounter the slightest resistance to their ideology, calm or not, tempered or not, meaningful or not. Also, as a comment on Condell’s clip suggested, “you cannot have reasonable discourse when one side believes in magic.”

So yes, yes, Pat Condell is highly confrontational, sure enough. But then, remember the time when religions had their own way? And how they still whine and weasel and spit and yell and scream and shout and be constantly and systematically offended all over the media because they still think they should be exempt from criticism?

Anyways. Here’s the clip:

My favorite quotes:

Personal faith and public religion are two completely different things. When religion goes public, it stops being spiritual and it becomes political; usually running on the moral hypocrisy ticket. And because it claims divine authority, demanding unconditional submission and obedience from outside the bounds of reason, it despises democracy as much as it despises women and homosexuals – so quite a lot, then – and therefore it’s always working towards theocracy, towards strengthening the power and the status of clergy.

That Jesus. He’s going to be a very wealthy young man if he ever comes back, isn’t he, with all that stuff that’s been bought in his name. All that crude extravagant unnecessary luxury. I wonder what he’ll think when he realises that the image of his grisly death on the cross has been turned into the most lucrative money-grubbing logo in human history, and that 2000 years on it’s still raking in mountains of cold hard cash.

I found out recently that the word ‘heretic’ comes from the Greek word ‘hairetikos’ meaning ‘able to choose’, which pretty much says it all, don’t you think? Peace, and God bless atheism.

And, not to forget, I so love that line over at dotsub where the clip is posted that says, “Report this video as offensive.”