The Opposite of Equality for ALL

Totally out of the blue, unsolicited and with no context or prior conversation whatever @issu_assenjee sent me a screenshot. (Tweet's link)

My thoughts on its content are marked by ^(x) and detailed below.

It says...

"The question, then, is: Well, did true justice not exist 10 years ago? Were people ignorant of justice 10 or 20 years ago? Was everyone evil and oppressive less than one generation in the past?
⁽¹⁾ If a white humanist atheist 10 years ago, for example, didn't recognize his "'privilege" and paid no heed to making space for women and the transgendered and wasn't sensitive enough to respect the pronoun preferences of others, and opposed gay marriage like 95% of the rest of the population, etc., etc., would he have been correct in thinking of himself as a "good" person? Clearly not, according to today's humanist, social justice standards.
⁽²⁾ Look at the original version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the historical document from the middle of the twentieth century that was supposed to be the pinnacle of morality as recognized by universal human reason. No mention of sexual orientation, no mention of transgenderism, no mention of racial privilege, no mention of sex positivity, etc.,etc.
Now the humanist might say, these values had to be discovered and now reason has discovered those values and religion had nothing to do with it.
⁽³⁾ But let"s look at that response more closely. It essentially concedes the entire argument because if humanists 10 years ago believed themselves to be "good" and "just" and turned out to be so deeply mistaken, then what guarantees that the humanists who think of themselves as "good"' and "just" today are not equally mistaken? What reason is there to think that 10 years from now, "reason" won't discover new values and new standards of goodness and justice, standards by which the humanists of today would be considered vile monsters?
⁽⁴⁾ The humanist, therefore, has no basis, by his own lights, to claim that he is a good person, much less to claim that he doesn't need religion to be a good person!
One does not even need to appeal to diversity in moral standards over time. Look at the diversity in any instant of history including today. Views of right and wrong vastly differ among contemporary atheists and humanists themselves in mutually exclusive ways.
Which humanists, therefore, are in actuality the good ones, the ones truly living according to justice? Who decides?
⁽⁵⁾ Furthermore, most humanists did not individually and independently and through the power of their own reflection arrive at the moral directives they so fervently believe to be intuitive, unassailable truths. It is not like each atheist/humanist sits and ponders for extended periods of time to formulate his own moral code that he will abide by for the rest of his life.
No, most of those moral commitments, whatever they are, are accepted by the humanist on the basis of outside authority -— the authority of other humanist thinkers or just good ol" cultural or institutional authority and conditioning. So how is that any different than the theist who claims his morality comes from the authority of religion?
Be that as it may, the only way humanists are even able to make their moronic argument in the first place is by focusing on a handful of widely accepted moral claims involving murder and rape. They make embarrassingly condescending yet asinine statements like, "I don't need God to tell me not to rape!" and "If the only reason you don't murder people is because God said so, then you're a psychopath, hur dur durr!"' In other words, the only way for their claim to have any traction is to reduce all of morality to... "

I've asked for the author's name but as yet it's unforthcoming.
If you know, let me know; I'd love to properly credit it.

My comments...
⁽¹⁾ Why single out the colour of the humanist atheist? Neither humanism or atheism have colours. Are you trying to imply humanist atheists are white, or that only white humanist atheists hold those values? What's the purpose of this distortion? Seems racist.

⁽²⁾ When United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was penned, religion had much more power over people's lives; it had repressed acceptance of those values, and still tries to, for thousands of years. Given the level of religious repression of the time, The UNDHR was as egalitarian as it could have been.

⁽³⁾ Where there is a wrong, it can be rectified. The argument, which can be biolled down to "Humanist morals are wholly fluid" will only attain validity if the values listed fall away in a future generation, however, as humanism's core is more or less "ALL are equal", I see no way for them to do so.

⁽⁴⁾ What a humanist(or any human) claims to 'be' is irrelevant; anyone can claim to be "good" but only one's actions and demeanour toward ALL others  display one's nature. e.g. If one prays to remain supreme above others, is one being "good"?

⁽⁵⁾ Most humanists accept the external authority of the concept of human equality, that is they accept the concept 'ALL are equal' has stand-alone authority; in a field populated almost exclusively by hatefully supremacist dogmas, it stands out as significant.

Finally - Only one who seeks to promote a competing doctrine could create and deliver such a distortion of what it is to be humanist but it's always difficult for an enslaved prisoner of doctrine to properly grasp what it is to be free. The authoritarianism of a religious doctrine functions to hound the less zealous into submission to the full dogma, whereas Humanism functions without compulsion to conform to arbitrary diktats; some humans are free to choose to accept some, or all, values of humanism.

For me, the main difference between humanism and religion is humanism accepts people's differences and expands the category of 'equal' to accommodate them, whereas religion constricts and represses people's differences to enforce intransigent conformity to the arbitrary ideal of a despot.

So, a couple of questions to end...

Do you see the quoted narrative as wholly prejudiced by religious thinking; partisan, biased, ignorant and racist or is it just me who sees those things writ loud and disgustingly proud?

As I stated earlier, I view Humanism's core as "Equality for ALL" so...
Can any doctrine, which is in competition with and opposition to "equality for all", be anything other that "supremacy for some"?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

To Indoctrinate or Not

To those poor families forced to now feel shame and grief because of their sons' delusions, I genuinely offer deepest sympathies and best wishes.

However, I feel compelled to raise what seems to me a fairly obvious point...

"Hello, good evening and welcome to 'Britons Today'.
I'm your host, Su Spicious and, first up is Mrs Unbe Liever, whose son is not one of the many young men who have rushed off to fight in one of the many 'holy' wars currently raging.
Mrs Liever. Welcome."

"Thank you, Su. Delighted to be here."

"Now, Mrs Liever, could you explain just how your son not going off to fight in this latest 'holy' war has made you feel?"

"Well, I said to his father, 'what shall we indoctrinate the lad with, Father?' This was not long after the boy was newborn and I'd had a few pamphlet through, so I asked, I said, 'should we go with the barbaric classics, the Torah, Bible and Qur'an or switch it up a bit and baste the bairn in Hindu? Or, maybe, go with more modern day voodoo like scientololologism or the new-wave crystalline wiccadruids.' I mean, y'know it's a tough choice! So many to choose from! 'I've read all the pamphlets', I said, 'and they're all much of a muchness!"
And he said, not straight away mind; he carried on staring into the fire in silence for a bit, like he did, then he said something that I really wasn't expecting.
'You now what, mother?' He said, he had a very deep voice, that's one of the things that first attracted me, 'You know what? I don't think any of them make any sense!'
Well, it raised my eyebrow, I can tell you, but before I could say anything he continued, which in itself was unusual, not a very verbose chap y'know, anyway, he said. 'I've had deer poop' only he didn't say poop, he was a bit of a lad; luv 'im. 'I've had deer poop in my socks for a month now; just exactly as Morgana at the 'wishes & wants emporium' said to do, and Nothing! No improvement whatever! I tell ya, I don't think any of those people, who wax all lyrical about magical things, actually know anything about magical things! And, if they don't know anything about 'em, maybe there are no magic things!"
I was dumbstruck! I just sat and watched as he angrily tore off his poopy socks, then tentatively offered, 'You are suggesting we don't indoctrinate him at all, Father?'
'I am, Mother.' He said, he was deadly serious and when he's deadly serious it's always worth thinking about. So I did, I thought about it a bit, and what I thought was Kylie, my tarot card reader, never gets anything right! And it made me feel he might just be onto something. So after a moment or two I agreed, I said to him.
'Right, that's settled, then. I can stop worrying about it and recycle all those inane pamphlets!' As I stood to collect them, a thought struck me... 'So that the lad has the best chance of learning to think for himself, maybe we should abstain from practising our indoctrinations while he grows into an adult?" Well, father looked at me with such a loving smile on his face; proud, y'know.
'That's my girl,' he said, 'always thinking two steps ahead.'
So we didn't indoctrinate him in anything. And now, with all these kids leaving to join in some 'holy' war or other, I'm thrilled with our choice.
So many of those who chose to indoctrinate their precious sons have lost them to the violence of ideological war that their child only learned about from the book of their indoctrination! It's very sad, they must feel like they've betrayed their own children. And now, sadly, each and every one of them will never know the joy of being grandparents. Whereas, my son and his partner are expecting my third grandchild.

I just wish Father were still alive to see the wonderful fruits of our choice."

And so to the questions...

Is it possible for one who is NEVER branded and indoctrinated with an ideology to consider Jihad, Crusade or other "holy" war justified and worthwhile?
If one has never been taught to believe 'there is a paradise waiting for you', can one be persuaded to offer one's life for any cause promising paradise for those killed in pursuit of it?
On both counts, I think not.

However, this is not how the great multitudes of indoctrinated have been, and are being, educated to think...

At about 50 seconds into the report the obviously troubled father asks...
"Who made fatwa for them to go there? On what basis?" I feel that one may only conclude that the unspoken subtext of that mental position is...
"If one of my righteous religious leaders had got it in his head to call a fatwa, then it would be fine. I wouldn't be annoyed, shocked or worried.
I'd be rejoicing in my son's honourable participation in glorious holy Jihad."

So as a final ponder...
Can we honestly continue to pretend that these "warrior for god" concepts are not promoted in books, which almost all of society hail as "instructions direct from god"?
Is it not time for us all stop pretending these books are benign?
Might it be time to eradicate them, or at the very least edit them?

More on this theme...
To Offer Or Not Offer Belief, Scripture Scramble Religious Gameshow or Presentation for 3rd Annual International Day of Protest against Hereditary Religion

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Dogma Advisory Warning

Shouldn't ALL religious works carry a United Nations Human Rights Advisory Warning?

Human Rights Advisory Warning Important: Possibly psychologically damaging content. Before you start reading this book, please be aware, if you think you might be a human who has a soul it is strongly advised that you read and fully comprehend this warning first. There has never been any proof, or even evidence, that humans have an invisible component, a 'spiritual core', which is commonly known as soul. The content of this book suggests a package of rewards and punishments which may be available to or forced upon any who think they have a soul. Caution: If you do think you have a soul and continue to read this book you will instantly be bound by its laws. There is no choice, this book and others of its kind, contains within it clauses which state, loosely... "If you read this book you will be considered to be aware of its message. Should you read then choose to deny that which this book contends or defy its laws, at the end of your life your 'soul' component will be forced", by the god it contends exists, "into a giant concentration camp and tortured forever." This book and others like it also clearly state, again loosely, that... "If you have never read this book, your 'soul'", which it contends you own, "will be judged merely on how well or badly you have behaved to your fellow humans throughout your life." So, whether or not you think you have a soul, regardless of any reward which may be offered, it's probably best to ignore such books with these types of clauses because this would put you in the more advantageous position of 1. Not having known the rules, and 2. Not offending any true god there might be, by reading and following the wrong god's rules. Continue reading at your own risk or rather, if this book is to be believed, your eternal risk. Final Advisory note: If you do not understood any part of the warning above, you should read no further. If you are an adult and are considering reading and explaining this book to a child in your care, it is further advised that if you should do so and then the child grows to resent the decision you took, he or she may have the right to prosecute you for infringing his or human right to SELF determination.

In the absence of a properly sanctioned and "printed by publisher" first page for these dangerous documents, here's a suggestion which any who wish to can apply themselves...

To shop for a sheet of these very reasonably priced labels at Zazzle click the image
actual size: 2.375 inches X 1.25 inches.

To shop for this very reasonably priced Bumper Sticker at Zazzle click the image
actual size: 11 inches X 3 inches.

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,
THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!