The Irreligious And "Human Rights" And Wrongs

 

    
    Facebook, is not known for its protection of so-called "free speech", insofar as they often will relegate people unable to update their status or participate in conglomerates of discussion known as "groups" ranging from anywhere from twenty-four hours to a full thirty days of suspension for violating what they call "Terms Of Service", anything ranging from talking about the holocaust to talking about cops in a negative manner to engaging in race bait. One part of this agreement alludes me, which is the suspension of people accounts over heated religious exchange. I do get that a very large portion of people are quick to get offended over the smallest slights in regards to their faith of choice or whatever one they were brought up in, still eluded is why atheists are grouped in with these people. It is in fact they are a group that is defined moreso in whatever they lack than what they possess, and its a very confusing aspect of their "Terms of service". Going back to several centuries ago, those who professed a lack of faith in regards to vestments or rituals of a given religious community were often condemned for their lack of "showing face" to their community and were often punished, undutibly so, in trials which lacked evidence, something many atheists are quick to bring up on the God question, because so many people were caught up in the fervor of religious revival, few cared or stood up for them since they were no deviation from the rules. Since the French revolution ignited a spark under the people of France to disregard all existing contracts by the Catholic Church to be invalid, many thinkers, from Rousseau to Voltaire to englishmen like Hume and Bentham to call for "no gods, no masters" which would be the rallying cry for anarchists into the 19th century and 20th century, that over time, calling upon the Church of Reason rather than the Church of God for all philosophical inquires became increasingly commonplace and the decoupling of theology and philosophy became greater over time, so much that existentialism, a line of though started by a Christian, Soren Kierkegaard, became identified with secular thinkers like Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, inspired by Eastern-orientated lines of ontology, became the de-facto starting point of "being", existence preceeding essence, philosophy that was primed to replace religion as a source revelation. But that's not enough. Today, atheism stands unapposed (besides Islamic clerics decrying its influence in the middle east), no one seems to find profound thinking through heurmentics or sermons but rather people that offer tepid recallings of "Stoicism" or literally anything Eastern (because Western religion is yucky, according to most "intellectuals") for life and self improvement, despite how much respect I have for certain systems like Hinduism and "The Way". Back to the original argument, why are atheists given so much leverage when their ideas stand for nothing? Not believing in something is no excuse to silence people, then again people are punished in Germany for not thinking Jews died by Hitler's own hand, about six million of them (it varies on whom you ask, wink wink). As far as I am concerned, the point stands: No belief - no protection. That means human rights of atheists mean little to me if their subject points to nothing in particular, no defining cultural traits (other than bad body odor and horrible fashion sense, in all seriousness, that may define a subculture in a way but is no way indicitive of an actual culture in the "bigger picture" sense) nor do they possess any linguistic differences nor food nor ethnic predispositions either. They are essentially defined by what they lack, and what they lack only, which is hardly a reason to procure human rights for them. I can understand why someone would get mad at people disrespecting Jews, or Muslims or say, the Basque people of Northern Spain/Southern France. But I have yet to examine anything that atheists HAVE rather than HAVE NOT in terms of sociological definition, so the idea that they are allowed any human rights on basis of that subject alone, is ludicrous. So if one of them gets threatened with any violent action or having something like Holy water thrown on them or sacrificed in say, a pagan ritual, I, as a religious man, have no duty or obligation to protect them. They have, by their own free will, put themselves at the rest of mankind's mercy, and some are more merciful than others.

                                                                                                            J./Adolf Stalin