[Current events] should cause us to evaluate the conventions by which we analyze what sort of political statements are acceptable in the polite public square....
What one is not allowed to do while remaining a member of good standing is tell to the truth: that to most rational people there is very little dividing line between the agendas of conservative Muslim extremists and conservative Christian ones. Both groups are strongly in favor of weaponizing the public, both are devoted to the imposition of theocracy, and both are opposed to expanded rights for women and those of alternate sexual orientations.
Does it ever occur to these zealots on either side that they are fighting battles over meaningless issues orchestrated by clueless "leaders" on behalf of Fictitious Entities to achieve ... nothing? How much more energy should they commit themselves to expending in order to ... what? While it may be difficult to succeed by hitting a moving target, it's impossible to succeed by hitting one that doesn't exist in the first place!
This seems to be such a basic question one would ask before being drafted into an endless, comically inept, hyper-destructive conflict to defend pointless, phony beliefs mandated by Imaginary Beings: Where is the proof? Shouldn't even the lowest on the lowest of the lowest totem poles want some general idea about the reasons for being commissioned to fight on behalf of ... Someone? Something?
What criteria is used in deciding that the fanciful imaginings of cave-dwellers from the long, long ago are to be followed and obeyed in the 21st century? We've come up with no better guidelines since then? What the hell have we been doing?!
Competing Deities are a huge problem for even the most unenlightened! Which One of Them is going to willingly bow out of the God-Wars and agree that A Certain One--Among the Many--is in fact THE ONE? How can even sidelines observers keep track of which team is scoring points?
Rushing headlong into the maelstrom of policy-making armed only with a mandate that your beliefs--groundless and unclear as they tend to be--means rushing headlong into the maelstrom of policy-making with competing others just as certain that THEIR Deity and their Rules are the Ones and Onlys.
Until they figure out the Rules, the Game, and the Prize, shouldn't we call a truce on others' efforts to slip any beliefs and/or any religion's guidelines into public debate? None of the combatants dare run the risk that they are oh-so-wrong, so how is this supposed to end? And why should the rest of us be subjected to their nonsense and their beliefs, given how senseless and irrational any and all of it is? What remotely-intelligent adult finds any possible merit to the rantings of those who, for example-- claim that President Obama is a demon? A demon? [Hello, Alex Jones and his Full-Out Crazy.]
Seriously? This makes sense to ... even one other human being? Seriously?
Is there some contest as to whom among the crazies can produce the most--indisputable and unchallenged--inane, idiotic, beyond all levels of crazy commentary/marching orders/ conclusions/beliefs? It certainly appears that competition is quite spirited!
Why not conduct policy-making based on the best interests of the majority for any particular topic? Once Some Official Organization has bestowed the mantle of The Winner of the God Wars upon One of Them [after appropriate negotiations for surrender by all of the Other Deities and all of Their faithful], then we can allow the winning God War participants to dictate the Official Rules.
That should be a much easier than to keep fighting those wars, and running into justifiable opposition at every turn. If the Competing Deities are not willing to give up Their Authority, then we should let Them duke it out on Their cosmic battlefields and leave us the hell alone.
Adapted from a blog post of mine