Harold Wilson was once accused of “stirring up apathy”. There are moments when I wonder whether militant atheism and even its brilliant spokesvehicle which is this Blog, could not be accused of the same. Let’s face it : the message is not new. The choice of ridicule and reductio ad absurdum is no innovation. Some might even say that its impertinent content is sometimes not all that pertinent. Maybe we should chuck in the towel.
No way ! Perhaps it’s the Irish in me but I am as pig-headed as Paddy’s. Readers would not be aware of the fact but my militancy is not limited to this Blog. For example, like so many millions of others around the world, I was horrified by the beheading of that American journalist, whether or not his butcher was British. And like so many other readers of “The Guardian”, I reacted with a comment (August 23 at 8:29 p.m.) – one of the more than 1000 comments published. For the record, here’s what I wrote :
“A former Roman Catholic Franciscan priest, I recognized forty years ago not only religion’s absurdity but also the crimes against humanity it motivates fanatics to commit. My blog (blindfaithblindfolly.wordpress.com) is dedicated to the destruction of religion : “Delenda Religio”. But Carthage could be, and was, destroyed. Religion cannot, and never will be. So I have to content myself with the mantra “Ridenda Religio”. Its beliefs, rules and rituals are too silly for words. But ridicule is not enough. Nor are indignation and outrage at beheading journalists in the name of Allah. The world should wake up before this unholy Third World War makes our own Inquisition and wars of religion look like a parish picnic.”
A quoi bon ? To what purpose ? What good is it to vent one’s anger and outrage ? Stéphane Hessel was right in inviting us, in his pamphlet read by millions, to express indignation, in the tradition of the French resistants who refused to accept the status quo of Vichy’s submission to and collaboration with the German occupants. His “Indignez-Vous !” was the opposite of “sit down, shut up, don’t make waves !” But what’s the point in screaming, literally, “bloody murder !” at outrageous Islamic fanaticism ? And what hope do we have of having any effect whatsoever on the damage religion continues to inflict on the world ?
The only possible, respectable response is “What other choice do we have ?” Resistance is potentially dangerous and too often ineffective. As a militant atheist I am a voice in the wilderness perhaps, though far from alone in trying to make my voice heard; our name is, in fact, Legion. History’s heroes, people who made a difference, have always been those who dared to condemn injustice, crime, torture, manipulation, oppression, obscurantism and obstruction of human liberty. They were not looking for fame but for freedom, for themselves and especially for others, often at considerable cost including loss of their own lives. Against criminal fanatics and exploiters of credulity, silence is not an option.
RIDENDA RELIGIO
Blind Faith: Blind Folly 
Why is it ridenda religio and not ridenda religii? It would seem the genitive, not dative or ablative of religium should apply.
Excuse my ignorance . Thanks in advance for explaining.
LikeLike
I think Frank has made a quite eloquent plea for enlightenment – certainly it is the case that the murderous fanatics of ISIS are a contemporary manifestation of the lunacy that can be inspired by religious fanaticism.
Catholicism had its turn with the Inquisition. Christianity generally tore itself apart with its wars after Luther.
The Elders of Zion with their Protocols sought global dominion and might have been less destructive than either contemporary Islam or the Christianity of centuries past.
But it could also be reasonably argued, as Frank does, that we would be better off without any of them.
LikeLike
Well said Georgie. I probably don’t agree with you about the Protocols however.
As Frank has said, religion or, if you like, Religions, are not going to disappear any time soon – probably never.
Given the absurdity of the beliefs of all Religions, the fact that they survive sadly says much about the gullibility of their adherents.
But it was ever thus.
LikeLike
I have to believe that your surprising question is sincere. Previous posts have explained why I dropped “Delenda” in favour of “Ridenda Religio”. Both are gerundives : religion, like Carthage, MUST be destroyed; religion, because absurd, MUST be laughed at, ridiculed. “Q.E.D.”, “quod erat demonstrandum” – “that which HAD TO BE demonstrated” – “C.Q.F.D.” – “ce qu’il fallait démontrer” – are constantly used by engineers, mathematicians and scientists (the first two do not the third make, as mere mathematician John Lennox himself almost admits . . .). I said of your question that I HAD TO believe it was sincere. It is a “quaestio credenda”, though, unsurprisingly, I have my doubts. (The genitive of “religio” – not “religium” – by the way, is “religionis” not “religii”.)
LikeLike
I am reading this blog sometimes. I like the Latin teaching.
LikeLike
Poor Frank has really gone insane.
Surprisingly, others continue to take him seriously.
Georgie mentioned enlightenment, an unfortunate choice of term considering the conservatively estimated 20,000+ heads lopped during 4 years of the French Revolution, perpetrated by the anti religious.
LikeLike
Dominus vobiscum, Fabulous!, or should I be more familiar and tutoyer with Dominus tibicum? Fran k will correct any errors.
Frank can teach you a lot of Latin ,as you will note above, in his expert explanation of gerunds and all grammatical matters..
It used to be his working language. It’s good to see that he has kept his passion
LikeLike
Happy, non obstante insanity, to offer corrections. Tecum or leave ’em.
Mens sana
LikeLike
Dancing with devils. It takes tutu tango.
LikeLike