Leaders on both sides of the political aisle have used the United States military to make foreign nations better places in which to live through regime change, yet no one discusses purging fanatical theists who routinely kill the innocent based on orders from their holy books.
No legitimate leader or authority figure has ever proposed making it a priority to preemptively exterminate fanatical religious herds on their way to decapitate innocent people in response to whatever has angered the zealots that particular day. Governments sit back while the overtly religious violently scare the masses into submitting. None even make the case that such abhorrent people deserve to die before they can raise a single knife.
Eugenics is making the world a better place by wiping out the undesirable. Should we be asking if those who say, "My religion demands I kill you in response to the actions of persons with whom you have no connection" are desirable?
When people, who claim their holy book instructs them it's time to kill, mobilize, should there be armed troops nearby ready to save innocent lives by taking lives? It's not like nobody knows where these people live and what sets them off.
I'm sorry if infants are fed religious propaganda from the day they can comprehend words until the time they are capable of killing innocent persons in the name of their god, but does an unfortunate childhood mean we must wait for them to draw first blood.
Is, "UN Workers Killed by Religious Fanatics during Protest," a headline we must just accept?
Why hasn't a candidate proposed making sure, if he or she is elected, the above headline will be replaced with, "Allied Troops Slaughter Knife Wielding Herd en Route to UN Headquarters."?
Would the world be a better place with rulers who mercilessly exterminate theists willing to kill in the name of their religion? Would a majority of the noble smile if there were a leader who bashed in the heads of those looking to murder the innocent as Aldo Raine laughingly killed Nazis?
This candidate wouldn't even be required to speak or act against a specific religion due to the fact that the specific religion changes. Come to me and say you belong to a mainstream religion that stands for peace and I can point to historical periods of darkness so extreme you will lower your head and exit in shame. In other words, don't think, "She's not talking about my religion; she's talking about the religion practiced by the shady family across the street," because I'm talking about your religion and the religion practiced by the shady family across the street.
If no one is currently killing in the name of your religion, then you and such a leader would have no quarrel. You leave the innocent alone and he or she will leave you alone.
Why has no leader advocated for the formation of a special unit of elite fighters to combat the problem of religious based killings? When a Koran is burned in the United States and a sword wielding gang therefore gathers in the streets of Afghanistan, the machine gun equipped soldiers could be to the zealots as Indiana Jones was to the expert swordsman. When an interracial couple moves into a house down the block, members of the same unit could be waiting outside the homes of Bible toting Klansmen who have violence on the brain. Of course they couldn't stop every killing, but they sure could have fun trying.
Because they're the least likely to realize true peace cannot be achieved until extreme versions of their kind are wiped off the map, is it a shame people of religion continue winning elections?
It seems to me that some sort of solution is required other than instructing everyone to forever walk on eggshells because religious fanatics may eventually learn of your actions and take it out on innocent bystanders. Now that America is in the habit of killing to prevent death, it stands to reason we'd at least discuss doing everything in our power to save human beings from brutal beheadings at the hands of angry mobsters who claim a book told them that shedding innocent blood is the best way to serve their god.
Is it a noble action to murder someone at 1500 Kandahar Lane to make sure the international aid worker at 1550 Kandahar Lane doesn't have to quickly draft an email to friends and family members in which he or she relays the following unfortunate information, "in response to a news story about a kooky American and his penchant for burning books with which he disagrees, an angry mob is outside my door brandishing weapons sharp enough to cut through the entirety of my neck. Hopefully they will kill me quickly, but precedent suggests otherwise. Goodbye."
Will there be a point when the world so tires of religious fanaticism that someone in a prominent position finally suggests we get medieval on their asses? Because, despite the fact that you've done nothing to offend them, that's exactly what they'd enjoy doing to yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment