Showing posts with label the agnostic fence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the agnostic fence. Show all posts

Thursday, 29 August 2013

The representation of religious extremism in contemporary film: Does it have its uses?



 For my dissertation  I researched religious extremism in the films RedState and Four Lions. I would like to share with you my introduction and conclusion, it was a very laborious few months but I really enjoyed the research and in the end found the films useful and thought provoking anyway here is what I found:


 Introduction:
In July 2012 a fourteen minute video entitled Innocence of Muslims (Nakoula:2012) was uploaded to YouTube. The relatively low-budget film was poorly dubbed in Arabic with what were regarded as anti-Islamic slurs, causing a global controversy resulting in the death of 75 people. It also prompted a wide variety of responses from different governments; Pakistani minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour offered a reward for the death of the film’s producer and the American Government requested YouTube assess whether the video could be removed from their site. Critics noted that the video was constructed to be inflammatory that it emphasised that films are ‘still associated with an idea- the idea of America’s global power and prestige’ (Guardian, 2010). Ironically, across the Atlantic the Westboro Baptist church continued to use the funerals (and subsequent news coverage) of soldiers that died fighting in wars against a religiously motivated force in the Middle East as a platform to promote homophobia and their fundamentalist beliefs. What I found interesting was it appeared that an ideological war was being waged using the media and it had a lot to do with religion.

Monday, 15 October 2012

The Name Change



I have changed the blog title to 'The agnostic fence' as this is where I currently position myself. No longer an atheist, but no convert by any means.  

So fellow fence sitters, are we in the best position possible?

Agnosticism is the ignored grey area of the religious divide, mostly because an input of  'i dunno' isn't perhaps seen as a useful one. However I think agnosticism has a lot of positives and especially in the arena of apologetics, a debate panel should never be without its agnostic referee.


Agnosticism, and I am generally talking about agnostics with an interest or knowledge in theism, promotes a tolerance that perhaps atheists and theists don't have. Although some atheists are by design agnostic because they will say that they can't say with 100% certainty that a creator doesn't exist, this  is mainly semantics and philosophy. Richard Dawkins would say so because he is a man of logic and applies his own logic to the intricacies of proof, but he is no fence sitter. Agnosticism is separate, agnostics may pray every now and then, may believe in evolution, read a range of religious texts. They may also perceive media deemed controversial  or offensive to a religious person with an active impassive eye, allowing for unbiased criticism or praise.

My granddad says you have to pick a side, in life and in general, but I am not sure in this case that I can. I find the beauty in the possibility and the beauty in the explanation. To treat others as you wish to be treated, to harm no one, to be compassionate to living things and respect others life choices- these are the things I hold dear to me, I understand it is not enough for some and sadly too much for others.