A Book

To the masses of people who are not and probably never will read this blog, I ask a simple question.

Have you ever punched a book?

Not by accident or for a reason unrelated to the nature of the book, but punching the book for the same sorts of reasons you would punch another person.

Up until yesterday I would have placed myself into the (hopefully) majority of people who not only reply to this question with a resounding "no" but start looking at the person who asked it in a cautious way, backing up whilst reaching for a phone.

That was until I read a book called "The Marketing of Evil" by David Kupelian.

To be perfectly fair, I have only read just over a chapter of this disturbing work of a disturbed individual, but I feel that it is more than enough. The fist chapter, for a window in to what has angered me so, is basically about how god hates gay people.

There are several things that cause me to lose respect for people. Some of these are stupid and unjustifiable (like people who spit on the ground. Why does this bug me? I don't know). Other things that make me lose respect for people are a bit more understandable (such as racism. That just plain pisses me off). But possibly the one thing someone can do to make me lose every ounce of respect for them is to use god as the means of ending an argument. Especially if the argument really does not relate to the existence or powers of god.

This act includes any other representation of a supreme being. Things such as the "universe" have exactly the same meaning to me if someone claims they are right because of god, which has exactly the same power over me as claiming the voices in your head disagree with me.

It's not so much that the person believes in god, it's more that they use god as some kind of shield against logic. Here's a hint: Ignorance works pretty well too. Why not just get into an argument with someone and finish up your entire case with "because I say so". Unless you have some kind of authority, it is just as meaningless as justifying yourself with god, except you're being honest about it.

This isn't to say that many people don't honestly believe that god agrees with them, but I have a feeling that even if he didn't believe in god, David Kupelian would still not like gay people.

As you may have guessed, Mr Kupelian has claimed repeatedly that for this very reason people should not support gay rights. As you also may have guessed, I punched his book over it. I also received many strange looks from other people in the food court, but screw them. I just wish I hadn't borrowed the hardcover version.

A perfectly legitimate question I keep asking myself (which, if anyone else ever reads this blog, they may also be asking) is why someone like myself, who is obviously not of the same political leanings of this man, reading this book?

Firstly, the library I go to has these two stands just through the front doors. All the books on one of these stands have a theme, like gardening or the biographies of great Australians. I have no idea what the theme was for "The Marketing of Evil" as most of the other books had been borrowed. I figured, as the name may have led many to guess, that the book was legitimately about advertising (which it kind of claims it is, being how "anti-American values" are being "sold" to the unsuspecting people of America). Blame it on "Syrup" by Max(x) Barry and the Gruen Transfer, but I do find advertising interesting, especially all those things which work subliminally. But why did I start reading, even after the blurb?

Well, I like to know the enemy and as a left-wing atheist, David Kupelian is right up there on that list (let's put him somewhere between George W. Bush and Pauline Hanson). I like to know what the right-wing fundamentalist religion point of view is. If they can justify an argument, find legitimate problems with my point of view and propose a better one, I am more than happy to listen and learn.

But instead, I'm given a spiel about how the right is right because of god. The most "legitimate" claim (I use the phrase hesitantly. Perhaps "least nonsensical argument" is more appropriate) is that the "pro-gay rights lobby" (or as I like to call it, "people with common sense") broke Godwin's Rule. I don't have the overwhelming desire to investigate his claim, which seems weak as it is, but Kupelian then proceeded to make sure Godwin's Rule was well and truly smashed by rebutting that the opposite was true and (as far as I understand his logic) that gay people are Nazis (or vica-versa. He really does not word his points very well. Not that I can claim I do).

The next couple of chapters promise to either make me reconsider everything I  believe or (the much more likely result of) it will continue to make me want to cry, vomit and kill David Kupelian (simultaneously). To be fair, we both believe that smoking is bad, although I have never connected the increase of smoking with gay people.

Anyway, Godwin's Rule makes me think that there should be a rule about using god in arguments. Surely even if you are religious, hypothetical reader, you can see the benefit of being able to just cite a rule which says "just because you claim (with no evidence) that god agrees with your argument does not mean you are correct. It does, however, mean that I not only have perfectly justifiable reasons to stop this disagreement right now, I also have a responsibility to common sense to give you no illusions that you have proven yourself and your argument correct. Please think these things through next time. Good day."

So, imaginary reader, do you think such a rule would be useful? And what should such a rule be called? Personally, naming it Hudson's Rule or Rourke's Rule makes perfect sense, but I feel that there may be someone out there with a more deserving name.

Well, back to Kupelian's horrific writings. I can only hope that the end of the book reveals it to be a piece of satire in very poor taste or otherwise restore just a little of my hope in humanity.

Also, first post. Woo!