Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Argus]

No. Respect is earned. I see no reason to be more respectful to people's unsubstantiated beliefs. People do not have the right to never encounter something they might find offensive in their lives. Too freaking bad if someone's feelings get hurt. Grow some thicker skin.

Well, you can mock religious beliefs, but it's likely to get you suspended. in the public sphere, it is something which is simply banned. Any politician of any stripe (excluding Quebecers) who is caught mocking and ridiculing another religion will be bounced from his party almost instantly.

[Argus]

Why? If I can mock one group because of their "fanatical insistence on ignoring logic when it comes to 9-11, why can't I mock another's fanatical insistence on ignoring logic when it comes to, say, evolution or family planning policies?

Nothing wrong with mocking someone for disagreeing about evolution or family planning. What I'm talking about is mocking the religion itself. And again, that doesn't mean you can't critiize what is being taught about the religion, or how people are acting based on the religion, or its effects on society or the sayings/codes/tenets of the religion. But mockery is pretty much out.

[Argus]

Because there's a shortage of scorn directed towards Muslims and Jews on this forum.

I wouldn't say Islam is scorned. I would say that the behaviour of many of its followers is scorned, whether that be of people who blow up buildings, or people who drape heavy black clothes over their women in the ridiculous belief this is actually a part of their religion. These people actually don't even understand their own religion, and so are open to scorn.

One of the fundamental problems with Islam is there is no central authority, so every loony across the world has his own idea of what Islam calls for, and shouts it out to their largely illiterate followers.

[cybercoma]

Of course, Argus. My point is that there's no shortage of criticism for Muslims and what they do, contrary to the suggestion of the poster to whom I was replying.

[Bonam]

Well, you can mock religious beliefs, but it's likely to get you suspended. in the public sphere, it is something which is simply banned. Any politician of any stripe (excluding Quebecers) who is caught mocking and ridiculing another religion will be bounced from his party almost instantly.

Good thing most of us here aren't politicians, eh? And no, free speech is not banned.

[Bonam]

This remark is made so unthinkingly and is completely wrong. Respect should not be earned. It should be lost.

Why?

re·spect

riˈspekt/

noun

noun: respect

1.

a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

"the director had a lot of respect for Douglas as an actor"

synonyms: esteem, regard, high opinion, admiration, reverence, deference, honor More re·spect

noun \ri-ˈspekt\

: a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc.

: a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way

I see no reason that these feelings should be attributed to something/someone without cause.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

Suit yourself, but I think it's only proper that everyone is treated as though they're "good, valuable, important, etc." until they've done something for you to think otherwise. Everyone is deserving of respect until they demonstrate that they don't deserve it, imo.

[Bonam]

Suit yourself, but I think it's only proper that everyone is treated as though they're "good, valuable, important, etc." until they've done something for you to think otherwise. Everyone is deserving of respect until they demonstrate that they don't deserve it, imo.

I disagree. I would say that everyone is deserving of common courtesy and politeness until they do something to suggest otherwise. But respect? No, I admire only a select group of people, value the opinions of only a select group of people.

[Argus]

Good thing most of us here aren't politicians, eh? And no, free speech is not banned.

Our moderator is extremely politically correct and always has been.

[Michael Hardner]

Our moderator is extremely politically correct and always has been.

I don't think you can say that with any certainty. They enforce the rules and Canadian law, though, that much you can say.

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe religions and leaders don't set out with a goal to cause harm sometimes, but they often do cause harm as a result of their beliefs/rules etc.

Can clarify/define "often?" And are you lumping all religions into one with that view?

Edited September 13, 2013 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

Ooh. I smell another debate over semantics.

[Moonlight Graham]

Can clarify/define "often?" And are you lumping all religions into one with that view?

1. 4 times a day? LOL I don't know how I can be specific.

2. I'm not very familiar with religions east of the middle-east, so i'll at least lump all major religions (ie: Judaism, Islam, Christianity, & uhm Scientology?) into the group.

[Guest American Woman]

1. 4 times a day? LOL I don't know how I can be specific.

I didn't actually ask you to be "specific." I asked you if you could clarify. But since you have no idea of what "often" would involve, I have to wonder how you can make such a judgement. For the record, your "4 times a day" would make it practically non-existant considering the vastness of religion. At any rate, there's no proof of this "harm" that you claim "often" takes place by "many religions."

2. I'm not very familiar with religions east of the middle-east, so i'll at least lump all major religions (ie: Judaism, Islam, Christianity, & uhm Scientology?) into the group.

I have to wonder how familiar you are with the religions you claim to be familar with.

[Guest]

The problem with showing bias when heaping scorn on religion is that it's very difficult to heap it equally. Some religions are just much, much worse than others. Scorn is generally heaped proportionally.

That tends to put one in the bad books of some, but what are you going to do?

[BubberMiley]

. At any rate, there's no proof of this "harm" that you claim "often" takes place by "many religions."

Except for the great deal of proof of harm that often takes place by many religions.

[kimmy]

I didn't actually ask you to be "specific." I asked you if you could clarify. But since you have no idea of what "often" would involve, I have to wonder how you can make such a judgement. For the record, your "4 times a day" would make it practically non-existant considering the vastness of religion. At any rate, there's no proof of this "harm" that you claim "often" takes place by "many religions."

There's plenty of proof. Some of if has been mentioned in this thread. Female genital mutilation. Children dying from easily treatable illnesses because their parents belong to religious groups that forbid medical intervention. Outbreaks of diseases at churches run by pastors who oppose vaccination. Those are examples of demonstrable harm resulting from religion.

-k

[kimmy]

Speaking a fairly secular fellow, it is one thing to mock political beliefs, or something like the 911 truthers and their fanatical insistence on ignoring logic, but quite another to mock someone's religious beliefs. You can question the latter, but I believe there is a requirement for a more respectful stance.

So are you saying that I should inherently respect Bishop E.W. Jackson or Sheikh Ali bin Shabab more than I should respect a secular hate-monger because they claim their views are based on holy books?

If you look at my post, I'm talking about basic respect for the person, not their views.

Same question.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

At any rate, there's no proof of this "harm" that you claim "often" takes place by "many religions."

I have to wonder how familiar you are with the religions you claim to be familar with.

Religions cause harm, and have for literally millennia. If you want "proof", pick up any textbook on world history. Do you want proof that the sky is blue also?

[sharkman]

Religions cause harm, and have for literally millennia. If you want "proof", pick up any textbook on world history. Do you want proof that the sky is blue also?

And by that basis the non religious are condemned as well.

[sharkman]

So are you saying that I should inherently respect Bishop E.W. Jackson or Sheikh Ali bin Shabab more than I should respect a secular hate-monger because they claim their views are based on holy books?

Same question.

-k

Something I thought about the issue earlier.

People have a right to their side of the sidewalk. When walking on one past someone, you make room for them without thinking whether they are skinny or fat, man or woman, paper delivery or lawyer. You don't care what they are, you move over a bit if needed. That's simple respect for their right to walk on the sidewalk past you. If they shove you, then they lose that sort of respect.

That's pretty much what I think and it was in the context of reading and posting on this forum. It's interesting that human nature is to always try to think of the extreme or very rare example as if since the law or example or norm does not apply to the extreme case, then it must be thrown out. I think life is more complicated than that.

So for the extreme example of some deranged fanatic who has remade the religion in his image, then his/her acts or words condemn him/her and there should be no respect or tolerance, in my opinion.

[Moonlight Graham]

I didn't actually ask you to be "specific." I asked you if you could clarify. But since you have no idea of what "often" would involve, I have to wonder how you can make such a judgement.

BTW, to clarify, "often" means every second of every day. Maybe when homosexuals aren't barred from marriage in every Christian country (including US states), based on religious grounds, when Muslim women don't have to cover their faces and bodies anymore, and they get that whole Israeli-Palestinian thing figured out, then we can talk

Edited September 14, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

Speaking a fairly secular fellow, it is one thing to mock political beliefs, or something like the 911 truthers and their fanatical insistence on ignoring logic, but quite another to mock someone's religious beliefs. You can question the latter, but I believe there is a requirement for a more respectful stance.

I disagree. Im not a 911 truther, and I think if theres US government involvement is was more along the lines of just being generally useless and incompetent as opposed to being an active part of attacks.

But really... You think the belief that a government might be involved in a terrorist attack is more mockable than the belief that the universe was created in six days by a cosmic entity with no parents, and that if you drink wine and pretend that its that entities blood, and you kneel each day and attempt to mentally project to this entity that you accept him as your master, then you will get to go to a really great place and live forever, and if you dont you will experience an eternal burning sensation?

I DO respect christians as people... but lets be honest... orthodox and even contemporary christian beliefs make 911 truthers look thoughtful, sane, and rational.

I think where respect comes in, is not being afraid to go after someones beliefs but being able to keep that separate from your opinion of them as a whole. I have heated conversations with my religious friends sometimes, and we attack and mock each others beliefs. But when the argument is over we are still good friends, and I dont judge the entirety of a persons character based on one aspect of it. I can think and say that a persons beliefs in a certain area are utterly stupid and ridiculous, yet still have a very high opinion of that person, and great respect for them. Some of the people I respect MOST in life, agree with me on very few things. If you think religious debates get heated you should here me and a couple of my closest friends argue about gun control and unions!

I think this "thing" being trotted out as a problem is actually really healthy. Christians and atheists in the west might get a little butt-hurt over some of these debates but in general we get along pretty well.

Edited September 14, 2013 by dre

[sharkman]

But the confines of an internet forum debating with strangers is a far cry from debating with close friends face to face who know your body language, inflections and such. Closest friends arguing have a give and take that you don't have in the context of a thread and your words typed in frustration go out for may more to see. That is one reason why certain things are off limits online.

We are guests here and need to abide by the rules put forth in the forum. We freely chose to abide by the rules when we joined, or could have decided not to. Aside from all that, we are all unique people and for the most part I find people fascinating. What would life be if everyone thought and believed exactly the same?

It's very true that many harmful things have been done in the name of religions, but the non religious have done just as much because mankind lusts for power and riches and hedonism, etc. The above example of religion persecuting gays and gay marriage forgets that Putin's Russia does the exact same, and not in the name of God, I'm pretty sure it's the same in China, North Korea and several non-christian african nations, to name a few.

I don't think the gay issue should be the litmus test though. How free a society is affects the gay issue, women's rights, the pursuit of happiness and rights of minorities. Freedom to pursue faith or not.

Edit: And since Christian/Muslim nations and treatment of gays/women was brought up, they both are treated far better in Christian nations, are they not?

Edited September 14, 2013 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

BTW, to clarify, "often" means every second of every day. Maybe when homosexuals aren't barred from marriage in every Christian country (including US states), based on religious grounds, when Muslim women don't have to cover their faces and bodies anymore, and they get that whole Israeli-Palestinian thing figured out, then we can talk

Yeah, right, because of course only religious people are against gay marriage. If not for gay marriage, every state would suddenly legalize gay marriage* Just like secular China. Oops! Guess I can't use that as an example, eh? Guess I'll have to use Argentina as an example. Oops again! 92% of Argentina is Catholic.

Then there's England and Wales- and you do realize there's a Church of England, right? - where it's legal. In total, gay marriage is legal in 14 countries, and we both know that all the rest of the countries in the world are not "Christian or Muslim." Nor are all more religious than, say, Canada.

And let's not overlook the China/Taiwan/Tibet disputes, which are not religion based at all. It's ludicrous to say that "religion" is harmful because of the "Israeli-Palestinian thing" when throughout history there are countless examples of such conflicts not based on religion.

It's also very biased at best to just focus on the harm that's been done and not any of the good, while it's downright bigoted to suggest that a comparison to religion in general to the KKK is germane.

*For the record, gays aren't "barred from marriage in the U.S.," which is not a "Christian country" any more than Canada is; it's a state issue, and in case you're unaware of it,13 states + D.C. have legalized it, and in 2 states it's not legal or illegal, which means it's not banned in those states.

----------------------------

Edited to add:

Edit: And since Christian/Muslim nations and treatment of gays/women was brought up, they both are treated far better in Christian nations, are they not?

Good point, which I had meant to touch on, too.

Painting "religion" as one entity, as 'all the same,' is no less bigoted than painting all Muslims are the same (sexit/terrorists).

Edited September 14, 2013 by American Woman