Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Moonlight Graham]

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:

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).

Ok you're right you win, religion doesn't cause a lot of harm, never has. No impact on gays, doesn't cause violence etc. I never said religion doesn't cause good. This is a ridiculous discussion, I'm not getting pulled into another AW semantics debate. You win.

[Guest American Woman]

Ok you're right you win, religion doesn't cause a lot of harm, never has. No impact on gays, doesn't cause violence etc. I never said religion doesn't cause good. This is a ridiculous discussion, I'm not getting pulled into another AW semantics debate. You win.

Real mature. I'm sorry if stating my opinion offends you in some way. How about you say whatever you want - and I just don't say anything? Would that suit you better? Is that your idea of a 'discussion?'

Or is this simply what you resort to when you've nothing to say in response?

[The_Squid]

Real mature. I'm sorry if stating my opinion offends you in some way. How about you say whatever you want - and I just don't say anything? Would that suit you better? Is that your idea of a 'discussion?'

Or is this simply what you resort to when you've nothing to say in response?

Your argument is so ridiculous as to not warrant discussion. That's kind of how these "discussions" with you seem to go.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's move on ?

[Guest American Woman]

Let's move on ?

I brought up legitimate points. I stated my views same as others. That people resort to the type of crap we see here is uncalled for. :angry:

[Argus]

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?

You would have to point out what statements they made which would classify them as hatemongers. But in general, disagreeing with a statement is not the same as mocking a religion. At least in part that's because a lot of the more publicly identified people who make boasts about knowing Gods will generally don't even understand their own religion very well.

[Argus]

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

Maybe. But as you've already acknowledged, opposing vaccinations isn't necessarily based on religion. Plenty of secular people do, such as Jennie Mccarthy. And a lot of what is done in the name of religion seems to be done more in the name of culture, such as those Muslm women who bury themselves in black robes and hide their faces. There's nothing in their religion which calls for that but they seem to think otherwise. Likewise, there's nothing in Christianity which really supports opposing vaccinations, and nothing in any religion I know of that calls for genital mutilation. But you get one guy who interprets passages a certain way and certain people are acting nutty.

[Shady]

You would have to point out what statements they made which would classify them as hatemongers. But in general, disagreeing with a statement is not the same as mocking a religion. At least in part that's because a lot of the more publicly identified people who make boasts about knowing Gods will generally don't even understand their own religion very well.

I fully support mocking religion. Or mocking anything for that matter. My issue in this forum, is that the usual anti-Christian posters, will mock Christianity with glee, but their mocking begins and ends with that religion. For whatever reason. It's rather odd. And when you do a forum search of posts and topics of said posters. You'll find that to be true. And in some cases, you actually have them preaching (pun intended) for understanding regarding a certain other religion. That's why I tend to believe, that in this forum, it's flatout bigotry and prejudice. I think that for some in here, it's become so common place for them, probably in their regular lives as well, sorrounded by other like-minded bigots, they don't even realize it.

[dre]

I fully support mocking religion. Or mocking anything for that matter. My issue in this forum, is that the usual anti-Christian posters, will mock Christianity with glee, but their mocking begins and ends with that religion. For whatever reason. It's rather odd. And when you do a forum search of posts and topics of said posters. You'll find that to be true. And in some cases, you actually have them preaching (pun intended) for understanding regarding a certain other religion. That's why I tend to believe, that in this forum, it's flatout bigotry and prejudice. I think that for some in here, it's become so common place for them, probably in their regular lives as well, sorrounded by other like-minded bigots, they don't even realize it.

I get ya! "I support mocking religion" but "the people that mock my favorite one are just idiots".

[Bonam]

And when you do a forum search of posts and topics of said posters. You'll find that to be true. And in some cases, you actually have them preaching (pun intended) for understanding regarding a certain other religion.

There's a few messed up posters that will defend Islam while criticizing Christianity, but that is not a particularly common stance. The majority of the atheists on this board, from what I have seen, will heap scorn on all religions when presented with the opportunity to do so.

[Guest American Woman]

FYI, "heaping scorn" upon all religions is no better than the religious who "heap scorn" on anyone with different beliefs than theirs. Again. It's just the opposite side of the coin.

Edited September 15, 2013 by American Woman

[Peter F]

What she said!

Scorn never changed anyones mind. Heaps of it changes nothing. The scorner feels better about themselves though.

[cybercoma]

Kind of like heaping scorn on transgendered people. I agree.

[kimmy]

I fully support mocking religion. Or mocking anything for that matter. My issue in this forum, is that the usual anti-Christian posters, will mock Christianity with glee, but their mocking begins and ends with that religion. For whatever reason. It's rather odd. And when you do a forum search of posts and topics of said posters. You'll find that to be true. And in some cases, you actually have them preaching (pun intended) for understanding regarding a certain other religion. That's why I tend to believe, that in this forum, it's flatout bigotry and prejudice. I think that for some in here, it's become so common place for them, probably in their regular lives as well, sorrounded by other like-minded bigots, they don't even realize it.

So to paraphrase, you're not demanding moderator action because of the content of the messages, you're demanding moderator action because you suspect that the people posting the messages might be prejudiced?

Haha, alrighty then.

-k

[kimmy]

You would have to point out what statements they made which would classify them as hatemongers. But in general, disagreeing with a statement is not the same as mocking a religion. At least in part that's because a lot of the more publicly identified people who make boasts about knowing Gods will generally don't even understand their own religion very well.

Sheikh Ali bin Shabbab is, of course, a fictional character; I could have referenced any number of real Muslim clerics who have made astoundingly bigoted statements about women or Jews or gays. We both plenty of examples of this kind of Muslim cleric. Does that type of person deserve more respect than a secular ignoramus because their views come from their Quran? My answer is no. I'm still not clear on your answer.

Bishop Jackson's statements are easy enough to find; as he's running for Lt. Governor of Virginia his anti-gay rhetoric has caught a lot of attention lately. (btw, I believe he declared himself to be "Bishop" of his own ministry, it's not a title conferred upon him by the Catholic church or any other organized group. I think his ministry would be classified as "independant Baptist".) And he's claiming that if people look at his views when they decide not vote for him, they're applying an unconstitutional "religious test".

Should Virginia voters view this guy differently from how they would view a secular bigot? My answer is no. Despite what he's saying, his answer is also no, because he's boasting of his religious views as the reason that Christian voters should vote for him, and that no true Christian would vote Democrat. So he clearly wants religion to be an issue.

I don't believe that E.W. Jackson is more deserving of respect or tolerance than any other bigot, whether his comments are a result of "a Biblical world view" or not. I doubt you would either.

But some, including Jackson himself, claim that if you criticize what he's saying, you're persecuting him for his religion.

Maybe. But as you've already acknowledged, opposing vaccinations isn't necessarily based on religion. Plenty of secular people do, such as Jennie Mccarthy. And a lot of what is done in the name of religion seems to be done more in the name of culture, such as those Muslm women who bury themselves in black robes and hide their faces. There's nothing in their religion which calls for that but they seem to think otherwise. Likewise, there's nothing in Christianity which really supports opposing vaccinations, and nothing in any religion I know of that calls for genital mutilation. But you get one guy who interprets passages a certain way and certain people are acting nutty.

And the difference is that nobody insists that Jenny McCarthy's idiotic views must be respected because they come from religion.

Islam might not say that those women have to go around wearing bags on their heads, but those women have gone to court claiming that their religion gives them the right to wear their bags on their head when they testify in court or in their drivers license photos or when they case their votes.

-k

[kimmy]

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.

That's basically how I feel too. If Pat Robertson was coming down the sidewalk toward me, I'm not sure I'd make way for him to pass, I might give him an earful instead. And it's not because he's a Christian, it's because he's an asshole. And I take issue with someone who might tell me that if I told Pat Robertson he's an asshole, it's an example of anti-Christian bigotry. It's not anti-Christian bigotry, it's anti-asshole bigotry.

And the stuff that we talk about in this forum is almost always about specific incidents, not some generalized slam at religious people. Not sure if you're aware or not, but what prompted the latest cry of "anti-Christian bigotry" was when I posted this list in another thread:

-Virginia candidate for governor proposes law to outlaw oral sex

-North Carolina legislators propose establishment of a state religion

-Rick Perry still mad that sodomy law was struck down

-Arizona sheriff requires deputies to carry AR-15s at all times, even while off duty

-Kentucky law says that only God can maintain the safety and security of the state.

-28% of Louisiana residents blame G.W.Bush for sloppy response to Hurricane Katrina; 29% blame Obama

-North Carolina law forbids the use of sea level data more recent than 1900 in formulating public policy.

-Virginia candidate for lieutenant governor claims sin causes birth defects and says that God will redistribute wealth.

-illegal for teachers in Tennessee to acknowledge the existence of gay people to students lower than 9th grade

-Arizona sheriff mounts expedition to Hawaii to investigate Obama birth certificate fraud

-Georgia lawmaker argues that women should be required to bring futile pregnancies to term because the animals in his barnyard have to.

-Louisiana law requires that creationism be given "balanced treatment" in public school science classes.

-Kentucky to subsidize building of Noah's Ark museum.

(full disclosure: one item, the AR15 item, was found to be untrue, the subsidy for the Ark museum is actually a tax break; the remainder is true.)

And you'll notice that the word "Christians" isn't actually mentioned at all in that list, and that a number of these items have nothing at all to do with religion. And the items that do relate to religion are not slams at religion in general, they're slams at bad public policy being promoted by politicians who are bringing religion into the public sphere.

-k

[BubberMiley]

Lumping all those ideas together and calling them "Christian" not only misrepresents Christianity, but displays an actual bias about Christianity that is quite negative.

Ah, irony.

[Guest American Woman]

And you'll notice that the word "Christians" isn't actually mentioned at all in that list, and that a number of these items have nothing at all to do with religion. And the items that do relate to religion are not slams at religion in general, they're slams at bad public policy being promoted by politicians who are bringing religion into the public sphere.

Yet even as "Christians" isn't mentioned in the list, you connected the list to the Bible Belt:

[...]It was hardly an exhaustive list. There's crazies everywhere, but the Bible Belt is way out front. The American south has a far higher density of that sort of stupidity than the rest of the United States, because the American south has a far higher density of religious nutjobs than the rest of the United States.[...]

The Bible Belt refers to Christians, not Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists. It's nice to see that you now admit that "a number of these items have nothing at all to do with religion," though, as you attributed the incidents on the list to "religious nutjobs" and being in "the Bible Belt"

[kimmy]

Yet even as "Christians" isn't mentioned in the list, you connected the list to the Bible Belt:

The Bible Belt refers to Christians, not Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or atheists. It's nice to see that you now admit that "a number of these items have nothing at all to do with religion," though, as you attributed the incidents on the list to "religious nutjobs" and being in "the Bible Belt"

The Bible Belt refers to a geographic region, not a religion. The defining characteristic of the Bible Belt is not just Christianity, but also social conservatism. If a high proportion of Christians defined the Bible Belt, most of the United States would be Bible Belt, excluding some of the Northeast and Northwest. But Christianity on its own doesn't define the Bible Belt, the particular brand of socially conservative evangelical Christianity that dominates the South defines the Bible Belt. When I said the South has a higher proportion of religious nutjobs than the rest of America, the emphasis should be on nutjobs, because there are religious people all over America but the South is by far the leader in religious people who are nutjobs.

Now, there's a chicken-and-egg type argument to be made regarding the Deep South. All of those states except for Texas are among America's lowest-income, highest unemployment, lowest educated. Any statistical measure of success you can think of, you'll find that the Deep South at the bottom. Any statistical measure of failure, and you'll find the Deep South at the top. So, why? Does educational failure cause the embrace of hardcore conservative religion? Or does hardcore conservative religion lead to educational failure? Do they form a vicious circle? Is it a cultural thing rather than a religious thing, as in do the history and cultural traditions of the region lead to the rejection of fancy book larnin' and the embrace of religion and hardcore social conservatism? So I was wrong to say that the south has that sort of stupidity *because* of a higher density of religious nutjobs, when there's an argument to be made that both the stupidity and the religious nutjobbery are symptoms of larger cultural issues.

I made a couple of other errors in that thread. First off, in not sufficiently fact-checking the Joe Arpaio AR-15 story (although as I mentioned I got that interpretation straight from mainstream websites, so it's much like a bilingual dogs type situation.) And secondly by lumping Arizona in with the Bible Belt, when Arizona actually has its own separate kind of crazy, though one that's likewise intertwined with social conservatism. But to the main thrust of the accusation, no.

To summarize, the difference isn't that Southerners are Christian while the rest of American isn't. The large majority of Americans in all regions are Christians. The Bible Belt isn't defined by Christianity in general, it's defined by a socially conservative mentality blended with a brand of Christianity that believes things things like this:

from Christian pollsters Lifeways Research.

-k

[GostHacked]

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.

I am in this line of thinking as well. Making a distinction between courtesy and respect is a good one in my view. And even with some I do not respect get at maximum some basic courtesy.

[GostHacked]

Let's move on ?

Go on, I dare you. And by that I mean, some of us WISH we could go on. But with certain posters the semantics get grilled to death while the main issue is long left in the dust. It's a tactic that cannot be beat. No matter how much you clarify ect. Some either are simply trolling, or really that freakin ridiculous. So, yeah, let's move on. It's been attempted before many many times.

Edited September 16, 2013 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

The Bible Belt refers to a geographic region, not a religion. The defining characteristic of the Bible Belt is not just Christianity, but also social conservatism. If a high proportion of Christians defined the Bible Belt, most of the United States would be Bible Belt, excluding some of the Northeast and Northwest. But Christianity on its own doesn't define the Bible Belt, the particular brand of socially conservative evangelical Christianity that dominates the South defines the Bible Belt. When I said the South has a higher proportion of religious nutjobs than the rest of America, the emphasis should be on nutjobs, because there are religious people all over America but the South is by far the leader in religious people who are nutjobs.

My point, and it stands, is that even as you deny mentioning Christians and now point out, correctly, that "a number of these items have nothing at all to do with religion," you blamed the "stupidity" of the items on the list on the location, ie: the Bible Belt, and the South having a "far higher density of religious nutjobs."

That most definitely is blaming the list on "religion," even as you yourself admit that "a number of these items have nothing at all to do with religion." That in itself speaks of a bias. Why would you otherwise include items that you yourself admit have "nothing to do with religion" as examples of "religious nutjobs?" And yes, those "religious nutjobs" are Christians.

The Bible Belt isn't defined by Christianity in general, it's defined by a socially conservative mentality blended with a brand of Christianity that believes things things like this:

http://blog.lifeway.com/lifewayresearch/2013/09/13/many-americans-link-u-s-military-strike-in-syria-to-end-times

That poll consisted of 1001 Americans, which is hardly extensive in a country with 312+ million, and I see no reference to the margin of error. I don't put a lot of stock in it.

Edited September 17, 2013 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

My point, and it stands, is that even as you deny mentioning Christians and now point out, correctly, that "a number of these items have nothing at all to do with religion," you blamed the "stupidity" of the items on the list on the location, ie: the Bible Belt, and the South having a "far higher density of religious nutjobs."

That most definitely is blaming the list on "religion," even as you yourself admit that "a number of these items have nothing at all to do with religion." That in itself speaks of a bias. Why would you otherwise include items that you yourself admit have "nothing to do with religion" as examples of "religious nutjobs?" And yes, those "religious nutjobs" are Christians.

Correlation =/ causation.

That is to say: the nutjobs in question may be religious, but they aren't necessarily nutjobs because they are religious.

[Guest American Woman]

That is to say: the nutjobs in question may be religious, but they aren't necessarily nutjobs because they are religious.

Right. Yet their "stupidity" was attribted to "religion;" the "nutjobs" were specifially referred to as religious nutjobs by kimmy. If it doesn't follow that they are nutjobs because they are religious, why was there a reference to their being "religious?" You're backing up my point.

[BubberMiley]

Isn't the term "religious nutjobs" redundant?