Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Black Dog]

Right. Yet their "stupidity" was attribted to "religion;" the "nutjobs" were specifially referred to as religious nutjobs by kimmy.

Nope.

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.

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.

Because their religion is a defining characteristic, though not necessarily the source of the nutjobbery. I mean we know the poor and less educated are more likely to be strongly religious, so it could be a case of ignorance finding expression through religion.

[Guest American Woman]

Nope.

It most certainly was. If it weren't being attributed to religion in any way, they shouldn't have been referred to as religious nutjobs, but merely nutjobs.

Because their religion is a defining characteristic, though not necessarily the source of the nutjobbery. I mean we know the poor and less educated are more likely to be strongly religious, so it could be a case of ignorance finding expression through religion.

Say what?? You say in one breath that their religion is a defining characteristic of their being a nutjob but not necessarily the source? Okaaaay. If it could be a case of ignorance finding expression through religion, why weren't they referred to as uneducated nutjobs? Or poor nutjobs, if income is the source of their mindset? To single out religion, when there could very well be other causes, does show a bias against religion - in this instance, Christianity.

Like it or not, you most definitely are supporting my point.

Edited September 18, 2013 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

why weren't they referred to as uneducated nutjobs? Or poor nutjobs?

This should be fairly obvious... it's about what guides their extreme views.

Being poor or being uneducated does not dictate their system of values/morals/ethics nearly as much as their religion does.

Example: They are not anti-gay bigots because they are poor or uneducated. It's because the bible and their preachers tell them this is what God wants them to think.

Edited September 18, 2013 by The_Squid

[Black Dog]

It most certainly was. If it weren't being attributed to religion in any way, they shouldn't have been referred to as religious nutjobs, but merely nutjobs.

They are nutjobs who happen to be strongly religious. In the case of those who use religion as an excuse to promote terrible public policies or pig ignorant beliefs, the modifier is more than apt. If it could be a case of ignorance finding expression through religion, why weren't they referred to as uneducated nutjobs? Or poor nutjobs, if income is the source of their mindset? To single out religion, when there could very well be other causes, does show a bias against religion - in this instance, Christianity.

Say what?? You say in one breath that their religion is a defining characteristic of their being a nutjob but not necessarily the source? Okaaaay.

Yep, it's pretty easy to understand. Sorry you're lost in the weeds.

Like it or not, you most definitely are supporting my point.

That would require that you had a point.

If it could be a case of ignorance finding expression through religion, why weren't they referred to as uneducated nutjobs? Or poor nutjobs, if income is the source of their mindset? To single out religion, when there could very well be other causes, does show a bias against religion - in this instance, Christianity.

Uh: because they are expressing their ignorance through their religion?

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry you're lost in the weeds.

I'm not the one lost in the weeds. You supporting my point - while tripping all over yourself trying to deny it.

[Black Dog]

I'm not the one lost in the weeds. You supporting my point - while tripping all over yourself trying to deny it.

Nope. It's pretty clear. Religious nutjob = nutjob who is religious. Can't dumb it down for you any further than that I'm afraid.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, the irony ...

At any rate, I'm sure they're a mix of a lot of things, including uneducated and poor, as you pointed out. But "religious" was the only adjective used. Hence my point. Which your responses supported. And continue to do so.

[Black Dog]

Oh, the irony ...

At any rate, I'm sure they're a mix of a lot of things, including uneducated and poor, as you pointed out. But "religious" was the only adjective used. Hence my point. Which your responses supported. And continue to do so.

So if some hillbilly wants equal time for Bible-based creation discussions in the classroom, we're supposed to drill down into their socioeconomic status lest we offend pearl-clutchers like you by ascribing their motivations to religion?

Where Kimmy said there's an argument to be made that both the stupidity and the religious nutjobbery are symptoms of larger cultural issues, I would add that when the specific stupidity is based on or involves religion, "religious nutjob" is an acceptable descriptor.

I mean, good lord, your argument boils down to "calling Bible Belters religious nutjobs does a disservice to all the nutjobs who are not religious." Who thinks like that?

Finally, I hope to see you in full flower on this next time the phrase "Muslim terrorist" appears. But I won't, like, hold my breath.

[Guest American Woman]

I mean, good lord, your argument boils down to "calling Bible Belters religious nutjobs does a disservice to all the nutjobs who are not religious." Who thinks like that?

Good Lord. That's not my argument at all and it dosn't boil down to that by any stretch of the (sane) imagination.

Finally, I hope to see you in full flower on this next time the phrase "Muslim terrorist" appears. But I won't, like, hold my breath.

Good to hear. I wouldn't, like, want you to die.

Because there's the thing - I won't be saying that religion has nothing to do with their being terrorists. I think their religion has a whole lot to do with it.

So I wouldn't, like, be talking in circles, and I wouldn't, like, post a list that include many items that "have nothing to do with religion" and then use Islam as an adjective to descibe the reasoning for, like, said items. I also wouldn't use the phrase "Muslim terrorist" to describe an entire region. I would apply it only where applicable. If I were to do otherwise, I'm sure you would, like, accuse me of being biased.

[Black Dog]

Good Lord. That's not my argument at all and it dosn't boil down to that by any stretch of the (sane) imagination.

Perhaps it's not. Maybe if your argument wasn't so goshdarn incoherent (goodness me, it's another AW Misunderstanding !) we'd be better off.

Because when I Iook back at kimmy's post you pulled from the other thread, it's impossible for any sane person to see it as a general slam on religion.

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.

Seems abundantly clear she's referring to the people who's nutjobbery is somehow tied to religion and not suggesting that all southern Christians are nutjobs. So what is it you're crying about? That people who use religion to justify and promote their pig ignorance are being referred to as religious nutjobs?

In other words, while terrorists are terrorist in large part because of their religion, god forbid some dumb hillbilly cracker be tarred with the "religious nutjob" brush because of the preponderance of religious nutjobs in his neck of the woods.

[cybercoma]

Joy. We've devolved into more silly semantic games.

[Moonlight Graham]

Correlation =/ causation.

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

I agree. Are they nutjobs because they're religious, or are they religious because they're nutsjobs (because of some of other reasons)?

[Moonlight Graham]

Isn't the term "religious nutjobs" redundant?

I don't think you're necessarily a nutjob if you're religious. It depends on what you believe.

[bleeding heart]

Joy. We've devolved into more silly semantic games.

And it seems to me there's a common denominator to this phenomenon.

[Mighty AC]

Seems like a common denominator to discussion forums in general. Rather than conceding or dropping a point some egos require people to engage in Clintonesque syntactic excercises in an attempt to exhaust or bore opponents into submission.

[bleeding heart]

I agree. Further, some folks would rather be willfully mistaken than concede anything...an approach which is worse than useless in a civil debate.

[Mighty AC]

I don't think you're necessarily a nutjob if you're religious. It depends on what you believe.

It's a point of view issue really. From one point of view belief in the equivalent of a Santa or living Elvis story is grounds for the tag 'nut job'. Others see that kind of belief as acceptable and reserve the label for more extreme actions. I'm not sure what the equivalent to Pat Robertson types, young earth creationists and fundamentalists would be in the living Elvis world but let's go with those that dress up in costumes and attend Elvis conventions.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Mighty AC

[sharkman]

It's a point of view issue really. From one point of view belief in the equivalent of a Santa or living Elvis story is grounds for the tag 'nut job'. Others see that kind of belief as acceptable and reserve the label for more extreme actions. I'm not sure what the equivalent to Pat Robertson types, young earth creationists and fundamentalists would be in the living Elvis world but let's go with those that dress up in costumes and attend Elvis conventions.

It's a point of view issue indeed. And where does that point of view come from? For those who hate blacks or Jews or Christians, it comes from bigoted parents a lot of the time. Which is exactly where many of the religious get the foundation for what they believe. Since true christianity is peaceful and anchored in the belief that God loves all man, I'd rather have neighbours that love than neighbours that hate any day.

When I was a kid we lived on a street with Catholic neighbours on one side and the Wilsons on the other side. The Catholics were nice people and I had a small crush on their daughter Franka, but alas, I was only ten and could only do things like falling in the mud for her laughter. On the other side, Mr Wilson was an atheist, and a bitter cruel father of 3 daughters. He once shot our cat with a slingshot because it would wander into his yard.

Now my parents, good Christian people, never demonstrated anything but patience and acceptance of the Wilsons, though by rights they shouldn't have even been on speaking terms with the man who shot our cat(it survived just fine). I as a ten yr old, was taking cues from my parents on how I ought to live. Had they talked in disgusted tones about Mr Wilson and stopped being neighbours to him(there were other incidents of course), I well could have learned to have a very dim view of atheists or even Catholics for that matter. But I simply accepted them all though not necessarily their actions.

People teach their children who to accept and who to be suspicious of without even realizing it. People who have a dim view of Christians(since that particular religion is the common one here)simply because of something they believe are to be pitied. I am grateful my parents were better than that.

Edited September 19, 2013 by sharkman

[The_Squid]

Those cat-hating atheists!! LOL

What an awesome story...

The loving Catholics on one side... the hateful atheist on the other... If this really happened, then it must be true for the entire world!

This personal anecdote seems a little too convenient... lol

[Mighty AC]

It's a point of view issue indeed. And where does that point of view come from? For those who hate blacks or Jews or Christians, it comes from bigoted parents a lot of the time. Which is exactly where many of the religious get the foundation for what they believe. Since true christianity is peaceful and anchored in the belief that God loves all man, I'd rather have neighbours that love than neighbours that hate any day.

When I was a kid we lived on a street with Catholic neighbours on one side and the Wilsons on the other side. The Catholics were nice people and I had a small crush on their daughter Franka, but alas, I was only ten and could only do things like falling in the mud for her laughter. On the other side, Mr Wilson was an atheist, and a bitter cruel father of 3 daughters. He once shot our cat with a slingshot because it would wander into his yard.

Now my parents, good Christian people, never demonstrated anything but patience and acceptance of the Wilsons, though by rights they shouldn't have even been on speaking terms with the man who shot our cat(it survived just fine). I as a ten yr old, was taking cues from my parents on how I ought to live. Had they talked in disgusted tones about Mr Wilson and stopped being neighbours to him(there were other incidents of course), I well could have learned to have a very dim view of atheists or even Catholics for that matter. But I simply accepted them all though not necessarily their actions.

People teach their children who to accept and who to be suspicious of without even realizing it. People who have a dim view of Christians(since that particular religion is the common one here)simply because of something they believe are to be pitied. I am grateful my parents were better than that.

I am glad your cat was alright and that you had good parents and at least one nice neighbour with a hot daughter. I too had a cruel neighbour growing up, though he was a Baptist. We still treated the man with kindness and I (after being forced to by my parents) still cut his front grass most weeks.

There are two different issues being discussed here. The first is a belief itself, the second is treatment of people with certain beliefs. I treat everyone with common courtesy no matter what they believe; however, that should not prevent me from debating the merits of a belief itself. Discussion of ideas are how the best get elevated and the bad ones tossed aside.

Beliefs without evidence get criticized and rightly so. For example I think it is acceptable to mock the the beliefs of conspiracy theorists and living Elvis subscribers as long as the person is not personally attacked. In fact, unless that person was a close acquaintance or participating in a discussion forum on that topic I wouldn't engage in a debate with them.

In the religion section of this forum though, I feel it is fair game to point out the absurdity of a belief provided that I don't attack you personally.

People openly mock liberal and conservative views, why do you believe spiritual views deserve special protection?

[Moonlight Graham]

People who have a dim view of Christians(since that particular religion is the common one here)simply because of something they believe are to be pitied. I am grateful my parents were better than that.

I think there's a big difference in labeling someone an idiot for their vague belief system (and "Christian" is a very broad, vague term with i'm sure millions of variations of beliefs), and labeling specific beliefs of someone as idiotic. However, I think it's 100% legitimate for me to think that the specific belief that ie: the earth is only 4000 years old is idiotic. I think it's also legitimate to question the intelligence of someone (especially if they want to assume public office) who would belief such a thing if they're aware of the contrary evidence. I also agree that it's not right to judge someone you think has ridiculous beliefs as a "bad person".

Edited September 19, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[sharkman]

I am glad your cat was alright and that you had good parents and at least one nice neighbour with a hot daughter. I too had a cruel neighbour growing up, though he was a Baptist. We still treated the man with kindness and I (after being forced to by my parents) still cut his front grass most weeks.

There are two different issues being discussed here. The first is a belief itself, the second is treatment of people with certain beliefs. I treat everyone with common courtesy no matter what they believe; however, that should not prevent me from debating the merits of a belief itself. Discussion of ideas are how the best get elevated and the bad ones tossed aside.

Beliefs without evidence get criticized and rightly so. For example I think it is acceptable to mock the the beliefs of conspiracy theorists and living Elvis subscribers as long as the person is not personally attacked. In fact, unless that person was a close acquaintance or participating in a discussion forum on that topic I wouldn't engage in a debate with them.

In the religion section of this forum though, I feel it is fair game to point out the absurdity of a belief provided that I don't attack you personally.

People openly mock liberal and conservative views, why do you believe spiritual views deserve special protection?

Mightyac, you suggested earlier upon whom one should use the term nut job. That's what I'm talking about here. Courtesy is one thing, but I'm talking about what one thinks or feels in one's heart towards certain people. That's what I was getting at. Courtesy can be nothing more than fake lip service if you think a person is a nutjob because they've crossed your personal threshold by believing in a God, etc. I'm saying that calling one a nutjob for being a Christian is the same as calling names for being Black or Jewish. So it's not that spiritual views need special protection, it's that you may not understand what it is to be a Christian.

BTW, are you aware that Martin Luther King Jr was a Christian pastor? He was co-pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church. If anyone meets your criteria of being a nut job, he certainly does, leading all those religious protest marches against the government.

Edited September 19, 2013 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

I'm saying that calling one a nutjob for being a Christian is the same as calling names for being Black or Jewish.

How about calling them a nutjob for being Muslim?

Oh, wait...

IMO there are nutjobs in all religions that soil the reputation of that particular group, but the Muslim religion is the only one I know of that says its okay to kill an infidel. No other religion I can think of is cool with that.

[Mighty AC]

Sharkman, like you and I are now, MLK was many things. I am a father, a coach, a developer, a teacher, a horrible bowler, an athlete and an outdoors enthusiast. MLK was a charismatic leader, a chronic womanizer, an adulterer, a Christian pastor, a father of 4, etc. We have many aspects to our life that can be discussed separately. We can admire MLK for his advancement of equal, civil rights, while still not agreeing with his less admirable acts and ideas.

As for the nut job label. It's a synonym for crazy and a grey area for me. I think being proud of beliefs without evidence qualifies as crazy....but I still wouldn't use it unless talking with a close acquaintance or participating in forum on that topic.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Mighty AC

[bleeding heart]

I'm saying that calling one a nutjob for being a Christian is the same as calling names for being Black or Jewish.

Not exactly.

Black...not at all. Jewish...only for a religious Jew (and there are a large number of Jewish secularists and atheists.)

That said, in the interest of having civil discussions and debates, "nutjob" should be used sparingly, and only for those who hold demonstrably wrong and foolish views.

That is, someone who believes in God is not holding a demonstrably wrong and crazy view. I'm not seeing what he or she is...but it's not a FACT that he or she is incorrect.

New-Earth Creationists, on the other hand, ARE holding to demonstrably wrong and crazy views: hence, "nutjob."

So it's not that spiritual views need special protection, it's that you may not understand what it is to be a Christian.

Many atheists, maybe most (including myself) were once members of the Faithful, so it's not clear that you're right.