Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[The_Squid]

How about calling them a nutjob for being Muslim?

Oh, wait...

haha... oh the hypocrisy, eh?

[Mighty AC]

Sharkman, you mentioned that parents pass on ideas and attitudes to their children. Racism, hatred and abusive tendancies can be passed on, but like your parents did so can tolerance and patience.

We are in agreement that it is a bad thing for racists to pass on their beliefs. However, what if they were taught evil things about other races at a young age? Can they be blamed for believing it and then teaching it? How can this cycle be avoided? Maybe discussion and education; telling them that their beliefs are wrong?

I'm guessing that your parents also passed on their belief system to you, making you a Christian long before you developed the critical thinking skills necessary to make up your own mind. I know it's hard to step out of one's own shoes, but do you think that a grown up, skeptical, critically thinking Sharkman would be able to take the leap of faith necessary to believe in gods?

I want you to know that I am not trying to offend you or equate religion with racism. I am just highlighting the indoctrination pathway. Really, I'm just trying to setup the question, 'What if you're wrong?'. I mean just by counting the number of active religions, odds are you are in error. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't take any other belief system on faith now though. We don't fully understand gravity, but I'm sure that if someone told you that it is the result of giant magical magnets put in place by aliens...you would first want proof. However, if we taught that to a child they repeatedly they would believe.

[sharkman]

haha... oh the hypocrisy, eh?

Oh geez, of COURSE calling a Muslim a nutjob is wrong! It's the same thing as using the term to any race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. Discrimination is outlawed by constitutions yet it is practiced here as it is in the streets. I'm only saying it's wrong.

[sharkman]

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.

So you seem to hold MLK in high regard for his work yet consider him a nut job for his beliefs. But it's discrimination just the same. I don't mean to be so hard on you, I certainly have my failings, but I don't discriminate the way you do. Maybe I'm more sensitive to it as I experienced my fair share in schools in northern BC. My brother was bullied and roughed up for going to church. He later told me he became suicidal because of it for a time.

As for how I came to my beliefs in God, merely believing because I was raised that way would not have worked for me, and I'm sure many others would agree, looking back at those silly beliefs they had as kids. But I do not feel comfortable in prosthelytizing to strangers in a forum on the internet, so I'll leave it there. I'll merely say that I agree with the idea that we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sex or faith or race.

Edited September 19, 2013 by sharkman

[Guest American Woman]

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

Of course it does, and attributing "religious" to a "nutjob" when religion has nothing to do with the nutjob's views comes across as a bias and/or bigotry. Furthermore, there's a difference between referring to someone as a "religious nutjob" and a "fundamentalist/extremist nutjob." It's the difference between saying 'Muslims support jihad' and saying 'fundamentalist/extremist Muslims support jihad.' I'm sure all of the people who think I'm merely arguing semantics in this thread would feel differently if I weren't to specify "fundamentalist" and/or "extremist" when I'm referring to Muslims of the jihad/terrorist mindset. I'd bet big money on it.

And that supports Shady's claim.

Edited September 19, 2013 by American Woman

[Mighty AC]

What if religion does have something to do with a person's views? What if a belief is considered crazy? What if the term was used in a discussion specifically about the sanity of such beliefs?

[Mighty AC]

I'll merely say that I agree with the idea that we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sex or faith or race.

What about other ideas like racist beliefs? Is it correct or acceptable to challenge those? We now think those beliefs are wrong but we didn't always. Most of the bigots that MLK was challenging were raised by 'good Christian' parents to believe that blacks were second class. What if we allowed those ideas to persist simply because people were raised that way?

What if believing in magic beings is also a wrong idea? I mean we certainly all agree that the hundreds of other gods humans have invented are myths. Each of the religious just makes a special case for their own special god. Based on the steep declines in religious participation it seems to me we're just in the process of down casting another wrong idea. Allowing bad ideas to persist, simply because of tradition or politeness would be a 'sin'.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Guest American Woman]

What if religion does have something to do with a person's views? What if a belief is considered crazy? What if the term was used in a discussion specifically about the sanity of such beliefs?

As I, and others, have already pointed out - a person's views are colored by different things, such as income and education. So why would one choose to refer to them simply as a religious nutjob rather than an uneducated nutjob or a poverty stricken nutjob? Wouldn't only singling out the religious aspect of it speak of a bias, especially considering all religious people aren't nutjobs?

Edited September 19, 2013 by American Woman

[Mighty AC]

This and other religious threads are specifically about the sanity of such religious beliefs. People with low income and education do tend to be more religious. However, SES is a characteristic not a belief. Being poor or uneducated does not necessarily make one crazy. However, believing in magic beings without evidence may indicate a certain degree of craziness. In a thread dedicated to religion, calling someone a nutjob for being poor just wouldn't make sense.

[Guest American Woman]

This and other religious threads are specifically about the sanity of such religious beliefs.

This thread is about "anti-Christian bigotry," not the sanity of such beliefs. Furthermore, if the discussion is about the sanity of religious beliefs, then a reference to people as "nutjobs" because you don't agree with their beliefs is a bias and/or bigotry.

People with low income and education do tend to be more religious. However, SES is a characteristic not a belief. Being poor or uneducated does not necessarily make one crazy.

Others have brought income and education into the equation regarding the Bible Belt, which is what the "religious nutjobs" comment was in reference to, as contibuting to the fundamentalist ie: 'crazy' aspect of their religious beliefs. So really, since all religious people don't share their fundamentalist views, this could suggest that the level of education and/or level of income has more to do with their beliefs than "religion."

However, believing in magic beings without evidence may indicate a certain degree of craziness. In a thread dedicated to religion, calling someone a nutjob for being poor just wouldn't make sense.

It would make as much sense as calling them a nutjob for being religious. Furthermore, it's simply your opinion that they believe "without evidence." They say otherwise.

So calling someone who refers to them as nutjobs because they believe in God and you don't may indicate a certain degree of "anti-Christian bigotry" per the title of this thread, or more generally, anti-religion bigotry.

[sharkman]

What about other ideas like racist beliefs? Is it correct or acceptable to challenge those? We now think those beliefs are wrong but we didn't always. Most of the bigots that MLK was challenging were raised by 'good Christian' parents to believe that blacks were second class. What if we allowed those ideas to persist simply because people were raised that way?

What if believing in magic beings is also a wrong idea? I mean we certainly all agree that the hundreds of other gods humans have invented are myths. Each of the religious just makes a special case for their own special god. Based on the steep declines in religious participation it seems to me we're just in the process of down casting another wrong idea. Allowing bad ideas to persist, simply because of tradition or politeness would be a 'sin'.

So then are you disagreeing with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

No, it sounds like you are beginning the trek down many rabbit holes in the hope that it gets you somewhere. I try to keep life simple. To look up dozens of what ifs and yeah buts is not productive unless or until I meet up with them in real life. Maybe I'm simplistic.

At any rate, for the christian person who is a racist, it's a wrong idea. Why? Because it's against what Jesus teaches. We are to love, not hate, period. But aside from that, racism is not a tenant of the christian faith, it's a separate thing. So his racism is more important to him than his faith, in my opinion.

But the bottom line is our freedom in Canada is based upon not discriminating against our fellow man, which, oddly enough has similarities with what is taught in the New Testament in Galations: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So if you want to, go ahead and have a dim view of people simply because you judge that their views are odd, and think less of them. But tell me, how is that any different than the soft racism that exists today?

Edited September 19, 2013 by sharkman

[Mighty AC]

So calling someone who refers to them as nutjobs because they believe in God and you don't may indicate a certain degree of "anti-Christian bigotry" per the title of this thread, or more generally, anti-religion bigotry.

I think that belief without evidence is crazy. I don't think the religious are nutjobs because I disagree with them, it is because they believe in magical beings on 'faith'. I wouldn't saying being a fundamentalist is required for being labeled crazy. Like I said before, belief in a living Elvis is crazy enough...you don't have to attend conventions before the nutjob tag applies.

Disagreeing with an unfounded idea is not bigotry. Like I mentioned, I treat the people with courtesy, but I attack their ideas. We don't give any other ideas special protection so I'm sure why religious ideas should be exempt.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Mighty AC

[sharkman]

I think that belief without evidence is crazy. I don't think the religious are nutjobs because I disagree with them, it is because they believe in magical beings on 'faith'. I wouldn't saying being a fundamentalist is required for being labeled crazy. Like I said before, belief in a living Elvis is crazy enough...you don't have to attend conventions before the nutjob tag applies.

Disagreeing with an unfounded idea is not bigotry. Like I mentioned, I treat the people with courtesy, but I attack their ideas. We don't give any other ideas special protection so I'm sure why religious ideas should be exempt.

Then you do disagree with our Constitution and discriminate based on your pet views. It doesn't matter what your reasoning is, you wind up at the same place as the racist.

[BubberMiley]

It doesn't matter what your reasoning is, you wind up at the same place as the racist.

Why do you use the pronoun "you" when you admit you're just as guilty of such "racism" yourself?

[The_Squid]

Then you do disagree with our Constitution and discriminate based on your pet views. It doesn't matter what your reasoning is, you wind up at the same place as the racist.

Disagreeing with people's views is not contrary to the Constitution! What are you going on about???

[Guest American Woman]

I think that belief without evidence is crazy. I don't think the religious are nutjobs because I disagree with them, it is because they believe in magical beings on 'faith'.

In other words, because they believe differently than you do. It's as simple as that. Again. Religious people believe that there is evidence of a God. They see evidence of a God.

Disagreeing with an unfounded idea is not bigotry. Like I mentioned, I treat the people with courtesy, but I attack their ideas. We don't give any other ideas special protection so I'm sure why religious ideas should be exempt.

Disagreeing with the idea is not bigotry. Calling them "nutjobs" is not treating them with courtesy and does speak of bigotry.

I wouldn't saying being a fundamentalist is required for being labeled crazy.

So how is that disagreeing with the idea, but treating the people with courtesy? Labelling them "crazy" hardly falls within the realm of being courteous.

Like I said before, belief in a living Elvis is crazy enough...you don't have to attend conventions before the nutjob tag applies.

Again with the "nutjob" label, as you proclaim to respect religious people. FYI, a comparison to belief in God to belief in a living Elvis is rather ignorant. Edited September 19, 2013 by American Woman

[Mighty AC]

No, it sounds like you are beginning the trek down many rabbit holes in the hope that it gets you somewhere. I try to keep life simple. To look up dozens of what ifs and yeah buts is not productive unless or until I meet up with them in real life. Maybe I'm simplistic.

I say you're complicated. You jumped on board a 'what if' without any evidence. That kind of simplicity can be dangerous. It leads people to belief in ghosts, homeopathy, magnetic bracelets and European lottery winnings. There are currently Christians in the US with millions of listeners claiming that climate change could not possibly happen because only a god could alter the earth's climate. Dangerous...

At any rate, for the christian person who is a racist, it's a wrong idea. Why? Because it's against what Jesus teaches.

Most capitalist and Republican/Conservative positions are against what Jesus teaches. Christian cherry picking again.

Racism was a common and acceptable practice, passed on by parents to their children. It is a bad practice that was made unacceptable by challenging the ideas. Religion is also a bad idea children are indoctrinated into. It is currently in the process of being discarded because the ideas are being challenged.

[sharkman]

...Disagreeing with the idea is not bigotry. Calling them "nutjobs" is not treating them with courtesy and does speak of bigotry...

Again with the "nutjob" label, as you proclaim to respect religious people. FYI, a comparison to belief in God to belief in a living Elvis is rather ignorant.

I think some people believe themselves above all that nasty racism nonsense, and just wish those nut job religious types would go away! So some discrimination is wrong, not all.

Edited September 19, 2013 by sharkman

[sharkman]

I say you're complicated. You jumped on board a 'what if' without any evidence. That kind of simplicity can be dangerous. It leads people to belief in ghosts, homeopathy, magnetic bracelets and European lottery winnings. There are currently Christians in the US with millions of listeners claiming that climate change could not possibly happen because only a god could alter the earth's climate. Dangerous...

Most capitalist and Republican/Conservative positions are against what Jesus teaches. Christian cherry picking again.

Racism was a common and acceptable practice, passed on by parents to their children. It is a bad practice that was made unacceptable by challenging the ideas. Religion is also a bad idea children are indoctrinated into. It is currently in the process of being discarded because the ideas are being challenged.

I jumped on board a 'what if' without any evidence? Not sure what you're talking about. The only topic there was racism. And I'm being simplistic by saying it's not part of christian theology and gave scripture to demonstrate it, huh? You can believe whatever you choose, but it's naive to think that because some hateful people decide to include racism in their faith, that it belongs there. And what that has to do with ghosts and other oddities is a leap of faith.

Then you jump to Republicans and capitalism(like Democrats aren't doing the same)? You are indeed cherry picking all these things without any evidence, like magnetic bracelets compare? Wow.

It's nothing more than a debating trick to say something that everyone agrees with and then connect it to faith and say that it's the same. Children get indoctrinated into racism, so faith is bad too. Good grief man, your bigotry is really clouding your judgement. You said you are a teacher. No doubt you can't resist the temptation to indoctrinate kids with your discrimination. Hopefully you have time to cover the class lesson.

To say that racism is wrong, but it's okay to discriminate against christians is hypocrisy to the hilt. And then you admire the Baptist pastor MLK but can compartmentalize his christian faith? Typical liberal nonsense.

Edit: I've got more bad news for you. Martin Luther King Jr, that Christian, that pastor, that Baptist, he was also a card carrying Republican. More compartmentalizing for you, I'm afraid.

Edited September 20, 2013 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

To say that racism is wrong, but it's okay to discriminate against christians is hypocrisy to the hilt. And then you admire the Baptist pastor MLK but can compartmentalize his christian faith? Typical liberal nonsense.

Nobody's "discriminating" against Christians; they're criticizing them. There's a difference. If you think it's wrong to criticize (or mock, whatever) someone for their beliefs, do you think it's equally "racist" to criticize communists?

(BTW, I expect you to completely avoid this question because it demonstrates how you haven't really thought your argument through.)

[Moonlight Graham]

This thread is about "anti-Christian bigotry," not the sanity of such beliefs.

I think an element of this thread is certainly the sanity of Christian beliefs, because that's where a lot of anti-Christian sentiment comes from. Some people think some (if not all) Christians are insane.

Furthermore, if the discussion is about the sanity of religious beliefs, then a reference to people as "nutjobs" because you don't agree with their beliefs is a bias and/or bigotry.

If someone believes things that are completely contrary to well-known and overwhelming scientific evidence, and have little or no ability to use reason or logic in determining what they believe, I think the term "nutjob" or "insane" is accurate. If anyone believes the earth is 4000 years old and we all came from Adam and Eve, and they've been shown the evidence to the contrary, then that makes them a nutjob. It would be literally, by very definition, "insane"!

It would make as much sense as calling them a nutjob for being religious. Furthermore, it's simply your opinion that they believe "without evidence." They say otherwise.

Scientific, empirically testable evidence?

So calling someone who refers to them as nutjobs because they believe in God and you don't may indicate a certain degree of "anti-Christian bigotry" per the title of this thread, or more generally, anti-religion bigotry.

I want to say that I think that the belief that God exists is irrational/illogical, by very definition. However, my biggest issue isn't with people who believe in God, since it's one of the least-insane religious beliefs. There is not adequate empirical evidence to show that God exists, but there's not adequate evidence to prove God doesn't exist either. On the other hand, people who believe in things that have been disproven by vast amounts of empirical, scientifically tested evidence (ie: the earth is 4000 y/o and we all come from Adam and Eve) are much more illogical and insane.

Also, simply believing in God doesn't really hurt anyone else. But believing that ie: "the Bible is the literal word of God" can harm people, because these believers can take anti-homosexual parts of the Bible and use it to support the denial of certain legal rights to homosexuals, which is completely irrational. I doubt most atheists care if a person believes in God privately and isn't trying to convert anyone else, but a lot of them do seem to care when people with illogical and insane beliefs (be they Muslim or Christian beliefs etc.) cause harm to other people because of these beliefs. That's the part that really gets me PO'd too, and it gets even some non-fundamentalist Christian/Muslim etc. God-believers also PO'd.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[bleeding heart]

Edit: I've got more bad news for you. Martin Luther King Jr, that Christian, that pastor, that Baptist, he was also a card carrying Republican. More compartmentalizing for you, I'm afraid.

Are you sure about that?

First, many people talk about the “fact” that King was a Republican. It is asserted incessantly by conservatives on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet, especially in the lead up to today’s 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. The claim is most prominently advanced by King’s niece, Republican activist Alveda King. Over the years, conservative groups have purchased billboards making the claim.

Second, Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Republican. Or a Democrat.

King was not a partisan and never endorsed any political candidate. In a 1958 interview, King said “I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses … And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.”

King did, however, weigh in on the Republican party during his lifetime. In Chapter 23 of his autobiography, King writes this about the 1964 Republican National Convention:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

......

Here is what King had to say about Ronald Reagan, the hero of modern Republicans:

When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor can become a leading war hawk candidate for the Presidency, only the irrationalities induced by a war psychosis can explain such a melancholy turn of events.

David Garrow, who wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning biography of King, stated “It’s simply incorrect to call Dr. King a Republican.”

King, according to Garrow, did hold some Republicans — including Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller — in high regard. He also was harshly critical of Lyndon Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War.

In 2008, King’s son Martin Luther King III said “It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican.” Garrow claimed there is little doubt King voted for Kennedy in 1960 and Johnson in 1964.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/28/2540251/martin-luther-king-republican/

And from Wiki:

Although King never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower, but that "In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket."[34] In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one." King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy for a second Kennedy term, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

[sharkman]

Are you sure about that?

In your first quote, it references MLK Jr talking about Reagan as a war hawk presidential candidate. That doesn't make sense as Jr died in 68 well before Reagan ran for president and had just started his first term as governor. A link that has a pop up window asking me to report voter suppression may not be the most reliable.

At any rate, upon further searching, there are sources saying he was and he wasn't a republican, and that alone is enough to cloud the issue. He may have been at one point but it seems there is no way to be definitive about it. At any rate he was a fascinating man, and of that era a song penned about the times said, "We shot all our dreamers and there's no one left to lead us".

Edited September 20, 2013 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

Of course, that was well before the GOP's Southern Strategy. The Republican Party was the centrist party of Lincoln back then. So neither the Democrats nor Republicans are really comparible to the parties they are today.

Saying that, though, there is no evidence he belonged to either party. You can say "sources" say he was Republican, but those sources had no connection to him, have no evidence, and are lying to you for political purposes.

There is evidence, however, that he had ties to communist groups. Would you criticize him for that, or would you rather not go there?

[Mighty AC]

I jumped on board a 'what if' without any evidence? Not sure what you're talking about....

I'm talking about believing in gods without evidence.

Then you jump to Republicans and capitalism(like Democrats aren't doing the same)?

Of course Democrats also support ideas that are against teachings attributed to Jesus. You made a comment about how Christians must follow the word of Jesus on racism. I brought up how everything the Republican and Conservative types stand for goes against the word of Jesus. I mentioned those parties specifically because they are most actively courting the Christian vote and they seem to have your support. The point is if following the word of Jesus is important, all of those proud Christian Republicans are in big trouble. Well...at least they would be if their beliefs were more than a fairy tale.

It's nothing more than a debating trick to say something that everyone agrees with and then connect it to faith and say that it's the same. Children get indoctrinated into racism, so faith is bad too.

Not exactly, belief with out evidence is bad all on its own. I was just highlighting the similarities between two bad ideas. Faith and racism are both spread through indoctrination and at one time both were completely acceptable practices. Being intolerant of a bad idea, be it racism or faith does not make one a bigot. That is how we combat bad ideas.

To say that racism is wrong, but it's okay to discriminate against christians is hypocrisy to the hilt.

Racism is wrong and it is okay to criticize religious beliefs. It is not okay to discriminate against the individuals. Criticizing your belief system is not discrimination.

And then you admire the Baptist pastor MLK but can compartmentalize his christian faith? Typical liberal nonsense.

Edit: I've got more bad news for you. Martin Luther King Jr, that Christian, that pastor, that Baptist, he was also a card carrying Republican. More compartmentalizing for you, I'm afraid.

I don't have to applaud MLK's Christian beliefs to admire his civil rights work. Just like you don't have to admire the fact that he was a chronic adulterer. Hey look at that common ground, we can compartmentalize together.