Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[sharkman]

Bubber, I'm not going to get into a debate with you, but I will provide you with some evidence. Post 137 is one such example where the poster says that religious people are nutjobs because of their beliefs. And obviously if one doesn't believe, then one is not a nut job. That is discrimination on the basis of religion.

[BubberMiley]

You clearly don't know what discrimination is and you don't know what inequality is. One citizen is free to believe another citizen is completely out to lunch. I'm doing it right now. That doesn't affect the rights and liberties of the other person.

I'm glad you don't want to get into a long-winded debate about such a ridiculous position, because it could only be frustrating. But, again, don't expect me to not comment on posts that are so poorly thought through. It's such low-hanging fruit that I can't resist.

[sharkman]

So thinking less of certain types of people is not discrimination? You obviously don't know what you're talking about then. Here's a definition, or why don't you find one at random:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

So if a person thinks that black people are not equal with whites, but does not affect any black person's rights or liberties then he's not a bigot? Riiiight. On second thought, I refuse to believe you don't know this, you are too smart for this, you're just trolling again.

Edit: If one thinks religious people nut jobs, then that is discrimination. One is then making a distinction based on the group to which a person belongs rather than on individual merit.

You, Bubber, are very clearly in disagreement with the definition of discrimination. The UN's definition of discrimination is this:

any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life

No definition makes the threshold of discrimination one's actions, but instead, one's beliefs. One therefore is a bigot not by one's actions but by one's thoughts. So to claim that thinking that religious people are nut jobs is not discrimination because it doesn't infringe on their rights,etc., is mistaken.

Edited September 21, 2013 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

Always with the trolling accusation when you don't understand the debate.

Again, the post 137 that you cited did not say religious people are less equal in our society and I find it offensive that you would try to suggest that. I understand the term equality in society to refer to someone having all the privileges and responsibilities of a citizen. So, for example, Quebec's nationalist charter is a perfect example of discrimination based on religion, and that is totally unacceptable.

That does not disallow me from thinking it's "nutty" to wear a hijab in Canada in the 21st century, so long as my belief that they are nutjobs does not interfere with their rights and liberties as free and equal citizens of this country. In the same vein, I can think it's "nutty" to believe in a human-like psyche in the sky that created everything including itself out of nothing, so long as my belief does not interfere with religious people's ability to follow their beliefs. I am also allowed to express that opinion without a CCRF challenge. So that's why I think you're bringing "equality" into the conversation shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Edited September 21, 2013 by BubberMiley

[kimmy]

I don't see criticism for confronting policy, but I think it's sad and pathetic when people who are confronting stupid public policies that by their own admission have nothing at all to do with religion attribute said policies to "religious nutjobs."

"nothing to do at all with religion" isn't accurate. Some of these items-- involving Joe Arpaio, or Louisiana residents thinking it's Obama's fault that the Katriana response was badly handled even though he was just a junior senator at the time, have nothing to do with religion. And many of these issues aren't inherently part of Christian doctrine.

However, many or most of those items are being pushed by religious people for religious reasons. Creationism is not a universal belief among Christians, but the politicians who are trying to get it into classrooms are doing so for religious reasons. The Tennessee law that teachers can't mention homosexuality prior to 9th grade isn't inherently relevant to Christian doctrine, but it was done by religious people in the name of religious beliefs. Ditto abstinence-only sex education. And the religious right have made forays into many public policy issues that are not inherently part of Christian doctrine. When there are politicians calling climate change a fraud because God would never let that happen, it is entirely fair to call them religious nutjobs, even if climate change isn't an inherently religious issue.

Well I don't think what you're saying is bigotry, you're taking issue with something said or done, not someone's faith. But to me it appears that AW may have a point if some policy or legislation being promoted has no religious overtones by itself.

But there are religious overtones to many of these issues, and the religious right have also allied themselves with many other issues that aren't themselves explicitly religious.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

"nothing to do at all with religion" isn't accurate.

You're the one who pointed out that "many items on the list had nothing to do with religion" - as you attributed the list to "religious nutjobs."

However, many or most of those items are being pushed by religious people for religious reasons.

Soooo. "Many have nothing to do with religion" - according to you - as "many or most do have something to do with religion." Not sure how the math works out there, but ... ok.

When there are politicians calling climate change a fraud because God would never let that happen, it is entirely fair to call them religious nutjobs, even if climate change isn't an inherently religious issue.

If you go back and reread what I've had to say, it's attributing "many items on the list" that "have nothing to do with religion" to "religious nutjobs" that I've been critical of.

But there are religious overtones to many of these issues, and the religious right have also allied themselves with many other issues that aren't themselves explicitly religious.

Ok, I think I've got it. Many items have nothing to do with religion - while many of the issues do - but "religious nutjobs" are to blame for all of it. Yeah, that doesn't sound biased or bigoted at all. Just criticizing the policy, eh?

[Moonlight Graham]

Martin Luther King Jr's party affiliation? What does that have to do with anything?

Exactly. Who gives a crap! As others have said, it's a totally different party ideologically now anyways.

I do think it speaks for itself that the Elephant Team guys have to reach back all the way to the 1960s looking for broad-minded Republicans, though. Or the 1860s. "Abraham Lincoln! And, uh... Martin Luther King Jr? Or was it Sr? And, uh... "

Exactly. See above about it being a different party. Does anyone really think Lincoln would be a Republican now anyways? But who really cares. The party is a pile of complete trash, it's even worse than the Democratic Party! Many of the people in the Republican Party, and many of their supporters, frighten me to the depths of my soul.

[Guest American Woman]

Always with the trolling accusation when you don't understand the debate.

Again, the post 137 that you cited did not say religious people are less equal in our society and I find it offensive that you would try to suggest that. I understand the term equality in society to refer to someone having all the privileges and responsibilities of a citizen.

Perhaps if Sharkman had said "equal in our society/equality in society" we could discuss whether or not you have a point. But he didn't. So there you go.

[Moonlight Graham]

I started this thread to respond to a claim made by you-know-who that comments I made, critical of politicians in the American south and south-west amounted to anti-Christian bigotry. I don't apologize for any of it. It's not anti-Christian bigotry, it's anti-dumbass bigotry. And I don't even object to dumb-asses, as long as they don't try to inflict stupidity on others, especially when it's done with malice.

I don't care if Pat Robertson doesn't like gay people, but it makes me pretty sick when Pat Robertson gets on his TV show and tells his audience that gay men wear special rings that cut people and infect them with AIDS. I don't object if a politician thinks that oral sex is sinful, but if he's trying to get a ban on oral sex reinstated, I object.

That's not anti-Christian bigotry. Calling it anti-Christian bigotry is insulting to everybody involved, particularly the considerable majority of Christians, because the considerable majority of Christians would object to that stuff too. And I think it's sad and pathetic when some people, who are either religious nutjobs themselves or Elephant Team members or both, claim it's an attack on religious freedoms when stupid public statements or stupid public policy are confronted. And I'll never apologize for doing it.

Very well said Kimmy, you go girl!

The only problem I have is that it's a bit of a shame you wasted all this time and energy responding to a comment by you-know-who.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest American Woman]

Very well said Kimmy, you go girl!

The only problem I have is that it's a bit of a shame you wasted all this time and energy responding to a comment by you-know-who.

Yeah, what a shame, eh? I can see where that would be a problem for you.

[Moonlight Graham]

There are some here who consider people of faith to be not the equal of others.

Name someone specifically. I don't recall anyone thinking that.

[Mighty AC]

I wish you could talk some sense into mighty ac.

If I were to outsource my opinion making process to someone, Kimmy would certainly be on the short list. For now though, I think I will remain a DIYer. I do happen to think those that believe in gods, ghosts, unicorns, a living Elvis, Feng Shui or homeopathy are a few cards short of a deck.

However, just because I think belief in magic beings makes one a nutjob, doesn't mean I think you should be discriminated against. I believe the religious should be allowed to marry, vote, ride at the front of the bus (short or long) and share fountains with more skeptical individuals.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yeah, what a shame, eh? I can see where that would be a problem for you.

As far as I know, you-know-who isn't you, is it?

[Guest American Woman]

As far as I know, you-know-who isn't you, is it?

Doesn't matter who it is, does it? I can see where kimmy responding to posts you don't agree with or approve of would be a real problem for you, so I think it's a real shame, just as I said.

[Guest American Woman]

If I were to outsource my opinion making process to someone, Kimmy would certainly be on the short list. For now though, I think I will remain a DIYer. I do happen to think those that believe in gods, ghosts, unicorns, a living Elvis, Feng Shui or homeopathy are a few cards short of a deck.

However, just because I think belief in magic beings makes one a nutjob, doesn't mean I think you should be discriminated against. I believe the religious should be allowed to marry, vote, ride at the front of the bus (short or long) and share fountains with more skeptical individuals.

Wow. That's so big of you! But fyi, just because you think people who believe in God should have the same rights as you even though they're crazy doesn't mean you think they are your equal. "Equal rights" and "your equal" are two different things. Unless you think crazy people are your equal? I probably wouldn't argue that.

[sharkman]

Wow. That's so big of you! But fyi, just because you think people who believe in God should have the same rights as you even though they're crazy doesn't mean you think they are your equal. "Equal rights" and "your equal" are two different things. Unless you think crazy people are your equal? I probably wouldn't argue that.

Exactly. That distinction by definition is discrimination of the religious. If one were to say this about Blacks, that they are mentally deficient but they should still have all the rights that anyone else has, that statement would be considered bigoted by all but bigots.

[BubberMiley]

Perhaps if Sharkman had said "equal in our society/equality in society" we could discuss whether or not you have a point. But he didn't. So there you go.

Oooh, semantics. My favourite! What do you interpret his use of the term equal to mean, if not equal in society?

[bleeding heart]

I understand the term equality in society to refer to someone having all the privileges and responsibilities of a citizen. So, for example, Quebec's nationalist charter is a perfect example of discrimination based on religion, and that is totally unacceptable.

That does not disallow me from thinking it's "nutty" to wear a hijab in Canada in the 21st century, so long as my belief that they are nutjobs does not interfere with their rights and liberties as free and equal citizens of this country.

I feel exactly the same way. In fact, so far as I think about it (which I admit is not at all often) I actually despise the hijab. But I haven't been convinced it's any of my business, beyond the elementary free speech issue where I can criticize it if I wish.

In the same vein, I can think it's "nutty" to believe in an human-like psyche in the sky that created everything including itself out of nothing, so long as my belief does not interfere with religious people's ability to follow their beliefs. I am also allowed to express that opinion without a CCRF challenge. So that's why I think bringing "equality" into the conversation shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

Just so.

[Mighty AC]

Wow. That's so big of you! But fyi, just because you think people who believe in God should have the same rights as you even though they're crazy doesn't mean you think they are your equal. "Equal rights" and "your equal" are two different things. Unless you think crazy people are your equal? I probably wouldn't argue that.

Interesting thoughts on equality. I'm sure we all feel superior to others at some point. I certainly do when watching Jerry Springer or most 'reality' shows. However, trying to quantify what it takes to make one feel superior or inferior to someone else is hard to do.

There are many factors that would be involved and somehow they combine to create a feeling. Crazy beliefs would be a factor but not the only factor. Intelligence, affluence, expertise, ethics, looks, personality, fame, importance and skill would all play a role. The setting also plays a role. For example, I coach multiple sports but today I was asked to help run practices for a higher level hockey team than I'm used to. At least two of the other coaches played some low level pro hockey. I did not. In that environment I didn't feel equal.

Anyway, more to your point I do feel that belief in gods, ghosts or grumpkins would lower my internal, subconscious ranking of your intelligence. However, that would be just one of many factors that weigh into whether or not I'd consider myself equal.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Mighty AC

[bleeding heart]

I think "bigotry" is certainly the wrong way to describe any of the criticisms leveled at Christianity in this thread.

[sharkman]

And who is calling the discrimination of the religious, bigotry? I've been using the term discrimination, and it fits just fine. To say that christians are stupid is also immature, and no different from saying that blacks are stupid.

[Moonlight Graham]

Doesn't matter who it is, does it?

Yes it does. Some people's posts aren't worth taking significant time and energy to respond, if at all, IMO because their posts are so ridiculous. Kimmy is quite intelligent and logical, so IMO it's shame if a person like that wastes time on such ridiculous arguments when they could spend their limited time/energy on more constructive discussions. Just a friendly suggestion to her, she can do whatever she wants.

I can see where kimmy responding to posts you don't agree with or approve of would be a real problem for you.

Why is that? I don't really know what you're trying to say.

[bleeding heart]

How are Christians being discriminated against?

[Guest American Woman]

And who is calling the discrimination of the religious, bigotry?

I've been referring to the attitude that all religious people are crazy/nutjobs/et al as "bigotry." It fits the definition: intolerance* toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

*unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.

Edited September 21, 2013 by American Woman

[sharkman]

How are Christians being discriminated against?

Black people are ignorant. Do you have any problem whatsoever with a person thinking that?