Legitimate criticism of vs. bigotry against religion

[alp227]

Lately I've noticed a bunch of threads in GD of Catholic and secular DUers clashing over who can say what about religion in the wake of the new pope. Accusations of anti-religious bigotry have flown around. Like here.

So I've gotta ask as an atheist: what is bigotry against and what is legitimate criticism of religion?

Sadly, I see far too many even in a progressive forum take up this position as conservative commentator Jason Mattera put it: "I take pride in my conservative and Christian beliefs. When you come against those beliefs, it’s like you’re coming against me as a person."

[RedCappedBandit]

1. It's as if some people see the very existence of atheists as bigotry against religion.. nt

[hlthe2b]

5. that is ridiculous.. n/t

[Zoeisright]

13. Don't know much about how atheists are discriminated against, do you?

Of course atheists are threatening to the religious, because their "faith" (of all ridiculous things) is so incredibly weak. That's why it was illegal for atheists to hold office, why most Americans wouldn't even VOTE for an atheist, and why atheists are routinely threatened with death and torture when they speak up.

The stupid. It burns.

[HiPointDem]

35. i haven't noticed that here at DU. religious people are routinely bashed, atheists basically never

(i've never seen an atheist-bashing thread, but i've seen many threads bashing muslims, catholics, mormons, and fundamentalist christians.

buddhists, jews, and wiccans are apparently exempt.

[hlthe2b]

43. Not on DU, they are not

That statement remains ridiculous

[Humanist_Activist]

46. No its not, have any atheist here state their lack of belief about gods...

and you'll get at least 3 religious people jumping on them about their religious bigotry, regardless of how mild the actual statement was.

[hlthe2b]

47. I've never seen that and I would denounce that just as the ugliness now being directed towards DU's

Catholics.

There is no excuse for this behavior among supposed "progressives".

[Humanist_Activist]

49. I'll do one better, I forget JanMichael's religious beliefs...

but his OP is a classic example of the overreaction that not only atheists, but any perceived critics of any particular Christian denomination face on this board. It was an OP expressing, as far as I can tell, condolences to those Catholics who don't agree with this choice of Pope, yet look at the results of the thread. Granted, it could have been malicious, but consider that it takes up less than a dozen words, I would say the over the top reaction to the OP was so extreme to reveal the state of mind of the reactionaries rather than the OP.

[hlthe2b]

51. Well, if his thread was misinterpreted, those who did, include Skinner--some good company

Next?

[Humanist_Activist]

53. The key is that his thread doesn't fall under your definition of bigotry...

unless it is a perceived or real attack on religion, then all bets are off, meaning doesn't matter, and what you hate the most is religion being pushed off the pedestal it was on for so long. Now its on an equal playing field with every other idea in society, and you must hate that.

[hlthe2b]

54. I'm not regligious so you need to rethink your stereotyping. I am an advocate of fairnesss

tolerance, and holding an institution responsible for their deeds, rather than a member who is seeking to change from within.

And, it was several of the posts within the thread that manifest overt bigotry. The OP was merely the inciting factor.

[Humanist_Activist]

55. Tolerance isn't a goal, and neither is fairness...

judge ideas like we always do, give them a fair shake, but don't give them deference or respect. I don't tolerate homophobia, misogyny, racism, faith, or other stupid and damaging ideas, why do you?

ON EDIT: Also, can you give me an example of this "overt bigotry"?

[hlthe2b]

58. Neither are the DU Catholics tolerating nor defending "homophobia, misogyny, racism"... That's the

issue and why your broad stroke denunciations of THEM, rather than the church hierarchy they too seek to change is so offensive and yes, bigoted.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. I've seen many post joy at the current selection for Pope, others calling him a "good" man...

etc. How is that NOT tolerating things like misogyny or homophobia?

[hlthe2b]

60. I can't tell you what they are thinking, but perhaps they are hoping he is open to change

Obama was not homophobic early on, but he was far less supportive to LGBT issues than now and has certainly changed his mind about the need for LGBT equity.

So, perhaps these DU Catholics are thinking this person selected as Pope might be capable of the same. I really don't know. Why don't you politely and respectfully engage them in discussion to ask them?

[Humanist_Activist]

62. Pope Francis, as a Cardinal, fought actively against marriage equality in Argentina...

and said those who advocated for it are working for the devil. The difference between him and waffling Obama is like night and day.

[hlthe2b]

66. I have lived long enough to see those who held vile positions change--sometimes overnight...

That he was a Jesuit, even though he fought the more liberal among that order, might offer some hope....There is a populace wave of discontent among the world's Catholics with respect to the Vatican's position on this and many other issues. What you think there is to gain by ugly denunciation of those seeking to change the church's views, escapes me. Rather misses the target and reminds me of RW strategies to "win"-- by offending ever minority group needed for their goal.

[Humanist_Activist]

69. The Church is abandoning focus on Western Europe and North America in the hopes that the global...

South may be its saving grace. This makes North American and European Catholics even less influential than before, not that they had much to begin with.

Hell, the least I ask is for Catholics to stop funding the Church, is that too much to ask?

[JanMichael]

64. you can't "tell what they are thinking," but you sure could

second guess me, couldn't you.

You did not "politely and respectfully" engage me in "discussion," because you were only asserting your "hidden meaning" ideas into my thread.

I meant what I wrote: three words. "I am sorry."

Do you want to see ugliness towards a Pope? Google "April 19, 2005 DemocraticUnderground."

Be sure to note some of the interesting replies on those threads...one by another poster who was looking for ulterior motives...basically he wrote about Pope Benedict "Oh well, he'll die soon."

[hlthe2b]

68. I see you didn't sway Skinner either...

as to your "misunderstood" intent.

There is a way to make this ugliness towards a segment of DUers end. Whether that was your intent or not...Skinner laid it out for you. Your choice.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1259686

[JanMichael]

78. I guess you need to invoke "Skinner"

every single time you respond now. That's it? That's the best you have got? I disagree with his position; he disagrees with mine. That's pretty clear. Funny, one of your posts was that you do not always agree with him. In over a decade at DU, this is the first time I do not agree with the man--- yet, you seem to bring that up at every turn.

Perhaps you could reply to ME, to MY intent....as opposed to what the owner of the website wrote.

[hlthe2b]

81. I happen to agree with Skinner and others

who have given you benefit of the doubt that you did not intend to initiate a firestorm nor provide a vehicle to launch anti-DUCatholic furvor, but rather than countering those responding on your thread who did so, you simply play the "victim"...

So, yes, I agree that Skinner said it well. You won't shut down your own thread, so it is on you to deal with the blowback.

[JanMichael]

82. You can't do it, can you

Obviously, I am dealing with the "blowback" of about one poster who can't read a simple sentence, and take it for what it is. Wouldn't you think that after all your baiting that if I felt differently about Catholic beliefs, as opposed to being sorry there is a new hard RW Pope, I might have mentioned it after a couple of days?

[hlthe2b]

83. Your focus on me for your actions is misguided. I have not baited anyone.

I will not be responding to you further on this topic.

[Humanist_Activist]

70. I think your post should stay, it shows the irrationality of the Catholic defenders. n/t

[JanMichael]

79. I am not deleting it

I meant what I wrote. Nowhere on that thread did I "bash" anyone's beliefs; I am concerned about the new Pope...I do not like his history, and I find it hard to believe that he has suddenly "changed" with his new position. I was not hoping for a liberation theologist to be the new Pope-- that is too radical of a change, but I was not hoping for a man who supported the right wing faction in Latin America either.

[corneliamcgillicutty]

63. nor have I seen any atheist bashing but catholics--imho--open season.

[Humanist_Activist]

65. Here's the difference, in general atheists bash beliefs, the religious bash people, its true on...

this board, and pretty much everywhere both online and IRL.

If you can't see it, that's your problem.

[corneliamcgillicutty]

80. You just proved my point!

I see atheists being on the offensive and defensive at the same time. Personally, I have not heard or seen any bashing of people who are atheists. Of course, if you go looking for it, you will no doubt find it. And that would be your problem.

[quinnox]

2. its not that hard to be tolerant and respectful

and at the same time be critical of religion. Unfortunately, many times the atheists sound like arrogant assholes and seem to be trying to be as obnoxious as possible about it in demeaning and ridiculing any religious belief. I don't think I need to quote examples.

[alp227]

7. So why is it BAD to be intolerant and critical at the same time?

I openly admit I personally choose not to tolerate spiritual belief at all.

[quinnox]

8. well, I think a liberal/progressive should be tolerant in general

Which means not being an asshole about things other people may do or believe, that I may not share. That is my personal take on part of the philosophy of being a liberal, but of course, anyone is free to have different takes on it. Isn't that part of the definition of bigotry, to be intolerant?

[alp227]

10. Too many people on both sides I see confuse disagreement and intolerance.

I think I might've fouled up my framing by saying I choose not to tolerate religion. Are we liberals intolerant of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. as well, or in disagreement with such bodies?

[quinnox]

11. it can be a hard line to pinpoint

I think being tolerant is generally a good thing, but some things may be worthy of having intolerance for. Fox news is one of them for sure! I think being intolerant of Fox news is a sign of intelligence.

[Demo_Chris]

39. Why be "respectful"?

[Humanist_Activist]

44. Sounds to me like the religious want deference from atheists, so we know who are our betters.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. I would call it bigotry

when one uses a broad brush to paint everyone who is a member of a particular church or religion in a negative way - like claiming all Catholics condone pedophilia just because they don't renounce the church, for example. Legitimate criticism would be pointing out that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church often protected pedophile priests to protect the reputation of the church and did nothing to prevent those priests from continuing to molest children.

I am not religious, but I think it's unfair to assume every member of a particular religion agrees with all official pronouncements or actions of that religion. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with criticizing those actions if they are wrong or harmful.

[hlthe2b]

4. exactly....++

[Zoeisright]

12. If you give money to the church, you are supporting pedophiles.

It's as simple and truthful as that.

[stevenleser]

14. If you've paid taxes for the last 20-30 years, you supported all the wars & Bush and Cheney & Reagan

and everything they did. If you are going to look at it that way.

[Fumesucker]

16. Paying taxes is mandatory and has legal penalities for noncompliance

Supporting any church is not mandatory and has no legal penalties for not doing so.

[stevenleser]

18. Paying taxes to any given government is not mandatory. You can emigrate. nt

[Fumesucker]

20. If you are wealthy you can emigrate

Otherwise most places don't want Americans.

And you don't have to emigrate to anywhere to stop supporting any given church, just stop giving them money.

[stevenleser]

21. That is not true. You can emigrate to almost anywhere in Latin America tomorrow. nt

[Fumesucker]

23. There are very few nations that will take Americans with no means of support

Some SS recipients emigrate to Latin America but they get a US govt check anyway, I'm on a forum with several of them.

If you are seriously equating stopping giving moral and financial support to a private organization to emigrating you are evidently not as sharp as I have hitherto given you credit for.

I don't really have to pay taxes either, I could just commit suicide so you could say that taxes aren't technically mandatory.

[stevenleser]

25. It's close enough.

Correlation #1 - less than 1% of the church priests have committed crimes like abusing children. Most money donated to the church clearly did not go to those people. And only a small percentage of taxes over your lifetime have gone to things like what Bush and Cheney did. Even during Bush's Presidency, tax money paid for all kinds of government services, not just the bad stuff Bush did.

Point of Correlation #1: It is failed logic to say that by contributing to the church you are funding pedophilia, just like it is failed logic to say that by paying taxes you are supporting and are in favor of what Bush and Cheney did. But if you think that for one case, you have to think it for the other.

Correlation #2 - If you are making the accusation against Catholics that by supporting an organization that you are supporting everything that organization does, with the implication that one needs to drop support and affiliation with organizations that in any way have members that engage in wrongdoing, it's fair to look at your associations too and one of them is nationality. By those same standards, someone who pays taxes is guilty of all the wrongdoing of the US government. And while it is true that the poorer you are, the harder it is to emigrate, there are choices. Certainly your belief system, if it is one you really hold, might offer you a shot at political assylum. I certainly would do anything I could to get out of here if I held the belief system you did.

[Fumesucker]

26. You have to live under a government, some government somewhere, there is no serious choice in that

And all governments are corrupt to a greater or lesser extent.

One can live just fine without religion, it's not mandatory anywhere civilized to be religious, even America at least so far.

There's the difference, one *has* to deal with government in some way, shape or form, one does not have to deal with religion, it's possible to walk away at any time and never have anything to do with any of them.

Next I suspect you will bring up Somalia.

[stevenleser]

31. There are plenty of governments that do not engage in much wrongdoing.

Costa Rica, Belize, Canada, post Apartheid South Africa, Tanzania, Micronesia, Polynesia and New Zealand come to mind, just to name a few.

The bottom line is, I suspect you do not have the same standards of association you have for religion in other aspects of life.

[Fumesucker]

33. The only organizations I belong to are the human race and DU

And you may note that I have not contributed financially to DU, I'm also not aware of any mandate to belong to DU.

Nowadays, being a SS recipient I no longer donate to the government either, I'm a proud taker.

[knitter4democracy]

87. There are penalties in the Church, however.

There are consequences, and while they may not involve jail, they can be rather serious for individuals. Don't dismiss them as nonexistent just because you wouldn't care.

[Humanist_Activist]

92. Not for refusing to donate. n/t

[knitter4democracy]

93. Yes. Even for refusing to donate.

It depends on the parish and priest, but usually, you can kiss any job in the church like Sunday School teacher goodbye if you're not in good standing.

[Humanist_Activist]

94. Sorry, my parish had it on Wednesdays or Thursdays and called it PSR, through some have what's...

called CCD.

However, that is the loss of a perk at best, not exactly something that is life changing or damaging. Oh, and you are most likely exempt if you donate to Goodwill or are too poor instead.

[knitter4democracy]

97. It depends on the parish and priest.

In my parish, one is discouraged even from singing in the choir if one is not in good standing. It can be life changing to lose what made it worthwhile to attend, and I find it troubling that you're not even trying to understand why someone would be upset.

[Humanist_Activist]

100. All I see are people who would trade other people's civil rights for perks such as being in a...

church choir. Excuse me if I don't overflow with sympathy for these people.

[knitter4democracy]

103. I can understand that; however, look deeper.

In losing a "perk" (as you say), they lose part of their family. Churches become families for many, especially those who have no family in the area. So, it's a loss of family in many ways. There's a reason why excommunication is seen as a severe punishment. A family that cannot eat together isn't family.

This is why the bigotry in the Church is so damaging as well, that those considered sinners are excluded from the table. Instead of dismissing someone's feelings about that, why not see that they're both being treated similarly?

I must admit that I'm a little lost on how singing in the choir, a personal decision in a spiritual path, equates with trampling on others' civil rights. Are you one of those who says that everyone who is a member of the RCC or any church against gay marriage is automatically a bigot trading away other people's civil rights, regardless of what that person has said or done to fight it?

[Humanist_Activist]

105. I was assuming that to sing in the choir, they had to donate to the Church...

and the Church, at least in the United States, has spent millions of dollars to fight against civil rights and anti-discrimination laws for LGBT people, and that is but one example. I know, a lot of that money goes to maintain churches, however, some of it goes into general diocesan funds, that are dipped into to fight contraception laws, the right to abortion, etc.

[knitter4democracy]

108. No, one does not always have control over how the money is spent.

I've served on parish councils for my church, and we were told by the bishop how much to send in every year. We had a debate about it every year, too, and ultimately had to give in because the bishop helped pay for things we needed that money for and didn't have. Granted, this is in in the Orthodox church, but the systems aren't all that different.

Some of my union dues goes to pay for education "reform" crap, but I still pay my dues because of what I get on the local level. Should I stop paying my union dues because, ultimately, the union is working against students and the future of my job?

[freshwest]

32. True. Collective punishment is not a progressive value.

I am a humanist an an individual and I deal with individuals. Condemning groups for the acts of a few or the perceived guilt of many, leads to bad outcomes.

[Zoeisright]

96. WRONG.

See my post above. Supporting a church is COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY voluntary.

[freshwest]

102. You must be kidding. I'm not swayed by anyone yelling in all caps. It's ineffective.

I don't know anyone who gives a dime to the Catholic church, but they get a lot of services for free. They don't attend Church and aren't members.

Consider that for a moment.

Most of their funding for social services comes from tax dollars, so the Federal Government is paying for the crimes you list, not to mention those of the MIC.

You are paying for all of these things, and your money is going to the RCC now.

Will you refuse to pay the IRS?

Those taxes are still involuntary and not directed to groups we approve of. The world and this nation are very interconnected, no matter how much one squeals about it.

It's a messy world. I'm glad that so far, no single person has control over anything larger than their own life.

[Zoeisright]

95. FAIL.

Taxes are not voluntary. Contributing to a church is voluntary.

Next?

[nessa]

57. If you support schools, and teachers you are supporting pedophiles...

http://www.cpiu.us/statistics-2/


The number of K-12 public and private school students in 1996 who have been or will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff is nearly 7 million of 51,331,000.
Between 1% and 5% of teachers sexually abuse or harass students.
At least a quarter of all school districts in the United States have dealt with a case of staff sexual abuse in the past ten years.
Most cases of sexual abuse of students by teachers are never reported.
In nearly half of the cases, suspects were accused of abusing more than one student.
Only two cases were cases of false accusations; less than 1 percent of the cases studied.
No type of school was immune to abuse: public or private, religious or secular, rich or poor, urban or rural.
Responses to Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Students by Staff
38.7% of the teachers resigned, left the district, or retired
17.5% were spoken to informally
15% were terminated or not re-hired
11.3% received a formal verbal or written reprimand
8.1% were suspended and then resumed teaching
7.5% were cases where the superintendent determined that the teacher hadn’t meant to sexually abuse
Of the nearly 54% of abusers who resigned, weren’t rehired, retired, or were terminated, superintendents reported that 16% were teaching in other schools and that they didn’t know what had happened to the other 84%. All but 1% of these teachers retained their teaching license.

[Zoeisright]

99. What happened to logical reasoning?

Teachers are supported by TAX MONEY, which everyone in this country has to pay or they go to jail. Church donations are completely voluntary and you can stop giving at any time.

Besides, I do not see a massive cover-up on the part of the public school system to support and protect these pedophiles, unlike what happened in the Catholic church. Does going to church rot the brain? It sure seems like it.

[nessa]

109. Do you support their unions, the PTA?

Of the nearly 54% of abusers who resigned, weren’t rehired, retired, or were terminated, superintendents reported that 16% were teaching in other schools and that they didn’t know what had happened to the other 84%. All but 1% of these teachers retained their teaching license.

Sounds like some schools weren't doing a good job of making sure these teachers didn't have access to children after they were know abusers.

[treestar]

106. You are supporting a lot of things

No large institution of any kind could exist unless perfect, by that standard.

Catholics should be able to keep their local parishes going without it being said to be "supporting pedophila." Throwing out the good with the bad.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. you got it exactly right The Velveteen Ocelot!

[HiPointDem]

36. +1

[pnwmom]

41. Yes. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

42. What about republicans? n/t

[snooper2]

6. It's a fine line...

You can believe what you want..

If you start espousing those thoughts on a public internet forum or in the parking lot I reserve my right to respond.

[BainsBane]

9. It's fine to be critical of positions the church hierarchy takes

but when it comes to insulting ordinary Catholics who are Democrats as many threads on DU have done, that is disrespectful. It's also counterproductive, as Skinner has pointed out in ATA.

I'm continually amazed and how much people who know next to nothing about Catholicism feel entitled to claim they know what the tenets of the faith are and how everyday Catholics relate to the church hierarchy. If someone doesn't understand the difference between the church hierarchy and the everyday practice of religion, it seems to me they should make an effort to understand it before blanketly condemning something they know nothing about.

When people continually say the church's positions on social justice doesn't matter, the conclusion I reach is that those people are so entrenched in a capitalist world view that they don't think poverty is an important issue.

[stevenleser]

15. I thought bigotry of all kind was against the TOS. nt

[freshwest]

30. It is.

[liberal_at_heart]

17. when people say that if you are part of the church then you are enabling the abuse

and are therefore part of the problem, I consider that bigotry. When people say if you don't leave the church then you are guilty of letting the abuse happen, I consider that bigotry. You can criticize the church for the things they have done. That does not mean the entire religion is bad and it certainly doesn't mean that all Catholics are bad. Many Catholics who love their faith criticize the church and work from within it to change it. These are not bad people. But they are made out to be bad people because they don't leave their church. That is bigotry.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

24. +1 n/t

[jsr]

28. That was my issue

I don't care what people believe or don't believe, but the posts aimed at Catholics were vile and patently unfair.

[MellowDem]

38. Then you don't know what bigotry is....

It's a perfectly legitimate opinion to claim that those who choose to continue to be members of homophobic and misogynist institutions are enabling them, however indirectly.

[Union Scribe]

40. It's apparently a view held dear by many

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2520989

Those aren't even including all the bigots I put on ignore last week.

[justiceischeap]

52. As a lesbian, I've made the decision not to give $ to groups that actively discriminate against me

It isn't always easy, for example, my tax dollars. I can't get around that one so I continue to contribute to the same government that makes laws to keep me unequal from my other citizens. I shouldn't have to pay taxes if I don't have equal representation but I digress.

I think some people on DU (and lets face it, they aren't the majority of DU members) are having a difficult time stating the obvious. If you didn't support the RCC financially, if members took a stand financially, the church just may have to reconsider it's options and actions. From what I've seen, the RCC hierarchy cares for nothing but their numbers and money and political capital. Other DUers who have been sexually abused take it personally, I think, when members seem to defend the church, when all they care about is seeing the abuse end and they also see it from a personal perspective, maybe their abuse continued because their abuser was enabled by someone else. Then there are some that just like to stir shit and see people get enraged--it gives them their jollies.

I'm an atheist because history shows that no religion is unique, so therefore, no god is unique, so there is really nothing to believe in. However, it isn't my place to tell people they shouldn't have faith but it also isn't someone else's place to tell me that because they have faith, that I can't be critical of it. I can do that politely and I try to. Sadly, religion has become to enmeshed in politics. I don't think we'll see an atheist President anytime in our lifetime. Even though there isn't supposed to be a litmus test on religion per the constitution, there is or Presidential candidates wouldn't have to court religious groups and leaders and since this is a Democratic messageboard, i.e., political, the fact that we're discussing religion at all is ridiculous.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

22. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1259670#post1

[Logical]

27. You can believe in any magical thing you want. I do not really care, but I can...

Also think it is silly.

[Deep13]

29. Criticism of ideas is always legitimate...

...and its validity depends on its accuracy. That includes satirical observations.

Casting judgment on whole groups of people because of an arbitrary category such as religion is bigoted. Maybe a religion promotes a bad thing and maybe it doesn't, but assuming every individual within that religion necessarily believes it or acts on it is wrong.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

34. When we fear being accused of "religion bashing,"

we are buying into the trap our opponents have set for us

[sarisataka]

37. Pretty simple...

crit·i·cism [krit-uh-siz-uhm]
noun
1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.

2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.

3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.

4. a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.

5. any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.: historical criticism; literary criticism.

big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree]
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

have the comments been about merits or have they been intolerant? Most have fallen squarely into one category...

[baldguy]

45. I'm not doing to lose sleep if people can't recognize the horrors perpetrated by the Catholic Church

What they need to do is acknowledge those crimes & reassure the Church's critics that they condemn those crimes as well.

Instead they get all offended that their Church is being criticized.

[etherealtruth]

48. It has nothing to do with being respectful toward religion ....

It has nothing to do with being respectful toward atheism ...

It has to do with being respectful toward other DUers ... DUers that largely share your world view, that largely support your causes and ideals, that work hand in hand/ side by side with you on issues that are important.

[jsr]

98. Precisely

People are focusing on the wrong stuff. The division is unnecessary.

[JVS]

50. Why are we having this conversation now considering how bad the Mormons got it during the election?

It seems to me that a lot of people didn't give a shit when their ox wasn't the one getting gored.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. Exactly, and the Mormon Church got full brunt during the Prop. 8 passage, while the Catholic...

Church got mostly a pass, during that time. People are largely hypocritical here, but I find most of the criticisms of the Catholic Church work just as well against the Mormon Church, and any other hierarchical church body that has some cohesive funding sources.

[freshwest]

104. I did as I know Mormons who live their lives as secular Democrats and didn't vote for Mittens.

Romney, Ryan and the rest are Randians, who don't respect anyone, no matter how they attempt to brand themselves.

[SpartanDem]

61. Simple rule: If you can't or wouldn't say it real life, then you may be crossing the line.

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

So as an agnostic I've talked to my believer friends about my lack of belief. But I've never started that conservation as some hardline anti-theist have done by broadbrushing as believers as stupid,etc. As in real life HOW you express, what you believe, is very important.

[Humanist_Activist]

67. Not believers, BELIEFS, why the fuck is it so hard to understand that distinction...

here, I'll give an example, the idea of Jesus being a son of a god is fucking stupid. Now, did I insult anyone besides a mythological creature in that sentence, yes or no?

[arely staircase]

72. that is close to the line but probably doesn't cross it

it seems to imply you think christians are stupid (everyone from Jerry Falwell to MLK). you might try something like this, i just don't buy into the idead that Jesus or the anyone else is god or the son of god.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. It implies nothing of the sort, I think alchemy is stupid, doesn't mean Isaac Newton was stupid...

just that he held stupid ideas, like everyone else on this planet.

[arely staircase]

88. personally as a christian i am not insulted by the comment

"the idea that jesus is the son of god is stupid." i know a lot of others would be. i just don't understand why one would want to express themselves in a way that a lot of people find insulting when there are better ways to do it.

put it this way, if a rwinger came up to me and said "supporting universal health care is stupid" or "i dissagree with you liberals on universal health care" i am probably going to be, if not insulted, a bit defensive reacting to the first and not so much the second.

[Humanist_Activist]

89. The fact is, there are not better ways to do it...

For most religious people, if I were to say that I thought Jesus Christ was, at best, a legendary figure who integrated historical and mythological components, i.e. the driest way I can articulate. For those who stay awake, its like I kicked their dog and beat their kids. There's no talking to them at that point, so why not be blunt?

[arely staircase]

91. sure there is

you just did. there are x-tians who would still be offended by what you just wrote, but now you have at least narrowed your universe of insulted people down to fundamentalists.

i don't think what you just wrote would offend most mainstream/liberal protestants or catholics. in fact i, to a large extent, agree with your statement. i have very different opinions as to what conclusions one should draw from it. jesus probably never claimed to be devine. you can watch the early christians develop their christology from mark (writtent around 70AD) to John (c. 100 AD) you see quite a change in the way early x-tians viewed jesus. in mark, there is no claim of jesus' divinity, 60 years later there is

now, jesus may have been called son of god during his lifetime, but that didn't necesarily mean devine, just a really good person who is close to god.but the idea of jesus being fully god (as i recited in the nicene creed just this morning) didn't really come about until the close of the 1st century and was still being argued over by christians in the 4 century when the creed was written.

now while i think you can do better than the word stupid, i think any christian who won't take the time to explain themselves in a non-prosletizing and intelligent way should also re-think their approach, that is all.

[nessa]

73. Ahhh so it's hate the sin not the sinner. If people say homosexuality is wrong,....

but they have nothing against gay people, then by your logic, it's not offensive.

[Humanist_Activist]

76. Oh for fuck's sake, that's fucking stupid, saying homophobia is a stupid idea is the same as...

"hate the sin, not the sinner"? do you really want to go there?

[SpartanDem]

75. If you think this is the best way to engage people

you might want to work on your interpersonal skills.

[Humanist_Activist]

77. To be honest, I find tact to be wasted on the religious, hell, a poster here literally just says...

I'm sorry and gets called an ignorant bigot in response. Why the fuck should I spare an iota of caring for interpersonal skills when the exchange would be wasted and only one way?

[union_maid]

84. I'm also agnostic

I have heard some militant atheists talk very similarly in real life. Actually, my aunt and uncle would do that, kind of assuming that holding religious beliefs are kind of stupid. They were lovely people, but they did seem to feel that they needed to share that opinion far more than was welcomed. I know my mother used to feel offended. She left the RC church before I was born, but religious belief of some kind was important to her. She was certainly the intellectual equal of my uncle and way brighter than my aunt, but for whatever reason, she needed a shot of spirituality in her life. Now, as an agnostic, I tend to feel that certainty of any kind is as unjustified as atheists think belief is and believers think that a lack of same is. My opinion is not worth a damn to those people, and why should it be?

As to attacking membership in the church, well I think that's very foolish. It's only going alienate, not educate or improve things. Untold numbers of liberals, progressive and real humanitarians still consider themselves to be Roman Catholics. For many people it's almost an ethnic identity. Others find a meditative experience in the rituals and music of Mass and it's their door to a spiritual experience that those of us who are indifferent to that can't really speak to and it's none of anyone's business but their own. Still others leave the church and hate everything to do with it with a burning hatred that can never be matched by any of us who have never been in it. I notice that group includes quite a few who were forced to attend Catholic school. That must have been a hoot.

[arely staircase]

71. hmm

i think it is disgusting how the catholic church has handled the child sex abuse scandle and i denounce its homophobic attitiudes = legit criticisim

i just don't buy into religion at all, there is just no evidence for a god = let. criticism


what king of idiot believes in a stupid invisible cloud being, what a bunch of woo-woo heads = bigotry, or at least extreme rudeness

[LeftishBrit]

85. I have seen both real anti-Catholic bigotry, and anti-atheist bigotry

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Real anti-Catholic bigotry confuses membership of a religion or cultural group with support for everything that an associated institution does. As an ethnic, though nonreligious, Jew, the equivalent for me is people arguing that antisemitism in Europe, Australia or the USA is somehow justifiable or at least explainable because of bad actions by the Israeli government. Another, very common, version of the same thing is people blaming all Muslims for Islamic terrorism; or - as I've seen once or twice on DU - defending discrimination against Muslim immigrants in Europe because Saudi Arabia or Iran mistreats Christians, Jews and/or dissidents (note that very few Muslim immigrants in Europe come from Saudi Arabia or Iran, and most don't come from the Middle East at all). With Catholics, it takes the form of blaming all Catholics either for the paedophilia scandal or for the reactionary social attitudes of much of the Catholic hierarchy.

The argument often takes the form that Catholics (or Muslims, or Jews) should put pressure on the Catholic Church (or Israel, or right-wing Islamist groups). And where possible, they should, just as citizens should put pressure on their governments. But who is saying that Catholics don't? Many do, on a local level. And a left-wing, pro-choice Catholic politician, and the Catholic voters who support them, are defying the reactionary parts of the church, in some cases under threat of excommunication. Despite some of the reactionary pressures, it is still the case that the majority of American Catholics vote for Democrats, and the majority of British Catholics vote Labour.

It is also argued that Catholics support the hierarchy financially. In fact, though I realize that some Protestant churches require tithing, tithing is totally voluntary in the Catholic and Anglican churches, and many people don't make any such contributions, or contribute only to church-funded charities. And it must be remembered that as citizens and taxpayers, most of us fund various undesirable activities, notably wars.

However: it is also the case that there are some people who think that outspoken atheism is exactly the same thing as anti-religious bigotry. There was one, now former, member of DU, who was obsessed with the evils of 'organized atheism'; seemed unable to distinguish between secularism and state-imposed atheism; and would bring up 'organized atheism', even when people were in fact complaining about religious right-wingers attacking religious liberals; e.g. a thread I started about a Brtish Christian-Right MP attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury! There are always people who are frankly against all atheists and prepared to say that we are all immoral and going to hell, etc; but that is very rare on a board like DU. What is commoner is the implication that any open atheist supports 'hatred and ridicule' against all religious people.

I think that a lot of the poison is spread by the political so-called 'pro-life' movement, which combines being anti-abortion with being anti-gay and usually right-wing in general. Actually many of the worst members of this movement are NOT Catholics; but the fact that such people equate religion with right-wing politics can make people assume that religion in general = right-wing.

[hughee99]

86. I think the line is somewhere between criticizing the policies of the church

as set by their leadership and either blaming the members for those policies or assuming all the members agree with them.

[Skidmore]

90. If denouncing religions and their political power makes me a

bigot then I accept that label. I was raised in one fundamentalist tradition and married into another. The juxtaposition of those traditions only highlighted for me the use of religion to amass power and to use it in cynical and malicious ways within the group of followers and towards those outside of it. I've seen it used to justify everything from slander to abuse to oppression to war during my lifetime. I find even more abhorrent those who cross the thresholds of churches, mosques, synagogues, or whatever place of worship who are uncomfortable with or disagree with the abuses being taught but sit blind and silent as the teachings are applied in society. I have more trust in avowed atheists who can live a moral life without the trappings of "faith " to hide behind than I do for those who pray loudly in public places. I no longer care much if religious adherrents are offended by my rejection of their confused morality and self -righteous assurance of piety. The world suffers much because of both.

[Zoeisright]

101. Why does religion get a pass?

Every other subject on this earth is rightly subject to criticism and examination. Why does religion and the religious get a pass? I don't give a flying fuck what someone believes or doesn't believe. But when a church affects MY life with their moldy old stories and beliefs, and obstructs progress and embraces bigotry and repression against entire classes of people, I will object. And loudly. And I will not quit. I don't care how many people clutch their pearls and get their panties in a twist. If religions and people of faith can't stand the scrutiny and the criticism, their faith is pretty damn weak.

And that's another problem with religion and faith. There is absolutely no reality check on it because there is absolutely no evidence or proof that anything people believe is true. That is extremely dangerous, because people lose touch with reality and will believe the most outlandish and untrue things because someone with a "pipeline to God" says it's true. It's about time religion and the religious were subject to intense scrutiny. When churches ruled the world, we called it the Dark Ages. For good reason.

[loyalsister]

107. Maybe it's a matter of direction

I think there's a difference between criticisms directed toward religious doctrine and people who hold religious beliefs. I have a friend who refers to herself as a "card carrying mass going Catholic." Her beliefs give her comfort and she has relied on them when she has been very ill. She is also very practical and has referred to the hierarchy as a boys club and expressed annoyance of criticisms from her fellow Catholics. She's pro-choice and supports marriage equality.
My grandma on the other hand sticks to the doctrine. But, she's consistent. She opposes abortion AND the death penalty. She has come around on marriage equality because she had a sister who was gay. She also has an incredibly generous and compassionate heart.

Going to mass and participating in ceremonies and rituals is very comforting to both of them. I can talk to my friend about my atheism but not my grandma because she has enough candles to light. We don't talk about religion.

I have other friends and family of various religious persuasions. It gives them comfort. The ideas I don't like I ignore and hope they do the same for me. I see no reason to try to convince them that there are flaws in their faith. It's not my business. They can think about it on their own. Neither of us needs the other to tell us what is wrong with what we think\believe.

There has been a huge struggle to try to convince people that not all Muslims are terrorists. I disagree with a lot of the doctrine and practices, but I am saddened by the way even relatively conservative Muslims are accused of being terrorists.

The way I see it, criticism of "the books" is different from criticizing the person. I also believe many beliefs are not necessarily connected to religion. But it is put forth as justification. It is definitely easy to rely on something invisible and rigid doctrine to justify beliefs. Kind of like how we do with the Constitution, our belief in Democracy, and basic ideas about how to treat people.
A belief that an invisible not entirely agreed upon idea is a good idea is not so different from a belief in an invisible deity are not so different. I think relying on agreed upon ideas to accompany the larger idea is legitimate in both cases. We all find some kind of comfort in having something to guide us in forming our beliefs. It's one thing to criticize specific behaviors\beliefs people hold and another to evaluate and criticize doctrines.

I reject the idea that there is an invisible force that we should worship and most religious doctrine. But, I have moral beliefs in common with my religious friends whose ideas are informed by their beliefs. There is actually a lot of good comes from some of those ideas. I am pleased when our ideas align, disappointed and sometimes angry when they don't. I don't think it's necessary to attack an entire belief system that many people find comfort in and what I think of as positive moral guidance based on some of the negative behaviors\beliefs of individuals.