General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you have a strong moral objection to criticizing, satirizing or mocking deeply held beliefs
why are you posting on DU?
The entire point of this site is to rally people with like beliefs, point out what is wrong with Republican ideology and mock, satirize and criticize those whose very deeply held beliefs differ from our very deeply held beliefs.
Serious question: what's so very different about doing the same with religion? Why is it so taboo to some to do the same with religion?
Religion is deeply entrenched in politics and that's a serious problem for many of us. In fact, the bulk of us would probably refrain from most of it if it weren't.
Discuss...
DLevine
(1,788 posts)I see nothing wrong with criticizing an ideology that wants to take away my rights, or anyone else's rights.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Condemnation. But I fully understand the desire to vent sometimes, it is so sad to watch our lawmakers pass religious "freedom" laws in a sideways attempt to codify fundy beliefs (or more likely to appease their fundy followers)
And I use the term fundy intentionally. I work with a biblical literalist. She is my boss. There is nothing rational, no grey. It is black and white. Except she parses out bits that don't support her desired belief, and she picks and chooses WHICH bible is the right one. A total fundy, who sees the bible as something to berate and belittle others with, and condem whole classes of people. (Glbt)
I mention that Christian is a Christ follower, has she read the sermon on the mount, she constantly reverts to old testament. Not Christ, at all. Fundy. About as unchristian as one can be. Sorry for venting. Fwiw I use fundy not Christian because I know a lot of good Christians who walk the walk and forgo the self righteous talk.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In fact I sometimes think we mock each other more than we do anyone else.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I dunno, to me it's hypocritical to say or imply that religion is off limits.
Everything--everything--should be open to discussion here.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)We should not be open to discussion on the economic benefits of slavery, or racism, or sexism. Do we allow discussion of the advantages of right wing republican ideas? Do we allow David Duke to post here and discuss his viewpoints? Cheney? Shrub? There is a whole section of the Terms of Service of things we will not discuss.
Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when and only when such doubt exists.
bvf
(6,604 posts)That was rash of me.
alp227
(32,020 posts)There are 1000s of other places where right wing trash is welcome. Like a website with the F.R. initials.
Being open minded doesn't mean your brain should fall off.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)Some pretty nasty consequences, in fact...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026093391
Fairly dense read, but will revisit.
The CCC
(463 posts)Agreed, So should anti-religion.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)hold those deeply held beliefs should be.
Attack the message, not the messenger. But all too often that's what any conversation on religion and beliefs devolve into. Let's not get the two confused.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Like I posted downthread:
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)NO idea is above scrutiny, and no people are beneath dignity. I love that phrase.
Thanks, PeaceNikki! Love your avatar, too.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)It was awesome.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)"Political ideology" but I think I would have gotten bored after the first 74,000 words.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)It didn't see it in a thread of over 100 responses, so I'm afraid I just got bored.
lame54
(35,287 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That's ridiculous.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Today in Saudi Arabia a blogger will get his second set of 50 lashes, first set last Friday. His 'crime' was being critical of the religious clerics.
The actual question is this: Do you stand with the blogger being beaten, or do you stand with the man with the whip?
The rest of this discussion is distraction.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Curses!
Yes, sneering at the meddling, repressive, misogynistic Roman Catholic Church, which literally sits on piles of gold, is EXACTLY the same as sneering at the poor and rubbing their faces in it. Same with sneering at the theocratic Saudi royalty who run the show!
You're just too darn smart for us to get away with this anymore!
Jappleseed
(93 posts)Then why do it here? I find your avatar to be utterly ironic by the way.
Another issue is that there are religions that are off limits here. There is no way someone could get by satirizing the Jewish faith by using racial stereotypes and isolated cruelty. Could you image a cartoon showing all of the Jewish faithful bombing a family for the heck of it? It would be canned and the poster would be pizza'd in a heart beat.
It is that selective application that proves this hatred to be nothing more than bigotry. If you want to go there, that is ok. For myself as a person who has spent a lifetime as a minority, it just does not seem that attractive.
Confirmed Atheist and Redskin,
Jappleseed.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Bullshit. I am a strong ally of LGBT and women and it's the primary reason why I criticize religion and its barbaric tenets.
Also criticism does not equal "hate" so I reject your framing.
Jappleseed
(93 posts)That is for sure.
If I am reading your post correctly you find fighting hate with hate to be a tenet that you follow. Well since there is no hope to change your mind on this, or at least to get you to consider what others are saying then I wish you Peace Nikki.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Jappleseed
(93 posts)But your OP is about Criticism, mocking, and satirizing. Not even a cursory mention of constructive criticism just plain criticism.
Anyways hope you find a way to one day give to others what you are demanding of them.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Would you not claim it was because of hate?...and would that post not be banned?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I could give a shit if they 'criticize'. The issue I have stems from the religious trying to push their beliefs into our society and laws.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I don't want ANY religion or any anti religion trying to push their belief into our laws.
But no one here to my knowledge has ever suggested that...and I would bite back if they did.
So this is a straw man.
But there is a double standard at play here...some groups cannot be criticized at all and will be called hate speech, and some can be criticized at will and the posts will never be hidden.
If you want peace then examine your own self first because that is where it starts.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)invited to the Inaugural as the official Minister, many member of DU harshly criticized LGBT posters for objecting to the denigrating language of Rick Warren, who had called us all pedophiles the month before. We were told that to object to public insults was 'poutrage' and that we just 'wanted our pony'.
Today, when some stone cold murderers declare that they were 'offended at denigrating language, many members of DU have vast empathy for them and instead of saying it is 'poutrage' to object to denigrating language they say that while they don't condone murder, anyone who insults others should expect a strong reaction....so for the killers, empathy. For denigrated LGBT people, insults and mockery.
That's just the facts. Sorry if they bother you, but the people who taunted LGBT for objecting to insults from religion who are now saying religion has the right to object to insults even with violence are wandering all over the ethical meadows, hither and yon, taking one position with great certainty one day, the opposite position with equal certainty the next.
And yes, that is a double standard. A glaring, homophobia shaped double standard.
wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)As a reason to do it themselves the conversation is over...and only the fight remains.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)I was sickened by DUers defending Rick Warren's inclusion in the inagural
greiner3
(5,214 posts)I was too, and unfortunately it was mostly the same old members who go around poking sticks in most of the other DU members, but that's a whole other story.
BTW, most of 'those' DU members seem to always be on my block list; just sayin.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)posted the equality avatar you have for months! Such hypocrisy is glaringly obvious.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)Hate can be expressed in many ways.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'us and them' tropes claim to be 'long time atheists' and such. I have to say, I do not believe that is the case.
I note for example that you snark at the OP's pro equality avatar, but that you yourself don't speak any support for LGBT people or for the equality of women in all things. 'I am an atheist' you say but your rhetoric is divisively religious in nature.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)As you correctly observed those claiming an atheist worldview can have the same predilection.
I think the phenomenon we are confronting isn't one of ideology but rather tribalism.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)as a pompous, bulbous windbag, with exaggerated ugly features, exploiting his Jewish faith and manipulating religious Israelis for political gain.
Yes, I can easily see that in my mind's eye. For sure...
treestar
(82,383 posts)group.
Liberals are not really supposed to be that way. It is how we are different from the fundies. Naturally it is human nature to want to make fun of the more extreme of them, in return for the things they would say about those not religious. But while they will not tolerate us, we tolerate them. It's one of the main differences. We live and let live. They want to control everyone.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)You are correct.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Criticizing is not mocking and most Republicans are quite deserving of mockery.
It's not either/or, and we all decide for ourselves.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)If anything, it makes it less deserving of protection from criticism, because there's no basis for the conviction other than "faith" in clearly fictional/made-up nonsense.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I don't see how that is confusing at all.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Also, if someone like, really, really, REALLY believes something religious, like, they double super-duper believe it times infinity, then their belief is the most protected and deserving of respect, like EVER!
treestar
(82,383 posts)So what is the difference here. There has always been religion and few people will go along with the idea it is made up nonsense. I guess it is a matter of societal acceptance - we'd make fun of a cult that thought that Michael Jackson was God, because it has only a few people in it. It's a matter of whether you want to be seen by society as a person who gets along or one who wants to be isolated.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I'm also bigoted against racist asswipes. For example the racist geezer who runs the only gas station in my town opined to me on the day that somebody took a pot shot at the white house a few years ago, that it was too bad the he didn't "kill that n*". Yup, that is what he said. Right out loud. In public. In front of customers. Or actually a former customer. I absolutely won't use his services anymore. Fuck that piece of shit. I am totally bigoted against his sorry racist old ass.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is because they are intolerant that you are opposing them. Don't give into their claims that they are being discriminated against. They've managed to twist that argument into something if you're going to call yourself a bigot over that.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)If not, why not?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)When religious people do it, it's ok. Go Pope!
treestar
(82,383 posts)the society did. Primitive societies developed over time roles for the sexes and the religions may reflect that.
We're never going to now as history is full of religions. Yet other institutions limited women, too. Religion isn't alone on that.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)And, it's not like religion was made up by humans for the purposes of controlling other humans. No, no, no. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course!
How could I forget that?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)speak in our favor. They seek to paint pro gay sentiment as 'blasphemy and racism' because they despise LGBT people. The very same lot who is affecting great 'offense' about cartoons about a religion they do not profess employ plenty of extreme rhetoric around their own issues. They do not hesitate to paint entire groups of people in a negative light, ever.
The folks who spent years telling LGBT people to endure all insults and not 'want a pony' who then declare that some other group must never be criticized AND declare that perhaps criticism of that group does excuse violence are employing a double standard that indicates a total contempt for LGBT people.
People who have defended anti gay rhetoric out of various religious figures, out of Rick Warren (who attacked gay people in vile terms days before all of this Party cheered for him and prayed with him, our new President called the hate speaker 'brother') and the rest of them who now declare that is is always just wrong and terrible to use any form of critical language about others are homophobes and hypocrites.
Because they say we must accept denigrating language out of religion, but religion must never be subjected to the same treatment it gives to others. Because they can find no empathy for insulted gay people but they have floods of empathy for stone cold murderers who claim to be religious.
It's just contempt for LGBT people, pure and simple.
Ms. Toad
(34,069 posts)I was one of the most vocal people criticizing the inclusion of Rick Warren in the inauguration - e.g. here and here (as well as an advocate for same gender marriage long before most people on DU jumped on the band wagon e.g. here (one of many times I explained why civil unions were not synonymous with marriage - as the tax follow-up to Windsor proved), and in real life I have been active in the realm of LGBT rights on both the state and national level for 30 years. Our adoption case was the first appellate case in our state, and our marriage is the first in our faith community - two decades ago.
You are way off base when you categorize everyone who is not reciting the "je suis Charlie" meme as having spent years opposing LGBT rights.
It has nothing to do with contempt for LGBT people. I just don't happen to believe that the "je suis Charlie" meme is a constructive response to the murders.
That does not mean I have empathy for the murders - beyond the empathy I have for any human being. It means that I believe part of what is required to be more than just increasingly isolated and polarized tribes with violence a hairs-breadth away is to stop being offensive merely for the sake of offending. The world is a very small place, filled with a multitude of diverse people. We can choose to denigrate and mock others (as people have done to the LGBT community for pretty much forever), or we can choose to try to understand each other and be part of figuring out how to live together peacefully. The latter is, as far as I'm concerned, the more progressive response.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It needs to be mocked to death.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)Duppers
(28,120 posts)+1000
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Wow.
NancyDL
(140 posts)It doesn't accomplish anything. What's lacking among progressives is unity. Mocking doesn't facilitate that.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)CHARLIE, to my knowledge, does not gratuitously mock any religion or creed purely for the sake of ridiculing a particular code of beliefs and its followers.
Their editorial mission is to skewer the egregious "amalgame" as the French call it, between religion and politics.
They even have a verb in French for this regrettable phenomenon: amalgamer!
j'amalgame, nous amalgamons
t'amalgames, vous amalgamez
il/elle amalgame, ils amalgament
"NON à l'amalgame !" is all over the French-speaking press right now.
CHARLIE are political satirists and it is in the political arena that they wield their rapier of parody and caricature.
Enfin, soyons clair sur ce point !
brer cat
(24,562 posts)it is for, and only for, people who share YOUR deeply held beliefs.
DU should be a uniting force to be a counter point to republicans, not an arena where bullies run off people who don't adhere to every single view of one group of posters. The diversity of people on DU is a big part of the appeal of this forum.
To disagree is not the same as mocking and ridiculing someone's beliefs. I have never seen a DU OP that attempted to convert non believers. I have never seen a post where believers ridicule atheists. I have never seen a DU post where believers say it is ok to discriminate against people of color or gays or any other group because of their religion.
To use "freedom of speech" as an excuse to demean others is intellectually dishonest and entirely self-serving.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Why is that acceptable and the same with religion as the subject not?
brer cat
(24,562 posts)Equating democrats of faith with conservative ideology is insulting.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)brer cat
(24,562 posts)Have a nice day.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)The offended people of faith in these threads have yet to explain how their support for misogynist, homophobic, racist institutions is somehow not misogynist, homophobic, and racist.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)which is EXACTLY why they start the bullshit ATTACKING THE PERSON as opposed to the religion bullshit meme
it's HYPOCRISY AND COWARDICE
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I mean shit, let's talk about the Buddhists! I mean, they've done....wait...um...shit, they haven't done anything lately in the name of Buddha.
By the rationale that "faith" or "deeply held beliefs" are not to criticized, then the KKK, NAMBLA, and Nazis cannot be criticized. And I have a deeply held suspicion that the board monitors only really mean THEIR beliefs.
OnlinePoker
(5,719 posts)U.N.: Dozens of Muslims massacred by Buddhists in Burma
The United Nations has confirmed that at least 48 Muslims appear to have been killed when Buddhist mobs attacked a village in an isolated corner of western Burma, a massacre that has been the vehemently denied by the government since it was first reported by The Associated Press just over a week ago.
Presidential spokesman Ye Htut said he "strongly objects" to the U.N. claims and that the facts and figures were "totally wrong."
Burma, a predominantly Buddhist nation of 60 million people which is also known as Myanmar, has been grappling with sectarian violence since June 2012.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I guess they are assuming that it is driven by religion, but I think they are just using the default because the majority of the population is Buddhist. If they had shouted verses from a book or a rallying cry, then I would think it would qualify. But from what I know, there is nothing in Buddhist texts that advocates any kind of violence.
brer cat
(24,562 posts)and I can assure you I don't endorse misogyny or homophobia. Some religious organizations, and certainly many individuals who are members of religious organizations, do support such offensive positions, but that doesn't describe all people who are religious. Just as some atheists are bigots and racists, those terms should not be used to describe all atheists. Not all people of faith are associated with a organized congregation at all. To hold all people of faith accountable for every asinine statement made by some religious leader is ludicrous; we don't make all DUers justify the rantings of trolls who become members of DU.
When the all-knowing DUers mock all religion, they are demeaning a vast number of people who earnestly try to follow the teachings of the prophet or Christ in whichever "good book" best defines their faith, and who work within their religion to achieve a culture that is compatible with liberal and progressive ideals. Jimmy Carter is a very good example.
imo, mocking people because they believe in a deity does not reflect progressive values but is simply verbal harassment. If that is what it takes to make some people feel vastly superior, then I guess DU will become just another place where bullying is accepted.
I am not including you as a bully, Skittles. I know you only beat up people who genuinely deserve a thrashing.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)so please cease with that meme
I am not attacking the religious - I am attacking the ridiculous idea that religion and faith should be free from criticism, end of story
brer cat
(24,562 posts)or ridiculing.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)DU circled the wagons to defend the folks who said things like 'gays are like pedophiles' and 'this is way, gays are trying to kill our children'. Many people here subjected LGBT people to extreme ridicule for objecting to that denigrating language and the endorsement of it by this Party. Our objections to being denigrated were mocked as 'poutrage' and 'wanting a pony' and 'wanting a fabulous pink pony'.
For objecting to being denigrated and called criminals, we were ridiculed by those who felt religion should have the right to denigrate us. 'It's just Church talk' one DU poster told me 'get over it'.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Extremely eye-opening. And, well, honestly - disgusting. Servile.
Rex
(65,616 posts)It is indifference that does real damage imo, not mocking.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)It's a far too common error to assume that being mocked is a badge of honor, a sign that the mockers are wrong and the mocked are right.
There is much that is mocked that wholeheartedly deserves it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)So easy it should be a crime. NEXT.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)The important lesson is to leap to no conclusions at all based on the simple question of whether one is or isn't being mocked.
Certainly you can be overly sensitive and fail to defend what's right in the face of mockery, but it is also far too common to dig in and double down and miss valid points of criticism. Make no mistake mockery often does carry a valid message, and its shock value can offer more insight at times than gentle, patient explanations.
Even if mockery doesn't directly change the minds of those who have dug in on what's being mocked, it often creates an environment (for better or worse) where those who haven't taken up the mocked viewpoint are less likely to do so.
I'm pretty certain that the huge swing in public attitudes toward gay rights and gay marriage has been made not through careful argumentation and logic for the most part, but through emotional appeals and by making bigots look like idiots.
Borchkins
(724 posts)Oops, is saying amen blasphemous? Probably. Okay, then . . . Amen!!!
Go Pack!!
B
Roy Rolling
(6,917 posts)Insulting people for their religious faith lumps everyone into one convenient group to skewer. In reality, people and groups are not so homogenous.
Atheism is a belief system the same as theism. And I'll tell anyone who mocks others' beliefs the same thing I tell religious zealots: you have no proof of life-after-death, so why are you so close-minded?
The straw man argument is in full force here: "...why is it taboo." It is not "taboo", it is just bad manners. Which doesn't matter to some, and I can respect that. But if you want to be taken seriously, separate religion from politics.
Politicians who try to govern and prosthelyze constituents are idiots. But the shared belief of DUers is for progressive and democratic policies that enlighten and advance a society, not a shared belief that spiritual beliefs are the enemy.
Stay on the "offense" of promoting progressive ideas DUers, playing "defense" against the zillions of flawed belief systems is a perpetually unwinnable battle.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Until then, it's on.
wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)Duppers
(28,120 posts)Btw, I wondered why that poster is even lurking here.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)PeaceNikki --
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)As I posted in Nance's thread:
Religion is a set of ideas and ideas should never be immune from mocking and ridicule.
If ideas are seen as immune from ridicule, soon they'll be immune from criticism. And that way lies madness and tyranny.
And murder.
Sid
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Never say never!
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Isn't it one of the Signs of the Apocalypse?
sinkingfeeling
(51,454 posts)believe are destroying America.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I don't deliberately avoid mocking religions. I just don't have a serious beef with any of them.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)Here at DU, all of us who are here genuinely (and not as trolls) lie somewhere on the left side of the political spectrum.
But ideally, religion is in a completely different sphere than politics. Or at least it ought to be (despite some of the best efforts who seek to blend the two). We've got Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Hindus, Universalists, Agnostics and Atheists here at DU, as well as countless other belief systems. And the people who subscribe to those beliefs have strongly held reasons for their beliefs.
But this is first and foremost a political website, and not a religious website. Or a sports website. Or a music appreciation website. And mocking people's deeply held beliefs is a pretty big distraction and an unnecessarily divisive matter that detracts from the overall purpose of this primarily political website, not adds to it.
Honestly, what good is gained out of that type of behavior here? I just don't see it. Why create schisms where they ought not exist?
Prism
(5,815 posts)Gay marriage, for example, may be a political matter, but we cannot pretend that the animus against it is not religiously derived. So it is with a whole host of issues, from abortion and women's rights to the environment and science to clarion calls by Republicans about liberal godlessness. "San Francisco values!" the religiously inclined declared.
Religion and politics are so intermarried, we had to go out of our way to create a Constitution specifically designed to separate them. And even then, it never entirely took.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)But the criticism in those instances ought not to be directed at the religion itself, but instead only those who seek to bring it into the same playing field.
You can be critical of people who falsely insist that we must be a "Christian Nation" without attacking the Christian belief system itself. All it takes is a little nuance. Unfortunately, some people lack such nuance, even here at DU.
Prism
(5,815 posts)And so in order to show why the policies should be invalid, the religion necessarily incurs similar invalidation. When religious belief holds the power and creates the foundation for political ideology, it is by default a necessary object to attack when attempting to defeat those policies.
When your political policy is based on what God wants, there's little recourse but to point out how ridiculous God is.
And I say this as an utterly indifferent agnostic. I don't hate religion or the religious. My family is very Catholic. But, you know, when shit goes down, shit needs to be said.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)the animus against Gay Rights by atheistic communist regimes like those
in Cuba and the formerly communist Russia?..Their records on Gay Rights are
much worse than the more "religious" US and Europe.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Russia is not a massively atheistic nation. The government may have attempted to scrub religion from itself officially, but the people themselves still cleave to the Orthodox Church as a national symbol and a vehicle of political power. If you're an opportunistic politician, you will exploit the hell out of that. It's a squicky place where it doesn't seem very religious on the surface (something like a third only identify as very religious), but scratch it and you'll find all kinds of weird strings still being yanked about by the church.
Similar in Cuba. There is a reason the Pope inserted himself into the recent deal between the administration and Castro.
But even if it weren't religion, religion is a major expression of tribalism. Any minority is subject to attack on account of it. Remove religion, and people will find other reasons to hate the Other. It's baked into our flawed human cake.
Outside of race/ethnicity, I'd say the second biggest expression of tribalism in our world is religion.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I think the Russians and Cubans would disagree mightily with that
statement.
You did better with your last sentence in which you pointed the finger at
"tribalism" which is closer to "culture" and much closer to the truth, I'd say.
Prism
(5,815 posts)It's actually a really interesting subject. I spent a little time poring through it when the homophobia in Russia really ramped up, because I also always thought of the place as fairly irreligious. But the play between the Church, Stalinism, and public religious belief is a strange and unique blend. Really, uniquely Russian.
MatthewStLouis
(904 posts)And what people need to keep in mind is that the thing we are all against here is INTOLERANCE. And unfortunately, oftentimes the extreme fringes of many religions practice intolerance. So as liberal minded people it's not always useful to condemn entire religions, when what you are fighting is just a particular ugly faction of a religion.
lame54
(35,287 posts)not merely a fallout or afterthought
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Jesus
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I don't think it's fair to mock the people who believe.
I do think it's fair to mock the beliefs themselves, especially if those beliefs are insanely illogical.
But also...
I do think that nobody should be immune, and that even goes for the beliefs rampant in one's own political party. Or, I should say, mocking the hypocrisy that oozes from the cracks.
From both parties.
People always think it's someone else's beliefs that should be mocked but their own should be held sacred.
olddots
(10,237 posts)seems like people are arguing about arguing then complaing about complaining .
ismnotwasm
(41,977 posts)Hidden behind criticism of religion.
I have a moral objection for those who go out of their way to hurt and damage others whether it's from a religious standpoint or a secular one.
I have a personal distaste for pack mentality.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I have a moral objection to religious beliefs bring forced into a secular society and laws.
And a deep moral objection to the way many religious ideology treats women, LGBT and those who don't subscribe to their beliefs.
ismnotwasm
(41,977 posts)Doesn't change my thinking one bit. Can I still post here?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,977 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,977 posts)Would you like the last word, or your thread kicked?
I'm an atheist. I don't do amens.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I was mocking.
ismnotwasm
(41,977 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The whole anti gay chorus, which uses the divine as a disguise and a mask for their own agendas, who then take the place of the divine and demand that their bigotry be worshiped as a deity. I do not think that people have some right to abuse others if they say 'it is God's will' before they release their venom or lock that jail cell or worse, hurl the fist stone.
ismnotwasm
(41,977 posts)I did say a secular or a religious standpoint.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)This is a pack of religious leaders -- all with penises. Their conclusion? Birth control = bad.
ismnotwasm
(41,977 posts)And any other pack that lost critical thinking skills, provided they had them in the first place.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Makes the division deeper.
Mocking Mohamed because we can and to annoy the Muslims seems immature to me and unlikely to lead to any understanding.
It's not an easy line to draw, though. You know it when you see it. Mock Palin and Bush all day and it seems deserved and funny.
Mocking religious people will put you in a category of unable to get along with your fellows, since there are enough of them. And you may need some of them, at least, as allies, for progressive causes. We can only isolate ourselves so far if we want to be part of a society. I can mock everyone who disagrees with me on anything and end up all by myself.
This world now has a Muslim/Not Muslim terrorist problem. Making fun of Mohamed, while it should be legal and all that, isn't constructive in making peace.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Because I do not accept that one group of humans has some right to trash talk other equal humans while being protected from any criticism by law or by social pressure that says the bully gets to be a bully for God.
It's just hard to deal with religious people who spew so much contempt for various others claiming that they must never reap what they sow. Jesus said 'you reap what you sow'. Take it up with him.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If I found them to be making fun of people. As Christians, at least, they should never be doing that. Which doesn't mean some of them don't.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It solves a the big problem for them having to get out and investigating what is really out there in world wide universe and their own backyard.
ismnotwasm
(41,977 posts)Religion was the forerunner for science. A way to describe the world. If human beings had entirely outgrown the need for magical thinking, we'd have a few billion less people of faith.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)I should have known magic could solve my problems
I am not saying people should not believe and have religion but more to effect that many use it as a cop out.
Also i can accept you think i am wrong by your definitions and your view. Yet to say I don't really understand what is so great about a bunch people who follow each other around and let others do their thinking is so great would be my response
ismnotwasm
(41,977 posts)It's a fascinating and well documented human journey. The bigger question is why there still are so many people of faith. There are well educated people in the sciences, who still hold strong beliefs in Dieties.
I don't have whatever it takes to be a person of faith, the whole topic is slightly remote from me. I object to human rights violations and I object to church being in state business in any capacity.
But I share a world with so many others, if a point of view is not outright hateful, bigoted, racist, sexist et al.--Then I'm willing to listen.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)I like history too, the study of evolution also seems important to me. As for following the mystic, i once heard a speculation with neanderthals cranial apparatus had a slightly larger frontal cortex which might have led them to be a little more superstitious or looking for supernatural issues.
If you have not read about this before or there has been some evidence and theory we have part of brains that have been wired into being religious in certain ways. It make sense that they do it, sort of like spots on leopard. Being lucky enough to born not to have too much of that kind of thing seems only makes me think i just think about other kinds of things other than that.
Remembering that others think about things differently and in different orders can sometimes be fun in the discussion
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)their deeply held beliefs. You may be one of them.
It's all just a question of who has power and whose ox gets gored.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)overnight national identity, and hashtag-bait?
Duppers
(28,120 posts)And, btw, there's the correlation of religion believers with anthropogenic global climate change denialism. To me, that's a huge deal.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/16/religious-groups-views-on-global-warming/
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)It is not easily done and walks a very fine line.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And I don't consider pointing out the flaws in conservative ideology and suggesting better political solutions to be anywhere near the same as mockery.
Do people here also engage in mockery? Sure. But it's not productive, it's just a way of amusing themselves.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That's mockery.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I just don't think it's actually the 'entire point of the site'.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)If "mockery" was the only thing I said in that statement, you'd have a point.
But it wasn't.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)faith and politics. Politics is and has always been open to debate. We have a long-held belief that healthy politics encourages debate. The two are intertwined so tightly that they can't be separated.
We also have a long-held belief that religion, at least in my family, is impolite to debate. "Live and let live" is the foundation of a tolerant country. I have an interest in changing your politics, but I am indifferent as to which faith you choose. If one of the components of that religion is offensive to me, like homophobia, I will debate that in the general sense, but not as an attack specifically against one religion. Finding the dividing line between religious and cultural influence is often difficult anyway, and almost every problem within a given religion exists in regions where that religion isn't even practiced.
So to answer your question:
Because I like to discuss politics. Religion? Not so much.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)You uphold religious privilege.
Religions should be treated with special care compared to other ideas according to what you said.
Why? Sounds like a terrible and unfair idea to me.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)They left because they were persecuted for their religion. And before that Europe had incidents like the Thirty Years' War where whole regions of Europe were depopulated Genghis Khan style. We came here so that we could live and practice in peace, not having to be bothered about it.
Debating religion isn't worth the bother. And most importantly, it is a counterproductive waste of energy and time.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And it is inherently political, like all ideas. It's not a waste of time to debate any more than other ideas.
Religion is an idea. It can't be separated as different from any other idea. It is impossible, and doing so doesn't help keep religious peace, it allows for religious privilege and oppression.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I'm not trying to stop you in your futile and pointless debates on religion. The thread asks why I'm at DU if I don't believe in challenging religious belief, and I have answered.
Much like religion, I don't care how you waste your free time. I consider it juvenile, so I avoid it
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)So it's not a waste of time, and religion is political.
alp227
(32,020 posts)There's no such thing as an idea that's immune to disagreement.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to denigrate others, but who wants to be a bully?
Far more effective is to prove someone wrong.
Mockery is a substitute for people who are unable to uphold their own opinions.
Why would anyone want to deliberately hurt people?
It generally has the opposite effect anyhow. And only creates even more hatred and resistance and has never, to my knowledge changed a single person's mind, unless they do so just to get away from the bullies.
Torture is another example of using tactics that don't achieve anything other than more hatred.
But if mockery is all someone can think to do, then that is what they do.
Those who actually made positive changes in this world did not resort to mockery, see MLK eg, however those who tried to stop them, did.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)which became one of my favourite Christmas songs over these past holidays.
"I don't go in for ancient wisdom. I don't believe just 'cause ideas are tenacious, it means they are worthy."
And if anyone knows how to mock religion, it's Tim Minchin.
Sid
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I usually post his bit about that awful Christmas Shoes song every year, but didn't this year. If you haven't seen it, here it is a bit late:
Sid
gollygee
(22,336 posts)such as X belief held by a great number of Islamic people. No problem.
But there are a lot of Islamic people where I live and therefore I know a lot of Islamic people and I know many of them are liberals, who are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, etc. You can be an Islamic bigot just like you can be a Christian bigot, and many people of each group are, and that bigotry should absolutely be mocked.
What concerns me is that Islamic people are racialized in this country and are a minority, and the same is true in Europe. Yes Islam is not a race the same way that Asian is a race, but race is a social construct and we have absolutely constructed a racialized version of "Muslim." For instance, I've heard people complaining about "Muslims" who don't even practice Islam, or who do only in the most superficial level in the same way as Catholics who only go to church on Easter and Christmas, and in some cases whose families have been secular for generations. But people still call them "Muslims" and say it isn't specifically about their religion. Many people treat "Muslim" as a race.
I guess to me this is not a dichotomy. I agree with the specifics - we should feel free to mock stupid beliefs - but there's a big picture issue here involving discrimination of people that I think we need to be careful of at the same time.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)TeamPooka
(24,223 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Could that be true!?!??!
Response to PeaceNikki (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)They say it over and over, the religious holy roller right, that the US was founded as a religious nation, or however they say it.
That could not be more wrong, many left to come here to flee religious intolerance and persecution, we were founded to be a secular society.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I tried to make the same point with my post this morning as well. Been interesting to read the responses - some agreeing, others not. Definitely been a fruitful discussion though, in my opinion.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... "criticizing, satirizing or mocking deeply held beliefs".
I DO have a problem with mocking an individual solely on the basis that they practice a religion.
As far as I'm concerned, the distance between Church and State can never be wide enough a gap. I abhor proselytizing, or anyone shoving their religious beliefs in my face. I especially abhor those who use their religion as an excuse to belittle or create enmity against those who do not share their faith.
But at the same time, calling an individual an "idiot who believes in fairy tales" simply because they believe in their religion serves no purpose, other than to be demeaning.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)of which the major religions of the world are some of the strongest, then who will speak for the victims? Who will speak for the woman about to be stoned? Who will speak for the homosexual man who will be drawn and quartered? Who will speak for the woman lying in a hospital bed in Ireland dying because she can't get an abortion? Why do "Democrats" want to abandon them? Because they want to stay warm and safe and never be offended?
Democrats have neutered themselves and the right has taken over the gap. We no longer fight for justice if we are too afraid to offend. If that were true then Gandhi, MLK, and Mandela should have all stayed silent. Because religion has been the justification for oppression for thousands of years. As I said in that alarming thread, religion is supposed to promote peace and love between people. I have never in my life seen someone mocking a religious person as they did good works. Never, not once.
Religion has made itself a target by all of the horrible, awful things that it has done. And those who go to church/temple/mosque and give money to it are supporting what that institution does. So we have many Catholics on this board who complain of being persecuted whenever they post a Pope PR thread. But most of the time I see people pointing out that the church condemns homosexuality and works very hard to strip rights from women. That is true and while the religious person may have cognitive dissonance about it, it is not any less true. Our neighbors are a lovely Muslim family from Egypt, very warm and kind. I do not have anything against them in the slightest, but I will speak out whenever possible that the religion is oppressive and needs to change in its orthodox state.
As you and I have both said repeatedly for the past few days: if they kept their religion to themselves I would shut up about it.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)After some very heated discussions this week, that was a good read.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)I am becoming more and more horrified by the authoritarianism on DU. The commandment that religion is above criticism because it is a "deeply held belief" is a fucking frightening slippery slope. I have no idea why we have forgotten this.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)because of who I am, who I love or what I believe, I consider them valid targets of mockery. Mockery is perhaps one of the last weapons of the powerless and it's use should never be forbidden to them.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)alp227
(32,020 posts)I thought being progressive = being open-minded and willing to make an argument behind your opinions. I consider CRITICAL THINKING an important value, being able to filter the bullshit from the merely disagreeable.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)discussion, uppity.
I just wanted to say that.
I just started reading "Radical: My Journey Out of Islamist Extremism" by Maajid Nawaz. It looks very interesting and I've been very interested in his take on the Paris attack.
And the book won't call me names like some here have.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)And thank you. I do not understand people a lot of the time. Life is hard enough without treating each other like crap and when you (royal you, not you Nikki) treat each other bad, the joy of doing so doesn't last long.
C Moon
(12,213 posts)stating my opinion that religion was the cause of many ills on this planet. I wasn't being specific to anyone in particular, I didn't use bad language.
Someone reported it, and it was voted banned.
One of the jurors wrote (something like): "By banning this, maybe this person will learn not to be so insensitive to other DU'rs."
Yeah, I learned alright: I learned not to put down religion on DU...and haven't since. But I also lost a lot of respect for DU.