Religion
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rug
(82,333 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)He just does it a hell of a lot better than you.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)bring it on. Your reply contained no semblance of one.
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Of course the point of the OP was that it is ideas that are subject to criticism, not people.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)think that creationism is true or have no idea what to think?
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Ignorance indicates that they have never been educated in it. That would cover those who, because of their religious upbringing, have not been shown the reality of religion.
He gave three options for not "believing" in evolution.
One of them attacks the person. Kind of. Perhaps they do not have the intelligence to appreciate the concepts behind evolution and "god did it" makes more sense to them. Yes "stupid" is a charged word but certainly there are people that don't "believe" in evolution solely because they lack intelligence.
One of them attacks the ideas they do "believe" in or other circumstances for them not getting it.
The third one is not an attack on the person.
What's your point?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)amply supported by evidence. A belief is simply the psychological state holding the proposition to be true. Religious propositions are often termed beliefs colliquially. The terminology can be confusing, to say the least.
rug
(82,333 posts)One can believe or not believe in evolution. No where does the quote say evolution is a belief.
rug
(82,333 posts)Is what you opine an opinion?
Do you opine a belief?
Would you, could you believe it in a box? With a fox?
Stop the nonsense.
One can accept or reject evolution just as one accepts or rejects gravity. One does not believe in gravity.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Not the proposition itself. Evolution is not a belief. Many people do not hold evolution to be true, its just a peoposition on its own. Theism is a belief, but god is not a belief. God is the propositon, theism is the belief. We don't have words for all beliefs of all propositions.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)He said "Claims not to believe in...) which is a common thing to hear, and is commonly retorted with (roughly) "It's not a matter of belief" I can believe that it's not hot outside, but that does not change the fact that it very much is so.
rug
(82,333 posts)If you claim you do not believe you are stupid, ignorant or insane.
But if you do believe, why then you're one of the elect.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)He's talking about an issue which isn't about belief, there are people who think that all matters are matters of belief, when some things are not in a scientific context.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Or is that disrespectful?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Consider, though for a moment, that some Atheists believe that teaching Children a religion is a form of Child Abuse - if one believes that and tries to craft legislation protecting children from this form of Child Abuse - is that acceptable?
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Believers in this very group have agreed that teaching children they will suffer and burn in hell is child abuse. What's your opinion on that?
And what about withholding medical treatment because of one's religious beliefs? Some states have laws on that - are they acceptable?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)You aren't much for answering questions, I've noticed.
I don't believe in Hell myself, or to be more precise, I don't believe in infinite punishment for finite sins. We will pay for our sins, but not by being tortured eternally. That said, unless the teaching of hell as a place of infinite punishment was coupled with physical or emotional abuse, I wouldn't favor taking kids away from their parents for teaching hell.
The medical issue is a trickier one, particularly as it applies to infants and toddlers - but I suppose I would largely come down on the side of saving Children even if it offends religious beliefs.
Now a question for you - what if a parent teaches his or her children that God created the universe and the world, through processes we don't really understand - in an ideal world (ideal to you) - should that parent have their children taken away from them?
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Sorry about that.
Glad you see the issue is a little fuzzy, that it's not quite as clear-cut as you thought. And that you too would consider some forms of religious indoctrination to be child abuse - and even go farther, to advocate removal of children from that environment.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)take the kids away to keep them safe (or at least be open to taking the kids away). The definition of child abuse, in my opinion, should include the potential of protecting the children from whoever is abusing them, and in the case of parents abusing children, this natural can include breaking up families (obviously through conselling and fixing the abusive atmosphere, it may not be necessary to break up the family.
Loaded simplistic questions? How are those different from the questions you've asked me? Or what defines a loaded simplistic question?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I never said otherwise.
Sounds like we've reached agreement though, that certain religious indoctrination can indeed be called child abuse.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I consider child abuse, and you will not. Or at least you haven't. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to clarify in what cases you feel teaching a child religious belief constitutes child abuse?
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Apparently you still want to see things in a very black-or-white, limited fashion. I'm sorry that I am unable to make a blanket declaration for you.
I wanted to pursue a particular point you tried to make - that atheists were the ones proposing religious indoctrination be treated as child abuse. I was able to confirm that you yourself also feel that way.
If you want to go deeper and explore that issue, perhaps another thread would be recommended.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Where this idea (that raising your kids religiously is child abuse) has been suggested, It's been pretty much a blanket statement.
But perhaps this would cover it - while I will admit that there are times when religious indoctrination might be considered child abuse, are you willing to admit that there are other situations in which a parent teaching religious beliefs to his or her child is not child abuse?
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If you have been in a discussion with someone who has asserted that, you should take it up with them and put it forth as an idea that all atheists have to defend.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Cause I've certainly been attacked for believing in things I don't actually believe in, or that are at best gross oversimplifications. Repeatedly.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Sorry.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)but the focus is the abuse, as there are many non religious belief systems that are also abuse, such as Maoist style children creches, or Ayn Rand style "objectivism." Just because an idea is or is not religious does not make it "abuse."
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If not, I'm glad we agree the straw man who did is wrong.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Admittely, Dawkins does NOT speak for all Atheists (thank Hell), but you cannot go ahead and say that a "straw man" said it when the man has made millions wirting a book that had that quote in it.
"In remarks to Qatar-based TV network Al Jazeera, he said: ‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."
Did he provide scientific proof that being Catholic was worse than actual sex abuse?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Yeah what you really should do is look at the full context of what he said. As other believers on DU have noted, they - horrors! - agree with what he *actually* said about what constituted child abuse.
So yep, still a straw man.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)But when he actually said that getting physically molested was not as bad as beign raised catholic, that is , at the very least, foolish.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Dawkins DIDN'T say that. He was quoting a girl who was both molested and raised Catholic and SHE said the abuse from being raised Catholic was worse. So take it up with the molestation victim if you think it is "foolish."
But, hey, it's easier to call Dawkins stupid for saying that. I know. But the thing is that not everyone here is an idiot that thinks it's real just because you say it is.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I heard he drowns kittens in his spare time!
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)"That said, unless the teaching of hell as a place of infinite punishment was coupled with physical or emotional abuse"
That is the emotional abuse, that if they, or anyone are bad, they will be tortured for eternity is emotional abuse. Not going to talk about taking kids away from their families, that is a whole separate can of worms not related to religion.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I said that the matter of taking children away from their families is not something I am goig to talk about here, as it is secondary to the topic and a distraction.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and this is a prime example of why I said I'm not going to discus it any more.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)it's indoctrination. Telling a child God exists isn't teaching them anything. Educating children on what others believe is teaching. Even tell them what you think, but just don't present it as fact.
As for legislation, it would be impossible to enforce and open to abuse by those that can't distinguish between education and indoctrination, like creationists. So I'm fine with settling for making it a socially disgusting and unacceptable practice that will lose a person respect.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)In fairness, for generations that's how atheists have been treated. It's extremely hard for open atheists to be elected to office which is just shameful.
That said, you'll understand if I shoot for a future where peoples various beliefs are respected, instead of shooting for a future in which my beliefs are belittled and mocked.
Bryant
cbayer
(146,218 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)anyone that indoctrinated their children in anything should be embarrassed and ashamed. Religious indoctrination just happens to be socially acceptable. I'm all for changing that perception.
I shoot for a future where no beliefs are off limits or automatically deserving of respect, but where people engage in critical inquiry of all beliefs.
I will belittle and mock or whatever else seems persuasive or effective a belief that says women are second class for example.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)is a form of manipulation to take advantage of their lack of cognitive ability to instill what you want them to believe. Manipulating vulnerable minds for for one's own benefit or based on a delusion is always shameful IMHO.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)We have already established that your very own definition of delusion does not apply to religious beliefs.
How exactly does telling one's children that there is a god take advantage of them for one's own benefit? Does telling one's children that there is not god do the same thing?
What would or do you tell your children?
Since you appear to believe that religious people are all delusional and crippled by cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, would you tell your children that?
Or would you tell them that nobody really knows and that many people perceive the world in many ways, each being equally valid?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I'd tell my children what I believe and why, and that it's my opinion, and I'd tell them what others believe and why, I'd try to educate them on most of the major religions since they will be better prepared for the real world.
I don't think all religious people are delusional, I think most see through it, which is where the intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance kick in. I think everyone engages in both of these, religious or not, but religion promotes it indirectly.
I wouldn't say all ways the world is perceived is equally valid in my opinion, and explain why I prefer skeptical inquiry to faith based beliefs, for example. I wouldn't say my way was the only way according to some objective unprovable truth. I'd encourage them to question everything, including me and my ideas and opinions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I was raised in a religious home by a preacher and what you describe in your first paragraph is pretty much what I was told. While some kids are fed dogma, many are not The Jesuits, by the way, really epitomize the traits of skeptical inquiry.
Why is it so ridiculously difficult for you to understand that many believers are just that - believers. They are not sick. They are not lying. They are not employing destructive defense mechanisms. They are not being manipulated. They just believe. If their individual beliefs do not infringe on your rights or the rights of others, why in the world would you make such a big issue of it.
Your inquiry into religion led you to the place you are. I doubt very much that you could choose to be a believer. Why is it so difficult to afford others the same latitude?
Your ideas and POV are "right" for you and only for you. While engaging in a debate can be enlightening for both sides, insisting that your way is the one way and that those who see it differently are just plain wrong at best and psychologically ill at worst, makes me feel the same way I do when talking to a fundamentalist.
If you are truly interested in what makes religious people tick, you might consider employing some of that skeptical inquiry, because the available data just doesn't back you up.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And the official creeds of the beliefs are filled with indoctrination. Heck, they often require the parent to vow to indoctrinate in baptismal ceremonies. For the believers that don't indoctrinate, good, but they're a tiny minority.
Jesuits do not epitomize skeptical inquiry at all. Apologetics and poor logic is not skepticism. Do you know that a Jesuit is Pope right now, and that he's a misogynist and considers efforts to legalize gay marriage the work of the devil? Wow, real skeptic there. He believes in the freakin' devil, and THIS is the epitome of skepticism? Really? You want to back that up?
I find it insulting in the face of all the evidence that you can honestly claim data doesn't show that indoctrination and cultural coercion is the primary way religion is spread. Why is it that the vast majority of Christians born to Christian parents and raised Christian remain Christian? Or Islam, or most any religion. You ignore this fact like the plague.
Why is Iran nearly 99 percent Muslim? Surely not everyone over there is engaging in critical enquiry as an adult and all coming to the same conclusion.... Or do you believe they are?
People's beliefs do impact me in the real world. Did you know religious beliefs are the main reason people oppose choice in abortion in my state? Or gay marriage? Your feigned ignorance is insulting once again. In my state, people's religious beliefs impact what is taught in fucking public school. Are you honestly that staggeringly naive? Many religious people have dangerous, stupid as shit beliefs, and they make up majorities in parts of this nation and around the world. Are you becoming aware of this just now? Do you know where a lot of misogyny comes from and continues to be supported? Yes, religion impacts the world, and has huge impacts even on those who don't believe. THAT is why I make a huge deal out of it. Just like I do ANY belief, political, religious, etc.
And drop your straw men bullshit. I never said that believers are sick and lying etc. etc. Do you have any sort of relevant point or argument? Or more straw men to attack and more points to avoid?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Look, I'm a scientist, not a rube. You can't just say "statistics" without supplying them.
So far in our discussions, you keep referring to data, but never supply it.
Do a little research on Jesuits. And while you are at it, find the link where the current pope says that the attempts to legalize marriage equality is the work of the devil.
There are many reasons people may or may not stay in the religion of their parents. There are also reasons they tend to stay in the same communities, go to the same schools, take the same kinds of vacations, speak the same language, drink or don't drink, like adventure, etc. Your theory is that is about indoctrination, while the truth probably is more about what is known and familiar.
Of course religious beliefs impact on individuals in negative ways. I have never argued that they don't and clearly made that the exception to the rule of being tolerant of others beliefs.
Here we go. Yes, I am most assuredly feigning ignorance, staggeringly naive, spouting bullshit and have no relevant point or argument.
Descent into the ad hom is a sure sign of having failed in your debate.
See you around the campfire.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Now, some 80% of children raised Christian remained Christian. Hmm, wonder what "raised Christian" means. In other words, belief in something with INCREDIBLE claims, with NO proof or evidence, something of which there are infinite possibilities, retained 80%. Indeed, much of a belief system that has indoctrination dogma in its official creed, baptizes babies with vows by the parents to indoctrinate them, have whole communites where dogma is chanted every seven days, and has classes specifically for children to indoctrinate them into the dogma.
And Iran (as just one of many examples) is 98% Muslim, and has been predominately Muslim for hundreds of years now, why is that?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
If the truth is (as you claim) that people mostly believe their religion because it is what they know and are familiar with, then childhood indoctrination is a huge part of making them "know" and become familiar with that religion. You can't separate the two. It's incredibly disingenuous of you to say otherwise.
You constructed strawmen that I never said multiple times in this thread. Me calling you out on that is not ad hominem. I get really tired of being protrayed as hating all religious people by you, or saying they're all delustional, or liars, or mentally impaired, and you do it constantly twisting my points and arguments. I was pretty light on your bullshit all in all. It's a disgusting argument tactic, and one you employ passive aggresively well enough. Whenever I ask "where" I said what you accused me of, you never answer. It's bullshit and you know it. Own up to it and don't do it anymore.
As for Jesuits, you claimed they're the epitome of skepticism. Well, it's your claim, prove it. Jesuits are Roman Catholics, so they already presume the existence of God (and a whole lot of other stuff that would have actual skeptics doing backflips).
As for Pope Francis:
“Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/pope_francis_on_gay_rights_his_5_worst_quotes/
Yes, he believes that legalizing same-sex marriage is a machination of the Devil. Yes, he tried to stop it in Argentina. He's not a skeptic. He's a bigot. Yes, an actual bigot. Indeed, the whole Catholic doctrine, which Jesuits claim to follow, is steeped in ignorance and superstition. Claiming the Devil is plotting to legalize same-sex marriage is par for the course. Yes, that's right, supporters of same sex marriage are really just tools of a completely evil demon. That belief surely hasn't caused untold pain and suffering and won't continue to do so. And really, let's be honest, perfectly rational, skeptic approved stuff here.
Look, I know you like to downplay all this. Maybe you'll build another strawman and tear it down. But realize that this is what you're calling the epitome of skepticism. And you're supposedly a scientist... Hopefully this explains why I find religion so potentially harmful.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that there was no tooth fairy or no santa clause or no unicorns, is that just as bad, too?
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 1, 2013, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)
what Islamophobia usually refers to, is not criticism of Islam but the stirring up of hatred against Muslim immigrants (and sometimes just people who look as though they might be Muslims) in the West. So it tends to be an excuse for racism, if not racism itself.
I agree that all ideologies must be subjected to open free discussion with regard to their value or otherwise; but sometimes it is really the people, not the ideology, that are attacked.
Thus:
Real criticism of Catholicism as an ideology is fine; but sometimes 'Catholics' is really used as a code-word for 'dirty Irish/ Italians/ non-Anglo-Saxons'.
Real criticism of Zionism as an ideology is fine; but sometimes 'Zionists' is really used as a code-word for 'jooooooos'
Real criticism of Communism as an ideology is fine; but McCarthy turned anti-Communism as an excuse for a witch-hunt.
Real criticism of Islam as a religion, or Islamism as a political ideology is fine, but people like the EDL and Pamela Geller turn it into an excuse for an anti-immigrant witch-hunt.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The attacks are generally ad hom instead of substantive, because most of the substantive criticism applies to the ad him user's own religion as well.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Not sure who you were aiming this at, but the text at the bottom seems to specifically defend free speech when it comes to criticism of Islam.
Any idea where this originated?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)and many on the religious right, calling criticism of religion bigotry, hate speech, even racism.
One atheist in particular, Sam Harris, was recently called Islamophobic by some left leaning media for his harsh criticism of Islam. Probably because many people on the right attack Islam not substantively or rationally but more on the basis of race, culture, etc, so any criticism is assumed to be irrational. But, it's not, and this is a nice reminder.
It's also a reminder that religion is a choice. Some will argue it's not, even on here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If this was meant for those on the religious right, then perhaps it should have been posted on a site that caters to those people.
You have maintained that religion is a choice, but have no data to back that up. It's just your opinion and frighteningly close to the position held by many that sexuality is also a choice. Making concrete statements without data is not very rational, is it? It might indicate some indoctrination and intellectual dishonesty.
By the way, this is from the terms of service for this site:
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.
Bigotry based on others religious beliefs or lack of beliefs is recognized by the owners of this site and can lead to being banned here.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)on par with anything else in that list is wrong. I don't know why the site administrators did it, but I'm guessing it's to keep the peace. Religion has a privileged status compared to other ideas, and this site bows to that privilege as much as most others do. They want the focus on politics. Fair enough, but it doesn't make the policy any less rational. You could rightly call political positions a "personal characteristic" under that logic. It's certainly comparable to religion in that it's a choice.
I've seen Republicans called all sorts of nasty things on this site, but it's not bigotry. Some of it may not be very substantive or good criticism, or even very rational, but that's just an ad hom fallacy, not bigotry, because Republicans are a political party with a defined ideology. The criticism is directed at the Republicans for holding ideas we don't like, not for inherent, unchangeable traits. Further, these ideas can hurt others when implemented, unlike, say, sexual orientation or the color of skin. You can say the exact same about religion, but many don't, because of it's privileged status and, of course, the focus of this board is politics. But the Republican Party mix the two often enough, and it's easy to see from that that they are no different as concepts as to each other, so no bigotry is involved in reality when criticizing religion, whatever the policies say IMHO. But I think banning ad homs against others covers any other situation, so saying someone is stupid because of their religious beliefs may be a bad argument, it is rude, and it shouldn't be on a discussion board, but it's not bigotry. Saying someone is stupid for being a Republican, by the way, is no better, but is allowed because of the forum we are on.
During the new Pope announcement, many harshly criticized the Pope and Catholic doctrine. Many others responded that this was bigotry. There were even some epic long threads by some about leaving DU which had become bigoted towards religion. That's one recent prominent example, but there are others from time to time.
Religion is a choice by its own definition. It's a belief system, not a physical trait. Everyone can choose beliefs. There is ample evidence to suggest that most people can be and are manipulated to believe certain things, so it's not a totally free choice (like anything else). That's why many atheists identify as free thinkers, because they are against manipulation of a person's mind and for critical inquiry, whether by religion or anything else.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The administrators of the site, and many who post here, disagree with you.
Bigotry is bigotry. There is much bigotry towards republicans expressed on this site, and that's not a problem. But bigotry towards groups or members because of a difference in religious beliefs or lack of beliefs is a problem and not permitted here.
The fact is that this is a political site that supports democrats and liberal/progressive causes. Many of the people that post here are religious and they are protected from bigotry by the terms of service. Republicans are not.
I have never seen a post that states that criticism of the pope or catholic doctrine is bigotry and would again challenge you to produce such a statement or links to the long threads where people were threatening to leave.
There has been bigotry against both believers and non-believers expressed on this site. Juries often remove these and some members have been banned.
You continuing to say it's a choice doesn't make it so and you have presented no data to back up your theory. There are many believers who would tell you it's not. Atheism is clearly not always a choice either.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And it's also my opinion that words have meaning, so no, criticizing Republicans for their beliefs isn't bigotry. Bigotry requires pre-judging. Criticizing stated beliefs or those who hold them is not bigotry, by definition. You know their beliefs beforehand, indeed, knowledge is the basis of your judgment. Yes, the word bigotry is butchered everywhere to the point of being useless, but I'm trying to distinguish between attacking someone for being gay and attacking someone for ideas they hold and promote, because I believe it's a meaningful difference.
Yes, some claim religion is akin to ethnicity or culture, but it's not, definitionally. Yes, some people lump religion in with culture or race or some other group, but they're the ones using it wrong not the other way around.
And yes, by definition, religion is a choice. Religion is a belief system. There are many belief systems. Choice is the mental process of choosing one. A person has the ability to change their beliefs, and everyone does, every day, on a whole host of beliefs. I myself do. Lots of proof. If religion isn't a choice, then neither is any other belief, like political beliefs, and therefore all criticism of Republicans on this site is akin to criticizing homosexuals for being "unclean". It's nonsense what you're proposing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Criticizing republican beliefs and those that hold them is expected on this board. It's part of it's mission. However, prejudging all republicans probably would fit the criteria for bigotry, although we may say it is justified.
Criticizing stated beliefs and those that hold them can most certainly be bigotry. The word apparently derived from an incident involving both politics and religion.
You say religion isn't akin to culture by definition. What is your definition of religion then? Does culture not include rituals and symbols? Can not one adopt a culture they were not born into or reject one that they were? Culture is often a belief system.
Prejudging all people who hold religious beliefs and labeling them as having psychiatric disorders could most certainly be considered bigotry, just as it might be for those that pre-judge non-believers.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Judging a stated belief, and those who hold it, is not. There is no pre-judging going on. Whatever the words history, it includes prejudice today. Religions are, by definition stated beliefs, and those who label themselves with particular belief systems hold themselves out as such, usually very dishonestly though.
Culture is so vague a term I find it useless. But generally, I see it defined by a mix of things one can choose and things one cannot choose. Aspects of culture are definitely a choice in that definition.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Show me one reputable source that states that bigotry can not be applied to beliefs. In fact, show me one that states that it can't be applied even just to opinions.
Being judgmental and holding so firmly to one's own beliefs that you hold them out as truths is a perfect recipe for bigotry.
Tolerance is the key to eliminating it. People have different experiences. Not all religious people are intellectually dishonest. Not all religious people are engaging in cognitive dissonance. Not all religious people have been indoctrinated.
The same can be said for non-believers. To make blanket statements about people based on their beliefs or lack of beliefs could be considered prejudiced or bigoted.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)One must know a belief to judge it. Even if a person misattributes the belief to another group, it's not a pre judgment of the belief, and the judgment of the mislabeled group is simply a mistake, not a prejudgment.
Even if a person misunderstands a belief, and judges it on that understanding, it's still a mistake, and not a pre-judgment. Remember that a belief is the proposition something is true. Indeed, if a person says that they believe black people are inferior, how is it possible for my judgment of that belief to be a pre-judgment? Beliefs can be prejudicial. Judgments of beliefs cannot.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm just going to wait for a definition that corroborates yours.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Since its impossible to prejudge beliefs.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I have no doubt that most of those that criticize Islam do so with little actual knowledge of the belief system of Islam. Just one example.
Most pre-judgments are mistakes, too. You make a false distinction.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Bigotry is directed at people, not ideas. One can't be bigoted against Christianity any more than one can be bigoted against germ theory or astrology. What you are attempting to do is to wield the word as a weapon, so that you can control and silence those individuals that you don't think should be allowed to speak. I will oppose you every step of the way when you try to do that.
Type "define bigotry" into Google and look at the definition. Is that a reputable source?
One can be bigoted against Christians, but not against their beliefs. Please learn and use the language properly, and not as a weapon to silence others.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)big•ot•ry (ˈbɪg ə tri)
n.
1. extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry
One can certainly be bigoted against an idea.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I provided one.
And using the word as a weapon to silence discussion is completely wrong regardless of the definition you've chosen.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)A post that attacks the RC church for its appalling record on paedophilia is regarded as 'bias' by rug, and he classes the DUer as one in a group of bigots.
rug
(82,333 posts)Did you miss this part of your friend's OP?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)personal and I don't want any part of it.
Frankly, I think you have all crossed the line.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)I can't see that attacking rug for calling a DUer a bigot is a problem, frankly. He's called a DUer an asshole in the last day or so, too, rather than engaging them in any form of argument about whether some Christian beliefs make any sense.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)some members.
I notice it quite well. I just choose not to engage in it.
And you are trying to draw me into it.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)I think saying that criticism is bigotry is such an example.
onager
(9,356 posts)Though I don't have a clue where or when it was first posted.
Just Google "ideas dont have rights" and many different sources will pop up.
I saw it in a Twitter stream and posted it in the A/A group. Mr. Blur kindly posted it in this group, for a larger discussion.
Here's where I found it:
https://twitter.com/KelsTheSecular/status/351389665913352192
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It looks like it was developed for a specific campaign of some sort. I say that because it has what appears to be a slogan, but I couldn't trace it back to it's origins.
onager
(9,356 posts)Over at the Friendly Atheist:
Criticism of Islam Is Not ‘Islamophobia’ - April 4, 2013 By Hemant Mehta
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/04/criticism-of-islam-is-not-islamophobia/
The article links to an equally good piece by Jackson Doughart and Faisal Saeed al-Mutar, who hit the nail right on the head:
… the creeping influence of terms like blasphemy and Islamophobia is undignifying to both Muslims and non-Muslims for two reasons. First, it colludes with Islam’s attempt to infantalize its adherents — convincing them that critical thought, especially about the matters of faith, is immoral. Second, it presumes that Muslims, particularly in the West, are not mature enough to handle criticism of their chosen beliefs, and that their subcultures are reducible to archaic texts and practices. This is the real injustice, involving the basest abandoning of scruple and succumbing to cowardice, and can only be rectified by ditching this thoroughly nonsensical expression.
That paragraph clarifies something that's always bothered me about the "Islamophobia" argument - it seems condescending if not downright insulting to Muslims.
And of course, to the delight of real extremists, it tries to insulate Islam from criticism by providing a handy double standard.
Christine Stansell picked up on that in her review of Leila Ahmed's 2009 book, "A Quiet Revolution: The Veil's Resurgence, from the Middle East to America." (Ahmed is also the author of "Women and Gender In Islam" (1993), which I read while living in Ahmed's native country, Egypt.)
Writing in New Republic, Stansell notes:
American feminists have no problem seeing fundamentalist Christianity as a broad-based movement that harbors lethal views at the edges, but they will bend over backwards to avoid criticisms of radical Islam, even at its most hateful and murderous.
The only violence that matters in the book is American violence. The (Muslim) Brotherhood’s slaughter of Sadat and eleven other high-ranking officials, an attack which wounded twenty-eight, comes off here as an unfortunate but righteous act...
Certainly the emphasis on “male” politics is right. It is to the book’s credit that it insists on understanding veiling in a broad context, and not simply as a woman’s issue. But feminism sometimes disappears altogether. This is because Ahmed wishes to trap her theme between the poles of Western oppression on the one hand and, on the other, those anti-imperial resistance movements that made veiling into an emblem.
But the historical reality is not so simple. Colonialists certainly made anti-veiling a pawn, but so did their opponents, foisting off the task of maintaining tradition onto women and sneering at their objections as the result of Western feminist ideas.
http://www.newrepublic.com/book/review/hidden-in-plain-sight#
rug
(82,333 posts)Whether or not 'Islamophobia' is a valid term, leading atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have been confused, inconsistent and blundering in their attempts to talk about Muslims
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2013/may/03/atheism-dawkins
In theory one can criticize Islam without being Islamophobic.
In practice, it's not.
