MellowDem
MellowDem's JournalThat wasn't the only badge...
That marked others for death. And I'm very serious.
Why ignore other groups? Is there some good reason? It comes across very wrong.
Bullshit...
Nothing I said was anti-Semitic, and if someone wants to construe it that way, they're idiots, invoking religious privilege in the most disgusting possible manner. If privilege has that much power, then we'd best hope that American media presents events surrounding the Holocaust right and never be subject to criticism, because, you know, Stormfront is always going on about Jews controlling the media, so, guess that's just off limits.
American public media always gives short shrift to history and always distorts it to an American-centric point of view. WW2 is no exception. I wouldn't think I'd have to point out that this is not a Jewish conspiracy, since I never said it was. Jews have for a long time been a significant and familiar minority to Americans and in American culture. The Roma? Not so much. Homosexuals? Well, they're just getting more familiar to Americans in the last couple decades.
No, I don't think the symbols should be in proportion to losses, that's asinine to suggest. I just think they should all be included, if you're going to have symbols. One giant Star of David is one giant Fuck You to history and the other groups targeted in the Holocaust. It's embarrassing. It demeans the religious symbol. Personally, I don't think there should be symbols of the targeted groups for a memorial, because it misses the point, but that's just me.
Thanks, cbayer
I definitely feel that the fact many people rely on private charity (religious or not) is a sign of our failure as a society.
When I was religious, it was one of the things that made me cringe while helping others through church, that the work done seemed conditional to a degree, that this was being done on god's behalf, not just because it was the right thing to do to have a healthy, equitable, and happy society.
I think religious communities, like any local community organization, will always be more "local" than any government program could ever be, more entwined with the local culture and aware of the needs of the community. I think secular organizations can and do fit that same need in many places, but they just are not as widespread. I just think they can do it without a lot of baggage too, or contradictory or harmful ideas from their belief system (like discouraging contraceptives). I know some progressive religions are essentially secular in their outreach, and those I have no problem with.
I wouldn't object if other symbols were part of the display...
But they aren't.
As it was, Jews were gone after for their ethnicity, not their religious beliefs. You could be an atheist Jew, and that wouldn't spare you.
This is a public memorial using public funds to help build it, which means it needs to be more thoughtful than if it were a private memorial done by some religious organization.
One could present the Holocaust as being about religious beliefs, but it really wasn't, it was about ideas of race. One could also present the Holocaust as a purely Jewish tragedy. Lord knows that is exactly how it has been portrayed in a lot of movies about WW2, and still, it's not a very good account of what the Holocaust was. Using a giant Star of David only serves to perpetuate these misconceptions of the Holocaust and downplays the suffering of others,or worse yet, totally ignores them, not to mention robs the viewer of some good present day lessons from history by giving short shrift to it.
It feels like the state giving preference to one group in exclusion of others as a result.
The Holocaust involved many more than Jews..
It would be a travesty to use the Star of David in the symbol in a public display as the centerpiece as this one does. It's offensive to all the others killed in the Holocaust and doesn't adequately represent the complexity of what the Holocaust was. It's very easy to present facts as part of the memorial that anti-semitism was a major factor and Jews were primarily targeted without using a religious symbol.
11 million people were killed as part of the Holocaust, and an estimated 6 million were Jewish. Why would anyone use the Star of David as the centerpiece of a secular public memorial? It seems incredibly insensitive to me. But then, I forget how strong religious privilege is in the US still, and many won't understand why it's offensive.
I don't think a lack of women has anything to do with atheism itself...
One of my guesses from looking at atheist demographics in the US, which show atheists to more likely be white and male (similar to out homosexuals), is that people with more societal privilege have the luxury of being an atheist compared to other groups that still rely on religious organizations more due to not being as privileged in other ways. It's easier for a upper middle class male to ditch a community of believers and still be fine than it is a single minority mom in a lot of circumstances, especially where that community is one of the vital resources she needs in day to day life. In other words, intellectual honesty has its price, and it's not as high a price if you're more privileged in other ways.
The above relates more to the gender gap in demographics than in the leadership positions. I find those gaps are more likely due to the same reasons society as a whole has gender gaps in leadership roles. There is no belief inherent in atheism that women are to be treated differently in other words, or as second class.
There are, on the other hand, numerous religions that treat women very explicitly as second class citizens, and a lot of those religions' general membership is made up of more women than men. It's like the chickens electing Col. Sanders, but we see that all the time with 95 percent oF Republican voters. What's sad is their membership in an organization that treats them like second class citizens usually comes through childhood indoctrination, and the pressure to stay in that organization comes from social and financial necessities in many parts of the world, including parts of the US, rather than the belief system itself, which few know about or even have the luxury to are about.
Another terrible strawman article...
And a great response that rebuts it beautifully, point by point.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/07/18/dont-be-a-dick-new-from-jezebel/
There is nothing about being an atheist that makes you a dick. There is plenty about all sorts of religions that make believers dicks, namely, the bigoted hateful beliefs they subscribe to. Criticizing those beliefs, even harshly, ain't dickish. Unless criticizing tax cuts for the wealthy is suddenly dickish. There's a boatload of conservatives that will whine your ear off that it is.
Reddit defaults aren't great for serious discussion of controversial issues
Everyone is automatically subscribed to them, and a large part of redditors are very young, ie., immature (though there are exceptions). The recent changes to r/atheism improved it a lot, and I think removing it from the default will improve it even more, as it will get rid of a lot of griefers and trolls. The level of discussion went up. Not that there is anything wrong with having tons of memes like the old one did, it should just be another sub-forum though.
R/atheism is great at completely puncturing the protective bubble religion lives in, and it shocks the holy hell out of a lot of religious people, who basically think it's full of bigots because they can't handle it, but it also can get people to start questioning some basic assumptions of religion through biting sarcasm and satire.
A lot of the criticism in the old r/atheism could be juvenile because of the age of subscribers, though on point nonetheless. Many subscribers were brand new to atheism, as a lot of the younger generation is, and are pretty pissed because of the religious environment they were raised in was terribly harmful, so it's a great place for them to vent.
This is a good move overall. Now that sub forum is still a resource for new young atheists while not drawing every oversensitive person who are shocked, SHOCKED, people could be so MEAN as to make fun of an idea,and a really bad and harmful one at that.
Same reason r/politics got taken down. Too liberal, too mean to conservatives, etc. etc. Atheists need a place to vent, especially young new ones. And there are more atheist forums popping up all the time! All trends point to religion diminishing in the US in public life and overall, and I'm very happy about that 
Better than hell I suppose...
or maybe the Mormons are right, and there is no hell, I'll just be at the bottom of the heavenly hierarchy and get no planet of my own, but that's OK by me 
I presume you are not a rug...
you seem to be able to type, so that's my first clue
I am relaxed and unhurried generally.
That doesn't make me apathetic.
If an organized belief system tells me to do something because I will therefore get less time in some supernatural punishment realm, I have no problem calling out that sort of terrible manipulation for what it is, all while being quite relaxed and unhurried. Maybe even with a beer in my hand.
Everyone I know personally finds me mellow. That's probably because real life doesn't involve discussion of political or religious matters in such an open forum.
I'd say I'm passionate in my beliefs, yet mellow all the same.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jul 24, 2008, 05:59 PMNumber of posts: 5,018
