Huh?
Ok then how do you respond to the question:
“British Jews are more loyal to Israel than the UK. Probably true or probably false?”
I have no idea and have never made a comment on the issue.
I am bailing now and will wait for the mods to answer my complaints.
While admittedly not salient to the discussion at hand, this is a remarkedly ridiculous statement. And while you claim to have live in the US, I guess you didn’t get out much.
Those very religious may not agree with those who are agnostic or atheist, but to say that there is “ridicule” or “anger” in much of the US over it is asinine. I’m an atheist and I’ve lived all over the US. And while I’ve been in a fair amount of discussion about it, they virtually all end with a “we’ll well have to disagree about that see you next week” or some such comment.
Religious tolerance is one of the most significant, hallmarks of American society and has served us exceeding well for hundreds of years. To argue to the contrary is proof you just weren’t paying attention if indeed you ever did live here.
I’m not sure why people are so fond of citing someone’s opinions as having enormous validity based on their supposedly being a renegade member of the group they “belong” to. On that basis, Clarence Thomas’ outlook on race would possess overriding value, Norma McCorvey (the Roe in Roe v. Wade who has since renounced her former cause) would have the last word when it comes to abortion and so on. We love turnabouts and outliers, at least when they agree with us.*
He has claimed that he travels frequently to the U.S. Presumably he has his nose buried deep in the Guardian during his visits and doesn’t pay attention to what’s going on around him.
*To be fair, I should mention that I’ve enjoyed (and quoted) the writings of Mark Lynas, a former anti-GMO activist who’s since embraced science and speaks out against the nonsense and sleazy tactics used by the anti-GMO movement. it helps though that Lynas is dead on target.
The first item on that list:
In 1986, Senator Jessie Helms (R, NC) introduced a bill in Congress to remove tax exempt status from existing Wiccan groups and prevent any new groups from being recognized. It never made it out of committee.
“It never made it out of committee”.
And the second item is a bland assertion about Jehovah’s Witnesses being discriminated against in custody hearings. No cites, no evidence of any pattern of discrimination, and also no indication of what that has to do with discrimination against atheists or agnostics.
There are, in fact, only a couple of references to atheism on the page - one points out that the laws excluding atheists from juries and public office were revoked some fifty years ago, and another mentioning that Tea Partiers are more “discriminated against” than atheists.
Much of the page seems to be kvetching about how downtrodden the neo-Paganists are.
Didn’t read your own cite very closely, did you, Pjen?
Regards,
Shodan
The problem with pointing out religious discrimination or tolerance in the U.S. is that the U.S. is so large that one can find some examples of just about anything.
There are pockets of Fundamentalist Christians who tend to impose their limited world views on the local areas in which they live. (There are a very few tiny pockets of Hasidic Jews and other groups who act in similar ways.) However, arguing either that the U.S. is or is not “tolerant,” generally, is going to come up against a lot of counter examples in both directions. Again, it is a big country with a lot of differing peoples and views.
Muslims in Dearborn, southwest Detroit, and nearby communities have been subjected to periodic outbursts of hatred. They have also been generally welcomed or ignored by their neighbors. I have seen Jewish communities in southeast Michigan or northeast Ohio attract negative comments from people who enjoy holding onto their prejudices, but I have never seen a store boycotted, an entertainer lose or fail to develop an audience, or a politician lose votes just for being Jewish.
(Actually, most “tolerance” is the result of apathy or indifference rather than an actual, active disposition to welcome those who are unlike us. Xenophobia is a human condition that affects Americans as easily as others.)
Discrimination on religious grounds occurs in both societies. In the UK religion is mostly a non-issue outside the North of Ireland and Glasgow. No-one is much interested in Christian or other affiliation and its is far less remarked upon in everyday speech. One is quite often surprised to find out accidentally what another person’s religion is; few people proselytise. Religion is largely a personal matter. In the USA religion is often discussed as important to family and community life and affiliation and support for ones church is discussed and noticed.
I never felt comfortable as an agnostic in the USA, seen as a challenge by gentle proselytisers and as a threat by the more challenging sects.
It is quite possible to get elected to public office in the UK as an atheist, but the same cannot be said about that in the US where religious affiliation is often seen as a sign of morals.
It is amusing that we have a state church and technically religious observance every day in schools (now mostly ignored though to do so is illegal) and yet have very low religious affiliation whereas the US has a ban on such activity and has a very high religious affiliation.
I don’t know where you stayed in the U.S., but I have rarely known the religions of my neighbors or co-workers in over 60 years. From time to time I will hear of a specific event that clues me in to their beliefs, but that has been rare.
I am not making any claim that attitudes do not differ between the two countries; I am only pointing out that any sweeping generalizations about how “Americans” feel about such issues is going to be wrong for significant portions of the country and only right for specific, localized groups.
Not to pick another fight, but I think most Muslims would disagree and I suspect plenty of Hindus, Sikhs and Jews, who by your own admission are apparently an “out group” in the UK would disagree.
You probably do genuinely feel that way, just as many whites in America genuinely feel that racism isn’t an issue in the US, but that doesn’t mean either is correct.
Beyond that, I’m sure you’ve heard the saying, “fish don’t know what water is.”
Discrimination against Moslems tends to be cultural and class based rather than religious- associated with assumed politics and racial identity as much as religious beliefs.
The UK is much less aware of religious identity than the US, but much more aware of social difference, both cultural and class.
Any outgroup is at risk of discrimination, but that is not necessarily primarily of the religious variety. And it differs from group to group- Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus have always been better integrated into British society than Moslems for various historical reasons. Moslems and Jews tend to suffer as much from religious as racial discrimination. It is far more common to hear of desecration of Mosques and Synagogues than of Gudwaras and Temples!
Your post is still abusive implying that I am unaware of discrimination (“Fish don’t know what water is”) and comparing me to Americans who do not believe that racism is a problem. This is another straw man approach.
I believe that discrimination for a variety of reasons from religion, belief, race, culture and ethnicity, behaviour, Gender issues, and body image and health issues is of major importance, but that different cultures and different eras have different approaches to how such discrimination occurs and it whom it occurs.
It is more apparent if you transfer between the two cultures regularly as I do. You get sensitised to one standard of behaviour and then see differences far more clearly.
Cultural and religious beliefs are pretty closely enter wined. To give obvious examples, when people push for laws banning burqas or hijabs or reacting negatively to the wearing of hijabs, they’re engaging in both.
Also, it’s hardly just poor Muslims who get called “Pakis”(a term which has racial, religious, and cultural implications) nor encounter discrimination.
You’re reading insults where they don’t appear. If you felt that was “abusive”, I’m sorry but it wasn’t intended and I think most people would disagree with your implication.
And when you try and claim that religion “is a non-issue” then yes, you give the implication that you don’t think religious discrimination is a problem in the UK.
“Britain should be more confident of its status as a Christian country.” - David Cameron
You need to differentiate religious discrimination from ethnic and other discrimination. Religion is a matter of belief whereas social and political and ethnic are a matter of performance. If I am a believer in “x” but do not engage in “y” then my level of discrimination will differ from someone who engages in “y”.
As an example consider someone who is ethnically Anglo Saxon, who wears western clothes and does not engage in politically provocative behaviour. They are likely to suffer minimal discrimination because the matter of belief is largely a non-issue by itself. On the other hand should the person engage in perfectly legal, but unpopular behaviour such as wearing non-western clothing, and being vocal about Palestine, then one would be highly likely to be discriminated against socially; add in dark skin and Arabic or sub- continent origin and racial discrimination enters the picture.
He said this in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury pointing out that for many reasons the UK had ceased to be a Christian nation.
How one for the mental illness that thinks there must be a good guy? Why can’t both be bad?
Which rather re-enforces the point.