# Intellectual Discrimination and Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111 "2005-03-31T20:55:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/101 "2005-04-07T04:20:35Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Okay. Seems a shame for you to give up so easily, though, when you’re thoughoughly convinced that I’m wrong. Arguing with you has lost it’s appeal. You claim to be on the side of objectivity, yet all you do is state opinion after opinion, and then scoff when Maeglin asks for a cite. We can continue to discuss when you give me a cite that proves that religion and academia are diametrically opposed. Then you’ll have to decide whether or not philosophy is actually academic. Once those two conditions are met, I will review your application and decide whether or not you’re worth discussing anything with. I just don’t have faith in your ability to debate this issue any further. Erek ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/102 "2005-04-07T04:36:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Once those two conditions are met, I will review your application and decide whether or not you’re worth discussing anything with. > > I just don’t have faith in your ability to debate this issue any further. Considering how much time has been spent on you even though you don’t even understand the difference between the terms “objective” and “subjective”, you could stand to dial back a notch on the attitude. Frankly, until you acknowledge that subjectivity and objectivity are different things, and you understand what each idea means, discussing anything with you is a flying, somersaulting waste of time. My cite is any English-language dictionary in the entire world, help yourself to the one of your choice. To quote another poster, “your slightly superior is showing.” Put some pants on it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/103 "2005-04-07T04:47:08Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > It’s the close-minded, hostile ones who are anti-inellectual which we’re supposed to be discussing. They are the ones who cannot reconcile their faith with the principles of academia. With them, I think, there can be no “reconcilliation.” They do not want one, unless academia would be willing to undergo drastic changes. My point was that the OP was not about closed minded hostile anti intellectual religous people. > [@](#): > > Laws may change, but they are still subject to the Constitution, which, to my knowledge, has not changed recently-- and most likely will not. > > There have been some interesting laws passed recently, but I have a relatively high expectation that a good portion of them will be overturned by the Supreme Court in due time. Hmmmm I have my doubts. what seems to be happening is that our current president and his cronies are interested in packing the courts with judges who will make decisions based on political debt and advantage with less regard to justice. The debate on the patriot act is a great example. Have you noticed that Bush’s recent appointee {the one who called the Geneva convention outdated in support of the use of torture} is now calling for making all of the patriot act permanent. Thats why I laughed so hard at your comment about why presidents appoint judges. Thats a different thread though. > [@](#): > > Despite what some have said recently, it’s not necessarily a good thing for the people to have their own way when it comes to law. Segregation is a perfect example of this. If popular opinion, not the Courts, had ruled in the South fifty years ago, black people would still be drinking from seperate water fountains. Feel fairly certain about that do ya? The courts and the goverment weren’t much interested in social justice for blacks until the pendulum of public opinion shifted and people had the courage to protest unjust laws at the risk of their lives. > [@](#): > > Citizenship responsibilities? What does hostility to academia because of a percieved superiority on the part of academics have to do with citizenship? I can still be a good citizen and hate my neighbor’s guts. Likewise, those who despise all that academia stands for can still be good citizens. We don’t have to get along to do our civic duty. I suppose, but we do have to get along to move the country in one direction or the other. The Conservatives have been very effective while the liberals haven’t been. The OP was a speculation, that there may be division between the more open minded spiritual minded liberals, and the more academic minded liberals. We were supposed to be discussing if that were true and what we might do about it to make liberals more effective as a group. I thought it was worth discussing but we never managed to get around to it. > [@](#): > > Yes. It was. I apologize for the snarkiness of my tone. It does no one any good, and is quite unbecomming. Nice of you to apologize. All is forgiven. > [@](#): > > I quite understand his point- I’m still not sure about that > [@](#): > > . My position is that: > > A) If there is hostility on the part of some religious people, it is not the place of academia to change to please them. I suppose, and yet the OP was about something more subtle than open hostility. > [@](#): > > B) Most religious people have little or no problem with academics, and get along just fine in an academic environment. So must we change to suit a minority who doesn’t really have a legitimate beef in the first place? again, not what the OP was about. I’m not convinced you got his point. > [@](#): > > C) Perhaps instead of blaming academics for having a superiority complex, we should consider the possibility that perhaps some of these people have an inferiority complex That may be true in some cases. Sometimes they might share a common attitude. The one that says. “I know whats best if they’d only listen to me.” It’s just as unattractive in either group. > [@](#): > > D) Academia’s nature is to challenge and pick apart theories. Religion is not suited to such inquiry. Some religion. True spirituality is about seeking the truth and that means discarding old beliefs that don’t hold up. > [@](#): > > E) Religion does just fine on its own-- why the need to include it where it doesn’t necessarily belong? AS in a discussion that speculates about problems in communicartion? I just can’t figure whay it doesn’t belong there. > [@](#): > > F) Instructors have enough trouble cramming in all the course material they need to cover without clouding the issues with a lot of philosphical debate which has little or no bearing on the facts. Nothing to do with the OP. You say you don’t agree with his point, yet in your little alphabet here, you haven’t really addressed it. > [@](#): > > But these are all open-minded people. You cannot force someone to become open-minded, nor can you force people to respect the opinions of others. Some people are just jerks. Being academic or religious didn’t make them that way-- life or nature did. Nothing under the sun can change that. You can’t urge cooperation from those kind of people any more than you can draw blood from a stone. I agree. It’s not time well spent to put too much effort into changeing the minds of the closed minded. > [@](#): > > The people who are willing to work together already _are_. It’s not like a sensitivity class, or a group Kum-By-Yah will make nasty people become “nice.” The question is how effectively are they working together? Are there barriers? What can be done about them? > [@](#): > > Now who’s being idealistic? 😃 > Our country will not change course, despite a million group hugs. > Nor can you induce respect, open discussion and cooperation amongst people who do not want it. (That goes for both sides.) I’m talking about improving it among people who do want it. The OP was about subtle and possibly unrecognized divisions among the open minded who do want to work together buut may have problems doing so effectively. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/104 "2005-04-07T05:40:11Z")
> [@NattoGuy](#): > > My cite is any English-language dictionary in the entire world, help yourself to the one of your choice. [religion](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion) Hmm no mention of diametric opposition to science there. [science](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science) Wow, what do you know? No mention of diametric opposition to religion there either. Let’s try two more times. [spirituality](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spirituality) Wow three for three on my team, still no mention of diametric oppsition. [academia](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=academia) Holy Moly! It’s as I thought! Your cite doesn’t hold up to scrutiny at all!!! Now let’s move on the subjective and objective [subjective](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subjective) [objective](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective) Those definitions are not in opposition to the way I had defined them. I am sorry if I communicated it in such a way as to imply some inherent difference to those definitions. I was going by the definition as “The object as it is” = objective and “The object as it is experienced” = subjective For instance, “the Empire State building is 26 blocks from my house” is an objective property of the Empire State building in relation to my house. Whereas “The Empire State Building is close to my house”, is a subjective property of the Empire State Building and my house. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/105 "2005-04-07T05:50:40Z")
If anyone is interested in getting back to the OP. It specifically had to do with racism. For instance, it is more socially accetpable to dismiss the Baptist faith than it is to dismiss someone for being black. However, a large portion of black people happen to be Baptist. You can substitute Black with Hispanic, and Baptist with Catholic. Social indocrtination DOES happen within Academia. This might not be an inherent property of science, but I believe that it is an inherent property of Academia when defined as a cultural institution, rather than as defined as the pursuit of knowledge. So I was looking for a discussion about Academia’s role in this. I am specifically talking about Academia, I am not talking about religious bigotry, that is a hijack. Certainly there are people who are bigotted against Academia, this thread is not about them, it is about the ways Academia as an institution is a source of bigotry and then, when that is discussed then perhaps a discussion of “why” is in order, and that may lead us back to bigotted religious organizations, but only in as far as they would be the motivation for a reactionary Academic culture. The properties of Academia being discussed need not be universal to all Academics, they only need be entrenched within the institution for purposes of this discusson. Erek ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/106 "2005-04-07T06:11:35Z")
First I will note that I am asking you to understand subjective and objective. With regard to your other “proofs”, I will only discuss things I actually said and you actually said. When you disprove words that you’ve put into my mouth, you really haven’t demonstrated anything at all. Having said that, here’s something that you actually said: > [@mswas](#): > > I was going by the definition as “The object as it is” = objective and “The object as it is experienced” = subjective Alright then. I can help you by telling you that the above is not the definition of subjective or objective. You have described the definition of reality vs. perception. These are terms that are useful in talking about subjectivity/objectivity, but they are certainly not interchangeable. > [@](#): > > For instance, “the Empire State building is 26 blocks from my house” is an objective property of the Empire State building in relation to my house. No, this is simply not true. Distance from your house is not a property of the Empire State Building, objective or otherwise. The Empire State Building was the Empire State Building before your house was 26 blocks from it, and it will still be the Empire State Building after your house is no longer 26 blocks from it. However, to move the discussion along, we will correct your statement to say “Distance from my house to the ESB is an objective property, and its precise nature is 26 blocks.” This is objective because it doesn’t matter whether the measurement is taken by you or me, it is still 26 blocks. That is objective. Having said that… > [@](#): > > Whereas “The Empire State Building is close to my house”, is a subjective property of the Empire State Building and my house. No, this is also untrue. “Close to my house” is also not a property of the Empire State Building. However, “close” is a relative term. Therefore, by itself it really means nothing. 26 blocks means “close” to you, but to me it sounds like a terribly long way to walk. My perception is that it’s far, your perception (for whatever reason) is that it’s near. But the perception doesn’t matter, because if either of us decides to measure the distance… it comes out to 26 blocks. Objectively. End of story. I really am interested in hearing your views, but if you don’t use the commonly accepted language used to describe these ideas, there is no way you can communicate them to someone else and be sure that your intentions were understood. I am not trying to disprove your ideas or change your spirituality, I am only trying to show you that if you use highly nonstandard terminology, your ideas sound like gibberish, and it sounds as if you can’t understand anyone else’s ideas. Half this thread has been spent getting your terminology on the same page as everyone else’s and the original intent of your OP has been lost. And that’s a shame, because I think I understood it, but it has been lost in your garbled way of describing it. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/107 "2005-04-07T06:30:28Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > If anyone is interested in getting back to the OP. It specifically had to do with racism. For instance, it is more socially accetpable to dismiss the Baptist faith than it is to dismiss someone for being black. However, a large portion of black people happen to be Baptist. You can substitute Black with Hispanic, and Baptist with Catholic. This is a fair observation. You could have just started by saying that among academic or university activists, atheism/agnosticism is a very common world view, but this represents a conflict when they try to relate to highly religious ethnic groups. That is a fair enough topic for discussion, It’s a point worth making and it’s one that I think university activists don’t think about enough. But then you had to go and imply that not only does this worldview make academics bigots and possibly racists, that the worldview itself is self-contradictory and flawed. You also included the casual dismissal of the entire academic system, which does have its flaws but has produced some of the most important thought in the world, both scientific and otherwise. You then proceeded to demonstrate that your grasp of the terms in this discussion is not strong enough to tackle these subjects coherently. I’m sorry, but if you imply that someone is a bigot, a racist, or deluded as to how they see the world, expect some discussion on it. If you try to redefine the basic terminology used to talk about knowledge for your own purposes, expect _vigorous_ discussion on it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/108 "2005-04-07T06:35:22Z")
NattoGuy: I have no problem with you correcting my terminology, that is fine. However, I don’t agree that “half this thread” has been spent getting my terminology on the same page as everyone elses. I may have been misusing subjective and objective, but you completely ignored my call of bulls\*\*\* on your cite of “any english dictionary”, so I’d say a lot of it has been spent coming to a common understanding of terms, because your definitions are hardly the accepted definitions. Here’s a definition for you: [hypocrisy](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrisy) One thing that’s great about my position, is that it is easy for me to step back and say that my terminology might have been incorrect. The problem with yours is you are locked into a claim, because you have stated it as being unequivocably true, when neither you nor Lissa has really done a good job of showing me any “facts”, and have scoffed when asked to actually provide some. I’ve provided cites, you have backed up your position very poorly when you are the one supposedly presenting the “academic” position. I don’t have so much of an issue with being wrong, but you need to actually address the point I am making before I will say that I am or am not. I appreciate the help you all have given me in solidifying my understanding of the language, but you have done absolutely NOTHING to add to the subject at hand, except for prove that which you seem to be seeking to disprove. So now that my understanding of subjective and objective has been increased. Would you like to please show me any evidence, any evidence at all that science and spirituality, or academia and religion are in any way diametrically opposed. You have asserted this, you have defended Academia, now put your money where your mouth is and start showing me some cites. After you show me some cites, would you like to try something new like addressing the OP? Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/109 "2005-04-07T06:41:47Z")
> [@NattoGuy](#): > > This is a fair observation. You could have just started by saying that among academic or university activists, atheism/agnosticism is a very common world view, but this represents a conflict when they try to relate to highly religious ethnic groups. > > That is a fair enough topic for discussion, It’s a point worth making and it’s one that I think university activists don’t think about enough. But then you had to go and imply that not only does this worldview make academics bigots and possibly racists, that the worldview itself is self-contradictory and flawed. You also included the casual dismissal of the entire academic system, which does have its flaws but has produced some of the most important thought in the world, both scientific and otherwise. You then proceeded to demonstrate that your grasp of the terms in this discussion is not strong enough to tackle these subjects coherently. I’m sorry, but if you imply that someone is a bigot, a racist, or deluded as to how they see the world, expect some discussion on it. If you try to redefine the basic terminology used to talk about knowledge for your own purposes, expect _vigorous_ discussion on it. Your making an assumption about my position due partially to my poor writing skills, and partially to your poor reading comprehension skills. All you have done is accuse me of something you yourself are doing. Please address the diametric opposition. It’s too bad really, I thought you were going to actually address the OP, instead you just used it as an example to show me once again how superior your vocabulary is to mine. (which I am still dubious about) I never implied that Academia is universally bigotted. That’s you reading too much into what I said. For that I am not responsible. Now if no one else had understood what I wrote, then I might start recanting, but the fact is that other people DID understand what I wrote, and tried to relate it to you in their voice, and you roundly ignored them too. So I have a poor vocabulary, and you have poor reading comprehension skills. You are right, that would make it very difficult to debate a topic this subtle. Address the diametric opposition, or else I am done with you too. Erek ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/110 "2005-04-07T07:31:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Address the diametric opposition, or else I am done with you too. The “diametric opposition” was not my comment, and I do not take kindly to demands. So we’re done here and I bid you a good day. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/111 "2005-04-07T13:51:26Z")
Sheesh!! Well Mwas, I thought you made a valid importent point. It’s unfortunate that a couple of folks who never got it were able to monopolize the thread. Perhaps we can try again another time. I think I wouldn’t call it racism although I get your point. To me what you’re referring to is a communication problem. Spiritual liberals and Academic liberals need to work together more effectively. If a large group of Spiritual liberals feel that the leaders of the Democratic party aren’t really listening and don’t really care about their thoughts or feelings then we can’t work togther effectively. I’ve experienced that here in TN. Incidently, I appreciated what you said about science being objective and religion being subjective and objective. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/112 "2005-04-07T13:55:53Z")
Replies to three of you, consolidated into one post for her pleasure. **Scott\_plaid** : > [@](#): > > 1.You can not assume what things are like in academia as a whole from sociology. I neither said this nor do I understand this assertion. > [@](#): > > 1. Claiming that Lissa should turn the “fact-based lens” on herself, without giving reasons why is an odd thing to say. I contended that academia should not be represented as a monolithic, dare I say “reified” thing. **Lissa** agreed. What’s the problem? > [@](#): > > 1. It sounds like you are accusing Lissa of lying, and giving no explanations of how, thus not allowing her to defend herself. That’s a not very nice, now is it? I guess it would be mean if it were something I actually did. I honestly have no idea how you are inferring this from my posts. **NattoGuy** : > [@](#): > > I think you are giving sociology shorter shrift than it really deserves. Probably. 😉 I do not think I have had a very good introduction to the literature. Most of what I have read I believe is of poor quality with respect to intellectual rigor and clear communication. I have no particular issues with its subjectivity: I was first trained as a historian. Historians in my experience tended to be far more honest when they were simply making up stories. Furthermore, many sociologists are pushing back hard on the very tools that might increase the rigor of the discipline. They claim that to adopt “rational choice” is to give in to the “imperialism” of the discipline of economics and to ignore “the collective.” Um, ok. **Lissa** : > [@](#): > > Hmm. I never feel myself “fortunate” to escape learning something (even if I don’t agree with it) but to each his own. I do not believe that study in any particular discipline necessarily implies learning. Garbage in, garbage out. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I would call it a mongrel discipline-- a term which I assume was intended to be insulting. It is not strictly insulting. Diversity of method and approaches is very good. Constant paradigmatic debates are not. I suppose one has to take the good with the bad. No disrespect to your husband. > [@](#): > > The problem with sociological experiements is that the results can rarely be duplicated exactly because of all of the variables. (Well, you are working with humans, you know.) My graduate training is in political science and economics. Believe me, I hear you. Political Science is also an absolutely mongrel discipline. Where I was trained is dominated by rational choice. The few people left who do case studies/marxist theory/sociolegal studies etc. don’t even talk to the quantitative people. It is really shameful. > [@](#): > > I know. Isn’t it awesome!!! Yes and no. People fight so hard because the stakes are so low. Furthermore, it is not too difficult to point to occasions when the pursuit of these resources directly conflicts with the expressed purpose of academia, _very_ broadly defined, the education of humanity and the advancement of human knowledge. The incompatibility of incentives does not produce optimal results. > [@](#): > > Are you really asking for proof that academia and religion are different? I mean, really? I think you missed a key word there. _Institutionally_. Regarding moral/cultural relativism, I had always believed that was more dearly beloved by cultural anthropologists. I got along real well with them too, as I am sure you can tell. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/113 "2005-04-07T14:32:58Z")
So much for a simple list. Back to the old style. > [@Maeglin](#): > > I neither said this nor do I understand this assertion. Bolding mine. > [@](#): > > I have **(fortunately)** spent very little time in the **mongrel discipline of sociology** , but I know enough to reject outright such a monolithic view of **capital-A Academia.** So, am I the only one who read this to mean that she is basing her feelings about “capital-A Academia” on sociology? Seriously, I welcome input from others. > [@](#): > > I contended that academia should not be represented as a monolithic, dare I say “reified” thing. Lissa agreed. What’s the problem? I took offense at how I read how you addressed her. The fact that she agreed with you on a subject, or that it may have been unnecessary, to be offended on her behalf, after I have already posted does not enter into the fact. > [@](#): > > I guess it would be mean if it were something I actually did. I honestly have no idea how you are inferring this from my posts. > [@](#): > > 3If you are going to make the claim that academia is somehow fact-based, \*\*it would helpful to turn your fact-based lens on yourself. \*\* Either I am totally misreading these, or you have a bad memory. P.S. Remember post [92](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6028496&postcount=92)? P.S.S. I am sorry if I am referring to people by “her”, or “she,” incorrectly. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/114 "2005-04-07T14:52:28Z")
You are substantially misreading my position. > [@](#): > > So, am I the only one who read this to mean that she is basing her feelings about “capital-A Academia” on sociology? Seriously, I welcome input from others. You are probably the only one. My point, which I am confident was not lost on **Lissa** , is that the discipline of sociology has tools which undermine the assertion that “Academia” is either one way or another. The very existence of the discipline gives the lie to these kinds of views. > [@](#): > > I took offense at how I read how you addressed her. You are enjoined either to keep your offense to yourself or to share it in a more appropriate forum. > [@](#): > > Either I am totally misreading these, or you have a bad memory. The former. To turn the very fact-based tools that are supposedly the core of academia _back on itself_ is to realize that academia may not be so “fact-based”. I hope I am making myself clear. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/115 "2005-04-07T16:01:47Z")
Yeah , yeah, I get it, you enjoined me this, you enjoined me that. I get it. I still believe that the tools of sociology can not be used to judge the whole of academia. Again, I welcome other’s opinions on this, and I again remind you that you have not answered post [92](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6028496&postcount=92). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/116 "2005-04-07T16:41:55Z")
**Scott** , why in the world do you think that **Maeglin** has any need or reason, much less compulsion, to respond to a rhetorical question in a chest-beating exchange between you and **mswas**? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/117 "2005-04-07T16:49:07Z")
:smack: Because I lost track of which person I am arguing against said what. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/118 "2005-04-07T16:56:42Z")
Thanks, **tom~**. I really was scratching my head. Ironically, I have known **mswas** irl for almost ten years, and I can’t say _anyone_ has ever confused us before. 😉 > [@](#): > > I still believe that the tools of sociology can not be used to judge the whole of academia. You are also welcome to believe that a hammer cannot be used to pound a nail. While you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, this belief is a non-starter. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/119 "2005-04-07T17:04:43Z")
If that is true, then I suppose I can use the beliefs of (insert extremist catholic group here) to prove the view point of the majority of priests. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/120 "2005-04-07T17:08:34Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It specifically had to do with racism. For instance, it is more socially accetpable to dismiss the Baptist faith than it is to dismiss someone for being black. However, a large portion of black people happen to be Baptist. You can substitute Black with Hispanic, and Baptist with Catholic. Your theory remains incorrect and I’m still not sure what the role of racism is in this discussion. But at least this short version makes the problem clear. _It’s a coincidence._ Dismissing the views of a group of people, some of whom happen to be black, is not racist. Dismissing the views of a group of people _because_ they are black is racist. It’s not racist even if all of them are black, although I can see where that would invite questions. The two things are not remotely the same. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111.md?page=7)