This topic threatened to become a Pit Thread, but I prefer to keep things on a higher plane (she says, wrapping her emeralds warmly about her).
It started with two posts of mine, objecting to these two quotes in news stories today: " . . . investigators and neighbors are still trying to make sense of two sharply contrasting realities: four adopted youngsters starving in plain sight and a family that was widely seen as loving and deeply religious." and this, from the husband of one of the DC-area sniper victims: “Cruz described how he met his wife, the mother of their 8-year-old son, when they were neighbors in El Salvador. ‘She was a very religious lady,’ Cruz said through an interpreter. 'She had good morals.’”
I thought both quotes implied that atheists are not moral and are more likely to abuse their children. The dog-piling began: “I’m not sure where you are drawing the corelation here” and “THAT remark (not a description by a reporter, but by the fucking HUSBAND of the victim) is insulting to you? The mind boggles.”
Note that I do not “insult religious people.” I insult insulting religious people. Have I ever said anything unpleasant to Polycarp or Isabelle or Vanilla? No, because they are in no way obnoxious. I find it annoying enough I have your God on my money, in my Pledge of Allegiance, in my laws (as to whom I can or cannot marry)—but I am getting tired of being told by politicians and the media that I am not patriotic or moral or even deserving of citizenship if I don’t believe in your God. And, if you’ll remember, I also started a thread on what a vicious old hag Madalyn Murray O’Hair was. I’d call that pretty damned even-handed.
What is your take? Is it still open season to imply in this country that people who do not believe in various gods are less worthy?
The first quote, dear: " . . . investigators and neighbors are still trying to make sense of two sharply contrasting realities: four adopted youngsters starving in plain sight and a family that was widely seen as loving and deeply religious."
No, no, no . . . Let me explain it for you again, in detail.
The quote " . . . investigators and neighbors are still trying to make sense of two sharply contrasting realities: four adopted youngsters starving in plain sight and a family that was widely seen as loving and deeply religious" may be read as saying that religious people could not abuse children.
The quote, “She was a very religious lady. She had good morals” may be read as saying that non-religious people do not have good morals.
I find it offensive, but I find ALL manner of religion anywhere but within the hearts and minds of the believers a bit of a pain. It’s pretty obvious that the interviewee was shocked that someone who would go to church would be abusing children. That it would be more believeable if the parents were athiest. Maybe I’m a little touchy about it, but it’s pretty hard not to be when the government flat out tells us that we’re less than worthy as citizens because we don’t believe.
Well let me quote for you, again in detail your original claim.
…I thought both quotes implied that atheists are not moral and are more likely to abuse their children.worthy?
(my emphasis to try and help you…)
You (again) claimed that BOTH quotes (see, you used the word “both”) implied that atheists are not moral and that BOTH quotes implied that atheists are more likely to abuse children.
Unless you have different understandings of the words “both” or “and”…
Sure.
Membership in a mainstream J/C church is generally accepted as evidence of some degree of morality. Ostensibly, all such members should accept the 10 commandments as a cornerstone/reference point.
Oh, for goodness sake, beagledave, I have already explained myself twice. Why don’t you go over to lissener’s thread and tell him what he means by “homophobe?”
I do not see an implication that atheists are immoral. In fact it would not surprise me one iotum if these quotes were attributed to an atheist. All of us either expect or demand a higher standard from “religious” people, who presumably hold others and themselves to a higher standard, and when they fail they are subject to charges of hypocrisy or ignorance. So my message here is that IMHO you are getting all worked up over nothing.
There’s a difference between superstition and morality. The J/C tradition does not warn against prejudice or pollution or child abuse, etc.
And while Jesus told us to love our neighbors, to turn the other cheek, and that the meek shall inherit the Earth, Christians appear less likely than others to embrace these ideals.
beagledave is YOUR problem, Eve, don’t try to pass him off on me.
unless you wanna trade for Svt4Hmm?
In any case, the point is rather more subtle, I think (returning to the OP): I think your knickers are a bit overtwisted on this, you’ll excuse the expression.
I think the point of noting evil people’s religiosity is to draw attention to their hypocrisy, not necessarily to make an oblique statement as to the morals of atheist. Almost the contrary, in fact; the implication I read is more like, “at least atheists aren’t hiding behind a false god.”
Well, it sort of makes sense. Assuming this family’s religion says abusing children is wrong (which I think is the implication), and the family is religious, which means they would be more likely to follow the dictates of their religion then a coreligionist family who is is not as religious, it would be less likely that the family would abuse children, because they’d be more consciensious about not doing an action their religion sees as wrong.
I think the fact that I saw both quotes the same morning is what began the knicker-twisting . . . But I still see the first one as saying, “They abused their children? But how could that be? They’re religious!” Which is not so far from saying, “They abused their children? I’m not surprised—they’re atheists!”