In Nebraska I have a friend that I contacted, after seeing a show on an abortion clinic in her town. I got their address and sent a donation of some gift cards to a local coffee/donut shop, for the volunteers that helped women get into the clinic. Apparently they are right across the street from a Catholic church, from which come a number of the protestors.
And that large majority would be factually wrong.
Agreed and furthermore atheists living in certain countries face legal consequences. Wiki: “Atheists and religious skeptics can be executed in at least thirteen nations: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Libya, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.” Humanists International claims that a majority of countries discriminate against atheists.
Regarding the OP, the term religious discrimination seems relevant, as does religious persecution:
Actually, I may have to reverse myself. Or something like that. I don’t think I could choose to change my own beliefs. By metaphor, I think it’s water’s fault that it runs downhill, not mine, so I don’t think I could change my belief that water runs downhill.
But this isn’t clean and simple. If religion is a way of understanding our world, for example through a creation myth or through a description of the nature of good and bad, it does connect us to things we do. “To be” and “to do” are easy things to distinguish in language, but not necessarily in fact.
So, I withdraw my claim that people can choose religion, with apologies. At best it is oversimplified.
What do we call “All religions are evil and must be ridiculed and destroyed?”
There’s a great amount of difference between ridiculing and destroying. To ridicule, you can joke with your friends about something, you can perform a comedy routine in a club about it, you can do a sketch on a television comedy show about it, you make a speech to a large crowd about it, or you can speak in a legislature about it. To destroy it, you forbid anyone from advocating it, you can destroy all its places of worship, you can burn all its texts, or you can execute anyone who ever believed in it.
“Rightly unpopular.” or perhaps “the same mindset that instituted pogroms, holocausts, genocides, heretic burnings, and inquisitions, with a slightly different agenda.”
I’ve been tempted to use words like “religiophobia” or “theophobia” for an irrational and/or out-of-proportion fear or hatred of religion, religious concepts, religious people, etc.
It is a strange state of mind for me (the OP).
I love classical church music. Those dudes were doing their absolute best to worship their god, and as a side effect produced some glorious music.
Similarly, I used to live next to a mosque, and, man, that imam was calling the people to prayer in style.
So while I don’t want some religious people to approach me directly, I am more than willing to live with a mosque just over 100m away, or hear chuch bells, or go to a sung mass in a Cathedral.
So ambivalent to the actual religion, but appreciating the cultural significance.
So I feel anti-religionist is incorrect. I am fine with people practicing religion of any type. I am not fine with someone elses beliefs being pushed on me.
I mean, yes, I have been to India, land of weird religious rules from many different religions, but when there, I am a guest in their country so I will follow the customs. Why unnecessarily piss people off?
Maybe “semi-tolerant of religion” is the definition I need!
Are you uncomfortable with the behavior or with the motivation for the behavior?
I find that even the unequivocally good deeds done by some US churches some times is overshadowed in my mind by the fact they’re doing them for the wrong reasons. Kind of like an unreliable machine that nevertheless worked correctly today when I used it, I’m just waiting with bated breath for the wrongness to return. I’d be happier with no machine at all.
I think a bit of both. I don’t want to be a bigot. And I want to just accept that religious people exist. Even though, as atheist I am anathema to them.
I started the thread as a way to explore my own relationship with the religious., to try to become more tolerant of people who are generally intolerant of my position.
It’s really complex. I come from a large Catholic family. My uncle is a Jesuit priest. My brother is born-again. I’m atheist, my sister is agnostic. My step-father is a Deacon in the Anglican chirch, and aimed to be a priest. My mum likes to be in the chirch choir but does not believe.
I would ideally like for religion to have an on/off switch at family gatherings.
Yeah, this.
See also:
There are plenty of examples of violent suppression of religion by secularist regimes, but the regimes each give their own campaign names to them, and, especially in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, it’s all rolled together in the same persecution since the first Easter. Rome is always sure to let us know, often with the help of Hollywood, because doing so will put knees on the genuflexoria and butts in the seats, respectively.
The French Reign of Terror targeted nuns and priests, cleansing itself of their perceived menace in the National Bathtub . Finally Robespierre signed his own death warrant when he guillotined a whole convent-load of nuns, because the centime finally dropped and everyone realized that if some cloistered nuns could be targets, so could anyone. (French cinema version)
Shogun Japan recognized the use of religion as undermining their newly-won control of the entirety of their
islands, and persecuted it without mercy; often obliging the Christians with their own well-established version of crucifixion. (Japanese and American movie treatments)
Post-Revolutionary Mexico found itself to be painfully priest-ridden and passed legislation limiting the Church’s political and property powers. This sparked a rebellion with plenty of martyrs for Mother Church. Plenty of movie fodder there, including one with Henry Fonda based on a typical Graham Greene breast-beater
Hitler, who’d surely had his ears twisted by at least one Austrian priest as a rotten little boy, laid off the German Church as well as the Vatican, knowing it was too powerful as well as his tactic ally against Communism. Their puppet ruler in Slovakia was an ordained priest, and their Croatian allies put their concentration camps in the hands of priests (Franciscans(!) not Jesuits or Dominicans as you’d expect). But in decapitating Polish society, killing priests and nuns was part of the operation. (I won’t even try to list all the movies this generated)
All a waste of life and effort. For the anti-religious, the best recourse is also the least harmful: do as the Italians and grab your balls at the sight of a priest and escape the evil eye. They only make the best use of the violence that’s inflicted upon them, all the while offering us the contradiction of Communion and alienation at the same time.
A rarity approaching strawman status.
Those people would be in the same class as abortion protesters - but my point was that I was trying to be consistent with what should be permitted no matter if I agreed with the position of the protesters.
Sure, but there isn’t a tenet of secularism or atheism that prescribes such suppression. The reasoning has to come from some other source, whereas suppression by the religious against other religions or the non-religious often (but not always) comes from the religion itself.
It’s possible to be a secularist and to be religious; even strongly religious. It has occured to some religious people that the best way to keep society from interfering with one’s own religion is to not let it interfere with anybody else’s, either.
I don’t see how it’s possible to factually disprove that an essential part of somebody’s identity is an essential part of their identity.
The facts of that matter are inside the person’s head. You can’t disprove them from outside their head.
To some of them. Not to all of them.
In what way was the Shogunate secular?
Yep, you caught me.
Except for the Soviet Union, and China. Other than those and Cambodia hardly ever. Really just the French Revolution, Lenin’s Russia, and China it is a strawman. Except for those, and Mexico during the Cristero War. I got nothing at all. Nothing but Russia, China, Mexico, Cambodia and the various pogroms against specific (but not all) religions Except for those my comments were a strawman mentioning a rarity.