Also, I never say that religious people aren’t worth my respect. I say that in general, religion isn’t worth my respect. Huge difference. Religion, in some way, has been at the core of countless civil rights problems, with gay marriage being their cause du jour. I’m not accusing every faithful person of deliberately trying to destroy the human rights of others, but it is obvious to me that the flames are fueled by a belief that god’s law should govern non-believers as well.
Actualy, the board, on the overall, don’t accept that religious beliefs could be attacked or mocked in the same way other supernatural or weird but less commonly and dearly held beliefs are (like say, astrology or ET abductions…essentially nobody will react if a poster believing in ghosts is ridiculed). So, religions in general aren’t fair game here, with the exceptions of some odd sects holding really peculiar beliefs (peculiar in the sense they aren’t widespread, though they certainly, objectively, aren’t any weirder than the catholic belief in transubstantation, for instance).
Oh sure, you’re entitled to say it. Just like I’d be entitled to tell you that you have bad breath, if, indeed, I thought you had bad breath. But it isn’t necessarily a very nice or appropriate or productive thing to say.
Would you tell a religious person that you thought they were deluded, even if they made some rather harmless and “non-preachy” comment about religion? (I don’t know if you would or not, that’s why I’m asking.)
Trust me, I understand that people without faith believe that my beliefs are “crackpot.” I’ve got it. I don’t need to be told again that they think I’m deluded. I sure as hell know that they don’t want to hear me say how if they really thought about it, they’d see how much better off they’d be with religion. (I wouldn’t actually say that, by the way.)
I remember one time encountering some reasonably pleasant guys at a party. For some reason, the subject of religion was brought up. I may have brought it up—I am not really sure how it started. I remember my opening statement on the subject. I said, “I don’t really care what others believe and I don’t want to preach to anyone. To each his own.”
The response from these fellows was approx. 10-15 minutes of preaching about how a belief in God was deluded, including an obviously oft-repeated lecture about how illogical it was. My mouth dropped open. Is this the response I deserved, for simply saying that I wasn’t interested in judging anyone else? Do you think that because I brought up the subject of religion, that the sermon they delivered back to me was a “fair comment”?
And you do realize that I have no desire to bring faith into American government, right? I mean, I thought I made that pretty clear.
I appreciate that you say you would defend my right to my faith. I defend your right to not have one. I simply don’t see why we both can’t be polite (rather than insulting and condescending) to each other as well. I’ll try to hold up my end of the bargain, I really will.
If someone’s not trying to look down their nose at you or anyone else, and they’re not trying to preach to you, do you want to say things to them that are guaranteed to be offensive and insulting to them? Do you really think that you’ll win them over?
It seems to me that the defenders of religion on this board are totally atypical of the religious believers who are responsible for the political support of the We Hate Gays Amendment. THEY do not want to impose their values on others through the power of the state, THEY aren’t the ones who are writing the letters and so forth to support the WHG Amendment.
Yet there’s no denying that a politically powerful and active group of religious types definitely IS doing just that, a group numbering in the millions.
So we have … about a dozen SDMB posters vs. millions of WHG Amendment supporters. Draw your own conclusions about which is more typical of religious thought generally in the U.S. Of course, it can and will be pointed out that it’s unfair to compare posters on an Internet discussion board, however mighty, with the full breadth of the American religious right. But really … I don’t see a lot of religous OPPOSITION to the WHG Amendment. Certainly the politicians believe that the vast majority of religious people supports the WhG Amendment. I don’t see ANYONE saying, “Wait a minute, there is a HUGE number of religious folk who oppose this Amendment.”
It’s unfair of course to judge individual posters on this thread by the standards by their millions of brethren who support the WHG Amendment, but I would argue that, however honest their viewpoints and feelings, they serve the purpose of giving a false front of rationality and civility to a very ugly beast.
I think that you need to understand that behavior that is boorish at a cocktail party is perfectly acceptable on a message board. The SDMB exists as a medium for, you know, discussion–if we were to censor subjects to only the safely noncontroversial, the life would drain out of this place like helium from a balloon.
While discussing religion is Just Not Done at a party, it’s the raison d’etre of a board like this.
AS you noted, I don’t care what beliefs others hold because other folks’ private convictions are none of my concern. However, when other folks decide that they have the right to enforce their orthodoxy on me, then I have a problem. When fundie Christians maintain that they have the right to censor my behavior and to make their religion’s ethos binding on me, I’m going to give them some backtalk.
As I said, in a discussion about religion, I would have no other way to discuss it. I suppose I could say, “religion is based in superstition and has no scientific means to back it up, and anyone who believes it has blinders on”, but it amounts to the same thing. How else would I state my viewpoint?
No, not if they were making a comment in passing. But again, in a discussion on religion specifically, I would probably say something to that effect. Maybe not quite as direct, but more like “religious people in general” rather than “you.” I’m not just going around with a sign and a red “D”, slapping them on each person that walks out of the church.
Well, I’d have to hear exactly what your statement was, but if it was done in a “witnessing” sort of way, or if it was phrased as a question, I can see where their reaction came from. If this was just unprovoked meanness, than no, I don’t agree with that at all.
Yes, I understand that you are not one of the people who wants to push christian faith into government. I appreciate that. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of them out there who would love nothing more than to do just that. THOSE people are the ones who are mainly being addressed in this thread.
I just don’t see how an opposing viewpoint is necessarily insulting or condescending.
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t see how you can hold a discussion on the subject without stating your feelings on the matter. I agree that words can probably be chosen more carefully than they sometimes are (I regret to say I’m sure I’ve been guilty of picking the wrong ones on more than one occasion). For that I apologize. But again, when talking about civil rights, anyone who backs these proposed bills deserves to be confronted verbally. To tell them they’re deluded will be one of the lighter phrases that comes out of my mouth.
Smoochies to you too, honeybuns.
Personally, I’ve started to pretty much ignore anyone whose only argument translates to “you can’t paint such a broad brush because there are exceptions.”
Taking that trope literally, zero tolerance, whatever, would stymie any and all debate, on any subject.
As a moderately intelligent person, I expect that to a universal given in debate, and recognize its use as desperation and defensiveness. I expect other moderately intelligent person to work from the same baseline, something to the effect that, since it’s a given that there’s an exception to every rule (including this one), we will understand that such exceptions do NOT prove the role, and tangents based only on exceptions are blind alleys and strawmen and are more lethal to an intelligent debate than calling your “opponent” a Nazi.
By trotting out the “fundies who like homos” every time this debate gets re-aired, you’re suggesting that one cannot protest against the majority view of ANY ideologically identified group of people; that you must take the rare exception as a veto of the entire discussion.
In other words, trotting out that kind of bullshit is a thinly veiled attempt to end debate entirely, and so I will ignore it.
lissener: Arguments such as the one you seem to be espousing are a considerable source of consternation to me.
In effect, you seem to be saying “It’s okay to stereotype any group of people, if the majority share a common characteristic.” Sure, we all accept that there will be exceptions to every rule. But failing to acknowledge those exceptions is to willfully embrace ignorance. I honestly don’t understand why anyone would want to travel that road.
For that reason, gobear has been careful to limit his rant to those who oppose what he wants.
I don’t think anyone here is trying to say gobear doesn’t have the right to protest. It’s the direction of his protest which has drawn fire, and the tone of it. However, it seems like most (with a couple notable exceptions) are on gobear’s side of things. I’d challenge you to show a strong trend of people here trying to stifle gobear’s protest. I see quite the opposite – people encouraging gobear to protest but helping him do so more accurately.
Two full paragraphs and three extra orphan sentences. Way to ignore it there, dude. :rolleyes:
I agree that stereotyping is bad but I thought **Lissener ** had a valid point. Whenever a group is condemned for their activities, some other poster will invariably point out that “They aren’t all like that” and then the debate dies. Every group has exceptions and we all know that. When the exceptions are a tiny minority, the group under discussion shouldn’t get a pass for their actions.
Regards
Testy
The exceptions have been acknowledged about a dozen times here. If there’s anyone here who believes that on the whole, the Fundamentalist Christian Right really DOES want to be known as a pro-gay, anti-religion-in-government organization, please state your case and the debate can begin here.
I’m waiting…
I’m waaaaiiiiiting…
Well, see, that goes back to what the goal of this whole effort is. If the goal is to debate on who we can safely stereotype, or who we can paint into a corner, then I think this approach is valid. If the goal is to oppose the gay-marriage amendment, and to ensure that the word “gay” can effectively be removed as a modifier for the word “U.S. citizen” when it comes to apportioning rights under law, then I think that point is moot.
Kalhoun: It’s obvious that many elements of the fundamentalist Right do want to codify their beliefs. What I (and some others) are attempting to show is that the efforts by those folks have been weakening their position and their influence among many of the laypeople they supposedly represent. I honestly believe the Religious Right will begin to see a serious erosion of their clout – perhaps as early as the November election. This, in turn, will cause them to become more shrill and more divisive, so in the short term they may make more noise and rattle more sabers. In the long run, though, they’re doomed to failure.
[QUOTE=Sauron]
Well, see, that goes back to what the goal of this whole effort is. If the goal is to debate on who we can safely stereotype, or who we can paint into a corner, then I think this approach is valid. If the goal is to oppose the gay-marriage amendment, and to ensure that the word “gay” can effectively be removed as a modifier for the word “U.S. citizen” when it comes to apportioning rights under law, then I think that point is moot.
<SNIP>
QUOTE]
I don’t see this as stereotyping. There are many Christian fundamentalist groups that are actively and publicly pushing for this amendment. There are other Christian organizations (fundy or otherwise) that are neutral. Gobear calling them out for their actions or apathy is hardly stereotyping to my mind. There may be dissent within a given group but the dissenters are obviously a minority or the group would be acting differently.
Regards
Testy
Stereotyping an individual is always wrong. Discussing certain generalizations about certain groups can be useful in certain debates, as long as these are carefully and narrowly defined.
“You, the fundie in the red hat, YOU are a homophobe!” is wrong.
“Fundies who work to limit the rights of gay people are ignorant of church/state constitutional issues” is a debatable statement, but it’s perfectly acceptable in a discussion of gay marriage.
lissener: I agree completely with your last post. And thanks for the clarification.
Question.
If Bush does NOT get re elected (I am praying for this), then is the whole Constitutional Amendment thing over?
Is he the only one who wants to do this?
And if there is no amendment (forgive me, I do not know a lot about this so inform me) then is gay marriage legal, and where?
Less rudely and in a less insulting manner, for starters.
Do you really have to say, “anyone who believes it has blinders on” directly to one of those folks who you know “has blinders on”? You obviously know it’s going to be insulting to them. What do you anticipate that their response will be? What is your response when some Christian tells you that you have blinders on? Does that further the conversation in a happy, productive manner for you, or does it just piss you off?
Well, at least that’s something. 
But I still don’t understand why you must tell someone who is religious that you basically think they’re deluded. Is it mandatory to be directly insulting to them, especially if they’ve taken pains not to be directly insulting to you? What do you hope to accomplish?
No, trust me, I was not “witnessing” and I wasn’t asking them a question that required a 10-15 minute atheist lecture.
What I think it was was hypocrisy. They could tell that I wasn’t about to dish out any preaching (I made that clear with my opening statement), but since they had a “live one” (a real live Christian in their midst) they couldn’t resist giving me “the treatment.” Whether I deserved it, or asked for it it any way.
Of course, if they had been at a similar party and a group of Christians had cornered them and given them a similar “treatment,” that would have been completely out of line, I am sure. But it’s okay for them to do that to someone like me. Okey-dokey.
Agreed. Sure, yeah.
My little “sub-topic” has been about the needless insulting of people who are supportive and are not harmful. I don’t see how anything good comes from such behavior.
Oh, there are a ton of ways to present an opposing viewpoint without being insulting or condescending. I’ve a rich history of having pretty nice conversations with non-Christians and non-religious folk about such matters, where we both came away feeling enlightened and not at all insulted.
For instance, an atheist can tell me how “it doesn’t work for them” or they can tell how it doesn’t add up for them. They can tell me about some of the research they did on the matter and why they came to the conclusions they did. I usually find such conversations interesting. I won’t argue with them over their personal feelings and I wouldn’t dream of preaching to them.
They can also tell me how they’ve been treated like crap by some religious folk and I’ll definitely sympathize with that (and have many times). I think that’s why this whole thing frustrates me all the more. I will sympathize when they tell me of some obnoxious or hurtful religious folk, but I get no support or sympathy when I am similarly insulted or treated in an obnoxious way by a non-religious person? Why is this?
If someone wants to piss me off, all they need to do is say, “Such a belief is obviously absurd and I can’t believe that anyone in the 21st Century can be so deluded as to still believe that.” Or, “Anyone who believes that is misguided” since, obviously, here I am, right in front of them, one of the “deluded” ones. How can they think that would not hurt me or offend me? Especially since I’m making a point of not saying similar insulting things to them? (In other words, I didn’t “start” anything.)
And another way to really win me over is to do the “puzzling lab experiment” routine, where they ponder and analyze, “What made you think this absurd thing? What is your background? Don’t you see how stupid it is? You seem so bright, and I am concerned that you still hold such obviously irrational and illogical beliefs.”
Yeah. Everybody loves being talked to like that.
And I think you can state your feelings on the matter (you don’t believe, you don’t think it holds water, you don’t think it adds up) without simultaniously insulting those who do believe.
I agree too and I appreciate the apology.
All I’m asking for is some tactfulness and thoughtfulness put into how you express your opinion. I don’t want for you to not state your beliefs, because frankly, I find others’ viewpoints very interesting. I just appreciate it when you state your opinoins in a manner that isn’t simultaniously insulting to some of the rest of us, when we are not intending to insult you.
For instance, I can say that I don’t like Country music, that it really does nothing for me, without having to insult all the Country music fans. I can cite my own background (growing up listening to Classical music), I can state that I have a different musical sensibility and that I’m really not interested in being “introduced” to Country. I can say a million things that will get across the notion that I Am Not A Fan And Never Will Be without saying one damned thing about those who do adore Country music.
Now, granted, some Country music fans are so defensive that any mention of not being a fan is enough to piss them off. There’s nothing anyone can do about such people. I’m not suggesting walking on eggshells around similarly defensive religious folk. All I’m saying is that you can express your tastes, your background, your feelings, without saying something insulting about the “other side.”
Yeah, they do. And I can do that, along with you. We’re both on the same side. I’m not on the “other side.” You accomplish nothing good by phrasing your opinions in a way that are guaranteed to insult me. It’s not mandatory to insult me since I’m not trying to insult you.
Deluded because they believe that it’s okay to oppress others. Not necessarily because of their religion. As Tris and others have said, this is really about hate, not about religion. If it were only about religion, then all religious folk would hate, and not all of us do.
Yes, it does, and it has, for centuries. In fact, it might be argued that the athiest/agnostic’s contempt for certain segments of religious persons is a reaction to the contempt that said segmants of religious persons have lorded over us for so long. How contemptuous and insulting is it to be told you’re going to hell because you fail to buy some idea that can’t even stand under scrutiny? This backlash has been coming for a long time and I’m all for it, in many respects. Like Bob Dylan I ask: How does it feel?
I believe, as does gobear, as well as many other dopers aooarently, that fundamentalist Christians are intolerant, ignorant, hateful people. The important part of that, which I am sure will be missed as it has been missed time and time in this debate, in this thread, and countless others, is that criticism is directed at fundamentalist Christians, which in no way includes all Christians.
I was raised fundamentalist Christian as a child, but the ignorance of that life was slowly erased as I became familiar with the world outside the closely protected inner circle of Church of Christ followers. It would have taken a great deal of willful ignorance for me to cling to those beliefs. I AM smarter than that, and I AM morally superior to them as a result of my relinquishing such an irrational lifestyle and trying to battle the negative effects of such people in this world.
Go, gobear!
[quote]
Sauron: In effect, you seem to be saying “It’s okay to stereotype any group of people, if the majority share a common characteristic.” *
I’m going to attempt to lay this argument to rest once and for all.
Saying that whites are violent, hateful people is wrong.
Saying that KKK members are violent, hateful people would not be wrong.
Likewise, it is not okay to say “Christians are hateful ignorant people,” but it is perfectly okay to say “Fundamentalist Christians are hateful ignorant people.”
Ideally, terms like some or most or many would serve to qualify such an argument, but that doesn’t always happen. That’s the nature of language: we like to take the shortcut.
So, in this thread, Sauron, there is not an attempt to stereotype or express prejudice, rather, something is being is said about a subset of a group, and valid arguments are made as to why those things are being said.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, mainstream Christians, tolerant Christians would do well and be served greatly if they would loudly and publicly denounce and distance themselves from “fundies.” The same holds true, IMHO, for mainstream, tolerant Muslims and their fundamentalist counterparts. The names and reputations of your religions are being hijacked by fanatics. Organizing against them with the spirit that they organize against everyone not inside their community, I believe, would go a long way to creating a more reasonable view of religion in general (at least in America).