Why defend fundies if we are at war with ignorance?

[yosemite]

@presidebt

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.

Oh, certainly. I’m very well aware of that. But it isn’t any excuse to crap on someone who doesn’t deserve the “backlash” since they never contributed to any of the crap.

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?

This is the kind of crap I’m talking about. This is what I’ve heard before: “Now you know how it feels.” That implies that I need to know how it feels, because I’ve dished it out myself and I need a taste of my own medicine. But I’ve never dished it out and I don’t need any “lessons,” thank you.

Don’t you see the double standard and hypocisy there? Don’t you see how obnoxious that is? So you think it’s okay to crap on a lot of people, including those who very well may have never done one crappy thing to you and yours? How is this productive?

Look—I have been given crap in my life too. Nothing that would compare to what others here have gotten, but I’ve got a little taste of what it feels like to be a social leper. And you know what that experience has taught me? To NEVER do that to anyone else. One of my friends, a fellow I love dearly, exudes that same sensibility. He’s gay. He knows how crappy it can be to be treated like a social leper and it almost seems to physically pain him to see others treated that way.

I’d prefer to be more like him instead of, apparently, some of the rest of you with this “backlash” bullshit. Sheesh.

I believe, as does gobear, as well as many other dopers aooarently, that fundamentalist Christians are intolerant, ignorant, hateful people.

If you’d been reading this thread, you’d see that it’s not quite so easy to paint all Fundamentalist Christians in this way. Many examples have been given of fundies that are not hateful and aren’t out to oppress others. Hell, in some corners I’m probably considered a fundamentalist. So does that make me automatically hateful?

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.

We got that. You’re the one that’s not getting it. Not all fundies are alike. That’s been clarified on this thread. Please try to keep up.

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.

And you’re also oozing smug superiority. Charming.

[presidebt]

@yosemitebabe

If you’d been reading this thread, you’d see that it’s not quite so easy to paint all Fundamentalist Christians in this way. Many examples have been given of fundies that are not hateful and aren’t out to oppress others. Hell, in some corners I’m probably considered a fundamentalist. So does that make me automatically hateful?

And guess what? Not all KKK members kill black people or burn crosses. Yet society has deemed that just believing that’s okay is enough to villify them. Likewise, my philosophy is is that just believing gays are immoral is enough to villify someone, whether they go out and beat up a gay man or not. Just believing that the world is 6,000 years old, without personally lobbying your congressperson to get evolution out of the schools and creation in, is reason enough to think someone is ignorant and destructive.

That’s the analogy I’m using.

You seem to be taking all this rather personally. Why? You say you do not fit the definition of the people who are being criticized, and yet you feel personally insulted. I’m befuddled.

And you’re also oozing smug superiority. Charming.

Actually, I was toning it down. You have no idea the loathing I feel for my former congregation, and indeed, any who espouse such views. I could quote some Cathy Irwin if you’d like…

And you were sounding a bit smug there towards the end yourself. I do not begrudge you for it.

[Shodan]

@gobear

It is extremely obvious that Mel is aiming for the fundie market because he has trotted out the film for conventions of the more conservative Protestant sects and his marketing department has urged fundie churches to buy blocks of tickets to use as evangelization tools.

If you want to provide a cite, it would be welcome.

I was aware that Gibson showed his film to the Pope, who is neither Protestant nor a fundamentalist, and I am not aware that Gibson has made any special effort to encourage fundamentalist churches to attend the movie more than other denominations.

As far as I can tell, Gibson is encouraging everyone to see the film, as any other movie-maker would do. He is not targetting fundamentalists, but Christians in general, and I have never heard him say anything that would lead me to conclude otherwise. I think you are still making the mistake of lumping all churches together with fundamentalist churches.

@gobear

Passion plays are for the faitful, not the unchurched.

Oberammergau seems to be doing OK, and I doubt they limit themselves to fundamentalists.

@gobear

I hope your rash is better.

Thank you.

And I hope your health is better still now.

Regards,
Shodan

[yosemite]

@presidebt

And guess what? Not all KKK members kill black people or burn crosses. Yet society has deemed that just believing that’s okay is enough to villify them. Likewise, my philosophy is is that just believing gays are immoral is enough to villify someone, whether they go out and beat up a gay man or not.

And we have demonstrated on this thread that not all so-called “fundies” believe gays are immoral.

And you know what else? Since when are you the thought police? If someone believes something but does nothing harmful, what exactly is the problem?

Just believing that the world is 6,000 years old, without personally lobbying your congressperson to get evolution out of the schools and creation in, is reason enough to think someone is ignorant and destructive.

Ignorant? Yes, if you choose to see it that way. Destructive? How?

Once again, are you the thought police? Why do you give a damn what people believe, as long as they aren’t imposing it on others?

You seem to be taking all this rather personally. Why? You say you do not fit the definition of the people who are being criticized, and yet you feel personally insulted. I’m befuddled.

Befuddled? No. Clueless is more like it.

I am taking this personally because plenty of time I have been insulted. I, who make it clear that I have no bone to pick and don’t want to oppress anyone or preach any sermons. I, and people like me, are insulted as well. And if we complain, we are sometimes told, “Now you know what it feels like.” That takes the cake.

That’s been my whole damned point. How many times do I need to repeat it?

Actually, I was toning it down. You have no idea the loathing I feel for my former congregation, and indeed, any who espouse such views.

It’s understandable to feel contempt for those specific individuals who you know have hateful and oppressive beliefs and behaviors. It’s not fine to feel contempt for those who you don’t know at all, and merely assume share the same beliefs (even though, as has been clarified on this thread, they may not). When you insult and berate perfectly harmless people, what do you accomplish, exactly?

And you were sounding a bit smug there towards the end yourself.

Was I insulting you for your beliefs? Was I treating you like you were some deluded lab experiment? Please copy and past where.

If I feel a little smug because I’d prefer to emulate my one friend who doesn’t want to shit on other people (because he knows how it feels), then fine. I will cop to that. But I’d like you to give me some quotes where I’ve oozed smug superiority because I’m so much more educated, enlightened, and non-irrational than all you atheists.

[gobear]

As far as I can tell, Gibson is encouraging everyone to see the film, as any other movie-maker would do. He is not targetting fundamentalists, but Christians in general, and I have never heard him say anything that would lead me to conclude otherwise.

Point acknowledged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobear
Passion plays are for the faithful, not the unchurched.

Oberammergau seems to be doing OK, and I doubt they limit themselves to fundamentalists

Ah, but I didn’t mention fundamentalists; I said that passion plays are aimed at the faithful, not the unchurched, and I stand by that statement. The evangelical churches that are using this as an outreach tool to reach the lost are, IMO, wasting their time. I saw the film today, and although it’s a powerful depiction of Christ’s suffering, it lacks context for people who do not know or understand the concept of the Atonement. Why is Christ being tortured? How does killing Him redeem me? are just a couple of the questions the non-Bible-reading heathen are likely to ask. It’s not clearly discussed in the film. It’s incredibly moving for people who already believe, but it’s not likely to lead a non-Christian to a lasting conversion.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@presidebt

And guess what? Not all KKK members kill black people or burn crosses. Yet society has deemed that just believing that’s okay is enough to villify them.

Yeah, and society has also deemed My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance quality entertainment. That’s probably not the benchmark you want to be using to make your point.

Likewise, my philosophy is is that just believing gays are immoral is enough to villify someone, whether they go out and beat up a gay man or not. Just believing that the world is 6,000 years old, without personally lobbying your congressperson to get evolution out of the schools and creation in, is reason enough to think someone is ignorant and destructive.

How is someone who believes homosexual sex to be immoral, yet doesn’t bring it up unless asked, vilifying anyone? And I would love to hear how a creationist who doesn’t try to remove the teaching of evolution from public schools is destructive.

That’s the analogy I’m using.

Your analogy is flawed.

You seem to be taking all this rather personally. Why? You say you do not fit the definition of the people who are being criticized, and yet you feel personally insulted. I’m befuddled.

I’m offended that there are people out there trying to force the proposed Constitutional amendment through. Does that befuddle you?

[presidebt]

@yosemitebabe

And we have demonstrated on this thread that not all so-called “fundies” believe gays are immoral.

And you know what else? Since when are you the thought police? If someone believes something but does nothing harmful, what exactly is the problem?

I do not believe that having no moral quandry with homosexuality is either a) the norm for fundamentalist Christians or b) significantly representative of them to make my argument moot. A member of the KKK, no matter what their level of participation, is not someone I want to know, and I’d posit they aren’t someone many people want to know. They certianly deserve nothing but my disdain and contempt.

And I’m not the thought police, I never claimed I was. I have no idea whose ass you pulled that one out of, but it sure wasn’t mine. I am free, AS YOU ARE FREE, to belive any damn thing I want to and to think any damn thing I want and doing so does not make me the “thought police.” What a childish charge… I seek to limit the freedoms of no one. I simply refuse to grant legitimacy to a segment of the Christian population that continues to work actively to set civil liberties back as far as they possibly can.

Ignorant? Yes, if you choose to see it that way. Destructive? How?

These people have children, whom they pass on these ideas to, without ever giving those children a fair shot at learning something different. My daughter asked me recently for a bible. Guess what she got? A freakin’ bible. I dare you to find a single fundamentalist family that might encourage their children to read something that is total anathema to their beliefs.

Once again, are you the thought police? Why do you give a damn what people believe, as long as they aren’t imposing it on others?

Once again, I’m not the thought police. Think what you want, but if it comes up in conversation, I might be inclined to comment on it with my own opinion. You also might not like how I say it, but that isn’t my concern. There isn’t enough honesty in this world, IMHO, and we’d often (though not always) do well to say what we really think.

Befuddled? No. Clueless is more like it.

So we’re two clueless gits then. Fine by me. Wanna join my Bitch Club? You’d fit right in.

I am taking this personally because plenty of time I have been insulted.

Practice what you preach much? Did I insult you, personally? No, I made useful generalizations about a subset of a group.

How many times do I need to repeat it?

Repeat as often as you like, but know this: I don’t give a damn. Maybe that’s harsh, but the truth often is, and this is the Pit.

When you insult and berate perfectly harmless people, what do you accomplish, exactly?

See, you see them as harmless; I do not. Mostly I aim just to shut them the fuck up with regard to the religious conversation they started. (Not saying you started this one, but I’m referring to how this manifests itself IRL) I do not go about berating people I see as harmless. In fact, I don’t think I’ve berated anyone here, until this post, just stated my opinion.

Was I insulting you for your beliefs? Was I treating you like you were some deluded lab experiment? Please copy and past where.

You did say “Please try and keep up” and even insinuated I hadn’t read this thread, which I did. That sounds pretty smug to me. I wasn’t aware that the definition of smug was “an attitude characterized by insulting other’s beliefs and treating them like lab experiments.” Or any of the definitional insinuations you make below…Is that OED or Merriam you’re using?

If I feel a little smug because I’d prefer to emulate my one friend who doesn’t want to shit on other people (because he knows how it feels), then fine. I will cop to that. But I’d like you to give me some quotes where I’ve oozed smug superiority because I’m so much more educated, enlightened, and non-irrational than all you atheists.

I don’t care if you’re smug. Go for it, but keep in mind, kettle, that it reflects back on you, because you’re the one who cares.

[yosemite]

@presidebt

A member of the KKK, no matter what their level of participation, is not someone I want to know, and I’d posit they aren’t someone many people want to know.

Who says you have to know them? You can stay clear away from them if you like.

They certianly deserve nothing but my disdain and contempt.

So you think that the KKK member who does nothing destructive or harmful, just has thoughts in his head, is the same as the KKK member who actively burns crosses?

And I’m not the thought police, I never claimed I was.

You act like the Thought Police.

It isn’t just about what people do with you, it’s what they think. Their thoughts are dangerous too. You just stated that in a previous post.

So, tell me, are people’s private thoughts, when they are not backed up with action, (and never will be) so “dangerous”? Why?

These people have children, whom they pass on these ideas to, without ever giving those children a fair shot at learning something different.

And every damned parent on the planet does this. In small things, in large things. In what they wear, what they eat, where they travel, what kinds of movies they watch, what sort of music they listen to. Each parent impresses upon their kids their own values and tastes. They may not forbid the kid from trying other things and exploring new ideas, but do you seriously think a kid who is raised, for instance, in a vegetarian household is going to grow up with the same views about animals and food as a meat-and-potatoes family?

There’s no way to escape it. But hey, if we want to go down that road, I could say that since I am a vegetarian, I feel that all parents are raising their kids to eat meat are “dangerous,” even though they aren’t forcing the kids to eat meat. I’m sure you’d find that enchanting, wouldn’t you?

Practice what you preach much? Did I insult you, personally? No, I made useful generalizations about a subset of a group.

We’ve gone over this. Somebody is not making a “useful generalization” about a subset of a group when they make insulting comments about the deluded belief in an “archaic God.”

You are also not winning any points when you insult someone who is on your side, simply because they happen to belong to this subset that you’ve decided is worthy of contempt. Newsflash: No one likes to be insulted or berated for something they haven’t done.

Repeat as often as you like, but know this: I don’t give a damn. Maybe that’s harsh, but the truth often is, and this is the Pit.

And then why do you expect others to give a damn about your feelings?

See, this is that double-standard thing I was talking about.

See, you see them as harmless; I do not.

Yeah. That’s because you are the thought police.

They are “harmless” when they don’t hate you. They are “harmless” when they don’t want to hurt you—when the thought of hurting you or anyone else upsets them terribly. They are “harmless” when they have so-called “crackpot” beliefs that they keep to themselves, while simultaniously fighting for equality for all, in the name of fairness.

And yet you still believe they are dangerous? Why? Because of their thoughts?

That makes you the Thought Police, m’dear.

You did say “Please try and keep up” and even insinuated I hadn’t read this thread, which I did. That sounds pretty smug to me.

No, that’s sarcastic.

Please try to keep up. <—sarcasm

I wasn’t aware that the definition of smug was “an attitude characterized by insulting other’s beliefs and treating them like lab experiments.”

But that’s how I was using it. That was the kind of oozing smugness I was talking about.

Hey, I’m smug about a lot of things. I’m smug because I have a killer Jerry Goldsmith CD collection. Does that mean that I’m the same as those who are oozingly smug, believing they are superior, more enlightened beings? I don’t think so.

[Epimetheus]

yosemitebabe: Some people in this thread “claim” to be fundies, yet none of them has fit the criteria in my previous link, have you even read it yourself?

Perhaps you should take a gander before you continue this discussion.

Or is wikipedia not a good enough cite for you?

[Epimetheus]

well, perhaps with the excepton of JerseyDiamond.

[yosemite]

@Epimetheus

yosemitebabe: Some people in this thread “claim” to be fundies, yet none of them has fit the criteria in my previous link, have you even read it yourself?

Perhaps you should take a gander before you continue this discussion.

Are you ignoring the part of the discussion where I talk about the condescending smugness directed at anyone who believes in an “archaic God”? Or the derision and obnoxiousness directed at people who are not part of the problem (no matter what their label)?

[Epimetheus]

another link, one that they mention, but don’t link to in the wikipedia link, but is worth noting: The Five fundementals of christian faith:

http://www.martygrant.com/christian/fundamentals.htm

Note especially this one:

The Bible is the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth

The Bible is the Inspired (and complete) Word of God. We can believe that every word in the scripture is there because God wanted it there (in the original Hebrew and Greek). Our modern translations may have minor translation problems, but nothing serious (though some modern translations are nothing short of blasphemous). I use the King James Version mainly, but use more modern translations as well.

We have a complete revelation. We need no “new revelations”. When I first became a believer, I made the mistake of attending a United Pentecostal Church, where every single service, the preacher told how God “spoke to him last night” and gave him some new revelation or prophecy. Well, it wasn’t God speaking to him, as none of the prophecy’s came to pass. We have the scriptures, and we need no new revelation. I believe that we can (and do) receive (via the Holy Spirit) personal revelations, of importance only to ourselves and families. However, many of these Evangelical preachers receiving new revelations from “God” every day are following another spirit, another Christ, and another Gospel, for they almost always contradict the scripture we were given. Verify every thing with the Scripture. If it contradicts the scripture, then it isn’t of God.

If you don’t believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then you might as well throw your copy away, and live anyway you please, for if it isn’t the truth, then there is no truth. You either believe it or you don’t.

[Epimetheus]

@yosemitebabe

Are you ignoring the part of the discussion where I talk about the condescending smugness directed at anyone who believes in an “archaic God”? Or the derision and obnoxiousness directed at people who are not part of the problem (no matter what their label)?

Not really, because it is a seperate issue. You are clearly saying “Not all fundies are bad, as evidenced by this thread.” I am arguing this, and am not following your political correct argument about smugness or whatnot. I think it is obvious that you know I have very much not ignored it, as evidenced my my post you even resonded to.

Orginally quoted by you:

And we have demonstrated on this thread that not all so-called “fundies” believe gays are immoral.

And I am saying if they are so called “fundies” and tey don’t feel that homosexuality is immoral, then they are NOT fundies. This is the argument, since you seem to be having trouble following it.

[presidebt]

@yosemitebabe

when they make insulting comments about the deluded belief in an “archaic God.”

I’m bowing out of this dialogue with you because we’re rehashing the same shit over and over. Just one last parting question: Where did I ever use the term, “archaic god” or say anyone was deluded? Your martyr complex is showing, dear…

[presidebt]

Damn, should’ve read the enire post before replying.

@yosemitebabe

And then why do you expect others to give a damn about your feelings?

See, this is that double-standard thing I was talking about.

Double standard my ass. When did I ever say I expected anyone to give a damn about my feelings? I don’t expect any such thing. Please quite projecing your issues onto me.

Yeah. That’s because you are the thought police.

This is still stupid. I’m not demanding anyone quit thinking the way they think. The views and opinions of people, however, do inform my opinion of them, and I will chose MY level of involvement with such persons based on my perception of them. You seem to think I should want to give time and energy to any person who comes down the pipeline, as if they had a right to my time, or to participate in my life. Get over it.

Hey, I’m smug about a lot of things. I’m smug because I have a killer Jerry Goldsmith CD collection. Does that mean that I’m the same as those who are oozingly smug, believing they are superior, more enlightened beings? I don’t think so.

Holy crap, you sure make a lot of leaps in your reasoning. Carry-over I guess. When did I say I was enlightened? I said I was morally superior to and smarter than members of my ex-church and those who also espouse such views. For you to be offended by this, you’d have to own up to being like my ex-church associates, and you continue to insist this isn’t the case. So assume it doesn’t apply to you and be done with it. Quite trying to turn everything I say into a personal insult against you.

[yosemite]

@presidebt

I’m bowing out of this dialogue with you because we’re rehashing the same shit over and over. Just one last parting question: Where did I ever use the term, “archaic god” or say anyone was deluded?

You didn’t. Did I say that you did? I thought I made a point of saying that those who do say that. If I mistakenly claimed that you, specifically, said that, I apologize.

So, are you claiming that you don’t have any condescending feelings towards those who believe in a God?

Epimetheus, conceded, probably many fundies do believe that homosexuality is immorral. I’ll have to disagree with you on any cut-and-dried definitition of fundie, though. I’m a vegetarian and we never can agree on what exactly a vegetarian is (do they eat chicken? fish?) and while I have my firm beliefs on the proper definition, I’d be a fool to think that everyone agrees with me. A lot of people self-identify and vegetarian and as fundy, even though you (or I) might not consider them so. And a lot of people label others as fundy (or vegetarian) even though (once again), you or I would not agree.

But getting past the labels, my main beef has been with the condescending or insulting treatment of those with a faith, particularly those who are fair-minded and don’t wish to oppress (even if they have some so-called “fundy” beliefs). Bottom line: why insult those who aren’t hurting you and wish no harm to you?

[presidebt]

@yosemitebabe

And every damned parent on the planet does this. In small things, in large things.

Finally, perhaps not every parent, or did you miss the fact that I, an athiest, gave my child a bible when she asked for it? Your claim is bullshit justification, IMO.

[MrVisible]

I’d like to thank Yosemitebabe for her brilliant illustration of how even non-gay-hating believers are making this fight harder for gays.

If she’d spent half the effort in supporting gay rights as she has on smugly distinguishing herself from the ravening mindless hoarde of her fellow fundies, she’d have actually done the world some good.

[Epimetheus]

Ok, but I don’t think using vegetarianism is the best analogy. There are many types of vegetarianism, many of which are designated and defined quite clearly. Many still eat meat, though fish, and some even chicken.

Fundies, however, all have one main thing in common (to be accurately called a fundie), and that is following the five fundementals. I am sure many fundies are vegetarians, but that doesn’t mean that all fundies are vegetarians, I agree. They all have to, by definition, follow-strictly- the five fundementals though. (many fundie sites refer to people that don’t follow all of them strictly such things as heathens, and “not really a christian”)

[presidebt]

@yosemitebabe

So, are you claiming that you don’t have any condescending feelings towards those who believe in a God?
But getting past the labels, my main beef has been with the condescending or insulting treatment of those with a faith, particularly those who are fair-minded and don’t wish to oppress (even if they have some so-called “fundy” beliefs). Bottom line: why insult those who aren’t hurting you and wish no harm to you?

This is why the conversation is still going on ten pages later. Because people like you insist on extrapolating any criticism of fundamentalist Christians to apply to “those who believe in a God,” which is not true.

And you aren’t paying attention. Last time: I am not condescending to all Christians. I AM condecending to fundamentalist Christians (and to narrow this down so you can put your mind around it) who believe the bible is the literal owrd of god, hate homosexuals and believe the earth is 6,00 years old.

Game over.