It is absolutely okay to provoke religious fundamentalists

[FLPanhandle]

In fact, we should not submit to following any religion's rules of behavior in order to "not offend".

I don't care if it's drawing a cartoon, or sitting next to a woman on a plane, or gay marriage, or abortion.

We should always refuse to obey their silly rules, furthermore we should ACTIVELY oppose their rules. If they want to obey their own rules fine, but they can't expect to force others to follow them. As an atheist, I bristle at any pressure or threats religious groups make to impose their to get other people to not offend or inflame them.

In fact, if we don't push back, we, in effect, succumb to their rules.

We SHOULD actively seek to offend the religious, and we should ALWAYS refuse to follow their rules especially when they try to bully us with threats and violence.

[guillaumeb]

1. Is it also acceptable to provoke fundamentalist type atheists?

How about incitement? Is that also a good idea?

[FLPanhandle]

3. If I tried to impose some atheist rule on you

Whatever that might be, then, yes, it's a great idea to push back.

[Renew Deal]

95. Do you use the N word?

[gcomeau]

119. You may be missing the meaning of "fundamentalism" here. -eom

[Renew Deal]

129. I'm asking for a different reason.

The "rules"

[gcomeau]

139. The ones the OP is speaking of...

...being imposed *by fundamentalists*?

[Renew Deal]

180. In your opinion

But how we label these people is irrelevant. There are people that think using the N word is wrong. Does it matter how we label the people that believe this?

[gcomeau]

231. If you sincerely don't comprehend...

...the difference between socially unacceptable racist slurs and someone trying to tell you you're not allowed to act in a manner their magic deity disapproves of there is really no helping you.

[Renew Deal]

234. Now you see the point.

Both are socially unacceptable. You agree with one, but not the other.

This is how I see this incident: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026622382

[gcomeau]

237. Umm, what?

Both are socially unacceptable.

Both WHAT?

Both calling someone the "N" word and trying to force people to abide by your religious proclamations? Umm, YES. And I disagree with BOTH in case you missed it.

[azureblue]

107. like they say

you can believe the moon is made of green cheese. Just keep it to yourself, and I won't try to convince you it's really made of cheddar.

[mindwalker_i]

149. No way dude

It's ricotta. And it goes really well in pasta shells, with mmon pie for dessert.

[Jamastiene]

182. No way. It's cottage cheese.

I'm sure of it. You cannot convince me it is any other cheese. I'll stick my fingers in my ears and go, "Lalallalaa, I can't hear you."

[sufrommich]

10. What is a "fundamentalist atheist"??

[guillaumeb]

18. Someone who exhibits much the same behavior as a religious fundamentalist

Some examples are:
1) atheists who insist, with no real proof, that their particular beliefs are more valid than the beliefs of others. And also
2) atheists who "worship" people like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. This type of atheist uncritically accepts whatever Dawkins says on the subject of faith because Dawkins' particular "faith phobia" accords with what the individual atheist also believes.
3) atheists who feel that their atheism "proves" that they are smarter than people of faith.
4) atheists who feel that their "belief" that there is no creator is more valid than a person of faiths "belief" in a creator.

Thank you for asking.

[sufrommich]

23. Atheism is a lack of belief,there is no "worship", no prayers,

no book to follow,no deities.There is noting to be fundamentalist about.

[guillaumeb]

28. Agreed.

Atheists cannot literally be fundamentalist in a religious sense. Perhaps I should have said "exhibiting rigid thinking in the manner of many fundamentalists".

[TexasProgresive]

44. Ahh, then it's like

Cold is the absence of heat.
Dark is the absence of light.
Numbness is the absence of feeling.
Death is the absence of life.
Ignorance is absence of knowledge.
Bigotry is the absence of acceptance.

[geek tragedy]

52. My understanding is that you're describing agnosticism.

Both an atheist and an agnostic can say "I do not believe in the existence of a supreme being."

However, an agnostic arrives at that from the position of ignorance--"I don't know enough to form a belief."

An atheist affirmatively believes in the non-existenceof any supreme being, i.e "I know there is no God."

The USSR came close to fundamentalist atheism, imo.

[Marr]

81. Atheism is not a positive statement that there is no god.

It's a lack of religious belief, that's all. Agnostics say they don't know, and atheists say the same. The implied difference, if there is one, is that agnostics give the notion of a supreme being more credibility. Atheists say they've nothing to convince them that there is anything besides "A", agnostics say more or less, 'oh, I'm not sure if it's A or B...'.

There are atheists who go so far as to assert they know there is no god, but I don't think they're at all the norm.

[whatthehey]

106. BS. You are describing a (very small) subset of atheism

known as explicit or strong atheism.

Atheism is the absence of theism.

Agnosticism is a position on whether the existence of gods can be known, not whether it is believed. The two are not the same concept.

[geek tragedy]

113. are you sure strong atheism is a lot less common than weak atheism? nt

[beam me up scottie]

155. In my experience, yes.

I have met very few gnostic atheists.

Most of them are like me.

[beam me up scottie]

154. No, I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't believe in gods but I don't make the positive claim that none exist.

A gnostic atheist claims there are no gods.

[hfojvt]

229. an atheist can just say

"I do not believe there is a God"

the fundamentalist atheist wants everybody else to share that belief.

[1939]

164. No, but there is a lot to be nasty and irritating about NT

[edhopper]

26. Oh bother.

[img][/img]

[erronis]

140. My feelings exactly. Thanks, Pooh!

My father just said "I don't have time to think about these things."

When I was growing up I understood this but I also wanted to find out why so many other people had strong opinions.

I first married a lady who was a Mennonite but was totally divorced from that religion other than the fact that parents and relatives were observant and were wonderful people.

I thirdly married a lady who was a lapsed Pentacostal (sp?) and exhibited more <ahem> earthly ways than most. After a few years she re-discovered JHC and I was considered too sinful. Long gone thank God.

My personal feeling is that there is no such shit as Jaweh(sp?), Allah(sp?), Holy Trinity, etc. Do I give a damn about what others feel? No - but just leave your stuff at the door and come have a drink.

[WinkyDink]

32. Atheists have science, which is not classified as a "belief system." Religion relies on faith, by

definition not proven (else it would be....science).

Atheists do not worship or "worship" any humans, so your second "point" is illogical at best.

[guillaumeb]

46. what of my other points?

I have read posts here talking about R. Dawkins as if his every pronouncement about religious faith was "divinely inspired". I use the term "divinely inspired" facetiously, but his words seem to be held as unquestioned truth by some here who identify as atheists.

As to a belief system, if I believe in a created universe and you believe in a non-created universe, ultimately we both have beliefs. You can never prove that the universe was not created, and I can never prove the opposite.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. Bollocks, no-one here takes what Dawkins or any atheist says as "unquestioned truth"

No, thinking the universe was not created is not a belief 'system'. Just thinking the universe was created, on its own, is not a 'system' either. What makes religions 'systems' is there is a whole collection of beliefs and rules involved - that the creator exists inside the universe, it has a personality (or three, or more), that it recognises humans, that humans have souls, that souls are reincarnated, that people have certain ethical rules to follow for the good of that soul, and so on.

[guillaumeb]

75. The faith that you discuss is obviously Christianity.

There are many others. But the idea of a creator existing inside or outside of the creation has been debated before.

I have read some responses here that bordered on adulation of Dawkins. Not expressly stated, but implicit in the text.

But in the absence of proof, one can either believe in a creator or believe there is no creator. Neither statement is provable.

Belief:
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. Obviously, I am discussing several faiths

Notice the reference to reincarnation, for instance. Or more than 3 personalities for 'god'.

"Not expressly stated, but implicit in the text."

Or you just misunderstood them, and assumed your stereotype of an atheist was correct, so that you got to apply 'fundamentalist' to it. I notice that your description of a 'fundamentalist' applies to most believers - thinks their beliefs are more valid than others, follows the pronouncements of an 'expert' (priest, pope, imam etc.), and thinks their idea about a creator is more valid than others. That's just a practicing member of most religions. The 'thinks they're smarter' may not apply to them all, but it does turn up often too (with backing of a bible verse, for instance).

[guillaumeb]

151. I could have misunderstood, but if so I misunderstood

a number of similar pronouncements. When I used the word fundamentalist a better choice could have been believer, but that also has a faith-based connotation. The "thinks they are smarter" syndrome applies to many people on both sides of the belief/non-belief debate.

[Marr]

121. Religions make a lot of claims about the nature of the universe besides it's origin.

So tell me-- why is it always the origin of the universe that religious people want to focus on when arguing that science can't disprove religion? I expect it's because that's a wall that science can't (at least at present), peer beyond with any certainty.

There are thousands of other claims made by religion that can be completely disproved by science. The Christian Bible alone makes tons of them, from the claim that the earth has a solid roof over it to the claim that the stars are smaller than the earth, and simply decorate the sky. The Bible's account of the planet's creation is absurdly incorrect, and demonstrably so, as is it's description of the value of pi.

There are many, many points on which science can flatly and unequivocally prove religion wrong-- and not a single one in which the opposite is true.

[rug]

134. Everybody has science.

In fact, atheism, simply the absence of belief, is absolutely mute on science or anything else beyond that.

[KingCharlemagne]

212. Hate to be the proverbial fly in the ointment here, but science relies on 'faith' also (at

a deep philosophical level): faith that the universe we inhabit operates according to laws that are knowable and understandable, such that a given action will always produce a given reaction. I prefer the 'faith' of science and scientists to the 'faith' of the traditionally religious.

[TBF]

41. Atheism is lack of belief -

your premise is off from the start.

[azureblue]

103. a lack of "belief"

a lack of "belief" is saying the same thing as a lack of "Faith" . Atheists rely on proven facts and proven science. You need neither to have belief or faith.

A lot of people tend to confuse religion with spirituality. On more time, "religion is the politics of spirituality". A religion is primarily a social organization, with its own rules and dogma. You do not need religion to be spiritual. The reason religions freak out when they meet atheists or individually spiritual people is because both are embodiments of challenges to their little social group. IOW, they believe that you must belong to their group to "be saved". And religions decree that you have to be saved, or else something bad will happen to you. Which they can't prove, of course, without referring to their own self serving religious books. So they get scared and mad and kill those who do not believe their way.

But hold on a second, what about "The unexamined life is not worth living?" i.e. being self aware and understanding your role in society? Society hates self aware people, because they are hard to manipulate, they play by their own rules, they know what the game is. Now is this the same thing as being spiritual? Some say that self awareness always leads to being aware of everything around them, and the commonality of existence. OK, the, Now where does self awareness end and universal awareness (what is also called spirituality) begin?

Can a person be self aware, aware of himself and his function in existence, and be an atheist?

[A HERETIC I AM]

249. As an Atheist, I don't "lack" a damned thing.

That statement; "Atheism is a lack of belief" and its companion, "Atheists lack belief in God" are spurious.

I don't lack a damned thing in this regard.

I KNOW all gods are mythical constructs. If one gives validity to one of the thousands available and to none of the others, then their reverence is flawed. Considering a specific supernatural being to have more legitimacy than the rest is a cultural phenomenon and not based on any historical reality.

I don't lack belief. I have GAINED understanding that the concept of a God is intellectually primitive thinking.

[ozone_man]

252. Nicely put! n/t

[TBF]

259. No need to be so angry -

I am agnostic and have an appreciation for the myths throughout history (which is how I view most religious thought). It's also awfully hard to disprove a negative.

[A HERETIC I AM]

265. Angry?

Why do you assume I'm angry? Because I used the words "damned" & "damn"?

And FWIW, I am not trying to "disprove a negative"

You stated that Atheism is a "lack of belief"

I disagree. I don't lack anything. I just have no gods.

If the god of Abraham and Isaac were to appear before me this instant, I would tell him to fuck off. I have no need for any god and since they ALL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF MYTHICAL CONSTRUCTS, I see no need to give them any more attention than I do leprechauns or unicorns.

As I said, the mere idea of a god is intellectually primitive thinking. I am a bit more advanced than bronze age desert dwellers who looked at the movements of the stars and planets and made up stories about them.

[TBF]

270. OK, you're not angry.

Why is the phrase "lack of belief" so horrible? I happen to live in Texas, surrounded by "believers". I do not share their belief so I think of myself as non-believer - one who does not share those beliefs. Lack of belief in their fiction. Why this causes a string of all caps and cursing is beyond me - I just stated a fact.

[beam me up scottie]

266. Why shouldn't atheists be angry when we're constantly misrepresented here?

And being called arrogant:

I am agnostic myself ~ no literal belief in the bible but I'm not quite arrogant enough to assume that a creator does not exist (what if we just haven't been able to identify her with current scientific methods?)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6626212

I'm an agnostic atheist, I make no positive claims about gods, I "assume" they don't exist because there has never been any evidence of them. How is that arrogant?

For those who actually want to learn about the difference between agnosticism and atheism, check out Austin Cline's excellent break down here: http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm

And for those who just want to make up shit about us so they can pretend they're superior, well they can use their ample imagination to guess what an uppity atheist would say to them outside of DU.

Or read between the lines.

[TBF]

269. And with the responses of you

and your friend above, you would like me to believe you're not angry. And not arrogant. Maybe re-read your own responses and get back to me.

Smh.

[Binkie The Clown]

47. Insisting that there is no real proof of god

is merely pointing out the objective fact that there is no real proof of god.

The real problem is that religious fundamentalists are offended by objective facts. Reality just sucks for a true believer, so every opportunity must be taken by them to oppose reality.

[guillaumeb]

53. Agreed. The existence of a creator is unprovable.

And some religious people do interpret their holy book as the literal word of their god. The book is their reality.

That said, on another topic, clowns are scary. Nothing personal, they just are.

[azureblue]

109. to qualify that

just for argument's sake: "The existence of a creator is unprovable. which I would add: "by our senses, and science". Which could change....

[guillaumeb]

153. A nice point.

Welcome to Du, by the way. Hope you like it here. I do.

[Jamastiene]

183. I know at least two clowns who are not scary.

I groomed their dog. They were nice people who just wanted to make people smile and laugh. You should try it sometime. It's not scary. Trust me.

[guillaumeb]

250. How can I trust you?

You might be a clown. Like these Killer Klowns:

[Oktober]

62. What is an example of #1?

[guillaumeb]

67. to refer back to number one:

I said:
"1) atheists who insist, with no real proof, that their particular beliefs are more valid than the beliefs of others."

An atheist who says that there is no creator, or god, or deity, is expressing a belief. That belief cannot be proven. Yet some atheists at DU clearly feel, by statements that they have made, that their belief is more valid than the beliefs of people of faith.

On the other hand, If I say that I believe that there is a creator I am asked for proof. When I reply that there is no proof that is taken by some at DU as proving that my belief is intellectually deficient.

Does this clarify?

[0rganism]

93. belief != lack of belief

this is where a lot of discussions of theism vs. atheism go off the beam, imho

"An atheist who says that there is no creator, or god, or deity, is expressing a belief"

sorry, but this is a (clumsy) expression of a lack of belief, and they are not equivalent. exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, the person claiming the existence of one or more omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent entities might reasonably be expected to provide some strong non-circular evidence of this remarkable existence, whereas the person who says they do not believe in said entities can point to a lack of sufficiently strong evidence for the positive proposition as sufficient to qualify lack of belief.

[guillaumeb]

156. Call it lack of belief, or affirmation of non-belief,

but it IS a belief. Or do you prefer the word assumption? Would you prefer the description of an atheist as someone who assumes, in the absence of evidence, that there is no higher life form that created the universe?

[beam me up scottie]

159. No, lack of belief is NOT belief.

Assume is better, yes, at least for me.

Provide evidence that your god exists and I'll probably change that assumption.

[guillaumeb]

160. Fine. I will substitute assume in all future debate.

Assuming I remember. I am not infallible.

[beam me up scottie]

163. Oh you'll be reminded.

This is GD, using the words "fundamentalist atheist" won't go unchallenged.

[guillaumeb]

171. I used them to make a point

about certain posts that, in my opinion, represent the same type of absolutist thinking that is demonstrated by some people of faith. And I did not say ALL atheists, or even MOST atheists. Just some. As I have written before, I have no interest in converting people to my way of thinking. Nor do I care what others believe.

As the Prophet said: "Forget and forgive, live and let live".

[beam me up scottie]

174. But you never provided examples of your stereotype.

Your posts about atheists read like something I'd read at conservapedia or free republic.

1) atheists who insist, with no real proof, that their particular beliefs are more valid than the beliefs of others. And also
2) atheists who "worship" people like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. This type of atheist uncritically accepts whatever Dawkins says on the subject of faith because Dawkins' particular "faith phobia" accords with what the individual atheist also believes.
3) atheists who feel that their atheism "proves" that they are smarter than people of faith.
4) atheists who feel that their "belief" that there is no creator is more valid than a person of faiths "belief" in a creator.

If you cannot provide proof that these "fundamentalist atheists" actually exist you are promoting a bigoted stereotype.

Was that your point?

[guillaumeb]

251. My examples were drawn from responses here on DU.

I will not name the posters, and I did not say "a majority or even most atheists", I said some.

[TBF]

260. Well some people are going to be angry

and argumentative no matter what you do. I am agnostic myself ~ no literal belief in the bible but I'm not quite arrogant enough to assume that a creator does not exist (what if we just haven't been able to identify her with current scientific methods?). I'm interested in beliefs/myths but haven't found any compelling enough to believe in myself. So, you will find people at different places along the spectrum.

[guillaumeb]

261. Excellent points

I have previously identified as a believer, but I also state that I would not presume to try to convert anyone to my beliefs. I respect everyone's beliefs without necessarily sharing them.

[0rganism]

242. unfortunately this is more than a semantic distinction

your characterization of "an atheist as someone who assumes, in the absence of evidence, that there is no higher life form that created the universe" is accurate, but i'm not sure you recognize the distinction between "belief" and "assumption".

"belief", especially of the devout religious variety, is an active and positive affirmation of some very interesting and unusual circumstances. by denoting absence of such belief as that very same kind of belief, religious people involved in such arguments denigrate their own positive beliefs. it is NOT the same thing, and it is not simply a matter of word games.

there are many things you don't (or probably shouldn't) believe. if i tell you i have a purple unicorn in my pocket, your (likely and well-justified) disbelief of that proposition hardly rises to the level of physical, mental, or spiritual involvement one would associate with a genuine religious belief. now if i were regarded as a true prophet of your religion, my claims about purple pocket unicorns would oblige considerably more output of faith on your part, but as-is, you are quite free to dismiss them out of hand.

similarly, one's lack of religious belief in, say, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, or Odin in no way requires the kind of positive activity that one's belief in the Judeo-Christian deity does. religious people need to give themselves more credit in general for the effort they put forth in adhering to their views, imho.

[beam me up scottie]

264. Well said.

[Oktober]

96. This is an old game...

Where religious folks try to pass the idea that all theories are equally as likely...

It's not a 50/50 game...

Its a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 ( science based universe) /.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 game (the desert tribes of 2000 years ago got it nailed)....

Religion is an intellectual deficiency that can be found in otherwise healthy semi functioning people. Strangest thing...

[yallerdawg]

100. It's a hereditary disease.

On the nurture, not nature, side.

[haikugal]

152. A mind virus... nt

[BlueJazz]

148. You're close but no cigar. God lives in the Milky Way...or should I say A Milky Way.

This Atheist partakes of his magnificent presence every nite...sometimes twice.

[Jamastiene]

184. I love Ovaltine.

I will admit, I have it every night, sometimes twice. God definitely has to chocolate flavored or I'll never become a Christian (again, was raised in it but broke away and escaped).

[padfun]

122. Many Beliefs?

"An atheist who says that there is no creator, or god, or deity, is expressing a belief. That belief cannot be proven."

So if I say that there are no ten-headed leprechauns around I am expressing a belief? Then I have thousands of beliefs as I don't believe in lots of multiple headed aliens, or large green talking salamanders here, either (More beliefs?)

So these beliefs cannot ever be proven. You cant prove a negative like these.

[gregcrawford]

125. And what is your response to manipulative con artists like Pat Robertson or Ken Ham?

Such self-serving swine defraud gullible and willfully ignorant people, and feed them moronic nonsense like "People rode dinosaurs," and "the Earth is only 6,000 years old." That is the essence of faith, an unwavering belief in an absurd premise, even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

[Oktober]

210. I sometimes wonder if Ken Hamm really believes it...

... or if this is just a means for him to discreetly tuck away a few million somehow someway...

[freshwest]

144. What about Aliens? It could be Aliens and this planet is a science experiment. Just sayin'

And I'd be royally pissed if it was. How irresponsible of them to take off and leave us here to screw everything up!

On the other hand, could be the ultimate in free thinkers. Either way, we ain't all that special in the universe, we's just a speck of dust in eternity.

Unless one wants to go with this sorta-religious thing:

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?' Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

~ Marianne Williamson, A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of "A Course in Miracles"

[beam me up scottie]

135. Do you have proof that those atheist actually exist?

Or are you just stereotyping atheists because you don't like them?

[AlbertCat]

136. atheists who feel that their "belief" that there is no creator is more valid than a person of faiths

But it is.... since there is no proof any of the millions of gods worshiped throughout the millennia have ever done or can effect anything attributed to them....

PLUS, as we learn about the real world, the make believe world of religion and gods becomes steadily more superfluous and obsolete...

These two never ending traits that have been going on since before Epicurus do not prove conclusively that the atheist idea (which is not really a belief) is 100% true, but they do lend more creedence than some pretzel logic derives from ancient texts from civilizations and societies long gone.

There's nothing fundie about it. It's just paying attention and common sense.

[beam me up scottie]

179. But saying "fundamentalist atheists" makes one sound so freakin clever!

Like we've never heard that before.

[world wide wally]

94. Maybe the term "devout atheist" would be more accurate

[beam me up scottie]

158. "devout" implies belief

Non-believers cannot devoutly not believe.

[dead_head]

111. to me

a fundementalist atheist is a person who would'nt change their set of beliefs (in a purely mechanical/material world) in the face of facts.

Or change their idea that religion is 100% responsible of all the problems of the world.

[AlbertCat]

138. a person who would'nt change their set of beliefs

One concrete proof.... just one.... and MOST atheists would change.

"their idea that religion is 100% responsible of all the problems of the world."

No atheist I know believes this. Even if Dawkins names his program "The Root of all Evil"..... he is using a cliche and not taking it literally.

I think you'd be very hard pressed to find an atheist who fits your criteria.

[beam me up scottie]

173. Wow, so much wrong with that post I don't know where to start.

Most atheists would believe in gods if anyone could prove they existed.

And specific to the judeo-christian god, we're not going to believe thousands of years of hearsay based on the what the bigoted assholes who wrote the bible said.


And secondly, not all atheists are anti-theists, and most of us who are don't claim "that religion is 100% responsible of all the problems of the world."

[truebrit71]

268. If god actually showed up on the six o'clock news rather than on a piece of toast....

... or say, on a dog's arse, i'd be one of the first to convert. But seeing as how that is so remotely unlikely based on the last two thousand years of complete absence, I'm perfectly fine sticking to my guns and saying unequivocally that there is no such being.

[samsingh]

133. there really aren't many of those

[Major Nikon]

178. Evidently it's a person who insists science must be taught in science classes

[PeaceNikki]

14. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true.

So.. tell us what exactly a "fundamental atheist" is please.

[QED]

65. Only certain statements

They still eat shellfish, pork, wear garments made of mixed fibers, etc. They pick and choose.

[1939]

172. He is the asshole

Who when invited to a dinner party and the host or hostess says, "let us pray" screams ;loudly, "no, you aren't allowed to pray in my presence!!" rather than the non-fundamental atheist who bows his head respectfully and thinks of banging his girlfriend and quietly waiting till their prayer is over.

Never yet heard a grace being said at a table that damaged my psyche.

[ronnie624]

226. Never in my life have I seen the scenario you describe,

and I don't believe you have, either.

You promote a whole series of false premises and negative stereotypes in your posts; exactly the sort of argumentation one can expect from a fundamentalist.

[1939]

256. Only times

I have been in churches the last thirty years was for weddings and funerals.

[Jamastiene]

189. Anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Sure seems like it based on the repetitive replies from the poster so far.

[WinkyDink]

27. ?? We have a secular society. We aren't the UK, where the monarch is "Defender of the Faith."

[guillaumeb]

36. If this is a secular society,

why is there a Prayer breakfast that the President attends?

Why does every politician swear the oath of office on a holy book?

Why does the pledge have "under god" in it?

Similar question about the money?

Are you sure this is a secular society?

[PeaceNikki]

43. It is. It's a secular society where the Christians have great power and privilege

And exactly why they need to be called out on their bullshit.

[guillaumeb]

48. I am a believer, but I absolutely agree with you

that there should be no special privileges, including in the US tax code, for religion. Can we agree on this?

[PeaceNikki]

49. Yes, we can agree on that.

[TBF]

50. It has not always been this way -

Prayer Breakfast - 1953

Oath of office - required to take oath, Teddy Roosevelt did not use bible, John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law

Pledge - added "under god" in 1954

In God We trust - on money - added in 1956


To sum up, bible is not required and the rest were added in the 50's during the ridiculous "red scare". In my view we should go back to the Founders' view of no mixing religion/state. YMMV.

[Jamastiene]

194. Thank you.

I can never remember the exact dates, but most of this religion in government stuff was added during the lead-up to the Cold War and during the Cold War.

[TBF]

209. They act like we're questioning some long held

tradition when in fact this was all added in the 50s in their quest to hunt and deport communists. This "Christian nation" has only existed, and mostly in their own minds, for a generation or two at best. And so, once again, we point out reality.

[backscatter712]

57. I don't see atheists sawing people's heads off...

...for drawing naughty pictures, or *gasp* teaching little girls how to read.

[beam me up scottie]

177. Yes but we're annoying and that's just as bad as religious fundamentalism.

[Roy Rolling]

90. yeah, it's okay

If you want to be an asshole. There is no law against being an asshole. However there are social contracts, if observed, that lead to a more peaceful society.

So, again, being a provocative asshole is not a crime. It's just what makes an asshole an asshole---selfish and sociopathic behavior as if that person is the only person on the face of the earth.

[ms liberty]

108. +1. Good manners...

They're the grease that keeps the wheels of society moving. That's not to say that there aren't times when you gotta be loud and raise hell, though!

[ColesCountyDem]

137. ^^^^^ This! +1. n/t

[valerief]

91. It's oxymoron time, kiddies!

[LiberalAndProud]

126. Yes, it's acceptable.

Ever been to an atheist convention? Of course not. But it even happens.

Funny thing. Nobody ever gets shot at. Not the christians, not the muslims and not the atheists.

Funny thing.

[samsingh]

131. absolutely

[haikugal]

142. What is a 'fundamentalist type atheist?'

Seriously.

[beam me up scottie]

157. Easy.

We're too uppity.

[haikugal]

165. We have the ability to express ourselves and don't feel compelled to sit down and shut up!

Uppity atheist and female...RULES!

[beam me up scottie]

169. And for that we get called fundamentalists, militant, radical blah blah blah

Why wait for the right wing idiots to insult us when we can read it here?

[haikugal]

170. Amazing isn't it?

Sadly no....all too common.

[Warren DeMontague]

187. And yet, if someone drew a bunch of cartoons of "uppity atheists"

I wouldn't be inclined to shoot them, would you?

[beam me up scottie]

190. No, but I'd sure give them a dirty look.

I just love being compared to religious zealots who kill human beings for drawing pictures of their prophet, though.

Don't you?

[Warren DeMontague]

191. I burned out most of my irritatation after Charlie Hebdo.

As both an Atheist AND a staunch defender of the 1st Amendment, it was almost too much.

Especially all the "butbutbut---"ing.

Well no one should be shot for drawing a cartoon of course butbutbut

it's terrible butbutbut

but, but but.

[beam me up scottie]

192. I was accused of "cheering" for Geller today.

No kidding, those of us who are "championing her 1st amendment rights" are really "cheering" the bigot.

[Warren DeMontague]

195. She's an ass

but she hasn't shot anyone, as far as I know.

Some people seem much more interested in contorting themselves into some position where they can rationalize the behavior of the shooters. "They were incited!"

[beam me up scottie]

196. I believe most people can control their violent tendencies.

Those claiming we should expect violence when muslims see their prophet being insulted are islamophobes.

[Warren DeMontague]

198. Good point.

[PeaceNikki]

213. They were told by the pope recently that it's cool to respond to insults with violence.

Pope Francis: 'Curse my mother, expect a punch'

[Jamastiene]

197. Anyone who refuses to listen to preaching

and tries to get away from the preaching. At least, here in the Bible Belt, that's what they tell me. Apparently, I am "militant" too because I refuse to listen to their preaching any more. It was taking up all of my time while I was trying to grocery shop and pay bills. Any time I was in a public place here, there were people preaching at me about their particular brand of Christianity. I finally had to start telling them I am never going to go along with their religion and wow, does that piss them off.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. "incitement" = "saying something that pisses someone off".

So I guess no one should say anything, ever, that might piss someone else off.

[cemaphonic]

207. Yes, and people don't think twice about it

because the typical atheist response is:

1) indifference

2) Being snarky on the internet (the really feisty radical firebrand types might even write an OP-ED or take out an AD in actual PRINT MEDIA!)

[Arugula Latte]

245. History has been filled with bloodshed from atheists responding to attacks against them.

Oh wait, no it hasn't. That's the religious I'm thinking of.

But go ahead and try. You can call me an idiot, wrong, an asshole, a freak, bound for Hell, and a big ol' poopypants, and I will do nothing more than respond to you with words.

By the way, I'm not sure what a "fundamentalist" type of atheist is. Is it someone who really REALLY REALLY doesn't believe in a god or some other sort of magical supernatural creature?

[uppityperson]

2. I don't actively seek to offend anyone, but that's just me. Fundamentalist extremists of all sorts

are the problem. And I don't know why anyone would advise offending people just for the sake of offending them. It seems odd to me.

[FLPanhandle]

4. It's the meek, I'll follow this religion's rules just so they don't get offended attitude.

We should not be afraid to offend, that's my point.

[uppityperson]

9. That makes more sense, thank you. Not "we should" but "we should not be afraid to".

[FLPanhandle]

12. That's what happens when Itype out a quick topic in between other stuff

the fact it made any sense is somewhat of a surprise to me.

[RKP5637]

31. K&R! n/t

[ms liberty]

110. That I do agree with, much better stated! n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

82. I agree. Fundamentalists of all types are the problem. I don't understand why our first

instinct is to go on the attack whether it is against religion or non religion or against other nations or just someone who happens to want to vote for someone other than who you want to vote for. Why the hell can't we let each other be? Why must we force others to think and act like we do and when does that even work? I would rather live my life in a way that even in the tiniest way encourages peace rather then conflict. I will not provoke Islamic fundamentalists. I will rather reach out to other humans with love and compassion whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jew, atheist, Buddhist, or whatever.

[RiverNoord]

101. I agree fully.

I'm an atheist. I also like to be pleasant to my fellow human beings, for no other reason or purpose than the fact that I like it when people are happy because others have been kind to them. What comes around goes around - both decency and viciousness. I don't think I'll ever understand people like Pam Geller, who seem to savor viciousness and cruelty.

[Jamastiene]

199. It depends on your experiences.

If you ever experienced a town like my home town, you would HAVE to go on the offensive to survive. Here, they DO force their religion on you, and in horrible ways that would shock people living in freer areas of the country. You HAVE to go on the offensive where I live just to survive.

[liberal_at_heart]

255. Confronting some fundamentalists only fuels their anger and hatred. I'm not saying those in places

where politicians are taking people's basic rights away shouldn't fight to keep their rights. I'm just saying being confrontational about it only makes some fundamentalists stronger. Sometimes showing the people around the fundamentalists that you can be loving and peaceful in the face of hatred brings more support for your side.

[Renew Deal]

97. I agree

[Jefferson23]

5. If you imagine that is all Geller and her sympathizers are advocating for, you are mistaken.

Your entire OP is bizarre and inappropriate, her speech and your advocacy for it has nothing to
do with teaching anyone a lesson..which appears to be your objective.

[FLPanhandle]

8. This is not really about Geller

But the attitude expressed in those threads that we should not provoke the religious by breaking their rules.

[Jefferson23]

13. This is your response to that? Why not say you do not agree and leave it there, why speak

about advocating provoking people because you can...to teach them a lesson. Your approach indicates terrible judgement,
please reconsider.

[KittyWampus]

6. It might be legal and protected, but a civil society needs respect and TOLERANCE.

There have been plenty of moderate Muslims who've tried to explain that they find certain imagery offensive.

So it's not like it's just a bunch of violent, murderous radicals who find certain images and hate speech offensive.

Note- you are saying it's not just okay to engage in hate speech but we SHOULD engage in it. Not a liberal sentiment, IMO.

You might want to rethink that.

[FLPanhandle]

11. Does it matter what one group or another finds offensive?

Why should anyone except their followers have to care?

[Buzz Clik]

20. Your argument is somewhat juvenile.

It's the guy in the "Fuck the Police" t-shirt standing in front of a police line after curfew and taunting them.

It wasn't okay, and it turned out just as a sane person would predict.

[edhopper]

29. So you approve of police brutality

over a T-Shirt?

[KittyWampus]

38. do you approve of using the word "thug" on DU even after some members have objected?

[edhopper]

64. No I object to it

and would tell the person it isn't the right thing to say.

I don't think someone should be beaten for using it though.

You seem to say that's permissible.

[seveneyes]

40. If a religious fuckstick finds certain imagery offensive, they can not look at it

And when dealing with worthless fucks like the two that just went toes up, they should be kept far away from any say in societal laws.

[KittyWampus]

54. so gay teens who are subjected to taunts should just ignore it.

[Humanist_Activist]

60. Yes, because if they don't, they are being intolerant of someone's "sincere religious belief"...

do I need to add a sarcasm tag here?

[Bluenorthwest]

42. So you made us all endure years of Phelps, Robertson and the various Archbishops shouting in

public and at our very private funerals because of the First Amendment but now that the targets of the hate are 'real humans' it's all very different? Or is it just 'religion is always right'?

Don't you folks think we find the hate speech of Rick Warren deeply offensive? And yet he was foisted into a position of honor by Democrats, days after he'd attacked us all in the press. DU, Obama and this Party defended his right to attack us then lap up the praise for attacking us.

Hypocrites, people of situational and selective ethics.

[KittyWampus]

58. -I- made "you all" endure years of Phelps? You object to hate speech by engaging in it against me

AND cap off your post with the accusation of "hypocrite".

Unbelievable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. No-one is "engaging in hate speech against you"

You are not a victim in any way at all.

[KittyWampus]

77. I was accused of something not even remotely true in an incredibly hateful, vile manner.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. Criticism and an accusation are not 'hate', and there was nothing 'vile' in the post

It won't get you anywhere if you just try to redefine 'hate speech' to win points in an argument.

[Bluenorthwest]

228. Of course the 'you' was meant generally, as in straight religious folks, but you yourself defended

Warren and attacked those of us who were not happy to be denigrated by our own Party.
Here you are claiming that not honoring the bigot Warren was tantamount to 'shunning him':
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7999325

Here's a thread in which you claim Warren is acceptable because LGBT people did not work hard enough to stop Prop 8:
" Maybe if you and others spent a little more time posting threads about how to constructively bring about greater Civil Rights for all.

Maybe if you focused a little more on winning over those who are most likely to understand your position.

Maybe if you'd spent more time posting about Prop 8 and how to defeat it BEFORE it was passed.

Maybe if you'd spend some more time posting about how to revoke Prop 8 now that it has passed."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8033672

Here's a thread in which you characterize objections to hate preacher Warren as demands by a 'Special interest group':
"You just illustrated the hypocrisy- Obama can reach out to breach the divide but not when it's inconvenient for MY personal interest group."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8018092


Just for the record, people should read those posts and understand your historic positions.

[Jamastiene]

200. You obviously do not know what hate speech really is.

If that is what you are accusing bluenorthwest of doing, and you just did, you have no clue what hate speech really is. Bringing up the fact that gay people have had to listen to excuses like "It's just one prayer" or "It's just one speech" and being told to STFU when we tried to mention Warren and some of the others who have been invited to our government (some who advocate killing gay people) is not hate speech. You need a reality check.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Results of your Jury Service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon May 4, 2015, 06:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So you made us all endure years of Phelps, Robertson and the various Archbishops shouting in
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6620734

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster is accusing a DU'er of making others endure years of PHELPS? Not even close to what was posted. It's so far beyond the pale.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 4, 2015, 06:39 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Could have been worded better but IMO "you" was not intended as a direct accusation rather the status quo.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, alerter, I agree with Bluenorthwest. And the "you" they are referring to are the hypocrites who didn't scream about overt homophobia.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think your reply to the poster is enough KittyWampus
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Someone doesn't like you pointing out hypocrisy...



Keep up the good work.

[Binkie The Clown]

55. As a moderate reader, I am offended by "romance novels".

They really disgust me. Bookstores should not display them simply because I am offended by them. Right? Otherwise, where is their tolerance for me?

And don't even get me started on astrology books. Those offend me so deeply that I go crazy every time I see one. If a bookstore is going to be truly tolerant of me, then they should also ban astrology books. I've told them repeatedly about my objections, and how offended I am by these two types of books, but they just don't care. They continue to deliberately provoke me by behavior they know full well I find offensive.

[KittyWampus]

59. Go head Binkie, go start a thread calling black men "thugs".

[Binkie The Clown]

70. I do not believe that, so why would I say it?

And Geller didn't mock a people, she mocked a belief. That's a very different thing. I have no trouble at all saying that belief that the Bible is literally true is ridiculous and absurd. That's something I believe, and something I have the right to say. Should I be prevented from saying that because somebody might be offended?

Well, talk of women's right offends Muslims too. I suppose we should cut that out as well.

[Oktober]

211. Religion is a stone around the neck of humanity...

... And should be provoked and fought.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. Well, go ahead and do it then. Provoke.

And sleep soundly if anyone innocent gets caught in the crossfire because of your provocations.

[cwydro]

16. People who cannot handle viewpoints different than their own?

Those people have to shoot others? Oh good lord.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. No one here is excusing their behavior.

No one.

I mean, they were shot dead by police and with all the negative stories about police in recent weeks, someone might have claimed the police overrated, but honestly, in this case they didn't. The police had every right to shoot them dead to avoid further bloodshed.

However, I've seen a lot of excusing of Geller's behavior. While it might not be as reprehensible, it still is very reprehensible and unfortunate.

[Buzz Clik]

22. "Have to"? But they do with with impugnity.

And we act SO OUTRAGED!!!!1 when they respond violently to the latest provocation.

[Yorktown]

185. No, you're right. Let's not aggravate people who believe in extreme ideologies.

I mean, if we let radical ideologies prosper, they won't have reasons to hurt our liberties, right?

[LanternWaste]

15. I think that limiting it to religions is small potatoes, and ignores relevant consistency in our own

I think that limiting it to religions is small potatoes, and ignores relevant consistency in our own behaviors.

[Buzz Clik]

17. It's not "okay" to provoke anyone.

Look up the definition.

[FLPanhandle]

25. Yes it is.

This country has a long history of people protesting, fighting, and provoking others to get justice.

You think unions came about without provoking the industrialists?
You think the civil rights movement avoided provoking racists?

What is sitting at a segregated lunch counter knowing you are not getting served anything but trying to provoke and change?

[Buzz Clik]

39. Legal? Usually.

Rational? No, but, hey, who doesn't love a martyr?

Provoking one's enemies is not a bad policies. Provoking everyone and every this just because you can is childish.

[FLPanhandle]

45. Religious fundamentalists are the enemy

They aren't content to live their beliefs and leave others alone.

They want to impose their rules and morality onto others using bullying tactics.

Therefore, it's okay to provoke them.

I never said to provoke everyone just because. That would be childish.

[treestar]

21. What's the point of riling people up?

No matter what it's about? And why is religion different? They cannot impose their beliefs on you. It's in the First Amendment.

They cannot get any law past the courts that is based on them wanting other people to obey their rules.

[FLPanhandle]

30. But they can impose rules even without a law

Right now, it's basically too dangerous to have a show of Mohammad cartoons in this country?

Is there a law? No.

Will anyone do it? No, because they are either afraid or don't want to offend.

Forcing behaviors onto others doesn't require laws. It can be as silly as bullying and screaming about being offended.

[treestar]

143. Everyone's got to choose whether they want to make Mohamed drawings or not

But do it knowing there are some nutcase out there.

[PeaceNikki]

37. to affect change

The religious can and are imposing their beliefs on us. In the US is the Christians. Just ask LGBT and women concerned about reproductive freedom.

[treestar]

145. Roe v. Wade is still the law

so how are they able to force beliefs on us? They are against birth control but Griswold v. Conn. undid that. So all they can do is try to get it not covered under Medicaid or Obamacare. They have no hope of actually getting these things against the law again.

[PeaceNikki]

168. Wow, really?? What good is Roe v Wade if there's no access?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/17/1/gpr170109.html

A Surge of State Abortion Restrictions Puts Providers—and the Women They Serve—in the Crosshairs
By Heather D. Boonstra and Elizabeth Nash
An unprecedented wave of state-level abortion restrictions swept the country over the past three years. In 2013 alone, 22 states enacted 70 antiabortion measures, including previability abortion bans, unwarranted doctor and clinic regulations, limits on the provision of medication abortion and bans on insurance coverage of abortion. However, 2013 was not even the year with the greatest number of new state-level abortion restrictions, as 2011 saw 92 enacted; 43 abortion restrictions were enacted by states in 2012.1
What accounts for the spike in abortion restrictions? A few reasons stand out. First, antiabortion forces took control of many state legislatures and governors’ mansions as a result of the 2010 elections, which allowed them to enact more restrictions than was politically feasible previously. Second, the politics surrounding the Affordable Care Act, enacted in March 2010, reignited a national debate over whether government funds may be used for abortion coverage and paved the way for broad attacks on insurance coverage at the state level. The relative lull in antiabortion legislative activity seen in 2012 is explained in part by the legislative calendar: North Dakota and Texas, for example, did not hold legislative sessions in 2012. They made up for it last year, though: Together, these two states enacted 13 restrictions in 2013.

The wave of state-level abortion restrictions has some parallels in Congress, where the House of Representatives has waged its own unceasing attack on abortion rights. Defending against the onslaught has been critical, but now prochoice activists are starting to go on the offense. A handful of states have moved to improve access to abortion, and proactive legislation has been introduced in Congress aimed at stemming the tide of restrictive laws designed to place roadblocks in the path of women seeking abortion care. Although this emerging campaign may be more successful and take hold faster in some places than others, it marks an important shift toward reshaping the national debate over what a real agenda to protect women’s reproductive health looks like.

A Landscape Transformed
Abortion restrictions at the state level are hardly new. States have long sought to discourage women from obtaining an abortion by, for example, mandating that women receive biased counseling or imposing parental involvement requirements for minors. Over the past three years, however, a startling number of states have passed harsh new restrictions. In 2011–2013, legislatures in 30 states enacted 205 abortion restrictions—more than the total number enacted in the entire previous decade (see chart).1 No year from 1985 through 2010 saw more than 40 new abortion restrictions; however, every year since 2011 has topped that number.

Much more at link above.

[niyad]

258. how in the world can you say something like that when, each and every day, for years, there

have been new pieces of legislation, at both the state and federal level, chipping away at women's right to choose? and these pieces of insanity are covered here quite regularly, so it is not as if these laws are being passed in a vacuum.

[progressoid]

63. They cannot impose their beliefs on you?

Yeah, like the way religions have kept quiet about birth control and abortion and gay rights and racism. None of their leaders or teachings have ever had an effect on politics or laws.

Oh, wait, there might have been a few laws...er...well...a few hundred laws that were imposed on us buy the religious.

[treestar]

146. Back when everyone was more religious

And agreed with those rules as a society. But it has changed a lot in my lifetime.

[progressoid]

166. When was that?

That time exists only in the myth of American history.

[WinkyDink]

24. "Provoke" is, IMO, the incendiary term. To some, another's mere existence = "provocation."

I'd suggest a neutral term, such as.....freedom of expression.

[FLPanhandle]

34. You are right, probably should have used different terms.

Here in the bible belt, just me being an athiest is provoking others, so I'm probably a little less afraid of being incendiary.

[Jamastiene]

203. You pretty much have to go on the offensive to protect yourself

down here in the Bible Belt.

In my experience, being gay "provokes" them in a way that causes them to physically attack a person. You can try to go to the grocery store or post office and not say a word or bother anyone, but it doesn't work. If one of them "heard" you were gay, they WILL be "provoked" to attack you. So, just being gay or atheist or any number of things they don't like "provokes" them.

I guess those who are against "provoking" extremist ideologues think gay people should "just" be straight so at to not offend them. They also seem to think atheists should go around saying Praise God because we wouldn't want to offend violent people and provoke them into attacking us by simply existing in an area where religious fundamentalists have complete control.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. Nothing wrong with being provocative

When Esquire calls Aasif Mandvi's (Muslim-themed) sitcom 'provocative', it's not criticising him.

[brewens]

33. Yank their chain and rattle their cage at evey opportunity! I'm considering having

both JAYUSUS and Mohammad toilet paper made! it should sell pretty good onlne. I got that idea when my girlfriends fundy daughter let one of her bathrooms run out of butt wipe and I had to use a little King James brand to get out of their!

[edhopper]

35. I agree,

the "what would you expect" response to dismissing violence is sickening.

Freedom of Speech is the right to offend.
Inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

[TBF]

51. Provoke? No. Correct their errors? Absolutely. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

240. They will call that a provocation.

[TBF]

241. You make a fair point ... nt

[The2ndWheel]

56. Doesn't change the fact that we live in a reality where someone might kill you as a result

In fact, if we don't push back, we, in effect, succumb to their rules.

http://www.context.org/iclib/ic07/schmoklr/

The new human freedom made striving for expansion and power possible. Such freedom, when multiplied, creates anarchy. The anarchy among civilized societies meant that the play of power in the system was uncontrollable. In an anarchic situation like that, no one can choose that the struggle for power shall cease. But there is one more element in the picture: no one is free to choose peace, but anyone can impose upon all the necessity for power. This is the lesson of the parable of the tribes.

Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what if all but one choose peace, and that one is ambitious for expansion and conquest? What can happen to the others when confronted by an ambitious and potent neighbor? Perhaps one tribe is attacked and defeated, its people destroyed and its lands seized for the use of the victors. Another is defeated, but this one is not exterminated; rather, it is subjugated and transformed to serve the conqueror. A third seeking to avoid such disaster flees from the area into some inaccessible (and undesirable) place, and its former homeland becomes part of the growing empire of the power-seeking tribe. Let us suppose that others observing these developments decide to defend themselves in order to preserve themselves and their autonomy. But the irony is that successful defense against a power-maximizing aggressor requires a society to become more like the society that threatens it. Power can be stopped only by power, and if the threatening society has discovered ways to magnify its power through innovations in organization or technology (or whatever), the defensive society will have to transform itself into something more like its foe in order to resist the external force.

I have just outlined four possible outcomes for the threatened tribes: destruction, absorption and transformation, withdrawal, and imitation. In every one of these outcomes the ways of power are spread throughout the system. This is the parable of the tribes.

[DrDan]

61. To what end?

Do you have a sense of superiority after provoking someone?

[FLPanhandle]

68. To effect change of course.

Same as all provoking actions have in history.

Civil rights marchers provoked racists.
Union organizers provoked the industrialists.
LGBT provoke fundamentalists with every parade or trying to get married.

We shouldn't be afraid to provoke or stand up to religious fundamentalists.

Provoking can be a good thing.

[DrDan]

72. We also should not be afraid to allow them their personal beliefs

After all, neither side has a lock on the truth

[FLPanhandle]

74. Personal is the key word

Unfortunately, Religious Fundamentalists don't keep their beliefs to themselves, they want others to follow their rules. That should be opposed even if those religious followers are "offended" or "provoked"

[DrDan]

78. You don't like them invading your space, so in turn

You do the same

[Jamastiene]

204. Where I live, just being gay "provokes" them.

It's a small town. They gossip. They know. I've been physically attacked when I did nothing to anyone. Apparently, I am supposed to just let them do whatever they want with me so I don't offend them.

[Codeine]

71. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter, sir! nt

[FLPanhandle]

76. also known as my glass of wine at the end of the day rant...

[99Forever]

80. Okay? I guess.

It's okay to piss off another driver then jump in front of their speeding vehicle too.

I'm not so much on doing pointless stuff that is likely to get me dead, but you certainly have the Constitutional right to do so, if you please.

[whathehell]

83. Why should you "actively seek to offend the religious" if they are NOT trying to force anything?

as most do not?

Pam Gellar is a non-Christian right winger who couldn't care LESS about your crusade,

she's strictly political.

[FLPanhandle]

89. If they are not trying to force anything, my OP doesn't apply

It's pointed at religious fundamentalists, not your average quiet believer who is not forcing their morality onto others.

[Initech]

85. Always remember what Bill Maher said about Jerry Falwell:

"They say you shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but speaking ill of the dead is what this guy did for a living"

That's exactly what not just Falwell, but all religious fundamentalists do - they speak ill of the dead, and get paid rather handsomely and tax free for that matter.

[HassleCat]

86. Ummm, no

Intentionally provoking religious people is not a good thing. We should go about our lives as we prefer, in a secular, humanist society. If the religious extremists attack us for doing so, we need to round them up and throw them in jail until they calm down. If they send people from other countries to attack us in the name of their deity, that's why we have a big, powerful military. But intentionally provoking them so we have an excuse to fight with them doesn't seem right.

[wingzeroday]

117. Jailing

Jailing violent socially conservative religious extremists who engage in acts of violence will provoke people who are against the jailing of socially conservative violent religious extremists who engage in acts of violence.

[SidDithers]

88. Absolutely...

Sid

[RiverNoord]

98. Bullshit.

I'm an atheist, but does that give me some special right to insult people who believe in some sort of supreme being or beings? No, it does not. Nothing is gained by deliberately and maliciously attacking symbols that others believe are sacred.

When you know something is very meaningful to people of a particular religious persuasion, it's merely common decency to not go out of your way to malign it in a way that's offensive to them. That's not the same thing as succumbing to 'their rules.' It's simply being decent to your fellow human beings. I don't need a god to demand that of me - being decent to people is its own reward.

You have apparently decided that people with strong religious views somehow deserve to be insulted. That makes YOU just as much a drain on society as the worst sorts of religious extremists who are committed to the concept that targeting other human beings is a requirement of their faith...

[FLPanhandle]

102. "common decency to not go out of your way to malign it in a way that's offensive to them"

What if they expect you to go out of your way not to offend them?

If someone if offended by a woman sitting next to them, or seeing a gay couple? Why should everyone else go out of their way not to offend some belief?

My point is we shouldn't even care if something we are doing or want to do offends a religious person.

Sometimes if our behavior is offending or provoking them with what we want to do, that is okay.

[RiverNoord]

181. Well, you can't go through life without offending someone, somehow.

However, that's vastly different than what happened today. Either you don't see that, and I think you do, or you're just driving hard at a point that isn't relevant to the 'we hate Islam so much we're going to insult it like crazy today and make sure lots of people hear about it' situation that prompted the violence today.

This wasn't inadvertent offense resulting from people just living their lives, as in the examples you provided. If someone was, in fact, uncomfortable sitting next to a women, due to religious teachings, wouldn't it be damn rude for a women to chase that person around and sit next to him (I'm assuming him)? I strenuously disagree with your assertion that 'we shouldn't even care if something we are doing or want to do offends a religious person.' Religious or not, we're all human beings, and if you expect people to behave in a generally friendly, decent manner, you can't go around making an ass of yourself by ignoring the sensibilities of those around you. Sometimes, obviously, there are lines that you decide you won't cross. However, at least in my experience, that's usually not doing something rather than actually engaging in behavior that some religious person finds offensive.

A rotten mess like what happened today is not an example of people not 'going out of their way' in order to minimize offense. It's the opposite - explicit, deliberate and malicious insulting of over a billion people. If you are the type of person who actually has to go out of your way in order not to do such things, there is something seriously wrong with you.

[Jamastiene]

206. You have no clue.

You obviously have never been gay in a small hometown in the Bible Belt. So, I'm not supposed to go to the grocery store because I might offend them again and cause them to rape me again? Just being gay here provokes them. I only have to walk out the front door and offend them because I exist in their town. Never mind the fact that I was born and raised here. I guess I'll just sit here and starve to death because I don't want to be raped again. I'm not ok with the things they have done to me in this town. Poverty keeps me here. I guess I should just go offer to have sex with every redneck here so I don't offend them and maybe I can then buy groceries without "provoking" them again.

You honestly have no clue. I didn't go out of my way to fucking be born and raised in poverty in an extremist Bible Belt hometown with no hope of ever being able to save up enough money to get to a nicer place. I guess I am wrong to expect them to not attack me physically and rape me again, because I'm provoking them by merely living where I was born and raised. Where am I supposed to go for groceries on a budget or am I supposed to just starve to death so I don't offend and provoke them? I got news for you and them. Going on the offensive is the only way to survive a place like where I live. There is no other way. You have to back them down any way you can to survive.

[PeaceNikki]

214. .

[RiverNoord]

219. I may have much more of a clue than you state.

I've been through hell and back again, although I'm not gay. It sounds like you are living in a terrible place to be gay. Rape is a crime, though, no matter where you are. It's not a protected First Amendment right, anywhere. Neither is direct individual harassment. They are both radically different that aggressively attacking someone's religious beliefs. Just because the people doing it claim that they have some religious reason doesn't matter.

Of course, just because something is a crime doesn't mean it will get prosecuted. It sounds as though your community is extremely hostile to gays, and you're not likely to see much in the way of justice concerning rape or harassment.

I left my hometown in North Dakota the first chance I had and have returned maybe 5 times during my adult life (about 25 years). There were some fixed values that were extremely hostile to me, and I knew that, to live well, I just had to say goodbye. I would strongly suggest that you consider the same.

The critical distinction, still, is that you are gay and apparently are subject to abuse in your community just for being present. There is no comparison between that and deliberately seeking to insult people. You just want to live.

[Bluenorthwest]

233. what you don't get because of your straight privilege is that those who take offense at others who

just want to live see us just living as a deliberate insult to their religions. You very casually tell the other poster they should be happy to be run out of their hometown by bigots. It's the bigots who declare that just being gay is a provocation to them, and if you need to see statistics on anti gay hate crimes against persons and properties to demonstrate that fact I can provide it for you. But I think you should consider that 'just leave' is what the bigots say to LGBT people and you just joined their chorus.

[RiverNoord]

271. I guess that is true.

However,...

I've personally been involved in (rather directly) four... um... impolite incidents which resulted in one or more inconsiderate homophobe having... some difficulty leaving a scene without assistance... I won't allow direct racism or insults based on sexual orientation to go unchallenged in my presence. So far lucky, I suppose, but, again, it's about simple human decency to one another.

And merely living in a manner that is essential with respect to a core element of your identity (unless you happen to be a serial killer, I suppose), is not about deliberately insulting someone else. It's just about living your life. There's a radical difference between that and deliberately and maliciously acting in a manner intended to insult and provoke adherents to a religious doctrine to violence. Unless, I suppose, you actually want to provoke people to violence by your behavior. I really doubt you would say yes to that.

Finally - sometimes there is no practical solution to local harassment other than to leave. It's not right, it's not fair, but it is effective. My 'straight privilege' did not protect me from hometown hostility on a very different matter, and leaving was the smart thing to do. It was a simple act of taking responsibility for my well-being and capacity to live my life. It wasn't running, it was moving toward something good.

[Jamastiene]

257. If you are gay and get raped in my hometown,

the cops won't help. That is absolutely true. It's awful.

[jcboon]

99. People have the right to be insensitive twits

. . .but there will social consequences.

For example, you can provoke me about my beliefs and I have a religious responsibility to fart in your general direction.

[LiberalAndProud]

104. Shhh. They're easily offended so

[font size="1"] let's just keep quiet. That'll teach 'em.[/font]

[Arugula Latte]

246. I agree. Keeping quiet has worked so well throughout history.

You know, we wimminfolks wouldn't want to rile up the holy rollers as they continue to push to take away our rights and make us third-class citizens ('cuz second-class is obviously too good for those of us who Vagina-Americans!).

[dead_head]

105. Once again

a whole religion/class of people is being put in the same category because of intolerent people.

I can't believe people are still stuck on this; I got a right to piss of people.

Go aheand and provoke people's beliefs, then an idiot will get pissed off, do something bad, then you'll re do your speach of the gloriousness of pissing people off, then another guy will get pissed and commit a crime, repeat, reapeat repeat....

Can wait until we start thinking instead of drawing unfunny cartoons.

[NanceGreggs]

112. "We SHOULD actively seek to offend the religious."

Why?

What purpose does that serve? If you have no religious beliefs, what's it to you if others do? What do you gain by offending the religious? How is your life made better by offending the beliefs of others, when your beliefs are not affected by them in any way?

"We should always refuse to obey their silly rules, furthermore we should ACTIVELY oppose their rules."

If you are not part of a particular religion, you are not under any obligation to "obey their rules", silly or otherwise. Oppose their rules? Again, if you're not part of a particular religion, what difference does it make what their rules are? And what purpose is served by "opposing their rules" when you are not under any obligation to adhere to their rules in the first place - or even acknowledge that they exist?

"We should not submit to following any religion's rules of behavior in order to 'not offend'."

Not "offending" has nothing to do with what religious beliefs one adheres to. It has to do with being a decent human being, who recognizes that being offensive - whether it is towards another's religion, anothers's sexual orientation, another's political views - simply for the sake of "being offensive" is without purpose and without merit, and is simply another way of saying, "Believe what I believe, because I am right, and everyone else is wrong."

"In fact, if we don't push back, we, in effect, succumb to their rules."

Yeah, because if you don't "push back" against Catholics going to mass on their Holy Days, or Jews observing Yom Kippur, you are "succumbing to their rules."

I've seen some pretty dumb things posted here over the years - but your post is definitely a contender for the Top Ten Dumbest Things Ever.

[FLPanhandle]

116. Why?

"Again, if you're not part of a particular religion, what difference does it make what their rules are? And what purpose is served by opposing their rules" when you are not under any obligation to adhere to their rules in the first place - or even acknowledge that they exist? "

Are you so naive to believe religious fundamentalists don't try and impose their moral code onto non-believers? Anti-abortionists, anti-gays, anti-prophet cartoons, etc. aren't people living their rules and keeping to themselves. They are actively trying to make laws and rules for others to follow either through legal means or through intimidation.


"Believe what I believe, because I am right, and everyone else is wrong."
It means living how I believe without caring if my behavior offends some religious fundamentalist. If some religious people are offended by gays holding hands in public, well, who cares? Let them be offended, in fact, hold hands even if it provokes them.


"Yeah, because if you don't "push back" against Catholics going to mass on their Holy Days, or Jews observing Yom Kippur, you are "succumbing to their rules."
Your reading comprehension is lacking. Nothing in my post is about them following their own rules. It's all about the rest of us having to go out of our way to avoid offending or provoking them. If Muslims don't want to draw cartoons, so be it. When they attack others for not following their rules, we shouldn't shrink back from such bullying.

but your post is definitely a contender for the Top Ten Dumbest Things Ever. - COOL

[NanceGreggs]

150. Your words ...

"We SHOULD actively seek to offend the religious."

The fact remains that you are under no obligation to adhere to the religious beliefs or "rules" of any religion you are not a part of. And pretending that you are somehow being coerced into doing so is absurd.

"Nothing in my post is about them following their own rules."

No, your post is about "actively seeking to offend the religious". And as long as the religious are following "their own rules", what does it have to do with you? Why do you feel a need to "actively seek to offend" people who's religious beliefs have NOTHING TO DO with you?

Who asked you - or, more to the point, OBLIGATED you to "offend"?

"It's all about the rest of us having to go out of our way to avoid offending or provoking them."

No. It's all about people like you who are no different than those who choose to be offended. Some are offended by those who disrespect their religious beliefs - simply for the purpose of doing so. And some are offended by those who "actively seek to offend" the religious beliefs of others - simply for the purpose of doing so.

"We should actively seek to offend the religious" encompasses those who do not respond to disrespect of their faith with violence. It encompasses those who practice their faith, whatever that faith may be, and suggests that they are targets to be fought against because they have the nerve to adhere to the tenets of their faith.

I am often amused by those who say, "The Pope just decreed such-and-such." If you're not a practicing Catholic, what does what the Pope says have to do with you?

"Are you so naive to believe religious fundamentalists don't try and impose their moral code onto non-believers?"

Are you so vulnerable to proselytizing, you live in fear of the lure of the Fundies - and therefore feel compelled to "actively seek to offend them"? Do you REALLY think you're accomplishing something by doing so?

[Arugula Latte]

248. Our rights as women are under attack by religious representatives.

Who is fighting to overturn abortion rights? The Catholic Church, The Baptists, and other rightwing religious institutions. They don't make an exception for non-believing women now, do they? It's not like they say: "These restrictions only apply to women who belong to religious sects that are anti-abortion." No, they fight hard to impose their beliefs on ALL women.

[NanceGreggs]

253. There is a vast difference ...

... between fighting a religion and fighting the imposition of religion.

[Arugula Latte]

262. The less influence religion has on this country, the better,

as far as our rights and freedoms go (particularly as women ... applies to gay people and pro-science people as well). I hope religion continues to decline in number of believers and influence. The Internet has been a great help in this. Satire and holding up supernatural beliefs for examination publicly are some of the best tools we have to do this. I abhor the protective bubble so many religious people expect to be kept around "faith." It's supposed to be accorded automatic "respect" when it is the last thing deserving of respect because it has no basis in fact or reality. Just my two cents.

[NanceGreggs]

263. I couldn't agree more ...

... when it comes to "the less influence religion has on this country, the better."

However, I have to disagree with the idea of "holding up supernatural beliefs for examination publicly" as a means to that end.

I am an atheist. That doesn't mean I can't respect the beliefs of others, nor do I feel a need to ridicule those beliefs. Respect for "a religion" is really not the point; the point is having respect for the people who sincerely hold those beliefs, whether one shares them or not.

Fighting Catholicism, for example, is pointless. Fighting a legislator who seeks to impose his Catholic beliefs on others is a different matter.

"It is the last thing deserving of respect because it has no basis in fact or reality." That is the very definition of religious belief - believing in something that has no basis in fact or reality, but is accepted on faith alone.

Many people find solace, comfort and strength in their faith. It is not my place to convince them that they shouldn't, or to ridicule them for doing so - any more than it is anyone else's place to convince me that my lack of religious faith is something that needs to be "fixed".

I think that for the most part, we are in agreement. But I do feel that religious faith is never going to be eradicated or shamed into non-existence - any more than a lack thereof will ever be changed or overturned.

[Arugula Latte]

272. I don't think it will be entirely eradicated, but

we have seen a great decline in Christianity in Western Europe, for example, and that is starting to take hold here with younger generations -- and thanks in large part to the Internet. I disagree with the "shh, we can't say anything against anyone's faith" thing that has been going on forever. Religious people have rarely if ever been told that their pushing their "faith" and prayers and beliefs on others is offensive and that they should keep it to themselves (except perhaps in the past decade or so, with the Internet), yet the non-religious have been told to hush up for decades. I just disagree with you about that part. But I know we are basically on the same team.

[Maedhros]

114. There are two issues at play: Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Bigotry.

We should always protect the individual's right to think, say, write or draw controversial or offensive things.

However I do not believe that elevating the "art" of being offensive to a heroic act is in any way productive.

One may not respect another's religion, but if we are to have a civilized society we must respect the individual's choice to worship (or not) as they please.

If you truly believe that we should actively seek to offend the religious, then all I can say is stop acting like an adolescent and grow up already. How do you feel about MRAs who actively seek to offend feminists? They think they've got all the right answers, too.

[FLPanhandle]

118. Art throughout history has offended.

Even Michelangelo's paintings offended some of the religious because of the nudes.

I guess he was an adolescent because he didn't care about offending or provoking some of the church leaders.

It's okay to offend.

[Chemisse]

115. I disagree.

If a religious nut is imposing doctrine upon you - then yes. Sure.

But going out of one's way to hurt and insult people who have strong religious beliefs - provided those beliefs are not being impinged upon you - is just wrong.

Sure, there is no law against it. But do we really require a law to tell us not to be hateful and cruel?

Live and let live.

[FLPanhandle]

120. That was sort of the point of the OP

"If a religious nut is imposing doctrine upon you - then yes. Sure."

We shouldn't be afraid of offending or provoking when they want us to follow their rules.

[Chemisse]

123. Here is what I disagree with:

"We SHOULD actively seek to offend the religious."

[FLPanhandle]

128. In the case where they are imposing their doctrine...

I believe we should actively seek to offend them. Stop it from the outset sort of approach.

I guess we will have to disagree on that point then.

[YoungDemCA]

127. A lot of Muslims interpret cartoons of the Prophet as an attack on their identity as Muslims

It's not that it's a "rule" per se, like a theological issue/matter of doctrine. It's more that they don't feel that the people who create and promote such cartoons are even considering the possibility that it could be interpreted as a deliberate slap-in-the-face to the nearly 2 billion Muslims around the world - let alone, having any sense of respect or sensitivity towards Muslims as a community.

In some cases, the cartoons have been a deliberate provocation to the Muslim community, with the cartoonists themselves anticipating a response. With that in mind - can you really blame the many Muslims who feel that a lot of Westerners are tone-deaf on this issue (at best)?

And in any case, it's a relatively small segment of the Muslim population who is truly dogmatic on this issue to the point where they are willing to respond with violence, and even smaller in places like the US (where Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the population, anyway-and are fairly well integrated into American society, generally speaking).

[Yorktown]

175. Yes, and it's a solid sign of indoctrination

Cultish indoctrination requests of the believers a blind faith in the guru.

But would you accept the fact that it is permissible to question the sanctitity of gurus in general, and this muhamad in particluar?

If not, who would we be to criticize Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot et al?

Muhamad had sex with a 9 year old (it's part of scripture, three mentions in the hadith)
And yet, muhamad is required by the cult to be regarded as a model, the perfect human.
That's why child brides are legal in Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc.

There are different ways of expressing such criticism. Caricature is one of them.
And yes, people belonging to the cult have been requested, nay, are mandated to react to criticism as 'slaps in the face'. So what do we do? Suppress criticism because the cult dogma says so?

When one cult says blasphemers must be killed, it's pretty difficult to find a polite middle ground. That cult has drawn pretty clear lines.

[Skittles]

124. yes, people have the right to behave like assholes

there's evidence of that *EVERYWHERE*

[yuiyoshida]

216. bingo!

[samsingh]

130. i agree

[LWolf]

132. I disagree.

With this part:

"We should always refuse to obey their silly rules, furthermore we should ACTIVELY oppose their rules."

When the rules infringe on the rights of others, we should actively oppose them. They don't "always" do so.

[weissmam]

141. HOOAH!

[ibegurpard]

147. Yes it is.

But should you?

[Yorktown]

161. Hear, hear! K&R

In fact, if we don't push back, we, in effect, succumb to their rules.

We SHOULD actively seek to offend the religious, and we should ALWAYS refuse to follow their rules especially when they try to bully us with threats and violence.

Freedom of speech wear and tear only occurs when one fails to exercise it.

Giving in to special pleading demands (cartoons) is just the first step of giving in.

What next? Lapidating blasphemers?

[Caretha]

162. It really isn't hard

to do everything you posted in your thread. I just live my life the best way I see it. If it pisses people off...oh well

[cherokeeprogressive]

167. Okay? FUCK THAT.

Should be required.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

176. So, bully them before they bully you. got it. nt

[AgingAmerican]

188. You are pro 'incite to murder'

Do you also believe it is OK to incite to riot?

[Warren DeMontague]

193. Fundamentalists do not have the right to sanitize reality to their particular demands.

Basically your "incite to riot" argument could be used against anything that pisses anyone off, under any circumstance. Homophobes can say the mere existence of gay weddings make them so MAD they HAVE TO run around shooting people.

Bullshit.

[AgingAmerican]

201. So you are pro incite to riot?

nt

[Warren DeMontague]

202. 2 gay men hold hands walking down the street in a town full of homophobes.

Violent Riot ensues.

Are you anti incitement to riot?

Gonna blame the victims, there, for their "provocation?" Hell, maybe they did it deliberately. Maybe they even KNEW it would piss off the bigots.

Also, your understanding of the 1st amendment is woefully deficient (sadly common on DU)... There is no Elmer Fudd "incitement to riot" exception to the 1A, that covers "that wascawy wabbit said something that made me weeeeeallly weeeeeealllly mad!!!!"

[Warren DeMontague]

208. What if drawing pictures of Mohammed is CENTRAL to someone's religion, so much that it is mandatory?

What if it is the highest, most central aspiration of their faith?

Or what if their religion involves pissing people off that they think are overly uptight about theological matters?

By telling people NOT to draw pictures of Mohammed, you would not only be expressing bigotry against their deeply held belief, you might even be inciting them to riot.

[KingCharlemagne]

215. Atheist here: No, it is NOT "absolutely okay". Are you

a sociopath? I thought Democrats were supposed to belong to the party of (among other qualities) empathy and tolerance. I guess not any longer.

[Matrosov]

218. Why be tolerant of intolerance?

We're not tolerant of homophobes and misogynists, so why should we tolerate Abrahamic belief systems like Islam, which preach homophobia and misogyny?

[KingCharlemagne]

220. Willing to toss Judaism and Christianity under the bus too, pal, thereby achieving

an Abrahamic trifecta? Or are you really just a closet bigot who only singles out Islam for opprobrium? Paul of the New Testament is more misogynist than Mohammed on a bad day.

[Bluenorthwest]

223. If you are an atheist, why do you always defend religion?

It's only on DU that I see folks claim to be of no faith, then hotly defend one faith over another.

[KingCharlemagne]

224. Several of my students this term are Muslim and hail from places

like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Although some of them (the Saudis in particular) would probably meet the OP's definition of "religious fundamentalist," I can think of no reason why it is okay to 'provoke' them. In fact, I can tell that they are deeply hurt by the rampant Islamophobia manifest in our culture today.

So I don't always 'defend religion,' but I do always defend my students.

BTW, do you know any of the reasons why Muslims fast during the month of Ramadan? One of those reasons meshes perfectly with the spirit of the erstwhile Democratic Party (pre-1992, anyway).

[Bluenorthwest]

236. But defending your students is not the same as defending their religion. It's just not.

To confuse the two is a heresy in religion and just daft in reason based schools of thought.

[KingCharlemagne]

238. You're tiresome. Some of my students are Muslim and some would probably qualify

as the type of religious fundamentalists this OP thinks it's 'absolutely okay' to provoke. From the tenor of your comments, you seem to agree with the OP. Why do you think it's 'absolutey okay' to provoke some of my students? Are you also a sociopath?

[Bluenorthwest]

273. You put words and ideas into my mouth. You insult and provoke me as if that was your right. Why?

Because your ideas are weak and you can't counter actual reason, so you lash out with abusive language and personal attacks. The inferiority of your philosophy is evident in your verbal tactics.

[Matrosov]

232. Because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I think it is due to the fact that many conservatives hate Islam, and consequently many progressives feel an automatic urge to defend Islam, along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The sad irony is that there are as many hateful aspects of Islam to criticize as of Christianity, and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a simplistic approach that is more prevalent among conservatives.

[Matrosov]

230. I said Abrahamic belief systems

That includes Christianity and Judaism.

The difference between the three is that most progressives agree with the criticism against Christianity and Judaism, yet somehow criticizing Islam for the same reasons is too often dismissed as racist, intolerant, etcetera, simply because right-wingers like to criticize Islam as well.

[Arugula Latte]

247. So is it okay for religious people to push the view that we will burn in Hell for our non-belief?

If so, why is there a double standard and why do the religious have a special privilege?

Personally I think it is fine for the religious to tell us we will burn in Hell, and it is also fine for atheists to point out that religion is a big crock of oppressive, harmful shit based on mythology and nonsense.

[ileus]

217. We'd be supporting this if Christians were the target audience.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

222. Wouldn't it be great if instead of trying to provoke people to anger and violence....

.....we would at least attempt to have a rational conversation with those people instead?

And if they don't want to listen to you, fine. Either they'll come around eventually or they're ultimately a lost cause. Brush the dirt off your sandals and move on. You did what you could.

Why do some people want to see anger and bitterness and division and violence?

[brooklynite]

225. A rational conversation with ISIS...or the Westboro Baptist Church...

That'll go well.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

227. It's worth a Hail Mary pass......

....in the hopes that maybe at least one member of those groups might reconsider their actions.

Of course, the OP isn't limiting his targets to only ISIS and Westboro Baptist.

[Renew Deal]

235. ISIS and Westboro Baptist aren't even in the same universe

There is no comparison between the two.

There is a comparison between Westboro Baptist and Geller. Somehow we managed to mostly ignore Wesboro Baptist. Hopefully people will learn to ignore the Geller types as well.

[brooklynite]

239. I'd say they're exactly the same. The only difference is...

...that one of them outsources to the guy upstairs.

[frylock]

243. I think that ignoring Geller will be a lot easier going forward..

MTA is looking to eliminate acceptance of any kind of political ads, and I can't imagine that ANYONE is going to take on any liability in allowing her to host any of her hatefests at their venues.

[Orsino]

244. It is absolutely silly to use the word "absolutely" in this context.

None of our rights is absolute.

[get the red out]

254. The going theory is apparently

That it depends on what religion.

[quaker bill]

267. Until they shoot you

Unless of course you like that sort of thing.

I tend to leave fundies alone, regardless of their particular persuasion.