So, I have stated that I lean towards agnostic...

[LeftyFingerPop]

That being said, I am truly curious about something.

Why is it "OK" in here to attack religion and religious icons, while it is not "OK" to attack:

race
sexual orientation
weight
height
blah
blah
blah

Is it some kind of DU rule or something?

Please, no answers saying "Who said it is OK to do that"? I think you are all smart enough to know what I am talking about here.

I'm going for a haircut. Wish me luck.

[Parche]

1. Cutting Your Pubes Again?

:rofl:

:hi:

[TZ]

2. I get your point HOWEVER

If you think that all religion and relgious icons should be ABOVE criticism, than I'm going to strongly disagree with you. I have LOTS of issues with the particular relgious icon thats here right now. I've tried not to be snarky but to suggest I hold my opinion because I *might* offend someone's precious relgious beliefs. Sorry. No can do.

[Parche]

3. I feel your pain

what she said

so there


:hi:

[Elidor]

4. Well said n/t

[flvegan]

5. Most of what you've listed aren't choices. The choice to be of a certain belief

is just that. That said, I don't believe in mocking someone over religion, unless they're uber-fundie nutjobs. However, I don't take much offense to someone mocking someone else over it. However, mocking someone for their race or sexual orientation, and I'm probably gonna get in your face about it.

[Westegg]

13. This is simplistic. We don't generally "choose" our religion...

...we are born into it. And it is often shoved down our throats for years. Yes, some people choose a different religion later in life, but how many? I'd suggest that 99% of us don't choose our religion anymore than we choose the families into which we are born.

[flvegan]

28. You may not choose your religion

when as a child you're born into it. In time, naturally, you may question some things about it. You end up choosing to believe what you believe.

I wasn't born vegan, but I believe in it as much as most folks do their religion.

[Critters2]

30. And some of us are veg*n because of our faith. nt

[Westegg]

45. And I support you in your beliefs.

[ScarletSniper]

105. Agreed and those of us..that choose to opt out of them..are seen as dangerous and lost

I get a lot of how could you? How can you turn your back on your religion, the foundation of your childhood?

Uh, easy...I don't believe any of it..

[LeftyFingerPop]

14. So, because it is a choice...

you don't take offense to someone mocking someone else over their religion.

So in essence, you don't take offense to someone mocking someone else over a deep seated personal choice that helps them personally. Is that correct? My whole point is this...it should not be mocked, because it IS a personal choice.

I agree with the posters who are saying that people who get up in your face about religion may deserve what they get. MAY deserve. I say MAY deserve, because, as a straight person, I would still tread very very lightly if someone got up in my face about how the gay lifestyle was better than the straight lifestyle. Or as a white person, if a black person got up in my face about how black people have more character than whites (silly examples, I know, but you get my drift).

Even though your race or your sexuality are not personal choices, they are still part of who you are, just like religion. Therefore, in my opinion, religion is not fair game for abuse, and should be treated with the same respect as a person's race or sexuality.

Degrading someone's personal choice, when it is not being shoved in your face, is not much different than being racist or homophobic in my opinion.

[flvegan]

29. Not particularly, no.

I understand your frustration, I really do, and I understand why you feel that way. I get to be on the receiving end of the vegan hatefests that happen once a week in GD. I understand the importance of deep seated, personal, life changing beliefs, and I don't like folks mocking mine. But it's a choice that I have that others don't agree with. I fight over mine, but don't get bent at ones I don't subscribe to. Sure fire path to burnout.

I'm what some would consider an agnostic buddhist. Have at it if you want.

[LeftyFingerPop]

35. I'm not particularly frustrated over the issue, and I guess my OP

was more out of curiosity than anything else.

I think that we DUer's in general are a respectful group of people, in spite of our many disagreements.

However, I have noticed that some people seem to go rabid bugfuck hyper when it comes to the subject of religion.

Now personally, I don't feel much pain from that, because I pretty much removed myself from the church once the pedophile scandals came to light. In spite of this, I am close to people who are still firm believers, and I personally would not criticize them for their beliefs.

Just as I would never say anything hurtful about you being a vegan. I think it is a great thing, even though I eat meat. It is your choice, and a good one in my opinion. But even if I disagreed, who am I to say what is right for you?

To me, it is all a matter of what we as individuals want and need to get through this life.

[flvegan]

36. I honestly think that the huge topic of "religion" in general

has become badly maligned because all too often, "religion" has been such a pedestal that the RW has used. Hence, I think much of DUs "frustration" is a general malaise that unfortunately rises from time to time.

I would never say anything hurtful about those that are religious, at least not intentionally (he says, realizing that saying it's a choice may seem hurtful to some after the fact). If they're not hurting anybody, what do I care if they're Catholic or Satanists?

I think your last statement sums it up pretty well.

[LeftyFingerPop]

37. And I think your first paragraph has shed some light...

on my OP question. Thanks.

[Critters2]

19. You're mistaken.

I can't stop believing the things I believe. I believe them. Indeed, I believe I've experienced them. That others here call them delusions or fairy tales doesn't negate the fact that I have had mystical experiences and they inform my thinking. I can't "unbelieve" them, no matter how much you think I should. They are not a choice. I choose to join a specific denomination, but my faith experience is an experience, not a choice.

[flvegan]

32. Trying to argue this with a pastor

would be a bad idea, and I'm relatively certain that I would probably wind up saying something that you would see as very insulting (though I wouldn't mean it to be so) so I won't.

[Critters2]

34. I don't insult that easily.

And I know many see mystical experiences as delusions. But even if they were, I didn't choose them. I just didn't.

And if you consider it a mental illness, are you in the habit of insulting the mentally ill?

[flvegan]

40. Mental illness?

I don't see where I mentioned or implied that. FYI, and this is why I didn't want to do this with you, I don't think any mystical experience or the like are delusions of any kind. I think a great many of the clergy do experience the "calling" to do God's work, however they do so. And THAT I wouldn't call choice. Now, if DU was Democratic Clergy Underground, well, I wouldn't be here, but I wouldn't have made that statement because I don't think it would apply.

[Critters2]

41. Honestly, I don't understand your post.

My mystical experiences were not about my vocation. They were about my faith. Lots of lay people have them, too.

[flvegan]

42. Please see Post 32, then.

[Critters2]

44. Sorry you don't feel like we can talk. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

144. I agree: faith is experiential, not intellectual

It's more ilke falling in love than it's like deciding between two scientific hypotheses.

[tjwmason]

85. Is belief a choice?

I've heard many athiests argue that they cannot believe, I fully accept that just as I cannot not believe - I could reject my religion, but could only do so in rejection of my conscience.

[unpossibles]

101. so does that mean that almost every believer was lucky enough to be born into the "right"

system of belief, which coincides with their parents and general society? Yet most atheists do not necessarily become atheists because of their family or society at large, and often in spite of those factors.

I am not trying to be crappy, just saying that there is some choice in it, and that even most religions consider it a choice of free will to be saved or not to be saved. Yes, your experiences shape your belief, just as my own shape my non-belief, but could you not say that those experiences are filtered through a belief system which you inherited from your environment, and that you still on some level, made the decision to either accept or reject that filter?

[YankeyMCC]

88. I disagree

At least for myself as an atheist if I were to 'choose' to believe in gods that would be hypocrisy.

It's difficult for me to understand a life long belief in gods but I accept that for most at least it is not really a choice, you could say it is in part due to indoctrination as children and that almost certainly has some effect but it also has much to due with how a person interprets and interacts with the world around them. And much of how each person goes about doing that is 'hardwired' into the workings of their brain and body, their mind.

Now you may be partially correct in that in general people perceive belief as a choice and therefore more open to attack.

But perhaps the more charitable answer is that beliefs can be influenced. Or at least desires, so religious icons and beliefs are rightly challenged - not unfairly attacked - to shake people up now and then, people should be made to examine their choices and of course belief affects choices. It really shouldn't, in most cases, be about changing a person's beliefs but an attempt to come to a common understanding about how to live together and understanding is an important part of that and understanding only comes from questioning and examination.

[Benfea]

6. While I disagree with Dawkins and Harris on a number of points...

...they are absolutely correct in that religion should not be held above all criticism. Any idea which have such a profound influence on human activities should be held to the same critical standard as libertarianism or Keynesian economics or any other idea that people try to use to govern our actions and/or policies.

The problem with this is that in our society, people have been taught that religion should never be questioned, and if you question religion in any way, you are "attacking" it and you are a very crude person.

An idea as dangerous as religion should not be held above all criticism. If saying so and doing so counts as an "attack" on religion, then so be it.

[regularguy]

7. Case in point:

When in 2000 GWB said "Jesus" was his "favorite philosopher" ("because he changed my heart"), apparently one couldn't say "You're a moron who doesn't even know what philosophy is, aren't you?". I'm not saying that religious people are any more moronic than anybody else, but that GWB was hiding behind JC's skirt using the idea that religion can't be criticized in the same way a telemarketer might take advantage of the fact that you're too polite to hang up on anyone.

[LeftyFingerPop]

8. Degrading someone for their race, sexual orientation, etc....

Is wrong because:

1) It degrades entire classes of individuals

2) It implies personal superiority over entire classes of individuals

Degrading someone for their religious beliefs, or degrading their icons, is the EXACT same thing. By degrading, you separate these people as a class because of their firmly entrenched belief system that helps them survive life.

Remember, I'm saying this as an agnostic.

[TZ]

9. So criticism of religion and religious figures is taboo?

[LeftyFingerPop]

18. It should be as taboo as...

criticizing the gay lifestyle. Or black culture. It is a matter of sensitivity to others in my opinion.

Notice that I have not gone into detail about my religious beliefs. As a person who was raised Catholic, but is now agnostic, I obviously have some criticisms.

However, just as religion should not be shoved in someone's face, neither should "mocking". Valid criticism may be a different thing, but that is not what I am talking about here.

[TZ]

25. But none of those groups are perfect and can be criticized..

What if I told you I found certain things in hip hop culture offensive? Would that make me a racist? I don't think so..I see the point that you are trying to make..but for many of us have religion shoved in our face constantly the mocking is a defense mechanism. Is it particularly nice, no..but to me its a bit more understandable than people who make racist or homophobic remarks out of sheer ignorance.

[Critters2]

26. People who've been the victims of crimes committed by racial minority members

make the same argument. "Surely you can understand how (insert minority here) make me nervous. I was mugged by one." So they generalize their feelings to all members of the minority. How is your argument different?

[TZ]

33. Because most victims

aren't told over and over that they deserve it or don't deserve to be citizens or have no rights.....(for the most part). I have had more problems with people stereotyping me based on religion than anyother issue in my entire life.
Its still illegal to hold office in many states if you are an atheist...

[LeftyFingerPop]

27. You're missing my point....

I am agnostic. I obviously have criticisms of religion.

I choose not go go overboard here about them out of respect for people's beliefs.

My OP did not question whether religion was right or wrong. It questioned why it is an easy target on DU, while areas are not.

I'm really trying to get down to why some things are acceptable here, and some things are not.

Obviously, in my mind, racism and anti-religious fervor, while not the exact same thing, are on the same plane.

To me, anti-religious fervor is just as ridiculous as religious fervor.

[TZ]

31. okay I get your point

There is a lot of double standards here on DU actually. See acceptable science..evolution,global warming vs. unacceptable science, genetic technology drug discovery etc...

[LeftyFingerPop]

38. Thank you for your views....

which incidentally, I am not in total disagreement with.

[RadiationTherapy]

70. This is the second time today that I have seen the term "hip hop culture"

What does that MEAN? Why would your criticism of it equal racism unless you equate "hip hop culture" with black culture?

[RainDog]

12. no it's not

someone does not choose his/her race or sexual orientation or their mental capacity. assuming someone is over the age of 12.. or even 18, that person has made a choice to either believe something or question it.

it someone wants to believe in god, etc. I have no quarrel with that.

If someone wants to believe in a god that denies reality that has an impact upon my life I see no reason why that person's beliefs should not be challenged. in fact, I think they should be challenged if they try to bring those beliefs into the public discourse.

whatever someone chooses to believe in the privacy of his/her heart is his/her business. however, over the last 30 years, right wing fundies have sought to force their beliefs upon others via legislation. These beliefs are harmful to me and mine... the sexism, the unwillingness to accept science that has created civilization, from its most basic until now.

there is a HUGE difference between religious belief and gender or race. the issues that are worth deconstructing in religion are those that impact my life in so many ways I cannot list them all, but a few are health care, education, equal rights, human rights...

not the same things.

[Critters2]

21. How many right wing fundies do you think there are on DU?

philboy was asking about criticism of religious DU'ers, I think. That's very different from criticizing right wing fundies.

[RainDog]

86. I'm sure I inadvertantly criticize

religious du-ers by using "christian" as a word to define a much smaller group within that faith when I speficially mean fundie (of any faith) is more to the point... and that could also be extended to Stalinists, as far as I'm concerned... what with Lysenko's fundie faith in an ideology (that plants would not compete for resources) that caused famine in the Soviet Union way back when.

but I also know that the internets are infamous for the vehemence in ppl's responses to things... my own included. In real life I would not appear to be the same person as here, often, because I don't tend to vent as a way of life among strangers, I actually do observe the social graces and do not curse like a sailor during a storm.

My antagonism toward fundies is personal as well as political, as I've noted here before, because I was born/raised in fundie land. My anger is informed by my experiences.

I do not think that anyone who holds religious beliefs or who thinks she/he has had a mystical experience is an idiot or mentally ill or anything of the sort. But I think that many people who make jokes, etc. about religious things do so as "insiders" - those who were raised in the culture - or whose experience has always included the larger cultural pervasiveness of one belief or another.

[cyborg_jim]

139. Is it okay to degrade the class of people who degrade people?

Logical paradoxes ahoy cap'n!

[LanternWaste]

10. From what I've gathered over the years here at DU

From what I've gathered over the years here at DU, it's good form to make fun of a person for something that's their choice-- regardless of how sacred they may personally hold it; while conversely, it's never good form to make make fun of someone for something over which we have no choice-- regarldess of how insignificant it is (i.e, being left handed) in the scheme of our lives.

But as for myself, I've never really understood what the precise moral difference is... either way, we're denigrating and verbally abusing a person for something that is part and parcel of who they are.

[Critters2]

22. See #19. nt

[hippywife]

52. Well put!

:thumbsup:

[LeftyFingerPop]

69. I agree with this...

"either way, we're denigrating and verbally abusing a person for something that is part and parcel of who they are".

[Beausoleil]

11. You can't really change your race, height or sexual orientation

(Weight, yes, you can change that, even if that is most difficult for a lot of people). You can change your religion any time you wish.

The problem is you also have to defend it when you try to convince people that "it" is the only way, the "One True" religion and that they'll be damned if they don't see things your way. It's kind of hard to "convert" others to your race, height or sexual orientation.

If part of your "religious" dogma states that you are right and others are wrong, de facto, you need to be prepared to defend that.

Yes, you have a right to whatever religion you want. When you try to shove it down someone else's throat, be prepared to have it shoved back.

[unpossibles]

15. choice or not, t make fun of someone based on weight or skin color

says nothing about the person. Yes, religion is a choice, and even more importantly, it often informs someone on how they will perceive the world.

All that said, I tend to be fairly quiet about religion and try to respect most people's beliefs until they start disrespecting mine or those of others, then it's fair game, imo.

[NJmaverick]

16. Perhaps it's because religions feel free to attack people

for their

sexual orientation
lifestyle
right to control their bodies
etc

Religions tend not to be innocent victims.

[LeftyFingerPop]

17. That's a broad brush.

Your comment is not without merit however. But, that is not what I am talking about. I am not talking about religion per se, I am talking about an individual's right to believe without fear of mocking.

[NJmaverick]

71. Sorry I read your original post much differently

I fully respect anyone's religious beliefs. My feeling is that faith is about belief. Belief, by it's very definition, is about opinion with out factual or logical support. So I have always felt that to attack anyone's religious beliefs is wrong, because there is no way to possibly know who is or isn't right.

[PassingFair]

91. What if I believe that Space Aliens impregnated my dog?

What if I believe that the Ark of the Covenant
is buried in my backyard?

A little derision would be called for, IMHO.

[LeftyFingerPop]

103. Well, and I'm serious here....

If you truly believed that space aliens impregnated your dog...could I prove otherwise? And why would I attempt to prove otherwise? It is not hurting me if you believe that.

[PassingFair]

104. Depends on the gestation period, I guess....

See how SILLY this is?

[LeftyFingerPop]

107. No. I'm being dead serious.

I don't think it is silly at all.

I told you I was being serious, please don't diminish my response.

My point: I expect myself to work on what I believe in, not what others believe in. I don't care what you believe if it has no direct impact on me, and I don't need to change your mind about what you believe.

[cyborg_jim]

141. What if...

He believe space aliens impregnanted YOUR dog and he had to cut open the animal in order to extract the extra-terrestial DNA before a terrible entity is unleashed unto the world?

The line between "harmless insane belief" and "harmful insane belief" is pretty thin isn't it?

[cyborg_jim]

140. Right?

Why should that be a right?

I see people take the concept of "right" very lightly but I don't see why anyone should have the right not to be "mocked".

To use the clichéd example: does GWB have the right to believe in his politics and religion (which are part and parcel of who he is right?) without being mocked for them?

To me the consequences of a right to not be mocked are more dire than living with mocking.

[Critters2]

23. Do religious DU'ers do this?nt

[NJmaverick]

57. I thought this was about religions and religious icons

not religious people or religious DUers.

[hippywife]

51. Only certain individuals who

hold forth to be believers in a given religion can be labeled that way. They use their religion as a cudgel. However, not all behave in that manner.

[NJmaverick]

72. I agree

I thought this was a conversation about religions and religious icons, I didn't think it was about the people that belong to various religions.

[pitohui]

20. religious leaders/religious believers are powerful

there is nothing wrong in confronting the powerful -- and there is everything right if we ever hope to change this dying, hurting world

there is a lot wrong with dumping on somebody because of their color, weight, height, gender, sexual kicks, or whatever -- fat people are not powerful without struggle, they are discriminated against, for example

religion and religious leaders cut to the front of the line every damn time

they are predators sucking the life and the future out of the rest of us

in our hearts i think all of us who have our heads screwed on straight know damn good and well that there isn't any invisible deity commanding us to kiss his ass, we are animals, we have certain proof of evolutionary history and the development of the earth and the universe, and none of it involves the crap taught by religions

it's time to stop coddling those who sell lies and religion is a lie

that's why it SHOULD be acceptable to challenge religion

the truth is that it is NOT accepted, that we are all supposed to cower and bow our heads and forget our hopes and dreams for life on this earth as soon as religion/god is invoked

one day it will be a criminal offense to fill children's heads with these lies, but none of us will be lucky enough to live so long

religion has had 10,000 years to change the world and all it has ever done is keep the wars and division and hatreds going

[LeftyFingerPop]

24. If religious leaders are as powerful as you describe....

and religion is as heinous as you describe...

then how do you explain the fact that I am no longer a believer after being raised Catholic?

How do you explain the fact that many of the wonderful, caring people of DU are believers.

Why is it up to you to state that religion is a lie?

You challenge because you don't believe.

Your post just got up in my face, just like many people accuse religious fanatics of doing.

I'm not talking about whether religion is right or wrong, I'm talking about the right to worship without fear of mocking.

[Richardo]

39. Man I don't want to live in your world...

"one day it will be a criminal offense to fill children's heads with these lies"

Describe the committee that will decide what parents can or cannot teach their own children. Go ahead and use both sides of the paper if necessary.

[5LeavesLeft]

47. Religion is a lie?

Which religion and what is the lie? Please tell me the TRUTH, and back it up with proof. If you can't prove it I can't accept it as TRUTH.

[hippywife]

53. I'll remember that as

I renew my membership the Interfaith Alliance, stand against the war with my athiest friends and believers of all stripes, etc.

And people think only the RW conservative Christians are dogmatic and divisive. :eyes:

[hippywife]

43. I rarely jump into these discussions

but suffice it to say, I think people can be critical and criticize something in the purest form of that definition without being insulting. It's an attitude thing, ya know?

Personally, I'm a Christian but one of the liberal variety, not the legalistic variety. (Lapsed Catholic here, too.) And I bet there are few here that face the conservative Christian mindset more than I do on a daily basis. However, when confronted with the conservative Christian view of things, in general and specific, even being a Christian it makes me wonder if there wasn't a reason first century Christian were "persecuted." Throughout history there have been periods of over-zealousness by certain sects of believers that had very terrifying consequences for so many (like now) and it makes me wonder if that first century Christian wasn't just a tad pushy in their approach (like now.) What were the people who feared and loathed them confronted with in their presence?

Additionally, I have been warmly welcomed and enjoy the company of my Muslim brothers and sisters. Just because there are sects of Islam that are also conservatively legalistic, doesn't lead me to shun or insult those who are not.

I think one can question and experience/engage in critical analysis of religion without insulting those who believe simply because they have been hurt by or are astounded by the conservative Christian view. There are a whole host of other Christians standing and fighting side by side with them against the views and attempted reach of the legalistic variety. The fact that some people can't seem to realize that and act accordingly, speaks more about the people who behave that way than any religious belief system.

And not everyone who believes does so blindly. I re-examine, question, and reaffirm my belief very frequently.

[5LeavesLeft]

50. Amen to that!

Man I wish I were eloquent! There's always what I do say and then there's wish what I had say. You should jump into these discussions more frequently

[hippywife]

54. Welcome to DU, 5LeavesLeft.

:hi:

[LeftyFingerPop]

63. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[LeftyFingerPop]

60. Outstanding. Thank you for this...

"I think one can question and experience/engage in critical analysis of religion without insulting those who believe simply because they have been hurt by or are astounded by the conservative Christian view. There are a whole host of other Christians standing and fighting side by side with them against the views and attempted reach of the legalistic variety. The fact that some people can't seem to realize that and act accordingly, speaks more about the people who behave that way than any religious belief system".

um.....yup!

[QueenOfCalifornia]

46. Religion

is a belief in something - all or any beliefs are attackable. I prefer to use a different term, like calling them on their shit.

To attack someone because of their weight, skin color sexual orientation etc. is like attacking a kid born missing a leg - it is not their choice. Pointing out dangerous & delusional thinking is not anything like attacking someone due to things they have no control over.

It's comparing elephants to tulips...

Hope the haircut came out lovely!

:hi:

[LeftyFingerPop]

61. What is dangerous and delusional to some...

is life saving to others.

Thanks for asking about the haircut...came out perfect. nice and short...quarter inch all around. Feels good. I would post a pic, but I seem to have developed a rather unfortunate, albeit small, zit on my forehead. :rofl: :hi:

[RadiationTherapy]

48. Religion and religious people have been a thorn in my side my entire life.

None of those other categories have.

[LeftyFingerPop]

59. Why do you let it, and them, be a thorn in your side?

Why can't you simply say "I don't believe"?

[RadiationTherapy]

67. I will pretend you aren't being willfully ignorant and answer.

Proselytizing. Condemning. False "neighborino-ness" (ala Ned Flanders). Hypocrites. Justification of heinous behaviors based on cryptic 2000 year old poetry.

And, FYI, I DO believe. I absolutely believe in a higher order and a higher purpose for humans. I just don't start fights over it, you know?

I don't give a damn. I can't think of a single person I am close to who is religious in any way and the mormons or any other pretentious pricks who come to my door to talk about their misunderstandings of the universe can suck my doorknob.

And before all the "exceptions" come tooting out of the woodwork: If you aren't any of the above, that is great. Good job.

[LeftyFingerPop]

73. You don't have to pretend that I am not being willfully ignorant....

and you don't have to insult me.

My point is this... I am an intelligent individual, as you most certainly are....how come I can get through life without the above being a thorn in my side?

[RadiationTherapy]

74. Maybe the same way I used to be "christian" and didn't feel the need

to confront gays about their sex lives or try to "spread the word" to others or believe that children in aboriginal australia are going to hell for never having accepted Jesus as their savior.


I am much more christ like now than when I sported the title "christian". Prays Jesus.

[LeftyFingerPop]

75. ok. n/t

[cemaphonic]

49. I think there are a number of factors

1) Right-wing fundamentalist Christianity has been a very powerful and destructive force in American politics and culture for over 30 years. I don't think anyone here, religious or not will deny this. Much of the backlash is against them - it's not as if there is a huge epidemic of anti-Hindu, or anti-Buddhist sentiment around here, or in the larger American culture. It's not fair that the tolerable ones get painted with the same broad brush, but it's not really fair that the 1 billion Muslims around the world are lumped in with the likes of Al Queda and Khomeini either.

2) Plenty of religious people (such as the above-mentioned) are not exactly shy about telling others how they feel about their religious beliefs. Again, it's not so much the people here, but is backlash against a larger cultural trend.

[LeftyFingerPop]

62. Kind of answer I was looking for. Thank you. n/t

[stuntcat]

55. this might not apply but

the Holy War shit is putting me off.
And the fact that God's image is pretty much raping the hell out of it's one home.. I was hoping the Pope would say something for the environment while he had so much attention but he hasn't, I'm betting he'll go home without mentioning it.

I'd like to respect religion.. does that count, like for my good intentions? :shrug:

[LeftyFingerPop]

65. It doesn't matter to me what you respect....

My point all through this thread....you have the right to pretty much respect whatever you want, as long as it is not hurting someone else.

[Arugula Latte]

56. It's a reaction against the society norm where any stupid, ridiculous, far-fetched crapola

that anyone espouses as "Faith" supposed to be beyond reproach and safe from criticism.

[LeftyFingerPop]

58. Rational criticism and mocking are separate items.

I'm referring to the mindless mocking.

[hippywife]

64. Exactly!

That is it boiled down to two simple sentences. :hi:

[skygazer]

66. Because religions are a belief and the others are physical characteristics

You really can't see the difference?

[LeftyFingerPop]

68. Well....

I don't think criticism is warranted for people's beliefs. I could make an argument that heterosexuality or homosexuality are beliefs also.

[skygazer]

76. Seriously, why not?

If people never criticised the beliefs of others, there would be no dialogue. No questioning. No stretching of the mind.

I agree that there are people who are extremely personal and rude in their attacks on religious belief but there are also those who take any questioning whatsoever, no matter how benign, of their beliefs as an attack.

It is the questioning that is so innate to humans that has led people to religious beliefs and it is that questioning that has also led them to science. When we stop questioning, we stop learning.

[LeftyFingerPop]

77. Please see post #58. n/t

[skygazer]

80. Fair enough but its difficult and frustrating sometimes

I am not saying this fits you at all philboy, but many people here on DU and IRL who complain about people "attacking" religion are quick to brand anyone who doesn't believe, or who doesn't believe the way they do as people without morals, values, and many other traits that have nothing to do with one's religious beliefs but are very often lumped in with them. Atheists get the brunt of it - the fact that people still seriously question whether an atheist should hold political office in the United States makes that very clear. Why in the world should they not? And yet the point is raised, not just by crackpot extremists but by thoughtful and seemingly intelligent people.

When one tries to engage people in a dialogue, to defend one's DISbelief, one is very often accused of attacking another's belief. So I could turn your question on its head and ask why it is considered okay in society to attack one for their disbelief but it is taboo to attack one who believes.

Some of us dirty, nasty, morals-lacking, unvirtuous, valueless atheists get rather tired of being labeled those things as well. And it's sometimes hard to see how the religious have it so rough when everything in society is geared to support them.

[LeftyFingerPop]

81. Skygazer....

Thank you for this post. It makes a lot of sense to me.

It is like they say...you should never discuss politics or religion while drinking, lest you want to end up in a fist fight.

I, too, have a problem with people shoving religion down my throat. But I have always been able to dissipate it easily. I can get rid of a Jehovah's witness at my door in 2 seconds flat, and I can do it politely.

I used to be semi-religious, and now am agnostic as I have stated. My best male friend has always been atheist. He used to try to engage me in a religious discussion, especially when we were out drinking, and I always refused to go down that road.

I think that devout religious people, as well as atheists, can be and are wonderful people.

I just accept whatever someone believes in as their business, and try to avoid any attempts at changing someone's mind about the issue.

I hope I have made it clear in my responses here that I am not at all concerned whether people are religious or not, but I am curious as why why people argue the subject so fervently when it is truly a personal decision in my opinion.

Have a good night.

[skygazer]

82. And you too

It's a pleasure to have a civilized discussion on the subject. :hug:

[LeftyFingerPop]

83. Indeed it is...

:hug:

[bullwinkle428]

102. Sexual orientation is a belief? When did you decide to believe you liked girls?

(Assuming you're a heterosexual male)

[LeftyFingerPop]

106. Yes I am a heterosexual male...

And I think that sexual orientation has a belief "component". It has both mental components and physical components. It is part of who you are. It is part of how you view the world, sexual orientation is part of how you view yourself.

I can't be black and white and say "sexual orientation is a belief"...but I do think that beliefs are a component of orientation.

[bullwinkle428]

123. I guess for me, it's hard to remove the concept of "belief"

out from under the header of "choice". Others may see that differently. It might just make more sense for me, logically, to see someone that harbors bigoted feelings as choosing to believe that they are superior to someone else that doesn't share the same gender/skin color/nationality/etc. Conversely, I am choosing to believe that those very characteristics don't make that person "better" or "worse" than I...

[hyphenate]

78. I dunno about others

but I have enormous frustration with fundies, and have had bad experiences with them. Couple that with a former close friend who became a fundie, add a good amount of agnosticism leaning toward atheism, another dear friend who was a liberal Catholic, also add in the fact that I was/am a lapsed Catholic, and you have a good reason why I would go after them.

This is to say, I don't begrudge anyone else--other than those on the radical religious right--their choice of beliefs--ever. But if the topic of fundieism arises, I will happily rip their throats out. :)

[khashka]

79. Talk to the mods.

Attacking a persons religion is a major violation of the rules. It's right down there in the regs.

Khash.

[Neoma]

84. If you don't attack me for my beliefs, orientation etc. I won't attack your beliefs.

I don't care if it's in your religion to attack my beliefs and orientation or not. That's just how I stand. I do disagree severely with most other religions, but I try to keep it to myself at times, unless I happen to agree with someone else about their thoughts on the matter. My general attacks aren't as baseless as all that. I did grow up with shitty religious people, so I do take a certain view of them. I don't mean to be a disagreeable person, but once you take down all the things said in the past about the Atheists, Buddhists, Bisexuals, Pro-choice's, Feminists, Hippies, and Scientists, you do tend to be on the defensive side. Considering the fact that I'm all of those things I mean. (Soon to be scientist, I'm still going through college.)

[regularguy]

87. Gonna kick this. Lot's of good stuff in this thread!

Thanks Philboy.

[LeftyFingerPop]

92. Thanks for the kick regularguy...

I actually feel quite good that this has not turned into a flame war. I agree, some good discussion here. :hi:

[asteroid2003QQ47]

89. "God's" Chosen People...

have played hardball with the un-chosen for thousands of years, they invite attack!
For the misery they have past inflicted and continue to inflict on humanity, it is unconscionable to NOT attack the religious!

[LeftyFingerPop]

94. Your opinion that they invite attack...

could be argued. I don't necessarily think your statement is wrong in all cases. but it could certainly be argued from the point of view that "non-religious" or "non-spiritual" people have inflicted more harm on humanity. Do I believe this to be so? Probably not...but I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a good debate on that issue.

[Deep13]

90. Okay to criticize ideas, but not categories of people.

Religious ideas are just ideas and as far as criticism goes, it is open season as far as I'm concern.

Religious people, however, should not be judged by the group. "The Jews control the media!" Well, no, there is no "the Jews." Some Jews might have influential positions in media companies, but that does not justify the implication that the whole group somehow controls media as a single mind. I take this view despite the fact that religion is not integral to a person as he or she may change his or her mind at will.

The other categories you mention (which I cannot help noticing does not include gender) are not ideas, but are integral to the person. While there may be characteristics that are more prevalent in some groups than others, it remains wrong to judge an individual by those standards. Most Black voters support Obama, but that does not mean Black Americans as a group are necessarily Obama supports as though it was an immutable part of their personalities.

I think the word "attack" is a bit melodramatic. It is never okay to attack someone, but that is different than criticism.

[LeftyFingerPop]

93. I agree 100% with your response title.

I do not, however, agree with your statement that the word "attack" is melodramatic. Attacks can be subtle, and I've seen some pretty nasty stuff in here regarding religion. Just look in this thread...you will see a lot of bubbling anger.

But I'll state once again...my OP is not about whether religion is right or wrong.

Thanks for your post.

[RadiationTherapy]

95. What's wrong with anger? How does it relate to being 'nasty'?

[LeftyFingerPop]

96. I'm more talking about a lack of respect...

for the opinion of others that translates to nastiness. There are ways of being angry and expressing that anger without diminishing another person's beliefs.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

112. Respect is earned, is it not?

I was raised a Methodist by a Protestant father and a Catholic mother though I was born an atheist and likely will die an atheist. I loved and respected my parents very much. My wife is religious, I love and respect her very much. I have friends who are religious who I love and respect. That respect is secure because it is qualities other than religion that I respect them for and they respect me enough to not get in my face with their religion.

[LeftyFingerPop]

115. I give respect until I have a reason NOT to give respect....

It does not have to be earned first by me. I just default to giving respect until I decide the person does not deserve my respect, not the other way around.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

121. You are right, of course.

I perhaps should have been more clear in that it is Religion per se that, all things considered,
has done little to earn/deserve respect.

[Deep13]

97. "...my OP is not about whether religion is right or wrong."

But that is central to the issue: the freedom to criticize ideas for arguably being wrong.

And yeah, I am angry at religious leaders and those that support them and I have cause for it. I'm not going to apologize for that or shut-up about it.

[LeftyFingerPop]

99. I'm not talking about criticizing....

I'm more talking about mindless mocking. And I'm also talking about knowing about when to end the discussion with a person who has deeply entrenched ideas that will never be changed by me.

Some people accept things as articles of faith. In my opinion, that should not be argued, and it should be respected.

[Deep13]

111. Two points.

Yes, there is a certain social reality that makes it a bad idea to try to change people's minds about religion. Nevertheless, that does not prevent religion from constantly trying to change my mind or by coercing its adherents into not questions theirs. The social reality is they can get away with it and I cannot. So I don't, at least until someone asks about it.

Second I absolutely disagree that merely labeling something as "faith" means the idea in question cannot be questioned. The polite deference we give religious ideas is wholly undeserved and it undermines the progress of humanity. How many people will die of potentially curable diseases in the next thirty years because of religious objections to genetic research including stem cells? How many acres will be submerged because people have faith that god will not allow global warming? If I truly have faith that the soul enters the body at conception, then how am I not justified in killing doctors to defend those embryos from being murdered? The most horrific thing about Christianity in particular is that it places high redemptive value on suffering, especially suffering by others. Religion has ever been the enemy of progress and that cannot go unchallenged.

I don't believe. I either know or I don't know. Some ideas are plainly ridiculous and I am not going to pretend they are not. If anything, I hold back to avoid being lynched, but not out of respect for the idea which I do not have.

[LeftyFingerPop]

113. My response:

"I don't believe. I either know or I don't know. Some ideas are plainly ridiculous and I am not going to pretend they are not".

This is your opinion, I respect it, but I disagree. I believe in a higher spirit. Is it God? I don't know. Can I prove there is a higher spirit? Nope. I just believe it. Do I think it is ridiculous to believe in a higher spirit? Nope.

Also, your post is getting into the nitty gritty on whether religion is "right" or "wrong".

This was not the intent of the OP.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. Not that I think rules are being broken, but it's probably worth reading the rules section on this

to get an idea on the 'thoughts of Chairman Skinner' on this. It's an area where the boundaries of "relatively sensitive and respectful" are going to be a bit subjective, inevitably:

With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are welcome to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, but they are expected to do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner. As a general rule, discussions about ideas are usually permitted, but broad-brush bigoted statements about groups of people — either religious or non-religious — are not. If you are easily offended by discussions about religious beliefs, or if you take pleasure from offending or ridiculing people with different beliefs, or if you consider progressive people with different beliefs to be your enemy or your inferior, do not participate in religious discussions on Democratic Underground.

Discussion topics relating to religion that have little or no relation to politics or current events must be posted in the Religion/Theology forum. If you are easily offended by discussion relating to religion, you are strongly advised to avoid the Religion/Theology forum. Instead, consider participating in one of our many DU Groups for believers or non-believers.

Please note that sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not categorically forbidden (except in the case of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence, as mentioned above). However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

Have a thick skin. Please be aware that just because you consider a post to be offensive does not mean that it is against the rules or bigoted. As a general rule of thumb, posts about ideas are generally okay, but posts about groups of people are often inappropriate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[LeftyFingerPop]

100. Thanks...

"Relatively sensitive and respectful manner" is the underlying theme of the OP.

[skygazer]

108. I'm interested to see this is still going

Another thought occurred to me about this this morning. I'm not really sure that tolerance actually serves religion as well as some may think it does. When religion is simply accepted and not criticized, does faith really grow?

It may be that the act of defending, explaining and arguing about one's beliefs forces a person to think about them more clearly, to define them to themself more completely and in the end, strengthen their faith.

Isn't it true that religious faith tends to be stronger when it is attacked? I'm not stating that as irrefutable fact but simply as food for thought.

[LeftyFingerPop]

109. My thought is this....

I can't presume to be able to change someone's mind about what they believe. I'm not that important, and my own beliefs are what I need to work on.

I sincerely don't care what others believe...it's up to them.

And I'm surprised this is still going too!

Hope you are well this morning. :hi:

[LeftyFingerPop]

110. Just re-read your post. I also want to say....

That yes, faith may be enriched when it is defended. But I know for a fact that there are some people here on DU who are either afraid to express their beliefs, or can't be bothered to defend their faith against the really irrational and mindless type of attacks.

[PeaceNikki]

114. Is it ok to make lewd jokes about religion/Christianity?

If done in fun?

[LeftyFingerPop]

116. Depends on the audience I would think....

I love dirty jokes, but if I knew someone might be offended, I probably would not tell it. It is tough to know who your audience is, especially in a forum like this, so I don't tell lewd religious jokes...not to say I NEVER tell them...just not in here. YMMV.

[PeaceNikki]

117. So like... do you find this as funny as I do?

[LeftyFingerPop]

118. That depends. How funny do you find it? n/t

[asteroid2003QQ47]

122. Do you know that JW's claim to have the only true religion and...

they KNOW it was a stake, NOT a cross!

[PeaceNikki]

125. mmmmm... steak

[LeftyFingerPop]

126. Thanks for fucking up a good thread....I'm done replying and...

I'll let this fucker disintegrate to crap like they all do and then eventually get locked.

[PeaceNikki]

127. If you think a few silly replies "fucks up your good thread", you have issues, dude.

[LeftyFingerPop]

128. Your Jesus saves post...

is a prime example of the mocking that goes on here.

This thread got about 120 replies without a mocking post.

It was a civil discussion until your post. But anyway, I am done posting because I have made my point and the thread has probably run its course.

As far as my "issues", I don't believe I insulted you. I'm sorry that you felt the need to insult me.

[PeaceNikki]

131. I think you're being melodramtic.

I guess reply #1 referencing "pubes" was within the bounds of decorum in your little world. :eyes:

[asteroid2003QQ47]

129. Chill Phil.

You have managed to keep this thread going quite well, I'd like to
see you hang in there awhile longer before declaring it FUBAR.

[LeftyFingerPop]

130. Thanks, but I actually am getting tired...

I think I have reached the point where I am reiterating my thoughts on the subject too much...but thanks. :)

[jobycom]

119. Threads get locked for attacking religion.

I've seen threads locked for attacking religion, even scientology. The general rule, not always enforced as strictly as on race--though about equally as on gender--seems to be that religion can be criticized, but it can't be attacked, and believers can't be attacked. Alerting on direct attacks usually gets a post deleted.

There is a lot of mockery of religious icons, especially Christian, but that's such an ingrained subject of satire and iconoclasm that it's somewhat accepted. Consider also that the Constitution protects freedom of and from religion as well as free speech, so satire and downright vicious mockery of religion are sacred ideals in America, and even in much of the West. That was part of the conflict over the cartoons mocking the Prophet--we in the west see mockery of religion as almost part of religion, whereas in Islamic countries it is akin to pornography.

Also ingrained in our Constitution and in American society is that all people are equal, so attacking a group of people is considered anathema. With religion you have somewhat competing ideologies--it's ow, if you're specifically talking about the polygamist cult, or cults in general, I agree with you that there's a strong double standard around here. You see the same thing with Scientology and other beliefs labeled agood to lampoon religion, it's bad to discriminate and dehumanize people. It seems to me that the line usually drawn around here, and in the public at large, is between people and ideas. If you attack ideas or icons or religious figures, you are practicing satire (even if crudely), but if you attack people for holding those ideas, you've crossed the line. Obviously there is a gray area there, when attacking beliefs or icons begins to attack those who holds them, and that's a judgment call around here.

And there is a simple distinction: religion controls and justifies behavior as well as identity, whereas the other factors you mention are strictly identity. I can attack a foreign nation and declare it was god's will. I can't attack a foreign nation and say "it's because I'm black/white/gay/straight..." Religion is a pattern for behavior, not just an identity, and so attacking the behavior or beliefs leading to it is more acceptable than attacking the identity. Or should be.

One final point: Christianity is the majority religion in America, and is defended and even revered by the overwhelming majority of our leaders. Attacking religion is therefore attacking the majority and those in power. That's never been considered as bad as attacking someone who is not in power, or someone who is historically the victim of power.

I'm guessing from other posts that you are also upset about cult attacks, since I've seen you posting on the polygamist cult, and I agree with you that people are awfully willing to attack others for non-traditional religious beliefs, and to write off other people's beliefs when we don't agree with them. But that all ties in with the attitude that religious beliefs are open to attack. They aren't sacred, in other words.

I say all this as an atheist who frequently defends religions anyway. Maybe because I'm an atheist, I see them all pretty much the same. I don't see Scientology as any weirder than Christianity, in other words, so I would be inclined to defend or condemn them equally. Since I generally respect religions, I wind up defending both from attack, though I'm quite inclined to criticize the actions of either group when I think religion is being used to justify something unjustifiable.

None of that makes sense, but I wrote so much I'm posting it, anyway. I feel no guilt, since anyone still reading is obviously to blame for the decision to keep reading! :)

[LeftyFingerPop]

120. Excellent and thoughtful post...and just to be clear...

You may have me confused with another DUer? I don't believe I have ever posted about the polygamist cult, unless I was drunk and do not remember.:P

Thank you for this response.

[jobycom]

132. Sorry, my bad. Crossed wires in the over-active memory module,

:)

[Taverner]

124. I dunno - I think a lot of Christians are more thin skinned than the Atheist/Agnostics

For example, say some Fundy does something crazy and it makes the news. Some of us in the Atheist community would chalk the fundy's insanity to religion - but doing so will get you jumped on by a lot of Christians who say "the fact the fundy did X has nothing to do with Christianity."

Well, it does because the fundy cited it as a prime motivation.

[BeachBaby]

133. Did ya get the haircut?

Where's the pics? I wanna see! :hi:

Anyway....

I didn't get to read through the whole thread, so I'm just gonna give you my thoughts....which may be similar to other posters:

Race, height, sexuality....these are all traits that we're born with; to attack someone who was born with these traits, is just as bad as attacking someone who was born with a deformity, motor skill impediment, cerebral palsy, etc. People cannot control these things.

Religion, on the other hand, is a concept people CHOOSE to accept or deny. I don't believe in attacking someone for their beliefs, either. As a matter of fact, I'm just not down with "attacking" anybody for anything.

Unless they invite it.

Picture this....a member starts a thread about aliens. I think it's safe to say that most people don't believe in the extra-terrestrial. This member continues the post by voicing his amazement that so many people refuse to believe that there is life on other planets. He mentions UFOs, abductions, eyewitness accounts, etc. The poster's incredulity to the fact that most people don't accept this invokes a critical reply. And why is that? It's because it has not been proven.

That is how I perceive religion, except on a much larger scale, because of the power it has on its believers. Because of its power, it not only influences the lifestyle of the believer, but the personal decisions of the believer, the worldview of the believer, and the political preferences of the believer.

Alot of people of religious faiths claim that they can be "tolerant" of other belief systems, even if the two beliefs greatly contradict each other. I don't know how that can be true. If Christians believe that the only way to Heaven is through acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and that to deny Christ leads to eternal damnation in Hell....then consciously or subconsciously, they are looking at unbelievers as being Hell-bound. That's not "tolerance". That's "judgemental".

Judaism does not recognize Jesus as being the Messiah; yet they, and Christians alike, agree that the Jews are recognized as the "chosen ones". The Bible makes that claim. So.....Jews are an automatic, "saved" Christians are an automatic, and the rest are going to Hell.

There are innumerable religions and gods being worshipped - and each believer of that particular religion/god sees their particular belief as being the correct belief, and everyone else is incorrect. Religion creates division - on a local scale, national scale and global scale. And the body count grows higher every day because of it.

I am an agnostic. I am an agnostic because, through the course of my entire life, it's been proven time and time again, that everything comes from something. Because I find it impossible to believe that the beauty, intricacies and coordinations of everything around me, essentially came from nothing. It's too well-coordinated to me. Having said that, I can't prove ANY of it. For all I know, it's those damned aliens calling all the shots! :)

From my standpoint, my agnosticism is based on an opinion, an educated guess after observing my surroundings for the last almost 4 decades. When my time is up, I will die and I will be buried. There will not be an afterlife for me. I do not fear whether I will make it to the pearly gates, or be doomed to damnation in a lake of fire, because I have seen ZERO PROOF that those places exist.

My criticism of the religious always peaks during the planning of war, and during election time. I've grown quite weary of the Christian who insists that this nation was founded on "Christian principles". One has to wonder if they bothered to learn anything in American History class. Do they understand why America started in the first place? And that our very founding fathers have been quoted time and time again in regard to their Deism? None of that seems to matter. Instead, I hear the repeated mantra of "America is a Christian Nation" - implemented with the statements by the likes of GHWB claiming that he questions whether atheists should be allowed to consider themselves American citizens.

There is no denying that our Constitution makes it abundantly clear that we are to keep religion away from the governing of this nation; but this, too, goes ignored. Everything from the "In God we Trust" on our currency, to swearing on a Bible in court, has made the separation of church and state a joke.

Our current administration used the "God card" to get the support of the evangelical demographic. Furthermore, GW used the "God card" while occupying Iraq. When I was canvassing neighborhoods for the Kerry campaign, I literally got spit on, mocked, cursed out, and doors slammed in my face - but not before being lambasted about how Kerry isn't a "true" Christian; how Kerry won't protect Israel; how Kerry has no "morals". "Kerry is pro-choice". "I don't want my President to think his authority supercedes God's". "President Bush won't kill innocent babies for stem cells". This was the rhetoric I heard day in, day out.

Many people of faith can't separate their faith from the world around them. Their faith is FACT to them, and because of that mindset, they want their world to operate accordingly. These same people will vote for a candidate because of his religious status, not because of the actual issues. These same people want "intelligent design" taught in the public school system. What they are doing is a violation of the Constitution, and they're encroaching on the educational opportunities of my children, the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of our nation's citizens, and the global desire for peace. I can't always stay silent when MY worldviews, and my children's worldviews, are being ignored....while people who have NO PROOF of their beliefs seem to be calling all the shots - all in the name of their god.

Philboy....I truly want people to be confident in their faith. I know that to many, it gives them great comfort, a sense of peace, and some guidance throughout their lives; but when someone crosses my path, and makes their disdain and condecension for the unbelievers known to me, I WILL speak up. :)

[LeftyFingerPop]

134. JerseyGirl...

I stated upthread that I was done replying, but I will respond to your excellent post.

Kudos to you for an excellent and well thought out post that addresses the OP. I didn't want to get into a huge discussion on whether religion is right or wrong, but your post addresses what I was really wondering about, as do a few others in this thread.

I'm dog tired, and I'm burned out on the subject, but let me just say that I agree with the vast majority of what you typed, and I will respond to this portion specifically:

"From my standpoint, my agnosticism is based on an opinion, an educated guess after observing my surroundings for the last almost 4 decades. When my time is up, I will die and I will be buried. There will not be an afterlife for me. I do not fear whether I will make it to the pearly gates, or be doomed to damnation in a lake of fire, because I have seen ZERO PROOF that those places exist".

I am agnostic, as you are. I tend to agree with your above paragraph, but I want to say that I have the HOPE of an afterlife. I can't prove it either, but I hope that we are too complicated and profound NOT to have an afterlife. Since agnosticism is an uncertainty, it falls on a scale rather than being an absolute. I think we just may fall on different places on that scale.

Also, I think your comments about the "God card" are spot on.

Thank you for your response.

EDIT: Yes I got the haircut. Looks great, nice and short. No pics....got a forehead zit.
:rofl:

[ZombieHorde]

135. I did a poll here a while back asking if religion is a choice.

The vast majority said yes. So really, according to the popular opinion in that poll, it is a choice that is being mocked.

[varkam]

136. Well, it's not okay.

We delete such posts regularly. Of course, you have to bear in mind that there is a line between what constitutes criticism of religion and what is bad enough to get deleted.

[beam me up scottie]

137. Religion and religious leaders are fair game, religious DUers are not.

Beliefs are fair game, believers are not.

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.

-- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

[knitter4democracy]

138. Criticism is good, and snark is okay, but nastiness bothers me

Deliberately denigrating someone for believing or just plain mocking them to the point of ridiculousness without actually making a point is nasty, and that bothers me. I think criticism is fine and good, though, and I expect to see it here. Heck, we all would criticize the sermon in our college's required chapel every time--it's a part of faith and a part of non-faith.

Snark's to be expected, and sometimes, it's just funny. Sometimes it's a touch too edgy for me, but then I remember that my faith hasn't always been so good for everyone and let it go. Nastiness I'll say something about, and sometimes it's hard for me to see the difference. I'm working on that.

[smoogatz]

142. I think religion, religious leaders and "faith" are so privileged

in American discourse, generally, that any critique of religion or public religiosity can feel like an attack to the less curious among "persons of faith."

[trotsky]

143. BINGO!

That is precisely it.

[kanrok]

145. Frankly, I think agnostics are wusses

They've got no skin in the game. Sitting on the sidelines trying to placate both sides while life passes them by. Take a side.

Better yet, take Pascal's Wager.

Now for the serious stuff. (I was kidding about the agnostics being wusses). I don't think it is appropriate to condemn someone for their religious beliefs. The suggestion here by some that "you can change your religion but not your height, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc." as some sort of justification for attacking their beliefs is distinction without a difference. Decent people don't attack others without justification.

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. But the point is there's a difference between attacking beliefs, and attacking people

There are some religious beliefs that are profoundly opposed to the basic ideas which are part of what DU is - like hatred of homosexuals, which is against equality and tolerance. There may not be anyone on DU with that as a religious belief, but there are certainly plenty of them in the world. So, some religious beliefs are clearly OK to be attacked here.

The question is whether beliefs that don't harm anyone should be attacked. This can get into a debate about if sloppy thinking, or credulity, are a problem for society (for instance, does an expressed belief that the universe is only 6,000 years old cause problems by being profoundly anti-science, which then encourages things like denial of global warming?); or whether religious teaching of children can induce feelings of unnecessary guilt. In these areas, tact is called for; but where the difference between 'attack' and 'criticise' comes is pretty subjective.

[ZombieHorde]

148. Better yet, take Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager is one sided. It only makes sense if there was only one religion.

[Random_Australian]

146. Because "attacking" religious icons is the same as not agreeing with someone about religion?