John Likes To Remind People That Religion Is Not A Race...

[Turborama]

[el_bryanto]

1. This will be one of the big debates of the next decade i suspect

Race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference are not things you should attack, because those things are not chosen by the individual.

Culture and particularly religion on the other hand are a choice - so should they be afforded the same protections as those examples above?

Bryant `

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. Are culture and religion a choice?

If you were born in the US South to observant and religious Baptist parents, what sort of culture and religion would you probably have? Would you have chosen them?

[cleanhippie]

4. As rational, thinking adults...

We all have the choice to continue belief in a religion. We all have the responsibility to hold accountable those that continue to choose base their actions on their beliefs.

Granted, not all adults are rational and thinking, but thats no excuse.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. I think that's giving too much credence to the idea that most people are rational, or think.

[cleanhippie]

8. Agreed, but irrelevant.

As adults, we are responsible for our actions, regardless of how we were raised.

Being born and raised in a fundie-babtist, white supremist, southern state family isn't an excuse for being a hateful, violent person.

[Coventina]

9. Aside from the white supremist part, I am that person!

I grew up.
I had help, yes, but I grew up and out of that upbringing.

on edit: My point is that I don't think environment is an excuse. Maybe a mitigating factor, but not an excuse.

[cleanhippie]

11. Right on!

It IS possible for people to get away from harmful upbringings. Glad to hear you were one of them.

[Rex]

64. Culture not so much, religion is absolutley a choice in America.

I say that as one born into a large Southern Baptist family in Texas. We (cousins, aunts and uncles, parents, grandparents) all were forced to go to church until around the age of 7. Then we were asked if we still wanted to go to church. I said no, so did my parents at that age. However some of my immediate relatives did still go and are very religious to this day.

Of course in some countries, you don't have a choice in religion - you either do or you get punished. So most do.

[Dr. Strange]

3. This is the key distinction.

Culture and particularly religion on the other hand are a choice - so should they be afforded the same protections as those examples above?

They should not. They should receive the same treatment as any other philosophy. We rag on Ayn Rand on her objectivist crapology all the time here--every other philosophy is fair game as well. Calling it a religion shouldn't place it off limits.

[el_bryanto]

13. People identify with their religion more than they might with a philosophy

Although Objectionism might be an exception to that rule; some of them are pretty intense.

For many people their religion is part of who they are - attacking their religion feels like an attack on a part of them.

Bryant

[Vattel]

18. True, but people also identify with their moral values and if they are bad values they are

open to criticism.

[hfojvt]

40. "this would be the best of all possible worlds

if only there was no atheism in it."

Would that modified quotation be considered anti-atheist bigotry?

Or could I defend that quote (even though it is apparently taken out of context (if you can believe the internets)) by saying "hey, atheist values are open to criticism just like any others"

The point of bigotry is that it is based on broad brush attacks, not against some value or other, but at the whole thing. Criticism would imply some logically thought out argument, rather than just an obnoxiously stated conclusion.

http://thestoryoflibertyblog.com/2012/02/25/clarity-on-john-adams-quote-this-would-be-the-best-of-all-possible-worlds-if-there-were-no-religion-in-it/

[Vattel]

45. I doubt we disagree about this. Criticism of a religion can be fair or unfair, respectful or hateful

If, for example, a religion is sexist and homophobic, then it deserves criticism regardless of how much its adherents identify with it.

I love the original quote, by the way. A nice play on Voltaire's critique of Leibniz in Candide.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Is Objectionism where one keeps raising objections to things?

I could get behind that. Our sacred text:

[Turborama]

33. lol

Well played.

[Dr. Strange]

62. Objection!

[Major Nikon]

16. Also there's a difference between discriminating against a belief and a person.

If a person wants to hang a cross in their cube, bow to the east 5 times per day, or bark at the moon while standing on a pentagram, more power to them. If they want to tell someone the sun revolves around the earth or Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel, a bullshit call is not discrimination.

[arcane1]

57. Yep. It's the distinction between ideas/actions, and people.

[Dr. Strange]

66. Another important distinction.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

70. .

.

[cleanhippie]

14. Haven't you and I quarreled over this very topic before?

IIRC, you see (mine, and others) criticism of the beliefs you espouse as a personal attack against YOU. Many of our arguments have ended with you feeling offended because I didn't give your beliefs the respect you feel they deserve.

As you stated on post #13:

For many people their religion is part of who they are - attacking their religion feels like an attack on a part of them.

Judging by many of your responses on this subject in other threads, this perfectly describes your response.

[el_bryanto]

15. That's a very abbreviated summary our our discussions isn't it?

You left out your "Religion kills children" statements, for example.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

17. For sure it is. Abbreviated, but accurate.

Unlike "religion kills children", which is a complete mischaracterization and has nothing to do with the point I was making here.

[el_bryanto]

19. Well I left the Religion forum for a reason.

If you can't even admit to something you clearly said, than on what level can we have a discussion?

Unless you are are going to claim there is some vast difference between "Religion Kills Yet Another Child" and "Religion kills Children."

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

23. If you can't even admit that that was about a particular instance (that is still accurrate)

then on what level CAN we have a discussion?

Unless you can't see that there IS a difference between the two (one being what I actually said, the other being what you wanted to hear).



Which all comes back to the original point: my comments were directed at RELIGION, not YOU personally, yet here you are, again, feeling PERSONALLY attacked, when it has nothing at all to do with YOU.

Let me remind you of you own words upthread:

For many people their religion is part of who they are - attacking their religion feels like an attack on a part of them.

Perhaps a look in the mirror should be on the agenda for the day?

[el_bryanto]

26. Takes me back to the good old days.

Boy did I make the right decision to stop wasting my time in the Religion forum - so much dishonesty. I really don't understand why any believer participates there.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

29. Indeed it does. right back to where you get frustrated when you cannot defend your position.

In this case, that point being that you DO (while claiming when others do it, it's a problem) equate criticism of your religion as an attack on you personally.

go back and reread this thread. I made a valid point based on your post and you replied with a non sequitur, which I addressed then brought the conversation back to the original point, where you get frustrated and claim I'm just a big meanie so your leaving.

You asked "on what level. Can we have a conversation?"

I dunno, el B, you tell me, cause nothing I do seems to satisfy you.

[el_bryanto]

31. I do identify with my religion, though. I didn't exclude myself above

If for example you were to argue that religion leads to children being killed by people trying to excorcise demons from them, and that even mainstream believers share some of the culpability for those deaths by their willingness to continue believing in things that can't be proved, than that provokes an emotional response. That sort of argument implies that believers should stop believing and that religious folk should stop practicing their religion, or they continue to encourage a culture in which children are killed.

It implies the world would be better off without believers, and as a believer it's hard for me to countenance that argument.

You know all this because we discussed it many times before.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

41. "That sort of argument implies that believers should stop believing..."

That sort of argument implies that believers should stop believing and that religious folk should stop practicing their religion, or they continue to encourage a culture in which children are killed.

It does not imply that, you infer that, which is something entirely different. Even when it is explained that it wasn't meant to imply what you inferred, you insist that it does.

It implies the world would be better off without believers, and as a believer it's hard for me to countenance that argument.

No, it doesn't, you inferred that. It implies that the world would be a better place without religion, which is very different from saying

the world would be better off without believers

Can you accept that as my POV, or will you insist on seeing it how you want to?

[el_bryanto]

44. OK - I should have been more exact

So the world would be better off without religion - - which infers that the world would be better off without practitioners of religion? Or is that an unfair inference? Religions don't exist independent of their adherents - or not in any meaningful sense.

I'm not suggesting you want to ban religion or believers - I don't know what, if any, legal steps you would like to see to achieve a world without religion.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

48. With no snark or insult intended, you should learn the difference between 'imply' and 'infer'.

That may clear up many misunderstandings right there.

And there are no legal step that can be, or should be taken to achieve a world sans religion. In fact, I don't even see that a possibility.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Oh come on, we all know that if you say the world would be better off without religion,

a point which appears to be obviously true, what you really mean is "and so we are going to kill all the believers". I mean everyone knows that.

[el_bryanto]

55. OK I'll go study that - that let's you feel that warm glow of intellectual superiority

Without actually answering my question.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

56. What the fuck?

And you wonder why conversation with you is unproductive? Really?

[el_bryanto]

58. It's a simple question - am I wrong in assuming that you think the world would be better of

without practitioners of religion? But I've noticed than we get to this question you usually deflect to "It's impossible." Which isn't actually an answer to the question.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

60. You seem to need to equate my wanting religion to disappear with wanting humans that believe

in religion to disappear.

Thats the problem, friend, with your inference of my words. Even when I directly tell you that I do NOT want humans that believe in religion to disappear, you continue to insist that I do. Thats another problem.

Let me know when you've resolved those problems, so we can continue.

[el_bryanto]

61. I'm not continuing

I'm already having a stressful day and I can't afford to get more irritated. Consider this another victory.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

63. Victory? Hardly.

But if you are able to see my point, I'm satisfied.

I'm really not sure you do see it, though, do you?

[el_bryanto]

73. I see your point. nt

[hfojvt]

30. one would have to be somewhat of a masochist to do so

I call it the "religion-bashing" forum.

Although I have not even looked at it for some time. Back when I ventured over in the past, it seems to me that the vast majority of posters there were openly hostile towards religion.

But it seems to me also that believers have always been outnumbered in GD too.

[Arugula Latte]

5. Because you dislike the chosen belief system of someone doesn't make you a bigot.

I think the Abrahamic religions all suck (because they are oppressive, based on primitive mythological nonsense, and have had untold negative repercussions, particularly for the women of the world), but that doesn't mean I hate Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

[Coventina]

6. Amen, Sister!

If you'll pardon the expression!

[cleanhippie]

10. It's both scary and sad that so many connot understand that concept.

[dissentient]

12. Recommended, and sometimes the blatantly obvious needs to be said.

[Bonx]

25. Thank you and agreed.

[trotsky]

43. Well put. n/t

[Throd]

52. Bronze Age myths used to exploit and express.

[Vattel]

20. Religions, unlike races, can be bad in various ways that make them merit criticism.

Many religions are sexist, racist, and homophobic, for example. And so they can justifiably be criticized as such.

[meow2u3]

21. I beg to differ

Religion may be choice, but it's one that's so deep-seated and a part of who one is (for the most part) that it deserves protection from others imposing their religion on you. The Founding Fathers had the wisdom to enshrine the right to choose your religion and live accordingly in the Bill of Rights, affording us the freedom from imposed religion or the lack thereof.

[m-lekktor]

22. unrec, belief systems, which are chosen, should never be above criticism.

i guess we are "xenophobic bigots" for criticizing conservatism and/or libertarianism if that is the case.

oh, and assigning a deity(s) and calling a belief system a religion also should not make it exempt from criticism in a free country.


seriously dumb meme.

[Turborama]

24. "John" exists, and is not "above criticism" either.

Only mildly surprised people on here would get upset by this.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. A white Christian can convert to Islam, but can not convert to being Asian, thus a faith is not a

race. Also, I am uncomfortable with a meme that seems to suggest all Muslims are of a single 'type' when that is not the case.

[Turborama]

35. You read "Muslim" into it. The OP doesn't contain that word.

The meme might have triggered something off, but in reality your perceptions made you uncomfortable.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. No, the religion that some people incorrectly claim is a race is Islam, that claim is not made about

other faiths. This something you know and I know. You know nothing of my perceptions and it is arrogant for you to presume that you do. Religion is a choice, race is not a choice. That's just a fact. And you refused to discuss that obvious fact and you made personal attacks in lieu of actual arguments.

[Turborama]

72. "John" exists, and in America most "Johns" are Republican.

In the UK, where this meme was made, most "Johns" support Britain First, English Defence League, UKIP etc etc.

The fact some people in this forum are taking it personally is not my fault.

[Turborama]

27. For anyone who's interested...

The guys who put this together are very busy anti-fascist activists: https://twitter.com/ExposingBF

[RedCappedBandit]

34. Criticizing idealogies does not make one a xenophobic bigot

I think conservative ideology is flawed. I also think religious beliefs are flawed.

Is one of those beliefs okay, while the other is bigoted? Are both okay? Neither? Why?


I can abhor the ideologies without hating people who disagree with me.

[Turborama]

36. Not always. Some people use it as a smokescreen to mask their xenophobic bigotry, though

With regards to your last sentence, you are not "John", then.

[RedCappedBandit]

37. Fair enough. The hypothetical John does certainly exist. nt

[YoungDemCA]

38. It's worth noting the reality that most Muslims would not be considered "white" by "Western" society

nt

[kiva]

39. So being accurate about the meanings of words

like 'culture' and 'race' is now racist?

[Quantess]

42. How does that explain the hostility between

Israel and Palestine?

[stevenleser]

46. People from discriminated against classes can discriminate against each other.

While the vast majority are not this way, there exists antisemitic LGBT folks, homophobic Jews, misogynist African Americans, etc and variations of all of the above.

[Quantess]

50. Point taken. The major difference between Israelis and Palestinians

....oh I have no idea... What is the main difference between Israelis and Palestinians??! Oh my goodness, I haven't a clue! Is it...???
No, couldn't be.

[Quantess]

47. I am one to point out the distinction between race and religion.

It's not only religion, it's cultural differences as well. I will come right out and say that I do not like fundamentalist muslim cultures.

I have several female acquaintances who self identify as muslim, are doing their best to learn the language in their new country, but dress fairly western and do not cover their hair. I am impressed by these women. I am not impressed by the backward cultures they left behind.

[alarimer]

49. No belief should be free from ridicule or mockery.

To put some beliefs off limits from satire out of fear is to buy into the notion that adherents of said beliefs are a time bomb waiting to go off. The vast majority are not. The rest are extremists and the sooner they learn that we will not be cowed into kowtowing to them, the better off we will all be.

Your sacred beliefs are not sacred to me and I have no particular obligation to avoid offending you. No one gets to go through life without ever being offended. I'm offended 15 times a day by one thing or another. But then I do not live in a bubble in which I am never exposed to alternative beliefs. Too many religious people try to do that, what with their segregated communities and schools. That's fine, if that's what they want to do.

Now there is a difference between mocking a belief and mocking a person holding that belief. And offending for offending's sake is problematic. But I don't think that's what the cartoonists were doing. There was a larger point to their satire.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. nah, it is fine to mock the people holding the beliefs too.

If you are acting ridiculous "because god" is not a valid reason to not be ridiculed for how you are acting.

[PeaceNikki]

54. Religion is not at all like race. Religion is an idea. I reserve the right to criticize ideas

I reserve the right to call the ideas and organized versions of them hateful, homophobic and misogynistic. I reserve the right to insist that they have a right to their beliefs as long as they don't use them to influence a secular society or cause harm to others.

I don't 'hate on people', I hate on ideas.

[cleanhippie]

65. It's frustrating that so many right here on DU are unable to understand that point.

You can even see it in this thread.

[PeaceNikki]

67. It's weird. DU (and plenty of other liberals) get so strange about Islam.

Many DUers accuse those critical of Islam of spreading RW rhetoric.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a ridiculous simplistic notion. And wrong.

As a strong supporter of women and a secular society, Republicans are my adversaries. Organized religion is as well. Islam is generally an extreme example of misogyny, hate and violence - and injecting these horrible beliefs into governments and law. And I, for one, won't hold back on criticizing it just because the RW does.

We think it's hypocritical when the Christian RW wants to exclude Islam while pushing their agendas (and it is!), but I ALSO think it's hypocritical to defend Islam or pretend their harmful beliefs do not exist and I won't. I am well known on DU for my criticism of Pope Francis and the RCC and any other religious person or belief that is discriminatory or otherwise harmful to a secular society. I don't like any of it.

[Kevin from WI]

59. I have seen a lot of posts like this lately

How does calling someone names change their minds. Some people are afraid. Afraid people say hurtful and irrational things. Insults keep those people from being open to opposing views. Most likely they will double down on proving that they are right instead of reflecting on whether they really believe those things they said in knee jerk reaction to a tragedy.

[Turborama]

68. Poor "John" the bigot. He's just afraid and misunderstood. n/t

[Kevin from WI]

69. LOL

Okay, you made me laugh. Maybe I am trying too hard. I just want everyone to get along here. What do we do with poor "John" the bigot? He seems to be everywhere these days putting his foot into his mouth.