Religion
Related: About this forumA little thought experiment
If you read a news article that said:
John Smith, who his Facebook page identified as an Episcopalian, was arrested for and confessed to the murder of Jim Jones, a member of a local Catholic Church. Given the long history of murderous violence and hatred between Protestants and Catholics, this seems to point to the possibility of the murder being a hate crime.
What would you think? Would you think this was a perfectly plausible conclusion, or would you think this was grossly irresponsible reporting and a ridiculous leap of logic?
What would you think of someone proposing the scenario of a hate crime solely because of the alleged religious affiliations of the killer and victim, in the absence of any other evidence in support?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)From your comments on the numerous stories posted in here about psychotic women who kill their children because voices from god told them to, I would not expect anything productive to ensue.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)so I don't think there will be many hate crimes with dead Catholics.
But the hate preached on conservative talk radio and right wing news is responcible for hate toward Muslims and I would expect to see more hate crimes with dead Muslims.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)This is just one of many examples of virulent anti-Catholic hatred coming from other Xstians:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2014/11/protesters-spew-anti-catholic-hate-outside-d-c-area-parishes/
The accusation from fundie Protestants that Catholics are not "real Christians" is not at all uncommon (though virtually unknown among atheists, btw). Many more people are brought up to hate Catholics than Muslims, because there are more of them, and the acrimony has been around far longer in this country.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I can see why people hate you
BTW I am Catholic and my brother is a priest. I am not a practicing Catholic.
okasha
(11,573 posts)members of the clique hit the Alert button simultaneously.
And the post is still there.
rug
(82,333 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) rug
(82,333 posts)Gee, I wonder who uses that phrase in most of his alerts. I think it starts with a g.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Oh..wait…you're on exactly the right board.
And yes, people hate being told the truth when it conflicts with their precious worldview. I'll cope with your Christian hatred just fine though, thanks.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I don't hate anyone but I see religion as nothing more than superstitution
This whole thread is weird and fill of strange ideas
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I wasn't claiming that you hated Xstians.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
On Thu Feb 12, 2015, 05:45 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Thanks for that sweet reply
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=181246
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"I can see why people hate you" is a blatant personal attack. Nothing in the post he replied to called for this level of nastiness. This makes DU suck. Please hide this
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Feb 12, 2015, 05:55 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Good one.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the poster is not making a personal attack. The "I can see why people hate you" is a reference to Catholics in general.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Voting to hide due to the clear personal attack. I would NOT have voted to hide had the two posters only argued religious points, but the "I can see why people hate you" state,net was over the top.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerting to try and shut up discussion (most likely instigated on behalf of the alertee) is what make DU suck. Buck up!
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: over the top personal attack.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I appreciate the thought, though I have a thick skin and have been subjected to far worse here. I no longer rely on juries to keep DU from sucking, frankly, #'s 1 and 3 here being prime examples. I prefer to be more direct.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)That action is what I was referring to when I said I can see why .........
I guess you are permitted to do what ever you want to me but I can't do anything about it.
I don't hate you or anyone
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I called your claim codswallop. Everyone reading this but you got that.
And I am just SO warm and fuzzy to know that you don't hate me. But since you're directing nasty personal attacks at me anyway, I guess I'd hate to see what you'd do if you DID hate me.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)My problem
Warpy
(111,305 posts)After the steady march of story after story of people motivated to commit hideous crimes against people around them solely on the basis of religion misinterpreted by some charismatic sociopath, they are now crowing in triumph because they have finally found a murderous atheist bigot.
It's as though they think one outlier disproves the whole rule that has been backed up by millennia of evidence. Eventually they will get over it and realize that murderous crazy people are out there and, while most blame a god for it, there will always be a few who don't.
Until then, we're just going to have to endure the smugness and false equivalency.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)got thrown back in their face, they've been desperate to find another atheist killer to use as a bludgeon. Strange that after all this time, this is who they latch on to. They can't even find someone who killed because they don't believe in god. They have to resort to parking problems to fling this "accusation" at atheists and atheism.
rug
(82,333 posts)
You can get through this!
phil89
(1,043 posts)There's a lot of nasty stuff in there.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Remember that whenever 2 or 3 Episcopalians are gathered in his name there is always a fifth.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that post would have accurately reflected the situation in Ulster over several decades of the 20th. Century. Protestant vs. Catholic, IRA vs. Paisley's Orangemen.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)to the reign of Elizabeth I. Before that it was three centuries of oppression of the native Irish by English invader,s beginning with the Angevin Plantagenets.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Ireland was a Catholic country invaded by English Catholics, with Pope AlexanderVI 300 years in the future. When the English occupiers became Protestants, the Pope supported Ireland, sending them both priests and sacramental wine:
Oh my Dark Rosaleen,
Do not cry, do not weep.
The priests are on the ocean green;
They march along the deep.
There is wine from the Royal Power
Upon the ocean green....
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Hit and run. Driving under the influence. Fatality. Texting while driving.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I just put it in contrast.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Your point was not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Is that a real thing, or a stereotype?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)social drinking time. Sunday Brunch is the 8th sacrament.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I can't help but assume, many Episcopalians might not appreciate that characterization.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Where it started with you making a blanket statement about the character of Episcopalians as a group, then became upset when you assumed *I* made a blanket statement about the character of all episcopalians with a news link about the character/actions of one person?
Because I noticed it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)thats what I noticed. And you concern for my fellow Episcopalians is quite touching.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I guess 'good natured' is in the eye of the beholder.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Your inflated indignation is noted.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)That's a high horse you ride, Crusader.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)D.
Tell me how many rides I lead, etc. Tell me how many friends I've lost due to shit like that news article.
I'm all ears.
okasha
(11,573 posts)It's your ginned-up indignation about Justin's joke that's so patently dishonest. So is your attempt to shift the focus to the tragic and unnecessary death of a cyclist.
It's not all about you, Crusader.
Really, it's not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If I cracked a similar joke not long after an atheist did the same, high profile thing in the news, I'm sure you all wouldn't say a word, right?
Right.
okasha
(11,573 posts)It's not about you.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)unless there is some evidence that these factors played a part in the situation. Sometimes murders are just personal.
rug
(82,333 posts)The elephant in the room is state-sanctioned killings, the latest of which is under debate in Congress while we're in here doing this.
Dorian Gray
(13,497 posts)local news in the 1980s, the religion of both parties would be irrelevant. Unless more information was uncovered.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The People's Temple.
He was not Catholic. I'm sure about that.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The experiment requires something you haven't seen fit to contribute yet. But keep trying.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I'm still waiting for your evidence about Dawkins in the other thread.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)so no "evidence" was required. I see your comprehension didn't even reach as far as recognizing that, but that, as you say, is true to form for you. Unless you know that perfectly well and are just here to disrupt. Which is it?
And you were given your evidence in the other thread..you, again, were simply short on comprehension. I'm afraid I can't help you any further there…things can only be made so simple.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)do constitute evidence. At least in the reality that most of us inhabit. But you seem to think that a question requires evidence, so I guess expecting that much rationality from you was too optimistic.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and there are rational alternatives, highly rational alternatives. You simply reject them because you don't like them.
I do agree, on hindsight, that the OP for this thread does not require evidence, it is your effort at expressing your thesis.
Here is the definition of evidence:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=strict&q=evidence
ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun: evidence
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)are something you've been utterly unable to provide, despite being challenged numerous times to do so.
And I see that you're admitting that yet another of your claims was bullshit. Your batting average is mightly low these days. I also note that you and all of your cronies are astudiously avoiding addressing any of the questions posed...why am I not surprised?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You have yet to point to a logical flaw in my argument.
I have not avoided a single one of your questions. You've only had one, which I disposed of.
When I did state my argument, you offered no rebuttal. You still haven't.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to any of my questions in this OP.
Failure to provide a link to where you answer those specific questions will be taken as evidence of yet another false claim by you.
Tick tock
kwassa
(23,340 posts)If you read a news article that said:
Protestant kills Catholic
John Smith, who his Facebook page identified as an Episcopalian, was arrested for and confessed to the murder of Jim Jones, a member of a local Catholic Church. Given the long history of murderous violence and hatred between Protestants and Catholics, this seems to point to the possibility of the murder being a hate crime.
What would you think? Would you think this was a perfectly plausible conclusion, or would you think this was grossly irresponsible reporting and a ridiculous leap of logic?
What would you think of someone proposing the scenario of a hate crime solely because of the alleged religious affiliations of the killer and victim, in the absence of any other evidence in support?
This would be a perfectly plausible conclusion IF John Smith had a Facebook page devoted to his hatred of Catholics, like Hicks had about his atheism. Also, if Catholics wore a form of clothing that expressed their deep religious conviction, but Catholics do not have this.
This case is not solely about religious affiliation, but about the prior actions of someone with that affiliation. The actions are missing from your example.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I see you needed to insert facts not in evidence to attempt an answer that fits your agenda. Your own OP claimed that Hicks "criticized" and "mocked" religion (as many people do), not that he had murderous hatred for all religious people. And gee..someone could know someone else was a Catholic because they were told. What the fuck does clothing have to do with it?
Try again.
Btw, it was noted that your claim to have already answered these question was false (yet again).
trotsky
(49,533 posts)have called DU atheists "demons" and commented how they need to be exorcised.
We saw in another thread a poster who self-identifies as a Christian refer to DU atheists as insects.
Another frequent religion poster is on record saying that atheists would just "go back" to hating women, minorities, etc. if they didn't have the religious to hate.
Hate speech against atheists, some of it quite disturbing in its dehumanizing nature, right here on DU.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I didn't insert any facts not in evidence. Hicks did criticize and mock religion. That is motive.
This distinction you are attempting to make between this and "murderous hatred" is a distinction that is impossible to discern without the ability to read his mind. The point at which hatred leads to murder is not always obvious. It is clear that Hicks detests religion, and that he has religious neighbors. That makes this a motive worth examining in this case.
it was noted that your claim to have already answered these question was false (yet again).
No, this is the third time I've answered this question.
Unless you have something new to add to this discussion, we are done. Since you have avoided each point I've made so far, this discussion was really done a long time ago.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Does that mean we all have the motive to kill Republicans?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You haven't even shown "hatred" in any way, shape or form. "Criticism" and "mocking" are not "hatred". And no, you didn't answer the specific questions in this OP even once...you tried to answer questions other than the ones posed...nice dodge, but if you're to continue to be so intellectually dishonest, you'd do well to retire from these threads.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)For you to accuse me of dishonesty is hilarious.
John Smith, who his Facebook page identified as an Episcopalian, was arrested for and confessed to the murder of Jim Jones, a member of a local Catholic Church. Given the long history of murderous violence and hatred between Protestants and Catholics, this seems to point to the possibility of the murder being a hate crime.
What would you think? Would you think this was a perfectly plausible conclusion, or would you think this was grossly irresponsible reporting and a ridiculous leap of logic?
Neither. It would be plausible if John Smith on his Facebook page repeatedly mocked and criticized Catholicism. Otherwise, it would simply be a possibility, and unknown until further facts were found. It is certainly not a ridiculous leap of logic, given the long history between the two groups.
What would you think of someone proposing the scenario of a hate crime solely because of the alleged religious affiliations of the killer and victim, in the absence of any other evidence in support?
In the absence of any other evidence, such as the stated views on the Facebook page as we see in the Hicks case, we would not know how either party felt about the other. It would simply be an unproven thesis until further information comes out. I would think that the someone was prematurely jumping to a conclusion. This scenario, however, is different from the Chapel Hill murder scenario, as we have more information about Mr. Hicks.
