This message was self-deleted by its author

[hrmjustin]

This message was self-deleted by its author (hrmjustin) on Mon Oct 7, 2013, 10:48 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[DonViejo]

1. No. Not offended at all. eom

[hrmjustin]

2. Maybe it is certain members that use the term and how they use it that bothers me.

[MellowDem]

3. Why are you offended...

that will make it easier to discuss.

[hrmjustin]

4. The way certain people in this room hurl it as an insult.

[MellowDem]

10. The definition seems harmless...

The definition of religionist is someone who adheres to a religion. I don't see where that would be offensive to a religious person, who would in fact by definition adhere to a religion. I can see it being useful to distinguish from theist, which isn't very descriptive. The vast majority of theists are also religionists, and a lot of criticism on here is of religion than of theism, a much broader concept.

I guess anything can be said in an insulting manner though. Calling all religionists some name or some trait that doesn't jive with the definition would be one way, but not sure how it's being used.

[Dorian Gray]

5. Thick skin

Not really. Whatever issues people have with the religious is their issue. Not mine.

[hrmjustin]

6. The more I think about myself I just don't think I have a thick skin.

[skepticscott]

7. Perhaps you could provide some examples

of how it has been used in this room, and the specific reasons you find them offensive. That is, if you are truly and honestly interested in having a civilized discussion on the subject.

[hrmjustin]

8. You, the way you use them.

[skepticscott]

11. I asked for examples of HOW the word "religionist"

has been used in this room, and the specific reasons why you find the use of the word "religionist" (referring to someone who supports, adheres to or practices religion) offensive. Do you wish to provide them and discuss the issue in a civilized manner?

[hrmjustin]

12. I gave you one.

[skepticscott]

16. You gave no reasons and no justification

for why the post you cited was "offensive". Why don't you make an attempt at that?

[hrmjustin]

18. I gave you your post that insulted me.

Star Member skepticscott (7,937 posts)
15. That's been standard practice in this forum for a long time

Telling someone that their position or argument is wrong, and telling them why, is routinely dismissed as "a personal attack", "harassment", "persecution", "stalking", "bigotry" or just being a big ol' meanie. And pretty much always by the religionists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121897268#post15

The way you said religionists and how you described us here insulted me.

[skepticscott]

21. How I described you?

Religionists are people who support, adhere to, or practice religion. That's how I used it. Substitute "people who support, adhere to, or practice religion" for "religionists" in the post you cited, and try to make a case to anyone but yourself that it's "offensive". If you can't, then frankly I'm through wasting time here.

We both know what this is, any why it's being done, and as a host, you should be above that.

[hrmjustin]

22. As I say maybe it is how you said it and how others use the term that annoys me.

[skepticscott]

24. In other words

you have no justification at all.

We're done here. Nice try, but count on seeing me on this board for a very long time to come.

[hrmjustin]

26. I never said I wanted you off.

[skepticscott]

27. I'm still left to wonder

Why you would use a public OP to express your displeasure with something I personally posted on other threads (and no one is fooled that that wasn't what your OP was about or that you were just speaking generally), rather than just send me a private message.

[hrmjustin]

28. You know what you are right. I should have been above that.

I am sorry. I will post an apology OP and self delete this.

[MellowDem]

23. I know this isn't directed at me...

But I saw the post you referenced. I mostly agree with the post referenced, and I will tell you why. It was a description of religious privilege that is seen on this site. It's seen more in real life to me, and it is ubiquitous on the religious right. Most people can't discuss religion in real life because legitimate criticism of a belief system is taken as a personal attack, probably because religion has a privileged position that puts it beyond criticism. So the response to legitimate criticism of religion is often to simply say the person is offensive or mean, or even a bigot, and not to address any point made.

A reaction it reminds me of is how conservative whites react to criticisms of racial privilege, particularly white privilege. Their response is usually to say they're offended or that you yourself are racist, and they avoid any point made.

The religious right seems to do this constantly, but religion is everywhere, and you see it on the left as well, though not as much in my opinion. And yes, you see it on this sub forum a lot, but for obvious reasons. Here you have the people most invested in religious privilege as a concept. They don't think of it that way, they think of it as the normal order of things, as it's hard to see the privilege you have in a society that caters to them.

[hrmjustin]

25. There is no religious privilege on this site.

Religion gets criticized on this site all the time. I can not speak for society but on this site religion gets a fair amount of criticism.

[MellowDem]

30. Sure there is...

There is criticism of religion, but the reaction to the criticism is where the privilege is found. The non-responses that simply declare the poster mean or bigoted, subtly or not, ignoring any legitimate point made. This seems to be a lot of this sub-forum.

Religion is also given more latitude than other belief systems. Homophobic, misogynist religious leaders are praised for their other positions. Generally, a homophobic misogynist would get no praise on this site, whatever his positions on other issues.

[skepticscott]

13. Hmmmm..it crosses my mind to wonder

why you didn't simply cite this in your OP. It makes me wonder what your real purpose here is, and whether you are actually interested in a civilized discussion.

[hrmjustin]

14. I am always civilized. I asked a question. You answered and I told you how I felt.

I hate when you use the word. You can you the term religious people.

[skepticscott]

15. Always civilized, eh?

Is that why you self-deleted post #9?

[hrmjustin]

17. I was civilized in that post. I have my reasons for self deleting it. All I did was post a post

when you used it.

And to be fair I do have my moments where I can e insulting or annoying.

Perhaps I just imagine the dislike of people when they use the term or religious people.

[skepticscott]

19. Yes, I'm well aware of your reasons

And your imagination seems to be pretty much all this is about. No one else agrees with you at all.

[hrmjustin]

20. I have been alone on issues before. The word itself while not insulting can be used as an insult.

[hrmjustin]

29. I am self deleting.

Is anyone else in this group offended by the word religionist and how it is used in this room?
I have to say I am.