Against my better judgment ...

[NanceGreggs]

Last edited Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

... I will post an OP.

Any discussion between us as individuals as to how we perceive religion is beside the point.

What I don't understand is anyone's need to ridicule others' religions. It serves no purpose. It accomplishes nothing. It changes nothing. The only end result possible (or probable) is that it offends, and can be extremely hurtful to those who feel deeply about their faith.

Do you know of any Christian who has stopped believing in their salvation through Christ because someone made fun of their beliefs?

Do you know of any Muslim who has abandoned their faith because someone labeled it "myth" or "superstition"?

Do you know of any Jew who stopped believing in their religion because someone made fun of their kippah, or their "weird" dietary laws?

Do you know of any atheist who suddenly decided to believe in god because they'd been ridiculed for not believing in god?

When it comes to religion - or the choice to not have one at all - no one's mind is changed by ridicule. No one is "enlightened" by being mocked. No one is dissuaded away from personally-held beliefs as the result of being laughed at, or told they are clinging to superstition.

And even if one could be persuaded to abandon their faith due to being ridiculed, what purpose does that serve? Are there bragging rights attached to saying, "Hey, I talked a Catholic into leaving their Church today"? Are there points awarded? Prizes to be won? An awards ceremony at the end of the year?

Having read the many posts on DU the last week on the topic, I see a lot of "well, I have the right to mock other people's faith" - and that's true. But what is the purpose behind it? What is gained? What is the goal? What does anyone who mocks others' beliefs think they are accomplishing? What do such people hope to achieve when it is so obvious that they can achieve nothing - other than offending and/or hurting the feelings of those whose beliefs they mock?

I can't help but wonder what void exists in someone's life that they think will be filled by ridiculing others, when the only possible outcome of doing so is some self-serving (and totally idiotic) sense that they are accomplishing something of merit.

My personal feelings on religion are the same as they are on other issues: If you don't condone same-sex relationships, don't enter into one. If you think abortion is murder, don't have one. If you think religion is nonsense, don't practice one.

I see little difference between those who think they can convert non-believers into believers and those who think they can convert believers into non-believers by use of the same tactics - ridicule, mockery, scorn, derision, and what amounts to a declaration that "what I believe or don't believe is the only way to go - all others are subject to ridicule."

I have seen the posts by those who say "if your God is offended by ..." How incredibly simple-minded do you have to be to think that the God that anyone worships is capable of being "offended"? It is not the deity a religious person thinks is being offended - it is their brothers-and-sisters in-the-faith that are being offended. It would seem that anyone of any intelligence would understand the difference. But apparently not.

The narrow-mindedness displayed on DU on this topic has been, sad to say, not surprising in the least. It is amusing - if nothing else - to see the same posters who decry the belittlement of gays/lesbians based on their sexuality, the derision of people based on their race or ethnicity, or the mockery of people based on their poor financial circumstances, stand up and cheer the idea that people of religious faith are fair game in a mud-slinging contest that accomplishes nothing of value.

There is nothing liberal, progressive, or Democratic in espousing the idea that those who adhere to any religion are "fair game" to be mocked, ridiculed, or derided for their beliefs. And there is nothing intelligent, thoughtful, or productive behind the idea that "I have a right to ridicule, therefore I will do so, just because I can."



Edited to add …

This OP was not about satire, lampooning religious practices, tolerating the Westboro Church idiots, being “required” to respect any religion, ignoring the hypocrisy of those who claim to be Christians and then act contrary to Christ’s teachings, “accepting” religious ideals that one finds abhorrent, allowing any religion to interfere with anyone’s rights as a citizen, tolerating the encroachment of religion into our government, not pushing back against those who shove their religion in our face, etc.

The OP is specifically about DU and the discussions that have taken place here, especially over the past few weeks. The incivility demonstrated by some towards those of faith has been appalling and [I[deliberately hurtful. That’s what I meant by saying it serves no purpose, and accomplishes nothing. No one is going to abandon their religious beliefs because someone on a message board called them “an idiot who believes in fairy tales”. So why say it – unless the only purpose is to be demeaning?

I may believe that wearing a burqa is a ridiculous adherence to an archaic interpretation of Islam. But it would never cross my mind to point at a woman wearing one and laugh, or tell her she’s an idiot who is clinging to superstition.

There is – or, IMHO, should be – a difference between how we view religious beliefs as a whole, and how we treat the individuals who hold those beliefs. Religions and their deities do not have feelings – the people who practice those religions do.

Being mindful of those feelings shouldn’t be too much to ask of anyone. But apparently, for some, it is.

[Suich]

1. I agree 100%.

Ridiculing is bullying.

You can ridicule someone in a wheelchair, but it's not socially acceptable. Same with ridiculing someone with Down's Syndrome, or someone missing a limb.

The feeling doesn't seem to be the same as far as ridiculing someone's choice of religion.

I cringe every time I hear some politician refer to the US as a "nation founded on Christianity."

Nice to see you posting here!!!

[geek tragedy]

30. So you're equating faith to Down's syndrome while decrying the mocking

of religion?

Okay . . .

[Suich]

35. I'm equating ridiculing to bullying.

Religious ridiculing is socially acceptable, ridiculing someone with Down's is not.

I'm not sure I understand your question...sorry.

[geek tragedy]

41. That you are not recognizing the difference between religious faith

and congenital cognitive impairment is much more biting than a cartoon would be.

[bvf]

67. Still, that would make for some cartoon.

Where around here recently did I read a poster's comment to the effect of, "I was born christian..."?

[whathehell]

271. Religious ridicule is NOT socially acceptable, except, perhaps, on Charlie Hebdo

and sites like this one, and even here, as these numerous threads

illustrate, it's "acceptability" lacks consensus.

If you don't believe me, I'd suggest trying it in person.

[Fumesucker]

276. Eh, the money in my pocket mocks my philosophy of life

And if anyone were to suggest that the mockery be removed from the money half of America would have a meltdown of apocalyptic proportions.

[whathehell]

279. Yeah..sure..whatever..okay

[Fumesucker]

287. I'm sure Christians would all be comfortable with money that said "There is no God"..

[whathehell]

290. I'm sure someone like you would think that.

[Fumesucker]

341. Someone like me?

Did you really have to get personal?

That's a definite sign of a losing argument.

[madinmaryland]

289. How so? The two examples you gave are things people have no choice in..

being disabled, whether physical or mentally, are never a choice a person has. While religion and non-religion is a choice. A choice that all people have.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

301. Nothing could be furrther from the truth, ridicule religion, ridicule governments, ridicule

the rich and powerful, and do it all day long otherwise we are all just asking for it.

Has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with bullying.

Absurd

[treestar]

138. Comparison isn't equating.

It's a fallacy to say the other poster equated it - it tries to make that poster look bad. Find a logical response for why it's not the comparable.

[DeadLetterOffice]

221. But we here ridicule people's choice of political philosophy everyday.

Why is that different?

If the difference is based on "are" versus "choose to be" then why does political belief get a pass and religious belief doesn't?

(I'm not a huge fan of ridicule in general, and agree that it doesn't ever change anyone's mind about their choices. I'm just trying to understand why religion in particular is somehow deserving of special consideration.)

[BeyondGeography]

2. Eat my reason

It's not a winner.

One of the most important progressive protest movements there will ever be in America or the history of the world for that matter came out of churches and was advanced by religious leaders. That alone should give humble pause to some of the fundy-style anti-religious posturing being put forth on this board. But, self-restraint, it's so un-Internetty.

[bvf]

123. Are you suggesting that

atheists can't be as committed as the religious to social issues, or that believers wouldn't be as committed were it not for their faith?

That seems to be your message here. Please tell me I'm wrong about that.

[BeyondGeography]

135. Yup, you're wrong about that

[bvf]

153. Oh, good

because your phrase, "fundy-style anti-religious posturing," came across as sort of defensive.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Orsino]

156. Before we credit the faithful with championing civil rights, which undoubtedly happened...

...let's recall all of the believers who stand opposed, and who for centuries have stood in the way of progress. They still do. Faith can inspire us to some of our greatest efforts, but religion is also the perfect cover and reinforcement for cruelty and prejudice. Perhaps what you're praising is personal courage and empathy, rather than faith itself.

That the movement did start getting a lot of notice in the churches is explained by the fact that worship, originally a tool of oppression, was one of the few legal ways at the time in which the oppressed could gather.

The spirituals of old were used not only to bolster faith, but to bolster morale and even to send secret messages: https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/4844

Religion is a way in which we can show our true colors.

[F4lconF16]

174. +1

Very well said. Thank you.

[BeyondGeography]

185. And what was the source of that courage and empathy?

For many, including Dr. King, it was religious belief. The thought that our harvest is not here has kept billions of people going over the years. And for more than a handful it has been a force for good in their lives and those they have touched.

Acknowledge this simple reality around here and you're likely to be associated with every obscenity ever committed under the name of religion. It's like blaming atheists for Hitler. Much of the discussion here has been absolutely asinine.

[Orsino]

388. Or faith was a means of expressing it.

Some folks fought the same war without a church, and many within churches didn't.

I have never bought into the fundamentalist meme that morality comes from God, or from religion. I think that God and religion are what we do with our faith.

[zappaman]

3. This might seem like a strange question, but what about Scientology?

In some countries, it's not even recognized as a religion.
Can that be ridiculed?

[KauaiK]

13. This was my exact thought when I read this.

I'm glad I'm not alone. To me it's not a religion; it's a cult.

[HERVEPA]

90. They're all cults.

[amuse bouche]

126. Exactly

It's just that some are older than others, so they're more acceptable, but make no mistake, they are all BS

"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." - L. Ron Hubbard

[treestar]

141. I think there is a difference

One politically correct word for cult is "new" or "novel" religion. They're cults until they take off.

I dealt with some members of a cult once. The big difference is that a religion is accepted generally in the society. The cult is not. It makes the members of the cult extremely defensive and anti-social.

[cleanhippie]

144. The only difference bewteen a cult and a religion is the size of the congregation.

[bvf]

164. Ding ding ding! n/t.

[marym625]

314. and if you check the definitions of

Myth, religion and superstition, you'll see they are all related. Even the word parable is based in religion. A story with a lesson in morality that isn't true. Like most of the bible, Koran, etc.

I'm sure ancient Romans and Greeks would not be happy about the term "mythology"

[Dorian Gray]

99. ANYTHING

CAN be ridiculed. What does the ridicule say about the religion v. the person who is doing the ridiculing. (Hint: It speaks more about the person doing the ridiculing.)

You can disagree with anything, even Scientology, in a manner which isn't ridicule. I disagree with the tenets of the religion (thetans) and have distrust in the organizational leadership. (See, I didn't call anyone stupid sheep. Because I don't feel the need to diminish the humanity or dignity of other people when disagreeing with something.)

[cpwm17]

115. Carl Sagan was an excellent atheist

and I don't remember him ever ridiculing anybody. He had to have been far more persuasive than some of the hateful asses that attack the humanity of religious believers. Some of the more hateful famous atheists are deeply racist and shouldn't be admired.

There are certainly religious individuals that should be countered, so it isn't one size fits all. And the religious do tend to be more hateful and more racist than none believers, so we shouldn't just act like all is copacetic – just don't be an ass.

[Dorian Gray]

274. "Don't be an ass"

is a good general rule of thumb for living in the world.

[duhneece]

398. I need to be reminded to sound like you did

It's easy, living in a county run by folks who spend lots of $$ trying to get the national forest turned over to them to think of how to respond inappropriately instead of appropriately & resptfully and with a focused goal in mind.

[madinmaryland]

291. Well, while you are at it, why not include the LDS (Mormons).

Is that a religion??

[Major Nikon]

4. Seems as if those same arguments about theology could also apply to ideology, no?

[DonCoquixote]

5. The tragedy is

There are TONS of FAT EASY TARGETS in allreligions themselves. Not liek self appointed caliph Al-Baghaddi doesnot make one.

[sheshe2]

6. Thank you for posting Nance.

The narrow-mindedness displayed on DU on this topic has been, sad to say, not surprising in the least. It is amusing - if nothing else - to see the same posters who decry the belittlement of gays/lesbians based on their sexuality, the derision of people based on their race or ethnicity, or the mockery of people based on their poor financial circumstances, stand up and cheer the idea that people of religious faith are fair game in a mud-slinging contest that accomplishes nothing of value.

There is nothing liberal, progressive, or Democratic in espousing the idea that those who adhere to any religion are "fair game" to be mocked, ridiculed, or derided for their beliefs. And there is nothing intelligent, thoughtful, or productive behind the idea that "I have a right to ridicule, therefore I will do so, just because I can."

Amazing isn't it? Ridicule is thy name. They own it.

[HERVEPA]

91. Illogical captain

Religion is a choice. The other things you cite are not. Pretty simple. Logic 101

[ColesCountyDem]

7. Thank you!

[BrotherIvan]

8. When they get out of my bedroom, body, government, school

When they stop trying to make everyone to believe as they do, to live as they choose to, I will stop saying bad things about them. Easy.

[NanceGreggs]

10. Who are "they"?

It sounds like you're talking about the GOP - did you mean someone else?

[BrotherIvan]

12. Zealots

But you knew that.

[BainsBane]

76. Funny, cause that sounded a lot like what American foreign policy and cultural imperialism seeks

including its denunciations of "backward" and 'barbaric" Islam. I've seen several people say, if they would just abandon their belief system like the rest of us have done, then they'd be okay. In other words, if they become like us. Never mind the fact that their ethnic and racial identities are bound to religion because of the geopolitical context in which they live and the way they are targeted by Western governments for being Muslim. As I pointed out elsewhere, drones don't distinguish believers from non-believers, nor did the Bush administrator when it rounded up Muslims for internment and torture. Yet people here have no problem condemning 1/3 of the world's population for being too backward to change who they are.

[BrotherIvan]

77. No, not remotely what I said

I said they need to keep out of other people's lives, forcing them to live the way that they choose. Religions kill far more than they are given credit for. Not just the crusades or The Inquisition, but ongoing policies in modern times that make it illegal for women to get life-saving abortions or go to school or be stoned for looking the wrong way, making homosexuality punishable by death, and on and on.

As I said below, the faithful of every religion should be ten million times more concerned with what their fundamentalists are doing to their religion than what I or anyone else has to say about them. They are twisting the words of their prophet or God. Christian fundamentalists in this country have done a complete 180 to the message of Jesus and have made American Christianity synonymous with hatred and bigotry and racism and guns. Why aren't all these religious people furious at them? I don't hold every Muslim accountable for every terrorist, and I do understand that the greatest manufacturers of terrorism are Imperial foreign policy, no doubt. But I do not think that religious people would be mocked nearly so much if they LOUDLY condemned and distanced themselves from the crazies.

[HERVEPA]

93. Well said Brother Ivan

[smirkymonkey]

293. Hear, hear!

[treestar]

147. +1

Every society has a religion. Their's is affected by their political situation. Christians would be the same in that situation - if we felt we'd been colonized by Muslims and that they interfered in our politics and had their armies here in our country - we'd have a similar backlash and be ultra-Christian.

[F4lconF16]

176. I think we are ultra-Christian.

if we felt we'd been colonized by Muslims and that they interfered in our politics and had their armies here in our country - we'd have a similar backlash and be ultra-Christian.

The rise of the Christian right wing in the US is unprecedented (as far as I can remember). We are considered crazy by much of the world for our zealots.

[treestar]

393. don't agree - they are a minority now

In the 50s they had prayer in the schools and at legislative meetings without question. They've been losing that battle and they are fewer and fewer (and more rabid as they lose their privileged status). If we were ultra-Christian, we'd have no states allowing gay marriage and we'd still have women in the home.

[Desert805]

14. Is there so big a difference?

Both are belief systems, when it comes down to it.

[Skittles]

23. yup

if the GOP is sexist or homophobic it is bad yet we're constantly told we have to respect blatant sexism and homophobia if it is due to religion - F*** THAT and SHAME on people who accept that

[BrotherIvan]

78. ^^^^^^^That right there^^^^^^^^^^

I don't accept it from anyone, of any religion, of any country. Racism, sexism, homophobia--nope you don't get a pass just because you believe in a particular story.

Religion should promote peace. I can't remember the last bad thing I said about Shinto, or Taoism or Bahá'í. I have no problem with religious people to believe whatever they want in their church or their synagogue or their mosque, as well as their own home. I do have a problem when they try to shove it down other people's throats.

[peacebird]

113. +1, as long as religion isn't used to justify laws that affect others, fine

But when a particular religious belief is used to allow employers to refuse to pay for health coverage for legal procedures or products, or to allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense certain prescriptions. Then that religious freedom is negatively impacting others who believe differently.
We need to take religion back OUT of our government.

[BrotherIvan]

191. Yes and that is why I don't buy that the faithful are persecuted

It really is the sticks vs stones argument. Sure, some of the things I read about religion on DU are pretty scathing, but NONE, I repeat, NONE of those statements are HARMING PEOPLE. It's a big damn difference. The policies of the Roman Catholic Church are killing women NOW. Women and gays are being killed in the name of religion in many countries of the world. I'm not gonna shut up about it.

[Wgles]

316. Agree!

I agree! Thanks for these answers.

I also think the argument could be made that it is the religious fanatics who are doing the bullying, and satire or mockery is a defense against the bullying religious fanatics. It is a tactic that the small can use against the mighty. Its like a small child saying "na-na-na-na-na-naaaaa" to a bully to get back at them, because they are powerless to do anything more. It may be stupid... it might not change the bully's mind, and it might insight the bully, but it isn't bullying in itself ... My take anyway.

[BrotherIvan]

320. Agree

I can also state with 100% certainty that if someone comes up and tries to convince me that Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs, I'm gonna laugh in their face. And yet, they don't "believe" in climate change? Um yeah, gonna get mocked.

[bloom]

334. Religions don't have to make laws to affect others

The Catholic religion has set up and perpetuated a 'women are inferior' meme that is detrimental to women. (Of course they have gotten governments in on it - but it's a problem whether heads of state are involved or not.)So have orthodox Jews (such as the ones who took women - like Angela Merkle - out of the Paris March photo). So do most Muslims.

With or without laws - their ideology is detrimental to women.

[Skittles]

342. yet we are told we have to respect this crap

I will not tolerate sexism and homophobia for ANY reason

[F4lconF16]

178. This.

Religion is an ideology, and should be treated as such. Though it may be closely tied to ethnicity and geography, that does not change the fact that it is not biologically inherent. It is a choice, as hard or as dangerous as it may be. We can and should strongly criticize those who are perpetuating or encouraging bigotry through their choice of religion.

[GoneOffShore]

338. Thank you. You nailed it.

Usually I'm in line with Nance, but I can't get on board with her on this.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. The catholic church involves itself a great deal in all those categories politically.

Elements of the RCC sue to block the contraception mandate of the ACA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/us/catholic-groups-file-suits-on-contraceptive-coverage.html?_r=0

As an example.

The Mormon Church, and Catholics, threw tons of money at Prop 8 in California, getting it initially passed. (fortunately overturned.)
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/21271/focus-on-the-family-vastly-outpaced-mormon-spending-on-proposition-8
$1.275 million dollars by the Knights of Columbus (the catholic church), same assholes that vandalized our money and the pledge of allegiance in the height of the 'Red Scare' in the 50's.

The Catholic Church spent more than anyone, and lied its ass off in TV ads, even used Martin Sheen (again, lying HIS ass off (a catholic)) to oppose I-1000 in Washington State, our Death With Dignity legislation. (Passed anyway, fortunately)

Top six donors:
Connecticut Knights of Columbus: $250,000
Knights of Columbus: $75,250
Washington State Catholic Conference: $70,394
Archdiocese of Seattle: $55,000
Catholic Health Association: $50,000
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: $30,000

http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_%22Death_with_Dignity_Act%22,_Initiative_1000_(2008)

So, in American politics (there are others) there's your 'they'. But you knew that already, didn't you?

[BrotherIvan]

81. The RCC was deeply enmeshed in the Hobby Lobby case

They are trying to effect policy all the damn time. But it's hands off? I don't think so. And I really am not a religion basher for the most part.

[HERVEPA]

94. And the Mormons in Prop 8

[BrotherIvan]

195. And the GOP is using Creationism from our Krazy Kristians to deny Climate Change

How many people is that supposed to kill? Am I not allowed to talk about stuff like evolution or climate change because it might offend some religious person (because they say it does). Exactly what heinous act am I allowed to talk about?

[HERVEPA]

92. Catholic Church, Southern Baptists

[treestar]

145. They are

They may be trying to reverse that but they are not going to succeed. All of their victim-y whining shows that.

They are "persecuted" because there is no longer prayer in school on their terms.

[freshwest]

9. It occurs when there is an inability to express one's liberal value without attacking others.

And it's a losing strategy, as it does not unite anyone.

People do not support WHAT IS NOT. In ridicule and mockery, one is only describing what they are NOT, and ascribing in a very narrow way, WHAT SOMEONE IS. Usually wrong.

It doesn't work, it gives nothing to work toward. Energy of any kind, be it emotional, financial or political, is not attracted to a VACUUM or WHAT IS NOT.

Thus it is a waste of time and energy. People supprt WHAT IS, and VISION, and WHAT THEY CAN SEE IN THE REAL WORLD AND THEY WANT TO HAVE. Not what they DO NOT WANT.

This is where the religious and conservative have beat liberals, the ground game, the vision, like it or not, that can be achieved.

They have grown increasingly destructive and ugly as we have given them NOTHING to work with from our side they want. Because they do want something. And we have played unconsciously, a game that did not take into consideration their needs.

We also want something. We must admit that. I have written before what harm our social order is percieved by them to have done, that they cannot work with. The social contract goes both way, not our telling others what to do and think.

Mockery and ridicule are pleasing to the tongue and ego. That's as far as their effect goes, to boost the one who is using it, not the ones who are hearing it. It's a profound failure outside the Beltway Bubble and the media that pushes cheap thrills. You cannot achieve WHAT IS NOT.

Express what will work, in detail, IDEALS, IDEAS and SOLUTIONS or continue to stew in fingerpointing and get nothing done.

Anyway, Nance, let me know if any o that resonates with you.

JMHO.

[Bonobo]

11. It's easy to dunk a basketball if the net is 3 feet high...

and it's easy to win an argument if you change the conversation.

It isn't an issue of defending the mocking of religions.

It is an issue of committing violence over words.

Once you umm, readjust to that reframing, I think you'll have an easier time stomaching all those DU opinions that you found so offensive.

[NanceGreggs]

18. I didn't change the conversation.

I started one of my own.

The idea of "committing violence over words" is a separate discussion. And there are ample threads discussing that very topic.

I see no need to "readjust my framing" - nor the need to readjust my thinking in order to "stomach DU opinions I find offensive".

[LittleGirl]

15. good to see you again

I miss your posts here. You're the reason I joined DU after lurking for a long time. Your points resonate with me.

Thanks.

[yuiyoshida]

407. I'm with you!

This!

[PADemD]

16. I totally agree.

Thank you for posting.

[kelliekat44]

17. Thank you once again, NanceGreggs. nt

[nikto]

19. My faith is strong----I am not at all offended when others ridicule my faith

My faith is strong.


In addition,
mighty Cthulhu is unaffected by blasphemy.

[BrotherIvan]

20. Exactly

And I think those of faith should be far more angry at those who are twisting it: fundamentalists, evangelicals, and zealots. They are doing far more harm to religion than any mocking could possibly do.

[dawg]

295. We are!

The fundies *are* the ones doing the most harm to religion.

Those who mock religion are mostly just harming liberalism.

[BrotherIvan]

298. They aren't harming liberalism by pushing back against religions which bring great harm

Yeah sure, there are some people who make it a profession to take on religion in the most brutal possible way. But people of faith should realize that (I think) what draws you to your religion--helping your fellow humans, spreading peace and love--is exactly what liberals want. I know a family of very devout Christians and they are beautiful people, and I would never say anything bad about their religion because it is their choice. But because some religious people have decided they can't have strong faith unless everyone around them is following their religion, there is going to be some pushback.

I am extremely tolerant of personal faith, I am just arguing that public faith or the injection of faith in the secular world deserves every bit of scorn that can be mustered. There is no place for it anywhere but in the church/temple/mosque and your home. That's it.

[dawg]

299. In that case, you and I are in agreement. But much of what is posted here goes ...

far beyond just pushing back against the injection of faith into the secular world. Much of it is mean-spirited and insulting.

[BrotherIvan]

304. Yes, it is. But there is no reason to tell people that religion shall not be criticized.

I generally think religious people should study and stick to their faith, not made up stuff. Like Jesus said, pray in your room, with the door closed.

[Rex]

139. Yep, sticks and stones may break my bones - but words will never hurt me.

Ever.

[F4lconF16]

180. In context of the post you were responding to

I think it's a valid statement. Otherwise, I've always thought that was one of the stupidest expressions out there.

[Rex]

197. I agree.

[Skittles]

21. people are getting sick of being told to respect misogyny, homophobia, etc.

why is that so fucking hard to understand?

[NanceGreggs]

24. People who see misognony and homophobia ...

... as part of certain religious beliefs are free to not be a part of those religions. Why is THAT so fucking hard to understand?

[Skittles]

25. I can be both free of it AND disgusted by it

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[geek tragedy]

28. Because those who harbor such beliefs are not content to live and let live.

GLBT citizens are making advances in part because the bigots have been shamed into the shadows.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. If only it were that simple to remove those religions' influence from our lives.

But it isn't.

[LostOne4Ever]

48. Yes let them be free to do stuff like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025457056

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Or this:[/font]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Religions that do stuff like this deserve to be mocked. Their power stripped away and their true character exposed.[/font]

[BrotherIvan]

82. "Why is THAT so fucking hard to understand?"

You're a hoot. You start a thread lecturing everyone on how they should show some decorum and be sensitive to the fragile feelings of the religious and then end up driving your point home by screeching and cussing people out. Good job, Nance.

[caraher]

262. The "cussing" was her echoing the post she was responding to

see the text of post 21: "why is that so fucking hard to understand?"

[prayin4rain]

160. But we can't excuse ourselves from the misogyny and homophobia. n/t

[ozone_man]

315. Precisely!

It's prevalent, and religion drives this intolerance. So, it should be confronted directly and called for what it is. Satire is just one way of showing the oppressiveness of organized religion. What can't stand the light of day will shrink into the crevices.

[F4lconF16]

181. Wow.

Well, you've made clear where you stand. Should I accept the KKK's beliefs? Since I don't have to be part of the KKK, clearly that solves everything.

When those beliefs stop permeating every part of our society due to the ubiquity of religion, then I will be quiet.

[brooklynite]

263. Alert rejected 7-0...

[lamp_shade]

296. ^

[Beringia]

353. Re your tag line, I loved Cat Stevens, he put me on cloud 9

[treestar]

148. Straw man in that religious fundies may hang onto that

But the religions themselves do not, nor do the members, as they liberalize too. There are female pastors now and gay pastors. There are gay people who belong to churches. Are you going to mock those religious gay people? That would be bad, too.

[F4lconF16]

186. How so?

Nobody is attacking gay people, or women, or anything like that. They're attacking the religion they believe in. While I tend to agree that mocking is not the best tactic (Sagan was a perfect example of what I think works), that's beside the point. People are free to mock gay people for believing something that many consider rather stupid. I don't see how that's different than just mocking a believer, unless you think there's something special that separates gay believers from other believers.

[treestar]

392. Since the religions do change over time

Like all societies, they in ancient times restricted women, gay people, and others who did not conform to strict rules. They used to burn people at the stake for denying transubstantiation. The religions liberalized because those women, gay people, etc. stuck with them until they did.

Religions are large institutions with long pasts, so I think it is useless the way some atheists think they can be eliminated overnight and that once eliminated, everything will of course be better. I bet you can find atheists who are racist or homophobic.

[Hekate]

22. Hullo, Nance, nice to see you again

I won't try to articulate my full feelings, as it would take too long -- but I do agree with you in principle as a way of living. For a non-Catholic I have defended the current Pope here at DU more times than I can count, and in previous years I defended the laity here for their struggle to remain faithful even when their priests betrayed them.

Individuals do the best they can, on the whole.

But the current case of Charlie Hebdo raises profound questions. I wouldn't take that magazine if you handed it to me for free, because I detest 99% of the cartoons I have seen attributed to it.

"Je suis Charlie"? Non, non. More like "Je suis Voltaire": "I disagree with what you say but I will defend ... your right to say it."

[geek tragedy]

26. When that faith causes people to restrict the freedoms and dignity of others

hell yeah it needs to be ridiculed, scorned and marginalized.

If a religion declares a war on birth control, or civil rights, it should get punched back.

Europe is much more secular than we are because they don't indulge the pretense that backwards beliefs are entitled to respect.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Any religion ...

... that seeks to undermine the separation of Church and State is open to criticism for doing so. It is not open to criticism for its beliefs, but for its desire to circumvent that separation.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Except...

One way to protect that separation is to show these religions for the fabricated shams they are, and hollow them out with declining adherents.

For one thing, it ends the flow of money they rely upon.

[geek tragedy]

43. How about those who promote conversion therapy for

GLBT youth?

Should their beliefs be respected?

How about those who funded prop8?

The fact that people are being shot over cartoons indicates at least some believers have gotten too big for their britches.

[F4lconF16]

188. That's ridiculous.

It is not open to criticism for its beliefs

Why on earth should religions get a free pass from criticism? It is an ideology, and ideologies are always open to criticism. If you disagree with that, then you have to agree that we should not criticize the GOP for their beliefs. The only difference is that one ideology involves a god or gods (though one could say that the GOP's political and religious ideology have morphed into one).

[stevenleser]

278. Note that the person who posted #59 has been served his pizza by Skinner.

The reasoning has to be read and enjoyed.

[ErikJ]

27. Fundamentalist extremism is the problem

and too often religion can lead many people to fundamentalist extremism which is social and then political conservativism.

[DFW]

29. At first I was gonna say something about those whose faith allows them to commit evil

You know, like those "Christians" who say "God" allows them to rule your bedroom or your body, or those Muslims who say Allah commands them to kill whoever is on the menu this week.

But then there is the larger view, and that is that those who say that their deity "commands" them to bring misery to others must have a very weak hold on their faith indeed. Since God/Allah/TheGreatPumpkin etc. has never really spoken out loud to anyone, all religion is, at the end of the day, exactly what we call it: faith. You don't know, but you BELIEVE. Fine. But no all-powerful, all-benevolent deity, who has nothing but love for his/her/its lesser minions (i.e. us), ever told any of us to forbid abortions or gay marriages, or to cut off the head of another. Anyone who does that is carrying out their own perverted will, not that of some supreme higher being.

I am still reminded, after all these years, of the woman who asked me to contribute money so she could go to India to convert Hindus to Christianity. I said I would contribute an amount equal to the amount that she had contributed to Indians wanting to come to America to convert Christians to Hinduism. Needless to say, no money changed hands.

[Skittles]

33. excllent post, DFW

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Hot damn, there are some excellent posts in this thread.

I am suddenly glad this thread was started here, in GD.

[F4lconF16]

189. +1

Did not expect this to be as interesting as it was.

[Prism]

31. Mockery and ridicule are challenges to authority

Satire has a rich history of being a vehicle through which artists, activists, and ordinary people have taken on those in power. It punctures its sacredness and cries out against claims of the divine.

And make no mistake, religion exists as an authority structure and has used its power to push and keep down every minority it can in order to lift up its own tribe.

I'm not an atheist, and I have no interest in mocking or ridiculing religion. It is not my personal style. But this sudden demand for respect for some of the most homophobic and sexist institutions on earth is a curious thing. It is an illiberal thing that is more about feelings and self-righteous moral superiority rather than a studied examination of what the actual policy of leaving these religions unmolested would generate.

Religion ought to be weakened. This is an easily understood thing when we discuss Christian conservative fundamentalists. You and just about everyone in this thread has had no problems whatsoever assailing and mocking the Religious Right in this country when it suited your politics.

But because Islam is not oppressing you personally, you are able to give it a pass and through self-puffery declare you're just the better person here.

Which is a rather convenient and easily held position, requiring no effort, bravery, or personal price whatsoever.

Warm fuzzies about how tolerant you are is an easy play from the armchair. You are not being oppressed, you are not being denied your rights, and you are not suffering from a fundamentalist culture or system of law from within the cozy confines of Western civilization.

But crack open a history book. That civilization was built on writers, politicians, and philosophers who had plenty of "mean" things to say about religion and the authority the corrupt, the cruel, and the self-interested have derived from it over the centuries.

[Skittles]

34. THANK YOU

I'm not an atheist either - just someone who is completely fed up with being told what to think, what to tolerate; enough already.

[BainsBane]

56. Mocking Muslims in France isn't challenging authority

It's targeting an oppressed minority from the former French colonies. That is why they are fair game. There is no religion apart from its practitioners. If we were talking about the Roman Catholic Church, I could see your point. There is a set hierarchy and authority. There is no singular church of Islam. There are thousands of different sects and millions of different mosques. There is no Islam that exists apart from the Muslims who practice it.

[oberliner]

87. Ridiculous

There are essential elements of Islam that exist. Have you not heard of the five pillars?

There is also this book called that Koran that all Muslims have in common.

They also all must, by definition, believe that there is only one god and that Mohammed was his prophet.

There is also extreme power in the second largest religion in the world. The fact that a group of cartoonists in France can have an international organization orchestrate their murder because of a perceived offense against Islam is testament to that.

[Pooka Fey]

133. Thank you. +1

[whathehell]

108. Thank you. n/t

[Prism]

157. So, we should ease up on conservative Christians?

Many evangelicals in America don't have a pope or centralized institution. They get together for Bible study and move on from there. It's very much a Protestant ethic to be a Christian of conscience, interpreting the Bible and seeing God's truth for one's self.

The killers in France were not an "oppressed minority." They were supported and probably financed by an international system. No culture or religion exists within a bubble. Islam is one of the world's major religions.

I think it's Western privilege and white (somewhat racist) paternalism to look at Islam and declare oppression.

France and Muslims have a cultural and economic problem regarding immigration, ghettoization, and assimilation. But using that as a springboard to defend Islam generally is dirty pool.

It's not a small, powerless religion. It hasn't been in quite a long time.

[F4lconF16]

190. Well said. nt

[warrant46]

101. The Catlick Church is a Criminal Organization

And more satire is needed to point this out.

Although a dedicated group of attorneys are doing a fine job pointing this out in jury verdicts

[Puglover]

128. Man is it nice to "see"

Last edited Fri Jan 16, 2015, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

you Prism. I have missed your logical take on things greatly. And yourself as well. I hope you are doing well.

"Self-puffery" indeed.

[Pooka Fey]

132. Excellent post. +100

[Bonobo]

159. That post was a thing of beauty.

Impressive eloquence.

[prayin4rain]

161. Nice! Yes! n/t

[Desert805]

182. Fantastic post.

Thanks you.

[QC]

187. Always a pleasure to see you here! n/t

[Mbrow]

222. Well Made point,

Let me add that using ridicule on a single person is in fact bullying, using it on a power structure that is made to control and punish those individuals is not. And if you don't think that all organized religions where not put in place to control people, well, please reexamine the history and current leadership of said religions.

[uponit7771]

245. "and has used its power" religion has not people have

[Prism]

248. People are religion

Seems kind of a pointless distinction.

[uponit7771]

250. I disagree, people carry out religious beliefs... religion in and of itself doesn't oppress without

... people doing the oppressing.

Conservative econ policies without people who believe they should be enacted are dead

[Prism]

251. The thought is incoherent

If people are not the religion, but people are required to further the religion's beliefs and policies, then who is responsible for it?

Feels like there's an awful lot of obscuring smoke being thrown out. The religion is irrelevant, and the people shouldn't be criticized? Ok . . . What, exactly, does that leave us, then? A phantom religion with no one responsible for it? Such a thing does not exist.

[uponit7771]

253. "then who is responsible for it? ".. people? People can carry out WRONG understanding of beliefs too

There are people who believe giving is better than receiving... they act on that belief... without people acting on the belief the belief itself is of no effect.

There are terrible beliefs that stem from religion but there's no one in court who's going to be able to say ".. the religion did it..."

[Prism]

255. I actually think we agree

If I'm understanding you correctly. I was just telling SKP, if I criticize a religion, the religious will feel criticized. While I may attempt to parse the belief vs the followers of the belief, in the end it's amounting to being the same thing.

[uponit7771]

259. yeap, humans don't like their worlds challenged.... easier to just settled in a belief and not have

... it questioned or even looked at critically.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

345. ^K&R^

[truebrit71]

389. Excellent post.

Well said.

[SheilaT]

32. Thank you.

I am myself very much a non-believer, and earlier this evening I was having a discussion with a friend of mine on this very topic. As it happens, I work with her particular faith group (Presbyterians, in case it matters) to feed the homeless. Feeding the homeless is the kind of outreach I enjoy doing, and as it happens, that's the sort of thing faith groups are good at. In my city, Santa Fe, the local homeless shelter is run by an interfaith group, and I think all of the churches/mosques/synagogues here participate. I happen to have, as two of my closest friends, a pair of Presbyterians, which is why I do this - feeding the homeless - with them.

I also happen to have my very own specific and strong beliefs connected to spiritual things, but I don't find it at all necessary to convince anyone else they should believe my way. I often enjoy good dialogues with those who believe quite differently, because those conversations can help me figure out my own beliefs, clarify my own thinking.

What does bother me a lot is how many people are totally dismissive of any beliefs (and here I'm including agnosticism and atheism) not their own. It can be very, very hard to respect someone else's beliefs when they refuse to respect mine, which is at the core of so many of the anti-religion (and probably the anti non-religion) statements here.

In a similar vein, I finally figured out exactly why so many fundamentalists are so convinced there is a "Gay Agenda" out there, and that gays are out to convert everyone else to their (abhorrent) lifestyle. And that is because the fundamentalists depend on convincing people from a very young age that their fundamentalism is the only way to view the world, and they survive by imposing their Fundamentalist Agenda on everyone they know or at least try to impose it. So they cannot possibly imagine anyone else doing any differently. In their world view, everyone is intent on converting everyone else so their point of view. They simply cannot conceive of a "live and let live" attitude.

So it is with at least some people here. They have their own beliefs (and again, I'm including atheism and agnosticism) and are very, very anxious that all others believe as they do. While I am sometimes surprised that not everyone else believes as I do, I also understand that how I came to my particular beliefs is not necessarily that path that others have trod. And so, I'll happily discuss my beliefs, especially if you will talk about yours and we explain to each other why we each feel our way, without ever expecting the other to be converted.

I keep on making friends with fundamentalists Christians in this way, which always strikes me as strange, but there you have it.

[Eko]

38. The thing is

Gay people don't say not gay people are going to die and spend eternity in a lake a fire, to equate the two is the definition of narrow mindedness, nor do atheists or agnostics. It it totally the definition to mock the standing powers if you are progressive, I fear you have no idea what a progressive is.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. +1

[Boreal]

39. The entire conversation

that has ensued as a result of the murders in Paris and Charlie Hebdo has been really interesting to observe. I'm shocked at how many don't get the principal of freedom of speech.

I'm an absolutist on freedom of speech and will defend anyone's right to exercise it, no matter how repugnant, racist, bigoted, stupid or insensitive. At the same time, I agree with you about ridicule. It's not something I choose to engage in but if others do I don't much care. That's on them.

One of the funnier things I've observed is how some who express extreme dislike. disapproval or even hate for Islam try to remain politically correct and say it's not about Muslims or they aren't attacking Muslims. I keep repeating this and will again: Islam is a religious philosophy consisting of beliefs and practices. It's not Islam the idea that discriminates against women, punishes gays, delivers barbaric punishments, tries to change the cultures of countries they adopt. It is Muslims, the people who adhere to the belief system. Islam is expressed by and through Muslims. Without Muslims (the adherents to the belief system and practices) making Islam manifest, it would be a moot point. It is Muslims, the people, who make Islam come alive. I know this seems like I'm straying off point from your OP but bear with me because I'm getting there, lol.

Brigitte Bardot has been an open critic of Islam and Muslims - especially the abuse of animals - and the negative effects of Muslim immigrants in France. Unlike Charlie Hebdo, she never couched her criticism as humor and ridicule. She said and wrote what she meant, in a direct manner. For that she has been charged with hate speech and prosecuted five times (there is no freedom of speech in France). Her approach is genuine and honest, whether one agrees with her or not, while so called satire is very passive aggressive. People defend the the passive aggressive (which has also resorted to really lowbrow sexual content) but call Bardot a bigot. Honesty is punished but ridicule is lauded, even though the target of the criticism is exactly the same. I see some kind of weird schizo thinking in that that has everything to do with political correctness and an imposed demand to embrace "multiculturalism". Well, multiculturalism is the opposite of integration and assimilation so the alleged proponents of multiculturalism are kidding themselves if they think they can attack Islam but not the Muslim who is the personification of Islam! So, they hide behind passive aggressive ridicule and call it humor. While I support anyone's right to to engage in ridicule, I don't respect it as honest or productive. I respect Bardot for being forthright and expressing her genuine disgust and concerns. It's not the criticism that I question, its how its done. One way is honest while the other is not. Why hide behind ridicule and "humor" instead of being forthright?

Anyway, I'm all for anyone saying straight out, "I don't like you or the repulsive things you do and say". Cartoons of a naked Mohammed, aimed directly at the Muslims who believe in him, do fuck all to address real complaints. Bardot attacked their behavior. Charlie Hebdo attacked them through their religion and prophet which is convoluted, indirect and chickenshit.

[SidDithers]

134. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313453&sub=trans

Sid

[Pooka Fey]

150. Excellent post. To be fair, Charlie Hebdo's journalists wrote editorial content as well as cartoons

which no one is talking about. I never read the magazine, so I can't comment on the editorials, but they can't fairly be accused of any passive aggressive couching their disdain of Islamism (or Catholicism, or Fundamentalism, Racism, Classism, etc) in satiric cartoons.

Having watched many interviews with the survivors of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo on French TV this week, I can tell you that these journalists are intellectually rigorous, and I will presume that they have defended their opinions in the editorial content of the magazine many times.

I'd like to add to the conversation that France has a very long tradition of ridiculing authority, dating back to Voltaire and other philosophers of the Enlightenment period. Asking the French to respect Anglo-American cultural boundaries around what constitutes respectable discourse is a typical Anglo-Saxon cultural blind-spot.

Whether or not the sexual content is low-brow is another matter of opinion, but I live in France and they have no objections to drawing nudity or cartoons of pee-pee parts or women's breasts. I saw another DU poster, not you, call the cartoons pornographic which made me cringe.

Cheers

[AtheistCrusader]

44. IBTL, of course ridiculing religion can help lead people to question faith.

Do you know of any Christian who has stopped believing in their salvation through Christ because someone made fun of their beliefs?

Do you know of any Muslim who has abandoned their faith because someone labeled it "myth" or "superstition"?

Do you know of any Jew who stopped believing in their religion because someone made fun of their kippah, or their "weird" dietary laws?

Do you know of any atheist who suddenly decided to believe in god because they'd been ridiculed for not believing in god?

I know people who have crossed all four of these fences, in both directions, sometimes as a result of a conversation that began as ridicule. Sometimes well-reasoned, sometimes not.


"Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution--these can lift at a colossal humbug--push it a little--weaken it a little, century by century, but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." -Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain

[BainsBane]

49. So you think you can convert them?

Is that your goal?

[AtheistCrusader]

51. I would love nothing more than to see religion in the dustbin of history

where all the rest of mythology currently resides.

I can't 'convert' people like I change money from one national currency to another. They have to do it themselves. I love to help though.

Think of me as an enabler.

[bvf]

58. You enabler, you. n/t.

[BainsBane]

60. The mythology I'd like to see meet its demise is capitalism

but I know I am not able to affect that change myself. History, however, is more likely to bring about capitalism's end than religion's. You're fooling yourself if you think religion will disappear. Particular faiths come and go, churches rise and fall, but religion has existed as long as human civilization existed. I don't dispute that it's mythology, but it's one among many, including those you likely do not question, like democracy.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. I wholly encourage you to keep nibbling at that issue.

The tactics discussed here, that some parties are frustrated with religious orgs being the targets of, are fair game for you as well. Satire. Ridicule.

When the top 1% of the nation owns more than the rest of the citizens combined, something is wrong, and I don't think you have to be sweet and polite, and meek about pointing that out.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Let 'em have it. If you move the needle even a little, you're winning, the odds are so stacked against you.

[F4lconF16]

198. This.

Let 'em have it. If you move the needle even a little, you're winning, the odds are so stacked against you.

Damn straight.

[F4lconF16]

196. Question

History, however, is more likely to bring about capitalism's end than religion's. You're fooling yourself if you think religion will disappear.

Is that a reason not to try anyways? It seems to me that is what you are advocating.

[LostOne4Ever]

54. It should also be noted that by ridiculing religion

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It shows other (closeted) atheists that there are people out their who think like they do. That they are not alone.

It tears down the behemoth saying we are going to hell into a joke allowing us to escape from the dark into the light. It is not just for the believers that we ridicule, but also for others who don't believe.[/font]

[Pacifist Patriot]

131. And that's not an insignificant reason.

A local freethought society saw a substantial bump in attendance at their next gathering after one of their members wrote a mocking commentary to an article in the newspaper about a politician and how his religious beliefs guided his candidacy.

His motivation was not "just because he could," but a deliberate action because he felt the politician's beliefs were silly and deserving of mockery, AND more specifically he wanted others in our community who might feel similarly to know about the freethought society. So he deliberately mentioned it in his opinion piece.

[F4lconF16]

200. This is why, though I generally don't choose to engage in ridicule,

I usually support those who do. A big part of my becoming openly atheist was seeing that others agreed with me, and in my case, that came in the form of satire and ridicule. Up until that point, I had only my own thoughts and ideas about religion to help me understand my atheism. It was later on that I actually read arguments for and against it.

It can make a huge difference to those who are uncertain, or who feel alone. Humor at the expense of the powerful is a comfort to the oppressed.

[dawg]

235. If atheists feel they need to see others being ridiculed in order to feel better ...

about their own beliefs, then I feel sorry for them.

Believe it or not, there are ways of asserting one's disbelief in the existence of a higher power without having to mock or ridicule those who do.

[Moonwalk]

241. So, when we here at the DU make fun of the GOP and Fox News we're doing so to feel better?

Is our need to mock the GOP taking a vote on climate change, for example, because we need to feel better about our belief that climate change is real? Wow. I feel sorry for us all.

I'd say, believe it or not there are ways of asserting one's belief in climate change without having to mock or ridicule those who don't believe it...but that would be missing the point. Which I think you have.

[dawg]

242. I *do* think our desire to mock our opponents is unbecoming.

As for mocking religions, that's even more foolish, because it means mocking and ridiculing some of our staunchest allies, lots of fellow DU'ers, and many of our political heroes.

[Major Hogwash]

371. This is 2015, the internet has been around since 1995, for 20 fucking years!!!

So, your argument here, that somehow there are "closeted atheists" out there, others who haven't found another atheist posting on the internet is not only highly amusing, but it is disingenuous at best.

[LostOne4Ever]

373. Not everyone has unfettered access to internet

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And further, my comments apply just as much to internet as anywhere else.

Which means your reply to me lives up to your user name.[/font]

[Major Hogwash]

374. Ah, the ol' "you live up to your user name" remark.

Is that all you've got?
Because that old saw has been used by at least 50 other people at this forum that also didn't like what I had to say about them.

Of course, none of them were spouting nonsense about "closeted atheists" in this day and age.

Nevertheless, unfortunately for your argument, 99% of the entire millennial generation not only has access to the internet -- either by their own personal cell phone, smart phone, or home computer -- but they also have access to computers at school in this age of technology.
It must be near 100% access for the Generation X kids these days.

[LostOne4Ever]

375. 99% of all statistics on the internet are made up

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]I bet an even higher percentage of yours are hogwash.

BTW if you have a lot of people telling you that everything you say is Hogwash....the odds are that your comments are exactly that.

Especially in your world where parental controls don't exist and you continue to ignore the fact that my comments apply to the internet as well.

BTW, there are plenty closeted atheists in this country.[/font]

[BainsBane]

46. I love that you ask why

For what purpose do we mock? If it just because we can, what does that say about who we are?

[F4lconF16]

201. Check out post 54. nt

[bigtree]

50. there should be understanding

... of the need to speak out against 'beliefs' which discriminate, subjugate, or threaten.

Religious beliefs don't always adhere to the best of instincts or behavior. In fact, many religious expressions are used to justify discrimination or bigotry; or used to define the role of women, for example, into narrow and subservient boxes. It would be nice if those who espouse those views just kept to themselves, but we know it's not as simple to live and let live when there are efforts to politicize or legislate those beliefs into practice by exclusion or entitlement.

Imagine if practicing Mormons, for instance, adhered to their faith's original beliefs that considered black folk as less than human. We're actually just decades away from the time when that church sanctioned and encouraged those views. It's not realistic that those who adhered to that bigotry restricted their belief to the church or their private life. Those beliefs translate to their interactions with society. They bear commenting on; deserve comment and rebuke in our society.

Many beliefs associated with many pretexts of Islam are similarly discriminatory and subjugating; some even threatening. Are we really to be expected to not speak out against those?

I don't really disagree with leaving folks to their beliefs; but only of those beliefs don't manifest themselves into action. It's really not our experience that religion is just made up of private expressions of faith. Most often there's some attempt to proselytize or assert individuals' own beliefs superiority in many aggressive and imposing forms. That's really the aim of most religions, like the history of the deliberate and often oppressive spread of Christianity around the world.

Speaking out in opposition or even in ridicule, in response or in defense, is certainly 'fair game.'

[bvf]

52. Religion offers a ton of targets deserving of ridicule.

Chief among those targets is belief in imaginary beings.

All the others either stem from or are justified by that.

Ask yourself sincerely why you believe, and it will come down to one or more of the following:

1.) I was raised to

2.) It makes me feel better to think illogically, especially if I can surround myself with those similarly inclined, or

3.) I don't trust myself to do the right thing, so I allow a non-existent entity to guide my actions (but only if I deem such guidance to be appropriate).

Not trying to change anyone's mind here, obviously, but show me proof of your god, and I'll show you how to square the circle in a finite number of steps.

[Eko]

53. It is interesting how

telling someone that you believe in your heart that someone is going to spend an eternity in a lake of burning fire is not an insult but saying that your religion is silly is. Or that you believe in the aura we produce (of which there is no scientific proof) is not just straight silly and ridiculous, but we cant call you out for your unsubstantiated claims.. or we are mean. Any crazy idea you can come up with, and we are mean for saying it is a crazy idea. Whatever, You may be in the tent, but you are in the crazy side of the tent.

[Brigid]

55. Thanks, Nance.

I am so sick of the endless mockery of religious faith, I've considered leaving. Religion isn't even supposed to be discussed here, but that rule has apparently been tossed put the window lately. It does seem to me that if someone can't even cope with a garden-variety Methodist like myself, they're the ones with issues.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Does the United Methodist Church support or oppose same-sex marriage?

Did individual Methodists who DO approve of same sex marriage have to form an outside group (Methodist Federation for Social Action) to pursue progressive social issues (such as today's fight to legalize SSM) against the Church's guidance?

(You probably see where I'm going with this. It's not about you, it's about a tax free church that is also a political entity, that is decidedly non-progressive.)

[F4lconF16]

203. Check the SOP for GD.

Religion isn't even supposed to be discussed here, but that rule has apparently been tossed put the window lately.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978

"Discuss politics, issues, and current events"

I would think the Charlie Hebdo shooting is a very good reason to discuss religion, particularly in regards to free speech issues.

[LiberalAndProud]

57. It has been my experience that even so much as expressing disbelief will cause offense.

I do understand that reaction, because asking questions like,"How valid is my faith?" is extremely uncomfortable. I experienced those feelings as a believer. Still, the faithful should be required to examine the nature of their faith outside of their comfort zone.

Copernicus and Galileo caused discomfort among the faithful as well, and suffered the more for it. You're not entitled to uncritical comfort, even if it is pleasant.

[whathehell]

109. On DU?...You must be joking,

It's quite obviously more the opposite.

[NYC_SKP]

61. OMG thank you.

I've been fighting with religious bigots a LOT lately.
It seems that not only are all religions fair game to be targets of mockery, Islam is particularly unprotected.

"Void exists in someone's life that they think will be filled by ridiculing others..." says exactly what I've been thinking.

Though I'm not sure it's a void, it's certainly a missing part or a broken part.
I'm reminded of some of the youth I work with and their broken backgrounds.

I want to see them stop trying to hurt themselves and others, but they won't listen.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Yes, SKP, regale us with further tales of how the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were bigots and

homophobes, and now, questions of how much they are making off their 'popularity', and shadowy false flag ops, and the like.

By all means. Do it here in GD, and promise me you won't self-delete anything.

Let's see what's 'broken' in the full light of day here in GD.
But keep in mind, I hear sunlight is a disinfectant.

[world wide wally]

63. Well said. Ultimately, ridiculing for something someone believes is a waste of time,

but so is logic on a lot of people.

[bvf]

65. Fill in the blank.

"I can't help but wonder what void exists in someone's life that they think will be filled by __________."

[Jakes Progress]

106. by

making it their reason in life to tell others what they should or should not believe?

[BrotherIvan]

205. Or what they can and cna't say?

[Depaysement]

68. Tout est pardonnè

People don't mind being mean, but they never want to be ridiculous.

The purpose of comedy is to correct the vices of men and I see no reason why anyone should be exempt.

Je suis Molière.

[Pooka Fey]

212. Précisément/Precisely

People don't mind being mean, but they never want to be ridiculous.

Quelle observation pertinente/What a pertinent observation.

[Depaysement]

247. Felicitations à Molière pas moi

The father of French humor. He has been read by few Americans. That may be why they (except for you) don't understand Charlie Hebdo.

[Pooka Fey]

260. Et VOILA je viens de me faire ridicule de ne pas avoir reconnu la citation

mais comme la majorité de mes compatriotes anglo-saxons, je n'ai jamais étudié Molière. Shakespeare, c'est déjà beaucoup.

C'est vrai que je comprends l'humour et la satire à la française parce que mon époux est français, et parce que j'habite en France depuis 10 ans maintenant. On a un abonnement au journal "Marianne" depuis toujours. Tignous était un de leurs dessinateurs, et je connais ses dessins grâce à Marianne. Perdre un talent comme Tignous, je le ressens profondément.

C'est sûr que le ridicule n'est pas bien compris aux États-Unis.

Note to non-Francophone DUers - I'm too tired to do the English subtitles on this post right now, but I will do them upon request.

[Kablooie]

69. There are many stupid things we have a right to do.

We have a right to ridicule religion, deformities, racial characteristics, etc.

Having this right means that the government won't arrest you for doing it but it doesn't mean that you should do it and it doesn't protect you from suffering the consequences of your idiocy.

Certainly murder as a consequence is a crime but if you ridicule someone or something you must accept the fact that the other person may retaliate and this could also be his right.

As to ridiculing religion, it seems the only purpose is to make yourself feel superior. (Unless you do it as a Broadway musical in which case there could be a substantial monetary reward.)

[DFW]

72. I defend the right to retaliate for ridicule with equal ridicule

I do NOT defend the right to retaliate for ridicule with a Kalashnikov.

[Kablooie]

79. Ah, but the person you ridicule may not care what you think.

[DFW]

158. Most objects of ridicule don't care what those who mock them think

Otherwise I'd be recommending investing in funeral parlors.

[Surya Gayatri]

88. And, there you have it, in 20 words or less.^^^This^^^! n/t

[F4lconF16]

204. See post 54 in this thread.

As to ridiculing religion, it seems the only purpose is to make yourself feel superior.

[protect our future]

70. Thank you, Nance

My religion has been ridiculed here, mostly by people who know little about it. It didn't bother me much because I know many of us worship the same God, whatever name we give to our particular brand of religion.

[bvf]

73. The "same god, whatever brand of religion" thing

really baffles me.

To what extent do your religion's tenets have to diverge from someone else's before you can't logically claim the "same god"?

I tried to find an answer, but only came up with the usual "Well, it's up to god" rot. Shrug.

[JI7]

71. usually when i criticize religion it has more to do with people who use it to justify

or as a reason/excuse etc for something i don't like. and these things are usually public policy issues.

but i'm not going to go out of my way to go after anyone for their belief. for example if someone says "god bless you" in response to something i might do for them i will just smile or say thanks .

[lamp_shade]

74. Well said, Nance.

[Lars39]

75. What you're seeing is pushback against being

"practiced" on. "True Believers" here in the states don't keep their religion to themselves, they insist that everyone believes as they do.

[ChosenUnWisely]

80. Religion is a CHOICE that one makes, one is not born religious it requires

indoctrination and the choice to join.

The problem with the religious is the so many of them want everyone to believe like they do and the religious also work to codify their religious laws into public law.

If anything in the USA the religious are BULLIES to the non Religious.

Want to see religious discrimination, tell people you are an atheist and try running and actually getting elected to public office, you might as well run as a pedophile.

[eomer]

83. Do I know of any Christian? Yes, I do.

I, myself, am such a person who changed (abandoned) my beliefs as a result of others showing they were ridiculous.

[F4lconF16]

217. +1

Though I wasn't a believer in the first place, it certainly helped me to figure out and solidify my beliefs.

[saltpoint]

84. These kinds of ideas need to be

out there, circulating among citizens of a hell of a lot of nations.

Enjoyed reading this commentary by a gifted and intelligent observer of the scene.

[oberliner]

85. What I don't understand is anyone's need to ridicule others' politics

It serves no purpose. It accomplishes nothing. It changes nothing. The only end result possible (or probable) is that it offends, and can be extremely hurtful to those who feel deeply about their political views.

Do you know of any Republican who has stopped believing in their passion for conservative ideals because someone made fun of their political views?

[Fumesucker]

127. John Cole

Note: I have long standing permission from John Cole to post anything and everything I wish from his blog..

John had one of the few conservatives blogs that didn't ban liberals from commenting and liberals mocked the hell out of Cole on his blog to his very face.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/03/21/my-iraq-war-retrospective/

I see that Andrew Sullivan was asked to list what he got wrong about Iraq for the five year anniversary of the invasion, and since I was as big a war booster as anyone, I thought I would list what I got wrong:

Everything.

And I don’t say that to provide people with an easy way to beat up on me, but I do sort of have to face facts. I was wrong about everything.

I was wrong about the Doctrine of Pre-emptive warfare.
I was wrong about Iraq possessing WMD.
I was wrong about Scott Ritter and the inspections.
I was wrong about the UN involvement in weapons inspections.
I was wrong about the containment sanctions.
I was wrong about the broader impact of the war on the Middle East.
I was wrong about this making us more safe.
I was wrong about the number of troops needed to stabilize Iraq.
I was wrong when I stated this administration had a clear plan for the aftermath.
I was wrong about securing the ammunition dumps.
I was wrong about the ease of bringing democracy to the Middle East.
I was wrong about dissolving the Iraqi army.
I was wrong about the looting being unimportant.
I was wrong that Bush/Cheney were competent.
I was wrong that we would be greeted as liberators.
I was wrong to make fun of the anti-war protestors.
I was wrong not to trust the dirty smelly hippies.

I mean, I could go down the list and continue on, but you get the point. I was wrong about EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. THING. It is amazing I could tie my shoes in 2001-2004. If you took all the wrongness I generated, put it together and compacted it and processed it, there would be enough concentrated stupid to fuel three hundred years of Weekly Standard journals. I am not sure how I snapped out of it, but I think Abu Ghraib and the negative impact of the insurgency did sober me up a bit.

War should always be an absolute last resort, not just another option. I will never make the same mistakes again.

[Pooka Fey]

218. Irony Alert! Satirical content may cause hurt feelings

[oberliner]

219. Thanks!

I wonder if the poster I am responding to gets the message.

I would be curious to read a response.

[Pooka Fey]

224. Many on here have defended the usefulness of our collective 1st Amendment rights

Good on us.

[livetohike]

86. Great to see you posting Nance! The ridiculing on many topics

is the biggest change I've seen on DU. It's unproductive to any discussion.

[TheKentuckian]

89. Fine. I might be offended right with the person but should that offense lead to murderous response

we reserve the right to deal with you decisively.

[DLevine]

95. If you choose to follow a religion

that tells women they are not equal to men, that a fetus has at least as many rights as the woman carrying it, that if they enter into a same-sex relationship they will burn in hell, etc, that is your right. But I will mock those beliefs, especially when laws are being passed based on those religious beliefs, laws that restrict my freedom to live my life as I choose.

[PeaceNikki]

96. Take your op and replace religion with political ideology.

That should clear it up for you. It's really that simple.

[Pacifist Patriot]

111. +1

[ucrdem]

97. Well put.

I couldn't agree more. This entire episode has been shameful. Can't think of a better word ATM.

[DrDan]

98. VERY . . . WELL . . . SAID . . . .!!! Thanks for being an adult in our room

[MohRokTah]

100. Those who claim faith which cannot withstand ridicule are truly faithless. eom

[Pooka Fey]

384. +10,000

[Scuba]

102. I miss the unrec button.

[DrDan]

110. thanks for the reminder . . . Rec

[B Calm]

116. I miss it too!

[bahrbearian]

140. +1

[WorseBeforeBetter]

336. Amen to that.

[Martin Eden]

103. We should tolerate and welcome diversity of beliefs, but not the harm done in the name of a beleif

Be vigilant and forceful in calling out harmful actions and policies, but ridicule is often ineffective and counterproductive. Facts, reason, and pointing out our common interests is a much better approach for achieving worthwhile goals.

Many good people of Christian faith are passionate progressives who are on our side.

[DonCoquixote]

104. two problems come in

1) the first problem is that, in the name of religion, ugly, stupid thigns are done that not only deserve riducle, but outright warfare. When a church starts enocuraging people to send money to attack gay rights, women's rights, or other rioghts, then yes, that church needs attacking. Of course, the onus of the attack should be on the people MAKING THE DECISIONS, not the people in the pews who are probably hating what this idiot in power is doing, and whose help could be useful.

2) The second is that while some want to attack religion's crimes, there are also those who simply want to attack to advance their agenda. Take for example, Richard Dawkins, who called Islam the most evil thing there is, and who made nasty reference to women and muslims, then hid behind "free speech." Take Sam Harris, who called for outrght prosecution of "anything Muslim." Yes, some of what some Muslims do is awful, but by that estimate, we might as well judge all athiests by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/09/12/sam-harris-is-just-factually-wrong-globally-atheism-has-no-gender-split/

seriously Harris "extra estrogen vibe?"

So yes, we do need to ridicule behavior, even faith, but if you do, be prepared to undergo the same scrutiny you demand, and if you turn out like Sam Harris, Richard dawkins, and yes, Charlie as being members of the "we are white dudes that can make fun of everyone we want to" club, do not be surprised when even free speech advocates realize that you make VERY poor examples, because you are not trying to liberate people from an orthodoxy of thought, you merely want the spot being kept warm by priests, in layman's terms, Dawkins, Harris and Charlie just want to be the new pampered clergy, with a whole new set of "thou shalt not question me, now make me a sammich!"

[F4lconF16]

225. Very well said.

I am another atheist who agrees with you.

[whathehell]

105. Well said, Nance. I agree completely.

Mocking religion does not change the viewpoint of its adherents,

and I doubt that's even it's true objective -- It's basically just bullying.

[F4lconF16]

226. There are multiple examples in this thread

That show that mocking can get people to change their ideas.

See post 54 as well. Not all mocking (likely not even most) is meant to bully.

[whathehell]

272. I can't find post 54, so if you really want

to convince me, show me the links.

I've got to warn you though, whatever the credibility of your claim, I don't believe in

pushing people OUT of a belief anymore than I believe in bullying them INTO one.

Both are flip sides of the same coin, aggressive people who believe EVERYONE has

to view things as they do, and that's not only a huge pain in the ass for the

proselytized, but an indicator of personal insecurity on the part of the proselytizer..

When it comes to actual mockery of religion, I stand by my assertion that most

IS meant to bully.

[F4lconF16]

275. Here's the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026091843#post54

If you read that subthread (and others in this thread), mockery of religion has helped some of us quite a bit. I get the feeling you're not going to be convinced no matter what evidence I show you that it can help people, though.

I've got to warn you though, whatever the credibility of your claim, I don't believe in pushing people OUT of a belief anymore than I believe in bullying them INTO one.

Someone mocking religion is not pushing people out of a religion anymore than someone criticizing Carl Sagan for his atheism is pushing people into one.

Both are flip sides of the same coin, aggressive people who believe EVERYONE has to view things as they do, and that's not only a huge pain in the ass for the proselytized, but an indicator of personal insecurity on the part of the proselytizer..

Again, mocking religion is not proselytizing. What you say is a false equivalence, though--there are far more fundies and religious people attempting to push their religion on others than the other way round. It might be two sides of a coin, but one of those sides is much larger and more oppressive than the other.

When it comes to actual mockery of religion, I stand by my assertion that most IS meant to bully.

We have a difference of opinion, then.

[whathehell]

283. Um, you've given me NanceGreggs's opinion which matches mine.

It's not an example of someone who's beliefs have been changed due to mockery.
She makes the same point as I do -- Mockery doesn't change viewpoints.

Want to try that again, LOL?

[F4lconF16]

286. It's linked correctly and works for me, and on another computer.

Try waiting a bit longer, the larger threads will sit at the top and go to the post only after the page loads.

Edit to add that you can use the "Find" function of your browser to search for "54". It works. You push ctrl-f on windows, probably command-f in mac.

[libodem]

107. Good Rant, Nance

Thank you for gracing us with your presence.

[B Calm]

112. When the poor persecuted christian church keeps it's nose out of American politics,

I will stop making fun of them.

[LondonReign2]

163. ^Yup. Exactly^

But while religions go about actively promoting hate and intolerance I will ridicule the shit out of them.

[Scuba]

114. Any comment on this?

[B Calm]

120. Scary. . They also want to outlaw a woman's choice to have a safe abortion. Gays

getting married is another.

[bahrbearian]

146. Are they are still promoting Bush's Great Crusade ?

[Initech]

167. ..

http://.

[moondust]

192. There's this:

Boy Scout Oath or Promise

On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

[F4lconF16]

228. That was claimed to be a fake by another poster here.

Any idea if that was resolved, or have you heard anything about that?

[Scuba]

281. Multiple pics in different locations have been posted. I s'pose they could all be shopped....

There's some kind of tool online one can run a pic thru and it'll tell you with some certainly if a pic is genuine or shopped.

Maybe somebody more techie than I can figure that out.

[TBF]

117. Thank you. K&R nt

[stillwaiting]

118. Great diary. You are fantastic on social issues! nt

[TransitJohn]

119. In a nutshell, "Religion is priveleged"

Lame.

[F4lconF16]

230. Yup.

That's about the extent of it. Like another poster said upthread, change religion to political ideology, and see what happens. It's that simple.

[GoneOffShore]

340. ^This^

[Warren Stupidity]

121. Burkas. Hanging gay people. Stoning adulterers. What's not to mock?

[Pacifist Patriot]

122. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I can agree.

Religion should be no more exempt from ridicule than political beliefs, economic ideologies, superstitions, pseudo-science claims, etc.

I do agree there is no reason to be cruel towards any particular individual, but to give religion in general a pass from mockery or scorn is dangerous. Ridiculing religious beliefs isn't done "just because someone can," but because the beliefs may indeed be ridiculous and deserving of scorn. Magical thinking inhibits intellectual integrity in all other areas and magical thinking is the basis for religion.

"Jesus and Mo" is one of my favorite examples of religious mockery done well.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/

If you're asking for a higher level of civility amongst DUers, I can get behind that. If you're asking for religious mockery in general to be squelched, I absolutely cannot.

The problem I see, however, is that some people of faith view any sort of disagreement or questioning of their belief to be mockery and derision. Lack of complete and total reverence is viewed as scorn. As a real life example, a humanist group requested to be allowed to take a turn delivering the invocation that opens our county commission meetings. That request was turned down and the group told "atheists don't count" (in those words). But what is more to the point, the commission then accused the humanist group of making a mockery of the commissioners' Christian beliefs simply by requesting to be included in a civic ritual.

So who gets to draw the line that decides whether a word or action is scornful?

[Pooka Fey]

129. +1

[LawDeeDah]

124. Well said and thank you.

Yet more tracks being laid here on DU for crazytrains of intolerance and hypocrisy.

[Pooka Fey]

125. If we can't mock religion, next we'll be forbidden to mock politics, and away we go...

on our merry march toward full totalitarianism. Charlie Hebdo never attempted to convert anyone to anything; that wasn't the objective of their cartoons. Their objective was to open a dialogue about subjects of their choice.

Religion is an appeal to authority, among other things. In a Western style democratic society, questioning authority is accepted and even encouraged, and is often best accomplished by ridicule. In a free society, the "right to not be offended by another person's free speech" is not recognized. (I exclude hate speech laws and libel laws as being reasonable limits on free speech)

However, in a totalitarian society, a citizen is NOT FREE to offend and ridicule authority, neither religious nor political, and the offense of causing offense is often punished by death.

Whatever complaints you may have about living in a democratic society, (and make no mistake, you've just written one) there is no other system of government yet found that protects the rights of so many of its citizens.

[brer cat]

130. Thank you, Nance.

The bullies are out in full force on DU these days. I guess they feel intellectually superior when they have someone to mock and ridicule.

[Rex]

136. I always find it interesting which progressives hate free speech and democracy

and which ones embrace both with open arms.

[BrotherIvan]

216. Yes, this thread is like an authoritarian seeing stone

It's funny that authoritarians are always so authoritarian.

[treestar]

137. I agree - there seems to be an assumption that liberals will be atheists

which is not always the case.

And the same demand as is made of Muslim, i.e., if any of your fellow religion think an illiberal thing, you have to quit that church. Absurd demand and not really likely to lead to less of the undesired belief.

All cultures have religions, and science does not do away with them. They liberalize over time, perhaps last, but they eventually do or we'd still be trying to burn the Protestants at the stake.

[MineralMan]

142. Mocking religion itself is probably a bad idea. Mocking people and organizations

who profess an adherence to a religion, however, is fair game. I won't mock Christianity itself, but I will mock fundamental Christians who are hypocritical in their adherence and who wish to harm the freedom of others. I will mock the Catholic church when it ignores the role of women and supports those who harm children. I will mock Islamic followers who murder people in acts of terrorism, and the sects of Islam that encourage such behavior.

Religion is the choice of many people, and can be a harmless way of dealing with questions that are difficult to answer. However when people use religion as a club to force others to act in specific ways that may be harmful, I will mock that hypocrisy. Every time.

It's not religion that deserves mockery. It is people who misuse religion who richly deserve mockery.

[Logical]

143. Oh FFS, so never ridicule Pat Robertson either because it will not....

Change anything. Because his supporters will still love him?

For fuck sake what a joke.

[Orsino]

149. Religious thought tends to require reinforcement.

A free human being, of course, receives many different and conflicting ideas from his or her fellow travelers. Some of that attention takes the form of ridicule. I see no reason why some of that shouldn't be mockery of religious beliefs.

Neither do you. There are a lot of different religions, and if they all get mocked from time to time, it's right that each of us is offended in our turn. It is a growth opportunity as well as possibly being humiliating, and may encourage us to see if we can take what we dish out--or to reach out to those who seem offended in analogous ways, and thereby grow.

[SidDithers]

151. I disagree. Religion is a set of ideas...

and ideas should never be immune from mocking and ridicule.

If ideas seen as immune from ridicule, soon they'll be immune from criticism. And that way lies madness and tyranny.

And murder.

Sid

[F4lconF16]

234. You know

I tend to disagree with you about most things on this site. But you've been consistently thoughtful and engaging, and written quite well throughout the discussions of this issue. I have yet to see something you've wrote on this subject that doesn't make me think, "yeah, that's it right there". Thanks.

[SidDithers]

237. Thanks for the kind words...nt

Sid

[wavesofeuphoria]

152. Great display of hypocrisy here!

If I read through your writings, I'm sure you haven't ridiculed one idea or person in your writing.

You claim religion is untouchable?

Have you read the bible?

The bible insults me and places me in the category of property or second class citizen. Further, it glorifies rape and murder. It's a giant heap of misogyny that is forced down the throats of people and used to justify horrendous rights violations.

There are tales of unicorns, talking fucking donkeys, floods that require an old man to gather ALL the fucking animals in the world ...

No value in ridiculing this crap? How about the value of all people being free with full rights? How about not treating our girls and women as if they are only for the pleasure of men?

I'll say it again ... this is utter hypocrisy.

I have a right to ridicule, especially when my rights and my life are being oppressed by patriarchal evil bullshit.

[Cosmic Kitten]

154. There are a LOT of assumptions in the OP

First and foremost, is the assumption that ALL
members of DU are liberal, progressive, or Democrats.
There are PLENTY of trolls here working diligently
to disrupt and derail discussions 24/7.
Some are paid and some are simply zealots.

That said, those committed to a healthy DU community
need to think critically about when and how they respond
to threads that "seem" to be intentionally antagonistic
in ways that undermine traditional Democratic values.
And...traditional Democratic values doesn't equate with
being an uptight, humorless, hump.

What I don't understand is anyone's need to ridicule others' religions. It serves no purpose.

That assumes people "need to ridicule others' religions".
Do you really think there is an actual "need"?
Or is it that religion is a "sacred cow" beyond reproach?

There are PLENTY of beliefs beyond religion that are as deeply
held by various people that would qualify for such sanctification.
Who are the Political Correctness police who decide
what is legitimate for critique, or is criticism itself off the table?

Ridicule can and does serve a purpose.
Yes it can be hurtful.
And no, it's not always appropriate.

Is it OK to ridicule the idea Jesus rode dinosaurs?
Or that the earth is only 6000 years old?
Seriously?
Should we humor people who hold such "deeply held beliefs"
and want to teach such things to children?

If we want to argue that some "beliefs" are sacrosanct
because they are deeply held or that it would cause emotional
distress to challenge those beliefs... that is Political Correctness run amok.

DU can be a community that encourages healthy congress.
But not all members are here for the same reasons.
Some seek a safe community to share and discuss.
Some seek to deliberately disrupt and to sabotage the community.
Knowing or comprehending the difference is key.

Satire and parody are acceptable and have a place
in the Democratic community.
Democrats are traditionally the intellectual party.

Our openness to progress, self-reflection, and the ability
to laugh at ourselves and our absurdities promotes growth.
Democrats are smart people with a healthy sense of humor.
We are bold and forthright when looking at society.
But it is tempered with intellectual curiosity, and self-awareness.

In the end, it is what we make it.

[elehhhhna]

155. 100th rec, Nance.

Thank you. We pick the hills we die on. This second city trained comedic actor writer will not stand up for the stuff hebdo called comic. Against assassination, yes. For juvenile publications? Nope. Not endorsing mean spirited bulling antagonistic "Art". Ftr, piss Christ was bullshit, too.

We Americans kill more of each other over stupid shit every DAY.

[hlthe2b]

162. I'm sorry but religion threads are not allowed in GD.

Even very thoughtful posts such as this have to be posted in Religion per the GD SOP. Thanks for your understanding.

[stevenleser]

165. I think the reason for the harsh satire of a religion is to prompt adherents to improve AND to

prompt non-adherents to think less highly of that religion because of the points raised.

Let's put ourselves back to the times just after the Exodus when Joshua and his band were engaged in the vicious conquest of Canaan. I could imagine a satirical article putting the idea that the deity worshipped by the Jews is just, righteous and merciful up against what he purportedly ordered his followers to do.

I think it is fine to use satire to challenge those adherents/observants of that religion to examine their behavior or that of other adherents/observants.

That said, I am glad your OP was unlocked!

[Spazito]

166. I agree...

"I see a lot of "well, I have the right to mock other people's faith" - and that's true. But what is the purpose behind it? What is gained? What is the goal? What does anyone who mocks others' beliefs think they are accomplishing? What do such people hope to achieve when it is so obvious that they can achieve nothing - other than offending and/or hurting the feelings of those whose beliefs they mock?"

There also seems to be confusion regarding criticism and mockery, they are not the same thing at all yet the debate all to often conflates the two, imo.

Thanks, Skinner, for having this thread unlocked!

[alarimer]

168. Faith must not be very strong if your feelings are hurt when someone makes fun of it.

A lot of "deeply held" beliefs are just plain silly and worthy of ridicule: flat earth, the moon being made of green cheese, UFOs, bigfoot. Religion is different only in that it is held by lots of people (not too many people actually believe in bigfoot, for instance).

Some beliefs of some religions are actually harmful: to wit, believing that birth control is a sin. People die from AIDS around the world because the Pope has decided condoms are sinful.

Witches were burned at the stake (well, not actual witches because there is no such thing, but real people who were maybe a little different than prevailing norms at the time).

Etc. Etc.

[ismnotwasm]

169. I think human rights violations are open to criticism

I believe in a strong and total separation of church and state.


As a person of no faith, I see the attraction of it. I know that 150 years ago, I most likely wouldn't have questioned, much less ridicule faith--unless it was someone's else's. Secular people have filled this void of ridicule with larger and louder voices.

[Capt. Obvious]

170. This:

I can't help but wonder what void exists in someone's life that they think will be filled by ridiculing others, when the only possible outcome of doing so is some self-serving (and totally idiotic) sense that they are accomplishing something of merit.

Were you looking into a mirror when you typed that?

[chrisa]

171. Religion is an idea, like any other idea. I can mock it as I choose, and so should everyone else.

An idea that demands no criticism is no idea at all. It's a falsehood that is fighting desperately to not be disproved. All ideas should be mocked and challenged.

I will respect your right to believe, but that's where my line in the sand ends. If your religion is unreasonable, or spits in the face of science and logic, I will laugh at it. I will not pretend your ideas, like the earth being 6000 years old and God flooding the whole earth, have any validity as to not offend you. I will not tell others not to draw Muhammad, because that's juvenile and ridiculous. I will continue to laugh at those who get enraged at cartoon characters and feel that killing others is a worthy response.

Nance, your argument sounds like Christians who say, "Why do you have to point out the ridiculous stories in the Bible? Don't you have anything else to do? Why can't you just accept it for what it is?" You're telling us to turn our brains off and pretend that, for example, that someone named Moses pulled a staff out and parted the Red Sea, and then closed it again drowning an entire army, despite there being no evidence that such a thing ever happened. If there's no evidence for a story, then it's just that - a story. Fiction.

You also use the strawman attack that Atheists are trying to convert believers to Atheism. That's wrong - pointing out the faulty logic of religion does not mean that Atheists are trying to convert others to Atheism. Most Atheists don't care if other people become Atheists - they just want to point out the problems and impossibilities of religious texts.

In closing, I'd like to say that attacking and making fun of religion is not being narrow-minded. This is especially true when using evidence that certain things in the Bible, for example, are impossible. It's almost Orwellian to say that using logic is being narrow-minded. Like I said, if a system of ideas demands that others not disprove it or mock it, then how good are those ideas in the first place?

[Arugula Latte]

172. Is there to be no counter to the power of the religions?

We are to remain silent in the face of repressive Abrahamic sects that seek to crush the rights and status of women and gays? What about the anti-science policies pushed by some of these sects? They have carte blanche to wield power, and we must remain silent?

I disagree intensely.

[randome]

177. Will you convince any of those sects to change their ways?

I think that's the point of the OP. The only weapon we have to counter anti-science positions is facts and more science.

Responding to statements is not the same as ridicule for the sake of it, the kind that Charlie Hebdo engages in. No one is swayed by their cartoons, they are aimed at those who already agree with them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Arugula Latte]

183. There have been studies showing that the number one factor in the drop in religious belief

is exposure to the Internet. I do think a lot of people who otherwise would be inclined to just go-along-to-get-along now have their skepticism echoed on the Net. Showing the ridiculousness of this mythology is part of that equation. It's the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome on a grander scale. Many people HAVE given up their supernatural beliefs. And that is a good thing.

[randome]

193. That's always a good thing, I agree.

I think the Internet has even accelerated the conflict between the Eastern and Western worlds. The Eastern world 'hears' how much better things are in the Western world and this simultaneously breeds discontent and a hardening of positions.

But ridicule does nothing for our 'leaders' in Congress, except to embitter them. And ridicule for the sake of ridicule often does the same -nothing.

I suppose it should be targeted to be effective. Outright 'Man, that's beyond stupid' doesn't do anything.

Charlie Hebdo doesn't appear to be targeted. Sometimes they have great truths to impart but often they mock for the sake of mocking.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

223. Sturgeon's law applies as much to Charie Hebdo as it does to anything else..

Ninety percent of everything is crud.

[randome]

243. True. OTOH, ninety percent of crud doesn't bring out the crazies like mocking Islam does.

Not sure how we convince the crazies to stop being crazy. Is it worth it if some people die making pointless mockery? I'm not sure of the answer.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

252. Stop one level of criticism and they'll simply move on to the next level

Pretty soon no criticism at all of Islam, which is what they want.

As they say in the Islamic world; if you can't take the flogging, don't do the blogging.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/15/377525994/jailed-saudi-blogger-raif-badawi-faces-second-round-of-public-flogging

We've been following the story of Raif Badawi, the Saudi blogger who is being publicly flogged 50 times each week over 20 weeks for insulting Islam. Badawi is set to receive 50 lashes Friday in the port city of Jiddah despite appeals from around the world that he be pardoned.

Ensaf Haidar, his wife, told Amnesty International she fears Badawi may be unable to withstand a second round of flogging.

"Raif told me he is in a lot of pain after his flogging, his health is poor and I'm certain he will not be able to cope with another round of lashes," she said.

[randome]

310. Criticism and mockery are often -not always- different things but I see your point.

Mockery to try and save a man from barbarous torture is something I will always be in favor of.

Mockery to highlight the injustice to women in certain Mideast countries? The same.

Mockery that serves no recognizable purpose other than to insult and inflame? I'm against that but I don't know how it can be prevented, either.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

322. Yeah, rather like "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance

Mockery designed to insult and inflame the non religious.

We've had a tidal wave of in-your-face religion since the Commie scares of the fifties, I sometimes become embarrassed for people who carry on endlessly about their religion. Only a few hours ago I had a neighbor tell me in all seriousness that she has the gift of prophesy and has ever since she was a child, I just made a non committal humming noise and said nothing. What really bothers me is that she's not by any means a stupid person, actually more formal education than I have.

She has a whole network of women who believe much the same as she does and listening to a group of them can be rather disturbing. I got invited to Bible Study so many times I eventually gave in.. They didn't know that I spent my childhood reading the Bible out loud in Sunday School because I was the only kid who didn't stumble over the archaic vocabulary of the King James so they were quite shocked when I gave them a really outstanding reading of the parable of the Good Samaritan which is one of my favorites. I took all the storytelling skill I later picked up in reading about fifteen years of nightly bedtime stories and really made it hum, voices, emotions, pacing, tone, the whole enchilada..

The theosophical deconstruction of the parable afterward was interesting too, sadly I was never invited back.

[Pacifist Patriot]

232. Unfortunately, appealing to facts isn't the most effective means of influencing people.

Appealing to emotion is, and that is what humor does. People have indeed been challenged to examine their beliefs when they see those beliefs mocked for their absurdity.

If anti-science positions could be overcome by facts and more facts, we wouldn't have climate change deniers or creationists anymore.

[Hissyspit]

270. Not to mention these belief systems got/get people killed.

[Arugula Latte]

297. Yes. I don't understand why so many progressive seem to pretend they're benign, or at the very least

exist in a vacuum, when nothing can be further from the truth. They've inflicted untold harm and misery on humans for eons, and continue to do so. And even if you don't personally subscribe to these great myths, your life is influenced by them (see Hobby Lobby decision for a recent example in our very own US of A).

[smirkymonkey]

305. Exactly. I consider religion to be a form

of oppression and I consider it my duty to speak out against ALL forms of oppression.

[madamesilverspurs]

173. Amen!

(ironically appropriate response)

[randome]

175. Ridicule only has an effect on a very small number of youth who are open to it.

In terms of DU, ridicule is second nature when discussing a subject but, yeah, I agree with you, nothing is served by ridicule for the sake of it.

It's just more preaching to the choir.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

179. My only caveat...

is that when I simply state my belief about religion in as neutral and factual a way as I can, using words that, by the dictionary, are simply a statement about holding incorrect beliefs, certain members claim that I am being insulting/mocking.

All I can say is that I'm not seeking to mock, not seeking to insult. Just stating my own belief that many people believe in things that do not have an external existence beyond the human imagination. To me, that's no more 'insulting' than them stating that they DO believe in supernatural 'X, Y, or Z'.

It's not ridicule, it's not mockery, it's not an attempt to be insulting.

[GusBob]

184. Shit, on DU last week a people were "offended by" the new McDonald's commercial

a fucking television commercial

Narrow simple-mindedness indeed

[Peacetrain]

194. Nancy, I am a practicing Christian..

And it is a difficult thing to be that in a forum like DU..when I first came in here there many many who practiced their faith.. all faiths..

Kind of an odd thing going on.. those who would drive the rest of us out.. (and many have left) are doing the very thing they claim people who practice faith do..

There has always always always,been the use of religion by people who want power..and will abuse its tenets .. and those of us who practice a faith have to stand up against them..many times at the peril of their own existence.

When I look at Muslim countries, and you see how terrorized and isolated the populace is by the criminals who try to use religion to take power, and those that stand up against them.. They (those who stand up) should be celebrated.

Somewhere, at some point.. people will hopefully be able to stop broad-brushing but it is the easiest path.. and unfortunately most will always take the easiest path to blame the "other"

Power is a pretty additive drug.

[Logical]

239. Seriously, who is trying to drive you out? Nt

[Peacetrain]

266. I have been asked.. to the point of a demand almost

that I not post in GD, because many times I will put in ops or posts the statement "As a Christian" because it is important for those of us who claim a mantle of faith be up front about it and not let those who would demean others for power.. do it in "our name" I love that saying.. posted by many Muslims.. "Not in our Name" .. as they stand up to the criminals who try and use their faith to harm others.. to grab power..

The poster is quite prolific who told me to post only in some small corner of the religious forum (they definitely do not want me in the big forum of that group.. one time I put a op in there and the demand by one who was so angry that people would even talk to me.. how come this op has so many replies.. basically is what that person said, that everything I stand for flies in the face of their own prejudices

And no I would not report it to Skinner and Company, because peope are free to despise or hate or look down on others in any way shape and form they have.. they are just not free to stop me from posting..

But who knows.. I do tend to get some feathers ruffled ..

[Logical]

273. Well, I am an atheist and have no problems with you being here. I think it is a bunch of made up....

stuff but you have 100% right to believe it.

[randr]

199. So magic underwear is off limits.....really?

[CrispyQ]

267. Thread win.

Also,

[Bobbie Jo]

202. Thank you, Nance.

As a liberal AND a person of faith, I appreciate your post.

I usually steer clear of "religion" threads for obvious reasons, but I just wanted to make a couple of points.

It was my spiritual beliefs that led me to embrace liberalism and reject conservatism in the first place. I reject fundamentalism in any form, and I'm not a fan of organized religion, so I totally get the ridicule directed at the fanaticism. On the other hand, some of our fellow DU'ers would do well to remember that some of our greatest champions and civil rights leaders were also people of faith. Jesus Christ himself was a liberal, as far as I'm concerned.

That being said, my faith can handle the mocking. It's just a little harder to take from people who I have come to know as allies in this world.

[BainsBane]

236. MLK, Ghandi

Oscar Romero. There have been many.

[F4lconF16]

240. And just as many

If not far, far more, have done great harm to the world. Religion is a tool to be used and believed in as one sees fit.

[BainsBane]

265. Religion is ideology

Many disparate ideologies. Like all ideologies of oppression, it has also served as a tool of resistance. The examples are many: Nat Turner, Tupac Amaru II/ Tupac Katari, the Contestado Rebellion, Canudos, the Cemiteriada, many of the popular uprisings surrounding Mexican Independence, The Muslim Uprising of 1835 in Bahia, Brazil, hundreds of slave revolts, and daily resistance in the slave quarters as documented by a series of historians of the US. Even the Iranian Revolution and many fundamentalist movements in the the Middle East. We don't like the world they seek to create, but religion has served as an ideology they have used to organize themselves and overturn secular dictatorships.

The same is true of the law. It serves as a form of social control but the oppressed have marshaled it for their own purposes, such as in manumission cases in Spanish- and Portuguese- American courts. Religion, I believe, has empowered more social movements because it does not require the cooperation of authorities as legal resistance does.

Part of my problem with many of the critiques of religion is that they are one-dimensional. Religion, like other ideologies, can be very complicated, and is often understood quite differently by the powerless than by the powerful who use it as a tool of oppression. Yes, it has served the purposes of conquest and war. I don't think I need to cite those examples here because people are familiar with many of them. It's the popular struggles that are less well known, but nonetheless important.

For me, religion isn't about whether a God exists. I consider that the least important aspect of it. It has meaning for peoples and their communities and because of that it is real--not necessarily the content of their beliefs but the relationships and communities they form around them.

[OregonBlue]

206. I know you are right Nance but for some reason I just can't get past magic underwear. I'll try

harder.

[progressoid]

207. That would mean Charlie Hedbo was also narrow-minded?

And Mad magazine and political cartoons the Daily Show and ....

[BuddhaGirl]

208. +1

[Autumn]

209. My personal feeling on mocking religion is if you don't like it, don't do it.

If you feel that religion can be mocked, then by all means do so. People have every right to mock anyone or anything. Any person who tells people what they can and can't do based on their personal values is fair game, any public organization that tells people what they can and can't do because it offends their moral values is fair game.

[TheSarcastinator]

210. Religion MUST be Criticized and Mocked

What an incredible ironic inversion that the belief systems most deeply predicated on ignorance, magical thinking and blind faith are SOMEHOW the ONLY belief systems that adherents think should be immune from free speech and critique, including mockery. The only reason religious adherents get in such a tizzy when their system of dogma is held up for ridicule is that each believer knows deep in their consciousness that the belief in an anthropomorphic deity is ridiculous and absurd at the same level as belief in Bigfoot and the Tooth Fairy. That's why it is reacted to so strongly and with such violence -- satire and mockery exposes the fundamental flaws of organized religion, its embrace of idiotic anthropomorphization of the sublime, and its ridiculous dogmas very clearly.

As theologian Paul Tillich pointed out decades ago, all human objectification of deity is a form of idolatry that reduces the unspeakable and unknowable to nonsense. "God" is bigger than "God" and "blasphemy" is impossible when all is one.

[Cleita]

211. Thank you.

I was thinking this in terms of goring a sacred cow. Every religion has their sacred cows, things that the believers think are sacrilege or worse to attack or kill. I think we should respect that. For Muslims it's making an image of Mohammed, for Catholics it's desecrating a host, for Jews of ancient times it was entering the holy of holies where the Ark of the Covenant was kept and there are so many others for different religions, sacred grounds for Native Americans and Polynesians and so on.

I don't want to make this into a tome. Suffice it to say, I think we can show respect for the sacred cow beliefs of others' religions and still maintain free speech in decrying the abuses that flawed human beings make in the name of religion. It really shouldn't be that hard.

[SomethingFishy]

213. Two Words.

Monty Python.

[TheSarcastinator]

214. So Are Scientology and Uranta Also Immune from Critique and Mockery?

Or are those belief systems somehow OK to ridicule? I'm just curious.

[MellowDem]

215. I'm fucking sick of religious privilege....

Being defended on DU.

You don't get it OP. Many of the mainstream religions are bigoted and go against my progressive beliefs. I criticize and sometimes even mock them because I want to change people's minds.

And yes, people's minds are changing! Religion is fading in the US. Yes, criticism and even mockery of ideas has led people to eventually change their minds!

It's your blindness to the privilege of religion that allows you to say these things with a serious face on a site that does nothing but mock as criticize ideas in order to change the world for the better!

[LexVegas]

220. Lumping atheism in with that other imaginary shit is offensive and narrow minded. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

227. I know both former Christians and former Jews who cite ridicule of their faith as a factor.

Not people ridiculing them personally for having faith, but being exposed to ridicule of the tenets of their was part of their journey to a different belief.

I'm not fond of ridicule here on DU, but based on the evidence, it appears that "our community standards" allow it.

[daleanime]

229. It's nice to be able to K&R....

a NanceGreggs OP again.

[dawg]

231. At least here in the South, mocking religion is a great way to make more Republicans.

There are lots of progressive-minded people who are also religious. Some of these people vote Republican out of habit, but they are open to new ideas and are willing to consider crossing party lines.

However, when they see liberals rudely mocking their faith, they run back into the arms of the Party that doesn't mock them. That's just human nature.

[Brigid]

292. Exactly.

I live in a state that might as well be in the South. I can promise you that all many of them who practice the Christian faith know of "librulz" is that they hate Christians. They are not going to toss away their Bibles and drop their church membership to please anybody. And they close their ears. That is why this state is so deep red.

[nruthie]

233. I totally agree.

[War Horse]

244. You are one of the reasons why I became a regular visitor to DU in the first place

and this is, as usual, a good post. I would just like to point out a few things: Charlie Hebdo is nothing like the BNP, the National Front or anything like that.

And more importantly: This whole cartoon madness started out when a Danish childrens' book writer wanted to publish a childrens' book about world religions, and needed illustrators. He easily got illustrators for all major religious figures except Muhammed. The answers he got were basically to the tune of 'are you nuts'? A Danish newspaper editor picked up on this, and did run the story, basically. To the extreme? Yeah, I guess... To make a point. But please, let's remember how this thing got started.

[Warren Stupidity]

246. I see the hosts have reconsidered.

A little mockery goes a long way.

[Rex]

258. Who besides the Mockingbird could have guessed that mockery was such a powerful tool?

Whom?

[adieu]

249. So you don't think waking someone up to reality

Serves any purpose? You don't think taking someone off a drug serves any purpose? Religion is a drug. A crutch. Getting people off that is a very useful and beneficial and noble act.

[MisterP]

254. my big worry is what that type'll do when we swap enemies du jour

we already hired Islamists to take Libya and are gonna train 'em directly in Syria: of course we'll denounce whatever atrocities they'll commit 2016-17, but we've been riding this paper tiger since "The Siege" but that cat's starting to get wet: we really can't sustain a foreign policy against a non-superpower too long IMHO

not too long ago the Muslims were seen as the glorious guardians of science against the West
https://archive.org/stream/freethinkerspict00hest#page/204/mode/2up

cogent discussion of theology and its place in the modern world is needed: dull-ass baiting and saying the party needs more Pam Gellers is absolutely not

[Rex]

256. 255 replies, 138 recs...you should give your judgement a rest more often.

Looks like DU is not the hostile environment I keep hearing about daily by the same group of people.

[bluesbassman]

257. Rather see it out in the open here than suspect it's seething underneath the posts.

If one is that bigoted against the beliefs of others I would rather know it front and center, makes it much easier to determine the intent behind their other posts. After all, this is a discussion board and people are going to discuss what's on their minds. I just like to know as much as I can about what is going on in those minds.

[Warpy]

261. Ridiculing people and ridiculing nonsense beliefs are not quite the same.

Ridiculing people, even if they spend a couple of nights a week babbling and waving poisonous snakes around in a little backwoods church, is a loser's game. To them, every night they get away with it is a night they know they're going to a better place when they die so they're not about to give it up, not even when friends in church die from it.

However, pointing out the mortality rate of the snake handlers by saying anyone who handles rattlesnakes and copperheads improperly is going to get bitten eventually is necessary to discourage otherwise sensible people who want to believe in something from believing in that particular something. Faith does not render the faithful bulletproof nor impervious to snakebite.

Most of the time, I confine my ridicule of the prevailing systems of faith in the US to atheist and agnostic boards unless the faith is becoming dangerous to the rest of us, as is the case of fundamentalist Christianity in which ignorant people misinterpret the bible for each other. There is nothing anyone can do short of shooting me that will prevent me from taking on those crackpot beliefs.

I will continue to ridicule everything that relies on a pack of lies to sway lazy people who won't look anything up: the antiabortion movement, the anti contraception movement, the anti union movement, the anti science movement, Creationism, and any other movement that puts superstition above reality.

And y'all are just going to have to cope.

[The Wizard]

264. Ridiculing those who use religion

as a way to avoid responsibility or as a cause to commit mayhem is fine. Twisting and perverting religion so as to harm others is immoral.
Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. 600 years ago Christians were burning witches.
The Muslim mayor of Rotterdam told the radical fringe who use religion as an excuse to murder to pack up and leave.
People are free to worship any way they choose as long as it doesn't harm others. Harming others requires a stronger response than ridicule.
For those who choose a political identity as their religion, point at them and laugh.

[Roy Rolling]

268. The definition of the word "bigot"

" a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) "

Mock away, there are bigots who believe in their superior understanding of another person's spiritual belief. Bigots are not limited to the religious, there are bigots everywhere. And there is no law stating one can't be a bigot, but neither is it a progressive quality worthy of an enlightened society.

So there are social mores that guide some people, who cares what the law may be? I am not saying there is a universal right-or-wrong here, I am just saying that bigotry comes disguised in many forms. Occasionally in non-religious people as much as religious people.

[Hissyspit]

269. False equivalence.

Sexual Identity, Race, Financial Circumstances are not belief systems.

[Puglover]

277. Dear Offended Religious People

This guy says it much better then I ever could.

Dear offended religious people,

Please stop the hypocrisy. The right to offend is not exclusively yours.

If you know the holy scriptures of the religions that you uphold so dearly, you already know how offensive parts of them are to people.

Yet, some of you still continue to publish them. Some of you buy those publications and read them. Some of you recite them to your children. Some of you force your children to uphold them as sacred and act upon them as far as they can. And all of you regard those scriptures beyond questioning and criticism, otherwise why would you feel offended when one did so?

If you know the holy figures of the religions that you uphold so dearly, you probably know of a few things they have done that are offensive to people.

Yet, some of you consider them as the paragons of how one should live their earthly life, and all of you regard desecration of those figures an offense to the sacredness of your religion.

Your religions have not only deeply offended women, homosexuals, and non-believers, but have also been a source of physical pain and agony for them by the actions of those followers who have been literally following their instructions, throughout centuries and millennia.


More at:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/01/guest-post-dear-offended-religious-people/

[bobalew]

280. Funny story about that "Mockery" thing. A recent protest by the Westboro Baptist church was

cut short to fifteen minutes by a larger demonstration of Porlandians in Portland, Oregon. The complete vehicle for their success? Complete & boisterous absolute Mockery. The Westboro Baptist church adheres & professes their beliefs in a most offensive manner, we responded in same & SHAMED them back from whence they came, rendering their protest entirely ineffective via RIDICULE.
I say that was a a GOOD example of what you might be decrying, and I'd like your opinion on that one. I think ridicule has its place in certain situations, where it may be the ONLY appropriate response. In other ways, self & respect & respect for others, might be the correct vehicle, but in this particular case? Not so much.

[Sander]

282. Thank You Nance!!

As usual, your words of wisdom speak truth.

[onenote]

284. Thank you. The level of cognitive dissonance shown by some is really disheartening

African Americans are among the groups in this country with the greatest percentage of "believers" -- adherents to a religious faith. Yet, I daresay that if I (or anyone else) was to post a message mocking the African American religious experience -- making fun of the enthusiastic singing and dancing of some African American service, the call and answer forms of worship, the cries of Hallelujah and the like, that post would be blocked and the poster might even be banned -- and many of those that defend mocking religion would be among those demanding such action be taken.

There is talk about attracting voters -- getting people to support the Democratic party by getting out the vote. Anyone who thinks the way to do that is to mock religion -- an important part of the life of some of the most critical elements of the Democratic Party electorate (African Americans, Latinos, Jews among others) should have their head examined.

[DrDan]

329. bingo

I thought those on the right who accused us of being arrogant and elitist were living in another world.

However, I must say that the past few years around here has changed my mind. Unfortunately, I don't think many have any idea about the damage they are doing to our cause.

[beam me up scottie]

285. When religion stops creating victims I will leave it alone.

What you see as "mocking" is actually a perfectly healthy (and justified) backlash against religious atrocities.

My personal feelings on religion are the same as they are on other issues: If you don't condone same-sex relationships, don't enter into one. If you think abortion is murder, don't have one. If you think religion is nonsense, don't practice one.

Religion doesn't exist in a vacuum; it affects everyone and if you don't speak up against religious intolerance you're part of the problem.

Saying "Oh well, it doesn't affect me so I don't care" isn't liberal, progressive, or Democratic, it's selfish.



An op criticizing and mocking people who criticize and mock ideology on a political website?

Unrec for hypocrisy.

[BlueMTexpat]

288. Great to see a post from you here, Nance!

My favorite part:

My personal feelings on religion are the same as they are on other issues: If you don't condone same-sex relationships, don't enter into one. If you think abortion is murder, don't have one. If you think religion is nonsense, don't practice one.

The same can be said about so many things. Basically, do no harm!

[1StrongBlackMan]

294. +1,000,000 ...

Now trash the thread ... what is certain to follow will be ugly.

[Augustus]

300. What shameful cowardice

You're committing the logical fallacy of the "false premise" when you make the claim that criticism of religion is ridicule or mockery of the people who practice said religion.

Whether it's through satire or not, the offense that people feel is their own psychological problem. Nobody is mocking anybody - They're just feeling insulted because of their irrational psychosis that was a result of the abuse inflicted on them by their parents when they were children.

And if you're offended by what I just wrote, then you might want to examine your own consciousness.

People get angry. Literally, not figuratively, they work up a genuine furor. And over what? People get angry because someone dares to draw a picture. People get angry because a 2 second flash of a woman's nipple gets exposed at the super bowl. People get angry because gay people dare to demand their rights. People get angry because women dare to choose.

This anger is not rational, this anger is dangerous, and this anger needs to be addressed. And it is the epitome of cowardice on your part to claim that we ought to simply appease this cancerous insanity that is afflicting most of humanity on this planet right now.

Religious belief is what keeps literally millions of women at the status of second class citizens in much of the world right now. Religious belief is what sentences millions of gay people to death in much of the world right now. Religious belief is what motivates millions of young, disenfranchised men to murder thousands of civilians in Nigeria, in Syria, in Iraq, and in much of the world right now. Religious belief is what divides people along tribal lines, is what keeps people from speaking truth to power, is what oppresses and destroys and what keeps the wealthy from losing their grip on power.

And you tell me that criticism is "mockery", and you ask what purpose it serves? How about the advancement of rational thought? How about daring to expose the inmates who are currently running the asylum?

[beam me up scottie]

302. Well said.

Welcome to DU, Augustus.

[Skittles]

303. welcome to DU, Augustus

yes INDEED

[smirkymonkey]

312. Bravo!

[immoderate]

317. Sounds right to me. Welcome to DU.

--imm

[Pacifist Patriot]

319. +1

And then some. Thank you.

[m-lekktor]

321. thank you. nt

[BeanMusical]

333. +1

Well said.

[peasant one]

343. good for you augustus

Imagine all the suffering caused by religion the world over. Ridicule is not enough, not nearly enough to correct the evils that religion has brought.

[Pooka Fey]

385. Freaking BRAVO, Augustus

Welcome to DU

[A HERETIC I AM]

306. Having the user name I have.......

makes one think I might be at the forefront of the very thing Nance is pointing out.

I realized a LONG time ago however, that tilting at windmills in this regard is pointless and fruitless.

Nance....you did good. Well written.

Kudos.

[carolinayellowdog]

307. Stereotyping and scapegoating are destructive and stupid

There are definitely abuses in all the world religions, and in many groups that are more obscure, none of which deserve any "free pass" from criticism. But to say, explicitly or implicitly, that "all religions are alike, and they are all to blame for the evils in the world" is hatemongering.

"Religion" is far too broad and vague a category, including far too large a proportion of the human race past and present, to serve as anything other than a projection screen for yet another us-vs-THEM hatefest dividing DUers on yet another pretext.

[Jamaal510]

327. +1

[Thespian2]

308. K & R

Intelligent observations. Thanks.

[blkmusclmachine]

309. If you'd keep your beliefs in your own home and church, nobody would say anything about you.

But you politicize your religious beliefs against other people and try to subjugate them against their will into your own particular worldview, so you deserve criticism. Stop being so thin-skinned and hypocritical.

[smirkymonkey]

313. +1000

[BeanMusical]

323. "thin-skinned and hypocritical"

Exactly.

[rhett o rick]

361. Thank you.

[NanceGreggs]

366. Hate to burst your little bubble ...

... but I don't practice any religion. Therefore, I am not in a position to politicize something I do not practice, nor subjugate anyone into a "world view" that I do not have.

My OP was not a matter of being thin-skinned or otherwise - it was about calling for civility between people who interact with each other here. Apparently, being civil is beyond some people's capabilities.

[Kali]

311. if/when I ridicule religion (or anything else)

it isn't in the hope of converting adherents, so the premise of your exhortation to politeness kind of fails for me.

It has more to do with the classic attempt to use humor or satire to challenge some "authority."

Admittedly when one does these things and gets some "+++" back-slaps one might be gaining a bit of acceptance with others holding the same viewpoints, so there is also a similar reinforcement of perspective as the "victims" of such ridicule get when they condemn non-believers amongst each other.

There is that group-affirming out-loud expression of viewpoint we all seek when we make public pronouncements.

[Wgles]

318. yes!

I just wrote something similar as a response to someone else's post but not nearly as well. I don't think the satire or mockery is bulling... I think it is a response that a smaller/weaker group does to get back at a larger/stronger group that is itself the bully. So its a tactic against bullying... not the reverse. And I agree that it does work to a degree...

You hit the nail on the head. Thanks for writing better than I could.

[BeanMusical]

324. Religions have been so great for women and LGBT people.

[ozone_man]

328. Well yeah.

They are absolutely intolerant. Patriarchal, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, .. I think they need some poking at their sacred cows, don't you think? The worst they could do is kill us.

[Pacifist Patriot]

325. "Against my better judgement..." says something profound...

and quite frankly I'm disappointed to see this thread at the top of the Greatest Page.

"The narrow-mindedness displayed on DU on this topic has been, sad to say, not surprising in the least. It is amusing - if nothing else - to see the same posters who decry the belittlement of gays/lesbians based on their sexuality, the derision of people based on their race or ethnicity, or the mockery of people based on their poor financial circumstances, stand up and cheer the idea that people of religious faith are fair game in a mud-slinging contest that accomplishes nothing of value."

Who the fuck do you think are belittling gays/lesbians based on their sexuality, deriding people based on their race, or mocking people based on their poor financial circumstances?

It sure as hell isn't primarily the people who turn their back on religion. It's people who buy into the idea that some demonic omnipotent deity actually cares who loves whom. It's people who sell the gospel of prosperity to make the wealthy and middle class feel nice and comfortable because poor people have brought it upon themselves by not being righteous enough.

"If you think religion is nonsense, don't practice one?" Nope, doesn't pass the sniff test. Not marrying a lesbian doesn't affect me at all. Giving religion a pass? Affects my uterus, my neighbor's right to marry, my access to welfare benefits should I need them some day, my children's science curriculum.....

The idea that religious beliefs are magically privileged and exempt from ridicule and criticism offends me more than I could possibly express. This is sickening! Shame on everyone who thinks this is a good idea.

[oberliner]

326. The idea that religious beliefs are magically privileged and exempt from ridicule and criticism...

Well said - great post.

[beam me up scottie]

330. This post should be on the greatest page.

Puts the op to shame.

"If you think religion is nonsense, don't practice one?" Nope, doesn't pass the sniff test. Not marrying a lesbian doesn't affect me at all. Giving religion a pass? Affects my uterus, my neighbor's right to marry, my access to welfare benefits should I need them some day, my children's science curriculum.....

BRAVO!

[BeanMusical]

331. +1

[Puglover]

335. +a trillion!

I saw that paragraph and sadly was not surprised considering the OP.

What is gobsmacking is the number of recs.

SMH.

[m-lekktor]

337. yup sad to see this horrible OP has so many recs.

a shark jumping moment for DU.

[Skittles]

349. you know it, Pacifist Patriot

it is HYPOCRISY and COWARDICE

[B Calm]

350. Spot on! +1

[bullwinkle428]

355. BA-ZINGA!! Hammer meet nail! Thanks for this, P.P.

[Pooka Fey]

383. +1

[flying rabbit]

332. One of the most interesting threads I have read here in a long time.

kudos!

[Jamaal510]

339. Extremism.

Many on this board blame religion for violent events, but in actuality, it is extremism that is to blame here. Religion is just one of the many tools humans in general use to impose their agendas and politics onto others. People interpret information differently. Some read correctly, some misinterpret, others see and believe only what they want to believe, and others twist words and manipulate to get what they want.
Even if we ditch religion, violence will still crop up. Instead of zealots painting entire groups of people with the same brush, I recommend focusing on the extremists who take advantage of all the platforms to further and justify their political agendas. Until then, all that is happening is pointing blame and focusing our attention at the wrong thing, which gets us nowhere.

[NanceGreggs]

346. Well said.

The man who attends church every Sunday, sings hymns, puts money in the collection plate, and prays to his "god" is not a danger to anyone.

The man who attends political meetings and insists that the gov't adopt HIS religious beliefs is a danger to us all.

Those who think the two are one and the same are missing the point.

[skepticscott]

356. Oh, you mean the guy who puts money in the collection plate

that is used to lobby for things like Prop 8? The guy who quietly votes for every Republican candidate in sight, because they're God-lovin folk? That kind of harmless guy?

The blindness is unbelievable.

[NanceGreggs]

365. Well, maybe we should start roundin' up ...

... all these church-goers, and take 'em in for "questioning" - find out who's voting for who.

[skepticscott]

381. Irrelevant bloviating

Do you always react with such hyperbole when one of your claims is demolished so easily? I said nothing remotely implying that people should be "rounded up". But yes...everyday "harmless" churchgoers are responsible for a lot in the name of their religion.

[Skittles]

352. sorry, no, it is NOT just extremists

when a religion is against birth control or gay marriage THAT DESERVES TO BE CRITICIZED

[bhikkhu]

344. I agree, but I'd get in line to support anyone ridiculing hate-based speech and behavior

which, from time to time, happens to be come organized religions. And I'm at peace with anyone who challenges or satirizes authority. Its not called for many times, and many times I disagree, but I think its much more important to question authority than it is to submit to authority...perhaps that's an American standpoint, but it seems to hold well in Europe as well. Its the challenging of beliefs and authority that makes us all more thoughtful and reality-based people, and often enough improves the character of "authority". Strong reactions against the challenging of beliefs come, I think, from people who are least thoughtful and reality-based. Of course they're allowed to be, but it also makes them easy targets for ridicule; so it goes.

As far as respect for religion, I've run the full spectrum there. I think there are some natural developmental stages some people go through (though admitting that other seems entirely immune to development). I was raised a skeptical Catholic, before breaking away and exploring other faiths. Raised in religion, it seemed most easy to continue to understand experience in religious terms. Eventually a scientific education led me to a rational atheism, Then there was period I felt inclined speak disparagingly of all religions, but a better understanding is that it is human nature, and serves a very human purpose for most people at some time or other. It served a purpose for me at times, and there's no reason to hold other to a higher standard than I held myself to at different stages of my own development, and there's no reason for me to require or expect others to follow in my footsteps. So, general respectful silence on the matter from myself, though I don't mind seeing others forge their own paths, silent or not.

[jtuck004]

347. Who cares? They are all sinners and going to hell anyway, Nance. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

369. I don't believe in hell.

I also don't believe in heaven.

What I do believe is that people who practice a religion should be free to say so without ridicule.

Given the way I've lived my life, I am probably considered hell-bound by any number of religions. But if I don't believe in those religions, I am not affected by their condemnation.

[jtuck004]

379. Yeah, I don't either. And that may be where the ridicule starts. Such a silly posture

but they say it in all seriousness. Much like the "if you ain't with us you an infidel" crowd.

The fact that neither you nor I makes us an enemy of millions of "religious" people, and you can hear the hate preached 24 hours on our televisions and radios. They are inciting people to hurt others, and, frankly, don't really care whether they are "sarcastic" to anyone else or not.

If they stayed in their big box and did their thing, it would be fine. But they don't, and now religious freedom is being re-defined as the ability to penalize others for their behavior, like some common tyrant or dictator.

Which means they don't respect others at all, and if they can't do that, there is nothing noble or even useful in treating them with respect. Continually respecting, which they will see as capitulating, an opponent who supports your being killed so you can spend an eternal life burning in a fire is a losing proposition, and will get you hurt.

The most likely responses then are sarcasm, biting humor, and even a defensive posture. I think they might even be a good idea, just so you make sure and recognize an enemy that uses subterfuge and beliefs in voodoo-like ceremonies to win their battles.

[Augustus]

348. Your edit is a lie

Here is you taking offense to a Charlie Hebdo cover:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026057652#post149

Exactly what are the “things that need to be recognized” as depicted in a cartoon of Jesus butt-fucking god, while a symbol of the “holy spirit” is shoved up his own ass? You’ve said that “satire is supposed to make people think.” Exactly what “thinking” is one meant to be led to by such an image? Do you think any Christian would reassess their religious beliefs as a result? “Ya know, now that I see this cartoon of Jesus with his dick up god’s ass, I realize how ridiculous my religion is,” said no one. Ever.

You've essentially said the same thing in your OP, except on that day you were talking about Charlie Hebdo, not about DU.

[NanceGreggs]

367. Yes, I was talking about Hebdo in that thread.

And yes, I am talking about DU in this thread.

I find the Hebdo cartoons to be offensive - and I said so.

I find DUer's calling people of faith "idiots who cling to fairy tales" offensive - and I said so.

[IronLionZion]

351. It's comforting to look down on others as intellectually inferior

if one is deeply insecure and trying to hide their own fears of what they don't understand.

Have you ever known the self-righteous to be mindful of anyone else ever?

Anyone who is reading this and unsure if I'm talking about the religious or the nonreligious.... that's my point.

Very good OP.

[Joe Turner]

354. NanceGreggs I am glad you went against your better judgement

Because you beautifully expressed the truth about those that ridicule religious beliefs. Though I am not religious myself I just can't see what is gained by insulting those that are religious other than alienating them further.

[skepticscott]

357. Truly mind blowing how many people here

keep mouthing the empty platitude "mockery never changed anyone's belief". Leaving aside how the fuck they can possibly know that, and leaving aside the fact that mockery may prevent someone from taking up foolish and damaging beliefs in the first place, a huge amount of what goes on on DU is mockery of other people's beliefs. A practice which the OP has engaged in with gusto for a very long time. But now, somehow, religion gets special privilege, while all other beliefs are fair game.

[Hissyspit]

362. +1

[Desert805]

368. Yes indeed.

[Beringia]

358. In the case of children

they are often deeply influenced by what the parents/adults or older kids mock. Often this is where people develop their own beliefs.

[MrMickeysMom]

359. Religion is fair game to be mocked...

… when it bars other's truths to stabilize it's own…

You can't blame the people who join faith, no matter what it is. But, when that faith is oppressive under an organized body, like some religions seem to be practiced, that religion is fair game to be part of a bigger dialogue, which, BTW, includes comedy, satire, mockery, and most of all Monty Python!

[Union Scribe]

360. You're right.

I've always known DU had a lot of bigots who ooze hatred for religious people, but before now it has been largely caged in the cesspool that is the Religion group. Now it has flooded the entire site. Well done, hosts. This is a toxic and hateful place right now. I can't even click ignore on all of them gleefully enjoying their new freedoms, as there are too damn many to keep up. That tells me it's high time to take a hiatus from DU.

I didn't believe you about the state of this site when you posted about it a few months ago. I'm sorry, you were sadly correct.

[Marr]

363. No one expects ridicule to convince religious people to change their thinking.

I don't care what religious people think on this topic. I don't want to convince them that their myths are silly-- it would be a waste of time. They're a lost cause as far as this topic goes.

Religion persists as broadly as it does because it's been exempted from real criticism and well-earned ridicule for thousands of years. But if religion itself more prominently held up for real, blunt criticism more often, it may well become less prominent over time.

What's more, there is nothing whatsoever about religion in general that makes it any more inherently respect-worthy than 'philosophy' in general. There are some morally repugnant philosophies. They deserve negative criticism.

[nikto]

364. When faith is truly strong within a person...

There is no need for them to EVER feel threatened by another's mocking of their beliefs,
as long as said mocking is only that, and does not include implications of violence in any way.


Strong faith, by definition, is immune to ridicule.



Striking back with violence against ridicule is a symptom of weak faith, IMO.

[AzDar]

370. This HAS to be a troll-job. Hard to believe a long-time DU'er would be this illogical or obtuse.

Fucking ridiculous...

[NanceGreggs]

372. Hard to believe that any DUer ...

... would find it appropriate to demean anyone simply because they have religious beliefs.

But the ol' DU ain't what it used to be, is it?

[Pacifist Patriot]

380. Oh really?

Perhaps you should revisit the old DU right around the time Falwell died, or when Mitt was running, or when Benedict became Pope, or....

[kelliekat44]

387. You are right about that. Thanks again, NanceGreggs nt

[mr blur]

390. Hard to believe that any DUer ...

... would find it appropriate to demean anyone simply because they were Republicans, eh?

Mockery never accomplishes anything, does it?

Against my better judgment ... ... I will post a reply, because the OP was such absolute religious privilege nonsense.

[NanceGreggs]

396. Because religion and politics ...

... are exactly the same thing, right?

[skepticscott]

394. Yeah, damn all those DUers

who demean people whose religious beliefs are that homosexuals are an abomination. Fuck all those DUers who condemn the religious believers over at Westboro Baptist Church. And all those poor creationists and school prayer advocates who get piled on here at DU...that's just monstrous.

Just like you, I wish we could go back to the good ol' days when DU was all about sucking up to those people and respecting their religious beliefs no matter what. Sagan forbid that any religious believers should ever feel even the teensiest bit offended by what someone on DU says.

Next thing you know, we'll be worrying about demeaning Republicans, too.

[herding cats]

376. I normally stay out of religious discussions

This discussion isn't about religious ideology, but about respect, though.

I try very hard to be understanding and respectful of all people's faiths. So long as they're respectful of my feelings, and my rights I try very hard to respect theirs as well, that's only polite. I agree with your edit above in your OP, there's limits to my respect and when it's not earned I will criticize those who use their religion as a club with which they assault others rights. That's not me being disrespectful, that's not letting them assert their religious beliefs into my life and the lives of others who don't agree with their ideology.

The reality of the situation is, religion is not a simple thing where everyone who identifies as religious is suddenly beyond criticism by default. Even religions criticize other religious beliefs on a regular basis. People are currently being killed due to criticism of religion by other religious people, and there's no end in sight for that unrest.

In this country some religious people want to rule who I can marry, take away my right to rule my own body, and they want to rewrite history and science to fit their ideology before its taught to our children in public schools. These are things which religion has no right to be influencing in our country, and yet it keeps on pushing into our politics, and thus our lives, even in this day and age. If we don't stand-up for ourselves and criticize their overreaching, the religious people behind these causes would happily transform us into a theocracy. These are the reasons why you see people become upset on a political board over religions and lash out. Religion and politics walk hand in hand in the world and in this country, and some religious people are causing real harm in our societies.

It all comes down to respect for other living beings and their rights to live their lives so long as they're not causing harm to others.

[Hekate]

377. Just saw your Edit. I agree with that, too.

I know my previous reply and this one are being buried in the landfill, as it were, but just wanted to say that personally I was raised to believe not in a specific religion but to "look for the Golden Rule at the center of every great religion." That was the message from my agnostic (probably atheist), thoroughly rational mother, who talked to us about the Social Contract while we were still in grade school.

It's worked for me. Same as you, I respect an individual's right to believe as they wish; what I expect out of them is ethical behavior and respect in return.

Boko Haram is not Islam; it is a cult of murder. The Westboro Baptist Church worships a god of hate; they're no more Christian than Boko Haram is Islam. Other examples abound.

I used to be a monotheist, and the habit of thought remains even though I have been ostensibly a polytheist for the past 30 years. However, one of the great benefits to me of embracing a polytheistic worldview was that it freed me from the belief that every group that claims to believe in "God" is talking about the same god. I was able to finally say: "I don't believe in your god," or more accurately, "Your god may indeed exist, but he is a hateful, murderous god, and has nothing to do with Jesus, Mohammad, Adonai, or the Great Goddess."

That doesn't work for everyone, but it relieved me from a childish fear of somehow blaspheming against the One and Only God. Re-reading the Bible as an adult made me notice that the Old Testament is filled with a diverse array of Middle Eastern gods and goddesses whose existence is not 100% disputed. What the Old Testament God wants his Chosen People to understand is that they are to worship only himself and no others. Bad things will happen to them if they do. Somehow by the time the New Testament made its way into literature, their god became the one and only God in existence. But I digress...

Be well, Nance.

Hekate

[DrDan]

382. agreed with your original post . . . agree even more with your edit

I think we have a few here who have some very serious, deep-seated insecurities. Overcoming these via ridicule is their attempt to boost self-esteem, particularly when able to do so with the anonymity of the internet

I happen to be a non-believer, but I see absolutely no sense in ridiculing or mocking one who does believe. Both are based on faith and personal beliefs and not real "evidence".

As stated several times above - just an on-line version of bullying.

[TreasonousBastard]

386. I don't have time to read almost 400 posts about this...

to find the 20 or 30 of which are worth reading, but I'll just say that I doubt most of even the more aggressive anti-religionists here would be so obnoxious in the real world where there could be repercussions. Older aunts fainting, employers getting huffy, classmates giving them the cold shoulder...

Seems they are releasing their frustrations here in ways they can't when out in public.

While it's entirely possible some of them could use therapy, I can't tell which ones from here so I just laugh them off.

[skepticscott]

395. And this is different than what posters here

express about Republicans...how?

OF COURSE you don't get into face to face pissing matches every single day with people you have to work with directly. OF COURSE when you're working in a store and your customer makes an offhand disparaging remark about gays you don't automatically tell them they're a bigoted asshole. Yeah, sometimes when you're at a family Xmas dinner and Fox-addled Uncle Bubba goes off about that damn Muslim in the White House, you bite your tongue instead of getting into a shouting match and ruining the day for everyone. Yeah, some times, some places you DON'T say everything that needs to be said, because you have to preserve some semblance of relationships with people, even when they're assholes.

It's places like this where the things that need to be said get said. Places where real time, face to face personal relationships aren't in jeopardy. Why is that such s surprise to you?

[TreasonousBastard]

399. It's not a surprise. I'm simply reminding...

the obvious to whomever might appreciate such reminding.

[Goblinmonger]

391. Just so I'm clear

Don't ridicule religion. Because if you do you are simple minded and narrow minded and a litany of other things. Which seems kind of like ridicule. So when you hop off your high horse, perhaps we can talk.

[Major Hogwash]

397. This thread should have 1000s of recommends by now.

This thread is a simple call for civility.
You would think everyone posting here would agree to be civil to other DU members.

But, for those who choose to be uncivil at DU, for whatever reason(s), they do not want to try and get along with other members.
Since DU has 10s of 1000s of members registered, you would think that all of them would want their opinion to be respected when they express themselves here.
You would think, right?

But, alas, the new DU is not the old DU.
No moderators.
And with no moderators in charge of removing snark, uncivil posts, and much worse, DU continues the death spiral down in to the abyss.

You had better think about it.
Because a "no holds barred" forum always breaks down into a cacophony of insults, rude remarks, and intolerable behavior.

[Pacifist Patriot]

400. I wish that's all it was.

But no, it's just just a simple call for civility. That's been made quite clear.

[NanceGreggs]

402. It was a call for civility.

Which is why I posted it "against my better judgment", because I knew in advance that it would, for the most part, fall on deaf ears.

There are some posters whose only reason for being here is to be uncivil - to disrupt, to steer any intelligent discussion into being a conversation rife with stupidity, to ensure that those who are normally like-minded are cajoled into divisive argument. They are the same posters who scream "don't tell ME what to do" when anyone dares suggest that they conduct themselves with even a modicum of courtesy.

DU's Alexa numbers have literally nosedived since the beginning of September and, after a short-lived move upwards over the holidays, they are rapidly dropping again. If that isn't a wake-up call to those who want the site to continue, I don't know what is. As you said, "no holds barred forums always break down" - and that seems to be evident here.

DU was once THE place for Democrats to gather for political discussion, education, information, and honest debate. It is sad to watch it devolve into internet Fight Club, where the ability to throw the hardest verbal punch at fellow members is cheered, where personal attacks have replaced actual debate on the issues, where being divisive is lauded as an means of ridding the site (and the Party itself) of those the most obnoxious posters deem to be somehow "unworthy".

I guess I keep checking-in here from time to time in the vain hope that the Admins will realize that their numbers were highest when the TOS was enforced, when Mods rid the site of uncivil posts and those who routinely posted them, when oh-so-obvious RW trolls were not given free rein to spew their anti-Dem rhetoric, and being courteous to fellow members was not only expected, but mandatory.

Alas, I hope in vain.

[Major Hogwash]

403. Yes, and it is obvious by now that Skinner has made a huge mistake with this jury experiment.

Later this year he might have to add 2 more white guys to the jury pool, hoping that 5 out of 9 may do the job intended.
After that fails, next year he will have to expand the jury pool a little more, and add 2 more white guys to the juries in a vain attempt to regain civility at his forum, thinking that 11 is surely better than 9.

DU was once THE place for Democrats to gather for political discussion, education, information, and honest debate.

I used to think so, too.

[NanceGreggs]

406. I'm not sure I understand your point ...

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)

... about "adding white guys" to juries.

The jury system is a joke. The last three alerts on my posts included at least one juror saying, "I can't stand NanceGreggs, so I'm voting to hide." There have also been posted jury results where a juror has said, "I really like the (person alerted on), so I will not vote to hide, no matter what they say."

And Skinner himself said, in response to an Ask the Admins query, that jurors are not expected to enforce the TOS.

So exactly WHAT are the juries meant to do, other than vote according to whether they like the poster being alerted on or not?

It is all beyond me. DU prospered during the years the TOS was strictly enforced by the Mods, the only criticism of Dems allowed was "constructive criticism", and RW trolls were banned. DU has been on the decline since those rules were changed.

It would seem obvious which system added to DU's numbers, and which system caused those numbers to plummet.

From a purely business standpoint (and I recognize that DU is a business), I am baffled as to why the successful model was abandoned and replaced by the model that has so obviously been proven to be unsuccessful.

Given its current reliance on revenues generated by ad placement, wouldn't DU generate more income from MORE viewers/participants rather than FEWER viewers/participants?

I suppose the only answer lies in the fact that because the site now consists of so many known disruptors, obvious RW trolls, and apparent anti-Dem posters, a change back to the "old rules" would result in the loss of far too many posters who have made themselves comfortable here and, if sent packing, would diminish DUs numbers even further.

There's that little-wiggle-room space between a rock and a hard place. What's sad is that the space never had to be entered into in the first place.

[Major Hogwash]

408. Back to the future.

Who else would join DU in the future, but more white guys?

While misogyny is still rampant at the DU, I don't see many women rushing to join this forum in the near future.
While people of color are subjected to racist comments here on a daily basis, I don't see many people of color signing up for that kind of abuse in the years ahead.
And even this thread about civility was trashed by people who hate religions, so I don't see this forum as being all inclusive of discussing different points of view in the present state of using juries.

The very day that Skinner announced the jury system for his forum, the freepers at Free Republic threw a celebration party.
They don't even have to make posts in order to be selected for DU jury duty.
So, they joined the DU in droves, and remained quiet in the shadows, waiting to get on a jury.
Three years later, some of them have started spouting off about all kinds of things, usually about how they hate Obama, hate the Democrats that are in Congress now, and hate anyone at DU that doesn't agree with them.
And yet they haven't said 1 word about what they stand for.

Which is exactly how Republicans like Joni Ernst made it into the Senate to begin with!
But, I digress.

As far as DU being a business is concerned, I am sure that is why the Discussionist forum was created, to make up for the shortfall of so many DU members leaving DU in the past few years.
As a result, Facebook has become more popular as an alternative for many former DU members in the absence of any form of rational moderation used here.

[NanceGreggs]

409. Now I get it ...

... re the "white jurors" - DUH!!!

Yes, there is definitely a push by certain posters to drive people off the site, including AAs and ethnic minorities, feminists, people of faith, Obama supporters, Democrat supporters - and of course anyone who isn't in lockstep with their narrow-minded view of the Party and its members.

What will become of DemocraticUnderground when the only people who are left posting here are white atheist males who hate all Democrats? And who will they argue with (as they obviously love to do) when the only posters left are the ones who agree with them 100% on everything - including their own "version" of facts that have no basis in reality?

It seems rather obvious that someone didn't think this through before they spread out the welcome mat for the RW trolls, the whiners-and-complainers, the perpetually-pissed-off, the professional doom-and-gloom crepe-hangers, and the hair-on-fire brigade.

The creation of The BOG was the first tip-off as to where things were going. When a "Democratic-supporting site" has to create a "safe haven" for those with the audacity to support the Democratic president and his Party, it should be apparent that your Democratic-supporting message board is no longer what it purports to be - and has now become a safe haven for every Freeper who ever dreamed of posting on a Dem site without interference.

DU, in its heyday, was once what it proclaimed itself to be - a "sanctuary" from the MSM's battering of Dems born of deceit, mis-information, and out-and-out lies. It has now become a sanctuary for the purveyors of those lies, who - under the guise of "disgruntled Democrats" - are free to spew the same BS talking points once the sole domain of FOX-News.

Sadly for DU, the point-of-no-return was reached years ago. Returning the site to what it once was would only serve to drive off the vast number of non-Democrats now whinging here on a daily basis. And the real Democrats who once considered this place their "sanctuary" have, for the most part, already left.

Rock and a hard place - with no wiggle-room between the two. It's an unfortunate place to be.

[Brigid]

405. All I know is . . .

My ignore list is at a record high right now. And most of those on it were added recently. It still stands at only six, so I don't even use it that much.

[Agnosticsherbet]

401. We should be respectful of each other and our individual differences.

Sometimes, I think, those who proselytize (both on the side of faith and atheism), especially on the internet where we can not see the faces of those we speak to, are carried away with the zeal of their cause.

It is easy to think we disrespect faith or the notion of atheism when we actually criticize the identity of the individuals.

Faith or atheism is enmeshed in their identity. It is too easy to forget that.

[Liberal_in_LA]

404. nice reasoned OP