On the issue of respecting various belief systems....

[Liberal Veteran]

I think people confuse the notion of respecting one's right to believe and worship as they see fit with the notion that no one is allowed to express a negative viewpoint on said belief system.

Case in point: If I said I believed the earth was supported on the back of a giant turtle, I have no expectation that people would not feel free to criticise or express their opinion that they thought that was a foolish and ridiculous notion.

However, if one has the temerity to criticise or express a viewpoint on the tenets or basis of a particular "mainstream" form of religion in the United States, they are chastised for it.

I don't think that respecting one's right to believe and worship as they see fit gives one some kind of social shield against another person who does not share that belief system expressing their own viewpoint on it.

For example, let's take the notion of the various races and languages being the result of God's wrath at the people for trying to build a tower to heaven.

If someone has the temerity to say outright that they believe this to be quaint and unprovable fairy tale to explain a natural occurence, that is not cause for you to assume they are dissing your faith. They simply don't share your belief system.

Wearing your religious beliefs on your sleeve and not being able to accept that others don't share it or worse, getting offended if someone expresses a viewpoint that they don't believe in your faith anymore than they believe the Greek Pantheon is not productive, and acceptign that people don't share our system of belief is something that we as a multicultural society should be able to understand without getting bent out of shape about it.

The time to get offended is not when one dismisses or disagrees with your faith, but when they try to prevent you from exercising constitutional right to worship as you wish in your private life/church/home/day to day activities.

I guess the bottom line of what I am trying to say is that no faith should get a "free pass" or a special shield against someone expressing their own viewpoint of that article of faith. A person should be comfortable enough in their own belief system that they can handle the opinions and even derision of people who don't share that faith.

[trotsky]

1. You have offended my religious faith.

Which says that no one shall ever say anything that makes sense.

BLASPHEMER!!!

[sangh0]

7. Funny how no one who is actually religious is offended

The only one(s) expressing offense are making it up to make others look bad.

[trotsky]

11. Or maybe I said it just to inject some humor.

But you can read into it whatever you want, sangh0. Your history clearly shows you will.

[sangh0]

13. Uh huh

O nr;orbr upi!!

[tk2kewl]

2. Well said!

I believe in freedom of expression, religion, choice, press.

My biggest argument with "true-believers" is that they fail to accept that applying faith to other freedoms casts those freedoms in their particular faith. That is to say by making a "leap of faith" they unwittingly but most certainly remove choice from the equation.

[thoughtanarchist]

3. absolute Rubbish...

The earth is supported on the backs of four giant elephants. It's the ELEPHANTS that are supported on the back of a giant turtle...


:crazy:

agreed. you don't have to accept one's dogma to respect their beliefs...

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Sort of....

What I more mean, is you don't even have to respect their beliefs and I think that is a core of lot of hurt feelings in discussion.

You do have to respect that a person has the right to believe what they want to believe with regards to religion.

What it doesn't mean, is that you have to curtail your own opinion about the specific tenets of their belief system.

For example: I think people who eschew medical treatment in favor of prayer are free to believe as they will and indeed practice that (I am less comfortable when it comes to placing those beliefs on children who are unable to make a rational decision for themselves, however), but that is NOT a shield against me saying that eschewing antibiotics for sepsis in favor of invoking the magical man in the sky to intervene is foolhardy and outright stupid.

[sangh0]

10. And please note

that not one religious person has been offended by your saying this, so I don't know where you got the idea that religious people object to any and all criticism of their beliefs.

What we criticize are those who say things like "A belief in God is mental illness" and other in accurate generalizations.

[sui generis]

5. welcome fellow bigot

it's true -- if you express an opinion that someone could find offensive, you are considered a bigot.

It's important to remember that people find their identity so inextricably entwined with their faith that you cannot make an observation about their faith that they don't take personally.

There are ad hominem attacks, and I am equally guilty of them. I think that faith is irrational, and people of faith think non-believers immoral and cold and callous and live in a colorless world, and each thinks the other inferior for not seeing the light.

So on that point we're even, but it's not a pissing contest.

I just don't like it when the discussion here on a political forum devolves into questions of rationality, when the thrust of discussing religion here should be to discuss its impact on politics, not its direct merits or flaws.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. However...

When you are on the subject of, say, Creationism, a direct pressing political issue in today's USA, the merits or flaws of a certain belief system or philosophical position HAS an impact on politics, particularly when you're talking about whether or not something meets the intellectual standards that should be required for teaching in a Science class.

And unless I'm mistaken, that's how a good chunk of this brou-ha-ha got started in the first place.

[Ready4Change]

6. For shame. Your religion promotes enslavement of turtles.

Supporting the entire world on a turtles back, giant or otherwise, is inhumane. Even if only meant in a figurative sense, you are still promoting the use of turtles for human purposes, which violates their turtle-y nature.

Free the Turtles!

[Liberal Veteran]

9. Not true...the turtles do it for the turtles...we humans are parasites...

...or lucky beneficieries of the turtles looking out for their own kind.

[rhyfeddu]

8. I agree 100% w/ your comments, BUT...

...my impression is that much of the protest over how "believers" are treated on some DU posts, is that it can and has degenerated into name-calling of the people themselves who believe (in whatever version), into "those pin-headed, fairy-tale lovin' delusional freaks will believe anything" kinda comments...

I think if anyone dismissed BuddhIST, for instance, instead of a critique of BuddhISM, in the same way, maybe the parallels would be clearer to us liberal types...

If ANYone tries to force you into their beliefs, of course those individuals are ripe for criticism, but saying someone is (fill in the blank) for believing at all, is the problem, as I see it...

[Liberal Veteran]

12. I think the problem arises when people take personally...

...when someone has the audacity to plainly that they find a particular tenet of faith completely uncompelling and indeed silly. They are merely expressing their viewpoint on it.

I take issue with the notion that one must be overly sensitive in expressing what they view as a completely unprovable and ludicrous notion.

I rather think the same people who do tend get offended when someone has the temerity to poo-poo some article of faith or miracle in a current mainstream religion would likely have no problem doing EXACTLY the same thing if I expressed an earnest belief that fire was given to human by Prometheus in defiance of Zeus.

[sangh0]

15. But you've done that here, and no one has complained or taken offense

when someone has the audacity to plainly that they find a particular tenet of faith completely uncompelling and indeed

That's pretty much what you said in your OP, and so far, not one religious person has been offended by it. So why do you think that this is what offends, when the evidence of this thread indicates that this does NOT offend?

I rather think the same people who do tend get offended when someone has the temerity to poo-poo some article of faith or miracle in a current mainstream religion would likely have no problem doing EXACTLY the same thing if I expressed an earnest belief that fire was given to human by Prometheus in defiance of Zeus.

If you pooh-poohed that idea, no one here would be offended. If you used the story of Prometheus to criticize all Greeks (or was that a Roman myth?), then you'd be offending.

[rhyfeddu]

20. But I don't think its overly sensitive to take offense...

...if you are called "stupid" or some variant. If you think a belief is insane, and say so, you may not get marks for diplomacy ;), but its not the same as calling the person themself "stupid".

Like the difference between saying: "Boy, you f*cked up", instead of "Boy, YOU'RE a f*ck up".

That's the distinction I'm trying to make...

Now, as you say, if someone thinks their religion is "their way or the highway" you don't have to deal with that, for sure. But, isn't expecting a devout Catholic to accept atheism or rationalism or whatever (OR they're stupid), just the other side of the same coin?

[Liberal Veteran]

31. Not exactly....Let me give you an example.

Person X says that they believe that such and such unprovable miracle is the cause of such and such thing.

Person Y says in response I believe in giant space slugs from Andromeda caused said thing in response.

Person X says "How dare you mock my faith!?"

And Person X is mortally offended that someone would have the temerity to compare their "special faith" with something as ludicrous as space slugs from Andromeda.

[sangh0]

32. Too bad that never happens on DU

.

[Liberal Veteran]

42. Actually, I could point to a recent thread...

...that did happen in pretty much that way. The actual tenet and the view expressed about that tenet was responded to in EXACTLY that manner.

That's why I started this particular discussion.

I will not point to specific thread in the interest of not invoking a flame war, but I don't particularly care for being a liar for something I know darn well has not only in that thread, but in other threads as well where a certain person who no longer posts here took every criticism of xstianity or it's tenets as an excuse to call people an "anti-theist".

[sangh0]

43. Please do because I've never seen anything like that

and I have a feeling there was more to it than you have stated


where a certain person who no longer posts here

So your complain is based on a troll?

Do you really think it's justified to describe religious DUers who haven't been banned based on the behavior of a religious DUer who was banned?

[sangh0]

52. Thank you for PMing me that link

And I agree, that that poster who was offended is an ASS

But I'd also like to point out that the thread starter was banned and his OP was offensive, even if the poster you referred to was offended by something that wasn't offensive.

I would also point out that you did not descibe the discussion very accurately. The OP was offensively and inflammatorily written, which is one reason for why that poster was banned. IOW, the OP *WAS* offensive and did more than simply say that some people believe in a particular miracle.

[Liberal Veteran]

59. The thread starter is irrelevant.

What was relevant is the issue I have seen time and time again where people just flip out the moment someone has the audacity to express a viewpoint that they find their belief system no more compelling than the examples given.

[sangh0]

65. NO, it is relevant

an offensive post produces offended people, and the OP was offensive. Even you don't deny that, even though YOUR OP described the OP as inoffensive.

people just flip out the moment someone has the audacity to express a viewpoint that they find their belief system no more compelling than the examples given.

But there was more to it that just someone disagreeing with a religious belief, so your description isn't true.

In this thread you have questioned several religious beliefs, and NO ONE has been offended by it. You've said that YOU find religious beliefs no more compelling than those examples, and NO ONE has been offended.

[Liberal Veteran]

75. No there wasn't more to it. They said outright they no more believed...

...in that particular article of faith than did the easter bunny.

They so bluntly and to the point and someone got bent out of shape because they felt their faith was mocked.

And so what it if was? That brings me right to my point. The fact that I believe in the giant turtle doesn't give me some special protection against YOU or anyone else expressing the viewpoint that no more believe in my giant turtle than they do the tooth fairy or frumious bandersnatches.

Now you tell me what would be the rational repsonse:

1) I disagree. I actually believe that x exists and you are free to your opinion.

2) How dare you compare my viewpoint with something I know doesn't exist???? (Ignoring the fact that from the other person's view, what they believe doesn't exist either.).

Do you begin to see the lunacy of taking offense at people not sugarcoating their opinions on the tenets of a faith they do not share?

[rhyfeddu]

55. Well, its NOT very respectful..

..and sure not designed for intelligent conversation, to start on that foot, but if being provocative is what you want, why complain when you get the reaction you're courting :shrug: (I say "you" in the 'royal' sense, not you, in particular)...but that example is not what I'm talking about.

I wish ideas could be debated, on all sides, without it turning into a personal attack. But I live in a TRULY fantasy world:P

[Liberal Veteran]

70. You are correct...often it isn't "respectful"....

...but this notion that someone can't just say outright "I no more believe in your mythology than I do the frumious bandersnatch." without someone getting beside themselves because someone didn't give their particular brand of faith the "respect" they feel is due no matter how ludicrous the non-believer finds the notion, to be unhelpful.

It's the difference between respecting someone's RIGHT to believe something and expressing your own viewpoint on how silly or unsilly you may believe a particular article of that faith is.

I think we start crossing the line where people expect others to actually treat the dogma with respect which in turn infringes on the person of faith not respecting that someone else views their specific dogma as nothing more than mythology.

It gets silly.

[Maat]

14. So true, Rhyfeddu.

I correct my husband when he says that 'religion is the problem.' It's not religion, or being spiritual, that is the problem - it is churches being hijacked by Political Action Committees.

I don't care a bit if someone critiques or evaluates my beliefs.

[thoughtanarchist]

19. but religion does not creep into politics on it's own...

...it takes religious PEOPLE to try to push an agenda into our system -- people who either believe whatever comes down from the pulpit, or believe that the rest nation should bend to their tennets as a matter of law...

[sangh0]

22. That's misleading

EVERY issue requires PEOPLE to push it, or it doesn't get done. Issues that NO PEOPLE supprt are not issues, and are not heard.

people who either believe whatever comes down from the pulpit, or believe that the rest nation should bend to their tennets as a matter of law...

Like Martin Luther King Jr?

[Liberal Veteran]

23. Or Fred Phelps?

If you really want to go down this path.

[sangh0]

26. So the actions of a Christians prove that ALL Christians are like that?

The post I responded claimed that ALL religious people get their beliefs "handed down" from a pulpit and try to legislate their beliefs.

Your example proves that there is at least ONE Christian who is like that, but my example proved that they are NOT ALL like that.

So what was your point in mentioning Phelps? To prove that there are bigoted christians?

No one here denies that

[thoughtanarchist]

25. MLK went beyond religion...

You don't need to subscribe to his faith to support civil rights.

opposition of, for example, reproductive rights comes straight from religious doctrine.

[sangh0]

27. You might want read some more about MLK

Everything he did was linked to religion. There wasn't a speech he gave that didn't include religous ideas and references. According to MLK, nothing transcended religion.

opposition of, for example, reproductive rights comes straight from religious doctrine.

Could you tell me where in the Bible it says anything about reproductive rights? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

[thoughtanarchist]

37. not the bible... the pope.

can only respond based on personal (former roman catholic) experience.

also I never tried to peg ALL religious people as getting their beliefs handed down from the pulpit... Look at Kerry for a public example.

Issues need to be scrutinized as issues. Religion alone should not qualify an agenda as worthy of pushing into our domestic policy.

...I think it says something to that effect in the Constitution...

[sangh0]

39. MLK wasn't a Catholic

also I never tried to peg ALL religious people as getting their beliefs handed down from the pulpit... Look at Kerry for a public example.

In that case, I must have misunderstood your post. Sorry bout that.

Issues need to be scrutinized as issues. Religion alone should not qualify an agenda as worthy of pushing into our domestic policy.

I agree with that. By itself, religion is not a political issue.

[rhyfeddu]

30. True! Fight the notion of a theocracy!

The threat that those fools in the WH pose, is VERY real. But the danger is demonizing ALL religion and religious people because the extremist jonesing for power right now...

Yes, many aspects of organized religion are screwy, wrong-headed and even dangerous. But the same could be said of our democracy right now. Are ALL democratic people screwy etc., or can we say the process and the organizing principles have done broke? ;)

I'm not really religious - but I recognize that Jesus fellow had ALOT of good ideas. Anyone who TRULY follows his teachings, I could easily call "brother". The ones who have high-jacked his name (nearly since the beginning) and left terrible things in their wake, yes, absolutely, must be fought.

Its just a generalization to act like any Christian is an inch removed from the Inquisition mindset. That is intolerant.

[sangh0]

34. EXACTLY!!!

We ALL, every single one of us (freeper trolls excepted) oppose THEOCRACY, not religion.

Some of you may not like religion, but that is obviously a divisive issue. However, we ALL oppose theocracy, so why not concentrate of THEOCRATS instead of Christians?

[Walt Starr]

16. Well said

though it shall immediately be ignored in favor of flamefest threads.

[DrWeird]

17. Hey, if somebody wants to believe in Creationism that's fine...

if somebody wants to teach that the world is flat and rests on a turtle shell in science class, that's something else completely. And if somebody wants to debate the scientific merit of such a theory on, say, a message board, they better be prepared to be rebuked.

Same deal goes for the people who think there was never a plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

[Liberal Veteran]

21. Exactly....there is no "right" to NOT have your belief challenged...

...or dismissed as a fairy tale, conspiracy theory, wishful thinking, or what have you.

If I say I think "insert miracle here" is a quaint and somewhat foolish notion that a primitive people used to explain something that science explains quite well, then that's an opinion that one is entitled to express.

Taking it as a personal attack because it doesn't jibe with what you believe is not rational.

[DrWeird]

28. Yup. Furthermore...

If somebody is going to lie and distort facts purposefully in order to try get credibility for their idea that the Earth lies on the back of a turtle, then they better be prepared for stronger criticism than "somewhat foolish notion."

[sangh0]

36. I don't get it

You have questioned several religious beliefs in this thread and NO ONE has been offended by them. So why do you keep claiming that the mere questioning of religious beliefs offends religious people?

[trotsky]

38. It's obviously ticked you off somehow. n/t

[sangh0]

40. No

I'm just wondering why someone would believe something when the opposite is happening right in front of them.

But keep up the personal attacks. Maybe you can get the thread locked

[sangh0]

24. Is that why you objected when I started a thread on religion?

Because you thought my thread would end up forcing teachers to teach creationism?

Kind of an irrational belief

[DrWeird]

29. I don't know what thread you're talking about. How about a link?

I do remember you thinking that criticism of Creationism was bigotry against Christianity. Which is a bit ironic, given your views on Islam.

[Liberal Veteran]

33. And if we are going to teach Creationism...

I want my turtle theory to be given equal time. It is religious bigotry to exclude my belief system simply because it is unpopular. :)

[DrWeird]

35. Save it for Geography class.

Creationism, Evolution, and the dead god Ymir theory belong in biology class.

:eyes:

[sangh0]

45. Your post was deleted

A link would only show a deleted post, it wouldn't show that it was yours.

But you already knew that.

[BurtWorm]

47. So was yours.

One of your most recent ones. Maybe it's time to stop baiting people. It's come back full circle.

[sangh0]

49. No it wasn't

ANd I didn't bait anyone, which is why my posts weren't deleted

But yours were. YOur thread was locked because of all your deleted posts. Go post a link to it and others will see my undeleted posts alternating with "deleted post" (which are yours and DW's)

[BurtWorm]

53. Go check Take Two.

[sangh0]

54. Nope

YOur posts were deleted. Mine were not.

[BurtWorm]

58. This is a fascinating subthread you've taken us on.

;)

[DrWeird]

48. Are you talking about a post or a thread?

The post that I replied to said something about a thread that you started that had something to do with Creationism. I'd like to see what thread your talking about.

Now you seem to be talking about a post in Burtworm's thread which you successfully disrupted earlier today.

If you're asking about that, no that has nothing to do with Creationism.

You made a complaint about other DUers who were harping on about tolerance while being intolerant themselves. And that seemed hypocritical to me, since you're going on and on about attacks on Christianity while just last night you made some nasty remarks about Islam.

[sangh0]

57. keep it up

and it'll happen again

[DrWeird]

62. Keep what up? What will happen?

You'll explain how you can be complaining about religious bigotry in one thread while spouting off your own in another? I mean, that's all I'm asking for.

[sangh0]

66. Show us the proof

are do you believe I made a bigoted post in the absence of proof?

[DrWeird]

69. "Secular muslim is an oxymoron."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2791779

post 130.

[sangh0]

71. What's bigoted about that?

.

[DrWeird]

73. Kind of like saying "'honest jew' is an oxymoron."

But you already knew that.

[rhyfeddu]

41. That science class should not turn into Bible 101 is, or should be,obvious

But this thread was started by pondering the question of why some might take things said on DU personally, regarding religious beliefs.

Yes, some in (religious) power would love to turn science class into a Sunday school sermon. That would be nuts. They're separate things, and should remain so.

The question is, to you paint ALL Christians (or otherwise religious) people with the same brush as those extremists? Do you attack them for solely being religious? You feel that is justified? Because... they're not "rational", like you? :shrug:

[DrWeird]

44. This thread is a, in a sense, a continuation of a debate that got started

...from an Evolution/Creation debate.

"The question is, to you paint ALL Christians (or otherwise religious) people with the same brush as those extremists? Do you attack them for solely being religious? You feel that is justified? Because... they're not "rational", like you?"

Of course not. I'm talking about Creationists, not Christians. Two different things.

[rhyfeddu]

50. If you amend that to "Creationists who impose their views..

..on others, then we actually agree! :7

But, tho' I DON'T share that belief - I don't feel being a creationist is in itself, something to make me reject that person. Some Hindu beliefs are not anymore...um, spectacular than the "created in 7 days" belief, to me.

If they want to fervently believe that, groovy with me. That, in itself, does not harm or threaten me. Puzzles me, yes, but "live and let live". I will repect them 'till they give me other, better reasons to change my mind.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

67. I've never made any such statement.

I'll swear my immortal soul on it.

"he won't admit that he is hostile to ALL people who hold religious beliefs. "

You're simply making this up. Very unchristianlike, if you ask me.

[sangh0]

68. I'm not a Christian

but you already knew that.

[maxsolomon]

18. this the the Horowitz argument

against campus "leftism".

hire us because your universities discriminate against "conservatives" (when their "research" isn't research at all). if you don't agree you're an intellectual leftist commie symp bigot.

[BurtWorm]

46. That seems to be a total distortion of what LV was saying.

He's arguing that people ought to have thicker skins. How do you read what you read into it?

[Liberal Veteran]

51. Bingo! Exactly what I was saying.

Is that people need to be comfortable with their own faith and thicken up their skin to the fact that not everyone shares it and people aren't bound to express their own viewpoint by walking on eggshells so as not to possibly offend someone.

[BurtWorm]

56. I couldn't agree with you more.

:toast:

Long live the First Amendment!

[Warren DeMontague]

60. ???

?

[infusionman]

64. I can accept that...

As a Christian The bible tells me I must go out into the world
and make disciples. (The Great Commission, Mathew Chapter 28) 

It is not up to me to force it down someones throat and have
them accept it. It is for me to open up the possibility of
eternal life to others who want it. 

Whether one accepts it or rejects it is totally up to him/her.

[datasuspect]

72. i thought getting offended

was the product of an individual person's perception.

are we now supposed to be managers of other people's perceptions to be good democrats.

sorry.

if i take a dump on your dining room table, that IS offensive.

making statements/comments/criticisms/or even mockeries of religion?

????

that is the individual person's problem, they just need to deal.

[Nay]

74. Agree completely. But it's amazing how many people don't "get"

the distinction. It's my contention that they "misunderstand" on purpose, but I can't prove it.

[Moderator]

76. Locking. Please see this excerpt from the rules we all agree to maintain.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other members of this discussion board.

If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, "your facts are wrong," but it is not appropriate to say "you are a liar."

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.

Democratic Underground is a "big tent" message board which welcomes a broad range of progressive opinions. As such, you are likely to disagree strongly with many of the comments you see expressed here. Please do not take these differences of opinion personally. The simple fact that someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to lash out and break the rules of this message board. A thick skin is usually required to participate on this or any message board.

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

thanks for your consideration,
DU Mod