Why are insults so acceptable here?

[Rainbowreflect]

I find it very strange that the majority of posts in this topic forum seem to be telling people of faith how stupid, ignorant and silly they are. Can you imagine the understandable outrage if someone went to the Veteran’s Forum and called them all “baby killers” or went to the GLBT Forum and started a homophobic rant? There would be some pissed off DUers if I went to the Guns Forum and said that all gun owners we just trying to compensate for their small penis or posted sexist jokes in the Women’s Rights Forum. Why is it perfectly acceptable to trash people of faith here?

[Quartermass]

1. Self deleted. Sorry.

[MineralMan]

2. If you see a personal insult or attack, just click Alert and report it.

Personal attacks are not allowed in this forum or in any DU forum.

I've not seen what you're talking about. I've seen people state their opinion that religion is superstition and that it's stupid, but that's not a personal attack. I think you may be reading something into posts that isn't actually there.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[grantcart]

4. I believe that it is displacement.

Unable to react to voices in their past or Pop religious leaders on the national stage they take out their frustrations on more accessible targets.

You may want to raise this question to Skinner in the ATA forum.

[Rainbowreflect]

8. I think you have a really good point.

[onpatrol98]

60. Good point!

[msongs]

5. "if you don't believe in jesus you are going to hell when you die" - is that what you refer to? nt

[MarkCharles]

6. No people of faith are being trashed, their ideas and their behavior towards others

in particular their dishonesty and their assertions of facts without offering any proof.
THAT is what is being trashed.

Those behaviors are called out for what they are: dishonesty!

Please point out ONE EXAMPLE of "people" being trashed, and not their ideas or their cowardly behaviors being trashed.

If one has a problem with people who find hypocrisy unacceptable, perhaps there's a political party that would welcome one more than the Democratic Party would.

[rrneck]

26. To be fair

personal attacks get deleted pretty quickly.

[tama]

27. Accusations of "dishonesty", "cowardly behavior" etc.

are very personal attacks and also meant to be taken personally. They are the very examples of people being trashed you deny and your post is just one more example of your own dishonesty and cowardly behavior.




















Now please tell me, did you take the accusations of dishonesty and cowardly behavior personally and was there any initial emotional reaction to being called dishonest and coward and what was it? The real intention was not to insult you personally, but to test a theory of social interactions and psychological mechanisms... :)

[cleanhippie]

30. In your attempt to paint calls of "dishonesty" a personal attack, you have demonstrated dishonesty.

As well as hypocrisy.

Well done.

[tama]

31. Are you aware

that people generally tend to take offense when they are called dishonest, hypocritical, cowardly, etc? And that the most common human response mechanism to such characterizations is attempt to respond in kind, ie. not kindly?

It is inconsequential whether the accusation of dishonesty is true or not - in political arena like Finnish parliament, perhaps quite similarly in other similar debate and discussion forums, calling some dishonest is the worst accusation a politician or some other person can make, and it's considered a big no-no personal attack. And everybody knows politicians are deeply dishonest, even and especially politicians. Calling someone dishonest is generally considered insulting someones honor, and not so long ago such accusations led to duels.

[cleanhippie]

33. I could care less about the Finnish Parliament, but I do care about your blatant dishonesty.

And thats not a personal attack against you, its an attack against your dishonesty. Ponder that a bit.




And when you're done telling others what is and what is not a personal attack, tell us why you chose to post a personal attack here and if it wasn't a personal attack, why was it deleted?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=319308&mesg_id=319416

[tama]

35. I'm fine with my dishonesty

but thank you for caring enough to seek my betterment. No irony intended and I trust you had the best of intentions. :)

But I do genuinely believe that many if not most people have negative emotional reactions when their honesty is questioned or they are called cowards etc. Even though that belief may be not true - do you agree or disagree? -, how is that dishonest?

As for your second question, my memory was never very good and getting worse by age, but to my best knowledge there was no personal attack intended and I have no idea why the post was deleted.

Edit to add: I recall now that there was something general about many people defining themselves as atheists having deep emotional wounds from religions behaving badly, based on earlier experiences I have suspicion that could be the reason but can't really say. It's all too vague to form a hypothesis.

[cleanhippie]

37. And you being fine with your dishonesty separates you from others.

How anyone is "fine" with dishonesty is beyond me, so I will just thanks you for your, ahem, honesty, if you really are being honest. It's really difficult to tell judging by past experience with your other posts.


As for your personal attack that was deleted, it wasn't "general" at all, it was quite specific at who you were referring to and why. Hence the deletion.


You have yourself a fine day.

[tama]

43. Who and what is "I"?

One not so bad definition is the space (geometric nature unspecified) where all kinds of emotions, memories etc. take place. And in all honesty there is no denying that also dishonesty by some definition takes place occationally. As do all kinds of rationalizings for past actions. So by "being fine" what was meant was being not in denial, at least generally. That does not mean that my self-identity would be a "dishonest person" - I'm not sure of if I do have a well defined self-identity. Rather countless number of very vague and blurred identities or self-images.

Perhaps it's wrong to expect confidence from you, because I don't have full confidence in you - I'm afraid to confide to you, to share my personal experiences e.g. in answer to your question about other ways of knowing. That can be called dishonesty, or at least my girlfriend says that stayicng silent instead of confiding openly is a form of dishonesty.

So I cannot expect you to take my word and believe me when I say that I still have no idea who you think I was referring to - unless it's the most obvious guess, the poster of the post I replied to, in fact quite randomly as far as conscious processes can be recollected, having in mind what was said about displacement in an earlier post in this thread. If that most obvious guess is correct and the general statement was taken as personal attack, that does not mean it was meant as such. Lot's of ifs already, but cannot help guessing further that if previous guesses are correct and it was interpreted as a personal attack by the poster I'm now guessing, then perhaps because...?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demonaut]

7. yeah, I was ready to unrecc this post but I completely agree with you

so i recc'd it, I'm not religious per se but I don't think insults about peoples beliefs should be lightly tolerated.

edit, smelling

[Rainbowreflect]

10. Thank you. I did not post this out of anger, I just don't get it.

I would think that this forum would be a place where liberal people of faith, any faith, might be able to discuss their issues. But it seems to have become a place where DUers who, probably with good reason, hate religion can vent.

[LAGC]

56. You should check out the Religion and Spirituality group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=428

That's where "liberal people of faith, any faith, might be able to discuss their issues."

Non-believers aren't allowed in those groups, which seems to be what you're looking for.

[Iggo]

66. Plus a fuckin million.

:thumbsup:

[Goblinmonger]

15. So why are "beliefs" protected?

I see people on DU talking about how sick and crazy RW Christians are. About how crazy Scientology is. About Mormonism and their stupid magic underwear. I doubt that is what you are talking about.

But, hey, any reason to bitch at atheists, I guess.

[Demonaut]

20. sure "any reason"...

:eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

22. Way to not address the issues

:eyes:

See, I can do that, too.

So, do you tell people they are out of line when they talk about RW Christians? About Mormons? Scientologists? How about atheists? Few posters in R/T tell us frequently that organized atheism is a threat to all that is good and right. Have you let those posters know that they are out of line?

I'm sure you have.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[ZombieHorde]

9. There are very few insults here compared to GD or GD:P.

Opinions are criticized, but people are not. You are just shocked because you are not accustomed to seeing certain opinions mocked.

Go visit several GD threads and replace "President Obama," "DNC," "Palin," "Rush," "Republicans," etc., with Christ.

There are definitely insults towards atheists and theists on this board, but it is still pretty tame when compared to the rest of the DU forums.

[Rainbowreflect]

11. I am not "shocked" at all.

I am also very used to seeing opinions mocked. Hell, I am a very liberal women in a VERY RED state.
I am mocked all the time. :D
I would just think this would be a forum where liberal people of faith could go and not have their faith ridiculed.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Nobody is being ridiculed.

If people want to post about their faith without someone questioning it, there are protected groups for that. R/T is an open forum with different rules.

[Humanist_Activist]

28. "their faith ridiculed" and here is the crux of your problem...

You see no difference between beliefs and people being mocked. Here's a newsflash, that's your problem, not anyone else's.

[tama]

32. Come on

I've seen threads where somebody has tried to open up about personal experiences, "forgot your pills", "get professional help" and worse have been the standard replies.

I've been personally ridiculed and to be honest, done some ridiculing also myself. People tend to identify with their beliefs and opinions, we keep on looking - consciously and unconsciously - which buttons to press in others to get the emotional responses we are looking for.

[MarkCharles]

34. Can you give us concrete, documented examples?

Some people who choose to post here actually need their pills.

Some people who post here need professional help, and avoid it by posting here.

Some people just simply are not capable of allowing their religious beliefs be challenged; they are unable to defend those beliefs. That is not bashing those people, but we are here to learn and be informed, not here to show we have mastery over each and every bit of wisdom in the world.

One should ask, "why does that post offend me?".........and find an answer that works.

I choose not to "be offended" by something on a message board, although I can find items that might offend people.

Comparing me to Pol Pot, or Stalin, because of my beliefs, I'm not offended, but find that kind of childish behavior on the part of an adult, rather puerile, and senseless. AND I know the agenda of the accuser.

Now, where does it say in the DU terms of service that we CANNOT challenge beliefs, opinions, or other parts of what adults hold as their mental framework on reality? And why would challenging that with other adult perspectives be seen as "insulting"?

[tama]

36. Not in my interest to do so

I had a thread in mind and PM exchange with the person who initiated that thread, who after the public response he got preferred not to talk it publicly any more.

There are also academic people who "simply are not capable of allowing their academic beliefs be challenged; they are unable to defend those beliefs." That is not about religion per se but personal characteristics, in every field such people can be found - also among those who call themselves atheists and sceptics - or do you claim otherwise?

It's good of you not to get offended, but what about those who do? What is the rational ethical approach?

[MarkCharles]

38. "good of you not to get offended, but what about those who do?"

I say, "Perhaps a forum wherein ideas are challenged with language is not the appropriate forum in life for those".


As a child, I learned it THIS way:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!"

Some folks evidently never learned that, and choose to feel offended when their beliefs and their thinking patterns are challenged. I have no other remedy for them, life sometimes presents challenges, challenges are NOT insults, they are simply challenges.

[tama]

48. We come in many kinds

some are emotionally more sensitive than others and regardless of the words, the mere intention to hurt someones sensitivities is hurtful. For me understanding and accepting this has been a long learning process and I still keep learning, mostly monitoring my own emotions and if there are intentions to hurt others, so by becoming conscious of those intentions I can avoid acting them out. I don't always succeed, needles to say, but realization long time ago that I had certain talent in hurting people with words has led to life long learning process of trying not to, when not extremely necessary and helpful. And gladly it very seldom is.

[PassingFair]

70. The rational, ethical approach is for you to take your opinions where no one will disagree with you.

You've been given the links.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[PassingFair]

79. They can follow the links as well.

What is wrong with you?

Maybe you need more prayer and reflection.

Certainly more reflection.

[Thats my opinion]

40. I can handle disagreements,

but if I would list the personal insults it would fill a couple of pages. I invite challenges to what I hold, but after months of personal vilification I no longer even see what the vilifiers have to say. As to serious discussion where we listen to one another, bring it on.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[skepticscott]

65. Except that you won't list them

and you can't. Like every other religionist here, you claim that these terrible things have happened "out there" somewhere, but you never seem to be able to cite concrete examples. It's simply your knee-jerk reaction to call any response to one of your posts that isn't obsequiously polite and deferential as a "personal attack", even when it is only a criticism of your arguments or your tactics, and not of you as a person. There is a distinct difference (which you do not seem to grasp) between simply saying "you're a liar" and saying that a statement is blatantly untrue.

And you do not listen. You post and then run away. You post and then ignore substantive responses and questions when the answers would be awkward for your agenda. You put people on ignore for ruffling your feathers. "Serious" discussion is the last thing you want. In the end, you simply want your point of view to be affirmed.

[cleanhippie]

69. You have put on ignore everyone who has "brought it on", so how can you want to listen?

:shrug:

[darkstar3]

83. No, you can't, or you'd be able to see this message without logging out.

[Humanist_Activist]

49. I used the "get professsional help" line myself, but I was sincere, not mocking...

given the content of the post I was responding to, I thought it was the most responsible thing to say.

Outside of that, I generally try to keep things impersonal as possible, and yet people still take offense at the most innocuous statements I make.

[tama]

58. I don't doubt the sincerity

based on common social norms and normativity, but that is not always the most helpful approach when dealing with uncommon experiences. It can be hard to relate what people with weird experiences have to go through, all the fears involved, social stigmata and loneliness, and non-judgemental listening is often the best first aid.

[onpatrol98]

61. That's true...they're hoping to push a button

Not truly have a mature discussion, but rather start a fight.

[tama]

64. I spoke on more general lines

but also trolling is of course part of the picture. Loops that feed on negative energies, the over-all metabolisms however are not that simple and worth studying.

[PassingFair]

71. This is FUNNY, considering the trolling you are doing in this forum.

Really!

[cleanhippie]

73. Ain't THAT the truth!

[tama]

77. Interesting

How am I trolling, exactly, from you point of view?

And second, what do you think about the maxim "don't feed the trolls"?

BOOOO!

[PassingFair]

84. "...what do you think about the maxim "don't feed the trolls"?

I couldn't help it, you look a little scrawny.

[SecularMotion]

12. I don't find your comparison of forums to be valid

There are contentious issues in most of the topic forums. While the Veterans, GLBT, and Women's Rights Forums are for supporters of those respective groups, the Guns and Religion forums are for a wider spectrum of positions and therefore more contentious. Neither the Guns nor Religion forum allow personal attacks as "perfectly acceptable", evidenced by the greater number of deleted posts.

[MarkCharles]

13. "the majority of posts in this topic forum seem to be telling people of faith...."

The "majority"?

As ascertained by what numerical standard?

I'd love to see 51 out of 100 posts here that directly insult PEOPLE, rather than ideas, beliefs, or non-factual assertions.

I think it's more like 10 out of 100 which challenge ideas, or fuzzy thinking, or just plain outright lies.

So, getting back to your assertion that the "MAJORITY of posts seem to be telling people of faith"....

Can you substantiate that assertion numerically?

[Goblinmonger]

14. "Organized atheism is a threat and no different than Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot"

Stuff like that? :shrug:

Or is this just a bitch-at-atheists thread?

[MarkCharles]

18. That's what I have been told in the few weeks I have been here.

At least three or four times, usually by the same person.

Fear of "organized" atheism seems to be higher here than in places where people without a demonstrated faith actually did do harm to mankind.

But then we have those literally hundreds of examples of people WITH a Christian, Muslim, or other "organized" faith did as much or more harm, over and over again.

I wasn't aware that WW I was started by "organized" atheists, nor the American Civil War, and so many many other examples.

[LeftishBrit]

17. It's not a good analogy

Except maybe for the Guns forum, which *is* for debate about guns.

But you are implying that the R/T forum is specifically for people of faith. It isn't. Your analogies would be more appropriate if atheists were going to the Christian Liberals/Progressive People of Faith forum and attacking religion. Which so far as I know, no one has done.

I don't see much point in name-calling and 'trashing', but it's not only on one side. There have been implications on the forum that modern atheists are equivalent to the likes of Stalin and Mao; that anti-atheist discrimination doesn't exist; that 'organized atheism' is just like the KKK; and (some time ago, admittedly from an infrequent poster) that atheists are going to hell, and are a greater danger to the USA than any of its enemies.

FWIW, as a Brit I do have a somewhat different attitude to religion than many American atheists. We are a more secular country, and there is much more of a significant 'religious left' here than there seems to be in the USA. I think that religious liberalism needs to be acknowledged, and that it needs to be pointed out that religion does not equal the religious right, just as atheism doesn't equal Stalinism. Nonetheless, there are increasing religious-right incursions into politics even in the UK, and this is a problem that does need to be addressed everywhere.

[MarkCharles]

19. Well stated. Just look at Rick Santorum to see how

American democratic principles are being undermined by over zealous religious nuts, more than one of whom is fancying being President of the USA, based largely upon their religious beliefs in being a superior person, and thus able to lead.


I have heard that there are a few little groups in the UK that are into this sort of destructive Christianity, infecting your politics with various racist and other agendas. So sorry to hear that.

[cleanhippie]

21. They're not, unless you are insulting an atheist...

Perhaps you could point out a few of the "insults" you are so concerned about.

[MarkCharles]

24. Point them out, and maybe give examples? Like all those examples we got

from "another way of knowing"?

Holding my breath? NO!

[Iggo]

23. Ask The Admins. (n/t)

[rug]

25. "I love it when someone insults me. That means that I don't have to be nice anymore." - Billy Idol

[NMMNG]

39. Are you saying that we're allowed to discuss religion and theology

only if we approve of them? We're not allowed to question or criticize religion or religious beliefs? That's pretty unfair.


As to insults, perhaps you should wag your finger at the people who constantly insult atheists, such as the claims that atheists are the same as the Nazis and the KKK, that "organized atheism" is a hate group, and that "militate atheists" are hypocritical bullies trying to eradicate god from the public square.

[Thats my opinion]

41. Were those things on r/t I would be the first to object.

Those are personal attacks. Where is this "constant insult?"

[NMMNG]

45. Either you're blind or you're being disingenous

Which is it?

[trotsky]

51. The person who promotes those ideas has been on threads with you.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that you haven't seen them.

[laconicsax]

52. Do you not remember that pleasant PM exchange we had a few months back?

You know, the one where you said that the individual in question "does go beyond where [you are] comfortable." The exchange was on September 14th in case you don't remember.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Well that's just not true

because those lines are tossed out about daily from one of our members and I don't remember you stating your objections.

[Odin2005]

42. We get sick of being hated on by the Theists.

[trotsky]

50. I find posts like this so tiresome.

If a post is "trash(ing) people of faith," then alert on it and it will be deleted. DU has rules to protect individuals.

What it does NOT have, thankfully, are rules to protect BELIEFS.

And there are a whole lot of confused people who think that criticizing their BELIEFS equals attacking BELIEVERS, when that is simply not the case.

[onpatrol98]

53. Because a large segment of DUers agree with those statements

Trashing the faith of Christians and most other religions is almost a sport on DU. In doing it however, they exhibit the same behavior they supposedly abhor in people who do have religious beliefs. They come across as hostile, intolerant, and hypocritical. But, DU is interestingly a safe place for religion bashing. I think it's frustration, also. Some are unhappy because they feel they've been marginalized by people who profess a belief in God. Throw in a few bullies, immature actors, and too much spare time and you've got powder kegs waiting to go off with little to hold them back.

I think in most cases, the more you're willing to treat people from backgrounds as individuals, instead of groups, the more likely you are to be more considerate and empathetic. Some people seek to build bridges, others to burn them down. Avoid those like the plague. They're not ready to hear you, yet. They only want to hurt you, because they've been hurt.

[laconicsax]

54. Link, or it didn't happen. n/t

[PassingFair]

72. You are precious.

You seem to believe that atheists are created by people who
"...are unhappy because they feel they've been marginalized by people who profess a belief in God. Throw in a few bullies, immature actors, and too much spare time..."

Most atheists are thoughtful people, who have come to
conclusions by reason, comparison, and observations on the world around us.

Most religious people are thoughtful people who have
been indoctrinated, usually since birth, with the belief
that things that MIGHT possibly be true are ABSOLUTELY true.

See the difference?

If you think that most atheists are just religionists
with a personal axe to grind because of other religionist's
slights, you are woefully misinformed.

Really, your post IS insulting.

"Poor widdle atheists are just hurt Christians!"

:wtf:

[MarkCharles]

74. +1000 Wish I could recommend your post! It sort of goes along with

my thinking that religionists see atheism as "just another religious group". Religionists have a hard time thinking outside the box of religion, and it's easier for them to dismiss atheists if the religionists think of atheists as just members of another religion.

Sort of like Martin Luther's followers and the Catholics. We "poor widdle atheists" have been hurt or insulted and thus became atheists Nothing could be further from the truth, as you know and stated so well:

"Most atheists are thoughtful people, who have come to
conclusions by reason, comparison, and observations on the world around us."

[skepticscott]

75. Trashing the "faith" of conservatives

is also a sport on DU, and one which I'm guessing you don't have much problem with. So why are religionists always portrayed as the poor oppressed victims of the mean ol' atheists, just for having the truth told about their beliefs? Why should believing things without evidence or in the face of evidence, and trying to ram those beliefs down everyone else's throat be regarded as immune from criticism? Why does "faith" get a special free pass when "god" is the object of it?

[MarkCharles]

76. Great analogy! We would NEVER EVER accept the lies and mis-statements of

Republicans without a challenge here! We don't hate our Republican family members, our Republican friends or neighbors, but we don't put up with, nor are we ever asked to just accept their bullshit and lies unchallenged. We ask them to show us the facts, and we confront our Republican friends with the facts.

Why is religious thinking somehow exempt from such scrutiny, or why is such scrutiny seen as "insulting" when it involves the spreading of more lies, more mythologies, more outright attempts to restrict the freedoms and liberties of fellow Americans, be they GLBT, or women, or children under the influence of religious authority figures? Why should we stand silent only when it has to do with religious beliefs?

[humblebum]

55. And they are doing such wonderful things

for the Democratic party in the process. SARCASM

[LAGC]

57. Whatchu you talking about, Willis?

We're a big tent.

Non-believers vote Democratic by far larger margins than religious people do.

Why shouldn't non-believers be able to express themselves just as openly as the religious do?

[onpatrol98]

59. The Democratic Party Is a big tent...DU, not so much...

Few people would get on television and spout the rants about religion and Christians that some DUers provide daily. Sure, atheists discuss their own lack of belief and ponder how others could believe. But, most atheists I know have no desire to ridicule or marginalize. They don't believe in God, but they could care less if you believe as long as you steer clear and be respectful of them. Sometimes, DU is more like a collection of wayward seventh graders. I have my moments, as well.

If they know you care about a thing, they will make every effort to ridicule it.

I tend to avoid the place when it gets too toxic like that. Many of my views have been changed by positive interactions with DUers. But, the general nastiness and divisiveness have definitely soured my overall opinion of the board. And, I imagine that's why DU isn't very reflective. After awhile, this stuff wears on you and you leave.

[LAGC]

62. Well, keep in mind, even most of the outspoken atheists here I imagine are probably a lot more...

..."polite" in real-life. I know I am.

It's just the nature of an anonymous message forum that allows people to speak their minds and argue different topics, a venue that people don't have in real-life.

[onpatrol98]

63. Good point...

[Iggo]

67. Steer clear and be respectful, then.

[LeftishBrit]

68. I am certainly an atheist with no desire to ridicule or marginalize

I had little interest in the religion/atheism debate, and considered people like Richard Dawkins rather a bore on the subject - until 2004 and the religious right campaigns against Kerry; 2008 and Palin - and ESPECIALLY 2010 when religious right-wingers associated with the political pro-life movement conducted a successful smear campaign in my backyard to defeat my comparatively progressive, secularist, pro-choice MP in favour of a Tory! Reeling from this happening, when I had thought I lived at least 3000 miles east of any such danger, I then noted the election campaign in Australia, where the comparatively progressive, nonreligious Julia Gillard did defeat the disgusting religious right-winger Abbott - but by a margin of just ONE seat!

The religious right is getting to be an increasing danger in all sort of places where it previously hadn't been; and needs to be challenged. Not that other right-wing ideologies, notably free-market-worship, aren't serious dangers too!

I have no problem with religion, but plenty with the religious right.

And by the way, I know lots of very religious people - Christians, Jews and Muslims - but never had I directly experienced real personal hostility to atheists until I encountered a few people on DU. It is indeed wearing; and it goes both ways,

[NMMNG]

80. But many religious people get on the radio, TV and the Internet

to spout rants against atheists, LGBT people, women and other "sinners" on a daily basis. Are they allowed to say and do whatever they want while we're supposed to remain silent lest your sensibilities be offended?

[darkstar3]

82. They aren't. This forum is moderated just like any other,

and it has the same basic tenor as GD. Your main problem, I suspect, is that you believe "faith" and "person" are the same thing. They are, emphatically, not.