Take your apocalypse and...

[Amethyst Hunter]

...place it tightly into a small area wherein no sunlight is able to reflect off of the dark murky surfaces and illuminate these repulsive halls.

Religion pisses me off enough as it is (for the record: agnostic, and no, it is *not* the same thing as atheist), but Rapturemaniacs really disgust me. It's one thing to personally believe in that crap, but when they go spreading it around and/or purposely try to make it happen just so they can get some kind of sick satisfaction out of saying "see I was right neener neener neener!"...it REALLY makes me hope that they end up in the *opposite* of where they were expecting to go.

For the record, Jesus said that not even *HE* knew anything about the world supposedly ending, so if you subscribe to the line of thought that says Christ is the ultimate authority, well, then, that kinda blows the whole End Times racket out of the water, doesn't it? Jesus also said we were not to focus on things like that but to concentrate on "building the kingdom of God". What constitutes appropriate building? Helping the poor, feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick, watching out for the oppressed, etc. NOT trying to kick off wars or kill off what some people believe are "sinners"!

It just makes me so mad how people distort and bastardize a religion for their own sick purposes. It's why I can never bring myself to commit to any religion, because they've all been fucked up beyond intelligent reason, and I refuse to contribute to something that is supposed to (in theory) help people but too often winds up being used to hurt them instead. :mad:

[AdminAssistant]

I'm assuming this is the Fratching post related to the CS topic.

Many evangelical Christians do look forward to the Rapture. It's not about the condemnation of sinners - it's the fact that they'll be united with God and live in Heaven during the Tribulation. So, of course, they anticipate it eagerly. Many scholars have looked at Revelations and have said that many of the conditions for the coming of the End Times have been fulfilled. So, many feel that the time has come and they are waiting eagerly. (This has been happening for centuries, btw).

Also, I don't know about this whole, "Christ is the ultimate authority". Christ is part of the Trinity, but God the Father is the head of that Trinity, and only he knows when the End Times will come about. Christ explained that in the Gospels. The Father will call for the Rapture and at the end of the Tribulation, Christ fights the AntiChrist.

I'm personally not rooting for the Rapture, and I do see how many denominations have twisted the Bible to fit their own purposes. I personally take the Bible with many grains of salt, as a text inspired by God but edited by men to fit the purpose of the Catholic Church. However, I do not fear it.

I have 100% respect for anyone's beliefs, and I ask for the same. I do not believe that I am right and all other people are wrong. I think God is too big, too mystical for anyone to understand. Jews, Muslims, Hindis, Buddhists, pagans, atheists, agnostics, whatever. Live life the best you can, help as many people as you can, and there will be reward. I don't think God is as angry and close-minded as many have portrayed him as.

Now, I will say that I don't understand people joking about going to Hell. I just don't find the idea of eternal suffering very amusing.

[anriana]

Now, I will say that I don't understand people joking about going to Hell. I just don't find the idea of eternal suffering very amusing.

I don't find eternal suffering amusing, but I find the concept of manipulating people for centuries with the threat of fire and brimstone terribly amusing. In my mind, the church has already destroyed any real credibility the idea of hell has to a non-believer by using it as a tool to raise money (indulgences) and blatantly manipulate public behavior, so why should I take it more seriously than church leaders do?

[Flyndaran]

The trinity is catholicism, not necessary by a long shot to be called a christian.
Also, the bible states that Jesus said that the end will come before his fellow men's death. Of course since that didn't happen, the quote gets twisted to mean before mankind's death... which seems like a really stupid thing to say. No sh*t the end of the world for mankind will happen before the death of mankind.

But as religion itself, and faith especially, makes not a bit of sense to me, I have a tendency to lump all the apocolyptic idiots with every religious zealot or loon.

Before mods take offense, I must state, even though it should be obvious, that I don't find all religious people to be idiots or loons.
The fact that you guys outnumber my kind, (the born non-superstitious which is a MUCH smaller subset of atheists than you may think) thousands if not millions to one scares the bejesus out of me... so sorry if I come on somewhat confrontationally.

[Jadedcarguy]

Ooohhhh, a thread about my thread. Joy joy happy dance!!!

I've never been banned from a chat board and I don't plan on starting now, but I think I can be a little looser with my thoughts here than I can on CS.

I'm not going to really lay into religion here, that will just start a battle that will go on for many pages. I've been down that road and it was rather pointless, actually. I would like to expand a bit on why I'm not Christian, however.

Religion's influence needs to be curtailed before it destroys life as we know it. Think I'm being a little alarmist? Not really. To paraphrase Sam Harris, there are people in this world who truly believe that the afterlife will hold many more riches for them if they die while taking out some unbelievers. They really truly believe this. How long will it be before these folks get nuclear capability? Seriously, think about it.

If you think it only extends to folks in the Middle East, no. For some good old fashioned ass-puckering intartoobz browsing, google "Joel's Army". Those people are in the US, and they really believe that God wants them to take out the sinners! The Phelps clan has nothin' on them! Some Christian fundie churches hold abortion bombers in near-sainthood. Murderers, doing the Lord's work. :rolleyes:

AdminAssistant, you say that religious beliefs should be given 100% respect. I very respecfully disagree. What I will respect is your right to believe absolutely anything you want. However, if I think that belief is silly, without merit, or downright dangerous, it warrants no respect. In return, I ask that believers respect my right not to believe.

I don't want to wipe out religion. Some folks take great comfort in it and it truly helps them get through life. Others have a purpose for it that is far darker, and the insistence that we "respect" others' beliefs only gives them a shield to continue their new crusade.

I'm sure there are some here already composing a frothy retort, but I ask this: what if the situation were reversed? What if you had to hide your faith from the masses for fear of real persecution? What if you bristled at the thought of discussing your beliefs because most others would look at you as if you were evil or dangerous if they knew how you felt? If you can imagine that, that's atheism and to a lesser extent agnosticism every day.

This is a little longer than I had planned, sorry. :o

[AdminAssistant]

What if you had to hide your faith from the masses for fear of real persecution? What if you bristled at the thought of discussing your beliefs because most others would look at you as if you were evil or dangerous if they knew how you felt? If you can imagine that, that's atheism and to a lesser extent agnosticism every day.

Honestly, in many parts of the US, I don't see much of a reaction to atheism or agnosticism, beyond scoffing or rolling of eyes - at least amongst adults (kids in a school situation I'm sure have a harder time). There are religious groups out there who are being killed/beaten/jailed for what they believe. Sunnis and Shiites of course pop to mind, along with the fighting amongst Hindus and Muslims. Christians in Sudan have been killed and Christians in China have been tossed in jail for having a Bible. Jews in Russia are still facing strong resentment and hatred.

Now, I am not one to cry "Christians are persecuted!" here in the US, because that's ridiculous and stupid. No religious group is really persecuted here.

I should caveat my previous comment to say that everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe (and lack of belief IS a belief - an atheist BELIEVES that there is no God) as long as it does not wish harm upon others*. If someone wants to start up the Church of the Golden Arches and make cheeseburger sacrifices to Ronald McDonald - more power to them. That's the great thing about the First Amendment - they have that right and privelege, and I support their right to do that.

* Keep in mind that most of the groups that advocate violence are fringe groups that do not represent the whole. Christians who sanctify those who bomb abortion clinics do not represent Christianity, IMO. They are going against Christ's teachings of love, peace, and acceptance. Do not judge the many by the few.

[Pedersen]

Do not judge the many by the few.

I'm starting to hear this retort more and more, and it's starting to bug me finally.

If these people are outcasts amongst your community, then cast them out, loudly and publicly. Denounce their actions at every opportunity. If people ask if you're a <insert faith here>, respond with "Yes, but I don't share the views of the militaristic nutjobs". Make it known that these "few" truly are few, and that their beliefs are horrid to you.

As it is, I'm seeing more and more religious intolerance from the religious, and quite frankly, I'm finding myself scared of religion. I believe there's a big war coming, and it's going to be fought over religion. And if the moderates don't start speaking up and denouncing the extremists, putting them back into their holes, the extremists are going to set the rules, and they will become the majority.

Just as lack of belief is a belief, failure to act is an action. And in this case, failing to act amounts to tacit approval for those whose actions you state are against the religion you hold dear.

If you don't want to have people say you approve of such actions, speak up and say so, and not just here. If humanity is going to survive, we need more people on all sides to speak up and say "Enough!"

And stop saying "That's not me. I don't approve of it. Don't blame me or my friends for it."

[Jadedcarguy]

Honestly, in many parts of the US, I don't see much of a reaction to atheism or agnosticism, beyond scoffing or rolling of eyes - at least amongst adults (kids in a school situation I'm sure have a harder time).

It really depends on where in the US you are. Some areas are far worse than others. Look at it from the other side, though. Try and hold a meeting or get-together for a Christian group, and you will meet with little or more likely no resistance. Try it with an atheist or secularist group, and once word gets out you will receive hate-filled emails, preachy rants aiming to get you to "see the truth" and possible death threats. Trust me, I've been there.

There are religious groups out there who are being killed/beaten/jailed for what they believe. Sunnis and Shiites of course pop to mind, along with the fighting amongst Hindus and Muslims. Christians in Sudan have been killed and Christians in China have been tossed in jail for having a Bible. Jews in Russia are still facing strong resentment and hatred.

Precisely the point I was making. Millions of people are killing each other over an intangible entity that they've never seen, and they've been doing it for centuries. I can't sum it up any better than that.



(and lack of belief IS a belief - an atheist BELIEVES that there is no God)

No. Not so. Is lack of a steak dinner a different kind of steak dinner? I don't knit quilts. Is "not knitting quilts" a hobby? Is a lack of funds in my wallet actually funds that I can spend at a different store? No. Lack of belief is quite simply lack of belief. Nothing more, no mysticism, no rituals.

I'll tell you what I do believe, though. The similar notions of God as presented by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism present to me a very flawed, very human entity that does not possess the qualities or capabilities of an omnipotent, omniscient being. Instead I see what primitive people thought such a being might be like.

I don't believe He's real in the same way I disregard Santa, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny. Do you consider your lack of belief in them to be a belief, or is it simply something you don't believe?


* Keep in mind that most of the groups that advocate violence are fringe groups that do not represent the whole. Christians who sanctify those who bomb abortion clinics do not represent Christianity, IMO. They are going against Christ's teachings of love, peace, and acceptance. Do not judge the many by the few.

This reinforces the point I made in my other post. Many people who claim a religion are good folks looking for meaning and substance to the sometimes harsh reality of life. They mean no harm and are appalled when they see the actions of zealots acting in the name of God. They provide the perfect cover.

Many of the zealots start out as seeming like very spiritual, very Godly people. They read their Bibles regularly, go to all of the church functions, and seem to be "true Christians". Then they start talking about hearing the voice of God, God telling them to do things. They talk of seeing demons and feeling as if the dark spirits are stalking them, trying to stop them from doing the "Lord's work". Do the other parishioners tell them to seek help? No, not usually. They usually think that this person has achieved a level of spirituality that few will ever see. God talked to Moses and Abraham too, after all. Some of them even get jealous that God isn't talking to them. Yeah, I long for voices in my head too. :rolleyes:

Suddenly Mr. Zealot is in the national news for <insert tragedy here> against <insert sinners or infidel group here>. The parishioners are shocked at the actions of such a "good, spiritual man", while the secularists among us are thinking "You didn't see this coming?"

You may think this is far fetched but it isn't. Most of the folks who gay-bash or shoot abortion doctors or take a shotgun into a liberal church(just happened, check the news) show signs of destabilization for months if not years before they commit their crime.

If the parishioners in Mr. Zealot's church would have thought he was losing his shit instead of assuming he was touched by God then <tragedy> may have been averted. But it is the reluctance to criticize religious belief that allows this kind of thing to happen, and it will happen again and again and again until people in general, religious and non, have the balls to stand up and say "Wait a minute, so-and-so isn't touched by God, they're batshit crazy! They need help!" I hope that day comes sooner rather than too late. :(

[Jadedcarguy]

I'm starting to hear this retort more and more, and it's starting to bug me finally.

If these people are outcasts amongst your community, then cast them out, loudly and publicly. Denounce their actions at every opportunity. If people ask if you're a <insert faith here>, respond with "Yes, but I don't share the views of the militaristic nutjobs". Make it known that these "few" truly are few, and that their beliefs are horrid to you.

As it is, I'm seeing more and more religious intolerance from the religious, and quite frankly, I'm finding myself scared of religion. I believe there's a big war coming, and it's going to be fought over religion. And if the moderates don't start speaking up and denouncing the extremists, putting them back into their holes, the extremists are going to set the rules, and they will become the majority.

Just as lack of belief is a belief, failure to act is an action. And in this case, failing to act amounts to tacit approval for those whose actions you state are against the religion you hold dear.

If you don't want to have people say you approve of such actions, speak up and say so, and not just here. If humanity is going to survive, we need more people on all sides to speak up and say "Enough!"

And stop saying "That's not me. I don't approve of it. Don't blame me or my friends for it."

Good God man, we need to sit down and have a beer!!

That being said, I'm off to bed now. :D

[anriana]

Honestly, in many parts of the US, I don't see much of a reaction to atheism or agnosticism, beyond scoffing or rolling of eyes - at least amongst adults (kids in a school situation I'm sure have a harder time).

And what if that is the part of the US that the atheist happens to live in?

Now, I am not one to cry "Christians are persecuted!" here in the US, because that's ridiculous and stupid. No religious group is really persecuted here.

I should caveat my previous comment to say that everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe (and lack of belief IS a belief - an atheist BELIEVES that there is no God) as long as it does not wish harm upon others*. If someone wants to start up the Church of the Golden Arches and make cheeseburger sacrifices to Ronald McDonald - more power to them. That's the great thing about the First Amendment - they have that right and privelege, and I support their right to do that.

While I completely agree that there are no religious or faith-based groups being persecuted on the same level as in other countries right now, there is plenty of persecution based on faith. Wiccan soldiers just recently won the right to have symbols of their faith on their tombstones, and that was heavily contested. One of the VP candidates was blessed against witchcraft - a major political person was spiritually fortified against a religion practiced by American people! The Religious Right is dedicated to forcing their beliefs on others and denying other people the ability to live free of Christian oppression - they are even ignoring the First Amendment to do so (see: Max Hardcore)

[Slytovhand]

However, if I think that belief is silly, without merit, or downright dangerous, it warrants no respect.

And herein lies part of the problem...

Realistically, all religions should be considered 'silly' or 'without merit'. I mean, I do a bit with scientology, and the amount of flak I've copped over that by people who don't understand what it's really about (ie - threads on this forum!), and yet, if they really did look at the reality of it, it is actually far less 'silly' or 'without merit' than most other religions out there.

Or, to put it more bluntly, the problem with religions is that it tells people what is silly or not, and what does or does not have merit... ie - it's a human thing. Humans make the rules, humans still decide (regardless of what books people refer to... which is exactly what this thread is about... God's "love everyone" message gets ignored in favour of "sinners should be sent to hell").

[Sylvia727]

If these people are outcasts amongst your community, then cast them out, loudly and publicly. Denounce their actions at every opportunity. If people ask if you're a <insert faith here>, respond with "Yes, but I don't share the views of the militaristic nutjobs". Make it known that these "few" truly are few, and that their beliefs are horrid to you.

I shouldn't have to qualify my answer based on the views of militaristic nutjobs. If the conversation turns to religious (or political, or moral) beliefs, then I will explain my beliefs and contrast my positions with the crazies'. But to introduce myself as "Yes, I'm a Muslim, but don't worry, I'm not a terrorist" is just as silly as "Yes, I'm white, but I promise I'm not a racist like some whites you may have heard about". When introducing myself as a Christian - a religion literally founded on "love thy neighbor, do good to those who hate you" - I should not have to clarify that I am, in fact, what the religion teaches its followers should be. If I believed something in opposition to the church's teachings, then it would be appropriate for me to clarify that at the time.

You assume that these nutjobs are members of the community. Take Phelps, for example. He claims to be Christian and speak God's will. But none of the legitimate Christian denominations are affiliated with him. He and his people are not members of "the Christian community". If you asked an Episcopalian, say, or a Lutheran or a Baptist what they thought of the Westboro group, their response would (almost) always be disgust. But there is no connection between Episcopalians and Westborons. There's no need for an average Christian to define himself as "anti-Westboro" or indeed, "anti-nutjob".

And stop saying "That's not me. I don't approve of it. Don't blame me or my friends for it."

But it isn't me, and I don't approve of it. I'm not going to pretend that an asshole who claims to be affiliated with me actually is - he isn't! If you insist on blaming an entire religion for a tiny segment that professes to be affiliated, then don't be surprised when the true believers react to you with denial and disgust.

[anriana]

When introducing myself as a Christian - a religion literally founded on "love thy neighbor, do good to those who hate you" - I should not have to clarify that I am, in fact, what the religion teaches its followers should be. If I believed something in opposition to the church's teachings, then it would be appropriate for me to clarify that at the time.

Having been dragged to church for 15 years, read the Bible, and studied the origions of Christianity, that is not at all what I would consider the religion to be founded on. (I'm not saying you haven't done those, just that we've obviously drawn vastly different conclusions) Something like "wrest control of society from the pagans while subjugating women" would be my definition.

You assume that these nutjobs are members of the community. Take Phelps, for example. He claims to be Christian and speak God's will. But none of the legitimate Christian denominations are affiliated with him. He and his people are not members of "the Christian community". If you asked an Episcopalian, say, or a Lutheran or a Baptist what they thought of the Westboro group, their response would (almost) always be disgust. But there is no connection between Episcopalians and Westborons. There's no need for an average Christian to define himself as "anti-Westboro" or indeed, "anti-nutjob".

Would you consider Southern Baptists as part of the Christian community? They're one of the largest denominations in America and their very mission statement is full of misogyny.

[Pedersen]

I shouldn't have to qualify my answer based on the views of militaristic nutjobs.

Hi, I'd like to be among the first to welcome you to planet Earth. One of the failures we as humans as have is that we tend to put people into groups. As a result, if someone claims to be a member of a particular group, we tend to view that entire group by the actions of that one person.

As a result, take someone like Phelps, and listen to him claim to be Christian. Listen to the silence of other Christians in condemning him. If they do condemn him, they do so amongst themselves. They do not tell non-Christians "I'm a Christian, and Phelps's clan is wrong."

From there, it becomes easy to believe that Fred Phelps is representative of the Christian viewpoint. If he's not, start denouncing him loud and long. Start telling people he does not represent you. Doing anything less puts him back into your group in the eyes of outsiders. Don't like it? I'm sorry, but us mere mortals tend to do that, even when we try not to.

But it isn't me, and I don't approve of it. I'm not going to pretend that an asshole who claims to be affiliated with me actually is - he isn't! If you insist on blaming an entire religion for a tiny segment that professes to be affiliated, then don't be surprised when the true believers react to you with denial and disgust.

If you're not going to make sure that people know how you feel about these groups, don't be surprised when the true non-believers react to your entire religion with denial and disgust.

[AdminAssistant]

But it isn't me, and I don't approve of it. I'm not going to pretend that an asshole who claims to be affiliated with me actually is - he isn't! If you insist on blaming an entire religion for a tiny segment that professes to be affiliated, then don't be surprised when the true believers react to you with denial and disgust.

Exactly!

And, for the record, I believe Sylvia is thinking about the teachings of Christ and the very beginnings of the church. The early Catholic church is really to blame for many of the things that you are accusing all of Christianity for. I personally do not identify with a denomination or attend services (I am considering Unitarian Universalism, though). My relationship with God is personal...and I think he understands that I need sleeeep on Sundays.

Many of the beliefs held by Southern Baptists are misogynistic, that I will grant you. For example, women are not allowed to preach in church or be deacons. They are allowed to testify, witness, sing, etc. (I attended Southern Baptist churches growing up.) But that is a very small part of the sermons I attended. And believe me when I tell you that women are a very big part of that church - and many I know are very independently minded, strong women. I don't believe in many of the doctrines that the Southern Baptist leadership encourages, but, the core beliefs of salvation and baptism I do believe in. I feel that the other 'stuff' is less important and away from Christ's intentions.

I mean, I don't say "All pagans make animal sacrifices" or "All Wiccans drink blood" or anything else similarly ridiculous. I wouldn't. And all I ask is for the same consideration. Don't lump me in with Phelps or Jim Jones or any other radical nutjob. That's like lumping Mormons in with polygamist cults. I detest Phelps and his teachings and followers, but, in this country, he and his group have the right to believe and preach as they wish.

[Slytovhand]

All Wiccans drink blood

Actually, NO wiccans drink blood. There may be other groups that outsiders might 'call' wiccan, but their crede wouldnt' allow for it.

I partly agree, and also partly disagree, with some of what's shown up here.

Yes, I agree that when you introduce yourself , you shouldn't have to automatically caveat or qualify your beliefs by referring to others. After all, I'm pagan and I don't feel strongly inclined to qualify my beliefs with "But I don't go sacrificing goats the way the Romans did, nor bulls like Mithraists, nor...." etc.

But, by the same token, if there is a lot out there that is seriously bad for the religion, I think they should be very publicly eschewed. We had this issue not long ago. A person calling himself a witch (and druid) was done for doing things he shouldn't have been to a couple of young girls, and in the 'name' of his religion. The various pagan groups issued public statements saying just how he didn't even remotely characterise the general pagan flock. And for that matter, when he's shown up in the media (he keeps getting into it!) we keep issuing those public statements.

As for drawing comparisons with various acts or beliefs.... if they're there to be made.....

[Boozy]

From there, it becomes easy to believe that Fred Phelps is representative of the Christian viewpoint. If he's not, start denouncing him loud and long. Start telling people he does not represent you.

I refuse to accept that the onus is on the victims of prejudice to correct it.

Let's turn this around, and use an example from Islam (as Sylvia has briefly already). Let's say that I believe all Muslims are terrorists. This is small-minded, ignorant, and illogical. There is a wealth of information at my fingertips that would relieve me of this misconception, but I choose to ignore it because I prefer to see the world in black-and-white.

And yet you're saying that the Muslim community in every city should come forward and publicly announce that they are not terrorists? That a Muslim man or woman should introduce themselves as "Muslim, but not a terrorist"? This would be deeply insulting to most Muslims, and would give weight to my ridiculous prejudice, implying that there is some reason other than my own bigotry for believing what I do.

[Slytovhand]

How about "I'm an American, but I'm not a complete nutjob who is racist and believes in invading other nations willy-nilly - God Bless us all!"?

Anyone see anything wrong with that statement?????

[anriana]

How about "I'm an American, but I'm not a complete nutjob who is racist and believes in invading other nations willy-nilly - God Bless us all!"?

Anyone see anything wrong with that statement?????

The last four words?

[Rapscallion]

I refuse to accept that the onus is on the victims of prejudice to correct it.

If not them, then who? If the moderates don't speak up to condemn the extremists and explain the real story of the majority, then who will?

If that information isn't presented, it won't be heard. Most people are too lazy to do the research. Never underestimate how idle people are.

Of course, the problem is that it won't be heard anyway, as the average sensationalist publication won't be willing to put, "We're actually all rather nice," on the front page when Phelps and his clan are chanting, "Down with fags," in Times Square.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

Honestly, the best way to deal with people like Phelps & Co. is the same way to deal with screaming toddlers or internet trolls. Ignore them. Let them shout and carry signs and protest to their little hearts content. If the media would ignore them, then the whole thing would fizzle out. Other Christians condemning them just adds fuel to their fire, in a "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" kind of way.

The Freedom Rides are great, because it drowns out their nonsense, but doesn't give them the attention they so desperately need.

[Sylvia727]

Having been dragged to church for 15 years, read the Bible, and studied the origions of Christianity, that is not at all what I would consider the religion to be founded on.

And, for the record, I believe Sylvia is thinking about the teachings of Christ and the very beginnings of the church.

Yes, I meant the actual preachings of Christ, not the teachings of the church, early or current. Christ's messages were full of hope and tolerance. One of the most controversial things he said was to accept the Gentiles as equal to the Jews in his new religion. The racists of two millenia ago were about as happy with this proclamation then as modern racists would be (and are) now. I think Douglas Adams summed it up quite well: "nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change".

If you're not going to make sure that people know how you feel about these groups, don't be surprised when the true non-believers react to your entire religion with denial and disgust.

I'm not surprised, just sad. I suppose my failure lies in assuming that people are intelligent enough to think for themselves, and to realize that just because someone says he's something, doesn't mean he is. As for myself, when I find myself conversing with someone who does believe the stereotypes about different groups, who doesn't care to make the effort of basic research, and who shrugs my comments off as "PC" or "feel-good", then I walk away. I don't have so much time on my hands that I can afford to waste on it on the willfully ignorant.

Fortunately, I've found that most people are intelligent enough to change their thought processes. With one or two simple sentences, I've trained half a dozen people to say "radical Islam" or "jihadists" instead of "Muslims". I'm not a Muslim, and I have no investment in their community. I put the same effort into correcting misapprehensions about them that I do into correcting misapprehensions about any other religion, including my own religious beliefs. Just because I happen to believe something doesn't make me a spokesperson for or a teacher of that belief.

As I've said before, if the conversation turns to the wacko nutjobs, then I'll make my opinions heard clearly. But if the conversation is about my personal religion, I don't feel the need to clarify what I am not, merely what I am. For example, when introducing oneself as an atheist, one of the keywords one will trigger in the minds of religious people (at least around here) is "disrespectful". You can see people's attitudes click over into defensive. Past experience has taught them that anyone introducing himself as an atheist is here to attack their religious beliefs. The best way for atheists to overcome the subtle stereotypes about their community is to behave respectfully. To stand as a good example of what atheists are and are not. To say, "I'm an atheist, but I respect your right to believe whatever you want" is just plain silly. Where does the list end, anyway? "I'm a pagan, but I don't do A, B, or C and I'm not a member of D, E, or F, and really I believe G and H..."

[AdminAssistant]

But if the conversation is about my personal religion, I don't feel the need to clarify what I am not, merely what I am.

One of my favorite quotes:

"I'm not a 'non-smoker'. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, but I'm not a 'non-smoker'. Know why? Because I don't define myself based on shit I don't do!" - Hal Sparks, Escape from Halcatraz

[Jadedcarguy]

To say, "I'm an atheist, but I respect your right to believe whatever you want" is just plain silly.

Really? I am an atheist, and I do respect your right to believe in whatever you want. What's silly about that?

Would you prefer I disrespect you and say you can't believe in what you do or that you must believe what I do?

If I said I was a Baptist but you can believe whatever you want would that be silly? Or maybe I am Catholic, but you can believe whatever you want. Where is the line drawn where I become silly?

[Jadedcarguy]

One of my favorite quotes:

"I'm not a 'non-smoker'. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, but I'm not a 'non-smoker'. Know why? Because I don't define myself based on shit I don't do!" - Hal Sparks, Escape from Halcatraz

How about this, then:

I'M A FUCKING ATHEIST. I DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU DO.

I used to smoke, now I don't. That makes me a non-smoker. I used to believe, now I don't. That makes me a non-believer.

I've never been sky-diving or gone bungee jumping either, so that would make me a non-skydiver and a non-bungee jumper.

I refute your analogy with this: You're a non-atheist! Silly. :p

[Pedersen]

And, for the record, I believe Sylvia is thinking about the teachings of Christ and the very beginnings of the church. The early Catholic church is really to blame for many of the things that you are accusing all of Christianity for. I personally do not identify with a denomination or attend services (I am considering Unitarian Universalism, though). My relationship with God is personal...and I think he understands that I need sleeeep on Sundays.

What I'm accusing all of Christianity of doing is failing to denounce those nutjobs that are coming to represent it.

Phelps' clan is just one example. Christian Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism) is very much alive and well, thank you. These are people who are out there. For outsiders looking at Christianity, these people are coming to represent the face of Christianity. Add in groups like Joel's Army, Dominionism, Branch Davidians, Nuremberg Files (http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/nuremberg/aborts.html), etc, etc. These are extremists, all of them. However, the non-extremists do not denounce them. You do not hear about church leaders saying "These groups call themselves Christians, but they are not our brethren." You do not read "These so-called Christians are an affront to the teachings of Jesus, and they deserve both worldly punishment and judgment by the Almighty." in the papers.

It's not being said. I've even spoken with too many Christians who not only won't denounce these other groups, but actually hope these other groups succeed in their goals.

Blame it all on the Catholic church if you wish. They're a convenient scapegoat. But, someday, you're going to realize that the rest of the world is judging, not by the Catholic church, but by the actions and statements of the extremists and the nutjobs. And, since you're not trying to denounce them, the rest of the world can only believe that you are at least a closet sympathizer.

The same thing has happened to Islam and the Muslims. The majority of the practitioners do not want to kill all non-believers. But the ones that do are so vocal, and the ones that do not are so quiet, that Islam is being judged by the actions and words of the vocal minority. Is it fair? No. Does it suck? Yes.

Welcome to humanity. Good luck getting over that so that you can work on addressing a very serious problem being faced by the followers of your faith.

That's like lumping Mormons in with polygamist cults.

You mean the same Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which states on their page about polygamy (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/polygamy-latter-day-saints-and-the-practice-of-plural-marriage):

Today, the practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in the Church, as it has been for over 100 years.


And will also publicly denounce any offshoot group which practices polygamy?

That Mormon church? Go figure, they're making a concerted effort to tell people that they actively disapprove of the practice. Just like I said for Christians to do about the nutjobs. That's just damned odd that they would do something which is so obviously so patently offensive. Wonder why they do that?

I detest Phelps and his teachings and followers, but, in this country, he and his group have the right to believe and preach as they wish.

They have the right to preach as they wish, no argument there. I personally hold the right to free speech to be the single most important right we have in this country. As such, I will even defend Phelps' clan speaking their hateful message. So, why aren't these other churches more actively exercising their right to free speech, and saying how much they disapprove of this sort of behavior?

Is it because they actually agree with Phelps? If not, why aren't they speaking up and saying the man is wrong?

How about "I'm an American, but I'm not a complete nutjob who is racist and believes in invading other nations willy-nilly - God Bless us all!"?

Anyone see anything wrong with that statement?????

Actually, I don't. I am an American. And I vehemently and vociferously disagree with the policies and actions of a great many of my fellow countrymen. They make me ashamed to call myself an American for so many reasons. Go and check elsewhere, you'll see I've said similar on numerous occasions.

The only thing that I find wrong with the statement is the need to say it. It shows how far my country has fallen in the world thanks to my fellow Americans. That the need is there is a cause for both distress and sadness. But the need is there, nonetheless. So, I deal with it.

Honestly, the best way to deal with people like Phelps & Co. is the same way to deal with screaming toddlers or internet trolls. Ignore them. Let them shout and carry signs and protest to their little hearts content. If the media would ignore them, then the whole thing would fizzle out. Other Christians condemning them just adds fuel to their fire, in a "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" kind of way.

Yep, just like schoolyard bullies will all back down if you just ignore them. Too bad that tactic doesn't work. And if they want to scream about being repressed? Let them. The other denominations should denounce them. The other denominations should be reminding everybody that Phelps's teachings are not their own. But they don't. Their silence speaks volumes about their true opinions.

I'm not surprised, just sad. I suppose my failure lies in assuming that people are intelligent enough to think for themselves, and to realize that just because someone says he's something, doesn't mean he is.

The only time that people are able to find these things out before hand is through prior exposure of some variety. For instance, suppose we were to transplant someone from one of the uncontacted native tribes in the Amazon basin to right next to Phelps' church, and (somehow) give him the ability to understand English without giving him any of our other prejudices. He meets the congregation. What will he think Christians are?

Same guy, watching TV. Gets to the news, where they're talking about Phelps' church. He hears lots of noise from people who don't like Phelps, but not one of them claims to be Christian. Now what does he think of Christians?

Same guy, same news channel, same sort of report, different day: Leaders from three other denominations pop up and say "Phelps says he is a Christian, but no true Christian would behave this way." Now what does this guy think?

Phelps and the other extremists are becoming the face and voice of your religion. If you don't want that, you have to stop it now. Hence why I said to speak up.

With one or two simple sentences, I've trained half a dozen people to say "radical Islam" or "jihadists" instead of "Muslims".
As I've said before, if the conversation turns to the wacko nutjobs, then I'll make my opinions heard clearly.

And here I see you are doing your part. I'm glad of that.

But if the conversation is about my personal religion, I don't feel the need to clarify what I am not, merely what I am.

Unfortunately, what you are not is becoming important. I'd ackowledge that if I were you. Failure to do so could make more problems for you later on.

[Sylvia727]

Really? I am an atheist, and I do respect your right to believe in whatever you want. What's silly about that?


The silly part is that you don't have to say that. You respecting my rights has nothing to do with your religion. Drawing a connection between the two is silly. I can meet five people on the street, of five different religious persuasions, and reasonably expect that none of them will behave like assholes, no matter what religion they introduce themself as.

If I were to meet you in person, and you mentioned that you were an atheist, there would be no need for you to clarify that you were not inclined to disrespect.

ETA: Beaten to the post by Pedersen

What I'm accusing all of Christianity of doing is failing to denounce those nutjobs that are coming to represent it. <snip> However, the non-extremists do not denounce them. You do not hear about church leaders saying "These groups call themselves Christians, but they are not our brethren." You do not read "These so-called Christians are an affront to the teachings of Jesus, and they deserve both worldly punishment and judgment by the Almighty." in the papers.

I'm not a church leader. Newspapers aren't going to print what I say. What do you suggest?

Phelps and the other extremists are becoming the face and voice of your religion.

Just to clarify, I am not a Christian. I may have used the first person pronoun in regards to Christianity, but I promise it was hypothetical. Your "your" here might be plural, of course, but I just wanted to prevent any misunderstandings.

Unfortunately, what you are not is becoming important. I'd ackowledge that if I were you. Failure to do so could make more problems for you later on.

It could and does cause problems for me. But it's not my fault people make assumptions about me. I answer questions fully and honestly, but I won't go out of my way to emphasize the negative. I feel that would be demeaning myself.

[Pedersen]

If I were to meet you in person, and you mentioned that you were an atheist, there would be no need for you to clarify that you were not inclined to disrespect.

Sylvia727, your own words earlier give lie to this statement. Quoted for your (and others) benefit:

For example, when introducing oneself as an atheist, one of the keywords one will trigger in the minds of religious people (at least around here) is "disrespectful". You can see people's attitudes click over into defensive. Past experience has taught them that anyone introducing himself as an atheist is here to attack their religious beliefs.

Apparently there is a need for JadedCarGuy to state his respect for your beliefs.

[Sylvia727]

Pedersen,

But why make an issue out of it? Yes, some of the people an atheist meets may make assumptions about him based on his beliefs. But they'll also make assumptions based on his clothing, his car, his politics. That's just human nature. By prematurely jumping to the defensive, he merely creates a stronger connection between the two in the mind of the bigot. A better way to overturn the stereotypes is to live the opposite.

Again, if the conversation turns to it, make your opinions known. But as Boozy said, the onus of responsibility is not on the victims to overturn prejudice. People are responsible for their own beliefs, no one else's.

[Boozy]

If not them, then who? If the moderates don't speak up to condemn the extremists and explain the real story of the majority, then who will?

Anyone. Anyone with an interest in public education and promoting truth and tolerance. Anyone who wants to correct the misconceptions of the small-minded should do so, and I applaud them for taking on such a daunting task. Some of these people may be members of the group being misjudged, and others may not.

But if someone wants to keep their head down, mind their own business, and believe in Allah/Christ/whatever, I'm going to let them. I'm not inclined to fault them for not being vocal activists for religious tolerance, just because some nut jobs they've never met claim to be connected to them in some way.

[Slytovhand]

Sorry Sylvia, cop out!!

But as Boozy said, the onus of responsibility is not on the victims to overturn prejudice. People are responsible for their own beliefs, no one else's.

So... who does?

Humans are responsible for humanity - not just the ones we happen to like or agree with.

Do we just sit back and watch other people get oppressed because 'they aren't our lot, so we don't have to interfere'? That's pretty much summed up the world's attitude for decades everytime a war has started up somewhere - it's not involving us, so we can safely ignore it.

The 'victims' are the ones needing solidarity and support, and as Pedersen said, the bullies aren't just going to go away because you ignore them. Ignoring them is what keeps them going... it's a tacit way of implying that what they are doing is ok - sanctioned even.

If you keep ramming down their throats that (and I'm being specifically relating to Phelps/Westboro etc as my examples...) what they are sprouting is NOT what Christ was on about, then you just might get them to see the error of their ways.

Are we still on topic??? :p

[AdminAssistant]

the bullies aren't just going to go away because you ignore them. Ignoring them is what keeps them going... it's a tacit way of implying that what they are doing is ok - sanctioned even. If you keep ramming down their throats that (and I'm being specifically relating to Phelps/Westboro etc as my examples...) what they are sprouting is NOT what Christ was on about, then you just might get them to see the error of their ways.

You really think that Fred Phelps or his followers could see the light and change their ways?

Have you ever come across a street preacher? You know, the ones who stand on corners and wave a Bible around and yell that everyone is a sinner? The ones who used to come on campus would specifically target women. If a woman walked by, they'd yell that you were a tramp/hussy/whore because you were wearing jeans or sandals or whatever. They'd yell at guys with long hair. Nutjobs, basically.

When people yelled back at them, they would just say, "How can you know? You are in the hands of Satan! You do not know the Lord our God! You are a vile sinner! *blargity blarg*" or "This is how I know I preach the true Gospel! Because vile sinners attack me for spreading the Truth!" It NEVER did any good. Phelps and his group is the same way. And perhaps MANY Christian groups have released statements condemning his actions, but as Raps said, how would we know about it? It's not news. And I can't think of a single denomination that has aligned itself with them.

And, I've personally wasted more time than I like on the topic. I don't ask other groups to caveat their beliefs, and I shouldn't have to either.

[Rapscallion]

Anyone. Anyone with an interest in public education and promoting truth and tolerance. Anyone who wants to correct the misconceptions of the small-minded should do so, and I applaud them for taking on such a daunting task. Some of these people may be members of the group being misjudged, and others may not.


This reminds me of one of my biggest beefs with all the medical information going around these days. One doctor is in the media saying everyone should check for symptom X, and another says symptom Y should be checked for regularly, and of course there's always good old symptom Z. Symptom Z - ooh, that's a real killer.

It's information overload. Just how many things should I research regarding my health? In a similar vein, how many things should I research about the many different religions? I've got a basic grounding, but I don't see why I have any duty to search through a mythology to work out whether they're nice or not, despite my bad experience with one person of their group who happens to be a nutjob.


But if someone wants to keep their head down, mind their own business, and believe in Allah/Christ/whatever, I'm going to let them. I'm not inclined to fault them for not being vocal activists for religious tolerance, just because some nut jobs they've never met claim to be connected to them in some way.

I'm generally happy to go along with this for the rank and file, but the leaders of the various religious groups are the ones with the training, education, experience, and time to condemn the actions of the nutters.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

You really think that Fred Phelps or his followers could see the light and change their ways?

Actually - yes!

Maybe not Phelps himself, but certainly there are other people in those sects who do manage to wake up and see the light. At some stage, something hits their brains that what they are preaching is actually directly opposed to what they are supposed to be preaching.

Not everyone is completely brainwashed... nor are they gone so far that it's not possible to return to sanity.

Ok - Phelps and those up towards the tops of those groups are less likely to, but that's because they've got too much invested in their ego - they have to be right or look really really stupid... and ego's don't like to look stupid.

But you never know! I have faith.....hahahahahahaha :p

You keep asking them enough times "What did Jesus say?" and eventually it may hit.

And no, I don't think you should have to do any caveating - but that wasn't the OP... it was about the nutjob groups, disrespect, and intolerance.

[Sylvia727]

Humans are responsible for humanity - not just the ones we happen to like or agree with.

Yes. Exactly. All humans are responsible for humanity. A Christian and a Muslim are equally responsible for correcting prejedices against Islam. The Christian doesn't get to bow out and say, "well, it's his belief, let him defend it". If a stereotype about a religion is affecting your community, then it's affecting your community, no matter which religion is under attack. If you happen to know that Phelps does not represent Christianity, then you have a duty to correct that misperception wherever you encounter it, regardless of your opinions on Christ and Christianity.