They get all grumpy and angry!

I wish that there were more voices like yours on this subject.

Do you think a cartoon showing a child being eaten should be published? Do you think the KKK should be able to promote their ideas freely?

I have no idea where anyone came up with the idea that free speech is absolute. It never has been.

I suppose those who lean Libertarian think that but it's not how our society functions.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

"Do you think a cartoon showing a child being eaten should be published? Do you think the KKK should be able to promote their ideas freely? "

I absolutely believe that people have the right to publish and express garbage like that. It should be condemned, maligned, and ridiculed by decent people, but those people have the right to publish their tripe. The courts have consistently ruled this way.

If you can restrict their speech, you can bet that someone will come along to restrict yours.

Just trying to pinpoint the area where free speech and law come into conflict.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

Mockery, not so clearly criminal. http://m.

But there are laws preventing that type of publication from being widely disseminated.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

If they decide they don't want to stock magazines that they think would upset their customers then they don't have to stock them. That doesn't mean the magazines are having their free speech violated.

1) The Supreme Court has held that pornography can be restricted. Child pornography is clearly illegal.

2) Materials that explicitly encourage or call for someone to commit a criminal act, cross the line from speech or expression to action. A Klan magazine that called for hooded idiots to go out and kill minorities is not speech, it is a criminal action. A NAMBLA magazine that told someone how to seduce little boys is obviously also a criminal action.

So they get away with existing. But I would have no problem outlawing them altogether and I suspect most would agree.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

no argument from me if it is banned.

I saw a reference that Bill Clinton outlawed them at the federal level but I don't know if that's true or what it might mean.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

Look Alike Association?

The grocery store would likely pull the magazine once they started losing money.

Who would you have decide what can and can't be published?

We have laws regarding the publishing of pornography. We have laws against public nudity. Gambling is regulated. The flow of money to politicians is regulated. Doesn't all of that fall, to some extent, in the area of free speech?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

And it is in fact how our society functions. Abortion protesters routinely show pictures of dead fetuses on public streets. The KKK's right to protest has been defended by the ACLU, as it should be.

But we have libel laws. We have laws against incitement. Obscenity. Defamation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

Surely you are familiar with Jonathan Swift's classic "A Modest Proposal," which infuriated many who "didn't get it" when it was published.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

..."I have no idea where anyone came up with the idea that free speech is absolute." Short answer: The Enlightenment! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

And plastered on a front page somewhere. But I think it's interesting that free speech is not now absolute yet some think it should be. I see it as an over-reaction to Paris.

There are all sorts of limitations on free speech today in America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

Starting with libel laws.

I just think it's all...interesting.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

And I always wonder why folks who are all hot to restrict speech that bothers them always seem utterly apathetic to speech that attacks, degrades and insults gay people. Such denigrating speech flows like a mighty river of hate out of houses of worship, clerical mouths, religious broadcasting and yet what I hear is always about protecting THEM from being criticized for doing so. Hard to see that as anything but hypocrisy.

And we've been good with that for a long time. And most of the rest of the world does not adhere to freedom of speech on the American scale.

Although it's particularly hypocritical that the Parisian killers thought their 'country of origin' rights should trump the rights of those who live in France as they did.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

hurls at others. Always talking about limiting artistic and political expression, with the clear implication that religion would remain free to speak horrific lies about anyone they wanted. Hypocrisy.

Everyone has the right to be angry. I think it's easier to restrict speech that has an actual chance of inciting people to violence or to commit other illegal acts.

Europe has laws against Holocaust denial. (I don't think America does, does it?)

I'm not at all trying to 'defend' language designed to harm someone or some group. But I also think it's a long game we play, 'allowing' such hateful speech while at the same time, society starts to move away from it.

It's similar to how I treat my daughters. If I were to strictly forbid certain things, they would be likely to harden their stance against me and seek out the very behaviors I try to warn them against.

Is there a similar dynamic to allow hate speech until it withers away of its own accord? I don't know.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

while when asked about denigrating expression couched in religious terms directed at other groups you get a bit ponderous. And that's the point. If 'insulting others' is so very wrong, why is religion so often engaged in extremely insulting attacks on LGBT people and even other faith groups?
Or is it just 'we get special rules and we get to call you hell bound pig dogs and you have to smile and call us holy'?

You raise good questions and I'll need to think on that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

We ought to be as free to make fun of religious ideologies as political ones. That is my point.

They have laws in place restricting Holocaust denial, Antisemitism, etc. It would be impossible for a government to pre-approve every editorial and yet there are mechanisms in place to restrict SOME free speech that has nothing to do with religion.

France is not America. She has her own way of looking at free speech.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

When South Park wanted to air a cartoon image of Mohammed they were prevented for doing so, in spite of the fact that they had aired previous cartoon images of Jesus, Joseph Smith, and various icons of other faiths.

A company can make decisions that a lawmaker or court cannot. I'd prefer that executives stand up for what's right but on the other hand I can understand how they might view liability and even safety issues.

Let's face it, some of the Muslim terrorists are simply crazy. It isn't always easy to understand why but we're not going to talk (or mock) them into being more civil.

A company that elects to protect itself and its employees from those kind of crazies is not stifling free speech, IMO, since that derives from the government, not private entities.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

My broader argument is that people should not feel hesitant to be critical of a philosophy just because that philosophy is a religion.

And when they do, the decision ninety-nine percent of the time comes down to the mother electing to keep the baby, which is not necessarily a real-world outcome.

That's because the studios are afraid of Christian terrorists, as well. (And public boycotts.) I can't say I blame them but it's still a shame.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

I would say that is one of the reasons I think the "Je suis Charlie" message is a powerful one celebrating their bravery and courage for publishing criticism that they know were putting their lives at risk but because they believed in the satire.

The ONLY things that should be prohibited or punished are libel, slander and LEGITIMATELY classified information, with even that being required to be declassified after a short time.

All censorship sucks, all of it.

Deliberately causing physical harm - such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater with the intent to cause panic.

(Note that yelling "fire" isn't sufficient. The government would have to show that the speaker/author intended to cause near-term physical harm to someone. "It made me feel bad" is not physical harm.)

the issue is not whether speech should be free, I believe that it absolutely should be. The issue is whether, just because I am free to say something, should I? I think the two need to be separated.

Should we be free to disparge another's religion/whatever/whatever? Absolutely. Should we do so? Probably not.

Is that enough? I don't know. Europe certainly has different rules regarding free speech than we do.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

Probably really bad for you, but there we are.

a lot of it imho is quite wrong.

That said, there's a big difference between Reagan fans and Muslims, assuming that's what you are talking about. There is a big power difference. Poking at the relatively powerful is very different than provoking the relatively powerless.

How are oil magnates and autocratic dictators 'powerless'? How are the people beating Muslim prisoners with a whip powerless?

mullahs whether they are here or there is not at all what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about carelessly and ignorantly mocking a religion that a lot of normal people around the world take seriously.

Which, in much of the world, is quite powerful and oppressive.

of the group here - a place for democrats to gather. It is easier to fall into such a mindset when you're largely amongst friends. There are conservative forums that do the same thing.

But the more interesting thing (I think) about our society currently is that there are also forums in which it is open - and folks of all political persuasion can participate (eg forums like Discussionist). You might think folks would be less provocative on such a board & perhaps more open and even friendly in an environment like that because it would be more likely to provide an environment for discussion/persuasion. But so far it seems boards like that are even WORSE in terms of fostering discussion. Instead folks choose sides and want to fight.

I don't know what the answer is - how folks can become more open to listen to another point of view. I like to think we could have a society in which folks could work together (socialism if you will) and that looks increasingly unlikely in this country due to the animosity that is generated and encouraged by the folks in charge.

They just parrot what they heard on Fox Lies, or Rush's show, and
that is their reality.

Period.

No critical thinking required.

So we mock them. Do you have a specific point? Also I should point out that expressing idiotic ideas runs from mildly annoying to downright insulting. "Trickle-down economics, my ass!" I may be a fool but not that big of one!

For example:

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6091843

Which you are selling as reality(!), then I may take offense that you would think me such a simpleton and thus I am entitled to offend you back. (Did I mention I'm an atheist and may be even more sensitive to this position than (say) Christians are to theirs!)

That's what I am trying to communicate as well.

The very existence and expostulation of an ideology that denigrates GLBT people is an insult; those ascribing to it should be pariahs every bit as hated as other bad actors in society. Any belief system that wants to have any sort of say in preventing me loving who I wish or creating and promulgating or enjoying any art I wish is NOT to be respected but to be viewed much as a virus or a toxic spill and eliminated.

Do you have any problem with that?

so they resort to mocking the people they disagree with.

If it's about the person, it's ad hominem and not convincing anyway.

People don't try hard enough to zero in on the issue and find the reason they don't agree or the reason they think as they do.

There's a line though. Mocking Palin is one thing. We're never going to respect that person.

But some conservatives, we might be able to talk to, and they won't be convinced because we've informed them they are stupid (I tell them the same thing when they expect me to think I'm simply too dumb to see the value of trickle down economics and the Laffer Curve).

You just now noticed?

Also, smacks of a smug sense of moral superiority.

The vitriol started in one direction 30+ years ago. Don't take a knife to a gunfight.

Although PC can be a powerful political tool, eh?

My argument is that one should feel free to ridicule religious philosophies in much the same way that we feel free to ridicule political ones (namely Republicanism). I may not have made that point clear.

Have you ever watched Pox News? Do you honestly think they respect anyone's opinions but their own? Come on...

While I respect a Republican's right to HAVE an ideology, I am in no way obligated to respect the ideology itself, or the brain-dead moron that expresses it.

The so-called "core principles" of conservatism are anchored in pathological selfishness, and regardless of what that evil pig, Ayn Rand, said, selfishness is NOT a virtue. It is, in fact, the ultimate evil.

So if anyone thinks I'm going to "respect" an ideology that is demonstrably flawed and intentionally malicious, you out you damn mind, son!

Suggesting we ought not to ridicule religions or religious beliefs.

Trickle Down Is A Religion

Ridicule away!!!!!

Outright mockery started when almost half of the voters 'elected' *.

It(mockery) became absolutely necessary in 2004 when those same clueless assholes did it again.

That is the question I am exploring. Can we attack religious philosophies (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc) with the same zeal and via the same methods we do for political ones such as Republican-ism?

Republican ideology?

Gimmee a break.

Republicans are a disease. I don't care if calling right wing lying scum insane traitors
hurts the feelings of said insane traitors.

Calling yourself a Republican these days means you are insane, or you just
hate everything our founding fathers fought and died for. Everything.

In a perfect world, every single Republican would be locked up in an asylum. Why?
Because their tiny pea brains can not accept facts, or reality, which contradict
every thing they think about every thing in the world. They shut out reality. Won't
listen to any opposing ideas because they have to believe everything Rush told them
100% or their entire psyche will collapse in ruin. If they don't parrot Rush's lies they
will instantly become babbling, drooling zombies. I mean even more than they are
now.....

For instance:

Global warming is a hoax.
Not taxing billionaires makes money trickle down to the poor, and working Americans.
The world is 6,000 years old. That is a good one psycho.
Cutting taxes increases government revenue in every case. Sure buddy.
Hillary ordered the Benghazi attack herself. Riiiiight.
We attacked Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and they were all took to Syria.

The list of the bs that Fox Lies (and CNBC) puts in the heads of "Republicans" would
make anyone living in the real world, and demanding there is real evidence
to back up their beliefs wanna puke.

If you call yourself a Republican these days, you are the enemy of mine, my family,
and my country. Every action Republicans in government take is to help the 1%
rob me, and my family, while raping our planet for the profit of the 1%. Every single
economic indicator is pointed in the favor of the billionaires, and the rest of us are
losing ground because of "Republican" ideology.

All you Republicans should leave America and make your own country somewhere
and call it Fuktardistan. You can lie to, and rob each other every second of every
day, and pack guns everywhere you go. You can shoot at each other every time
you get "askered". You can teach your children white christian people
should rule everything, and make all decisions about women's health by legislation.
No gays allowed!!!!!!

The list goes on.

Republicans are a disease.

Period.

One can post freely this sentiment and not be accused of bigotry or unnecessary provocation.

Would you be comfortable with someone making the same comment about Islam or Christianity or Judaism - if they were able to provide evidence to back up such an assertion?

Or is the act of doing so bigoted by definition?

Is the something different about religious philosophies in that regard as opposed to political ones?

If someone degraded "Islam or Christianity or Judaism".

Religion by far does waaaaaay more harm than good. Sorry
to say it. I say it as a true Christian, as in the follower of
Christ's teachings. Feed the hungry, heal the sick, etc. Not
the bs that is being spewed these days about hating gays
and scaring single women who want to wait to have kids.
You know, the ones that were raped by their fathers and
don't want the child.

The main reason we have religion these days is to distract
jerk wads so they don't look around to see who is robbing
them, and telling them what to do, and where to go.

You don't need to go to church to learn to treat
your neighbors nice. To not lie, cheat, and steal at
every opportunity.

After gold, religion is the main reason people
kill each other.

Reality.

From ISIS to the KKK. From the inquisition to the
shooting of doctors.

It's all about power, and nothing else.

Period.

If you can't see it, you are truly blind.

All Facts Support My Positions

Not exactly the same thing nuke.

In my world, reality must be real, and must
change when new information becomes
available......

Them, not so much.....

Who is this we and who are these virtual people that we are hurting that never see our posts? Some people here just cannot stay away from the temptation to be morally superior to everyone else.

Nice job.

They have about the same viewership as the DU front page.

Yet I have seen posts saying that their cartoons were unnecessarily provocative.

My OP was a response to those threads and posters arguing that point.

Why is it some progressives hate free speech and democracy? What is up with that?

I was trying to make precisely the same point you have just made.

Why is it that some folks argue that we should not mock religions in the same way that we freely mock political philosophies?

That was meant to be my point.

Went right over my head it did. Sorry.

This was written fairly early in the morning...

I've just been really frustrated by what I've read here and elsewhere suggesting that the cartoonists were somehow being unnecessarily provocative and ought to have exhibited more restraint. The whole "I am not Charlie" thing.

until they decide something is in 'bad taste' (to them of course) - then they are all against it. The flippancy drives me crazy.

Of course it is a canard, but it is still very true - I might venomously fight with you verbally and disagree with your every post, but I would fight to the death for your right to free speech. Millions have died for our right to insult each other or be polite to each other or just be totally indifferent to each other.

A group of people that write a magazine decided their right to free speech is more important than their own lives. I support that idea.

I could not agree more.

Mock away.

Today's religion is simply brainwashing folks for money and power.

Nothing pious, or "good", or righteous needed.

They are not protesting abortion clinics because they care about
children, when they are voting for people who cut food stamps
and school lunches.

I am not saying "religious people" are evil. They are simply
brainwashed in too many cases about too many things, and
don't give a damn about what Christ, or Muhammad taught.

If your religion isn't 100% about peace, love, and solving the
world's problems for the benefit of all, it is evil.

Politics, religion, society, my drunk uncle at Christmas. Hey if I am in just the right mood, I will mock myself!

are intellectually hampered by their binary thinking.

No human or human institution is "100% about peace, love, and solving the

world's problems for the benefit of all" and it sounds extremely naïve to suggest

they are "evil" if they are not.

To someone who thinks I should go bankrupt if I get sick.
Who thinks it is ok to cut funding for school lunches, and food stamps, after
50,000 American factories have been shuttered in our race to move all
manufacturing to China.
To someone who thinks the MIC should be running our government.

Not that hard to be superior. Not that hard at all.

Someone who hates Women and wants them to die in illegal abortions can take their religious beliefs and shove them and I will mock those people relentlessly

and this

jesus

or that it is OK to mock or is it just an observation that we do mock?

I have read it twice and am confused.

But I can give several quick reasons why some people and ideas deserve mocking. I will offer Louie Gohmert as exhibit A

In particular, I was moved to post by this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6091843

and for me the insane ideas fostered and held sacred by the religious are a wonderful source of satirical material.
Many of those beliefs often lead to harm and even death.

I am just frustrated by reading articles and posts by those who think that Charlie H should have exhibited more restraint and not been so provocative in terms of their cartoons that were perceived by some as exhibited a lack of respect for Islam.

We don't worry about exhibiting a lack of respect for Republicanism here - so why should it be different in response to religious philosophies?

What am I not supposed to do anymore? Have I been doing it wrong?

OP, pls splain it to me like I'm 5. Thx! Seriously. I'm trying to understand you.

denigrating, insulting speakers of anti gay rhetoric, they protected his right to denigrate LGBT people as part of Democratic events. Same people did in fact mock LGBT people for objecting to the hate speech of Warren and others. They taunted us endlessly 'you just want a pink pony' and 'this is just poutrage'.
So when religious people say 'gays are all pedophiles, this is war' LGBT people have always been expected to endure it, vote for it anyway, and when we have objected to being insulted, bad mouthed and shit on, many DU poster mocked us for doing so.
They are hypocrites who despise LGBT people and agree with the religious radical conservatives they seek to protect.
I was stunned to see the same people who lacked all empathy for LGBT people under verbal attack simply brim over with empathy for some stone cold murderers who claim to be religious, 'it's wrong to denigrate anyone' they suddenly claim 'and those who do so should expect a response, I don't condone murder, but.....' They said to us 'it's just Church talk, it's stupid to be offended, just let it roll off your back, times will change eventually'.
Hypocrites

Couldn't agree more.

with simple language who are now saying religious people have a right to react to insults. The hypocrisy and employment of double standards is really disgusting.

"But religion and Islam are different!"

Yeah, you know what's different? All these "respect religion" posters aren't living under it. That's what's different. They are comfortably removed from the consequences of the religion, so they can safely play the morally superior tolerance card with it.

Place them in a system where a religion and ideology actually affects them, and suddenly it's go time.

It's fashionable liberalism, where your belief is easily gained and held because it has zero effect on you whatsoever. You then flash that belief for social approval, and then preen about as if you've done something.

Lord, but the comfortable are an easy spot around these parts.

You are 100% correct. It's comfortable "latte liberalism", disconnected from the real world where millions of people are suffering because of religion, "culture", and other poisonous ideologies.

Where the only thing on offer are condescending lectures to the poor and oppressed about how they should be behaving, thinking, and living. You're just not being very sophisticated and nuanced!

It's a little Edwardian. Pinkies up, people!

Very good points that people seem to be missing.

1. There are very FEW, if any, fans of Ronald Reagan or his political views.
on DU. In contrast, there is a considerable number of DUers who are NOT
atheists and who adhere to some religion.

2. I find it a bit disingenuous to label religion as an "ideology"...Many adherents to a given religion don't accept all of it's teachings. An overwhelming number of American Catholics, for instance, reject the pope's doctrine on birth control. As the group's name tells you, Catholics For Choice does the same with abortion. That being said, they still identify as Catholics.

I view religion, or the lack of such, for that matter, as more a personal thing, which, if it doesn't conflict with one's progressive values, is no one's business.

Another problem with ridiculing religion, on this board, at least, is that the mocking
is HIGHLY selective.

Mockers frequently try to defend themselves by saying they are against ALL religions. Funny thing about that, but I have YET to see anyone mock Judaism, for instance, and if anyone DARES criticize, let alone "mock" Islam, they will be ferociously set upon and berated mightily for their "cultural insensitivity". I have seen it time and again and these are often the SAME people who will viciously mock any and every aspect of Christianity.

The truth is, there really is only ONE religion on DU that appears to be "fair game"
and that's Christianity, even that which is NOT of the Evangelical persuasion.

So you see there's a LOT of bias and hypocrisy regarding the subject here.

Here's my response:

1. While it is true that there are few, if any, fans of Ronald Reagan on DU, I would argue that DUers also would be and are comfortable sharing their disdain for him and other Conservative/Republican icons with the wider world. I believe that the same people who post at DU are also out there on the streets, at rallies, talking to those with whom they disagree and not pulling any punches with respect to their views about right-wingers such as Reagan and others like him. If a DUer were to publish a satirical website or magazine devoted to such mockery and parody of Republicans, I think most DUers would give that a thumbs up and not accuse them of being unnecessarily provocative and disrespectful.

2. I am not sure how it is disingenuous to label religion an ideology any more than it is to label a political philosophy as such. There are many Republicans who don't accept all of the so-called tenets of Republicanism. There are Log Cabin Republicans, for instance, who have very different views about homosexuality than the Moral Majority types. In spite of this, they still very much identify themselves as Republicans.

Religion is a personal thing if someone keeps it personal. Like if someone says, I will not act on my homosexual feelings because I think they are against my religion then that is up to them. But if they say, I don't want anyone else to act on their homosexual feelings, then that is an issue. Or if someone says I refuse to draw any pictures of Mohammed then that is not a problem, but if someone says I don't want anyone drawing any pictures of Mohammed then we have something else.

Reagan's economic policies have hurt millions, if not billions, only
for the benefit of the few.

If you don't believe me, read Stockman's book.

Reagan turned Americans against each other. Trying to convince us to
blame "welfare queens" for our problems.

Trying to have us blame "government" (of the people, by the people,
and for the people) for our problems.

Ronnie, government isn't the problem. Electing traitors like you, and you and
your buddies helping your rich friends rob us for their benefit, and using the
government to rob us is the problem.

I blame Ronnie more than anyone for the fact that we are now an oligarchy.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy

He did more harm in 8 years than was imaginable up until then, and then W compounded all of that.

1970's we saw a decline in manufacturing jobs due to automation and outsourcing, then Reagan came along and made it profitable to destroy American jobs and the American economy, all in the name of making sure the one percent became as wealthy as possible.

I'd say that DUers of faith are a lot more likely to "keep it personal" than atheists here.

As to the wider world, the US has this thing called "Separation of Church and State",
and it seems to be working, which is a GOOD thing, so why all the gratuitous
ridicule and insult?

Any comments on the "selectivity" of the religion bashing?

My issue is not with DU-ers of faith or anyone of faith really. It's with DU-ers who say we ought not to make fun of religious beliefs in the same way that we make fun of political ones. I saw posts like that in response to the Charlie H murders - with people posting articles saying "I am not Charlie" and implying that the magazine did something wrong and/or needlessly provocative via its cartoons. I find it especially galling that people can claim that the current cover of the magazine is somehow offensive or provocative. It appears that some folks are protective of Islam in a way that they would never be with respect to Republicanism.

Regarding the selectivity of religion bashing at DU, I don't know that I've read enough threads to be able to make any kind of assertions on that score. I have observed that folks feel pretty free to "have at it" with respect to Christianity.

thing. That is hypocrisy and gross self indulgence. It would be different if the Church did not seek to impose their doctrines on others and into the laws, but the Church does that. So members who just do as they please while lending legitimacy and numbers to an institution that interferes with others doing as they please is just selfish behavior.
What always stuns me is that 'believers' both declare they are members of a religion then take offense if you assume they actually believe it and practice it. If you declare that you are devoted to a theology that is anti gay, you are a shit head if you act shocked when people assume you hold anti gay views. If you say 'I am a Vegetarian' do not be surprised if people question that statement when you eat a rack of ribs. 'I mean you should be a Vegetarian and the laws should enforce vegetarianism but I myself don't follow that doctrine and it is bigoted that you assume I would practice that which I preach at you.'

So that whole 'but we don't really believe it' excuse is not a positive thing. If they don't practice it, they should stop claiming that they do.

as the name "Catholics for Choice" should tell you.

Not hypocrisy, simply not "black and white" or "all or nothing".

Catholics try to "impose their doctrines on others and into laws"?..Hmm, that

seems more of an Evangelical Protestant thing to me, but to the extent they

DO do that, I'd say they are wrong there, but the major issue is that, try as they may,

neither they nor the Fundies will accomplish that goal because of our constitutional

provision separating Church and State, something in which I STRONGLY believe.

equality advocates. So it is very self serving to claim that it's only those Evangelicals who meddle in politics. The RCC spent tons on Prop 8. Attempting to impose their doctrines onto others and into the law. What do you call all the objections to the ACA and birth control provisions?
To claim the Church does not do those things is massively dishonest.
So that's the thing. 'I'm a member of a club that works against you and our club leaders openly denigrate and insult you and your family, but it is wrong of you to think I support that. Sure the club's rules say people like you are defective and disordered, and I do confirm my belief and stand with the club in public, but how dare you think that I really mean that.'

The fruit a tree bears, that's what sort of tree it is-Jesus.

No?..Wow..What a surprise..Why not pick on them for awhile?..Is there a PROBLEM
with that.

By the way, I'm agnostic and the only "club", I belong to is the one that thinks ridiculing religion for shits and giggles is NON-productive and as "self-indulgent" as schoolyard bullying.

So I'm just going to repeat that it is self serving to claim a very politically active religious organization is not politically active.
Yesterday the 'religion has a right to attack gay people' crowd was saying I only criticize Islam. Today it's 'whey don't you criticize Islam'?

The thing is, these comments are not criticisms of the faiths, but of the hypocritical bullshit spouted by people 'of faith'. Such as claiming one Church that is the most politically active is not at all politically active. Jesus said 'let your yes mean yes, your no mean no, anything more comes from evil'. That means speak the honest truth as directly as you are able to do so. "Catholics try to "impose their doctrines on others and into laws"?..Hmm, that seems more of an Evangelical Protestant thing to me" was your claim. I countered that claim. Then you blamed me for doing so.

Criticizing religions that denigrate my community is not 'for shits and giggles'. To make such a claim is dismissive of what religions do to others. I want rights equal to your own. Shits and giggles indeed.

I doubt you'd really want those

Seriously, though, of course you want equal rights and both of us deserver them!

Feel free to hate me and all the others you claim to be "hypocrites", I know who

I am and am sorry if you've mistaken me for one, just as, it seems, you've

mistaken religion as the source ALL that is biased and bad.

Atheistic communist countries like Cuba, and the formerly communist Russia

have LOUSY records on Gay Rights, so it would appear that all that intolerance does

not stem from just one institution, wouldn't it?

Beyond that, I've said all that I have to say on this matter. I have absolutely

nothing against you and I certainly support your struggle for equal rights.

rights against those who loudly oppose them using denigrating and hateful language toward me? How can you hurl such an accusation with a smiley face attached?
You claimed that it was only Evangelicals that meddle in politics, I countered that with facts which you did not acknowledge, instead you accuse me of 'hate' while you defend a Church that calls me disordered and ramble on about Cuba, of which I have been actively critical for many fucking years. I never, ever said intolerance stems from any one institution, I simply said religion is a huge contributor to denigrating speech toward others and they do so with political activity and that includes the RCC and the Evangelicals and the rest of them.
It's the intolerance itself that I am criticizing and I am doing so honestly and directly. I read your willingness to ignore what I actually say and replace it with characterizations written by you as a bit of disrespect for me as your equal.
And yes, I would like the rights you have as a Straight Person. Sorry if that makes you laugh at me.

You did call me a "hypocrite", though, and no, I did NOT claim it was only Evangelicals,

I said I merely THOUGHT they were *more* to blame than Catholics, I didn't

claim infallibility on the matter, nor did I intend any "disrespect" for you

as an equal.

You seem quite overwrought and though I really do NOT want to put you on

the IL, as I appreciate many of your posts, I'm afraid I will have to if you keep

hounding me.

You make the whole thing personal, about me. But that's ok. It's what you need to do, for whatever reason.