I see nothing wrong with criticizing an ideology that wants to take away my rights, or anyone else's rights.

Condemnation. But I fully understand the desire to vent sometimes, it is so sad to watch our lawmakers pass religious "freedom" laws in a sideways attempt to codify fundy beliefs (or more likely to appease their fundy followers)
And I use the term fundy intentionally. I work with a biblical literalist. She is my boss. There is nothing rational, no grey. It is black and white. Except she parses out bits that don't support her desired belief, and she picks and chooses WHICH bible is the right one. A total fundy, who sees the bible as something to berate and belittle others with, and condem whole classes of people. (Glbt)
I mention that Christian is a Christ follower, has she read the sermon on the mount, she constantly reverts to old testament. Not Christ, at all. Fundy. About as unchristian as one can be. Sorry for venting. Fwiw I use fundy not Christian because I know a lot of good Christians who walk the walk and forgo the self righteous talk.

In fact I sometimes think we mock each other more than we do anyone else.

I dunno, to me it's hypocritical to say or imply that religion is off limits.

Everything--everything--should be open to discussion here.

We should not be open to discussion on the economic benefits of slavery, or racism, or sexism. Do we allow discussion of the advantages of right wing republican ideas? Do we allow David Duke to post here and discuss his viewpoints? Cheney? Shrub? There is a whole section of the Terms of Service of things we will not discuss.

That was rash of me.

There are 1000s of other places where right wing trash is welcome. Like a website with the F.R. initials.

Being open minded doesn't mean your brain should fall off.

Some pretty nasty consequences, in fact...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026093391

Fairly dense read, but will revisit.

Agreed, So should anti-religion.

hold those deeply held beliefs should be.

Attack the message, not the messenger. But all too often that's what any conversation on religion and beliefs devolve into. Let's not get the two confused.

Like I posted downthread:

NO idea is above scrutiny, and no people are beneath dignity. I love that phrase.

Thanks, PeaceNikki! Love your avatar, too.

It was awesome.

"Political ideology" but I think I would have gotten bored after the first 74,000 words.

It didn't see it in a thread of over 100 responses, so I'm afraid I just got bored.

That's ridiculous.

Today in Saudi Arabia a blogger will get his second set of 50 lashes, first set last Friday. His 'crime' was being critical of the religious clerics.
The actual question is this: Do you stand with the blogger being beaten, or do you stand with the man with the whip?
The rest of this discussion is distraction.

Curses!

Yes, sneering at the meddling, repressive, misogynistic Roman Catholic Church, which literally sits on piles of gold, is EXACTLY the same as sneering at the poor and rubbing their faces in it. Same with sneering at the theocratic Saudi royalty who run the show!

You're just too darn smart for us to get away with this anymore!

Then why do it here? I find your avatar to be utterly ironic by the way.

Another issue is that there are religions that are off limits here. There is no way someone could get by satirizing the Jewish faith by using racial stereotypes and isolated cruelty. Could you image a cartoon showing all of the Jewish faithful bombing a family for the heck of it? It would be canned and the poster would be pizza'd in a heart beat.

It is that selective application that proves this hatred to be nothing more than bigotry. If you want to go there, that is ok. For myself as a person who has spent a lifetime as a minority, it just does not seem that attractive.

Confirmed Atheist and Redskin,
Jappleseed.

Bullshit. I am a strong ally of LGBT and women and it's the primary reason why I criticize religion and its barbaric tenets.

Also criticism does not equal "hate" so I reject your framing.

That is for sure.

If I am reading your post correctly you find fighting hate with hate to be a tenet that you follow. Well since there is no hope to change your mind on this, or at least to get you to consider what others are saying then I wish you Peace Nikki.

But your OP is about Criticism, mocking, and satirizing. Not even a cursory mention of constructive criticism just plain criticism.

Anyways hope you find a way to one day give to others what you are demanding of them.

Would you not claim it was because of hate?...and would that post not be banned?

I could give a shit if they 'criticize'. The issue I have stems from the religious trying to push their beliefs into our society and laws.

I don't want ANY religion or any anti religion trying to push their belief into our laws.
But no one here to my knowledge has ever suggested that...and I would bite back if they did.
So this is a straw man.

But there is a double standard at play here...some groups cannot be criticized at all and will be called hate speech, and some can be criticized at will and the posts will never be hidden.

If you want peace then examine your own self first because that is where it starts.

invited to the Inaugural as the official Minister, many member of DU harshly criticized LGBT posters for objecting to the denigrating language of Rick Warren, who had called us all pedophiles the month before. We were told that to object to public insults was 'poutrage' and that we just 'wanted our pony'.
Today, when some stone cold murderers declare that they were 'offended at denigrating language, many members of DU have vast empathy for them and instead of saying it is 'poutrage' to object to denigrating language they say that while they don't condone murder, anyone who insults others should expect a strong reaction....so for the killers, empathy. For denigrated LGBT people, insults and mockery.
That's just the facts. Sorry if they bother you, but the people who taunted LGBT for objecting to insults from religion who are now saying religion has the right to object to insults even with violence are wandering all over the ethical meadows, hither and yon, taking one position with great certainty one day, the opposite position with equal certainty the next.

And yes, that is a double standard. A glaring, homophobia shaped double standard.

As a reason to do it themselves the conversation is over...and only the fight remains.

I was sickened by DUers defending Rick Warren's inclusion in the inagural

I was too, and unfortunately it was mostly the same old members who go around poking sticks in most of the other DU members, but that's a whole other story.



BTW, most of 'those' DU members seem to always be on my block list; just sayin.

posted the equality avatar you have for months! Such hypocrisy is glaringly obvious.

Hate can be expressed in many ways.

'us and them' tropes claim to be 'long time atheists' and such. I have to say, I do not believe that is the case.
I note for example that you snark at the OP's pro equality avatar, but that you yourself don't speak any support for LGBT people or for the equality of women in all things. 'I am an atheist' you say but your rhetoric is divisively religious in nature.

As you correctly observed those claiming an atheist worldview can have the same predilection.

I think the phenomenon we are confronting isn't one of ideology but rather tribalism.

as a pompous, bulbous windbag, with exaggerated ugly features, exploiting his Jewish faith and manipulating religious Israelis for political gain.

Yes, I can easily see that in my mind's eye. For sure...

group.

Liberals are not really supposed to be that way. It is how we are different from the fundies. Naturally it is human nature to want to make fun of the more extreme of them, in return for the things they would say about those not religious. But while they will not tolerate us, we tolerate them. It's one of the main differences. We live and let live. They want to control everyone.

You are correct.

Criticizing is not mocking and most Republicans are quite deserving of mockery.

It's not either/or, and we all decide for ourselves.

If anything, it makes it less deserving of protection from criticism, because there's no basis for the conviction other than "faith" in clearly fictional/made-up nonsense.

I don't see how that is confusing at all.

Also, if someone like, really, really, REALLY believes something religious, like, they double super-duper believe it times infinity, then their belief is the most protected and deserving of respect, like EVER!

So what is the difference here. There has always been religion and few people will go along with the idea it is made up nonsense. I guess it is a matter of societal acceptance - we'd make fun of a cult that thought that Michael Jackson was God, because it has only a few people in it. It's a matter of whether you want to be seen by society as a person who gets along or one who wants to be isolated.

I'm also bigoted against racist asswipes. For example the racist geezer who runs the only gas station in my town opined to me on the day that somebody took a pot shot at the white house a few years ago, that it was too bad the he didn't "kill that n*". Yup, that is what he said. Right out loud. In public. In front of customers. Or actually a former customer. I absolutely won't use his services anymore. Fuck that piece of shit. I am totally bigoted against his sorry racist old ass.

It is because they are intolerant that you are opposing them. Don't give into their claims that they are being discriminated against. They've managed to twist that argument into something if you're going to call yourself a bigot over that.

If not, why not?

When religious people do it, it's ok. Go Pope!

the society did. Primitive societies developed over time roles for the sexes and the religions may reflect that.

We're never going to now as history is full of religions. Yet other institutions limited women, too. Religion isn't alone on that.

And, it's not like religion was made up by humans for the purposes of controlling other humans. No, no, no. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course!

How could I forget that?

speak in our favor. They seek to paint pro gay sentiment as 'blasphemy and racism' because they despise LGBT people. The very same lot who is affecting great 'offense' about cartoons about a religion they do not profess employ plenty of extreme rhetoric around their own issues. They do not hesitate to paint entire groups of people in a negative light, ever.
The folks who spent years telling LGBT people to endure all insults and not 'want a pony' who then declare that some other group must never be criticized AND declare that perhaps criticism of that group does excuse violence are employing a double standard that indicates a total contempt for LGBT people.
People who have defended anti gay rhetoric out of various religious figures, out of Rick Warren (who attacked gay people in vile terms days before all of this Party cheered for him and prayed with him, our new President called the hate speaker 'brother') and the rest of them who now declare that is is always just wrong and terrible to use any form of critical language about others are homophobes and hypocrites.
Because they say we must accept denigrating language out of religion, but religion must never be subjected to the same treatment it gives to others. Because they can find no empathy for insulted gay people but they have floods of empathy for stone cold murderers who claim to be religious.
It's just contempt for LGBT people, pure and simple.

I was one of the most vocal people criticizing the inclusion of Rick Warren in the inauguration - e.g. here and here (as well as an advocate for same gender marriage long before most people on DU jumped on the band wagon e.g. here (one of many times I explained why civil unions were not synonymous with marriage - as the tax follow-up to Windsor proved), and in real life I have been active in the realm of LGBT rights on both the state and national level for 30 years. Our adoption case was the first appellate case in our state, and our marriage is the first in our faith community - two decades ago.

You are way off base when you categorize everyone who is not reciting the "je suis Charlie" meme as having spent years opposing LGBT rights.

It has nothing to do with contempt for LGBT people. I just don't happen to believe that the "je suis Charlie" meme is a constructive response to the murders.

That does not mean I have empathy for the murders - beyond the empathy I have for any human being. It means that I believe part of what is required to be more than just increasingly isolated and polarized tribes with violence a hairs-breadth away is to stop being offensive merely for the sake of offending. The world is a very small place, filled with a multitude of diverse people. We can choose to denigrate and mock others (as people have done to the LGBT community for pretty much forever), or we can choose to try to understand each other and be part of figuring out how to live together peacefully. The latter is, as far as I'm concerned, the more progressive response.

It needs to be mocked to death.

+1000

Wow.

It doesn't accomplish anything. What's lacking among progressives is unity. Mocking doesn't facilitate that.

it is for, and only for, people who share YOUR deeply held beliefs.

DU should be a uniting force to be a counter point to republicans, not an arena where bullies run off people who don't adhere to every single view of one group of posters. The diversity of people on DU is a big part of the appeal of this forum.

To disagree is not the same as mocking and ridiculing someone's beliefs. I have never seen a DU OP that attempted to convert non believers. I have never seen a post where believers ridicule atheists. I have never seen a DU post where believers say it is ok to discriminate against people of color or gays or any other group because of their religion.

To use "freedom of speech" as an excuse to demean others is intellectually dishonest and entirely self-serving.

Why is that acceptable and the same with religion as the subject not?

Equating democrats of faith with conservative ideology is insulting.

Have a nice day.

The offended people of faith in these threads have yet to explain how their support for misogynist, homophobic, racist institutions is somehow not misogynist, homophobic, and racist.

which is EXACTLY why they start the bullshit ATTACKING THE PERSON as opposed to the religion bullshit meme

it's HYPOCRISY AND COWARDICE

I mean shit, let's talk about the Buddhists! I mean, they've done....wait...um...shit, they haven't done anything lately in the name of Buddha.

By the rationale that "faith" or "deeply held beliefs" are not to criticized, then the KKK, NAMBLA, and Nazis cannot be criticized. And I have a deeply held suspicion that the board monitors only really mean THEIR beliefs.

U.N.: Dozens of Muslims massacred by Buddhists in Burma

The United Nations has confirmed that at least 48 Muslims appear to have been killed when Buddhist mobs attacked a village in an isolated corner of western Burma, a massacre that has been the vehemently denied by the government since it was first reported by The Associated Press just over a week ago.

Presidential spokesman Ye Htut said he "strongly objects" to the U.N. claims and that the facts and figures were "totally wrong."

Burma, a predominantly Buddhist nation of 60 million people which is also known as Myanmar, has been grappling with sectarian violence since June 2012.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/

I guess they are assuming that it is driven by religion, but I think they are just using the default because the majority of the population is Buddhist. If they had shouted verses from a book or a rallying cry, then I would think it would qualify. But from what I know, there is nothing in Buddhist texts that advocates any kind of violence.

and I can assure you I don't endorse misogyny or homophobia. Some religious organizations, and certainly many individuals who are members of religious organizations, do support such offensive positions, but that doesn't describe all people who are religious. Just as some atheists are bigots and racists, those terms should not be used to describe all atheists. Not all people of faith are associated with a organized congregation at all. To hold all people of faith accountable for every asinine statement made by some religious leader is ludicrous; we don't make all DUers justify the rantings of trolls who become members of DU.

When the all-knowing DUers mock all religion, they are demeaning a vast number of people who earnestly try to follow the teachings of the prophet or Christ in whichever "good book" best defines their faith, and who work within their religion to achieve a culture that is compatible with liberal and progressive ideals. Jimmy Carter is a very good example.

imo, mocking people because they believe in a deity does not reflect progressive values but is simply verbal harassment. If that is what it takes to make some people feel vastly superior, then I guess DU will become just another place where bullying is accepted.

I am not including you as a bully, Skittles. I know you only beat up people who genuinely deserve a thrashing.

so please cease with that meme

I am not attacking the religious - I am attacking the ridiculous idea that religion and faith should be free from criticism, end of story

or ridiculing.

DU circled the wagons to defend the folks who said things like 'gays are like pedophiles' and 'this is way, gays are trying to kill our children'. Many people here subjected LGBT people to extreme ridicule for objecting to that denigrating language and the endorsement of it by this Party. Our objections to being denigrated were mocked as 'poutrage' and 'wanting a pony' and 'wanting a fabulous pink pony'.
For objecting to being denigrated and called criminals, we were ridiculed by those who felt religion should have the right to denigrate us. 'It's just Church talk' one DU poster told me 'get over it'.

Extremely eye-opening. And, well, honestly - disgusting. Servile.

It is indifference that does real damage imo, not mocking.

It's a far too common error to assume that being mocked is a badge of honor, a sign that the mockers are wrong and the mocked are right.

There is much that is mocked that wholeheartedly deserves it.

So easy it should be a crime. NEXT.

The important lesson is to leap to no conclusions at all based on the simple question of whether one is or isn't being mocked.

Certainly you can be overly sensitive and fail to defend what's right in the face of mockery, but it is also far too common to dig in and double down and miss valid points of criticism. Make no mistake mockery often does carry a valid message, and its shock value can offer more insight at times than gentle, patient explanations.

Even if mockery doesn't directly change the minds of those who have dug in on what's being mocked, it often creates an environment (for better or worse) where those who haven't taken up the mocked viewpoint are less likely to do so.

I'm pretty certain that the huge swing in public attitudes toward gay rights and gay marriage has been made not through careful argumentation and logic for the most part, but through emotional appeals and by making bigots look like idiots.

Oops, is saying amen blasphemous? Probably. Okay, then . . . Amen!!!

Go Pack!!
B

Insulting people for their religious faith lumps everyone into one convenient group to skewer. In reality, people and groups are not so homogenous.

Atheism is a belief system the same as theism. And I'll tell anyone who mocks others' beliefs the same thing I tell religious zealots: you have no proof of life-after-death, so why are you so close-minded?

The straw man argument is in full force here: "...why is it taboo." It is not "taboo", it is just bad manners. Which doesn't matter to some, and I can respect that. But if you want to be taken seriously, separate religion from politics.

Politicians who try to govern and prosthelyze constituents are idiots. But the shared belief of DUers is for progressive and democratic policies that enlighten and advance a society, not a shared belief that spiritual beliefs are the enemy.

Stay on the "offense" of promoting progressive ideas DUers, playing "defense" against the zillions of flawed belief systems is a perpetually unwinnable battle.

Until then, it's on.

Btw, I wondered why that poster is even lurking here.

PeaceNikki --

As I posted in Nance's thread:

Religion is a set of ideas and ideas should never be immune from mocking and ridicule.

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

And murder.

Sid

Never say never!

Isn't it one of the Signs of the Apocalypse?

believe are destroying America.

I don't deliberately avoid mocking religions. I just don't have a serious beef with any of them.

Here at DU, all of us who are here genuinely (and not as trolls) lie somewhere on the left side of the political spectrum.

But ideally, religion is in a completely different sphere than politics. Or at least it ought to be (despite some of the best efforts who seek to blend the two). We've got Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Hindus, Universalists, Agnostics and Atheists here at DU, as well as countless other belief systems. And the people who subscribe to those beliefs have strongly held reasons for their beliefs.

But this is first and foremost a political website, and not a religious website. Or a sports website. Or a music appreciation website. And mocking people's deeply held beliefs is a pretty big distraction and an unnecessarily divisive matter that detracts from the overall purpose of this primarily political website, not adds to it.

Honestly, what good is gained out of that type of behavior here? I just don't see it. Why create schisms where they ought not exist?

Gay marriage, for example, may be a political matter, but we cannot pretend that the animus against it is not religiously derived. So it is with a whole host of issues, from abortion and women's rights to the environment and science to clarion calls by Republicans about liberal godlessness. "San Francisco values!" the religiously inclined declared.

Religion and politics are so intermarried, we had to go out of our way to create a Constitution specifically designed to separate them. And even then, it never entirely took.

But the criticism in those instances ought not to be directed at the religion itself, but instead only those who seek to bring it into the same playing field.

You can be critical of people who falsely insist that we must be a "Christian Nation" without attacking the Christian belief system itself. All it takes is a little nuance. Unfortunately, some people lack such nuance, even here at DU.

And so in order to show why the policies should be invalid, the religion necessarily incurs similar invalidation. When religious belief holds the power and creates the foundation for political ideology, it is by default a necessary object to attack when attempting to defeat those policies.

When your political policy is based on what God wants, there's little recourse but to point out how ridiculous God is.

And I say this as an utterly indifferent agnostic. I don't hate religion or the religious. My family is very Catholic. But, you know, when shit goes down, shit needs to be said.

the animus against Gay Rights by atheistic communist regimes like those

in Cuba and the formerly communist Russia?..Their records on Gay Rights are

much worse than the more "religious" US and Europe.

Russia is not a massively atheistic nation. The government may have attempted to scrub religion from itself officially, but the people themselves still cleave to the Orthodox Church as a national symbol and a vehicle of political power. If you're an opportunistic politician, you will exploit the hell out of that. It's a squicky place where it doesn't seem very religious on the surface (something like a third only identify as very religious), but scratch it and you'll find all kinds of weird strings still being yanked about by the church.

Similar in Cuba. There is a reason the Pope inserted himself into the recent deal between the administration and Castro.

But even if it weren't religion, religion is a major expression of tribalism. Any minority is subject to attack on account of it. Remove religion, and people will find other reasons to hate the Other. It's baked into our flawed human cake.

Outside of race/ethnicity, I'd say the second biggest expression of tribalism in our world is religion.

I think the Russians and Cubans would disagree mightily with that

statement.

You did better with your last sentence in which you pointed the finger at

"tribalism" which is closer to "culture" and much closer to the truth, I'd say.

It's actually a really interesting subject. I spent a little time poring through it when the homophobia in Russia really ramped up, because I also always thought of the place as fairly irreligious. But the play between the Church, Stalinism, and public religious belief is a strange and unique blend. Really, uniquely Russian.

And what people need to keep in mind is that the thing we are all against here is INTOLERANCE. And unfortunately, oftentimes the extreme fringes of many religions practice intolerance. So as liberal minded people it's not always useful to condemn entire religions, when what you are fighting is just a particular ugly faction of a religion.