Thank you, onenote.

Just because one finds religion a bit absurd, does not require one to condemn every aspect of it.

and other decorations. i even like carolers.

i like some music from religions . and many other things.

usually what is mocked is the hypocrisy and behavior of certain people.

they must be mocking people who participate in religious rituals or hold religious beliefs.

Nailed it in one.

People can also mock what they want.

Easy peasy.

I wish everyone had that attitude.

No one has the right not to be offended by something in print.

That may be the ideal, but in practise there are no rules, just local custom.

And not for those who criticize the mocking? I see lots of people being called Yes Butters now on DU. Why can't we turn that around? Why does the occurrence of a massacre suddenly mean criticism of mockery isn't allowed?

This Yes Butter is an atheist who escaped the south. I have no problem criticizing religion. I do have a problem with the bullying going on DU since the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Charlie Hebdo shouldn't be immune from criticism, nor should anyone else. People who mock should be prepared to hear from those who don't like it.

Seems to me there is no shortage of voices on these matters. None whatsoever, hm?

Why should the people criticizing the critics be immune to criticism?

No, I don't believe I did.

You said "cant we turn that around", which I would posit is exactly what you're doing.

I was trying to make a point. You removed the sentence before that which makes it clear what I meant.

The only thing that came before the part I quoted was the word "But", which I dont think appreciably changes the meaning at all.

Edit just went back and read and it is not the first sentence. Maybe go back and re read my post and you'll understand it.

So call the other people no butters, then.

i beg to differ.

I didn't see anyone who thought the material justified the response.

Justified the response? No.

Blaming the victim and picking a piss-poor time to demand that religious sensibilities never be offended even in an ostensibly free society? Yes.

For one thing, I saw a lot of posts this bible belt escaping atheist agreed with get categorized the way your last sentence just did. All one has to do is look at those cartoons sideways and immediately get bashed with a Yes But accusation.

I wonder why some people were in such a hurry to look at the cartoons sideways, right after the people who drew them had been killed.

I mean, some people get nasty messages on twitter, and it is supposed to render them immediately immune to all criticism. Like how everyone was supposed to stop criticizing the outraged response to comet guy's lady shirt, because 4chan trolls said nasty things to the woman who started it.

Yet these charlie hebdo folks are actually killed for their expression, and yet in this case victim-blaming or even vicyim CRITICIZING is fine, because "oppression" and "punching up" and "microagressions" etc etc etc

Why were such people in a hurry? I don't think it takes much time for the visual cortex to work its magic. Probably less than a hundredth of a second? Maybe we're talking milliseconds, here. Were they supposed to instantly suppress whatever feelings and thoughts they had and if they didn't that meant they excused the massacre and/or blamed the victim? I don't think so. I especially wouldn't think free speech supporters would think so.

before they act knowing that for action there is a reaction and/or consequences.
'
It's weird that some people seem to think that because you CAN do something, you SHOULD do it.

There is nothing to stop people from doing ANYTHING they want to do. So what is the point of these argumetns? No one disputes the right to be an idiot, what is in dispute is, is it wise to do whatever you want simply because you can?

The consequence of the latter is obvious; what are the potential consequences of the former?

Do you think people shouldn't mock religion, even though they can? Is it unwise to do so? Why?

privilege to the point where mocking them has little if any effect on them, they are in a stable enough situation that mockery is not a threat to them.

Others however, Gays, African Americans and other minorities, people with bad physical deformities can be very hurt by mockery.

A thoughtful person sees the difference and while they may engage in mockery of the first group, would never do so to the second group knowing how harmful it might be to them. Others, eg, might join in and even become physically abusive to the more vulnerable group.

Do you believe that it is okay to mock EVERYONE regardless of how vulnerable they may be?

And of course thoughtful people don't mock people for things they can't control (see: your "second group" above).

People can mock whatever they want, but others don't have to like it - and they can take a stand against it, should they choose.

Is it "ok" to mock those more vulnerable than we are? I wouldn't, but I don't decide for other people. I may even call other people on it when they do it, which is also ok.

thing they believe matters since they may have little else, IS mocking the second group.

Would you try to stop a bully in a schoolyard for verbally assaulting someone who is vulnerable? Or would not 'decide' for that person what they can or cannot do?

Some people cannot take a stand. Abused spouses eg, children.

Personally I would definitely 'decide' for that bully or abusive spouse to the best of my ability and have. I guess I am against free speech but if that's what it means, it's fine with me.

And for good reason: the Holocaust.

So, what holds for civility in regards to Israel and Judaism should also hold for all religions, as well as toward those who do not hold religious views.

Easy peasy back at ya..

Doesn't mean they didn't do some good stuff too.

Wasn't there an atheist or two in MLK's inner circle?

Not seeing a point here.

institutions.

or so many of the good democrats at DU tell us.

but it does make apparent the kind of mentality operating

Obviously I mean society as a whole, not DU. But the point still stands.

"What do DUers that defend mocking religious beliefs think of these pictures?"


•Of all the major racial and ethnic groups in the United States, black Americans are the most likely to report a formal religious affiliation. Even among those blacks who are unaffiliated, three-in-four belong to the "religious unaffiliated" category (that is, they say that religion is either somewhat or very important in their lives), compared with slightly more than one-third of the unaffiliated population overall.

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports


that's ok though, since the democratic party seems to have given up on civil rights and labor too. I guess black americans will have to join the muslims or the republicans since the democrats don't need them anymore.

make it their life's business to legislate and enforce their private religious beliefs upon people who never asked nor wanted them to. And yet, when people (such as on DU) express their frustration or annoyance at this, it's construed as bad-mouthing or even persecuting people of faith.

against calling them on it. but that's not what's happening here.

which the victims object. For a population segment that literally seeks legislation to limit the rights of LGBT people to complain about how LGBT people might answer that aggressive nastiness is about as low as it gets.

that conflates the wingers and fundies with all religious.

Who will believe anything.
They are free to believe anything that they want as long as they quit injuring other people.
You asked me so I am telling you.

Think you can handle it?

I believe religion is bad because it substitutes reality with myth. That some people are able to do good while believing in utter nonsense does not prove anything other than that there are good people in the world. They would still be good people without religion. There would also be bad people without religion. The problem is that there would be good people if religion didn't corrupt their mind and replace reason with bullshit. It's those marginal people that religion fucks up. It's also religion that gives some people power over others that they wouldn't normally have. Remove religion from the world and a multitude of problems would disappear. The good would remain.

This was meant as a reply to the OP. I pushed the wrong button.

why would you think so? you think people hate others and wish to degrade them simply because they suffer from a lack of reason?

and religion gives people power over others? in what sense? most people have absolutely no power over anyone, but are rather manipulated by the powerful.

That should be self evident. That's pretty much the definition of mental illness. And yes, religion gives people power over others. The Pope is said to be infallible. Even the local preacher guides his flock. That's where the hate towards gays flows from. People are told to hate gays because it says so in the bible. It's easy to go against the government, but not God.

By making laws that reflect religion. By making religion seem important and should be respected. All the while they skate on our dime spewing hate. People ARE manipulated by religion. What chance does an Atheist stand running for President? That's ALL they'll talk about throughout the campaign. Do you want a President who doesn't believe in God? They'll shame those who would vote for that candidate. Also the power to avoid going to jail for moving pedophiles. That's power over others.

the STATE and its MILITARY do.

Yes, people are manipulated through religion. By those who control the STATE.

If atheism became an officially sanctioned ideology, it would give people exactly the same power over people that state-sanctioned religion does. This has already happened in the former Communist countries, an example that gets simply ignored by the "if religion just disappeared, everything would be ponies and rainbows" brigade because it doesn't fit the narrative. Either that or they pretend that the mass incarceration of religious believers simply for being religious believers somehow had nothing to do with atheism (whilst simultaneously insisting that every single Christian be held personally responsible for the Spanish Inquisition).

these are just tools. they persecute each other over power and resources, in hard and soft ways.

It's non-belief in gods.

However you want to parse it, the end result was the same: atheists imprisoning theists, or locking them up in psychiatric institutions, for believing in a god or gods.

You misrepresented atheism and I just wanted to point out the error because I'm tired of the old atheist commie dirtbag meme.

An officially atheist state persecuting people for not being atheists has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, whereas a religious state persecuing people for not following its official religion is totally religion's fault. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

I'm an atheist because I do not believe in gods. I'm unaware of any ideology that stems from that, so if you could clear up just what you mean by "atheist ideology" I'd appreciate it.

seems like you're conflating several different -isms here.


If atheism, as I define it for me (and most other atheists do too), is simply the lack of belief in a god, how does that mean so much more as you have defined it?

No ideology required.

those who disagree? What tenet of atheism compels it? What punishment is prescribed for atheists who don't follow?

There is NOTHING telling atheists to do anything. On the other hand, you have the Bible or the Koran which define and guide Christianity and Islam. Those religions have books that tell their followers what to believe and, more importantly, do. Christianity and Islam (and many other religions) have in their official doctrines the belief that those who don't do as their leader (God) commands will be punished. Nothing similar exists for atheism, because "atheism" is merely a descriptive term for a lack of belief in gods, not a set of tenets and beliefs.

And THAT is the difference.

Much more succinct than my response.

Atheism can't be held responsible for things done to advance atheism but religion should be held responsible for things done to advance that religion. Very nice double standard you've talked yourself into.

It has no tenets. It has no central authority. It has no written laws or prescripts.

You can't hold "atheism" responsible for anything because "atheism" means simply a lack of belief in gods. That is IT. That is ALL it means.

Organized religions like Christianity have structure, rules, commandments, and punishments for not obeying those laws.

But I'm going to try to clarify because I hope you're not getting my point due to misunderstanding, not because you're being deliberately obtuse.

It doesn't require a "system of social coherence", all it requires is belief in a deity or deities, and sometimes not even that (there is some debate over whether Buddhism, for one, qualifies as a religion or not). Religion vs atheism is only an "apples and oranges" comparison if you define them that way. I would see it more as apples and, um, non-apples.

Buddhism is not theism but it is a religion, at least imo. People who say otherwise are using a very narrow definition. religioustolerance.org's religion page does a good job comparing all of the different definitions.

Some say atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color, so it's more like apples vs no apples. One can make a pie using apples as the main ingredient, but a pie using nothing as the main ingredient would just be crust.

Anyway I prefer a debate about definitions to one about blame.

Part of me likes your distinction between theism and religion. A theologian from my own tradition (Greek Orthodox), the late Fr John Romanides, was fond of saying that "Religion is a neurobiological illness. Orthodoxy is the cure". But part of me recoils at it, because it seems like special pleading, using a different definition of religion to the one commonly understood by most people (Romanides was a university professor, and like many in academia, fond of making provocative statements in order to challenge his students).

Maybe a better definition of religion can be found here:

And with better reason. Incidentally, I suspect that Romanides's definition of religion would be the part of dictionary.com's definition 1 that follows the word "involving".

Some atheists claim that one can't be an atheist if they believe in anything supernatural, I disagree since the atheism only takes a position on the existence of gods. You can be a atheist and a Buddhist, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Maybe people who try to exclude Buddhism do so because of intolerance?

I think it's just that (if I've understood it correctly) Buddhism has nothing to say on the existence or otherwise of deities, so some people think it should properly be called a philosophy rather than a religion. On the other hand, it has many of the trappings of religion, such as monastics, temples and ritual observances. But the fact that there are now apparently "atheist churches" somewhat muddies the waters with regards to this argument.

There's an example of religion gone bad. An organization that gives people power they wouldn't normally have. And where did I say I wanted a state sanctioned ideology? Religion is slowly dying as people become more enlightened and disgusted at it's death throes, like the Paris massacre. It may never completely disappear, and I will definitely not live long enough to see its passing, but yeah, we will all be riding ponies under rainbows when it does.

when you consider the genocide of the Americas. Besides, the Iraq war was just another Christian Crusade as GW put it.

I think he was one of the most intelligent and insightful people ever. Probably the most successful progressive activist America has ever seen, at least since Frederick Douglas and the other leaders of the abolitionist movement.

Think of all the obstacles in his way, and all he accomplished.

So how was he "gullible"?

Dr. King knew the risks he ran, he knew he might be martyred. Listen to his last speech, delivered in Memphis the night before he was murdered.

It was his religious faith that gave him the courage to face that possibility. I wonder how many DU keyboard atheist crusaders have that kind of courage.

If there is a God--and I happen to be an agnostic--I think She/It/He is more along the lines of the God Rev. William Sloan Coffin preached about. Rev. Coffin is another one of those brave souls willing to sacrifice everything in the cause of social justice. Anyway, he doesn't see God as a great hairy thunderer tossing lightning bolts from the sky, but rather an overarching energy that binds the universe together, mostly closely reflected among human beings when we show compassion and love for one another. It's this conception of God Dr. King was talking about, I think, when he said "the arc of the universe bends toward justice."

So God was there when Dr. King was shot, and suffered along with Dr. King as Dr. King slipped into eternity.

Then again, it's only the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.--arguably among the most brilliant minds of his generation or any generation--that we're talking about. His intellect obviously can't hold a candle to yours. Am I right?

People get banned from DU for hate speech. See? This is a forum, not a free speech zone. You cannot just say anything here.
No such thing as free speech. If one speaks freely and insultingly about another, it cost the person they are speeching against something.
People try free speech with me all the time. I have punched people (more than one) right in the face for calling me nigger and bitch. They thought speech was free, but it was costing me my dignity and my sanity.
People seems to be all republican right now. Say crazy shit to or about people, it may cost you something. Ideals are great. They do not always work well in practice.

not society. I figured out in grade school that talking about cannibalism at the dinner table would not get me invited to a lot of parties.

And there, it seems the government allows some free speech, but not other free speech. No such thing.
Say enough crazy shit, the government will show you how free your speech is.

propping up corrupt institutions.

government, thanks.