they demand complete obedience, they demand that you force others into its point of view, and they claim that everyone NOT in their particular cult is evil and the enemy of god.

While there are some religious people and groups that demand that you force others into your point of view, many others do not.

Is it not bigotry to claim that all religious people take that position and to treat them with contempt because you have applied that erroneous description to them?

Thankfully some believers ignore the worst parts of their holy books. (Which of course brings up the interesting question of, why are there horrible, evil things described and even sometimes commanded in a "holy" book?)

...and say 'somewhat agree'. "You shall have no other gods before me." (or whichever wording you prefer) pretty much states that you need to dislike all that don't follow your God. We've all seen the bigotry of the ultrareligious. Thankfully, as time goes on, that bigotry has diminished quite a bit.

But, that doesn't mean that the followers actually practice bigotry. Most don't, anyway.

If someone accepts that "you shall have no other gods before me" that seems like an instruction to an individual and doesn't necessarily say anything about anyone else at all.

I was raised in a belief system that recognized that there were a lot of different ideas about and concepts of god. I was told that the one way practiced their beliefs was what was important, not which "god" they prayed to.

While I agree that religion can be used to promote bigotry, I think the statement in question here is what is bigoted. It promotes a concept about a wide swath of people who are radically different and does so in a very negative way.

No more or less valid than anyone else's, of course. Although perhaps a bit LESS valid, I guess, if you consider the context of what Yahweh was ordering the Hebrews to do to their neighbors at the time.

...that's how you were raised. I was raised in a different type of household where Christians were 'superior' to everyone else and that all other gods were false. My father attempted to teach me to hate all other faiths based on what was in the bible. To be fair and honest, the Bible (as do most other religious texts) teaches that there is only one faith and all others are myths. To claim that what someone else believes is false is bigotry.

The vast majority of my friends and family are Christian. I know for a fact that most are not bigoted. If we're talking about the followers, I'm going with my original statement that most are not bigots. If we're asking if the religion is bigoted, I'm still leaning 'yes'. I love Chevys. I hate Fords. I'm definitely bigoted towards Fords and think everyone should love Chevys. It's an unreasonable and intolerant expectation, but it's what I believe. To have that much faith in anything requires a certain amount of bigotry. You have to believe that you are correct in your faith and all others are ridiculously misguided and unfortunate. In other words, you feel that you have the superior faith. If you didn't, you wouldn't be a follower of that faith.

I'm pretty bigoted as far as favorite colors go, as well.

isn't representative of what many, if not most, experience.

But it isn't unique to me, that I know.

Hating other faiths was the furthest thing from what I was taught. My father is a minister in an established denomination and I have known many ministers like him. I grew up thinking all churches were like ours, but I know now that that is far from the truth.

I guess I would say that it's important that people believe in something - whether it be their god, their ethics, their mission in life, their politics. I see bigotry as something that can exist or not within any of those things. But I don't think belief in something means you have to believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

I have some bigotry towards power boaters, I will admit that.

I definitely prefer enchiladas caseras over the Tex-Mex variety, but I wouldn't call that bigotry. (Now, those pancake stack things with the egg on top they serve in New Mexico--that's something else.)

And actually, it is possible to follow a faith without considering it the one true religion. There's no necessity at all to feel that everyone else is "ridiculously misguided and unfortunate." All you have to realize is that they're different--and that what's right for them is different.

For the purposes of this thread, I hope that Judaism constitutes a major religion. Judaism does not seek or require non-Jews to convert to Judaism. In fact it is rather difficult to convert. Jewish law recognizes the place for Jews and non-Jews in the world to come http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm

Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Moslems worship the same G-d that we do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d. ...

According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles. Any non-Jew who follows these laws has a place in the world to come.

The Noahic commandments are binding on all people, because all people are descended from Noah and his family. The 613 mitzvot of the Torah, on the other hand, are only binding on the descendants of those who accepted the commandments at Sinai and upon those who take on the yoke of the commandments voluntarily (by conversion). In addition, the Noahic commandments are applied more leniently to non-Jews than the corresponding commandments are to Jews, because non-Jews do not have the benefit of Oral Torah to guide them in interpreting the laws. For example, worshipping G-d in the form of a man would constitute idolatry for a Jew; however, according to some sources, the Christian worship of Jesus does not constitute idolatry for non-Jews.

The concept of bigotry or prejudice against other religions is not part of Judaism. I admit that as a convert, I am be biased but the logical framework of the treatment of non-Jews by Judaism really appeals to me.

I am a member of the reformed branch of Judaism but even the Orthodox are bound by the Talmudic law cited in my post

I know a number of Jewish women who would also disagree with your analysis. Here are some facts http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

The role of women in traditional Judaism has been grossly misrepresented and misunderstood. The position of women is not nearly as lowly as many modern people think; in fact, the position of women in halakhah (Jewish Law) that dates back to the biblical period is in many ways better than the position of women under American civil law as recently as a century ago. Many of the important feminist leaders of the 20th century (Gloria Steinem, for example, and Betty Friedan) are Jewish women, and some commentators have suggested that this is no coincidence: the respect accorded to women in Jewish tradition was a part of their ethnic culture.

In traditional Judaism, women are for the most part seen as separate but equal. Women's obligations and responsibilities are different from men's, but no less important (in fact, in some ways, women's responsibilities are considered more important, as we shall see).

The equality of men and women begins at the highest possible level: G-d. In Judaism, unlike traditional Christianity, G-d has never been viewed as exclusively male or masculine. Judaism has always maintained that G-d has both masculine and feminine qualities. As one Chasidic rabbi explained it to me, G-d has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd. We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience's sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is.

Both man and woman were created in the image of G-d. According to most Jewish scholars, "man" was created in Gen. 1:27 with dual gender, and was later separated into male and female.

According to traditional Judaism, women are endowed with a greater degree of "binah" (intuition, understanding, intelligence) than men. The rabbis inferred this from the fact that woman was "built" (Gen. 2:22) rather than "formed" (Gen. 2 ), and the Hebrew root of "build" has the same consonants as the word "binah." It has been said that the matriarchs (Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah) were superior to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) in prophecy. Women did not participate in the idolatry regarding the Golden Calf. See Rosh Chodesh below. Some traditional sources suggest that women are closer to G-d's ideal than men.

In the reform movement, equality of women is a given.

well sure, but that was not what I argued against, was it?

Have you ever been to an orthodox temple service? I have. Women are segregated and removed from the main floor. Do you know any orthodox families? I do, some of my wife's cousins are orthodox and the status of the women in that family is appalling. Justifying misogyny with biblical bullshit is pathetic. Do you really want me to start listing the horrifyingly absurd restrictions that orthodox women live under?

My youngest used to attend a modern orthodox service and she was amused by your post. The women in that group are very liberated. I have attended some modern orthodox services and am aware of the segregation.

At to the reformed movement, I can assure that there is equality between women. The OP is based on the premise that religion required bigotry. That premise is false as to most branches of Judaism and as to the treatment of women under the Torah and the Talmud .

Or you think I am just making stuff up?

"I have attended some modern orthodox services and am aware of the segregation". You've proved my point. Also you have carved off "Modern Orthodox" as your proof, when in fact they are but one branch of orthodoxy.

You can stop falling back to "not reformed Jews", because that is not related to anything I said.

Why would JOFA need to advocate for the inclusion of women in Jewish rituals if they weren't excluded?


Why would JOFA be advocating for comprehensive divorce reform if the current situation was not oppressive?

Do I really have to continue with this?

I am sorry that your wife's cousin family is having issues but Orthodox is a small part of of the Jewish faith in America and the extreme ultra-orthodox is even smaller. I know that many modern orthodox temples are not as bad as you think and the reformed and conservative movements make up the bulk of Judaism in the United States. This polling is a year old but Orthodox makes up a small percentage of the faith http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/

The survey also shows that Reform Judaism continues to be the largest Jewish denominational movement in the United States. One-third (35%) of all U.S. Jews identify with the Reform movement, while 18% identify with Conservative Judaism, 10% with Orthodox Judaism and 6% with a variety of smaller groups, such as the Reconstructionist and Jewish Renewal movements. About three-in-ten American Jews (including 19% of Jews by religion and two-thirds of Jews of no religion) say they do not identify with any particular Jewish denomination.

Though Orthodox Jews constitute the smallest of the three major denominational movements, they are much younger, on average, and tend to have much larger families than the overall Jewish population. This suggests that their share of the Jewish population will grow. In the past, high fertility in the U.S. Orthodox community has been at least partially offset by a low retention rate: Roughly half of the survey respondents who were raised as Orthodox Jews say they are no longer Orthodox. But the falloff from Orthodoxy appears to be declining and is significantly lower among 18-to-29-year-olds (17%) than among older people. (See discussion and table in Chapter 3, Jewish Identity.)

Within all three denominational movements, most of the switching is in the direction of less-traditional Judaism. The survey finds that approximately one-quarter of people who were raised Orthodox have since become Conservative or Reform Jews, while 30% of those raised Conservative have become Reform Jews, and 28% of those raised Reform have left the ranks of Jews by religion entirely. Much less switching is reported in the opposite direction. For example, just 7% of Jews raised in the Reform movement have become Conservative or Orthodox, and just 4% of those raised in Conservative Judaism have become Orthodox.

Conservative Judaism has been ordaining female rabbis since 1983 and according to one of my law partners, there is complete equality at his temple which is the largest conservative temple in my city.

The Orthodox branch in the US is having issues as noted above and its members are moving towards the Reform and Conservative branches. The Reconstructionist branch makes Reform Judaism look orthodox in comparison.

The premise of the OP is that a major religion requires bigotry. The Jewish faith as practiced by a majority of American Jews does not require bigotry. The fact that your wife's cousin's family had issues at an orthodox shul does not mean that the rest of the Jewish faith suffers from the same problems. You are attributing practices of a group that makes up 10% or less of the American Jewish population to all American Jews.

In my temple, I can assure that there is complete equality even down to the gender neutral prayer books that we have been using for several years now.

texts that are foundational to most religions.

So I suggest that logically, faith inevitably includes bigotry; believing in things with no evidence.

Some of those beliefs are positive; many clearly negative. Indeed logically you cannot believe in "God," without excluding other gods.

So surprisingly, bigotry is logically inherent to the very definition of "faith."

n/t

in order to criticize the homophobic doctrine and policies of the Catholic Church. Because doing that constitutes anti-theism.

Good thing some of us care more about denouncing what is wrong than they do about your smears.

Good thing some of us care more about reading comprehension than lame paraphrase. That's the sign of a weak argument.

When did I say criticizing the Catholic Church was anti theism? Please point to a specific post in which I claimed that. Anti-theism is a very clear term I think - it's those atheists who are opposed to the practice of religion.

Bryant

Do you think that criticizing the Catholic Church is anti-theism?

Yes or no?

I have described some of those who criticize the catholic church or Pope Francis as anti-catholic cranks, but I have dropped that terminology, because of what's going on in Africa - and at the time i was using it, it wasn't to say that their criticisms were wrong per se, but to comment on how they had to jam them into every conversation involving the Pope (particularly).

I use the term Anti-Theism to mean the belief that we'd all be better off without religion and belief.

Bryant

that falls short of saying we'd be better off without religion and religious belief completely does not constitute anti-theism?

Why you suppose people do think that we'd be better off on balance without religion than with it, if not for the specific and limited reasons they criticize it? Even a vehement anti-theist like Dawkins wouldn't mind religion if it stayed within the boundaries of belief and worship.

As for the second part I don't know. I don't know that if you were to list a set of issue on which one might vote here at DU if the theists and anti-theists would vote all that differently. I rather suspect they would largely vote the same. I could be wrong, but I think that when it comes to supporting political positions or programs or societal changes, we are close to being on the same page.

But there's still plenty of friction and heat here.

Bryant

as calling someone who pointed out that religious belief caused a child's death in a specific case an "anti-theist bigot"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=116853

And yet you've also said that "I use the term Anti-Theism to mean the belief that we'd all be better off without religion and belief". You're also on record as saying that criticizing a church doesn't constitute anti-theism. But now, somehow, it's anti-theism AND bigotry.

So how do you reconcile all of that? Or do you not care if it makes sense or not, as long as you can call other posters bigots?

He wasn't talking about a specific religion or a specific faith or a specific individual - the title is very clear - Religion Kills Yet Another Child. Religion as a generalized concept.

That's Anti-Theism as I stated above - I don't see a conflict. If you are opposed to all religion than you are an Anti-Theist.

Bryant

that was being cited. If you're claiming that every aspect of every religion was alleged as the cause, you're just grasping at silly straws.

And it's clear that it's more basic than an aspect of religion or a specific manifestation of religion - it's the existence of religion itself. The argument is that if there was no religion that child wouldn't have been murdered. I don't see how you read it another way.

Bryant

was traceable back to religion and religious belief in some form, which it undeniably was (Google searches to the contrary notwithstanding). Even you can't deny that religion was in some way responsible for the child's death. And yet, instead of trying to see things that way, you chose to interpret the post in the worst light possible in your eyes. Why was that? Were you dying to call someone an anti-theist bigot, just to see how it felt, or did you do it just to impress your mentor?

And not see it as a blanket condemnation of the concept of religion. Even your reply more or less admits that. "Religion is in some way responsible for the child's death." If me and people like me would give up our belief than someone like this guy would . . . find some other way to be psychotic.

I have to admit that when it comes to that poster it felt good to call a spade a spade rather than pretending. But probably not something I should have done. And it's not like that poster (or other posters) ever give me the benefit of the doubt.

Who do you think my mentor is? As far as I know I don't have one.

Bryant

Nice try. Dishonest, but points for effort.

I'm defending religion from a broad brush attack of the sort that that individual is known for.

Bryant

and attack the people who are criticizing religion in any way in such cases, even when that criticism is completely warranted.

For example the Popes Silence about what is happening in Africa - that's a totally legitimate complaint. But when you try to extrapolate from the death of a child to an attack on religion in general - that I respond to.

Bryant

There lies the problem. If someone says bad shit about religion it includes all religion. So it's all, OH NO!!! That must include ME!!!
If someone says something bad about a denomination or other religion that is not their own they can just shrug it off and say, 'we don't believe that... but they can... we interpret it differently....' Well, all interpretations are included. Saying that someone can't say shit about religion in general is like saying they have to narrow it down.

What you are saying is that whenever we find a flaw in something, no matter how tiny the flaw, we should condemn the whole, indiscriminately.
Do you apply the same reasoning to politics? To people? To food? I'm glad you are not my dentist.

no, no, no, me too.
It's pretty simple, do I have to narrow it down to a specific belief to say that belief is the cause?
If yes, then wouldn't it be too easy to say someone is prejudiced against any certain denomination? If someone were to say "The Anglican denomination is ______" would that bother you if you aren't a follower of the Anglican faith? If one of those followers commits an atrocity on another human being and says it's because of his/her beliefs would you shrug it off because you aren't Anglican? What about when most denominations have a history of committing crimes against humans? I don't think I have to take it as a case by case or belief by belief basis.

To say that all belief is the cause for anything is ludicrous. Some beliefs are highly discriminatory, some are homophobic, some are mysoginistic and some are benign. The important thing to remember is that no two individuals hold precisely the same beliefs. The problems do not arise from beliefs themselves, but from belief systems, which attempt to impose particular beliefs on others by coercion.
When an Anglican or a Muslim or Hindu commits an atrocity based on his beliefs, then those are his individual beliefs based on his interpretation of his religious teachings. To indict all who subscribe nominally to the same religion is pure bigotry.
Religions do not commit crimes against humans. Those crimes are committed by individuals and groups of individuals who commit crimes, claiming that they are in line with the teachings of a particular religion.
In reality, these atrocities are almost always about power and control of the people. Henry VIII did not burn the monasteries because he hated Catholics or Catholicism. He wanted power over the church in England and needed it for some very good reasons.

but with 30,000 Christian denominations alone, would it be fair to say Christianity is to blame when one member of some denomination uses the same book everyone else does to justify their actions? It's getting a little too close to not being able to say anything bad about any religion unless it is very specific, then one will be accused of being bigoted against that one particular denomination. Religions don't hurt people, even when the religion teaches it's ok to hurt certain people, or commands it?

I'm not sure that any religion officially endorses intentionally hurting a group of people. The hurting comes from those who narrowly interpret certain scriptures to suit their own prejudices. But this is a human trait, which is shared with non-believers. The problem is not religion or atheism, but narrow mindedness and those who claim purity of thought.
You can see in this thread where I have been attacked for suggesting that it is possible to be an atheist and also believe in the existence of a soul. The purity police are everywhere my friend. Try making such a suggestion, or even raising the possibility in the A&A group and await the onslaught.

Ok, I get that, but why doesn't the 'religion' remove these scriptures. If it says it's ok to put homosexuals to death, for example, why not just take the whole thing out? Then people couldn't use that as their excuse and we could go to directly blaming the individual, not the religious mindset that the person somehow achieved through studying those scriptures. They wouldn't be able to say they did it because of what the book says if it doesn't say it in the book...

But there will always be bigots and haters.

I just ponder what it would take to remove the hateful things from religious texts and who would be against it.

If there are anti-theistics, people who are prejudiced against anyone who is religious, they would be bigots. Anti-theists, on the other hand are opposed to some or all religions, that is a prejudice against specific types of idea, religious ideas, and is not in itself bigotry.

And I don't see how you can believe that belief or religious practice is wrong and should be opposed without also being opposed to those who chose to believe or engage in religious practice.

Bryant

I can be opposed to smoking or eating fast food without necessarily thinking less of those who choose to indulge in those practices.

To be an atheist you have to believe that those who do believe are wrong. If you think you have the right answer than other people presumably have the wrong answer.

That said it's one thing to believe "Well I'm probably right but obviously those other people are good people and what they have works for them so it's really none of my business," and another to believe, "Believers are either fakers or bigots."

Bryant

I guess I should first point out that atheism itself isn't a proposition, but the rejection of a proposition. For most of us, we reject that proposition due to lack of sufficient evidence; we do not take the position there are no gods, or that those who believe in a god or gods are necessarily wrong.

That's the general sense of it, at any rate. The more specific and exclusive one's definition of god or gods becomes, however, the more certain we can be that such a thing doesn't exist.

But of course, I have to point out the elephant in the room: your axiom may be equally (and more accurately) applied to believers, especially those who profess faith in a "one true religion".



Look, I'm not all that interested in refuting false dichotomies. Suffice it to say:

Atheists don't spontaneously generate. I have a mother and a father, sisters and brothers, and a massive, Catholic extended family filled to the brim with aunts and uncles and cousins of varying distance, all of whom I struggle to keep cataloged and accounted for since moving halfway across the country. I didn't keep the faith, but a majority of my close family and friends did. So, you don't need to tell me believers, generally speaking, are well-intentioned, generally good people. I know they are.

And my experience is not unique. Few atheists are raised in atheist households; I'm going to assume most of us were raised religious, and still have religious friends and family members (those who haven't disowned or ostracized us, that is). Never mind that we are a very small fraction of the overall population; by necessity, we must interact with religious people on a daily basis. Do you really think we are so insulated from believers that we do not recognize the good in them?

Come on, man. That's ridiculous.

Yes, I disagree with believers. Yes, I think religion is more harmful to society than helpful. Yes, I think a world without religion would be a better place. That doesn't make me a bigot. It simply means I dislike something you like.

that the world be better off without religion.

That's also why I made a distinction between atheism and anti-theism; obviously atheists can take a wide variety of positions on believers, and what should be done about them

Bryant

How far are we "willing to go"? Personally speaking, I'm willing to go no farther than what I'm already doing here: discussing issues with people, hoping against hope that I may inspire somebody -- anybody -- to question their beliefs.

More generally, it seems no one is "willing to go" farther than publishing a few snarky books or debating Dinesh D'Souza.

I am anti-conservative. I am opposed to conservatism and think that it is wrong. Does that make me a bigot?

I don't see religious practice as the equivalent of conservatism; for one thing religious people are on all sides of the spectrum politically. But I can see how from your perspective they might be similar.

Belief and religious practice covers a much wider range of positions though - from those who feel that their religion requires them to support the tea-party and such to those who feel that their religion requires them to withdraw completely to those who feel that their religion requires them to fight for social justice.

Bryant

Conservative people are on all sides of the spectrum religiously. Conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., etc.

There are conservative people who very sincerely believe that government should have no business in charity - "Render unto Caesar" - and that individuals and churches should be the parties responsible for taking care of the poor, like Jesus taught.

So yeah, they're all over the place too.

is that they are pushing for a set of programs that you and I find damaging to the United States. That's why we would oppose them. If you show me a conservative who generally supports a set of policies that you and I would support as being good for America, well, I don't think such a person would actually be a conservative, regardless of how they describe themselves.

I guess there's also a distinction to be made between "I oppose conservatism as it is practiced today; i think it's a set of principles that are bad for America" and "I oppose conservatism full stop; and we'd be better off as a nation if conservatism were seen as so laughable that no serious person would admit to being one."

You can surely conceive of a religious person who would, if placed in a voting booth, vote exactly as you would 99% of the time.

Bryant

Perhaps the idea that government should take care of the poor is wrong. Perhaps it doesn't work. You and I don't think so, but some conservatives do. They honestly believe that without the tax burden of supporting government, individuals would have more money to give to charity. And perhaps that would work. I highly doubt it, but I could be wrong.

You can surely conceive of a religious person who would, if placed in a voting booth, vote exactly as you would 99% of the time.

Just as you can surely conceive of a conservative person who would, when they go to church, agree with 99% of the religious doctrine you do.

And I don't have to imagine such a person; I can talk to 20 or more of them every time I go to church.

I'm not sure what your argument is here though - are you asking me if I could be wrong about my faith? Yes of course I could be. Does that mean I'm ready to chuck my faith aside? No I'm not.

Is it impossible for you to be wrong in your lack of belief?

Bryant

is to suppose that a conservative could be right.

I've made many comparisons between conservatism and religion, and supported them all. So back to my original question: am I a bigot if I am opposed to conservatism?

Opposing conservatism runs all the way from "Well Conservatives are, for the most part, good people who love their country, who just have some bad ideas about government," to "Conservatives are by their nature bigoted traitors who want to see America become a fascist state; I question the value of anybody who would even befriend such bastards."

While the former clearly isn't bigoted, the later might get close to it.

Edited to add - that last bit; that's not in relation to how people talk about religion but how people occasionally talk about conservatives; I have seen in GD people arguing that having conservative friends is some sort of betrayal of liberal principals.

Bryant

I don't see how you can believe that belief or religious practice is wrong and should be opposed without also being opposed to those who chose to believe or engage in religious practice.

Do you still think it's impossible to be opposed to an idea without being opposed to the people who hold it?

The distinction being that to be an anti-theist you have to oppose those actions a theist takes.

Again I think there needs to be a distinction between an atheist - someone who doesn't accept the existence of Gods (and who by definition believes that those who do believe are fundamentally wrong) and an anti-theist (someone who opposes the practice of religion).

I should stop here and say does that definition of Anti-Theist satisfy you - or do you think it is incomplete?

Bryant

"Theism" is an idea. Not a person. To therefore define "anti-theism" as opposing people who practice religion is incorrect.

An anti-conservative would be a liberal. Opposed to conservatism, but not necessarily opposed to the actions of conservatives.

I mean you would vote against them, for sure. You would vote against Conservatives who ran for office as well. Some on the extremes of either side would go further. Ann Coulter for example (fortunately we don't have any body with her extremist point of view and prominence on our side of the fence).

If an idea stays in a persons head and never expresses itself through their actions, than that idea is irrelevant isn't it? It's only through actions that ideas have relevance and meaning. If theism is a "bad" idea, than that quality of badness displays itself through the actions of the believers (and in fairness, many believers do some pretty bad things claiming that their actions are motivated by their belief).

Bryant

Are they?

I'm opposed to racism. I can't stop anyone from being racist, but I can oppose anyone when they speak out for their racism. I can also say that I like to see racism eliminated. Am I bigoted against racists?

"intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." Then again so am I, on the subject of racism.

Do you see any difference between these two statements?

"Conservatives have the wrong program for America; I don't question their sincerity, but what they want to put into place is going to be harmful to us as individual citizens, as communities and as a nation. So I urge you to vote against their programs."

and (to paraphrase and reverse Ann Coulter)

"We should start executing Conservatives so that they will realize that they can be killed too; baring that they should be imprisoned as traitors and barred from public service."

I want to be clear, I am not implying that anybody that I can think of has said anything akin to that last statement about theists or believers; I am just painting a contrast.

At any rate, I believe the first statement isn't bigoted; the second probably is.

Bryant

The definition Google gives me reads as such:

1. having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

The operative word there is prejudiced, which by definition is a preconceived idea or opinion that exists independent of experience or rational thought. As your average anti-racist opposes racism because it is a demonstrable social ill, I think you'd have a difficult time finding an anti-theist who opposes religion without either 1) having experienced religion first hand, and/or 2) arrived at this conclusion without first giving the matter some thought.

so that's why my definition was different - should have looked up bigoted.

Bryant

I think we can safely say that no atheist (or anti-theist) on DU is bigoted against believers.

From normal opposition to very bigoted. Where would you place the bar?

"I imagine a world in which all the atheists have come to a realization of the truth of Jesus Christ - Atheists contribute nothing to society, and we'd be better off if they just abandoned their resistance to the power of Christ. Obviously we can't force them, but we don't have to tolerate them either."

Would you say that's a bigoted statement?

Bryant

Which is a distinction many people have been trying to point out.

Your line of reasoning has been that there is no difference between opposing ideas and people when it comes to religious beliefs, has it not?

I did it at lunch and didn't think it through. I'll reword it.

"I imagine a world in which atheism has been abandoned in favor of the truth of Jesus Christ - Atheism, as a concept, contributes nothing to society, and we'd be better off if it was just gone. Obviously we can't eliminate atheism by force, but we don't have to tolerate it in polite society either."

There - do you see that as a bigoted statement? A hostile statement?

Bryant

"Hostile"? Not the first word I'd think of either. Opposed to atheism, clearly.

As an exercise, substitute "conservatism" for "atheism" and see what you think.

and at least bordering on bigoted. I take your point that the concept of Atheism can't be hurt by mean words said about it (any more than the mean words said about the concept of Catholicism or the concept of Conservatism), but it can still be hostile to the people who are Atheist. And it at least displays a mind that would prefer a world with no Atheists. Because you need Atheists in order for the concept of Atheism to exist.

I wouldn't be comfortable saying those words about Conservatism either; I disagree with Conservatives, but one of the things that pushed me more towards being an active liberal was the language used by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (and many others of course) - eliminationist rhetoric flowed freely in the aftermath of 9/11 as you probably remember, and it really angered me up. And, as per the Golden Rule, if it's something that makes me angry, than it's something I shouldn't do to others.

Bryant

institutions, and ideas. Or to put it within your belief framework, "love the sinner, not the sin".

The fundamental tenets lay it out quite clearly. God himself is a bigoted genocidal maniac in the Abrahamic religions.

So, to not be bigoted, plenty of people identify with bigoted religions while not really believing them. Sure, it's intellectually dishonest, akin to saying you identify as a white supremacist, but, psh, you're not a bigot, and to even imply so is bigoted itself!

Such is the potent combo of arrogance, privilege, cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty among many religious people.

When I read the anti religous posts if people realize how many of our fellow progressives are church going folk.....especially when it comes to our diverse members.........

I think most atheists are acutely aware of how outnumbered they are.

but bashing people who go to church is a popular pastime here day in and day out.. There are numerous threads bashing them yet...we can't win elections without them.

Most DUers don't. So I don't think it's an issue.

Bryant

Bashing of vegans. Bashing of non-vegans. Bashing of smokers. Bashing of non-smokers. Bashing of Obama critics. Bashing of Obama supporters. The stuff I've seen in some of those threads makes even the worst things in this group look as tame as a quilting bee.

while we mostly deal with the God of Abraham, which is the same god, who apparently loves to encourage his children to argue among themselves (a sign of BAD parenting) there are religions that really do not care what others do. many Buddhist faiths and New Age ones simply do not have a problem with co existence. Yes, we wish that god of Abraham would stop encouraging his children to be nasty and bigoted, but he is not the only game in town.

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Or bias. Or prejudice.

I'm a sucker for that option. But yea, I disagree.

You know, in the holy texts upon which most mainstream religions are built upon.

This is an important issue, leading to a much wider conversation though.

Something like UU are pretty open minded, while WBC is the definition of bigotry.

I don't feel like any of the options really fit so im going with "I like to vote."

I believe the argument is that if you aren't following the books "literally" you aren't really following them.

Bryant

Clearly, a large number of people live their lives by non-literalist interpretations of religions, and many of them are in no way bigots, but any literalist interpretation of those books will inevitably involve bigotry.

Those are meaningful and useful statements. Arguing about whether a non-literalist, or partial or selective, interpretation counts as "really following" or not is just semantics, and nothing interesting follows from it, I think.

If it is something one does, then it does not need to be bigoted. If it is something one believes intellectually, then it probably is bigoted since most religion beliefs are exclusive to some degree. The Abrahamic religions require rejection of every other religion. Polytheistic religions require rejection of monotheistic exclusivity. Even if it is performative, though, all religions have certain restrictions on behavior required of its adherents that tend to mark them in opposition to those outside their religion. In short, religions are social constructs that exclude others.

(and I don't agree that that is the case), how would that constitute bigotry.

If I say that my ideas about religion are the only correct ones and I don't reject your ideas, how does that meet the bar of "treating or viewing other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance".

I can reject your ideas and experience or express none of those things. I would simply think you were wrong.

Excluding others alone does not constitute bigotry.