Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
Fri May 23, 2014, 08:55 AM May 2014

The Myth of a 'War on Religion'

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/the-myth-of-a-war-on-religion/371438/

Last week, the Public Religion Research Institute published a study showing that Americans want their fellow citizens to think they are more religiously observant than they really are. When asked by a live human being on the telephone how often they attend religious services, respondents were more likely to say they attend frequently. When filling out a self-administered online survey, by contrast, they were more likely to admit that they do not.

Surprising? Not terribly. But this may be: Liberals were more likely to exaggerate their religious attendance than conservatives. Liberals attend services less frequently than conservatives do. Yet their desire to be thought more religiously observant than they actually are is greater.

Why does this matter? Because it’s more evidence that the claim that liberals are waging a “war on religion” is absurd. You can hardly listen to a GOP presidential hopeful or flip on Fox News without hearing the charge. In 2012, Rick Perry promised that if elected he’d “end Obama’s war on religion.” Bobby Jindal recently warned that “the American people, whether they know it or not, are mired in a silent war” against “a group of like-minded [liberal] elites, determined to transform the country from a land sustained by faith into a land where faith is silenced, privatized, and circumscribed.” Ann Coulter explains, “Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can’t stand the competition.”

Notice the claim. It’s not merely that liberals are not religious themselves. It’s that they disdain people who are, and this disdain creates a cultural stigma (and a legal barrier) to religious observance. “Bigotry against evangelical Christians is the last acceptable form of bigotry in the country,” Ralph Reed said recently.


What I found most interesting about this is what the right wing says about secular-leaning liberals in general, some DUers have said about atheists here. That they're attacking believers, intent on destroying religion, or even that they're just bigots deep down and if they didn't hate believers, they'd hate racial minorities or LGBTers. The cries of "religious bigotry" are strikingly similar - and used in the same way: to intimidate, to attack, to divide, to demonize, and to dismiss a point of view.
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Myth of a 'War on Religion' (Original Post) trotsky May 2014 OP
"to intimidate, to attack, to divide, to demonize, and to dismiss a point of view" Act_of_Reparation May 2014 #1
Yup, that's about it. n/t trotsky May 2014 #2
Lol, I can think of 6 people offhand who do that. rug May 2014 #6
9. okasha May 2014 #7
All supposedly in the name of skepticscott May 2014 #3
Yep AtheistCrusader May 2014 #4
About sums it up (nt) LostOne4Ever May 2014 #10
'what the right wing says about secular-leaning liberals. . ., some DUers have said about atheists' rug May 2014 #5
Do you have any idea okasha May 2014 #8
Yeah, that is an odd phrase. rug May 2014 #9
It means someone belonging to the LGBT movement LostOne4Ever May 2014 #11
I know what it's supposed to mean but it's a very odd way of putting it. rug May 2014 #12

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
1. "to intimidate, to attack, to divide, to demonize, and to dismiss a point of view"
Fri May 23, 2014, 10:07 AM
May 2014

Tone trolling, in a nutshell.

Don't you dare complain about what's bothering you... those up the privilege ladder might get offended!

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
3. All supposedly in the name of
Fri May 23, 2014, 01:43 PM
May 2014

united everyone towards "common goals" and a better way, but in fact, the exact opposite. To control and to create barriers and divisions between those who support your personal agenda and those who oppose it.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
5. 'what the right wing says about secular-leaning liberals. . ., some DUers have said about atheists'
Fri May 23, 2014, 04:26 PM
May 2014

Got a link?

okasha

(11,573 posts)
8. Do you have any idea
Fri May 23, 2014, 07:26 PM
May 2014

what an "LGBTer" is? Never heard that word before. Maybe it's someone with a "lifestyle. "

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
9. Yeah, that is an odd phrase.
Fri May 23, 2014, 08:16 PM
May 2014

Never heard anyone referred to as a "straighter". Must be privilege talking.

LostOne4Ever

(9,290 posts)
11. It means someone belonging to the LGBT movement
Sat May 24, 2014, 02:40 AM
May 2014
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/-er#-er

Denoting a person belonging to a specified place or group:
city-dweller
New Yorker


It can also be someone who supports the LGBT movement

Denoting a person concerned with a specified thing or subject:
milliner
philosopher


No more privilege involved than calling me a country-dweller or someone from New York a city-dweller or New Yorker.
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
12. I know what it's supposed to mean but it's a very odd way of putting it.
Sat May 24, 2014, 07:18 AM
May 2014

A suffix does not constitute a definition.

The way something is phrased reflects on the speaker. Ten minutes in GD will show that.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»The Myth of a 'War on Rel...