So whatever happened to religious tolerance on here?

[Goblinmonger]

I mean people are going billyapeshit over this Warren thing and talking about how shitty his beliefs are. (Guess who saw this coming on DU? The atheists. We said there were problems with his religious pandering a long time ago but people basically told us to shut up and not make waves and it would be alright--just thought I'd point out the irony of all this.) I thought religious beliefs are off limits here? I thought we were supposed to be nice and respect ALL religious beliefs? At least that's what the atheists are being told in regard to the Washington sign among other things.

So, I've asked for this before, but can someone please provide me a list of those religious beliefs which CAN be questioned or said to be wrong. I think so far it is Mormons, Scientologists, and the religious right, but I might be wrong because I'm just an angry, hating atheist.

I look forward to the backpedaling/justifications with some anticipatory glee.

[Marrah_G]

1. tolerance for views as long as they don't infringe on other people's rights.

I'm Wiccan.

You can question it all you want as long as you don't try to take away my rights.

Of course if you were rude (and I know you wouldn't be) in that discussion over my belef system, I would then have the option to just not engage in the conversation.

[Beetwasher]

2. Oh, But Warren's Not A REAL Christian!

:evilgrin:

:thumbsup:

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. Wait, you mean Warren does NOT put salt on his porridge?

Oh, the humanity!

[SidDithers]

24. It's sugar...

neither true nor false Scotsmen put salt on their porridge :)

Sid

[gaspee]

3. I've got the double whammy

Atheist GLBT - guess whose inauguration I won't be watching? I'll catch the highlights on the daily show. I won't be attending the prayer meeting.

I am so sick of my government being invaded by their churches.

[surrealAmerican]

87. They're not invading, they have always been there.

I agree that religion should have no place in our government, but to achieve that goal, we need to change the way things have "always been done". There is no good reason to have any prayers at state events, they only get away with it because of "tradition".

[flvegan]

4. Big bucket of buttered, please.

:popcorn:

[YOY]

8. The OP is an expert in providing hot buttered popcorn filled self-victimizing hypocrisy.

Pass that over here.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Wow

so you tossing out ad homs is somehow OK in your moral world. Interesting.

Where am I wrong, though, btw?

[YOY]

14. You are so not worthy of replying to...but I'll spare you one for the holidays.

My "moral" world...oh that's so cute. Nice try. I'm an agnostic, remember? Nice try....realy it was.

Just keep calling the religious (even/especially the good-hearted ones here) folks idiots/fools/pedophiles/etc... and then whining about them hating on us non-believers. You make the world a better place. Really you do.

You'll get it eventually.

[Goblinmonger]

20. When have I called all religious folks

idiots/fools/pedophiles? You can send me the links in a private message if you like.

[derby378]

9. Gotcha covered

I'm just gonna sit in the corner and read a translation of the Nag Hammadi codexes for a while. Thunder Perfect Mind, here I come...

[Jamastiene]

19. Scoot over.

:popcorn:

[mike_c]

5. well, I don't have much tolerance for ignorance and superstition...

...in the first place.

[yodoobo]

6. DU is just as religiously tolerant today

As it was the day it was founded.

I really haven't seen any decline in the attitude towards religion or people of faith at all.

Its been pretty much consistent.

[gratuitous]

7. So if someone grabs a cross or a bible

So, if someone grabs a cross or a bible or a star of david or the collected works of Bertrand Russell to cloak their bigotry, you're fooled into thinking that that person epitomizes Christianity or Judaism or Atheism or whatever? Could you be held up by e-mail? Would you send me all your money? Like, right now?

Thanks in advance for your gullibility. A cashier's check will be fine.

[Goblinmonger]

17. Wow, didn't take long for the No True Scotsman fallacy

to pop up. Nicely done. Even when someone mocked up above before you.

[MindPilot]

10. Atheist is the new n****r

Hang on and we'll all get a nice lecture on how to behave if we want to be accepted and not to make waves because all beliefs--no matter how woo-woo--deserve respect, donchano?

Oh and not believing in something is the same as believing in it...only different.

So go back to the back of the bus, sit down, be quiet and they will tell when it is ok to have an opinion.

[Goblinmonger]

34. I think the back of the bus

is a step up from our usual place under it.

[MindPilot]

37. LOL! Good one!

:rofl::applause:

[Fumesucker]

76. No, not *all* beliefs deserve respect..

I have it on the authority of He Who Is Never Ever Wrong that followers of The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not deserve respect because his "common sense" tells him that ours is a bogus religion.

[stillcool]

11. I always thought I should be..

tolerant of everyone's right to be who they are, believe in whatever they choose to as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. But then, there is a limit to how many people, places, and things I can be pissed off about at the same time. And there are days like today, that I choose not to be pissed off at all. Live and let live.

[KansDem]

13. No tolerance for intolerance...

What in "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" don't the fundies understand?

[Bucky]

27. I tolerate intolerance. But I don't give it a unique place of honor.

[KansDem]

29. True, but when your intolerance becomes my law, then I object.

It's still about "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[Goblinmonger]

33. Infinite regression

Do we tolerate your intolerance of intolerance or do we not?

[KansDem]

38. Not if I make my intolerance of your tolerance into a law you must obey...(nt)

[Goblinmonger]

42. nicely played n/t

[nichomachus]

43. Actually, it's more a confused middle term -- but, play on

[Goblinmonger]

48. Nice move, Sir

:applause:

[PeaceNikki]

15. We shouldn't be expected to respect beliefs of those who infringe on civil rights.

Pretty simple if you ask me.

[KittyWampus]

18. You DELIBERATELY ignore the fact Warren is a divisive bigot and intentionally want to stir shit up

you transparent .......

[Goblinmonger]

21. No I don't

Plenty of religious people are bigots. Plenty aren't. But if I talk about the bigotry of the Catholic church, I get called an anti-theist, fundy atheist, among other things. Just hoping someone can draw the line for me.

[LanternWaste]

30. I think you're well on way...

"Just hoping someone can draw the line for me."

I think you're well on way to drawing your own particular line in the sand, so I fail to see how or why would would request anyone's assistance on that...

As for me, I'm just going to relax for a while, and count how many passive-aggressive comments and back-handed compliments get thrown around this thread... all in the name of tolerance I would suspect.

[Goblinmonger]

32. I can see what you are saying

but my "line in the sand" has always been that once put in the public forum, it's open for discussion. I think I am consistent on that. At least I try to be as much as possible.

[LanternWaste]

35. Yet I rarely see that...

Civil, thoughtful and dignified discussion, replete with critiques and cites? Absolutely. Yet I rarely see that.

Callous name-calling, lazy pigeon-holing, and loud posturing is not what I myself consider a discussion...

[Goblinmonger]

36. Fair enough

I'll cop to some of that. My only defense, as it were, would be that hypocrisy pisses me off. Which is what sparked the OP. Don't tell me that your religious beliefs are off limits while pissing and moaning about someone elses.

[tama]

22. I don't see

why worship of Mammon should be tolerated.

[Lex]

23. Homophobia and sexism don't deserve the cover of "religious tolerance."

Sorry 'bout that, but nice try.

[KittyWampus]

25. Thanks for boiling that down to its very essence. I really appreciate it. The Opening Poster

knows that.

[Bucky]

26. You're making false analogies in your "anticipatory glee"

Have fun. No one's protesting his right to hold different religious beliefs or his right to practice those beliefs. The protest is over his selection as a representative of the nation's religious aspirations when he is a leading voice in the denial of other people's civil rights. I imagine most clergy are against gay marriage, but his is a leading voice in this fight.

Anyway, I don't see how you yourself can take a stand in favor of tolerance of others' beliefs when, at the same time, you announce a belittling "anticipatory glee" at the prospect of other DUers expressing their beliefs. If you're in favor of respecting others, I suggest you practice it more.

[Goblinmonger]

28. I have always advocated

that once one's thoughts are put out in the public forum (religion, politics, whatever) they are open for discussion/debate.

My point in the OP, which I'm sure you know, is to call out what I think is a hypocritical trend of some on DU. They don't want THEIR religious beliefs discussed, but they are more than willing to deride those of the religious right. My "glee" was to see how people would try to justify their double-standard rather than just admit that they have it.

[WeDidIt]

31. I don't tolerate people who seek to strip people of basic human rights.

Period.

[Evoman]

39. This is why it's great having no religion...you can bash anything you want without being a hypocrite

I can tell you Warren's beliefs are fucking shitty, without whining and crying that you have to respect my beliefs.

[ContinentalOp]

40. Oh, but dontcha know, your atheism IS a belief!

:eyes: at least according to the amateur theologians of DU.

[baby_mouse]

67. a FAITH, no less.

[nichomachus]

41. I don't object to his beliefs. I object to his actions that

directly affect me and my life -- in a negative way. Warren can believe anything he wants -- and I'll support him in believing the most bizarre nonsense.

When Warren tries to craft those beliefs into law to my detriment, I will fight him tooth and nail.

I endorse your right to be an atheist. However, if you tried to pass a law to force everyone in the country to become atheists as well, I would help fight you too.

I hope I've satiated your need for anticipatory glee.

[Goblinmonger]

45. Well, what about

when I have to use currency that says "In God We Trust" or when we say the Pledge everyday at school and our formal pledge tells us it is one nation under God? Are you willing to say that those need to go away because it is forcing everyone in the country? Many on here will tell me I'm crazy for that and to just suck it up and not to make noise because it just gives O'Reilly something to talk about.

[nichomachus]

47. Actually, I'm with you on both of those issues n/t

[Goblinmonger]

50. Then let's just have a beer

even if you are a Red Soxs fan (actually, I haven't closely followed baseball for some time but still have allegiance to the Twins).

[nichomachus]

51. Beer is good

As for being a Red Sox fan, it's not something you lose easily. I haven't lived in MA for eight years. However, as someone else pointed out, being a Red Sox fan is a lot like being bitten by a vampire.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. Don't Blame Your Anger And Hate On Your Atheism.

Blame it on your ignorance.

[Goblinmonger]

46. I thought you might have felt uninvited to this party

Good to see you showed up.

So, what in my post is ignorance? Please be specific and not use broad strokes (I know that will be hard for you). Should we not offer his religion the same deference you loudly claim atheists need to give in Washington state? Or are you the gatekeeper of what deserves deference? Or maybe the keymaster?

[JackRiddler]

49. Like a barometer!

[GoneOffShore]

52. Or like Zuul

[Goblinmonger]

53. thank you for getting

my Ghostbusters allusion. Nice graphic.

[Beetwasher]

56. What Was Angry, Hateful Or Ignorant In The OP?

:shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. Didn't Say There Was Anything.

The OP themselves called themselves an angry hateful atheist. I was just stating that their atheism is irrelevant as it relates to their anger and hate.

[Beetwasher]

66. So, No Constructive Content Then

Just insutling snark based on an obviously tongue in cheek comment? What about the "ignorance" part?

[hfojvt]

54. start with a strawman - who ever said religious beliefs cannot be questioned?

Secondly, why bring the Washington sign into this? You really cannot see the difference between criticizing the beliefs of Warren on a message board and making a broadbrush attack against all religious people at a Christmas display?

If you want my list - ALL religious beliefs can be questioned.

However, that is often not what happens. The argument is not just made that "Religious belief X is demonstrably false" but also that "Anyone who believes X is an idiot or a lunatic or otherwise evil."

Also, many people do not bother with arguments, just start right off with something like "fu$% the religious fu$%ing morons" (not to call out an OP with 46 recommends).

"Warren is a bigot" is a fairly narrow statement, unlike, say "religion is but myth and superstition which hardens the heart and enslaves the mind." which flings its vitriol far and wide. Last night I watched "A christmas carol" with Captain Picard as Scrooge (and kept hoping he would say 'make it so!'). Besides the scene of people all over the world singing about 'peace on earth, goodwill to men' one of the people made a pithy remark about Scrooge. "The narrower the mind is, the broader the statements are."

[Goblinmonger]

61. I bring up Washington

because the same people that tell atheists not to be rude are being rude with Warren. Why not respect the beliefs of the religious right? What is said on that sign is far less vicious than the cries of him not being a real christian and other venom tossed his way. Personally, I think it is all open for discussion, but some here don't want theirs discussed. Just trying to point that out.

[hfojvt]

72. you really think it is the same people?

Are there really more than 15 non-atheists on this board? That are very active and willing to take an unpopular minority opinion? Most of the time it feels like it's me, Spoony, OMC, mycritters2, and Cryingshame. I think it would be more accurate to find individual instances of inconsistency than to claim that the entire group is being inconsistent. Many of the people bashing Warren, for example, are the same people who were cheering the sign. Cheering the sign was the popular, majority opinion here.

[Sanctified]

55. Surprise, Surprise... Just another blame the Christians and the atheists are right post.

And please like there is some sacred creed on DU that says you can't question religion, go check out the Religion forum of DU and tell me no one questions religion.

[Goblinmonger]

57. Missed the point

The same people that bitch about atheists going after religion and being rude, are going after religion and being rude to the beliefs of Warren.

[Sanctified]

64. Well I think all debates between beliefs or lack of are fair game when held

in a courteous and respectful fashion.

[Goblinmonger]

65. And I think you and I

have had a couple. Maybe my perception is wrong.

[Sanctified]

68. We have and I have appreciated the discussions.

Civility is a virtue even when you disagree with your opponent.

I disagree with Rick Warren on a lot of things and I am not sure why Obama chose him but he did. If anything my respect for Rick Warren has dropped dramatically since he is getting so involved with Politics, there is no room for politics in Christianity and should be frowned upon by all Christians. Nothing will corrupt a religious leader faster than giving them political power.

[Fla Dem]

58. I've seen a lot of religious bashing here on DU. I never felt DU was

tolerant of religion. Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, the Pope, Scientologists, 7th Day Adventist, etc they've all been trashed at one time or another. About the only religions I've never seen entirely trashed here is Judaism and Islam. I frankly thought it was a requirement to be anti religious in order to be considered a good DUer.

[anaxarchos]

59. It ain't about atheism...

I'm an atheist and if you think it is your turn to go on and on about "religion", you are wrong. Neither is it appropriate to declare that you are above such "religious issues" (so, yes - I'll add to the STFU). This is about politics. Warren opposes gays for strictly earthly reasons. And Obama pandered to Warren for equally earthly and political reasons. Warren undoubtedly has some dumb-ass religious views too, but the issues on the floor today have to do with his views on social segregation... and atheists are part of that, too (with not much help coming from Mr. Obama).

It's one thing to say you hate all dogs and quite another when a pit-bull has set its sights on your ass.

[Goblinmonger]

62. The hatred of gays

is completely religion. How is it for "earthly" reasons? It's his religion that tells him it's wrong.

I think everyone should be able to "go on" about religion. Others seem to want theirs protected. They are who the OP is aimed at.

[Fumesucker]

77. His religion also tells him eating shellfish is wrong..

I'd be willing to bet he's been to a Red Lobster.

People find justification for what they want to do in scripture, it's vague and self contradictory enough that you can support damn near anything with scripture (slavery being but one example).

[anonymous171]

60. Religious pandering gets votes. I don't care how superficial it is.

[specimenfred1984]

69. It went out the window when "God" supported torture

"God" is that make-believe thing that every fascist leader uses to manipulate people right?

[anonymous171]

70. lol

[awoke_in_2003]

88. Without religion...

we would never have cool things like the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. "Bless this Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, that it may blow thine enemies to bits, in thy mercy" :)

[Oak2004]

71. Sounds like you don't understand the difference between "tolerance" and "agreement"

I'm not an atheist. In fact I'm just about as close to the opposite of atheist as you can get -- I'm a mystic and actively seek direct experience of the Ultimate. I'm also anything but a fundamentalist, and I don't even meet the proper definition of Christian (I describe my theological perspective as "Western liberal mysticism"), and at the same time I find my (theoretical) "best fit", Unitarianism, utterly devoid of the substance I want in an organized religious body (I've always compared attending UU services as more like sitting through a course lecture on comparative religions then like attending a service). I have no appreciation for New Age and neopagan practices: the movements strike me as shallow, at times even silly, and often espouse ideas that are known philosophical and theological fallacies.

I'm pretty sure I've just "hit" a good part of the board, as far as disagreement goes. And I'll bet that under certain circumstances I could get into a rip-roaring debate with a majority of the people on this board. Such a debate would not be intolerance.

Why is it not intolerance? Because while I disagree with others' theological perspectives, and in much of what I differ I am personally certain I am right and others are dead wrong, I don't hate them for their point of view. I don't want to force them to adopt my point of view (although I would not mind persuading others of my point of view), and I'm aware that I am not certain of everything I believe, and may well be persuaded to adopt a different point of view.

Furthermore I have an appreciation of the strong points of others I disagree with. I don't just say I "tolerate" atheists, I genuinely appreciate freethought for its embrace of reason. I seek out the works of freethinkers -- a heaping helping of reason helps me weed out my own bad ideas. In fact I've pointed some would-be students of mine at the body of work that is freethought, because I don't think anyone ought to be dabbling in the post rational without first having a firm footing in the rational.

And I understand why some atheists are angry. If you haven't noticed the climate of hatred and exclusion towards atheists, you haven't been paying attention. When someone has to fear for their job, their safety, and their standing in the community because of their ideas, sometimes they begin to imagine that everyone who is not like them is all the same, is all a part of the effort to oppress them, and they lash out indiscriminately.

You don't solve that sort of lashing out by telling the oppressed they are being bad people and should behave better. That kind of response just escalates the conflict. You do it by showing genuine understanding and, yes, tolerance. Even if you have to absorb a bit of verbal crap thrown at you for a while.

Tolerance has its limits. You don't "tolerate" intolerance, by which I mean you don't tolerate agendas and activities whose goals involve harming others. It's fine for Evangelical Christians to believe that they, personally, should not practice homosexuality. It's not fine for them to take their beliefs and attempt to make them the law of the land.

Why do I tolerate an angry atheist who thinks I'm to blame for the fear he or she lives under and who militantly insists he or she is RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT and I am WRONG WRONG WRONG, and not the Evangelical who wants to enshrine his or her beliefs about other people's lives into law? That should be evident, really. A noisy angry atheist poses no threat to anyone, and does not wish to take my rights or anyone else's rights from them. An Evangelical, even a quiet, polite, Evangelical, who lobbies to put their beliefs into law, does pose a threat. Tone of voice is not the same as contents of agenda, and the oppressed are not the same as the oppressor.

That said, minus the sometimes political agenda, I have much positive to say about aspects of Christianity -- even Evangelical Christianity. One of the biggest influences in my spiritual development was a gay Evangelical. I have many things I appreciate about Unitarianism -- as far as I'm concerned, the Five Smooth Stones of Religious Liberalism are the finest summary anyone could pen on the matter. UU, in general, has given the world some of its finest theologians. I haven't found much to sink my teeth into in neopaganism or the New Age movement, but I've known and respected and appreciated many a neopagan and New Age person.

That is how I understand religious tolerance. I don't think you understand it at all.

[Dorian Gray]

73. Wait

Isn't it the atheists who constantly tell us that we, as liberal Christians, need to speak up and stand against the bigotry and problems within the Christian faith?

So when some of us do, this is the response we are met with?

I find that extraordinarily unfair.

[Goblinmonger]

74. You make a good point

I kind of expect that from you, I guess.

That's fair enough. I guess I don't know how I balance that with the hypocrisy I see. Let me think about it on the commute home.

[Dorian Gray]

75. Why thank you

Goblinmonger.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

And I'd like to say that there certainly are things to be outraged about in every single church or place of worship out there. The RCC problems are so out in the open now, I don't even need to list them. There is definitely room for criticism, and I will agree that the horrible evil perpetrated by the child molesters hiding behind their collars and the Bishops that rotated them around to avoid prosecution is reprehensible and the utmost evil. So, of course Catholicism deserves every amount of critique that it gets from those evils perpetrated.

So criticizing things like that are all good. Debate about theology is fun, too. And I think that we should feel free to criticize this man's positions and Obama for catering to him. It's something rotten in our party. Just like I think it is the responsibility for Catholics to scream the loudest about the evils perpetrated in our church (which didn't always happen), I think that we all, as liberals and/or christians should voice our opinions about how this man doesn't represent us as a party very well.

Does that make sense?

I actually look forward to hearing your thoughts on it when you have time!

:)

[last_texas_dem]

78. DU has never been particularly "religiously tolerant."

I can remember defending Jehovah's Witnesses on here way back in the day (the people who subscribe to the beliefs, not their beliefs themselves) when I felt that people were being nasty about them personally and feeling like I was in a tiny minority. I've largely given up on doing this for lack of energy, and because I get sick of having words put in my mouth by assholes and anti-religious zealots. I'm an agnostic who lacks a positive belief in any God or gods (and has since I was seven years old) and lacks any use for organized religion of any sort, but I just don't care that much about belittling or stereotyping others for their beliefs. (The beliefs themselves are fair game, though, IMHO.)

[ihavenobias]

79. Kick, interesting discussion. n/t

[progressoid]

80. damn...

"Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours"

I really missed the deadline on this one. :blush:

[madeline_con]

81. Your little purple dude is certainly engaged in "anticipatory glee".

I can speak only for myself. ALL religious beliefs are fair game if any are. I suppose the atheist must take his or her share of mean spirited hissing where beliefs are concerned.

This is a double-edged sword. Warren's a bigoted misogynist homophobe, so he has several groups, complete with many who fall into multiple categories, incensed at his very existence, let alone his appearance at a state function where Obama (Mr. Change We Can Believe In) will be sworn in.

For the "believers" among us, he is an insult to the true teachings of Jesus that Chrsitians are supposed to follow. Namely, the love thy neighbor as thyself thing. Don't even get me started on the Centurion. That's another post entirely.

spell edit

[Cid_B]

82. It's tolerance..

just some religions are more equal than others around here. Seriously, was there ever religious tolerance here?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

86. Please elaborate. -nt

[backscatter712]

83. My tolerance only goes so far.

If you want to believe in deities, breaches in the laws of physics or invisible pink unicorns, knock yourself out as long as you keep it to yourself.

If your beliefs compel you to attack the civil liberties of others, that's where I get intolerant.

If your beliefs compel you to shove your delusions down my throat, that's where I get intolerant.

If your beliefs compel you to attack our democracy and replace our public officials with crazed Taliban wannabes, that's where I get intolerant.

In case you haven't guessed, I don't care much for fundies.

Yes, I know the term fundy is a slur, and I freely use it as a slur. SUCK IT, FUNDIES!

[earth mom]

84. I stopped being nice to the fundies when they started stomping all over everyone elses rights.

:grr:

[Skittles]

85. tolerating religion is one thing

tolerating religious crap is another

[Toucano]

89. We can ridicule their beliefs and still show tolerance of them.

Being intolerant is not permitting people to live in certain neighborhoods, or denying them employment, or calling for their extermination.

I tolerate the nutjobs of all flavors, but that doesn't mean I am not going to ridicule them for their stupid beliefs.

So yes, the Amish, the Mormons, the Scientologists and now the Vatican are all on my list of those whose beliefs merit mockery.