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
Religion
In reply to the discussion: About respect [View all]Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)211. Do I need to show you the straw man gif again?
You start out by "generally" agreeing about polite conversation, then disavow your position by framing me as being a "member of a privileged in-group" who has no right to have an opinion.
I didn't say you didn't have a right to your opinion. I said your opinion is ridiculous. If wish to continue to hold ridiculous opinions, there is little I can, or would, do to stop you.
Unless you know me personally, how do you know my status? The only thing you can know at this point is that I identify as a believer, a person of faith. All else is supposition on your part.
I know that people of faith -- whatever that faith may be -- are held in higher standing than those with no faith. Which puts you higher on the privilege ladder, whatever the specifics of your faith may be.
My views on tone, on civility, on manners, are how I was raised, and how I behaved at my job, and how I treat my family, friends, and acquaintances. I worked as a union representative for over 30 years. I trained representatives as well. When having a meeting with a management representative, I was never rude, or loud, or anything but professional and polite. It gets better results, and results are what counts. Politeness is not synonymous with pushover, nor is it capitulation or deal making. It is simply treating people as you wish to be treated.
When I said "paternalistic codswallop", this is exactly what I meant.
Are you living openly as an atheist? No? Then how do you know being polite "gets better results"?
As to atheists being treated as outsiders by many of their fellow citizens, of course I agree with you. It does happen. Too many US citizens believe that this country should be a Christian theocracy. They believe this in spite of what the Constitution says, and because they have been taught a fictionalized version of US history where Jesus helped George Washington defeat the British.
When I said "you don't know what you're talking about", this is exactly what I meant.
Liberals here have this bizarre impression that it is the most extreme fringes of conservative Christianity that are making life difficult for atheists in this country.
It isn't just them.
But my objection is also about the habit of saying "all people of faith" or "people of faith" followed by whatever behavior is being condemned. ALL people do not agree about everything. ALL atheists do not agree on things, why then are all people of faith considered to be the oppressive enemy?
And this is the mantra of the privileged majority, no matter what the issue happens to be.
When white privilege comes up, white people say, "Well, not all white people are racist." When sexism comes up, men say, "Well, not all men are misogynists." When American foreign policy comes up, Americans say, "Not all Americans think like that."
Frankly, this is counter-productive. What a powerless out-group has to say about a privileged in-group is almost never equal in effect or kind to the type of grief the in-group is typically dispensing upon the out-group. But that's what we're talking about here. What a handful of atheists without power or social influence might have said on some sad, lonely corner of the internet.
If you want to know why out-groups find this kind of crap objectionable, I suggest you read Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's Letter from Birmingham Jail, particularly this bit:
[div class="excerpt" style="border:1px solid black; border-radius:10px;background-color:aliceblue;"]I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Bear in mind, I'm not comparing the experience of American atheists to that of African Americans. This, however, is in my mind the ultimate refutation of concern/tone trolling, from a man intimately acquainted with such tactics.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
235 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"I was raised to treat religion as a private matter." Too bad most religionists don't follow that...
PoutrageFatigue
May 2015
#171
Well he can speak to his own op and believers here have their moments, but...
hrmjustin
May 2015
#87
I don't click on threads bashing animal rights activists for a reason.
beam me up scottie
May 2015
#99
I don't think so. That is why I don't use terms you don't like to refer to you or others
LostOne4Ever
May 2015
#142
No one here is anti-lgbt and we fight against it in our places of worship and communities.
hrmjustin
May 2015
#23
No. They have the right to their opinions but their opinions are not ok with me.
hrmjustin
May 2015
#49
I did. That hate is protected speech. So it's "ok". Are you "ok" with the First Amendment?
rug
May 2015
#34
No what you are doing is acting like a prosecutor and we are not your accused.
hrmjustin
May 2015
#151
It is pointless to bother because when you answer a question you are told you didn't and
hrmjustin
May 2015
#201
No i gave up because you were telling me that I didn't answer a question when I did.
hrmjustin
May 2015
#213
Disingenuous nonsense and insulting people's intelligence are also not signs of respect
skepticscott
May 2015
#46
But how can one respect a belief that ensures another feels terror brought on by someone
AuntPatsy
May 2015
#44
Some people have zero interest in fostering understanding and furthering conversation,
cbayer
May 2015
#194
Trouble is, your point has already been addressed. More times than I care to count.
Act_of_Reparation
May 2015
#200
Well if you're running a contest for rude statements, I provided the winner's posts above.
beam me up scottie
May 2015
#219
Homophobes who compare ssm to bestiality and call people "vermin" shouldn't criticize anyone
beam me up scottie
May 2015
#218
Some believers here on DU, including a host of the interfaith forum, have attempted to conflate
AtheistCrusader
May 2015
#65
I sincerely hope you don't need clarification, since you were the first poster to respond to his
AtheistCrusader
May 2015
#67