Comments on: “Opression of people of faith”: The Big Lie http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/ Commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky. Illuminating and watchdogging the widespread attempts to institutionalize the theocratic rule of the US. Making fun of believers everywhere. Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:46:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Ron http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1171 Ron Wed, 18 May 2005 11:16:35 +0000 http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1171 Yeah, still trying to tweak the spaminator to keep all the good and kill all the bad. The hammering from comment/trackback spam is incredible -- hundreds of rejected comments a day. I'll keep trying to get the false positives to an absolute minimum. Bear with me. Yeah, still trying to tweak the spaminator to keep all the good and kill all the bad. The hammering from comment/trackback spam is incredible — hundreds of rejected comments a day. I’ll keep trying to get the false positives to an absolute minimum. Bear with me.

]]> By: vjack http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1170 vjack Wed, 18 May 2005 11:12:03 +0000 http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1170 Still no trackback? Still no trackback?

]]> By: Kevin http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1159 Kevin Tue, 17 May 2005 22:23:49 +0000 http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1159 Good arguements Badger. I agree that we need to get things right. I would MOST prefer to live in a world where unfair discrimination did not exist. If every human being was judged entirely on the actions they took in their lives, and not on the slew of race/class/religion/age/gender/ect things that people use to pigeonhole each other today. So ideally, people whose faith came out in a obvious but inoffensive way would be treated no differently. This isn't always the case, and that is not a good thing. However, I disagree with the contention that prejudice against overtly religious christians is the last acceptable form of unfair prejudice. Certainly it is an acceptable form of prejudice in certain places, this blog frequently being an example. But other forms of prejudice, against gays, atheists, muslims, and many others, have equally large in not larger domains wherein they are considered OK. So while we should keep an eye to our own actions (by 'we' I mean atheists who are vocal and proud of our non-belief), and avoid pre-judging peopel when we discover their religiosity, we can't curb ourselves too completely. We are fighting against a set of beliefs that had oppressed humanity for all of history. While we can't blame each and every christian for the multitude of atrocities committed by their predecesors, we can't forget those atrocities either. The line between saying 'you know, this sort of belief has led to some very bad behavior in the past, maybe you should examine it and make sure you don't go down that road' and saying 'stupid christian, you just want to build another theocracy, don't you.' is thin. I cross it from time to time. I feel bad when I do, but I'm not going to stop the whole project because of that. Good arguements Badger. I agree that we need to get things right. I would MOST prefer to live in a world where unfair discrimination did not exist. If every human being was judged entirely on the actions they took in their lives, and not on the slew of race/class/religion/age/gender/ect things that people use to pigeonhole each other today. So ideally, people whose faith came out in a obvious but inoffensive way would be treated no differently. This isn’t always the case, and that is not a good thing.
However, I disagree with the contention that prejudice against overtly religious christians is the last acceptable form of unfair prejudice. Certainly it is an acceptable form of prejudice in certain places, this blog frequently being an example. But other forms of prejudice, against gays, atheists, muslims, and many others, have equally large in not larger domains wherein they are considered OK. So while we should keep an eye to our own actions (by ‘we’ I mean atheists who are vocal and proud of our non-belief), and avoid pre-judging peopel when we discover their religiosity, we can’t curb ourselves too completely.

We are fighting against a set of beliefs that had oppressed humanity for all of history. While we can’t blame each and every christian for the multitude of atrocities committed by their predecesors, we can’t forget those atrocities either. The line between saying ‘you know, this sort of belief has led to some very bad behavior in the past, maybe you should examine it and make sure you don’t go down that road’ and saying ’stupid christian, you just want to build another theocracy, don’t you.’ is thin. I cross it from time to time. I feel bad when I do, but I’m not going to stop the whole project because of that.

]]> By: Bob http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1158 Bob Tue, 17 May 2005 20:29:58 +0000 http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1158 <i>Am I trying a case on a technicality or does it matter to get it right?</i> -- Badge, of course it matters to get things right (as all honest thinkers would agree), and I don't think that your concerns just rest on a technicality. But I do think that a re-characterization would be more accurate and helpful. Instead of phrasing things in this way -- i.e., <i>"...people who take their faith *seriously*...are the targets of a prejudice, but not just any prejudice, the last *acceptable* prejudice."</i> -- I would find another way to phrase things -- i.e., maybe in relation to validity and invalidity, criticism, or something else. I think the point of Ron's post was only to point out the very distinct way in which the God Squad phrased things. Am I trying a case on a technicality or does it matter to get it right? — Badge, of course it matters to get things right (as all honest thinkers would agree), and I don’t think that your concerns just rest on a technicality. But I do think that a re-characterization would be more accurate and helpful. Instead of phrasing things in this way — i.e., “…people who take their faith *seriously*…are the targets of a prejudice, but not just any prejudice, the last *acceptable* prejudice.” — I would find another way to phrase things — i.e., maybe in relation to validity and invalidity, criticism, or something else. I think the point of Ron’s post was only to point out the very distinct way in which the God Squad phrased things.

]]> By: Badger http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1157 Badger Tue, 17 May 2005 20:04:44 +0000 http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1157 Psifon, let's face it: pretty much every group things they're getting the shaft ("persecuted", "oppressed", whatever you like). I mean, what, do we leave out Jews in terms of a people who may just possibly say that they are/have been persectued? Although you're right that there are references in Christianity to Christians getting the shaft, you find similar things in Islam (the idea of jihad) and as I said in Judaism. Atheists think we're getting the shaft too. Non-religious issues too: the Basques think it, the Palestinians think it, so too the Quebecois, the Israelis...even types like Pat Buchanan think that they are losing ground unfairly. It's human nature to go "us vs. them" and to assume that them are are out to screw us. Thing is, of the list above, most of them ARE getting screwed in some ways, and that too is to be expected from our belicose, irrational, and territorial race. Psifon, let’s face it: pretty much every group things they’re getting the shaft (”persecuted”, “oppressed”, whatever you like). I mean, what, do we leave out Jews in terms of a people who may just possibly say that they are/have been persectued? Although you’re right that there are references in Christianity to Christians getting the shaft, you find similar things in Islam (the idea of jihad) and as I said in Judaism. Atheists think we’re getting the shaft too. Non-religious issues too: the Basques think it, the Palestinians think it, so too the Quebecois, the Israelis…even types like Pat Buchanan think that they are losing ground unfairly. It’s human nature to go “us vs. them” and to assume that them are are out to screw us. Thing is, of the list above, most of them ARE getting screwed in some ways, and that too is to be expected from our belicose, irrational, and territorial race.

]]> By: Psifon http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1155 Psifon Tue, 17 May 2005 03:03:45 +0000 http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1155 I think you have this whole discussion all wrong. Yes, of course "people of faith" far outnuber athiests. Most single denominations far outnumber athiests. We are not talking about "people of faith" here, we are talking about christians. Christians are the group that have this administration by the short hairs. I don't think the average christian is thinking "lets say that we are persecuted so that the left leaning people can't criticize us." No, the reason that christians think they are persecuted is becase Jesus SAYS they are persecuted. Jesus told them that anyone who follows them will be persecuted. They therefore think: "Jesus is all knowing and cannot be wrong" "Jesus said his followers will be persecuted" "I follow Jesus" "Therefore I am pesecuted" It is this MYTHOLOGY that they are speaking out of when they say that they are persecuted. They have FAITH that they are persecuted, and like any non-reasoning ZOMBEE they focus on anything that smaks of persecution as PROOF that Jesus is right, and they IGNORE any evidence to the contrary, EVEN THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS ONE OF THEM! Of course the leadership of the church uses this to great political advantage. They know which side their bread is buttered on. I think you have this whole discussion all wrong.

Yes, of course “people of faith” far outnuber athiests. Most single denominations far outnumber athiests. We are not talking about “people of faith” here, we are talking about christians. Christians are the group that have this administration by the short hairs. I don’t think the average christian is thinking “lets say that we are persecuted so that the left leaning people can’t criticize us.”

No, the reason that christians think they are persecuted is becase Jesus SAYS they are persecuted. Jesus told them that anyone who follows them will be persecuted. They therefore think:

“Jesus is all knowing and cannot be wrong”
“Jesus said his followers will be persecuted”
“I follow Jesus”
“Therefore I am pesecuted”

It is this MYTHOLOGY that they are speaking out of when they say that they are persecuted. They have FAITH that they are persecuted, and like any non-reasoning ZOMBEE they focus on anything that smaks of persecution as PROOF that Jesus is right, and they IGNORE any evidence to the contrary, EVEN THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS ONE OF THEM!

Of course the leadership of the church uses this to great political advantage. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

]]> By: Badger http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1132 Badger Mon, 16 May 2005 20:01:07 +0000 http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1132 To Kevin and Bob, I agree with both of you that a) there is *real* nasty prejudice and discrimination in this society against groups like gays, and b) that the Squad's hurt feelings are, in some sense, "invalid"--or at least less valid or warranted than other feelings which are shored up by more rational justifications. And it would seem (a) and (b) are related. I guess what is most focused for me to take issue with is the way this article by the God Squad was misrepresented on this site. The statement on this site was: The “oppression” and “predjudice” faced by “people of faith” has become the Big Lie of the current plunge toward theocracy. The Squad never put forth this "big lie". What they said is that people who take their faith *seriously* (what I was calling the overtly religious, since typically taking one's faith seriously has a way of showing up in your personality) are the targets of a prejudice, but not just any prejudice, the last *acceptable* prejudice. Do all these qualifiers matter? I think so. E.g., Prejudice against gays, as mentioned by Kevin, could be argued to be an "unacceptable" prejudice in 2005 in terms of things like hiring discrimination laws, polite norms of being civil to gays, etc. (and of course you can argue that point particularly with all the bans on gay marriage! I think the Squad's statement used far too broad a brush). Likewise, anti-black prejudice has come to seem unacceptable (associated with ignorance) in 2005 compared to 1950 (witness how quickly Trent Lott had to step down after his blunder praising a racist Strom Thurmond campaign). One could argue that there is in fact an "acceptable prejudice" against the seriously relgious and that's what I tried to give evidence for in my post. This is all they were stating. The word "oppression" was never used, and the idea of prejudice was never generalized to people of faith in general, only to those who "take their faith seriously". I'm not sympathetic to the Squad's beliefs, so why do I care about getting this right? I don't quite know. Maybe I feel that what is important is getting things clear, getting things right, sorting theist and atheist statements/stances properly. There are more rational and less rational theists (and atheists), and understanding this, instead of conflating all religous folk into one general bin of wackjobs, may give some insight into...what? how are world could ever possibly get rational some day? Help me out here. Am I trying a case on a technicality or does it matter to get it right? To Kevin and Bob, I agree with both of you that a) there is *real* nasty prejudice and discrimination in this society against groups like gays, and b) that the Squad’s hurt feelings are, in some sense, “invalid”–or at least less valid or warranted than other feelings which are shored up by more rational justifications. And it would seem (a) and (b) are related.

I guess what is most focused for me to take issue with is the way this article by the God Squad was misrepresented on this site. The statement on this site was:

The “oppression” and “predjudice” faced by “people of faith” has become the
Big Lie of the current plunge toward theocracy.

The Squad never put forth this “big lie”. What they said is that people who take their faith *seriously* (what I was calling the overtly religious, since typically taking one’s faith seriously has a way of showing up in your personality) are the targets of a prejudice, but not just any prejudice, the last *acceptable* prejudice. Do all these qualifiers matter? I think so. E.g., Prejudice against gays, as mentioned by Kevin, could be argued to be an “unacceptable” prejudice in 2005 in terms of things like hiring discrimination laws, polite norms of being civil to gays, etc. (and of course you can argue that point particularly with all the bans on gay marriage! I think the Squad’s statement used far too broad a brush). Likewise, anti-black prejudice has come to seem unacceptable (associated with ignorance) in 2005 compared to 1950 (witness how quickly Trent Lott had to step down after his blunder praising a racist Strom Thurmond campaign). One could argue that there is in fact an “acceptable prejudice” against the seriously relgious and that’s what I tried to give evidence for in my post. This is all they were stating. The word “oppression” was never used, and the idea of prejudice was never generalized to people of faith in general, only to those who “take their faith seriously”.

I’m not sympathetic to the Squad’s beliefs, so why do I care about getting this right? I don’t quite know. Maybe I feel that what is important is getting things clear, getting things right, sorting theist and atheist statements/stances properly. There are more rational and less rational theists (and atheists), and understanding this, instead of conflating all religous folk into one general bin of wackjobs, may give some insight into…what? how are world could ever possibly get rational some day? Help me out here. Am I trying a case on a technicality or does it matter to get it right?

]]> By: Bob http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1122 Bob Mon, 16 May 2005 12:22:35 +0000 http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2005/05/14/opression-of-people-of-faith-the-big-lie/#comment-1122 Good post, Badge. I think individual <i>psychological</i> attitudes and reactions toward specific kinds of social norms is interesting. But they only really become <i>validated</i> with some other independent justification of those attitudes, something that the "overtly religious" (i.e., religious wackos) don't have. Good post, Badge. I think individual psychological attitudes and reactions toward specific kinds of social norms is interesting. But they only really become validated with some other independent justification of those attitudes, something that the “overtly religious” (i.e., religious wackos) don’t have.

]]>