Is religion being picked on?

[swansont]

Perhaps some specific examples would help. If the problem is as widespread as implied, examples should be plentiful and easy to present.

[Jagella]

Perhaps some specific examples would help. If the problem is as widespread as implied, examples should be plentiful and easy to present.

Here are seven examples of alleged discrimination against Christians. I don't know how accurate these claims of discrimination may be, but I don't dismiss them either. I do know that Christians can be mistreated by atheists because I was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian.

 

By the way, if you wanted examples of religious discrimination, then why didn't you just use a search engine?

 

Jagella

This whole tread is silly.

Do you dismiss the topic of the thread?

 

Jagella

[Strange]

Here are seven examples of alleged discrimination against Christians. I don't know how accurate these claims of discrimination may be, but I don't dismiss them either. I do know that Christians can be mistreated by atheists because I was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian.

 

And here are five examples of discrimination against atheists:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/12/1401480/-Five-Examples-of-Discrimination-Against-Atheists-in-America

 

As atheists are in the minority, I win!

 

 

By the way, if you wanted examples of religious discrimination, then why didn't you just use a search engine?

 

Have you not heard of the concept of "burden of proof"?

 

Do you think that a lawyer in court would get away with, "My client is innocent. Just google it."

[Phi for All]

By the way, if you wanted examples of religious discrimination, then why didn't you just use a search engine?

 

Like you, he probably did and couldn't find any links to specific atheist/theist discrimination, and unlike you, refrained from giving irrelevant examples.

 

Most of those stories are about government, which is obligated to be separate from the church in the US, imposing the same restrictions on religious groups as they do everyone else. I fail to see even where these are examples of being picked on. I'm here at the heart of the "cake wars", and find it hard in this day and age to understand how anyone can think they can open a public business but exclude certain members of the public based on sexual orientation. I must have missed the part in the Bible where wedding cakes were sacrosanct.

[swansont]

By the way, if you wanted examples of religious discrimination, then why didn't you just use a search engine?

 

It's not my burden of proof, and as I already explained there are far too many claims of persecution that aren't to compel me to try and separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Strange]

because I was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian.

 

So that's what it comes down to. You had a bad experience with some people who disagreed with you and now you are taking it out on all atheists, on the false assumption that all atheists would treat you equally badly.

[swansont]

Here are seven examples of alleged discrimination against Christians. I don't know how accurate these claims of discrimination may be, but I don't dismiss them either. I do know that Christians can be mistreated by atheists because I was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian.

 

Alleged is right. These are the very kind of examples I was referring to — something that is a constitutional issue, such as the establishment clause, is not discrimination. It's not getting preferential treatment, and only being claimed as persecution. Neither is it discrimination if something is denied if it is denied for non-religious reasons. Again, that's an issue of preferential treatment — insisting that religion gives you special rights that others do not have.

 

Being ridiculed is not inherently persecution. We do have the right to free expression in the US, and religion is not a shield against that.

[Phi for All]

I do know that Christians can be mistreated by atheists because I was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian.

 

Anecdotally, I know someone who had this same experience. After a long time of feeling guilty about not believing what he was raised to believe, he realized that when he was being ridiculed, it hurt more because he suspected his antagonists were right.

 

He couldn't defend religion ultimately, but that wasn't his fault. He wanted to, and it hurt that he couldn't. Eventually, he saw that it wasn't mistreatment. He wanted facts and his opponents had them all. They became the bad guys, but all they really did was use their knowledge.

[Strange]

 

all they really did was use their knowledge.

 

Maybe what Jagella is trying to say is: with great power comes great responsibility (as Spiderman the French National Convention said).

[Phi for All]

 

Maybe what Jagella is trying to say is: with great power comes great responsibility (as Spiderman the French National Convention said).

 

I think there's a parallel to be drawn between the idea of religion being picked on, and some of the crackpots we get who take a specific bit of criticism ("Your idea fails at the start because your definition of 'dimension' is incorrect") and translate that to mean, "You're telling me I'm wrong because I don't agree with what you were taught". If a scientist keeps showing the crackpot where his idea is flawed because the crackpot keeps ignoring the response, is the crackpot being picked on?

[swansont]

 

I think there's a parallel to be drawn between the idea of religion being picked on, and some of the crackpots we get who take a specific bit of criticism ("Your idea fails at the start because your definition of 'dimension' is incorrect") and translate that to mean, "You're telling me I'm wrong because I don't agree with what you were taught". If a scientist keeps showing the crackpot where his idea is flawed because the crackpot keeps ignoring the response, is the crackpot being picked on?

 

There's also the parallel of them being tossed because they repeatedly called everyone a jerkface (or much, much worse), or broken any number of other rules, and claiming they were being banned (persecuted) because they challenged the mainstream. But that is incidental, Clarice. Not being allowed to do something that nobody else is allowed to do is not persecution.

[MonDie]

I do know that Christians can be mistreated by atheists because I was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian.

When I'm actually mistreated, not just criticized, I find it difficult to determine whether it's because I'm an atheist, not entirely gender conforming, generally nonconforming, struggle to socialize normally, some combination, or for some other imagined or real reason. Tell me what sneaky trick or degrading harassment did they inflict, and how do you know why they did it? Remember that 70% of the US is Christian, and yet you were singled out.

Edited November 4, 2015 by MonDie

[John Cuthber]

Here are seven examples of alleged discrimination against Christians. I don't know how accurate these claims of discrimination may be, but I don't dismiss them either. I do know that Christians can be mistreated by atheists because I was ridiculed by atheists when I was a Christian.

 

By the way, if you wanted examples of religious discrimination, then why didn't you just use a search engine?

 

Jagella

Do you dismiss the topic of the thread?

 

Jagella

Well, I had a quick look at the seven points you raised.

1

The Florida ministry doesn't understand that the tax payer has made the decision not to fund religious groups. Nobody told them they couldn't help the homeless and hungry as their faith expected of them- they just aren't allowed to use the taxpayers' money to do it in the name of God. That's fair enough- God doesn't pay taxes, nor was hHe offering to pay for the advertising

2

Billy Graham (whose church is known to be uncommonly rich- even as churches go) is upset that they have to pay taxes.

Well, so what? So do I. And, unlike the church, I don't get to treat most of my income as tax exempt.

So, again, that's fair enough- why shouldn't his church pay its dues? Render unto Caesar... as some bloke once said.

3

A group were allowed to carry on reading the Bible, but still felt they had been treated unfairly. Nope, not being allowed to read it might have been unfair.

There was a valid question about what they were doing- someone asked that question. It was investigated. They were allowed to carry on doing it.

Yet they portray it as if they were persecuted. Are they dishonest or dumb?

4

this one is interesting. I have some sympathy for the bakers who declined to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they are gay.

However I personally think that the damage to society caused by intolerance and bigotry is so great that it overrules business decisions like this.

If, for example, he had refused to bake a cake for a couple because they were black, would you consider that reasonable?

If you accept that racism is simply wrong, then so is bias against gays. You can't cherry pick which prejudices you are allowed to share.

In any event, it's not "picking on" religion to tell religion not to pick on others. it's simple fairness.

 

5

This is obviously nonsense; it says "the troops are no longer even allowed to privately oppose gay marriage." well, plainly nobody would know if they were doing it privately.

Again, it's not "picking on" religion to tell religion not to pick on others. it's simple fairness.

6

The government charges the church to use its facilities- in just the same way that they would charge any other business to do so. It also stops the church monopolising the resource.

Again, that's perfectly reasonable- but the church sees it as persecution.

7 finishes by saying "If there's a lesson here, it's that when Christians refuse to back down, we usually win."

Yes, really- the church puts the story forward as an example that they are persecuted, even though they won.

 

 

 

So, to answer your second question.

Yes I dismiss the topic.

It's like asking "Are lions picked on by mice?"

They obviously can't be, because the lions are the ones in power, and every time you try to find an example of this "picking on" them, it turns out to not be true.

[swansont]

2

Billy Graham (whose church is known to be uncommonly rich- even as churches go) is upset that they have to pay taxes.

Well, so what? So do I. And, unlike the church, I don't get to treat most of my income as tax exempt.

So, again, that's fair enough- why shouldn't his church pay its dues? Render unto Caesar... as some bloke once said.

It's even more than this. The claim is that Tea Party groups were targeted, which was shown to be untrue — they were among the groups investigated, but liberal groups were scrutinized as well. There was no persecution. Any group might have felt intimidated, just like I was when I was chosen for a possible audit. But they weren't singled out — that's just a lie.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/22/donna-brazile/donna-brazile-no-conspiracy-here-irs-targeted-libe/

 

3

A group were allowed to carry on reading the Bible, but still felt they had been treated unfairly. Nope, not being allowed to read it might have been unfair.

There was a valid question about what they were doing- someone asked that question. It was investigated. They were allowed to carry on doing it.

Yet they portray it as if they were persecuted. Are they dishonest or dumb?

Arrested for holding a demonstration without a permit. That it was because someone was reading the Bible was never shown to be a relevant factor.

 

4

this one is interesting. I have some sympathy for the bakers who declined to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they are gay.

However I personally think that the damage to society caused by intolerance and bigotry is so great that it overrules business decisions like this.

If, for example, he had refused to bake a cake for a couple because they were black, would you consider that reasonable?

If you accept that racism is simply wrong, then so is bias against gays. You can't cherry pick which prejudices you are allowed to share.

In any event, it's not "picking on" religion to tell religion not to pick on others. it's simple fairness.

The US Supreme Court has held that the free exercise clause protects beliefs but not actions or practices if they violate secular law. Nobody has infringed on the baker's right to believe that this is wrong.

 

The baker would similarly not be free to sacrifice a virgin, even if that were a sincerely/closely held belief.

[Phi for All]

4

this one is interesting. I have some sympathy for the bakers who declined to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they are gay.

However I personally think that the damage to society caused by intolerance and bigotry is so great that it overrules business decisions like this.

If, for example, he had refused to bake a cake for a couple because they were black, would you consider that reasonable?

If you accept that racism is simply wrong, then so is bias against gays. You can't cherry pick which prejudices you are allowed to share.

In any event, it's not "picking on" religion to tell religion not to pick on others. it's simple fairness.

 

The bakery told this couple immediately that they wouldn't make them a cake because it was for a same-sex marriage. Nothing about the actual cake was discussed, it might have been as simple as putting two grooms on top of an everyday wedding cake, so this was a decision to NOT do business with a couple because they're gay.

 

About the same time, another bakery in the area was asked by a customer to make a bible-shaped cake with anti-gay slogans and hateful sentiments written on it. The bakery offered to make the cake, but declined to write the hate messages. They offered to provide the frosting tubes so the client could write it themselves, but the client refused and took the case to the Civil Rights Commission, claiming discrimination because of faith. The board ruled in favor of the bakery.

 

Interestingly, the guy who wanted the bible cake continues to claim he was discriminated against, and now claims he only wanted bible verses written on it, but none of what he wanted appears in the bible at all, not even close. I would hate to be seen picking on religion, but how do you justify proving a point about discrimination and religion by using hate speech and lying about it?

[John Cuthber]

One interesting point about the bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

 

It would be just as discriminatory (and thus just as illegal) if a baker refused to make a cake for a couple because they were atheists.

Tell, me Jagella, how would you feel about it if that was your wedding?

 

Would you be happy to be discriminated against?

Well, the law gives the same protection to atheists, gays and theists. You are not allowed to show prejudice against any such group.

 

Why did the church pretend that this was discriminatory?

Dumb, or dishonest?

 

Incidentally, Phi for all,

the board may have ruled in favour of the bakers who refused to make a cake with offensive verses because to produce it would be illegal.

It might have been considered an offence under the laws regarding obscene publications (or even, ironically, blasphemy). (Cue lots of arguments about freedom of speech)

If making the cake would have been illegal then the baker was legally right not to make it.

Edited November 4, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Jagella]

 

And here are five examples of discrimination against atheists:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/12/1401480/-Five-Examples-of-Discrimination-Against-Atheists-in-America

 

I know that atheists are discriminated against. How does that fact relate to the religious being discriminated against?

 

As atheists are in the minority, I win!

What did you win?

 

Have you not heard of the concept of "burden of proof"?

Of course. Do you need proof of religious discrimination? I thought that it was common knowledge. I hope you're not avoiding any truth that does not support your predispositions.

Oh, and could you please answer my question? Why didn't you use a search engine to find examples of religious discrimination?

Jagella

 

So that's what it comes down to. You had a bad experience with some people who disagreed with you and now you are taking it out on all atheists, on the false assumption that all atheists would treat you equally badly.

I am an atheist. Are you saying I'm taking it out on myself?

 

Those atheists didn't just disagree with me. They ridiculed me when I sought a healing of a severe injury through Christian faith. Don't you find it to be cruel to ridicule an injured person who out of desperation seeks healing through faith?

 

Anyway, you are twisting my words in much the same way that fundamentalist Christians will twist my words when I disagree with them. I never criticized all atheists--only the atheists that are no more open-minded and rational than religious believers.

 

Is that clear?

 

Jagella

[John Cuthber]

He won the argument.

The implication was that the discrimination against the religious groups was widespread.

he found nearly as many counter example as you cited example and, since atheists are a small minority, finding nearly as many example of them as theists being victimised shows that the discrimination is more common in the opposite direction to that suggested.

 

It is difficult to use a search engine to find examples of discrimination by atheists against religious groups.

trying to do so brings up lots of pages like the one I looked at earlier.

They don't actually show discrimination by atheists against religious groups. They show misunderstandings and dishonesty or stupidity by religious groups.

[Strange]

I know that atheists are discriminated against. How does that fact relate to the religious being discriminated against?

 

You are constantly claiming that atheists are more guilty of offences against the religious and more in need of reforming their behaviour. I was just pointing out that the rate of prejudice against atheists is far worse. (Even though the numbers are actually pretty meaningless, as others have pointed out.)

 

What did you win?

 

The numbers game.

 

 

Do you need proof of religious discrimination?

 

Of course not. But evidence that atheists create more problems for the religious than vice versa would support your case.

 

I assume the reason you haven't yet provided any support for your claims is because you can't. So presumably your claims are groundless.

 

 

Oh, and could you please answer my question? Why didn't you use a search engine to find examples of religious discrimination?

 

I did answer: Burden. Of. Proof. It's up to you to support your claims.

[Jagella]

He won the argument.

If it's OK with you I will stick around and learn how to win arguments.

 

The implication was that the discrimination against the religious groups was widespread.

I don't know how widespread discrimination against religious groups is, but it does happen.

 

he found nearly as many counter example as you cited example and, since atheists are a small minority, finding nearly as many example of them as theists being victimised shows that the discrimination is more common in the opposite direction to that suggested.

It may be the case that the religious discriminate more against atheists than vice versa. I don't deny that.

It is difficult to use a search engine to find examples of discrimination by atheists against religious groups.

trying to do so brings up lots of pages like the one I looked at earlier.

They don't actually show discrimination by atheists against religious groups. They show misunderstandings and dishonesty or stupidity by religious groups.

 

If you don't like websites, then here's a book about the topic: The Bear's Hug: Christian Belief and the Soviet State 1917-1986.

 

Anyway, John, we tend to believe what we wish to believe and disbelieve truths that we loathe. Evidence often counts for little if that evidence doesn't support our cherished notions. Evidently many members here don't wish to face the fact that atheists sometimes discriminate against religious believers.

 

Jagella

[swansont]

The OP says "So is religion being unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought? Is any mention of gods automatically to be censored from scientific discourse"

How is it that any of the last several posts is relevant?

[Strange]

Evidently many members here don't wish to face the fact that atheists sometimes discriminate against religious believers.

 

I doubt anyone here would disagree with that. But that is not what you have been claiming.

 

 

Evidence often counts for little if that evidence doesn't support our cherished notions.

 

So that is why you can't produce any evidence to support your notions?

[John Cuthber]

(1)If it's OK with you I will stick around and learn how to win arguments.

 

(2)I don't know how widespread discrimination against religious groups is, but it does happen.

 

(3)It may be the case that the religious discriminate more against atheists than vice versa. I don't deny that.

If you don't like websites, then here's a book about the topic: The Bear's Hug: Christian Belief and the Soviet State 1917-1986.

 

(4)Anyway, John, we tend to believe what we wish to believe and disbelieve truths that we loathe. Evidence often counts for little if that evidence doesn't support our cherished notions.

(5)Evidently many members here don't wish to face the fact that atheists sometimes discriminate against religious believers.

 

Jagella

(1) OK I will help you learn by pointing out an important aspect of it.

Make sure you have evidence on your side.

 

(2)If you don't know something, don't claim it as truth. Otherwise you will lose the argument.

(3) Leninism discriminates against other religions.

(4) get a mirror.

(5)Now, by way of practice at the best way to win arguments, perhaps you should cite some evidence for that claim?

And, don't forget- you made the claim so the burden of proof is on you.

If you can't offer good evidence you are going to lose the argument.

So, sometimes, the only way not to lose an argument is not to start it.

[puppypower]

The problem is, atheism irrationally throws out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to religion. Say we work under the atheist claim that God cannot be proven, if you read the bible or any other religious book, there are many others things besides this one point. There is genealogy, history, common sense, and even literary music; Isaiah. However, atheism will irrational lump all as one thing.

 

The problem appears to be that atheists only appear to know religion at the first grade Sunday school level. This is when the mythology of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are taught to children. Children learn easier using fables. Since this first grade education cannot be confirmed by adult atheists, they throw out the baby (all the rest) with the bathwater, and look no further.

 

The analogy would be a theist looking at first grade science, which might teach children atoms are like planets orbiting around the sun. This is not true and can't be proven. However, this is taught to first graders because first graders can't understand wave functions. If I was irrational I would say since the electrons are not like planets, science is false. Since this science is false, I won't look at any further, since all must be false.

 

If you look at someone who gets all irrational because someone prays in public or set up a nativity scene, how is this rational? That person is giving power to what they call imaginary, as though it is real. Their superstitious reaction has to do with ignorance created by the1st grade religion education given by atheism. This much education is considered enough for an atheist PhD in religion.

 

All you need to do is read any discussion of religion, in any science forum, and it never leaves 1st grade. If the religious people try to add quotes or history, which is more high school level, this is censored or atheist experts will try to regress back to first grade.

[swansont]

The problem is, atheism irrationally throws out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to religion. Say we work under the atheist claim that God cannot be proven, if you read the bible or any other religious book, there are many others things besides this one point.

It doesn't really matter why an atheist doesn't believe. All that really matters is that s/he doesn't. There are a lot of theists who can't wrap their heads around not believing.

 

The lack of proof is more agnosticism.

 

There is genealogy, history, common sense, and even literary music; Isaiah. However, atheism will irrational lump all as one thing.

None of those things are evidence, especially the common sense part. Common lack of sense, probably. Intellectual laziness too, probably.

 

The problem appears to be that atheists only appear to know religion at the first grade Sunday school level. This is when the mythology of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are taught to children. Children learn easier using fables. Since this first grade education cannot be confirmed by adult atheists, they throw out the baby (all the rest) with the bathwater, and look no further.

There are quite a few people who insist those things are literally true. ~6000 year-old earth, and all that.They are pretty vocal about it, too, so that's probably why the discussion begins and ends there.