Do you feel persecuted by any present-day religions?

[Jorghnassen]

Perceived persecution is for the paranoid. I am not persecuted by any religion (or absence of it), political ideology, sexual preference, corporation, cabal or any other possible conspirator against me.

[Morrison's Lament]

I once met a Wiccan girl that wouldn't let me have sex with her even though I really really wanted to. It's really horrible what these woos are willing to do to an innocent, horny skeptic

On a more serious note, I've never lived in a particularly religious place so I guess they haven´t had the chance to persecute me much. Religion has probably held back social change to some degree (with regard to gay rights and such, and to some extent licensing laws in Scandinavia) - but I think cultural norms are often so interwoven with religious sentiment it's hard to separate one from the other.

Some cultural and social sentiments are popularly shrouded in religious imagery to herd all the faithful to a particular side.

--- G.

[jj]

Well, the people who claim to be Christian who run around claiming that atheists are satanists.

Um, they clearly haven't a grasp, but when has that stopped religious discrimination?

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

I have no feelings of animosity toward fundies. They are human. Humans make mistakes. They generally want to do something they view as good. Not like a scammer who wants to rip you off or a criminal that wants to steal from you. They are worried that you will suffer and want to help. If I were a fundy I would be out trying to save souls, it is the logical and humane thing to do if you believe what they believe.

Many are like that, no doubt, but many are nasty people who are sincere only in their belief that unbelievers are the devil's spawn. That's not just my opinion, I hear them say it when I surf the preachers from time to time; and then there is that little issue about even the nicest ones never being able to vote for an atheist. That is discriminatory is it not?

[Dogdoctor]

Originally Posted by Elind

Many are like that, no doubt, but many are nasty people who are sincere only in their belief that unbelievers are the devil's spawn. That's not just my opinion, I hear them say it when I surf the preachers from time to time; and then there is that little issue about even the nicest ones never being able to vote for an atheist. That is discriminatory is it not?

Are you saying that we don't reflect the opposite end of that spectrum? Many nasty atheists too. If you wanted to convince fundies that we are not all Satan's spawn, you wouldn't want them to read these boards. If hard line atheists had a choice, would they ever vote for non atheists? I doubt it.

[Kopji]

Persecution is not quite the right word. "Subject to the whims of a self conceived moral superiority" is more like it. Is there a word for it though?

Doofustication?
Selfrightitious?
Religexcrement?
or simply
Woodomness?

I am at a loss for the right word, but I return from my annual family visit with another story of the weirdly religious.

Some background: Although raised RLDS (a tiny sect of Mormonism now known as CofC), my sister joined the LDS (aka Mormons) a few years ago. A note to any Elders trolling in here for tips - RLDS members make really sucky LDS. They're gonna have half your ward fornicating, smoking, and drinking coffee in no time. Anywhoo, the local Mormon Bishop keeps calling my sister in and telling her what she needs to do to straighten out her life, and she keeps taking it as advice. Knowing my sister, my sympathy is almost with the guy.

But this story is not about her or her poor long-suffering bishop, it is about her daughter who is now going to college, working, and does not seem to feel the urgent need to attend Mormon seminary like a good Mormon.

She was called out on some pretense to the parking lot while working one day, and suddenly encircled by a dozen or so elders who begin praying over her and would not let her leave. She was quite frightened by the experience and did not know if she should call out for help or not.

I suppose that a response could be that she and my sister are sleeping in the bed they've made... 'sure'. But it also touches on what they view the world should be like: a world where the religious call the shots and harass and cajole until people fall into line.

Not persecution, and certainly not of me... but a world where ministers do not care about seeing the world from the eyes of a frightened girl who did not know what was going on. Welcome to that view.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

Are you saying that we don't reflect the opposite end of that spectrum? Many nasty atheists too. If you wanted to convince fundies that we are not all Satan's spawn, you wouldn't want them to read these boards. If hard line atheists had a choice, would they ever vote for non atheists? I doubt it.

We don't, for the most part, reflect an opposite end because we don't preach atheism, while condemning all believers.

If we make fun of them here that is hardly comparable to the spite directed at us on national (international) TV, even on places like Fox News.

I have voted all my life for non atheists (or so they claim), and I certainly would not exclude someone for that reason. But "they" will admit in a moment that they would exclude me.

That is discrimination.

[Dogdoctor]

Originally Posted by Elind

We don't, for the most part, reflect an opposite end because we don't preach atheism, while condemning all believers.

Hard Core atheists do preach atheism and condemn all believers.

Quote:

I have voted all my life for non atheists (or so they claim), and I certainly would not exclude someone for that reason. But "they" will admit in a moment that they would exclude me.

That is discrimination.

Well that says a lot about you but I am sure there are others who would vote only for atheists if they had the choice. Being that not many atheists run for office, they often don't have a choice.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

Hard Core atheists do preach atheism and condemn all believers.

I disagree. Hard Core is a subjective term, but I haven't heard any "preaching". If someone wants to debate that's a different matter.

Quote:

Well that says a lot about you but I am sure there are others who would vote only for atheists if they had the choice. Being that not many atheists run for office, they often don't have a choice.

OK. We are mixing categories here. I suppose I meant vote for a sincere believer, which is not the same as a radical fundie in my opinion. The latter I wouldn't vote for because I think that is largely a reflection of ignorance and intolerance.

True a fundie may say the same about me, but that doesn't mean one of us can't be right and the other wrong.

Having said that, I think a great many politicians are closet atheists, and I don't blame them; but I do think even the nicest of the religious are still blithely discriminatory because they think it's perfectly Ok to discriminate against atheists on the basis that we have no fundamental morality. Kind of like some people used to think of Blacks, and still do.

[Dogdoctor]

Originally Posted by Elind

I disagree. Hard Core is a subjective term, but I haven't heard any "preaching". If someone wants to debate that's a different matter.

I think perhaps you can't hear the preaching since you already agree with the preacher.

[jjramsey]

Originally Posted by Elind

I disagree. Hard Core is a subjective term, but I haven't heard any "preaching".

I'd call what Sam Harris does "preaching."

[Elind]

Originally Posted by jjramsey

I'd call what Sam Harris does "preaching."

Pardon my ignorance. Who?

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

I think perhaps you can't hear the preaching since you already agree with the preacher.

You are begining to sound like a New Ager who thinks all opinions have equal weight. I'll repeat, I don't hear atheist's claiming to speak for a higher authority while condemning those who disagree.

I think there is a vast difference between engaging in debate, voluntarily, and issuing blanket sentences to burn in hell.

I think those who believe in God are suffering from a form of wishful delusion, but I would never say that to their face, or disparage their belief unless they insisted on debating with me. I never invite that because it is a lose lose exchange. This forum is a different environment and not all social conventions apply.

Many of us would have killed each other by now if that were not the case.

[Dogdoctor]

Originally Posted by Elind

You are begining to sound like a New Ager who thinks all opinions have equal weight. I'll repeat, I don't hear atheist's claiming to speak for a higher authority while condemning those who disagree.

That is an error in logic on the part of preachers. So you are saying they are the same except atheists don't argue from authority? Oh and I am a new ager or rather used to be but I certainly don't don't believe all opinions have an equal weight (mine has the most weight )

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

That is an error in logic on the part of preachers. So you are saying they are the same except atheists don't argue from authority? Oh and I am a new ager or rather used to be but I certainly don't don't believe all opinions have an equal weight (mine has the most weight )

I suppose I am saying that atheists argue on the authority of logic (call it science sometimes), whereas "preachers" (let's stick to the convenional definition) argue from faith first, then apply logic only when it fits faith.

You are quite right that both sides can sincerely call the other dogmatic, but I tend to think that faith has achieved little except give emotional comfort (which is of course not a little for many) whereas logic has achieved all that we call progress, and in spite of faith at that.

So I have faith in people (logical ones), not gods.

[jjramsey]

Originally Posted by Elind

I suppose I am saying that atheists argue on the authority of logic (call it science sometimes)

The problem is that they often don't do this, but instead let themselves overlook the complicated, messy facts in favor of their own simplified views--which is a behavior not much different than the fundies they're supposed to be denouncing.

[Gulliamo]

Originally Posted by Elind

We don't, for the most part, reflect an opposite end because we don't preach atheism, while condemning all believers.

I do. I believe a bit of "evangelical atheism" may be in order. I don't go door to door, nor do I condemn theists, but if the topic comes up I am not shy about voicing my stance on the matter.

Hmmm... Maybe a new thread is in order...

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by jjramsey

The problem is that they often don't do this, but instead let themselves overlook the complicated, messy facts in favor of their own simplified views

Produce some complicated, messy facts which indicate that theism in today's world is sane, much less reasonable, and I'll consider them.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Elind

I can't run for any public office with honesty. Is that good enough for you?

Oh, you can run for any public office you want. There is no particular religious belief required. Based on my assessment of the process, running with honesty will preclude you from winning irrespective of your actual or professed religious beliefs.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by jjramsey

The problem is that they often don't do this, but instead let themselves overlook the complicated, messy facts in favor of their own simplified views--which is a behavior not much different than the fundies they're supposed to be denouncing.

That's a pretty stock response when one doesn't want to take a position, or wants to hide one. IE Say that the other side is being critical as well and therefore is no different and everybody should just be totally respectfull of any all all opinions, regardless how wacky (oops, I'm taking sides again. Sorry )

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Gulliamo

I do. I don't go door to door, nor do I condemn theists, but if the topic comes up I am not shy about voicing my stance on the matter.

That's fine. I think that's what I said; but

Quote:

I believe a bit of "evangelical atheism" may be in order.

is both distateful in my opinion, and pointless as well.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by Beth

Oh, you can run for any public office you want. There is no particular religious belief required. Based on my assessment of the process, running with honesty will preclude you from winning irrespective of your actual or professed religious beliefs.

Cool. So atheists can't be elected because they are the most honest of all?

[jjramsey]

Originally Posted by Elind

That's a pretty stock response when one doesn't want to take a position, or wants to hide one. IE Say that the other side is being critical as well and therefore is no different and everybody should just be totally respectfull of any all all opinions, regardless how wacky (oops, I'm taking sides again. Sorry )

Way to make a strawman, Elind. My point was that I have seen atheists get ridiculously sloppy. Sam Harris writes the blog post There is No God (And You Know It) which is nothing more than a naive version of the Problem of Evil that takes no account of the nuances dealt with by the philosophers over the decades. We have James Randi saying that the so-called "war on terror" is not not political, not financial, not territorial, but merely religious, which is utterly wrong.
We have Michael Shermer who screws up his parallels between Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus of Nazareth. To quote him:

Quote:

"There was another messiah who lived in the 1st century A.D. named Apollonius of Tyana, who is said to be able to heal the sick, walk on water, and raise the dead. He was persecuted for his beliefs and put to death by the Romans. His followers later said that he rose from the dead and appeared to them." (source, scroll down)

Trouble is, the much-embellished account of Apollonius' trial and the events after has him acquitted, then disappearing from the courtroom, reappears to his disciples, goes on further travels, dies (with Philostratus mentioning three different legends of his death), and appears to a disciple in a dream to assure him about the immortality of the soul. (source, scroll down) Oops. We have Richard Dawkins, whose use of a clever metaphor likening religion to a hallucinogenic drug helps hide his straw-man portrayal of Christianity and how he lumps together religiously-based violence like the Inquisition with ethnic and territorial violence with religion supplying the labels, like the Troubles in Ireland. Then there is about half of what's on Internet Infidels.

I'm not saying that because atheists get things wrong that we should entertain all wacky positions. That's you putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that I find your contention that atheists "are the most honest of all" naive and out of line with the facts.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen

Are you of the opinion that any present day religions persecute you, try to harm you, or lobby against your civil rights?

If yes to the above, how does this affect you in your day to day life?

In order to wrench this derail back on course, from my perspective, yes.

Being homosexual in many countries is still punishable by death (stoning usually). In others, it is at least criminal and punishable with lesser means. That is a religious persecution maintained by theocratic or semi-theocratic states.

In the USA, it isn't as bad, but don't forget how great and noble our government was at recognizing, let alone trying to defeat, AIDS (when it was that 'gay disease' and 'god's sweet cleansing thereof'). Basically, their response (while it remained a plague in the gay community) was 'Huh, what, people dying. Where?' Oh, did the bigotted Christians (mind, not all Christians) celebrate over the corpses of the millions of dead. Then there are the recurring incidents ala Matthew Shepard. And, of course, general bias, disgust, apprehension, and vigilant attempts to curb rights whenever possible. It is not as flagrant as in the past and there are no more practiced sodomy laws, but you betcha that there are a number of backwards religious idiots who wouldn't mind reinstating them.

And, yes, most of this homophobia is of religious undertone.

[arthwollipot]

Here in Australia it isn't a big deal. I've never seen or heard of anyone being actively persecuted because of their religious beliefs.

[kuroyume0161]

The OP isn't about being persecuted for your religious beliefs, but you being persecuted by others because of their religious beliefs.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

Are you of the opinion that any present day religions persecute you, try to harm you, or lobby against your civil rights?

If yes to the above, how does this affect you in your day to day life?

And forgot to answer the second question, didn't I?

Most times not at all. It does entail, in many circumstances, curbing my ability to be truthfully outright about my sexuality. Colorado ain't exactly NY,NY. And it does tend to decrease or eliminate friendships with those who aren't confortable with it.

But the worst parts are those times when the relationship is not justified in the same ways as say heterosexual relationships. There are many instances where the rights of long-term partners, even if they can obtain civil-unions, aren't strong enough to supercede blood relatives' rights.

For instance, if my partner were to die, I'd be left out in the cold *snap*. That fast. My name isn't on the lease or mortgage, therefore I would be viewed as a 'tennant'. Under such circumstances, Jim-Bob, second cousin removed from his twentieth nephew, could waltz in and take the house. But I have absolutely no claim to perpetualizing the ownership - I'd have to buy the house from a realtor and start all over again. In heterosexual marriages, this property right is automatically transferred to the spouse.

Another instance is that under my partner's current employer, I cannot be added under his medical plan. Since I run my own business from home (3D CG and computer developer), my income isn't yet sufficient to afford health insurance. But that would be moot if I were considered a spouse. Heck, I guess 13 years isn't enough.

[Dogdoctor]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

And forgot to answer the second question, didn't I?

Most times not at all. It does entail, in many circumstances, curbing my ability to be truthfully outright about my sexuality. Colorado ain't exactly NY,NY. And it does tend to decrease or eliminate friendships with those who aren't confortable with it.

But the worst parts are those times when the relationship is not justified in the same ways as say heterosexual relationships. There are many instances where the rights of long-term partners, even if they can obtain civil-unions, aren't strong enough to supercede blood relatives' rights.

For instance, if my partner were to die, I'd be left out in the cold *snap*. That fast. My name isn't on the lease or mortgage, therefore I would be viewed as a 'tennant'. Under such circumstances, Jim-Bob, second cousin removed from his twentieth nephew, could waltz in and take the house. But I have absolutely no claim to perpetualizing the ownership - I'd have to buy the house from a realtor and start all over again. In heterosexual marriages, this property right is automatically transferred to the spouse.

Another instance is that under my partner's current employer, I cannot be added under his medical plan. Since I run my own business from home (3D CG and computer developer), my income isn't yet sufficient to afford health insurance. But that would be moot if I were considered a spouse. Heck, I guess 13 years isn't enough.

Aren't there work arounds for these problems? For instance couldn't the house be put in a living will or trust? Understand I am not saying you should have to work around things only asking if there aren't other options which could give similar results albeit with more effort for my own information since I don't know any gay people very well at this point in my life.

[kuroyume0161]

Yes, you could. And the family of the deceased can contest in court. And in these cases, the family nearly ALWAYS wins. So, not only do you get screwed, but you get put through the wringer (the lawyer wringing out your wallet, that is).

And, for the most part, nope there aren't always ways around these problems. Under marriage rights, many things are taken for granted (hospital visits, property ownership, custody, wills, insurance (in a spousal coverage sense), tax benefits, citizenship of partners - over spouses, you name it - we don't get it).

Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue - skip to near bottom for this section.

Lack of Gay Marriage Benefits Denies Gay Man Wrongful Death Lawsuit

What Gay Couples Lack -- Besides Marriage

The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions

With respect to property rights, I keep a rather organized file of receipts in order to show ownership. About 1/4 to 1/3 of our possessions are, by measure, legally mine and verifiable by receipt - this does not include house and automobiles. That is only about $30K or so, but most of it is my livelihood (computer equipment - lots of it). I'd be left with little else.

[Dogdoctor]

Thanks for all the info. Hopefully things will improve for gays.

[Ceinwyn]

No I don't.

I live in a country (Canada) where religion is not a huge issue. It's nice, really.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

The OP isn't about being persecuted for your religious beliefs, but you being persecuted by others because of their religious beliefs.

Oh, sorry. The answer's still no.

Although there are undoubtedly folks in Redfern or Cronulla whose experiences may differ from mine...

[kuroyume0161]

I think the problem here is that most people fit the norm (that curve you see for, say, average height). For most people, the effects of religious influence on their personal lives is minimal, if even significant. You will be hard pressed to find a majority, even here, who find their answer to be 'yes' to the OP.

The real problem starts as soon as you are on the outer edges of that norm curve - whether it be sexuality, race, minority religion, social status or affiliation. Organized religion is about the norm, the status quo. Where its strength lies is in bolstering society against social evils and ills (criminal activities, poverty). Where its weakness lies is in making the same correlations to the not-so-variant fringes (or the fringes as it has determined them).

As atheists and skeptics, we, whether we accept it or not and whether we face it or not, are on those fringes. George H. Bush said of atheists, and I quote both the question and the answer given:

Quote:

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?


Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Now, this is one man's opinion to be certain. On the other hand, this man was a President of the United States (his son is in his second term of Presidency and his other is still governer of Florida). And his view is not an isolated opinion. It is probably shared by 30% of the national population. And, as sarcastically referenced earlier in this thread, it has a profound effect on who is chosen to our political offices and how policies are advanced and applied.

Skeptics are, at this stage, not in the spotlight. Atheists, such as Newdow (whom I will admit has run up to the light and pointed it toward himself), are now under increasing fire and scrutiny. With the continued push of ID, even after the Dover fiasco (yay, team), expect to come under even more ridicule unless we admonish and remove the current factions from official places. Already, even after admitting torture, illegal war, illegal wire-tapping of citizens, ineptness in the Katrina disaster, not capturing Osama Bin Laden and his top officers (well, just listen to the latest Jib-Jab for the list), President Bush's approval ratings increase! To put it in Texan:

Shooooweee, dang that's some amazin' shoobang goin' on there...

[Elind]

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Way to make a strawman, Elind. My point was that I have seen atheists get ridiculously sloppy.

Strawman? I stated a disagreement. Sorry if I was too blunt, and I have no doubt that atheists can be sloppy. Seems I can too.

I think your other points are rather disjointed. Who can't pull out a bunch of unrelated anecdotes and claim they represent examples of why a fundamental position is wrong, or flawed?

Quote:

I'm not saying that because atheists get things wrong that we should entertain all wacky positions. That's you putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that I find your contention that atheists "are the most honest of all" naive and out of line with the facts.

I don't call "religion" wacky. It's too much a part of humanity to be categorized that way, and using the word "honesty" as you do suggests that they are always more moral, among other good things. I don't think that either.

However, to attempt to be exceptionally concise, I would say that there is a universe of reality, and there is one of fantasy. In my opinion only one can be true and I consider religions to be in the fantasy category.

Don't get me wrong, I like fantasy, but I know it for what it is.

[jjramsey]

Originally Posted by Elind

I think your other points are rather disjointed. Who can't pull out a bunch of unrelated anecdotes and claim they represent examples of why a fundamental position is wrong, or flawed?

Well, in this case the fundamental position is, to quote you, "I suppose I am saying that atheists argue on the authority of logic (call it science sometimes)," and in that case, the otherwise unrelated anecdotes are on point. I am far more convinced of the reasonableness of atheism than I am of the reasonableness of atheists. Hence my sig.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Complexity

Yes, most of them.

They insist on trying to impose their views on others by using governments as clubs.

I'm gay and live in the United States. Nuff said.

They're just one group using two branches of government to keep things the way they've been throughout history.

It's some in the gay community who are trying to impose their desires on the rest of society by using the courts as clubs.

[Ducky]

Originally Posted by Huntster

They're just one group using two branches of government to keep things the way they've been throughout history.

It's some in the gay community who are trying to impose their desires on the rest of society by using the courts as clubs.

You can't be serious?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by fowlsound

You can't be serious?

Yes, I can.

What's more, the gays are amatuers at it, but they're learning. Watch the environmentalists. They're the dumping ground for the glut of lawyers we have in the United States. They'll sue before the drop of a hat.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by jjramsey

I am far more convinced of the reasonableness of atheism than I am of the reasonableness of atheists. Hence my sig.

Fair enough, as long as you share the same skepticism of non atheists. Hell why not just say "...reasonableness of humans"?

Your sig suggests that to be critical of, for example, biblical "truths" one needs to be an expert on the bible. I do not think so, and my rational could be the simple one that every Christian sect on the planet has experts on the bible, and the reason they are sects instead of One is that they can't read the same sentences the same way.

I don't need to be an expert on fantasy to recognize fantasy and there would be no reasonable atheism without reasonable atheists.

[Huntster]

Let's review:

Quote:

...Individual people that I know who are afflicted with religious beliefs are quite often very pleasant, but as a movement Christianity in America has become spiteful, combative, and very unpleasant...

Quote:

...any attempt to talk of them skeptically with believers is treated as not only a social sin, but as an indication that I am immorral or less of a person than the faithful. What does it say of the strength of religion's argument that those who support it are so afraid and angry to openly discuss it?...

Quote:

...I fear the religious right is gaining power...

Quote:

...For instance, the Intelligent Design discourse worries me, in that it's gotten enough attention to warrant the intervention of the court...

Quote:

...Also, my sig line is a constant statement of my concern; it bugs me just that much; "It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."...

Quote:

...They are on God's side, and they have a mandate that they WILL win.

But, on the other hand, we have won some other victories...

Quote:

...Ok let me be perfectly clear:

I hate fundies...

Quote:

...They are trying to preserve an archaic and unhelpful understanding of marriage. They are trying to sidestep science so they can feel better about their beliefs. They are trying to make a government ruled by those beliefs...

Did it ever occur to any of you that a people who feel that they're on the defensive will rise and try to take power back?