today we are witnessing a troublesome religious intrusion into government. — Fooloso4

If you are speaking about the US, which is what matters most to me, I don't think that's true. What intrusions did you have in mind?

the authority of law stands over that of religion. — Fooloso4

That's true in the US, but not everywhere. It's a choice people have to make. I support a separation of church and state. Many people do not.

You raised it as evidence that religion is "special". But it was not simply a matter of protection of religion but a protection from religion. It is in part a statement of the awareness of the power and danger of religion. — Fooloso4

The first amendment to the US Constitution does not protect anyone against religion. It protects against government intrusion into religion. That includes preventing government from establishing or promoting a religion. That's the danger - not religion, but religion combined with government.

Whatever, I don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand.

Actually yes. I think if the person espoused racist views by presenting arguments in favor of their positions, other people should respond by pointing out the weaknesses in those arguments. — Coben

I'm glad that the owner of this site, along with the rest of the site staff, do not agree with you insofar as this forum is concerned. That would be against the guidelines, and I would expect to see the racist views deleted and the member expressing them to be banned, or at least dealt with as the site staff see fit. — S

I agree with you, Coben. I don't have any trouble having civil discussions with people who espouse ideas I find distasteful. On the other hand, S is right. It won't ever happen here, which is fine with me.

I quite enjoy the polemical approach to philosophy. Though we should strive to be cordial, the sparks from such battles often reveal more than calm reticence ever could. — NOS4A2

I enjoy raising a ruckus, but I get more done when I'm nice.

Do you withdraw the suggestion? — praxis

No.

And here we see the truest evil of religion, how it makes a virtue of the abominable, how a good man can do, say and believe something evil and not even notice...indeed carry on believing himself not only good but better than others for have doing so. — DingoJones

You're not saying I'm a good man, are you. Now that would be offensive.

His mother was a hamster. — S

Stop these dastardly attacks!! Haven't you heard. I'm a good man.

But why the thread? Was calling them out to the authorities not enough? — Shamshir

I don't want the moderators to be involved. We should be able to handle this ourselves.

Can you offer a reason or reasons why? — praxis

Here's what I wrote previously:

Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.

Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal. — T Clark

These days, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but back in the day, atheists were a particular target for the armchair and comfy cushions. So think of their tedious threads as reparations, and tick each one off as a karmic debt repaid. — unenlightened

For what it's worth, I include atheism as one of the religious beliefs that deserves protection.

Special treatment for 'theists' is also not a solution — Shamshir

I have no problem with criticism of religion. I don't even want there to be any official action against the worst perpetrators by the moderators. I just want to call them out on their misbehavior.

I'm no historian, but with what little knowledge I have, the only serious oppression I can think of perpetrated by atheists on the religious is Nazi Germany. All other cases of oppression have been one religion oppressing another, no? — Isaac

I also am no historian, but I think what you're saying is not correct. The various communist revolutions of the 20th century were inflicted by atheistic regimes intent on destroying the authority of religion. Tens of millions were killed, hundreds of millions were subjugated, although not just for religious reasons.

I'm not saying that there should be no beliefs which deserve special treatment of the kind that you're talking about. I'm saying that religious beliefs don't deserve that kind of special treatment over and above non-religious beliefs. — S

I disagree.

Since you introduced an historical perspective, we need to go back further. A key player in the diminution of "Holy Wars" was Francis Bacon and the concept of tolerance. The holy wars that Bacon addresses were not between theists and atheists or Christianity versus Islam, but between different Christian sects. — Fooloso4

I have acknowledged that much of the persecution of religious believers has come from believers in different religions. I don't see how that is relevant to the question at hand.

Freedom of speech would include the right to call religious people motherfuckers though. Free speech is a shit throwing contest when it is being practiced most freely.

The Constitution only speaks to government interference in the free exercise of religion, not in prohibiting the Baptists from calling the Mormons heathens (or whoever might have a beef with one another). — Hanover

You are completely right. Call anyone a motherfucker you want. I won't call in the feds to have to stopped, but I might (or, more likely, won't) call in the moderators.

Yes, I too had somewhat mixed my messages and was referring here to society in general (as with religious tolerance) not philosophy forums, where both religious discussions and rants about how badly religions may have treated one do not really fit (though clearly we will have to agree to disagree about the former - amicably, though, I hope). — Isaac

I can be amicable if I try.

Wait. Let me give this a go. You're suggesting that, because the non-religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because the religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because religious zealots would silence criticism or expressions of nonconformity with their religion, and because militant atheists would silence religious expression, it is only the religious who deserve special treatment? — S

I don't know. Do you have any candidates for other beliefs that might deserve special treatment?

I don't think that that answers my question. You said that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance, and the suggestion, given that you specified religious beliefs, is that they deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs. Is that what you meant to suggest, or was your specific mention of religious beliefs redundant? — S

Yes, I meant to say that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs.

So yes, I think we need to be cautious around religious intolerance lest we end up with persecution, but we also need to accept that religions do seek to constrain the autonomy of those who may be too young or too meek to actually decide for themselves to follow their rules - we need to allow such people to express their anger over this without incidentally sweeping them up in the attitudes designed only to avoid persecution. — Isaac

As I've said elsewhere, my thoughts about segregating atheists were intended to be ironic. It's clear I muddled my message. What you've written makes sense.

I disagree that "all religious matters are bad philosophy." Tell that to the guys who invented philosophy. On the other hand, to "allow such people to express their anger" probably is bad philosophy. I acknowledge that means this whole thread is bad philosophy. I plead nolo contender.

I'm not unsympathetic to your position here because I have seen pointless injections of generally "religion sucks, religious people are stupid" sorts of non-sequiturs within otherwise interesting threads about religion. I have in mind those posters who do that, and my general response has been to cease responding to them. They offer very little to the debate. They strike me more as agenda driven, thinking they have arrived enlightened upon a village of idiots, delighting they can proclaim the emperor wears no clothes, as if anything they have to say isn't something already considered. — Hanover

Your approach is a good one. I try to follow it much of the time. This time I decided to take a more ....active hand. Look how well that's turned out for me.

As I said, I blame it all on the moderators, especially Baden.

So anyway, why do think that, for example, the religious belief that Jesus walked on water, or the religious belief that God hates fags, deserve special respect and tolerance over non-religious beliefs such as the non-religious belief that Jesus, being just a human, could not have walked on water, and the non-religious belief that homosexuals are just fine, and God doesn't hate them because God doesn't even exist? — S

Although many of my posts this morning have been facetious and sarcastic, I want to give this a serious answer.

Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.

Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal.

Depends. How much are you going to pay me? — S

It's an honorary position. It means you get to stay on the forum with us even though you should be expelled from paradise with the rest.

Well, if you still genuinely don't agree, then I think that indicates that you can't see it from the other side because of bias. — S

Does this mean you don't want to be our mascot?

So it's not patronising to be characterised as having a problem with religion not on any intellectual basis, but because of a 'fear of religion', like a phobia or a prejudice. Or because you aren't open minded enough to explore the matter, or because you're unwilling to do so or not interested? I don't think that that's fair, and I do find that patronising. — S

Nuh unh. You get one "Nuh unh," then that's enough.

So it's just hypocritical cheerleading for the views that you want to be treated with respect, screw people with different opinions? — Terrapin Station

So, you do think religious belief is equivalent to Nazism.

I wouldn't exactly say that it was respectful, because it was patronising in much the same way that you might object to the language used in the comments you quoted in your opening post as patronising. — S

I don't think it was patronizing at all. Let's not go all "nuh-unh" "nuh-unh" with this.

Would you have a problem with someone being treated with disrespect, treated in a condescending way, etc. if they were to post in support of racist views on a philosophy board? — Terrapin Station

So, religious beliefs are equivalent to support for Nazism? Am I supposed to take that seriously?

For some reason the anti-religious and atheists view themselves to be somehow under attack and act if they have to be on the defensive. Perhaps it's the example of the few public atheist media celebrities who share their atheism to the World and seem to be on a crusade against the remnants of obsolete beliefs in hokus-pokus magic like...religion. Because, from their point of view, what other stance could a modern progressive thinking person have towards such backward ignorance? — ssu

When I'm being reasonable and conciliatory, I agree with your attempt to understand where the rabid atheists are coming from. Other times I just want to kick them in the ass. Yes, I know, I'm part of the problem.

Ha. Straight from the horses mouth. So you're just as bad as those "anti-religionists". You too are a hypocrite. You see the other side as prejudiced, closed minded. Yet in your opening post you quote what we're apparently supposed to see as offending material consisting of someone calling the other side illogical and so on. So it's only wrong when they do this sort of thing, because... they're "anti-religionists"? When it's coming from your own side, you have no objection and generally agree. — S

@Wayfarer's post was respectful of anti-religionists and proposed peaceful coexistence. I agreed with that sentiment.

I stand by what Artemis said, which is that people opposed to those conflicted conversations can just self-segregate themselves from the offending threads. — S

My purpose in this thread was to kick those I consider offenders, including Artemis, in the ass. Alas, I failed in my goal, although I've enjoyed the thread and learned something, i.e. never listen to the moderators.

Okay. I don't. — S

I'm shocked, shocked!

I think it is a part of a larger issue. Much of the problematic behavior can be seen, for example, in antinatalist threads or even with metaphysics (admittedly as least considered family to religious threads) and likely with political threads, though I read these less. Basically there is a kind of team play with the goal of winning. On some topics, even people who disagree can be exploratory, together, making clear their areas of disagreement, but generally not trying to score points, not going ad hom, conceding things, etc. IOW having a discussion. But on many topics, and in fact, I would say in general, there is a back to the wall, no more being victimized by Team X, barely held rage that infects many of the posts. I don't think the answer is to eliminate the discussions wehre people disagree. Because with the trends in society, this will likely end up that we can only discuss symbolic logic here, and who knows, perahps even that topic will at the end of the decade bring out the knives. — Coben

I agree with what you've written. And, yes, the anti-natalists drive me crazy. We can stick them in the ghetto with the atheists. We'll keep going till it's just you and me. And we'll keep @S around as our mascot.

He actually said that religious ideas aren't special in the sense that a bad idea is a bad idea, and he's right. You just seem to be talking past him rather than arguing against him on that point. — S

I was trying to be pointed and direct. Apparently I wasn't clear. I believe religious beliefs are special and deserve special respect and tolerance.

Isn't the solution of supporting multiple threads (as this forum currently does) sufficient to task? — JosephS

Sure it is. I don't support any control beyond enforcing the guidelines with a pretty light hand. The moderators generally do a pretty good job.

After getting annoyed at an atheist poster who suggested segregating the religious members, I set out to write a rabble-rousing post. As I wrote it, I had two working titles - "First thing we do, let's ban all the atheists" and "A Modest Proposal - ban all the atheists." It was much more inflammatory than what I ended up posting and was intended to be ironic.

After talking to the moderators, I decided to tone down my rhetoric and take out the irony. I should have stuck to my original plan. It would have been more fun. Not that this one hasn't been fun.

I think you're the one who mischaracterised what you wrote, you should have decided to go after unnecessary and unhealthy persistent aggression towards a group. You introduced a number of topics without intending to and you're arguing with people as if you didn't bring them up but you did. The very title would have set many people against you from the start - you led them to expect that you're going to be complaining about anti-religious posters rather than 1) this segregation idea or 2) the way in which some anti-religious posters are going about expressing their anti-religious ideas. — Judaka

Whether or not I agree with your characterization, I must admit this hasn't been a very useful discussion, at least from my point of view. Again, it wasn't my intention to just go against "unhealthy persistent aggression." You're right though, just arguing about whether I actually said what they said I said is not the sign of an effective discussion.

The first forum I signed up to was the Dawkins forum. That was an absolutely seething hotbed of 'fear of religion'. — Wayfarer

I started out there too. That and the Brights. The most wonderful misnomer in the history of self-aggrandizement. That's where a lot of my feelings for atheism came from.

My feeling is, many people believe the whole 'religion' thing has been settled, 'science has shown that God is dead', and they really don't want to re-open the whole can of worms. Either that, or they're just not interested in spiritual and/or religious ideas. But since then, I have gotten over the need to persuade people of my views. I put the arguments, but past a certain point I desist.It's like the little old lady who rings the television station to complain about a risque television show - the advice is 'just don't watch it'. ;-) — Wayfarer

Generally I agree. I generally avoid religious discussions. I don't think I have much to offer. Lately there is a new crop of anti-religion posters who put out especially virulent, mean spirited threads. Not just one or two, but one after another after another. It wears me down and I think it damages the forum. I definitely don't want the moderators to get involved. I think almost all of the posts that bother me are within the standards presented in the guidelines. So, I'm trying this instead.

No. We're responding to exactly what you've said. It's just the ginormous chip on your shoulder that's hindering you from realizing it. — Artemis

I've gone back through all the posts you've made on this thread. There is not a specific criticism about anything I actually said.

So Ill do you the courtesy of reading any response you care to give as the last word but I think we are done here. — DingoJones

You and I see things differently. I have been polite. I haven't been angry. I don't think I said you've been dishonest. I did say you mischaracterized what I wrote. I think that was a misunderstanding on your part, not an intentional act.

You're right. It doesn't look like you and I are going to make any progress.

Regardless of what your intent was and whether or not you dislike anti-theism/religious sentiment, you should have gone about this a different way. The valid criticism many of the posters have given - and harsher criticism which hasn't been given yet wouldn't be valid if you had focused on the undue hostility and prejudiced behaviour of the posters rather than focusing on the anti-religious content of their posts. — Judaka

I haven't yet seen any criticism of my posts that I consider valid. Most of the people who have responded have mischaracterized what I wrote. Maybe that means I wasn't clear enough, but I don't think that's it. I think they're responding to what a typical anti-atheist might write and not what I wrote myself.

I'm going back and forth about your suggestion that I focus on bad behavior rather than religious content. I think that's too diffuse an issue for me to go after. My thoughts came into focus specifically around @god must be atheist's proposal that pro-religion posters should be segregated. I just took his idea and carried it to what I consider it's reasonable conclusion. Segregation is wrong, but if you're going to do it, it's anti-religionists who should be segregated because they are the primary cause of conflict and disruption. I stand by that judgment.

Freedom of religion, not protection of religion. — DingoJones

Protection of freedom of religion. You said religious ideas are not special. I described why they are, at least in the US. You can argue they should't be, but they are.

Ya I spelled some words wrong too. Ill just have to find a way to live with myself.

Well I wasn't quoting you, that was the gist of what you said. You are acting as though thats not what you were saying but its in print. Someone bolded a quote from you where you said exactly that, so speaking of dishonesty and hypocrisy... — DingoJones

Without going line by line, you mischaracterized what I wrote.

Not that anyone cares, but I'll be 30 next month. — Jimmy

@Bitter Crank and I have lapped you. I can see him up there ahead. I'm in no hurry to catch up.