U.S. politics isolation tank

[Stella_Omega]

Atheists can absolutely oppress on a small scale, taking Communism out of the discussion. Example: banning the headscarf. Banning earlocks. Insisting that the Sikh guy doff his "hat." Making Quakers bow to the King. Pulling JW kids onto their feet for the Pledge.

Religious minorities get the crap from both sides. You're satanic to the majority and you're ridiculous to the secularists, who don't care if you're collateral damage in the struggle.

Secular law is not actually atheist. it's law that does not take religion into account. You don't get to parade your religion in the public sphere. People are trying to remove the parade of Christianity from the public sphere as well, which seems to be a terrible oppression.

As long as the religious majority hangs on to the privileges it has gathered unto itself, all the rest of us suffer.

 

[intothewoods]

Uh, no. You need power to be successful at it. To attempt it, all you need is motivation.

And, oh, goodness, no. Atheists are quite powerful politically. If we weren't, we not be held up as such a boogeyman in christian/conservative parlance. Both political factions (whose venn diagrams are largely overlapping) show atheists to be a massive, lurking threat and spend copious amounts of time and resources to undercutting and opposing the atheist agenda. Hit conservapedia if you want to see an amusing (and infuriating) example.

Interestingly, by doing so, they do append a surprising amount of accidental power, but that is an entirely different discussion.

And hollywood doesn't count? If they are not a secret front for jews, they're a secret front for god-hating atheists. Read the real papers that'll tell you truth, and not the liberal controlled MSM!

Hollywood does count. But more importantly, and more powerfully, so does Science. Those science types with their glasses and sliderules are all arrayed against christian thought as well.

And lightly humourous intent aside, atheism is only seen as non-powerful because it hasn't organized in any meaningful way. Were it to do so, it would realize more power. Personally, I hope it does not, as it would provide a target for the religious right to target and hate on. I don't need the stress.





I am the dialectical submarine.

Okay, you disagree. I'm cool with that, but are you just going to tease me, or are you going to support your disagreement with reason?

I'm not sure where you're being serious, and where you're not but, essentially, "oppression" is a word that I don't think should be used that lightly. Hollywood, scientists, and atheists are all organized, but none of them are organized in an effort to prevent religious practice.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not sure where you're being serious, and where you're not but, essentially, "oppression" is a word that I don't think should be used that lightly. Hollywood, scientists, and atheists are all organized, but none of them are organized in an effort to prevent religious practice.

I agree, the way you're using that word is problematic, Homburg.

 

[Netzach]

I actually don't recognize these as organized atheist efforts. Re: the headscarf and earlocks -- you mean, in France? Is that atheists or political groups motivated by nationalism/cultural purity?

ETA - I mean, I'm not suggesting atheists are above oppression, just that I don't see it existing in this country.

At times. Secular entities, usually, not necessarily grouped around non-belief but, come on, look at the dialogue in free-thinking / rationalist / etc. communities about these more marginal practices - the majority-based decisions on school board levels, for example, are being made by people who find third party stuff, as I said, satanic or looney, and for the most part because we can't actually study religions without freaking everyone out, religious literacy outside your own sphere is pretty poor.

 

[Homburg]

I'm not sure where you're being serious, and where you're not

Seriously? Phrases like, "secret front for jews", hell, secret front for anything, "liberal controlled MSM!" didn't tip you off? Or perhaps the part where I said, "lightly humourous intent aside"?

but, essentially, "oppression" is a word that I don't think should be used that lightly. Hollywood, scientists, and atheists are all organized, but none of them are organized in an effort to prevent religious practice.

If I tell you that you cannot express your beliefs in a way that does not materially harm you or another, I am oppressing you.

I think I was pretty clear how I was using it. I hate to return to definitions, but...

op·pres·sion
/əˈpreSHən/
Noun
1. Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
2. The state of being subject to such treatment or control.
Synonyms
pressure - tyranny - persecution

Telling someone that they are not able to exercise their beliefs in a manner that does no material harm to another is not "unjust treatment or control"? It's not persecution?

--

I agree, the way you're using that word is problematic, Homburg.

Fortunately, I'm just discussing manners, so I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[intothewoods]

At times. Secular entities, usually, not necessarily grouped around non-belief but, come on, look at the dialogue in free-thinking / rationalist / etc. communities about these more marginal practices.

Sure. My husband is on some FB page that is atheist/rationalist/skeptic and it sometimes veers into Islamophobic hatred. I enjoyed Christopher Hitchens quite a bit while he was alive, but he said some scary shit as well. I think atheists can be total jerkwads and annoying, but I don't feel they're capable of oppression in this country at this point. I mean, while I've heard atheists criticize religious people, I've not really seen them join forces with, say, the people who were against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

 

[intothewoods]

Seriously? Phrases like, "secret front for jews", hell, secret front for anything, "liberal controlled MSM!" didn't tip you off? Or perhaps the part where I said, "lightly humourous intent aside"?

Oy vey, yes, I get that you're joking, but are you seriously suggesting that Hollywood or scientists are oppressing religious people?

I think I was pretty clear how I was using it. I hate to return to definitions, but...

op·pres·sion
/əˈpreSHən/
Noun
1. Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
2. The state of being subject to such treatment or control.
Synonyms
pressure - tyranny - persecution

Telling someone that they are not able to exercise their beliefs in a manner that does no material harm to another is not "unjust treatment or control"? It's not persecution?

--



Fortunately, I'm just discussing manners, so I guess it doesn't matter.

I'm familiar with the dictionary definition, and I don't see that atheist groups are telling someone that they're not able to exercise their beliefs. Suggesting that religious people are stupid or violent or whatever the worst atheists have to offer isn't persecution. There's no control. I would say it's rude behavior, but not "unjust" because that suggests a level of influence and impact that atheists do not have.

 

[Netzach]

Sure. My husband is on some FB page that is atheist/rationalist/skeptic and it sometimes veers into Islamophobic hatred. I enjoyed Christopher Hitchens quite a bit while he was alive, but he said some scary shit as well. I think atheists can be total jerkwads and annoying, but I don't feel they're capable of oppression in this country at this point. I mean, while I've heard atheists criticize religious people, I've not really seen them join forces with, say, the people who were against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

Ok, I will agree, that widespread institutionalized oppression by Atheists is a no-go.

I have seen some pretty ugly shit on the small-scale level in educational settings from the non-religious, and it often takes an anti-Islamic turn.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Telling someone that they are not able to exercise their beliefs in a manner that does no material harm to another is not "unjust treatment or control"? It's not persecution?

Oh, absolutely. But I don't see that coming from atheists.

What manner of "no material harm" are we talking about here?

 

[Homburg]

Sure. My husband is on some FB page that is atheist/rationalist/skeptic and it sometimes veers into Islamophobic hatred. I enjoyed Christopher Hitchens quite a bit while he was alive, but he said some scary shit as well. I think atheists can be total jerkwads and annoying, but I don't feel they're capable of oppression in this country at this point. I mean, while I've heard atheists criticize religious people, I've not really seen them join forces with, say, the people who were against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

Hitchens was excessive, IMO. Very definitely an antitheist as opposed to an atheist.

Oy vey, yes, I get that you're joking, but are you seriously suggesting that Hollywood or scientists are oppressing religious people?

*blink*

Seriously?

I'm familiar with the dictionary definition, and I don't see that atheist groups are telling someone that they're not able to exercise their beliefs. Suggesting that religious people are stupid or violent or whatever the worst atheists have to offer isn't persecution. There's no control. I would say it's rude behavior, but not "unjust" because that suggests a level of influence and impact that atheists do not have.

When did this become an issue of institutional oppression? Where did I (non-jokingly) claim that some organized form of atheism was actively trying to oppress anything? Oppression can be entirely personal, and, in point of fact, was exactly what I was speaking to. And, further, as I am apparently either misunderstood, or purposefully being misrepresented, I was speaking of the attempt. Not success. Not law being put into effect. The attempt.

Why? Because it is something I personally strive to avoid, which has been the consistent point I've tried to make. And, to further make the point, this is linked to the earlier discussion on gun rights, as I said there that I have no desire to oppress, marginalize, or disenfranchise anyone.

This entire discussion started around comments based on interpersonal reactions and interactions. That's it, period. Yet in some form of fallacy of composition, the comments I made in regard to personal interaction are somehow presumed to be my statement in regards to the whole? No, not close to what I've tried to say, and I'm not interested in making that argument because it has NOTHING to do with the points I was working to make.

In short, if you disagree with me because you see no institutionalized oppression on behalf of atheists, rock on. I never made that point, but you're welcome to decry it all you want. If you want to discuss interpersonal relations and my personal choices insofar as how I handle myself, and how I'd like to see others handle themselves in similar circumstances, I'll discuss it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

AH, I see where the problem is.

I have never, ever considered "oppression" in the context of a personal discussion. It has always meant something institutional to me, usually the relationship between one group that has power and another one that does not. it never occurred to me that you meant anything else.

That's glory for you!

 

[Homburg]

Had a post on material harm but the computer ate it. The short form is using it in the same sense as in the requirements for a tort. There's no hard definition, but the gist is pointedly explainable, plausible damage of substantial nature that are not necessarily monetary or physical. They can be, but are not required to be.

"He made me feel bad," is almost assuredly not material harm

"His constant hectoring over many weeks turned into stalking, and caused me serious distress, negatively affecting my health, both mental and physical," may well be material harm (assuming it stands up to examination)

"He abducted me a gunpoint, holding me hostage," is certainly material harm

In other words not some "I was offended" or "My feelings were hurt" or "I felt unwelcome" business.

 

[Netzach]

See, Hitchens, to me, not oppression. Expression. Obnoxious? Whatever. Live with it.

A butt puckered school board has the potential to oppress. A single teacher with a rescue impulse and a bias has the power to oppress.

 

[Stella_Omega]

See, Hitchens, to me, not oppression. Expression. Obnoxious? Whatever. Live with it.

A butt puckered school board has the potential to oppress. A single teacher with a rescue impulse and a bias has the power to oppress.

Plus-- I'll see you your Hitchens and raise you a Billy Graham, a Fred Phelps, a Tony Perkins, a Phyllis Schafely. A Ralph Reed, Marco Rubio, Rob Portman, Jim deMint, Mitt Romney, this list of televangelists, and thousands more.

Also, Homburg, you've never found yourself moving to a strange place with a three-year-old toddler and a baby at the breast. "I was made to feel unwelcome" has a deeper meaning than a big strong man without dependents can possibly imagine.

 

[Netzach]

Plus-- I'll see you your Hitchens and raise you a Billy Graham, a Fred Phelps, a Tony Perkins, a Phyllis Schafely. A Ralph Reed, Marco Rubio, Rob Portman, Jim deMint, Mitt Romney, this list of televangelists, and thousands more.

Also, Homburg, you've never found yourself moving to a strange place with a three-year-old toddler and a baby at the breast. "I was made to feel unwelcome" has a deeper meaning than a big strong man without dependents can possibly imagine.

Yes. You see religiosity bias as the problem, I see Christianity bias as the problem. Formal atheist communities are usually more excited to tell non-Christian theists that they're blithering idiots than worry about their status or actually get everyone else into a similar boat.

And yes, it's incredibly daunting unpopular, you have six heads, lets get out the bingo cards to be an atheist in America, openly.

It's changed for me absolutely none in that regard, starting from "Jewish". Well ever since I flew the coop.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well as an atheist, I just don't get my happy on about anybody's gods, not even the really pretty ones. And I speak as someone who has had dreams about fucking Krishna.

As far as religious bias goes, in this country, Christianity in all it's hydra-headed glory happens to be the one that grabbed the drivers seat. Other countries have other religions that are, or want to be, the national arbiter.

 

[intothewoods]

When did this become an issue of institutional oppression? Where did I (non-jokingly) claim that some organized form of atheism was actively trying to oppress anything? Oppression can be entirely personal, and, in point of fact, was exactly what I was speaking to. And, further, as I am apparently either misunderstood, or purposefully being misrepresented, I was speaking of the attempt. Not success. Not law being put into effect. The attempt.

Why? Because it is something I personally strive to avoid, which has been the consistent point I've tried to make. And, to further make the point, this is linked to the earlier discussion on gun rights, as I said there that I have no desire to oppress, marginalize, or disenfranchise anyone.

This entire discussion started around comments based on interpersonal reactions and interactions. That's it, period. Yet in some form of fallacy of composition, the comments I made in regard to personal interaction are somehow presumed to be my statement in regards to the whole? No, not close to what I've tried to say, and I'm not interested in making that argument because it has NOTHING to do with the points I was working to make.

In short, if you disagree with me because you see no institutionalized oppression on behalf of atheists, rock on. I never made that point, but you're welcome to decry it all you want. If you want to discuss interpersonal relations and my personal choices insofar as how I handle myself, and how I'd like to see others handle themselves in similar circumstances, I'll discuss it.

I'm happy to discuss interpersonal relations, but I've never disagreed that there aren't atheists behaving badly in the world. I disagree that that bad behavior is "oppression" or even a desire to oppress.

Oppression isn't strictly limited to institutions, but that kind of magnitude is needed. Groups can oppress. Even an individual can if there is power, real power. A white slaveholder pre-civil war can oppress an individual black person, because the power that slaveholder held was huge -- life or death. Bill Maher can't oppress a religious Christian.

Formal atheist communities are usually more excited to tell non-Christian theists that they're blithering idiots than worry about their status or actually get everyone else into a similar boat.

Totally agree.

 

[Netzach]

I'm happy to discuss interpersonal relations, but I've never disagreed that there aren't atheists behaving badly in the world. I disagree that that bad behavior is "oppression" or even a desire to oppress.

Oppression isn't strictly limited to institutions, but that kind of magnitude is needed. Groups can oppress. Even an individual can if there is power, real power. A white slaveholder pre-civil war can oppress an individual black person, because the power that slaveholder held was huge -- life or death. Bill Maher can't oppress a religious Christian.



Totally agree.

Mainstreams of Christianity can hold their own. Not all whining is equal, which makes their whining only louder, but whatever. Offended Christians? If this was Lebanon or Egypt, you have a point, go worry about those people. I do.

However, I think some high visibility jerk in media being a douchebag to let's say a Sikh, further marginalizes that person, perpetrates bullshit upon them, and encourages other mainstream secularists to be giant douchebags making it more OK to have hair cutting hate crime incidents. Shootings? Why not. They're obviously terrorists and non-humans largely because it's OK to make fun of their customs constantly.

And yes, I think forcibly cutting hair or beard off someone who believes in the sanctity of those things is a crime against their person in a serious way.

It's not that I want discussion of things in douchebag style shut down, but I think it's valid to say it's not cute, and I don't think it's that great, and I think the fan club sucks. I don't care to hold hands and sing kumbayah and be on "interfaith" committees as the "nice atheist" either - you God-wants-me-to-do-x people believe some majorly toxic shit, but I think you should be left alone, and not constantly needled about your difference, and I'd like the same.

If asked what I think I'll say what I think. If prayed for I will not feel as gracious as Homburg about it, I really truly mean LEAVE ME ALONE. That said - in the end, I relate to those who are being marginalized, not just those who happen to agree with my cosmology, who are sometimes being marginalized and sometimes have as much right to fury as the war-on-Christmas whiners. There are communities where being a believer of some kind is to be a total outlier, still. Really. I've lived in both six pack and Pinotage America.

There's a freaked-out enforced marginality that leads to people being shot en masse for being different, and I don't think you can lay the blame at the feet of ONLY fundie Christianity when everyone else is happy to pile on the marginalization.

Of course most professional atheist personalities who want to be huge assholes tend not to come out of these marginalized groups, which makes me think Christianity does some really amazing mental programming on people. (Those going to heaven, those lost in ignorance, and those who dare not think as I think who are ruining everything)

I definitely have a bias. It's against Proselytism. But guess where I may have picked that up!

 

[Netzach]

Well as an atheist, I just don't get my happy on about anybody's gods, not even the really pretty ones. And I speak as someone who has had dreams about fucking Krishna.

I don't have to praise the Prophet to be pissed off about the Ground Zero Mosque controversy horse dookie, do I?

 

[DVS]

I look at every radical opinion as part of an iceberg. An iceberg has a large portion below water level that you can't see. I consider the part above water as the extreme or radical opinion and the part that's below water level as the more moderate opinion. There are people who might have similar opinions in spirit, but prefer not to express them as prominently as their radical friend. For every radical political, sexual, racial, religious opinion, there are many more who prefer to believe in what they do and allow others to do the same. They prefer to live and let live.

So, the people we see on the news are the radicals and extremists that the media loves because they are passionate and outspoken in their beliefs and have no problem expressing their opinion. When you get two opposing positions fighting back and forth, the cameras eat it up.

Radicals and basically all extremists can get out of hand when they are confronted by opposing sides of the fence. They tend to over state their position, point fingers and jump to conclusions. We should all remember that those seen in the media are usually not those who speak for everybody. While we might agree in many ways, we are more tolerant of the opposition.

 

[intothewoods]

I have sympathy for outsiders, and I always have. It's why I feel for the very nice Christian couple I know when I see some so-pleased-with-themselves atheists on Facebook posting yet another meme about dumb Christians. That guy is obnoxious and boring and not adding shit to the conversation.

I do need there to be some past history or larger context for me to really feel for you. If you've chosen to live in a major metro area amongst the heathen yuppies, and work in a field that is heavily populated by same, well, don't cry too hard. In fact, I probably walk a bit more delicately around the aforementioned couple because they do not proselytize or complain.

In other parts of the world, as you say, Netzach, it's another ballgame.

As to the high visibility atheists...it depends. I feel like Bill Maher has been pretty clearly consistent, and not particularly vicious to minorities. Christopher Hitchens said some stuff that I didn't like -- I suppose the good news is that the Christian right doesn't align too well with atheists. They'd take Lieberman first, LOL. Overall, groupthink, mob behavior, etc.., is fucking scary.

And on an individual level though, it is interesting to see that -- at least I'm not X phenomenon. Poor, white, but at least I'm not an N. Jewish, but not Muslim. It's like this joy and relief to be on the other side.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't have to praise the Prophet to be pissed off about the Ground Zero Mosque controversy horse dookie, do I?

That is inter-religious and also nationalistic horse dookie.

Sure there are some atheists who think that there should be NO CHURCHES ANYWHERE but they aren't the ones that have blocked the mosque, the Xtians are far more powerful.

Similarly, there are LGBT who say that don't want gay marriage rights, instead they want to abolish all marriage. But they are not the ones blocking civil rights.

On the subject of smaller religions-- Belgium has filed charges against Scientology as a criminal organisation.

Maybe we talked about that? I don't remember!

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I look at every radical opinion as part of an iceberg. An iceberg has a large portion below water level that you can't see. I consider the part above water as the extreme or radical opinion and the part that's below water level as the more moderate opinion. There are people who might have similar opinions in spirit, but prefer not to express them as prominently as their radical friend. For every radical political, sexual, racial, religious opinion, there are many more who prefer to believe in what they do and allow others to do the same. They prefer to live and let live.

So, the people we see on the news are the radicals and extremists that the media loves because they are passionate and outspoken in their beliefs and have no problem expressing their opinion. When you get two opposing positions fighting back and forth, the cameras eat it up.

Radicals and basically all extremists can get out of hand when they are confronted by opposing sides of the fence. They tend to over state their position, point fingers and jump to conclusions. We should all remember that those seen in the media are usually not those who speak for everybody. While we might agree in many ways, we are more tolerant of the opposition.

The danger/strength/power in/of an iceberg is almost never the part above water that we can see. Just a semi-random thought about this analogy.

 

[DVS]

The danger/strength/power in/of an iceberg is almost never the part above water that we can see. Just a semi-random thought about this analogy.

True, but I think what we see of the radical opinions tends to fuel the feuds over topics. While the larger portion of the iceberg below the surface might be more dangerous, there is no real danger as long as we stay clear of the sharp edges.

I'm just saying those who are saying things in the news don't necessarily speak for everybody. My opinion might still have a few sharp edges as far as the opposition is concerned, but I think the radical view is full of sharp edges and adding salt to the wounds.

 

[Netzach]

That is inter-religious and also nationalistic horse dookie.

Sure there are some atheists who think that there should be NO CHURCHES ANYWHERE but they aren't the ones that have blocked the mosque, the Xtians are far more powerful.

In NYC? As in every Sunday and Bible Study believers? No. They're not. This was a xenophobic secularist cockblock, by people who are religious like I'm religious. Crusade legends infect pretty much everyone who got the Euro version of history.

If anything you did see some alliances WITH the Islamic center among religious people, you saw a large number of religious leaders of the stripe of "people who scare the shit out of me generally" coming out in favor of the build.

On the subject of smaller religions-- Belgium has filed charges against Scientology as a criminal organisation.

Maybe we talked about that? I don't remember!

Europe has some interesting laws.