Atheists should criticize religion, but how we do it matters

[Underseer]

In your Op there's something of a contradiction. Because in saying that Christians and Muslims collectively share the blame for last week's shooting, you yourself are inciting hate against Christians and Muslims.

Did you actually read the post? The whole thing? The whole point to what I am saying is to discuss how we talk about theists, particularly Muslims as the few incidents of atheist violence we know of involve Muslim victims.

I'm opposed to abortion. I think it is a sin. Is that hate speech? Do I share the blame for abortion clinic bombers?

Yes. The things you say about homosexuals is hate speech. The fact that you use the word "sin" in your hate speech does not change the fact that things you say are hate speech.

If it's OK for people to scream 'Christofascist' 'misogynist' etc at me, why can't I scream 'baby killer' back at them?

So if I call you a misogynist, then I am being prejudiced?

Sorry, but you don't seem to understand what prejudice is.

If you behave in a way that is misogynist, then calling you misogynist is not prejudice, it is simply a statement of fact. If I call you a misogynist and you are not a misogynist, then you can of course argue why I am wrong, but it's still not a matter of prejudice. If I say most Christians are misogynist, that's still not prejudice, particularly given that we can cite plenty of scientific polls showing a prevalence of anti-woman views among Christians.

If I say that every single Christian is a misogynist, then I am being prejudiced.

If I point out that some Muslims are terrorists, I am not being prejudiced, I am stating a fact. If I say that all Muslims are terrorists, then I'm being prejudiced.

- - - Updated - - -

The LGBTQIXYZ lobby asserts their free speech prerogative in the public square making loud declarations about sexuality - preaching about their definition of love and morality. And they demand not only 'tolerance' but acceptance.

At what point did it become unacceptable 'hate speech' for people to publicly disagree with them?

Thank you for illustrating exactly the kind of hate I was talking about in the original post. It helps to illustrate exactly the kind of language atheists should avoid when talking about any external populations, namely theists.

 

[Underseer]

Yes, I imagine that would be one of the points of disagreement.

But the central issues here are;

'equality'
'diversity'
'tolerance'
'freedom'

Do I have an equal right to self-expression? Must my views also be tolerated?

You have an equal right to express your views.

No one is preventing you from expressing views.

However, we also have a right to free speech. This means that we also have a right to comment on the nature of your views. Freedom of speech never meant freedom from criticism. Freedom from criticism is exactly the opposite of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech exists precisely to allow criticism of anyone and everyone.

You are free to be as much of a bigot as you want. You are free to express hateful views as much as you want. We are free to point out the character of your statements and what they say about you as a person. You provide a fine example of exactly the kind of speech I want atheists to avoid using. Most Christians and Muslims express views about homosexuals exactly like you are doing, and that is precisely what drives Christian and Muslims acts of violence, as well as actions by Christians and Muslims that use the law or society to persecute homosexuals. The hate you spew is the fuel that enables the evil of others.

 

[Lion IRC]

Did you actually read the post? The whole thing?...

Yes. And it's a very interesting and worthy Op.
But the thing which stands out like a sore thumb is that accusing Christians of having Orlando LGBTQIA blood on their hands incites hatred - hatred of Christians.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

To say all Muslims are terrorists is nonsense. To say Some Muslims are terrorists is true. The problem is when we start saying because some Muslams are terrorists all Muslims are deeply suspect is also a slippey slope to bigotry. And this is the very sort of rhetoric we see from the Trump supporters and tea party loonies all too often.

 

[Lion IRC]

...If you behave in a way that is misogynist, [sexually disgusting and perverted] then calling you misogynist [sexually disgusting and perverted] is not prejudice, it is simply a statement of fact.

Sorry for the edit. I just wanted to see how it would look if you swap one form of hate speech epithet with another.

 

[Keith&Co.]

...If you behave in a way that is misogynist, [sexually disgusting and perverted] then calling you misogynist [sexually disgusting and perverted] is not prejudice, it is simply a statement of fact.

Sorry for the edit. I just wanted to see how it would look if you swap one form of hate speech epithet with another.

Okay. So, it's okay to do that sort of thing, then, as long as you're trying to make a point?

Misogynist isn't a hate speech epithet, though, you shit eating fuckwit [/point].

 

[Lion IRC]

Um...yes it is an epithet because I say it is.

Remember, it doesn't matter whether YOU think it's offensive to label someone 'colored' or 'abnormal' or 'queer' or 'homophobe'. If the person hearing your language finds it offensive then it's offensive.
And if you continue to use that type of gender biased, or culturally insensitive, or racially tainted language then one assumes you are deliberately ignoring the feelings of people who are offended by same.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Um...yes it is an epithet because I say it is.

Remember, it doesn't matter whether YOU think it's offensive to label someone 'colored' or 'abnormal' or 'queer' or 'homophobe'. If the person hearing your language finds it offensive then it's offensive.

You can take offense at it, sure.
You can also take offense at being called a 'christian,' if you're of a mind to.

Your response is not what makes it 'hate speech,' though.

And if you continue to use that type of gender biased, or culturally insensitive, or racially tainted language then one assumes you are deliberately ignoring the feelings of people who are offended by same.

Wait, what are you referring to? Are you saying Misogynist is gender biased? Or 'perverted?'

 

[DrZoidberg]

Your view is shaped by the country and environment that you came from? Because you do not suffer any religious persecution it is a bit easy for you to say just ignore religion it's pointless?

That is the opposite of what I was trying to say. What I tried to say is that we should't ignore religion. We should analyse it function and replace the functions. That's the opposite of ignoring it.

Telling religious people to stop being religious because God doesn't exist and believing is stupid, isn't going to help anybody leave religion. It'll just make religious people sad.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In your Op there's something of a contradiction. Because in saying that Christians and Muslims collectively share the blame for last week's shooting, you yourself are inciting hate against Christians and Muslims.

I'm opposed to abortion. I think it is a sin. Is that hate speech? Do I share the blame for abortion clinic bombers?

If it's OK for people to scream 'Christofascist' 'misogynist' etc at me, why can't I scream 'baby killer' back at them?

Laws against "hate speech" come in two categories:

1) Public order. Saying these things has a real and documented real risk of leading to acts of violence against a minority.

2) Human dignity This one has to do with equating a group as being less than human somehow. Trying to imply that their opinions don't matter and they have no human value. Also, generally formulated in order to protect minorities.

Does either of your examples fall into either of these categories?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Hi Underseer, I agree with the vast majority of your post. Language and how we use it, has an effect. Obviously, this can also be taken too far.

This point though. I wish to draw more attention to:

Christianity and Islam both share blame for the recent shooting at that gay nightclub. Contrary to what people say, they did not directly cause that shooting. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims do not go around killing gay people. The Muslim who did was clearly a lunatic. The connection is that Christians and Muslims constantly spew hate at homosexuals. The shooter got anti-gay messages from home, from his mosque, and from the Christian-majority society outside his immediate circle. When Christians and Muslims constantly fan the fires of hate against homosexuals, it is inevitable that the lunatics among them will target homosexuals when they go crazy.

I agree with your overall point. When major components of major religions dehumanize and denigrate a group constantly, it creates a culture of acceptability for hate, and it seems rather inevitable that some will take matters into their own hands. Especially when these groups have major political clout and major voices in communities.

But I think we have another problem. This culture of hate exists more than anywhere else in the bigoted religious communities themselves. Look at Omar's father and some of the comments he's made as a classic example. Omar grew up in a Muslim community, with conservative relatives, steeped in conservative Islam, and all data points to him being gay. His father can't bring himself to admit it even now. Imagine the self loathing this man had as he tried to resist his "sinful" urges. As he tried to square his religion with his own nature, but obviously failed. This is toxicity at it's worst, and who to blame? Those homosexuals of course! Tempting him with their programs on TV, their dating apps, their bids for equality and acceptance. How to be a good conservative Muslim when you're gay? His final act was telling. Pledging the attack to Isis and becoming a martyr. How else is a degenerate gay Muslim to enter paradise and leave this painful world behind at the same time?

The religious zealots that preach this hate, irregardless of which religion they belong to, aren't just effecting the rest of us that don't buy into their nonsense. They're hurting their own people as well. That kind of toxicity will not stay contained.

 

[Underseer]

Did you actually read the post? The whole thing?...

Yes. And it's a very interesting and worthy Op.
But the thing which stands out like a sore thumb is that accusing Christians of having Orlando LGBTQIA blood on their hands incites hatred - hatred of Christians.

So you didn't read it.

OK, let me explain this again in hope that you will pay attention this time.

In any population, there are going to be crazies. This is unavoidable for any large population. If the population in question is constantly directing hate at a particular group, then when one of those crazies snaps, the violence is more likely to be directed at the hated group. The vast majority of members of that group will be able to process the hate without becoming murderers, but when the crazies among them become violent, their choice of targets is likely to be influenced by the hatred of the group.

Omar Mateen was taught to hate homosexuals by his family, by his mosque, and by the broader society in which he lives. In that broader society, Christians are the ones spreading most of the anti-LGBT hatred. Thus, when Omar Mateen snapped, his choice of victims was influenced by the hatred of his family, his mosque, and by the large number of Christians in the nation in which he lived.

That is the connection.

Your own rhetoric in this thread shows that you are completely unapologetic about this, and even given the nature of the discussion, you still will not back off from your hateful rhetoric.

Unfortunately, I worry that some of the hateful among atheists will be no different from you. Even after talking about this, they will continue to make broad, sweeping, hateful statements about Muslims, Christians, and/or theists in general. If it is true that there is a pattern of atheist violence against Muslims, then at the moment I am more worried about hateful rhetoric from atheists directed at Muslims than any other group.

 

[Underseer]

Lion, we are getting away from what I really want to talk about.

In this thread, I do not want to talk about Christian hate. I have little confidence that anything can persuade you to stop hating. I want to talk about atheist hate because I think I can use moral arguments to persuade other atheists to be less hateful. I have no such confidence in you because of your religious beliefs.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This isn't really apples to apples. I've yet to hear about some atheist snapping and murdering Muslims because they have imaginary friends or because they poke fun at atheism. The reverse happens from time to time, with Muslims murdering non-muslims over cartoons or over simply not being muslim. The one group simply has more of it than the other, and that should be kept in mind here.

 

[Underseer]

Damn, did I just cross the line I previously drew for myself?

Lion, I hope that you will consider the consequences of the hate that you spread, but your hate is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about hateful rhetoric from atheists.

 

[Underseer]

This isn't really apples to apples. I've yet to hear about some atheist snapping and murdering Muslims because they have imaginary friends or because they poke fun at atheism. The reverse happens from time to time, with Muslims murdering non-muslims over cartoons or over simply not being muslim. The one group simply has more of it than the other, and that should be kept in mind here.

Special pleading fallacy.

Whether or not atheists believe we have a magical invisible friend who is being insulted does not change the fact that hate in our rhetoric could influence the behavior of those among us who happen to be crazy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This isn't really apples to apples. I've yet to hear about some atheist snapping and murdering Muslims because they have imaginary friends or because they poke fun at atheism. The reverse happens from time to time, with Muslims murdering non-muslims over cartoons or over simply not being muslim. The one group simply has more of it than the other, and that should be kept in mind here.

Special pleading fallacy.

Whether or not atheists believe we have a magical invisible friend who is being insulted does not change the fact that hate in our rhetoric could influence the behavior of those among us who happen to be crazy.

But has it? How often do atheists go on killing sprees against the deluded theists? Crazy plus the authoritarianism and tribalism that comes with religion seems to be far more dangerous. The most anti-religious people I can think of just go around mocking religious people. I can't imagine many, if any, of them turning to violence based on atheism. Religious crazies snap into violence enough to keep headlines busy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think that atheists being careful how we address and criticize religion has far more to do with the reaction from theists than the militarization of atheists. Reverse the roles and the opposite applies. I doubt anything Chris Hitchens wrote will lead to a bloodbath, even if some true nutter atheists read it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes. And it's a very interesting and worthy Op.
But the thing which stands out like a sore thumb is that accusing Christians of having Orlando LGBTQIA blood on their hands incites hatred - hatred of Christians.

So you didn't read it.

OK, let me explain this again in hope that you will pay attention this time.

In any population, there are going to be crazies. This is unavoidable for any large population. If the population in question is constantly directing hate at a particular group, then when one of those crazies snaps, the violence is more likely to be directed at the hated group. The vast majority of members of that group will be able to process the hate without becoming murderers, but when the crazies among them become violent, their choice of targets is likely to be influenced by the hatred of the group.

Omar Mateen was taught to hate homosexuals by his family, by his mosque, and by the broader society in which he lives. In that broader society, Christians are the ones spreading most of the anti-LGBT hatred. Thus, when Omar Mateen snapped, his choice of victims was influenced by the hatred of his family, his mosque, and by the large number of Christians in the nation in which he lived.

That is the connection.

Your own rhetoric in this thread shows that you are completely unapologetic about this, and even given the nature of the discussion, you still will not back off from your hateful rhetoric.

Unfortunately, I worry that some of the hateful among atheists will be no different from you. Even after talking about this, they will continue to make broad, sweeping, hateful statements about Muslims, Christians, and/or theists in general. If it is true that there is a pattern of atheist violence against Muslims, then at the moment I am more worried about hateful rhetoric from atheists directed at Muslims than any other group.

I agree with this. Opinions cross-breed across communities. If the majority religion condemn homosexuals, then so will minority religions increasingly do it. I think hate breeds hate

 

[Underseer]

Hi Underseer, I agree with the vast majority of your post. Language and how we use it, has an effect. Obviously, this can also be taken too far.

This point though. I wish to draw more attention to:

Christianity and Islam both share blame for the recent shooting at that gay nightclub. Contrary to what people say, they did not directly cause that shooting. The vast majority of Christians and Muslims do not go around killing gay people. The Muslim who did was clearly a lunatic. The connection is that Christians and Muslims constantly spew hate at homosexuals. The shooter got anti-gay messages from home, from his mosque, and from the Christian-majority society outside his immediate circle. When Christians and Muslims constantly fan the fires of hate against homosexuals, it is inevitable that the lunatics among them will target homosexuals when they go crazy.

I agree with your overall point. When major components of major religions dehumanize and denigrate a group constantly, it creates a culture of acceptability for hate, and it seems rather inevitable that some will take matters into their own hands. Especially when these groups have major political clout and major voices in communities.

But I think we have another problem. This culture of hate exists more than anywhere else in the bigoted religious communities themselves. Look at Omar's father and some of the comments he's made as a classic example. Omar grew up in a Muslim community, with conservative relatives, steeped in conservative Islam, and all data points to him being gay. His father can't bring himself to admit it even now. Imagine the self loathing this man had as he tried to resist his "sinful" urges. As he tried to square his religion with his own nature, but obviously failed. This is toxicity at it's worst, and who to blame? Those homosexuals of course! Tempting him with their programs on TV, their dating apps, their bids for equality and acceptance. How to be a good conservative Muslim when you're gay? His final act was telling. Pledging the attack to Isis and becoming a martyr. How else is a degenerate gay Muslim to enter paradise and leave this painful world behind at the same time?

The religious zealots that preach this hate, irregardless of which religion they belong to, aren't just effecting the rest of us that don't buy into their nonsense. They're hurting their own people as well. That kind of toxicity will not stay contained.

Yeah, that is more or less my take on it, although with other violent lunatics, there could be other stories. Either way, it all boils down to a culture of hate influencing the target choices of those in the population who happen to be crazy. In this case, the environment of hate may actually have caused or exacerbated the insanity, but the root cause is still the constant hateful rhetoric, and thus that is what I am most worried about.

I freely admit that in the case of violence by atheist crazies, the sample size is too small for a solid conclusion, but I still think it is worthwhile to talk about how we talk about Muslims just in case there is a real pattern here. We as a community do have those who can be incredibly hateful towards Muslims, and many of us have a tendency to over-generalize when talking about the flaws of religion.

I do try to remember to make exceptions for liberal Christians and liberal Muslims when I talk about those religions, but I don't stick in those qualifiers and caveats nearly enough. Including those caveats more frequently could remind the unstable among us that neither Christianity nor Islam is a monolithic, homogenous whole.