That’s from the just-so story mocking Israel’s enemies.

And considering that you just quoted from the sexiest book of the Bible, it’s surprising that you don’t know what it is: the Song of Solomon. You know, the erotic poetry smack in the middle of the OT.

PrimateIR: “Crystal, JJ, Monkeymind, show me when coertesy has ever eliminated bigotry.”

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do-nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.

Letter from Birmingham Jail, MLK

Actually, the whole letter is a great example of how to be both frank and courteous all at once.

Claire, your older person analogy is great, but when your Grandma uses the N word, you tell her not to do that because it hurts people’s feelings and if she keeps doing it you tell her it hurts your feelings. If she’s a nice person she will stop, and if she’s an a!#@$% you just bought a great excuse for not having to visit anymore.

Actually, my grandparents and parents are both long gone, and none of them would every have said or thought such a thing, being good decent forward-thinking liberals from before that became a bad word (the religious and the non-religious ones both). My more recent problem with old folks comes from my friends’ relatives, which is actually harder – speak up and suddenly you have two people giving you the stink-eye instead of just one.

The Christian moderate discomfort, is a sign of their loss of power. Its a positive thing, not something to be fixed.

I actually thought this was a good way to look at it – kinda gives me some hope.

are you actually saying all moderates want to do this? how do you explain these then?

Well, it kind of depends on what you consider moderate, doesn’t it? They may call themselves moderate, but they sure look a little further along the continuum toward the progressive to me.

Aj, you probably strike some people as bordering on dogmatic in that you think you are right and that’s that, that all religious people deserve ridicule no matter what, that they are all the same and stupid, that all religious upbringing is child abuse, that agnostics don’t count, and that atheists who don’t ridicule them are going about it all wrong. And funny, the only person I’ve seen crystal really have a problem with is you, so this “other people” doesn’t apply much. Maybe some people don’t debate you b/c they know you’ll dismiss anything they say you don’t agree with anyway, so why bother? Your mind is made up-all religious people should be made fun of until they agree with you. So I really don’t think you should be getting on anyone else’s case for being stubborn in their beliefs.

You’re right, I think I am right, shocking I know. I do not claim to know whether a God exists or not, but if the evidence was presented I would be persuaded otherwise. I do believe indoctrination of children is child abuse. You’re wrong, I don’t think people “deserve” ridicule, or think that Atheists should ridicule them. If people think I’ll dismiss them if I don’t agree with them, they are wrong.

That’s not exactly dogmatism. Actually, I would say that’s the opposite of dogmaticism. So these charges of dogmaticism, should either be backed up by argument and cited cases, or you should cease them. If you truly think I’m dogmatic, I would really like to know what beliefs you think I am dogmatic about.

Someone telling you they think you are wrong, as I’ve seen many people on this site do, or not agreeing with you, is not “irrational”.

It is not, and I never claimed that was a factor on a rational argument. I haven’t called anyone irrational on this topic, because I don’t believe people have been. On other topics, people have been, and I will stand by that claim, it is obvious, honest, and logical to me, and I was willing to give those people plenty of explanations as to why. At some point, I’m going to have to disengage, dismiss irrational arguments, because they’re not profitable.

You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but you’re going to have to accept that there will be several who won’t agree with you.

I accept that others might disagree, from my perspective it’s you and others that don’t. I’m willing to debate the point, but if others aren’t, I won’t comment anymore.

As an educator and a teacher, I can see that shame and ridicule can be effective ways of getting people to change their outward behavior, but they are seldom good tools for effecting real change in individuals and society.

Crystal, JJ, Monkeymind, show me when coertesy has ever eliminated bigotry.

I don’t think bigotry has ever been eliminated by more bigotry. (Calling people faithheads and christards)

I’ve been an uppity woman in my time, and hope to be a raging granny one day. I’ve marched, protested, and testified with religious people of all persuasion for peace, social justice, environmental causes and better education. Like Jen, I don’t really recognize the “religious moderate” some of you are portraying. For instance, even Hemant apparently did not know that a religious person (Ed Myers, a Mennonite) had filed a lawsuit in Virginia against the compulsory Pledge of Allegiance as a violation of church/state separation and his sons’ civil rights.

I’d certainly feel free to tell James Dobson to his face to focus on his own damn family, but I might approach one of his followers who is just trying to figure out how to live in this confusing world a little differently.
I realize that some people in the Bible Belt are surrounded by true believers at home and in the workplace and may feel their boundaries are constantly being challenged in situations like the one PrimateIR describes. I think you should not compromise your integrity, but there are ways to accomplish that that can lead to more openness and truth rather than name-calling.

Atheism is the only rational position. The Atheism like Dawkins or Russell wrote about. You can call it Agnostic, because we don’t claim to know, but we think it’s highly unlikely any theistic God exists, and if a God did exist, it won’t be explained away with “he’s beyond time”. All belief in God is through faith, so not worthy of respect. For this reason Agnosticism, both sides are of equal worth, is also not worthy of respect.

been lurking for a while, felt like commenting. Yeah but you seem to think that your version of it is the only rational position. and for someone who claims to be rational, you seem unwilling to consider other’s point of view. as for agnostics, there are plenty who would disagree with you, and I’ve actually seen several agnostics blogs that are getting tired of being bashed for not being atheists. There are non-religious who don’t agree with you-many-and you’re just going to have to get used to that.

People don’t give up power without a bit of a fight. The Christian moderate discomfort, is a sign of their loss of power. Its a positive thing, not something to be fixed.

They want to return to the bad old days.

Primate-really? are you actually saying all moderates want to do this? how do you explain these then? http://www.newprogressivealliance.com/? or these http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=fld_religious_listing? certainly there are those who claim to be moderate who are just as bad as fundies, but for you to label and say all moderates want to return to the “good old days” is ridiculous. Am I going to say all atheists want to deface churches b/c of the crime those atheist teenagers committed? why don’t you stop putting and labeling people in boxes? As for the Christmas party, it depends on the circumstances. It depends where and how. If it’s a holiday party done by a company, at an office, then no religion should be mentioned. If it’s done at someone’s home, then that person has the right to invoke whatever they like, especially if the majority of the people there believe in a god-just like you have the right in your home to not do it, and to say whatever you like against religion if you wish. You can’t make a broad generalization like that. People have the right to their beliefs in their own homes. Period.

How does one “sound almost dogmatic”?

Aj, you probably strike some people as bordering on dogmatic in that you think you are right and that’s that, that all religious people deserve ridicule no matter what, that they are all the same and stupid, that all religious upbringing is child abuse, that agnostics don’t count, and that atheists who don’t ridicule them are going about it all wrong. And funny, the only person I’ve seen crystal really have a problem with is you, so this “other people” doesn’t apply much. Maybe some people don’t debate you b/c they know you’ll dismiss anything they say you don’t agree with anyway, so why bother? Your mind is made up-all religious people should be made fun of until they agree with you. So I really don’t think you should be getting on anyone else’s case for being stubborn in their beliefs. Someone telling you they think you are wrong, as I’ve seen many people on this site do, or not agreeing with you, is not “irrational”. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but you’re going to have to accept that there will be several who won’t agree with you. I for one, am glad that there are people like Hemant. I live perfectly fine side by side with religious people for the most part-and I see no need to ridicule them unless they try to force their stuff on me or make laws in their favor against me, as too many fundies and evangelicals do. Privately I don’t care what anyone believes, and I don’t think anyone should waste their time on it. I know a pagan who worships trees. I find it well-odd to say the last. But as long as she’s not trying to force me to believe that trees have magic powers, or trying to get a state law passed saying we have to worship trees, or stop promising research b/c it would upset the trees, she can worship trees all she likes, and I’m not going to bother her over it. Why should I waste my time? Like there isn’t enough trouble in the world??

Crystal, JJ, Monkeymind, show me when coertesy has ever eliminated bigotry.

See the quote about civil rights made above from the interview. It’s unfortunately impossible to completely eliminate bigotry-but you can get it down. Groups can fight for their rights without trying to take away rights from other groups. Believers and non-believers seem to co-exist pretty decently in Western Europe for the most part. Can you make a good argument against the civil rights quote? The civil rights movement would not have gotten very far if white people hadn’t helped and worked with black people.

Sometimes if you demand respect, you have to give a little-you dont have to respect the beliefs, but you do have to respect the people at least somewhat if you want it in return. Are you saying only atheists deserve respect?

When someone says at the next Christmas party I go to “lets bow our head and say thanks.” Probably it will be done by a “moderate Christian.”

That person won’t have checked to see what the beliefs of the other diners are. That same person would be horrified if I demanded that we all prostate ourselves to the East or just talk over him while he thanks his sky fairy for the meal some chick slaved over. That same person will remain noticeably silent when a stricter Christian says that they would never vote for an Atheist.

I will sincerely consider their “demand for respect” (like that ever worked), when THEY start showing some. They are long over due.

People don’t give up power without a bit of a fight. The Christian moderate discomfort, is a sign of their loss of power. Its a positive thing, not something to be fixed.

They want to return to the bad old days.

Claire, your older person analogy is great, but when your Grandma uses the N word, you tell her not to do that because it hurts people’s feelings and if she keeps doing it you tell her it hurts your feelings. If she’s a nice person she will stop, and if she’s an a!#@$% you just bought a great excuse for not having to visit anymore.

Crystal, JJ, Monkeymind, show me when coertesy has ever eliminated bigotry.

Sometimes if you demand respect, you have to give a little-you don’t have to respect the beliefs, but you do have to respect the people at least somewhat if you want it in return. Are you saying only atheists deserve respect?

There’s a difference between respecting the person and respecting their beliefs, I respect the people. I’m perfectly aware that Nazis and Fundamentalist Christians can be highly intelligent, polite, and generally kind people, and I would try to be civil to them. However, I am unable to treat their beliefs with respect, not for a second.

I think damn hard for my beliefs. The nature of skepticism. And when I get called on them in debate, I can’t just say “it’s my faith”, or “god did it”.

Atheism is the only rational position. The Atheism like Dawkins or Russell wrote about. You can call it Agnostic, because we don’t claim to know, but we think it’s highly unlikely any theistic God exists, and if a God did exist, it won’t be explained away with “he’s beyond time”. All belief in God is through faith, so not worthy of respect. For this reason Agnosticism, both sides are of equal worth, is also not worthy of respect.

They’re demanding religion be respected. If you’re going to complain about things like the Smut for Smut campaign, who’re you pandering to? Religious moderates who demand religion be respected. Can you sell your soul twice?

Sometimes if you demand respect, you have to give a little-you don’t have to respect the beliefs, but you do have to respect the people at least somewhat if you want it in return. Are you saying only atheists deserve respect?

I think the interview was great and I hope more people adopt Hemant’s style. My favorite quote from the interview was:

“No marginalized group in history has gained a place at the table by telling the majority it is too stupid to live, or by closing its eyes and telling the majority you better damn well be gone before I count to ten. Imagine the dead end that gay rights would have encountered if the movement spoke of working toward a world with no heterosexuals. Imagine the grinding halt to civil rights legislation if black Americans insisted that white be recognized as inferior to black. By instead seeking nothing more or less than a shared place at the table, these movements moved. Until we realize the same thing and extend a far friendlier hand to the more reasonable representatives of the (most likely shocked and surprised) religious majority, we will be deservedly stuck on the margins.

Don’t worry. People like Hemant just might manage to save us from ourselves.”

Very well said.

pretty much. there’s just no arguing with some people. sounds almost dogmatic in some ways. I’m glad thought that people like Hemant are getting to be more in the majority.

That’s funny given your record of not wanting to debate anyone on any subject you dogmatically hold irrational beliefs on. It’s number two for me, but I’m sure others who have visited this site longer have come across you more times.

How does one “sound almost dogmatic”?

If I’ve misinterpreted what Hemant was saying about Smut for Smut, I’m sure he’ll clear things up. Lets hope someone is making progress.