why is it that religious belief

[Renee]

..is cast as illogical and so readily and wholeheartedly assailed, ridiculed, belittled by many here who don't believe in god and so forth. Yet these same persons don't suffer an iotas worth of disagreement on such topics as same sex marriage, homosexuality, etc.?

Aren't attacks against each/any all a form of intolerance and hate?

Ideology is attacked all the time. Race, gender and sexual orientation are attacks on people for being who they are. Amazing you can't see the difference, I do not hate people of faith, though i debate the illogic of it. If you attack my political beliefs , does that mean you hate me? I hope not.

 

[Renee]

Yes, these attacks are ABSOLUTELY a form of intolerance and hate, but progressives are known for their double standards.

Can you tell us how we don't tolerate your beliefs? Do we lock you up, lynch you, ban you from worshipping? We may not agree with it...but hate , but intolerance ? Come on....

 

[BobbyT]

How many gays have been removed from their jobs for speaking their opinions______Phil didn't call for hanging gays but GLADD made it seems as he did by their demands.........hell, we get banned from frays as this for speaking our opinions..........it may be America, but it's not the America I use to know. I expect no one to shut up, state their opinion and not go for blood........playing as if you don't see the difference is stupidly..........IMO

You seriously want to compare statistics on gays who have lost their jobs for being gay against Christians who have lost theirs for being Christian? Really? Bring it dude. FYI, Phil didn't lose his job. You wanna know why? Because A&E decided they would make more money for keeping him than losing him. If he lost his job it would be because A&E decided they'd lose more money by keeping him than firing him. It has [Unwelcome language removed]-all to do with his Christianity.

 

[BobbyT]

well, no, not quite. by assailing, I meant assailing....i.e attacking, ridiculing, mocking, belittling ..casting as illogical and lesser than...those who believe otherwise.

why can it, religion, be cast as illogical....yet someones view on homosexuality, cast similarly, is viewed as hatred.

questioning is one thing, and I think a fair means of discourse... which is part of, but not exclusively the limits of what is demonstrated here on PJ.

further, not sensitive in the slightest as my views have had limited airing here, and when so aired... I'm by no stretch of the imagination overly affected..

Ok, now that we've established that your religious views are not being assailed, as they have "had limited airing here," and by the same admission Carol has not aired her specific views here, what the hell are you complaining about? Again: you can subscribe to a religious view, a political view, an economic view, etc., and you will find those who disagree with you. And sometimes those disagreements will come with specific attacks (e.g., I read about liberals being moochers and all on welfare on a daily basis). I can scoff all day long at your religious beliefs, just as you can scoff at my progressive beliefs. Opinions and belief systems are always vulnerable to attacks from doubters. It is the nature of discourse. The difference (again) between that and being "against homosexuality" is the difference between holding a difference of opinion on a matter of opinion and holding the opinion that WHO someone is is wrong. People are who they are and try as you might to disagree with the existence of blue eyes, they exist.

 

[BobbyT]

Meh, it's just more of the same old tired rhetoric that equates challenges to irrational bias and assumed privilege to "hate" and "intolerance" and loss of unearned privilege to "persecution." Nothing to see here...

Cheers.

Yes. Who sees that?

 

[PhilFish]

Ideology is attacked all the time. Race, gender and sexual orientation are attacks on people for being who they are. Amazing you can't see the difference, I do not hate people of faith, though i debate the illogic of it. If you attack my political beliefs , does that mean you hate me? I hope not.

Religion..is not part and parcel of who some people are? (no, not from a genetic perspective, before anyone goes there..) I would posit however that religious and sexual orientation are somewhat closer in sphere to one another than is race or gender...

Why do you express amazement and what you surmise as to what I can or cannot see. I have expressed no such thing... so perhaps spare the effort to ccraft that which I do not express myself.



and as an aside, no, no hate in that regard, though you and I know there are many here who do...openly..

 

[PhilFish]

Ok, now that we've established that your religious views are not being assailed, as they have "had limited airing here," and by the same admission Carol has not aired her specific views here, what the hell are you complaining about? Again: you can subscribe to a religious view, a political view, an economic view, etc., and you will find those who disagree with you. And sometimes those disagreements will come with specific attacks (e.g., I read about liberals being moochers and all on welfare on a daily basis). I can scoff all day long at your religious beliefs, just as you can scoff at my progressive beliefs. Opinions and belief systems are always vulnerable to attacks from doubters. It is the nature of discourse. The difference (again) between that and being "against homosexuality" is the difference between holding a difference of opinion on a matter of opinion and holding the opinion that WHO someone is is wrong. People are who they are and try as you might to disagree with the existence of blue eyes, they exist.

where did I express that my religious views specifically were being assailed? (pardon me, but I'm a bit sleepy presently...)

I asked why people give themselves license to assail religious people but rail against similar with regard to sexuality.

 

[SW48]

..is cast as illogical and so readily and wholeheartedly assailed, ridiculed, belittled by many here who don't believe in god and so forth. Yet these same persons don't suffer an iotas worth of disagreement on such topics as same sex marriage, homosexuality, etc.?

Aren't attacks against each/any all a form of intolerance and hate?

I think intolerance of all is equally the same. Intolerance of gays, religion, and even intolerance of someone elses views like Bashir and Robertson are all equal. Even intolerance of Democrats and Republicans.

You can't pick and choose what to be intolerant about or you are a hypocrite.

 

[Renee]

where did I express that my religious views specifically were being assailed? (pardon me, but I'm a bit sleepy presently...)

I asked why people give themselves license to assail religious people but rail against similar with regard to sexuality.

Religious views are like political views...they are beliefs, opinions and ideology. They can be changed. Ones sexuality is their very being. Is railing against skin heads the same as railing against blacks? One cannot impose their gayness or race on us, but religion can be imposed on us....and is!

 

[SW48]

Religious views are like political views...they are beliefs, opinions and ideology. They can be changed. Ones sexuality is their very being. Is railing against skin heads the same as railing against blacks? One cannot impose their gayness or race on us, but religion can be imposed on us....and is!

Good point.

 

[gigi]

The difference is between disagreeing with or questioning (what you call 'assailing, etc.) someone's beliefs (their political stance, their views on religion, basically their opinion on anything), which is what each of us on all sides of any issue do regularly; and disagreeing or questioning with what someone is. Homosexuality isn't a belief system, it is part and parcel of who someone is. Calling religious people stupid is akin to calling liberals moochers (both of which we see here regularly). Disagreeing with homosexuality is like disagreeing that people should have blue eyes.

That said, if you're overly sensitive to people vociferously disagreeing with your religious beliefs, don't present them here. But they're just as much fair game for disagreement as any other opinion you choose to air here.

There's a difference between disagreeing wit someone's religious beliefs and attacking them through misrepresentation and ridicule, right? Those who engage in the ridicule cite the fact that they can't see or touch God.....so it's okay to mock a God we love and talk about how stupid we are for loving Him.
But you can't touch hetero or Cuomo sexuality, either. It's just in a person, the same way faith is, the same way many believe the Holy Spirit is. You used the phrase "part and parcel of who a person is." That applies to religious faith, too. Yet often you find the same people who ridicule the invisible God will be all about not only accepting the invisible sexualities, but condemning others who view sexual orientation the way they themselves view religious belief. I think the top post is questioning why.

 

[SW48]

There's a difference between disagreeing wit someone's religious beliefs and attacking them through misrepresentation and ridicule, right? Those who engage in the ridicule cite the fact that they can't see or touch God.....so it's okay to mock a God we love and talk about how stupid we are for loving Him.
But you can't touch hetero or Cuomo sexuality, either. It's just in a person, the same way faith is, the same way many believe the Holy Spirit is. You used the phrase "part and parcel of who a person is." That applies to religious faith, too. Yet often you find the same people who ridicule the invisible God will be all about not only accepting the invisible sexualities, but condemning others who view sexual orientation the way they themselves view religious belief. I think the top post is questioning why.

Good point.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Why is it that so many folks choose to ascribe their bigotry to their religious beliefs and then argue that people should be "tolerant" of their bigotry because God requires it of them?

Is it only acceptable to be intolerant of bigots if they are also atheists?

 

[Havelock]

Why is it that so many folks choose to ascribe their bigotry to their religious beliefs and then argue that people should be "tolerant" of their bigotry because God requires it of them?

Is it only acceptable to be intolerant of bigots if they are also atheists?

Cognitive dissonance: “I don't want to confront my negative biases, but I want to continue to believe that I'm a good person and that those who call attention to my hurtful attitudes and behavior are really the bad people. I can't resolve these issues logically, so I'll just believe that God commands me to act the way I do. No one can argue with God, right? Problem solved!”

It really is as simple as that for most people.

Cheers.

 

[RickWA]

..is cast as illogical and so readily and wholeheartedly assailed, ridiculed, belittled by many here who don't believe in god and so forth. Yet these same persons don't suffer an iotas worth of disagreement on such topics as same sex marriage, homosexuality, etc.?

Aren't attacks against each/any all a form of intolerance and hate?

It is an interesting question. I suspect it all comes down to the practical reality that acceptable bigotries are calibrated to social/political philosophies. It' not the bias and bigotry that is wrong, but against whom it is leveraged. You see it in this very strand.

A homosexual loves someone of his/her same gender, therefore that is definitive of his core being (part and parcel of who he/she is). However a Christian, who loves Christ/God is merely demonstrating some properly challenged irrational affectation. Therefore, it is not "granted" as part and parcel of who the Christian is.

Therein lies the rationale for 'acceptable' bigotry targets.

And so the two groups coalesce. We're justified in ridiculing this. They're justified in ridiculing that.

 

[PhilFish]

Religious views are like political views...they are beliefs, opinions and ideology. They can be changed. Ones sexuality is their very being. Is railing against skin heads the same as railing against blacks? One cannot impose their gayness or race on us, but religion can be imposed on us....and is!

i guess it is a matter of perspective. no one can impose religion on you. you can reject it.

one can not like it, reject it, change it, ignore it...

clearly, railing against the skin head is not the same as railing against blacks... but then, which is railing against religion closer to in that sense... the skin head or blacks?

I find it discouraging that many so freely malign the religious (granted, some deserve it).. yet rally to the defense of other preferences, beliefs, orientations .. i find them to be closer aligned... and worth defending, as much as, but not less than the others..

 

[PhilFish]

It is an interesting question. I suspect it all comes down to the practical reality that acceptable bigotries are calibrated to social/political philosophies. It' not the bias and bigotry that is wrong, but against whom it is leveraged. You see it in this very strand.

A homosexual loves someone of his/her same gender, therefore that is definitive of his core being (part and parcel of who he/she is). However a Christian, who loves Christ/God is merely demonstrating some properly challenged irrational affectation. Therefore, it is not "granted" as part and parcel of who the Christian is.

Therein lies the rationale for 'acceptable' bigotry targets.

And so the two groups coalesce. We're justified in ridiculing this. They're justified in ridiculing that.

it an interesting premise.. that of the irrational affectation.


many feel free to brand religion so...

but if I dare call homosexuality that... watch the rain fall.......

 

[Renee]

i guess it is a matter of perspective. no one can impose religion on you. you can reject it.

one can not like it, reject it, change it, ignore it...

clearly, railing against the skin head is not the same as railing against blacks... but then, which is railing against religion closer to in that sense... the skin head or blacks?

I find it discouraging that many so freely malign the religious (granted, some deserve it).. yet rally to the defense of other preferences, beliefs, orientations .. i find them to be closer aligned... and worth defending, as much as, but not less than the others..

How can you compare ideology or religious belief to skin color and sexual orientation? Is it ok to rail against ideologies except for religious ones?

 

[Renee]

it an interesting premise.. that of the irrational affectation.


many feel free to brand religion so...

but if I dare call homosexuality that... watch the rain fall.......

How do you brand homosexuality?

 

[Renee]

There's a difference between disagreeing wit someone's religious beliefs and attacking them through misrepresentation and ridicule, right? Those who engage in the ridicule cite the fact that they can't see or touch God.....so it's okay to mock a God we love and talk about how stupid we are for loving Him.
But you can't touch hetero or Cuomo sexuality, either. It's just in a person, the same way faith is, the same way many believe the Holy Spirit is. You used the phrase "part and parcel of who a person is." That applies to religious faith, too. Yet often you find the same people who ridicule the invisible God will be all about not only accepting the invisible sexualities, but condemning others who view sexual orientation the way they themselves view religious belief. I think the top post is questioning why.

What are invisible sexualities?