Posts tagged intolerance

nonplussedbyreligion:

I am really getting tired of hearing the argument that pro-marriage or pro-Bible does not mean anti-gay.   Someone just added that comment to a previous post I made about Chick-Fil-A.  Another person went out of his way to not so nicely tell me this last week.  

The big issues have to do with calling organizations that promote hate “hate groups,” and saying that pro-marriage means anti-gay.  Every one has the right to express their beliefs, with that right comes the freedom of others to label your beliefs as they see fit.  I believe that individuals and organizations that actively support measures that deny others the ability to marry, based solely on their religious belief, are being hateful, intolerant, and discriminatory.  Their words and actions serve as fuel for the hatemongers out there who bully, harass, and commit hate crimes.  

Those who are pro-marriage define it as marriage between a man and a woman.  They are opposed to any other marriage union, making them anti-marriage equality.  Since the group they’re fighting so hard to deny marriage rights are LGBTQ, how exactly are their beliefs not anti-gay?  Am I to believe that they’re ok with gay sex, just not gay marriage?  Do people really not realize how asinine the argument of pro-marriage does not equal anti-gay really is?  We’re not talking about people who are opposed to everyone getting married, just a specific group they feel don’t deserve the right to.

This is not a blanket generalization of the religious, but directed specifically to those who promote hate.  You have the right to disagree with me, but if you’re going to do so at least have the courage to acknowledge the intrinsic flaws of your arguments. 

What I find to be a most interesting phenomena is that the same people jumping to Dan Cathy’s defense, emphasizing that he has freedom of speech, are the same people who distance themselves from groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. His specific words were, “We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage…” Are we to treat the First Amendment like we do the Bible, picking and choosing when and who it applies to?  It’s ok for Cathy to say gay marriage is going to cause God to smite us, but not ok for WBC to shout, “God hates fags.”  I guess his kinder and gentler delivery makes it more acceptable, something that the Christian community can stand behind.  The level of hypocrisy on this one is mind blowing, but unfortunately not surprising.

The finger of accusation needs to stop being pointed at those of us who blog about religious organizations that push an anti-gay agenda and use the Bible to support it.  Stop telling us that pro-Bible does not mean anti-gay and start having this conversation with the members of your faith who use the Bible as a weapon.  

EXACTLY.

When I hear “I don’t hate gay people, I just believe their lifestyle is immoral”, what I’m actually hearing is “I don’t care about your feelings or rights because my religion tells me that you are less than human.”

There is no love and tolerance in making statements like the one Dan Cathy made. To have so many people stand behind that is painful enough.  Cathy’s business donates millions of dollars to hate groups that want people like me and many of my loved ones dead.  Dead and silent and gone.  And the goddamned self-righteous assholes who made a point of putting together “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” have the fucking NERVE to say they don’t hate LGBTQ+ people?  They think that they are tolerant and loving people?  They have the great big giant ballsacks to say that they represent a religion that preaches love?  I do not think so.

(via nonplussedbyreligion-deactivate)

nonplussedbyreligion:

The struggle for social inclusion is being fought on many fronts at the moment, and one group that tends to take a backseat is atheists. Of course, the other groups seeking inclusion deserve all the attention they get, especially because the direction is not always toward progress. Washington state is about to legalize gay marriage, but Minnesota is seeking a constitutional ban; we have a biracial President, but one of his potential opponents frequently uses racially coded language, and bigoted laws targeting Hispanics have recently been passed in states like Arizona and Alabama.

Atheists don’t face the same discrimination as these groups — they aren’t violently bullied, and they don’t live in segregated neighborhoods or go to segregated schools — but they still do deal with a significant social stigma. A college campus in a big city is a relatively more nonbeliever-friendly place, but that isn’t true everywhere. Most atheists know that the best they can usually hope for if they mention their atheism in public, especially to older people, is a polite, “Oh,” followed by a slow nod and a quick, awkward end to the conversation. Atheists are often pressured into self-censorship; besides potentially making social situations awkward, they don’t want to have to defend or explain themselves every time it comes up.

But there are worse consequences as well. A 2006 University of Minnesota study found that atheists were the most distrusted minority group in America. The study’s 2,000 participants rated atheists less likely than Muslims, recent immigrants and gays and lesbians to share their vision for American society. Out of 535 members of Congress, only one has publicly said he does not believe in a god and didn’t say so until 2007. Being “openly atheist” still has significant negative consequences in America, and it shouldn’t.

I’m convinced that most of the public disdain for atheism is due to misconceptions and bad examples. One misconception based on poor reasoning is the idea that because atheists don’t believe in a god, they have no system of morals or are moral relativists. On the contrary: most atheists apply some form of humanist philosophy, formally or informally, meaning they focus on human concerns using human values while rejecting supernatural concerns and religious dogma.

As the International Humanist and Ethical Union says, “Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities.” This should not be interpreted to mean that the humanist can do whatever he or she wants. Humanism is not hedonism, and religion does not have a monopoly on compassion and empathy.

In fact, a report called “World Public Opinion and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” showed in 2008 that those with no religious preference were more likely to support an “unequivocal prohibition on torture” than members of major religions (torture is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

The assumption that atheists have no values or are amoral can also prevent those who have serious doubts about the existence of a god from calling themselves atheists. Mistakenly thinking that rejecting one’s ethics and conscience is necessary for atheism can be scary and daunting, so people hedge their bets, call themselves agnostics and become firmly noncommittal about the existence of a god.

In addition to seeing atheists as immoral, religions as institutions might interpret atheism as a competitive threat — something that threatens their “market share,” so to speak. Older generations may also associate atheism with the old Soviet Union, which actively oppressed religious expression. The above factors help explain in part the dirty looks society still gives atheism.

But some of the problem comes from atheists themselves. Often, atheists feel a missionary zeal to convince others that there is no god, and this is especially true in the media and popular culture. The general public’s experience of atheism is frequently contentious arguments featuring Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens or Bill Maher, all of whom are capable of coming off as smug and harassing. Atheists seeking converts will bring up brutal wars waged in the name of religion and mock the idea of a “bearded man in the sky,” which I highly doubt is anyone’s true conception of God. The word “atheist” becomes a synonym for “annoying contrarian” in the minds of many people as a result.

Arguments about the existence of a god have their place, but they are separate from arguments for the wider acceptance and tolerance of atheists and atheism in society. Despite the contentious public perception of atheists, I suspect most are perfectly willing to live and let live. Atheists may privately think religions are wrong-headed (and vice versa), but there can be space for both.

We live in a cultural moment where social inclusion is expanding. People are realizing the intense emotional and sometimes physical pain that the harassment and exclusion of gay people causes. Cultural diversity in cities and universities has meant that social discrimination against minorities has been slowly decreasing, especially among younger people, even if progress lags woefully behind in areas like housing and employment.

Atheism should be a part of these movements, too. No one should be afraid to identify themselves as an atheist, and no one should face dirty looks or other social consequences as a result.

As a member of several minority groups, I sometimes struggle with the concept of atheists as a minority.  Then I read something like this, or read that atheists are distrusted to the same degree as rapists, it’s then that I realize that I have every right to be upset.  I won’t compare the things I have to deal with as an atheist to the discrimination faced by others, but no one can honestly admit that it does not exist.  To be viewed as immoral simply because I choose to think outside of the theist box is insulting on a very deep level. ~ Kim

(Source: mndaily.com, via nonplussedbyreligion-deactivate)

depressingfacts:

alanfuckingkhan:

most are just as self righteous as any religious zealot.

But we won’t kill you for disagreeing with us, that can’t be said about religious zealots.

and never have i seen a group so adamantly opposed to ”intolerance.” ironic.

Not really.

and let the records show for the court that i too believe it’s very unlikely there is a ”God”, but i’d never throw my hat in with such an absolutist lot, for the same reason i wouldn’t throw in with any religion. i steer clear of any organized group of people broadcasting their views as truth, looking down to those who don’t firmly believe in their logic.

Atheists make no positive claim and reject faith in the absence of evidence. What you’re talking about is gnostic atheism, different claim all together.

most are likely to be unaware of any real science or reason, most probably aren’t even after knowledge or truth, most are only set on arguing and rebelling against their oppresive mommies and daddys. looking to upset their challenged upbringing. so they recite and reiterate what they hear others say.

Richard Dawkins is a professor of evolutionary biology at Oxford. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist with degrees from Stanford and UCLA. 93% of the National Academies of Science are atheists. What were you saying that atheists don’t know science?

give the labels and egotistical pretenses a rest.. be happy. it ain’t that hard..

at the very least stop turning your “rational” beliefs into a very loud and attention seeking crusade. and for goodness’s sake quit complaining. or don’t, it provides me with good materiel to tumblr about.. oh boy i hope i get a few likes out of this rant.

Notes maybe, not likes.  I would not venture to like something so misinformed.

Your misconception of atheism is almost laughable, OP.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.  That’s it.  It’s not an absolutist position at all.  And the majority of atheists do not fit into the very narrow category you’ve listed here.

It really kills me how so many people write these bitchy posts about how all atheists are as self-righteous and pushy as believers, when the opposite is in fact true.  The few of us who are pushy have every right to be so.  When you are constantly treated as if you are amoral and your life is meaningless, when you are constantly treated in a condescending manner because “you’re just rebelling against your parents”… well quite honestly that shit starts to stick in your craw a bit.

I’m an adult.  I’m an atheist.  I will not be quiet about it.  I will not be made to feel as if I am a bad person because of it.  I will not have my rights taken away from me by theistic oppression.  I can’t change your opinion and I’ve got no mind to, but fuck you and fuck anyone who thinks that I’m going to keep quiet.  Damn right I’ll complain, I’ll complain about oppression in every form, and will continue to do so until I die.

(via dkyubey)

abaldwin360:

manicchill answered your question: American Atheists - Time to take the gloves off?

Do they deserve being told they’re idiots? Absolutely. But will that approach convince someone to re-evaluate their beliefs? Probably not

Actually, I’m glad you answered with this.

I might go off on a tangent here, but bear with me, I have a point…

There was a time in the US when segregation was socially acceptable, blacks and whites used different bathrooms, water fountains, separate schools, weren’t allowed in certain restaurants, and all of it was socially acceptable. It was tolerated.

There were some individuals who realized it was wrong, it was something academics and intellectuals would talk about, something people would theorize about in private.

Over time, more and more people started talking about, and as it was discussed more and more, it started coming up outside of academic circles, it got into the public eye, people resisted, there were huge debates, and, unfortunately some casualties, which I NEVER wish this to come to.

My point is, the more it was talked about, the more light was shined on the topic, the more the public started talking about it, the more attention it got, the more people started realizing they were wrong, eventually there was a tipping point, a point where society decided it wasn’t acceptable.

The way I see things right now, this behavior, this intolerance and ignorance from fundamentals is being tolerated at large, no matter what you may think, the fact that we have presidential candidates who are RUNNING on this platform tells us that it is tolerated.

If more people talked about it, if more people discussed it, if it gets in the public eye more, eventually society will start to think that maybe this wrong, maybe it is ridiculous to tell a woman what she can do with her body. Maybe it’s ridiculous to deny scientific findings because they disagree with your creation myth, maybe it’s wrong to discriminate against people for something that doesn’t hurt anyone, yet they perceive it as a sin.

Are there still racists out there?  Yes. But is racism a platform someone running for the President of the United States would be able to run on?  No.

Because it’s not tolerated by society at large, we’ve gone past the tipping point where most of society knows racism is wrong.

This is what needs to happen to fundamentalists. It needs to get to a point in society where this type of behavior is not acceptable, not tolerated.

Will that mean that there will still not be fundamentalists? No, they’ll still be around, there are still racists around, but hopefully someday, society at large won’t tolerate it. I know plenty of religious people who are open minded, who believe in god, but not that god “makes everything happen” or take the bible literally, I’ve known some people who were on the fence, these are the people who will change, these are the people who will stop tolerating intolerance after the tipping point is met.

Maybe then, some day, running on a platform of intolerance, of ignorance, of lies and rumors and shaky science, won’t be possible, because society at large won’t tolerate it.

(via glittertitties-deactivated20130)