Behavior Issues

[billms]

Let me try to rephrase what I think Buddha was observing.

It is quite common for people to get irate if their religion is questioned. If I told an evangelical that their idea of god was stupid many of them would get quite pissed off. And most people that I know, evangelical or not, would think I was being an ***. And I think these statements are true regardless of if I said that in a political forum or on the street.

But if I tell Deeds that conservatives are heartless bastards and a person would have to either be deeply immoral or stupid to be one - well - thats pretty rough but language like that is heard. And I think it would be tolerated - not ignored but also not engendering the same sort of shocked reaction as the previous example - regardless of where I said it, i.e. in a forum or on the street.

I don't think this is universal - we all have no trouble making fun of the hale bop sneaker dudes or jones town.

That strikes me as odd. Why are the dominant religions given a pass - you can discuss some stuff but its really out of bounds to get in somebody's face about it - while other deeply personal beliefs like political philosophy are less respected?

[apabruce]

I've had a feeling, which I haven't been able able to explain or justify through evidence, that Christian sensibilities are afforded more respect and deference than non-Christian ones. I was hoping a Christian would say "Yeah, you're probably right, but quit whining. Your presence here is voluntary." At least then I would have the satisfaction that someone who otherwise thinks my beliefs are delusional thinks I might be right.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

Let me try to rephrase what I think Buddha was observing.

It is quite common for people to get irate if their religion is questioned. If I told an evangelical that their idea of god was stupid many of them would get quite pissed off. And most people that I know, evangelical or not, would think I was being an ***. And I think these statements are true regardless of if I said that in a political forum or on the street.

But if I tell Deeds that conservatives are heartless bastards and a person would have to either be deeply immoral or stupid to be one - well - thats pretty rough but language like that is heard. And I think it would be tolerated - not ignored but also not engendering the same sort of shocked reaction as the previous example - regardless of where I said it, i.e. in a forum or on the street.

I don't think this is universal - we all have no trouble making fun of the hale bop sneaker dudes or jones town.

That strikes me as odd. Why are the dominant religions given a pass - you can discuss some stuff but its really out of bounds to get in somebody's face about it - while other deeply personal beliefs like political philosophy are less respected?

I think its because politics is a public matter and, therefore, its more acceptable to discuss them in a public context. That's not to say I think it is appropriate in general to make insulting political comments to people you don't know -- I find it quite rude even if I share the speaker's political philosophy.

Plus, its been that way for thousands of years. Blame the Greeks and Romans.

[billms]

Religion is often on public display - and less often but not all that rare a public matter as well. I don't disagree with you in principle but I don't think there is a hard line.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

Religion is often on public display - and less often but not all that rare a public matter as well. I don't disagree with you in principle but I don't think there is a hard line.

I see your point, but I'm not convinced that the tenants of religious are really a public matter. Religion's role in society may be, but not really its beliefs. Obviously, everything about politics is a public matter.

[Lousluggage]

Originally Posted by apabruce

I've had a feeling, which I haven't been able able to explain or justify through evidence, that Christian sensibilities are afforded more respect and deference than non-Christian ones. I was hoping a Christian would say "Yeah, you're probably right, but quit whining. Your presence here is voluntary." At least then I would have the satisfaction that someone who otherwise thinks my beliefs are delusional thinks I might be right.

I would probably expand that to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

One example that I think would illustrate what you're trying to express is that some years ago, people were polled to determine how many people would be willing to elect a President who was not religious-and an overwhelming majority of people said that they would not vote for an atheist. Keep in mind that this was without knowing anything about the candidate's political beliefs.

The question is, why is a person that is not religious automatically seen as unfit for political office, and why is it not considered a bad thing to reject somebody just for that reason?

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

I see your point, but I'm not convinced that the tenants of religious are really a public matter. Religion's role in society may be, but not really its beliefs. Obviously, everything about politics is a public matter.

I'm not so sure I agree with you about politics so much. Policy certainly is public. Liberalism means different things to each individual - much like conservatism - and what it means to each of us is often philosophical - not policy - and deeply personal.

[apabruce]

Originally Posted by Lousluggage

The question is, why is a person that is not religious automatically seen as unfit for political office, and why is it not considered a bad thing to reject somebody just for that reason?

I can't blame the poll respondents for that. From their point of view, an atheist is wrong on so many levels. The fact that an atheist can't see what is obvious to a Christian would tend to make them question what an atheist does see. And religion comes into so many topics; abortion, stem cell research, teaching evolution, the death penalty, pre-marital sex, gay rights, assisted suicide, to name a few.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Lousluggage

The question is, why is a person that is not religious automatically seen as unfit for political office, and why is it not considered a bad thing to reject somebody just for that reason?

And if you thought the 'other' religion - whatever it is - is wrong why would it be better to pick one of them than an atheist?

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by Lousluggage

I would probably expand that to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

One example that I think would illustrate what you're trying to express is that some years ago, people were polled to determine how many people would be willing to elect a President who was not religious-and an overwhelming majority of people said that they would not vote for an atheist. Keep in mind that this was without knowing anything about the candidate's political beliefs.

The question is, why is a person that is not religious automatically seen as unfit for political office, and why is it not considered a bad thing to reject somebody just for that reason?

I think its because the overwhelming majority of people in this country come from a Judeo-Christian background. That means an atheist has an fundamentally different moral and ethical background than the vast majority of the rest of the country. In other words, I have far more in common spiritually with a African Muslim than I do with a European atheist.

[Lousluggage]

Originally Posted by billms

And if you thought the 'other' religion - whatever it is - is wrong why would it be better to pick one of them than an atheist?

I have no idea.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

I'm not so sure I agree with you about politics so much. Policy certainly is public. Liberalism means different things to each individual - much like conservatism - and what it means to each of us is often philosophical - not policy - and deeply personal.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that we disagree.

I do see what you are saying here, but I think its also been the case for thousands of years that philosophical matters have been discussed openly in the public forum.

[Lousluggage]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

I think its because the overwhelming majority of people in this country come from a Judeo-Christian background. That means an atheist has an fundamentally different moral and ethical background than the vast majority of the rest of the country. In other words, I have far more in common spiritually with a African Muslim than I do with a European atheist.

See, that's what's interesting to me. I have several atheist friends who are active in their communities, who donate time to helping the homeless/hungry, and whose personal beliefs about many issues are similar, and often identical to, many people of faith. They just don't happen to believe in a higher power. They also don't talk about their 'lack of faith' in public, but it seems as if in some elections not talking about his/her faith in itself can hurt or even destroy a candidate's chances.

This of course gets tricky for people (for example in northern NE), where people are taught that religion is a very personal issue that shouldn't be discussed outside of church/family, but that's another issue altogether.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by Lousluggage

See, that's what's interesting to me. I have several atheist friends who are active in their communities, who donate time to helping the homeless/hungry, and whose personal beliefs about many issues are similar, and often identical to, many people of faith. They just don't happen to believe in a higher power. They also don't talk about their 'lack of faith' in public, but it seems as if in some elections not talking about his/her faith in itself can hurt or even destroy a candidate's chances.

This of course gets tricky for people (for example in northern NE), where people are taught that religion is a very personal issue that shouldn't be discussed outside of church/family, but that's another issue altogether.

I'm not trying to suggest that atheists are immoral. In fact, I don't necessarily even consider it a disqualification. But I think its hard to deny that atheists beliefs are fundamentally different from that of the vast majority of the country and to some people, that's a barrier far more troubling than merely how a candidate looks.

[apabruce]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

I think its because the overwhelming majority of people in this country come from a Judeo-Christian background. That means an atheist has an fundamentally different moral and ethical background than the vast majority of the rest of the country. In other words, I have far more in common spiritually with a African Muslim than I do with a European atheist.

Yet, from a cultural standpoint, it's far easier for me to interact with an American Judeo-Christian than someone from another culture. Mainstream, non-evangelical Christians, would find little to disagree with me if we were discussing things in a bar, unless the specific issues of afterlife and worship came up.

Now, if I was having a beer with a Christian who is opposed to people living together outside of wedlock, opposed to swearing, drinking, gay rights, etc., we would not be agreeing much, but I guess I wouldn't be having a beer with that person anyway.

[sinister porpoise]

IMO two political liberals, atheist and Christian, are likely to have more in common than a liberal Christian and a conservative Christian. Morally and ethically.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

I think its because the overwhelming majority of people in this country come from a Judeo-Christian background. That means an atheist has an fundamentally different moral and ethical background than the vast majority of the rest of the country. In other words, I have far more in common spiritually with a African Muslim than I do with a European atheist.

Well, I'd disagree with that. The moral and ethical underpinnings there are essentially the 10 commandments. I would bet that most athiests believe in most of those - and the ones that they don't agree with are the ones that people from Judeo-Christian backgrounds least often adhere to.

But your last point intrigues me. Do many people use "judeo-christian" to include muslim's? I hadn't heard that before and Wikipedia - the authority on everything - suggests not but that it may be a coming trend.

[billms]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

I'm not trying to suggest that atheists are immoral. In fact, I don't necessarily even consider it a disqualification. But I think its hard to deny that atheists beliefs are fundamentally different from that of the vast majority of the country and to some people, that's a barrier far more troubling than merely how a candidate looks.

I just don't see it.

For the most part we all think its bad to lie, steal, kill or commit adultery. Jews don't believe Christ is god. Christian's don't believe Mohamed was a prophet. And the Muslim's think the other two stopped two far. Thats a whole passel of differences in my book. They seem bigger than "don't use your god's name as a curse".

[Lousluggage]

Originally Posted by billms

Well, I'd disagree with that. The moral and ethical underpinnings there are essentially the 10 commandments. I would bet that most athiests believe in most of those - and the ones that they don't agree with are the ones that people from Judeo-Christian backgrounds least often adhere to.

But your last point intrigues me. Do many people use "judeo-christian" to include muslim's? I hadn't heard that before and Wikipedia - the authority on everything - suggests not but that it may be a coming trend.

I don't know how many people use 'Judeo-Christian' to describe Muslims, but according the the Koran, Muslims follow the doctrine of these four prophets: Moses, Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammed. So yes, I would say that it is a religion based on Judeo-Christian values.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by billms

But your last point intrigues me. Do many people use "judeo-christian" to include muslim's? I hadn't heard that before and Wikipedia - the authority on everything - suggests not but that it may be a coming trend.

I do, because it's logical to do so -- all three religions have Abraham as a common ancestor. I can't speak for others but I wouldn't be surprised to find myself in the minority. It wouldn't be the first time.

[DrWho17]

Is Judas Cats ok? I remember my Grandpa saying that all the time, I imagine Judas is a reference to Judas Iscariot, not sure about the Cats part or the spelling that's just how it sounds phonetically. Always wondered about that.

[Chopper]

Is holy cow ok? Just asking.

[hueytaxi]

Very revealiing thread tonight. Nice to read it while my friends can debate a hot topic so cordially.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by Chopper

Is holy cow ok? Just asking.

I wondered about that too. That's something I say a lot.

Personally, I'm not shocked by people saying, "J.C." although I myself do not use His name in this context and have taught my children to do the same. There's a difference, at least to me, between someone saying something that offends someone else and someone being deliberately offensive. And this really goes double when I am in a situation with other adults from a variety of beliefs, backgrounds, etc.

Now, Pete ... his name I take in vain a lot too.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by apabruce

I've had a feeling, which I haven't been able able to explain or justify through evidence, that Christian sensibilities are afforded more respect and deference than non-Christian ones. I was hoping a Christian would say "Yeah, you're probably right, but quit whining. Your presence here is voluntary." At least then I would have the satisfaction that someone who otherwise thinks my beliefs are delusional thinks I might be right.

Originally Posted by Lousluggage

I would probably expand that to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

This was what I was trying to say earlier, more or less.

The last two or three points just up there ^ are also interesting - where, exactly, do we try and draw some kind of line on this sort of thing?

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

I think its because the overwhelming majority of people in this country come from a Judeo-Christian background. That means an atheist has an fundamentally different moral and ethical background than the vast majority of the rest of the country. In other words, I have far more in common spiritually with a African Muslim than I do with a European atheist.

Oh, I think you'd find that we probably have a lot more in common than you might possibly imagine - including many of the ways that we look at the world. And, in lots of ways, that'd prolly be quite, but not very, different from the ways that a Tuareg from northern Niger, for example, might look at stuff.

[hueytaxi]

Catching up last night and this morning on this antiquated PC I've borrowed, I made a fool of myself, before deleting. I found myself intolerant of one of our newer members. I had exchanged a few comments on my old unit, and reading the latest, I valued the restraint some have been using. BST had commented on treating new members unfairly becaus of minimum post counts and I took that into consideration. Mods have pointed out that being opinionated is not a sin. Yet I lost it this morning and jumped in (Oblong did sugggest not *****footing around . But after reading my rant, I found myself in the same game of baiting and biting.