Skip to main content

View Diary: Struggle and Faith: How Occupy Has Taught Me To Tolerate Religion (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  for the lurkers (0+ / 0-)

    I happen to think that informative discussions happen in a tone of mutual respect.  I think overheated insults hurt discussion and do more harm than good to the truth.  I think there is some wisdom in the phrase, "we can disagree without being disagreeable".  I think there is a clear line between thoughtful criticism (which I relish) and hurling put downs.  I think the judgmental language that often spawns from heated exchanges is at the same time tragic and silly.

    Rieux chose a discussion with me, opening with a comment in which I could not find any trace of respect or good will.  I responded with sarcasm and so not only has there not been a discussion about the underlying issues, there is no sign of agreement on the ground rules for holding such a discussion.

    Later I offered a second opportunity to start a discussion if he could find a way to carry on in a respectful tone.  He clearly rejected that just as he has rejected the main thesis of the diary:  that there is room for tolerance of religious people in progressive causes.

    Rieux may have suffered in some way at the hands of some of the many idiots who claim to be Christian.  Many of us have - me included.  In any case, I still wish her or him well.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Thu May 02, 2013 at 07:10:01 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Cute. (0+ / 0-)
      I happen to think that informative discussions happen in a tone of mutual respect.
      So do I. The problem is that your unexamined privilege and prejudice lead you to believe that "respect" requires your social inferiors to remain silent and never question the self-serving ideas that you broadcast.

      You call it "respect," but it's actually subservience. And we members of disempowered and despised minorities have every right to scoff at your demand.

      I think there is a clear line between thoughtful criticism (which I relish)....
      You pretend to "relish" thoughtful criticism. But it's a crock. You declare any criticism that is actually critical as disrespectful and thoughtless. It isn't; that's just your blind privilege talking.

      You'd never have the gall to defend such absurd privilege in these parts if it were any other variety of privilege—white privilege, male privilege, straight privilege, class privilege, ableist privilege. But religious privilege is a generally unchallenged norm even in this community, so you think you can beat atheists up with it. It won't work.

      Rieux chose a discussion with me, opening with a comment in which I could not find any trace of respect or good will.
      No one is obligated to respond to your broadcast of your personal philosophy with "respect or good will" toward that philosophy. That, again, is the arrogant demand of a hegemon accustomed to the unchecked power to silence anyone who dares to question him or her.

      Again, you wouldn't dare to whine about "respect or good will" if the exchange had been about race, gender, sexual identity, class, or ableism. But religion, you think, makes you immune from challenges you deem "disrespectful." Your privilege is showing.

      He clearly rejected that just as he has rejected the main thesis of the diary:  that there is room for tolerance of religious people in progressive causes.
      That is a bigoted lie. Nothing I have said carries the slightest actual implication "that there is" no "room for tolerance of religious people in progressive causes." That is nothing but your bigotry talking.

      Open challenge and debate about religious IDEAS is not, in the real world, hostility to religious PEOPLE. You are so buried in prejudice and privilege that you think that you, unlike anyone else pushing any other kind of idea, deserve deferential silence when you push your theological notions into the free marketplace of ideas. But you're wrong, nastily wrong: your ideas are just as fair game for challenge, critique, and mockery as anyone else's ideas.

      Your pretense that critical challenges to your ideas constitute a denial of "tolerance of religious people" is a hateful lie. Shame on you.

      Rieux may have suffered in some way at the hands of some of the many idiots who claim to be Christian.
      Your sneering ad hominem insult is noted. Again, you would never dare to respond to (say) a GLBT person who criticized a straight-privileged argument of yours by airily hypothesizing about what your opponent "may have suffered" at the hands of homophobes.

      Your atheophobia is disgusting.

    •  It's also worth noting (0+ / 0-)

      that you were whining about the uppity behavior of disgusting atheists who dared to question you before I ever showed up on this thread.

      This particular exchange began with your declaration that "genuine faith is not irrational  but suprarational." not2plato—and not I—exposed that notion of yours for the absurd bafflegab that it is, a response that you, with the tremendous arrogance of a privileged hegemon, took offense at:

      Guess you sure told me!  Except you completely misunderstood me and have no idea what I'm talking about.
      That, of course, is utter bullshit that lays bare your inability to support your hot air with reasoning. Which isn't surprising, given that you have so little practice defending your ideas against critique: as you've now demonstrated, your preference is to personally smear your opponents and demand "respect" (by which you actually mean silence) from them rather than confronting their objections on their merits.

      ...But it's also a tellingly emotional response that demonstrates your whiny unhappiness that not2plato dared to ignore your stuck-up privilege. The offended dignity you affect in "Guess you sure told me!  Except you completely misunderstood...." is a hilarious caricature of a thoughtless blatherer caught shooting his mouth off—of a blinkered majority member who never imagined that a lowly unbeliever might dare to question his enlightened lucubrations.

      All of this happened before I ever wrote a word in response to you. You were in high privileged-atheophobe dudgeon before I even showed up. Nice try, though.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site