As my fellow Kossacks treated me to this article by putting it on the rec list, this skeptic will step up to defend what seems to be appropriate behavior and denounce what's not. I doubt I am the first, but some points are well repeated.
I have been attacked here for being an Anglican. For being an idiot. For being a jerk, frankly. For having an opinion which is scary. For having an opinion that people that might have faith are not always idiots that want to hate.
This seemed the main thrust of the diary, to me. Now, I happen to be the sort of skeptic that prefers to attack the religion, the belief, not the person. It is my experience, however, that believers often invest themselves into their belief systems, to the point that attacking those beliefs is felt to be an attack on them.
It's not. I don't care if you think it is. I'm sorry if this sounds callous of me. But I care about what you can demonstrate. And the attack goes where my language puts it. If I personalize an attack and call you an idiot, yes. Definitely an attack on you. Not called for. If I call a belief idiotic, that's the belief. Not you. If I pull some rhetorical curveball like 'only an idiot could believe that,' that's my fault for not being precise. That's someone who wants to attack and won't say it straight. I am not perfect, so I cannot say I would never do such a thing; but I'll try not to.
Another point, from the comments I saw: xians being persecuted in Iraq is not comparable to what goes on in America. I'm sorry. I know the lot of xians is quite harsh in some other countries. I have brought it up myself from time to time, and it disturbs me how few people care, and it interests me to see what kinds of people do care.
It impresses me (not in a good way) how little most evangelicals care about this; it seldom comes up in conversation how the xians in Iraq have been driven from the country in the conservatives' glorious liberation of the place. They freed muslims to persecute their xian brothers and sisters, in a way. It does the liberal xians credit that they care.
He said something good about xians! Must not be a true skeptic! Shun the non-non-believer!!
Sorry, my eyes rolled out of my head, I had to find 'em...
Ironically, it seems that what you're showing here is the difference in conservative/liberal POV, not anything particularly xian in nature, since both sides of that equation are xians and only one side of them cares. But being in America, calling xians' beliefs rank nonsense, it's not even close to being run out of your home with violence. Sorry.
Now, we can discuss the concept of bullying and how much attacking of beliefs is tantamount to bullying. I find this a disreputable attempt to shut down debate, in terms meant to spook liberals. It's not like a conservative equating liberals with traitors is going to be impressed by this.
Underlying the defense of religious beliefs, I often find the concept of respect. Unearned respect. The kind of respect that should automatically be paid to religion. It's like a bad habit, and it's unjustified. This is where I think the bullying charge comes from.
Bullying seems to be a measure of intent to cause harm. And I can't speak for conservatives and their 'traitor' BS, but in attacking beliefs I am trying not to attack the believer -- my intent is not to harm them. If anything, I think that the perceived harm believers feel is where the notion of being bullied comes from. I find that perceived harm unjustified, and I would like to change that protected status that religion has. I could be wrong; you might disagree; that's fine. We can see if the case I make stands up to scrutiny.
I am appalled at the fact that there are some good Kossacks that will not admit that some Christians did some real good. Yes, we've done bad. Not my folks. But to paint every Christian believer with the brush of ignorance: well, some people don't know very many real Christians.
I don't have a problem with the idea that some xians have done some real good. I understand that xians were on both sides of the slavery issue in America, for example, and so at least some of them have used the religion to good effect. Although it can be used to promote either side, clearly. Bit of a problem there.
This good, however, does not make the religion and its beliefs less ignorant. Contrary to what your religion may tell you, the good you do does not render your beliefs true. The most liberal xian still believes in a god they cannot demonstrate, in the historicity of events they cannot demonstrate, often in supposed historical events that run counter to established science and credible evidence therefrom.
Do you believe Jesus existed as an incarnate god? That he came to forgive sins? To undo the damage of original sin? Original sin from some reputed garden? Where the first humans failed the test of blind obedience? The timing of it alone, the genetic bottleneck this would represent, would be so blatantly obvious by itself...not to mention the foolishness of the test. Not even talking philosophy, or why vicarious redemption should be accepted at all (it's not, after all, except for this bit). Just raw facts vs. religion. Things like the biblical Flood or the Garden of Eden. Demonstrable nonsense.
How xians, catholics in particular (and Anglican offshoots), reconcile their beliefs with the demonstrated reality of evolution, I have no idea. They say they do. But I have not been shown how.
So yes, I think every xian merits the 'brush of ignorance'. Every single one seems to deserve it, for holding to nonsense beliefs that they cannot demonstrate to be true. That is an uninformed position. That is willfully uninformed. That is ignorance. It's not a comment on intelligence. Just the willingness to examine beliefs and put them under scrutiny.
Want to try on persecution for size? To see what it's like to be disrespected, distrusted, namecalled, discriminated against? Consider the idea of an atheist President. And when you get done laughing hysterically about such a ridiculous notion that will almost certainly never happen in my lifetime, perhaps then we can talk.