Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Its perfectly acceptable to be rude to religous people...

999 replies

startrek90 · 20/03/2015 15:32

Definately going to get flamed here but oh well.

I get the feeling that this is perfectly acceptable to be rude about religous people. From reading the threads on this forum, and my experiences in RL, the amount of rudeness and sometimes plain nastiness is awful.

I am religous. I don't care if people are not, if they go to church or how they live their own lives or raise their children. As far as I am concerned as long as you obey the law, do what you want.

So far I have seen people imply that all religous people are closing their childrens mind, are ignorant, bigots.... its horrible!

I don't deny that there are people who are that way and use religion as an excuse.... but quite frankly you can be ignorant and rude without religion.

I am being unreasonable to be offended, but it really bothers me that its culturally acceptable to be rude to and about people of faith. You wouldn't do it to someone from a different culture or race would you? I have never bothered anyone with my faith so please stop taking it as an insult!

(Just venting, been lambasted in RL for daring to buy my son a Noahs ark toy. I thought it was cute with all the animals etc... but apparently I am raising him to be ignorant, bigoted and stupid. He will hate gay people and women and generally be a horrible person.....apparently grrr Angry )

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
BigDorrit · 26/03/2015 21:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JassyRadlett · 26/03/2015 21:09

Moving the goalposts again. Why? The privilege you were describing earlier was in relation to structural inequality on the basis of religion in our society (the 'level playing field') not getting the warm fuzzies from campaigning to reduce inequality.

You said earlier that the structural privilege Christians enjoy in this country is the result of a blessing from your God, with the privilege conferred on those who accept those blessings.

This has an obvious converse that the discrimination against those who do not accept those blessings is a punishment/sanction from your god for not accepting those (to all in the punished group imaginary) blessings.

capsium · 26/03/2015 21:09

There are good things I can see, hear, feel, smell, taste BigD. I believe all good comes from God.

capsium · 26/03/2015 21:13

Jassy I don't know how to explain any better but that is not the way I see it. I write as the thoughts come into my head. No more, no less.

BigDorrit · 26/03/2015 21:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JassyRadlett · 26/03/2015 21:14

That's exactly what the thoughts in your head said, though, which is fairly illuminating.

capsium · 26/03/2015 21:16

Enlighten me then, Jassy. Say what you think.

merrywindow · 26/03/2015 21:16

I cannot help but feel that you are deliberately misunderstanding me, Capsium.

My understanding of Christianity, based on a Catholic upbringing, convent school education, years of catechism, holy communion classes, confirmation classes, marriage classes, baptism classes, etc, is quite different from what you seem to be saying. But I am not a scholar of theology and nor do I know which denomination of Christianity you practise.

I am hesitant to suggest, as an agnostic, that you are doing Christianity "wrong". But it is not what I was taught. I was taught to praise Christ by personal sacrifice in this world - putting others (including non-believers) before myself, accepting hardship by turning the other cheek, resisting temptation - and looking forward to my reward in the next life. I think if I were practising today I would regard the privilege of special political clout as a temptation. If this is something which has befallen you, I hope that you know you can repent and be forgiven, provided that you do not leave it too late.

By the way, I do not hate believers (or anyone) and have always had the highest respect for followers of Christ's teachings.

capsium · 26/03/2015 21:20

merry ironic, considering the riches possessed by the Catholic Church.

No political clout has befallen me.

JassyRadlett · 26/03/2015 21:21

I have, at quite some length, but here's the short version:

I find the idea that inequality in our society in the form of Christian privilege in the structures of the state is a natural result of blessings conferred by God to be both one of the more disturbing approaches to Christianity I've encountered in a good long while, and despicable in its selfishness.

merrywindow · 26/03/2015 21:22

I didn't say they were doing Christianity right, either. Why do you think I lost my faith? Smile

JassyRadlett · 26/03/2015 21:23

No political clout has befallen me.

Well, that's not quite true. You have 15 dedicated members of the legislature who are there because they represent your faith, which is many more than those of other or no faith have put aside for them.

capsium · 26/03/2015 21:24

I will think on it Jassy.

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 21:36

and I think it is really important to acknowledge that what animated the atheist Communists was hatred of organised religion and a desire to wipe it out by killing its leaders and terrifying its followers.

that's true. But that doesn't mean atheism motivated them. It was communism. Communism has a lot in it about silencing dissent.

What baloney. You can be an atheist and hate religion enough to want to murder religious people and destroy the fabric of the church. Hakluyt, you are woefully misinformed and dreadfully confused.

No it's not baloney. What such an atheist is motivated by is hatred of the other. it's exactly like sectarian violence. How can you be motivated by atheism? All it says is that evidence for god is slim to none. That's it. there isn't any more to it. Atheism neither supports or forbids violence.

Your definition of atheism is so limited and narrow that it is almost meaningless. It is actually meaningless, since atheism is actually whatever any given atheist says it is.

No, that wasn't Hakluyt's definition of atheism, that is actually the definition of atheism. When you say communist atheist, the modifier communist is very important. The definition atheist is incredibly narrow.

Atheism is NOT whatever a given atheist says it is. If an atheist says atheism is not lack of belief in God, then they are wrong. The one and only thing that binds all atheists together is lack of belief in God. Some of us are assholes, some of us do non-stop charity work, some of us watch television all day, and some of us are mass murderers. The only common link is lack of belief in God. That's it.

This is pretty pathetic, therefore.

(referring to my post)

Actually, the only pathetic thing is not being able to follow this simple logic. Every example you have given about atheists being bad is of the form atheist (where the adjective is usually communist). We have all conceded that atheists can be horrible (in particular, communists), the question is whether someone was motivated by atheism.

I dare you to find someone, anyone, who said, "there is likely no god, therefore I did..." and even if someone said that it wouldn't make any sense. if that made any sense, then the statement "there are no leprauchaun therefore I did..." should make as much sense.

extreme orthodox jews or koran-thumping muslims are the representatives of their religions to prove your point, then you deserve to get one of the most extreme militant atheists to represent you.

there are some bad things that religious people do that have nothing to do with their religion. If a muslim robs a store and swipes a bottle of whiskey while he's at it, of course that has nothing to do with islam. That's just an asshole robber who happens to be muslim. Islam is completely irrelevant in this case. But when a muslim kills an apostate, and points to the verses in the Koran that support this by some plausible interpretation of those verses, than yes in those cases Islam has something to do with it.

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 21:51

And the difference between sharing beliefs and imposing? Difficult to ascertain and easy to get wrong.

it's actually fairly easy. is participation in a religion or religious event entirely voluntary? is there a special privilege for any religion in state services? If the answer is no, then it's not imposing.

But what certainly is imposing religious beliefs is the following sentiment.

I don't want religious discrimination Jassy. Just a place for Christianity within all areas of society, including schools.

No, I did not edit that quote. Those two sentences were in fact typed by the same person, one after the other.

Well, thank you. At least our mystery is solved. It's precisely attitudes like this why atheists might be rude.

mathanxiety · 26/03/2015 21:57

I do not see the sort of secular public (state) education that is free to all who choose to avail of it in the US as a problem in any way for parents who espouse a religious belief.

My DCs went to a public high school. They had ample opportunity to attend church on weekends and for evening services on holy days. They were also able to take part in any church youth activities they wanted to or had time for as these were held on weekends or evenings (they mostly gave this a miss even though there was pizza to lure them).

I chose a RC elementary school for my DCs for various reasons, one being that they would have the experience of hearing about their beliefs in a friendly environment and have the chance to go to church with the school on holy days, they wouldn't have to explain what they were doing with ashes on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday, they had meat free school lunches on Fridays in Lent. They had religion class in school a few times a week and I didn't have to take them to class in the evenings or on the weekends. I paid for this privilege. I would not expect taxpayers to contribute to a school that was providing this religious environment.

There were a good few non RC children in the school, all sent there for reasons similar to mine (mainly because it was a very good school, academically-speaking, but also because it catered for grades kdg to 8th as opposed to the local public elementary schools which went from kdg to 5th in small elementary schools and then 6th to 8th in separate large middle schools). The non RC parents all had initial qualms about inclusion, hearing other religions disparaged, being exposed to prayer that did not form part of their own spiritual lives, or concepts such as saints, etc., and in their shoes I would have felt exactly the same. If there hadn't been an RC school available then I would have sent the DCs to the public schools. I would not have sent them to either of the Lutheran schools nearby or to the local Muslim school. If faced with a choice of attending a local CoE school in England or moving house to get into an RC school catchment, I would move or do whatever it took to get into the RC school where at least I would know what the DCs were being taught and there would be fewer conflicts with home life.

I have American friends whose parents (Jewish, Orthodox Christian and RC) attended school before prayer was prohibited in public schools [1962]. All of the parents had been taught the Episcopalian version of the Lord's Prayer. This was most upsetting for the families concerned because the schools were inserting themselves between the families and their children by presenting a prayer (or a form of a prayer) central to another denomination/religion as a religious norm. This caused tensions between family culture and school culture that should not have existed. When your family and congregation says a version of a certain prayer that is different from the school version, or doesn't say it at all, it is the family that looks like the odd one out. It's like asking your dad for some help with word problems about filling the bath or trains leaving Dublin and Cork and he launches into 'Let X equal...' when you know the teacher did it another way that unfortunately you can't really remember. Somebody must be wrong. Is it dear old dad or is it the school?

BigDorrit · 26/03/2015 22:13

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ErrolTheDragon · 26/03/2015 22:17

math - on this, secularists whether religious or not can surely agree. It's often struck me that in threads discussing UK faith schools, that americans - Christians such as you or CheerfulYank - are staunchly secular. You're speaking from experience, and it's not scary. No-ones rights are trampled on, there's still plenty of space for religion in your society (too much in some state legislatures perhaps, but thats a whole other set of issues).

JassyRadlett · 26/03/2015 22:21

Hear hear.

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 22:38

America is a lot more sensible on the schools issue. I became more vocal about religion since moving to the UK.

SolidGoldBrass · 26/03/2015 22:49

What is a bit curious is that the US has a fair and sensible legal set up for the education system which rules out all superstitious crap in school and yet its elected officials are getting more and more headbangingly mad when it comes to the open misogyny and homophobia they are peddling in the name of their imaginary friends.

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 22:52

What is a bit curious is that the US has a fair and sensible legal set up for the education system which rules out all superstitious crap in school and yet its elected officials are getting more and more headbangingly mad when it comes to the open misogyny and homophobia they are peddling in the name of their imaginary friends.

yeah, I certainly don't miss that. Very anti science some of those people are.

ErrolTheDragon · 26/03/2015 23:05

It may be partially due to the us going a step too far in barring religion from state schools - correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think they do RS so children only hear their families version. Education about the various religions in a neutral way is important

keepitsimple0 · 26/03/2015 23:42

Education about the various religions in a neutral way is important

it is. Religion is all around us. best know something about it.

mathanxiety · 27/03/2015 00:00

Some atheists most definitely are assholes. You have got that much right.

And some atheists were Communists whose motivation in eliminating religion from the USSR was hatred of religion. If you hate something that stands in the way of your political ideas your hatred is still hatred and if you are willing to kill on the basis of that hatred the effect of it is the same. Gosateizm was central to the Soviet Communist ideal because hatred of religion was central to the dialectical materialism of Lenin.

If you have been attracted to dialectical materialism and all it entails as far as your view of how the world works, if none of the atheism inextricable from such a world view has been an obstacle to you, then chances are you had enough hostility towards religion arising from personal experience or from intellectual consideration to allow you to proceed on your political path with the conviction that you are right and religion is not only wrong but the source of all wrong. Hostility to religion was the first step along the road to dialactical materialism for Karl Marx. It was not the other way round. For him the way to destroy religion was to destroy its economic and structural underpinnings which he accused of giving rise to religion, which in turn allowed the masses to put up with the status quo. Class consciousness and class warfare were a means to the ending of religion and thus the liberation of humanity.

'Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction...
...Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism.' Karl Marx 1844

Marx came eventually to believe that religion would die a natural death due to incessant bombardment with the irresistible logic of humanistic ideas, a perception that Lenin violently disagreed with to the point of killing those who held it (along with the killing of clerics and the destruction of the material fabric of the church.) Lenin was convinced that active destruction of the church was necessary.