Chris Pattern says that "atheists are "intolerant" of religion."

[ivykaty44]

Is he correct? And should atheist be tolerant of religion?

You are very slippery gooseberry and seem to deliberately misunderstand or misinterpret a lot of what I say.

I wish you would just answer the questions in a straightforward way and then I would be able to respond to you.

Darth yes I am sure that some athiests are, I wonder if the proportion differs much from religious people who are intolerant of other religions? That would be interesting to know

They are exempted from equalities legislation regarding gender and sexual orientation for various things within the organisation. ie they are allowed to discriminate on the grounds of gender or sexuality which is obviously illegal elsewhere. I assume they can discriminate on the grounds of religious belief as well - not sure but it seems likely.

I'm trying to be very literal. I have responded very openly.

Are you denying that you claim that unless gangs of atheists are carrying out acts of violence in the name of atheism, there can be no intolerance?

If so, great, though I don't know why you would go on about it for so long.

Do you accept that although atheists are not an organised group, they actually can carry out individual acts and expressions of intolerance?

I'm sure you can do this, without agreeing that they are on the rise, but the thrust of your posts seems to be that this is not possible.

You still have not given a single example!

The man in the OP lumped athiests together as a group and said they were intolerant of religion - if you think that is an unfair accusation, and like others think simply that lots of different sorts of people can be intolerant in all sorts of different ways, then what are you arguing about?

So are you saying that in fact athiests are not intolerant?

SQ: you seem to be saying that they can't be intolerant, because they are not a group carrying out violent acts.

Gooseberry I'm sure you think you are being terribly clever.

Bottom line is that the OP was about a man who has said that athiests are intolerant of religion. Not "some athiests" but athiests. You have positioned yourself on the "side" of agreeing with him. I have repeatedly asked you to give examples of athiests demonstrating religious intolerance in the UK, you have given me none. I have given shitloads of examples of religious intolerance, in the UK and abroad, to try and prompt you. There is a lot of religious intolerance around. I just don't think that "athiests" are perpetrating it. Do you? That is the position that you have taken and I would like you to show me where these things are happening.

You also won't say why religious institutions should be exempt from equalities legislation even though you brought it up in the first place!

I haven't said they should be exempt

Sorry but given the nasty tone of this "I'm sure you think you are being terribly clever" and the fact that when I have responded with examples and explanations of what I mean, while you are simply getting more and more unpleasant and aggressive and not responding at all, I think the exchange between us is nearing its close.

I'm sure you'll carry on with others. I've explained what, why, how: I've described my own uncertainties: but you have become unpleasant, so yknow. Whatever.

You have not given me a single example on this thread. Not one.

I must admit that I took "In addition some of these cases where Christianity is coming up against equality legislation, there seems to be an intolerance, an impatience, a feeling of extreme animosity against the Christian side of the argument." in combination with your taking the "christian side" on this thread, to indicate that you supported the exemption. Apologies if you do in fact oppose it.

Like others, I am still wating for specific example of where "atheists" as a group are intolerant.

Like NormanTebbit, I live in Scotland, where there are current example of intolerance amongst religions (I am not just going to say between Catholic and Protestant because where I live there is also an Islamic slant). Even going to the "non-deonominational" school can land you in bother if you meet kids from the "other" religion - and vice versa. Both non denominational schools and catholic schools are 100% state funded.

Or doesn't Scotland count?

That directly impacts on me and my ds' education - and his friendships. Am I right to be concerned about that - or is that an example of my intolerance, because I am neither catholic, a protestant or any other religion?

I don't be beleive that I have shown any intolerance on this thread - or any other similar thread on Mumsnet. Or am I just one of the "but you don't count" invisible people when trying to compain about aheists in general?

There is a fair bit of intolerance to atheists on his thread though. Dismissal of a religious POV equates to sub normal intelligence - I am personally happy to be dumb and put my faith in reality and scientific fact.

Sorry - to clarify: my post should have finished "Or am I just one of the "but you don't count" invisible people when other people are complaining about atheists in general?"

"Dismissal of a religious POV equates to sub normal intelligence."

Nobody said that.

If you have to resort to abuse rather than an exchange of views, it probably means you are not as bright as the person who can engage in an exchange of views.

I said that.

"Karl Marx said "Religion the Opiate of the Masses".'

interestingly enough, some theologians have agreed with this assessment of the use of religion in the C19th as a means to keep the poor down.

The French stance on wearing headresses shoud be seen not only in the light of a long tradition of French Secularism, but also that France is a very Catholic country with a large North African immigrant population.

To desribe Maoists as 'atheists' illuminates my earlier point about 'people whose favourite colour is red'. Maoists generally like red, and were/are deeply intolerant - but one does not necessitate the other.

Whether describing a niqab as 'medieval' is correct or not is more of a historical question to my mind (i would have thought it (or similar head coverings) pre-dated the medieval period, though was extant during it) and I fail to see why an atheist woud be more likely to use that terminology than anyone else who had a beef with it. Generally the word that seems most appropriate for a person who makes rude comments about your style of dress is 'twat' not 'atheist'.

What exactly are you calling "intolerance", anyway?

Aggression like a hate crime, or a general inability to stand religious dogma?

But no one has been abusive Gooseberrybushes - all I can see is you dashing around attempting to feel insulted.

You go for it girl!

It was me who said the burqa and its sister garment niqab are "medieval", because they are of the medieval mentality of hiding the women away for reasons of modesty or religion.

I told you this before, DarthNiqabi, but clearly you didn't understand it, so I will repeat it here:

I am from a Muslim country. My entire extended family is Muslim, including my devout grandparents one of whom was a Hajji. I could not be intolerant of Muslims if I tried, and it is laughable that an over-zealous English convert is calling me "intolerant" because I pointed out that the binliner she has over her head is medieval, and so is her mentality

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" is not an entirely incorrect observation, though. Religions were not created to drug the masses and render them docile and subservient, but they have been used to this effect at various times.

I don't see why saying this or agreeing with it makes one "intolerant".

Circuses were "the opiate of the masses" in Ancient Rome. "Panem et circenses" and all that. Saying this does not mean that one is intolerant of circuses, either.

cote that'll learn me to read the thread carefully - so no, i didn't mean to call you a twat, my apologies. though i defend anyones right to wear what the hell they like and do not agree that you can assume things about a persons viewpoint from their style of dress (as i used to dress like a Victorian, but have never thought like one!) . Do you think though that it isn't purely secularism motivating the French ban?

The intolerence that Chris Patten seems to be eluding to is that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins etc... have written some books, and that people protested against the pope when he was in the UK.

Meanwhile the Pope said some shockingly intolerant things about the British way of life (in which religion is largely a private matter), UK laws and the morality of many people in Britain. These are things that no other foreign dignitary on an official visit would say.

I think when people talk about 'respect' and 'tolerance' in relation to religion they are using them in quite different ways to what we normally mean - not as in respecting people's rights to basic freedoms (as long as they don't impinge on others) but more like absolute reverence for the content of their beliefs shown by not criticiscing them at all.

..hence why no one on this thread has come up with an example of atheists as a group in the UK being intolerant (as opposed to critical) of religious belief or practice.

imo callin someone elses choices medieval in a dismissive condescendin way is intolerant, just as they are from that faith doesnt make them more tolerant, there are differences in practice and belief within traditions, and their needs to be tolerance of the differences within traditions from those belonging to the religions as well as from outside the religions.

callin someones mentality medieval because you dont believe the same things is definitely intolerant.

as lon as it doesnt have an adverse effect on your life whats the problem? someone elses pov and choices and worldview is different to yours and your families so what?

Wow, has this thread taken off in my absence...

I think Chris Patten is wrong, for the following reasons:

1. There are no such people as 'atheists'. We do not congregate together and share our beliefs. We would be religious if we did. We are as diverse as people who believe in deities.

2. Whilst there are certainly some people on the extreme end of the atheist spectrum who are intolerant (talking about sky fairies and so on), I do not find this to be true of the majority of non-believers.

3. The perception of intolerance seems to come (and this is my perception only) from people who are finding that certain structures and systems which have always been based on privileging those who believe one thing over those who believe another, are now being challenged.

Equality legislation is a good example - Catholic adoption agencies, or Bed and Breakfasts, or couples wishing to foster - many are now finding their beliefs held up to scrutiny by a system which says 'actually, we should be defined by our common humanity, not by our religious beliefs'. This is obviously very difficult for some people, but as I said in my much earlier post, we cannot have a just society until we treat everyone's beliefs as equal and worthy, including the lack of belief.

This will mean a lot of changes, and I expect that people on both sides will get it wrong a lot of the time, but it is worth striving for a system that transcends this tribal 'them and us' rhetoric that has so far been the basis of most societies. Right now, Christians feel marginalised because their traditional position of privilege is being eroded by the rise of (IMO) necessary secularism.

Having said all that, we do need some common sense. I don't object to a nurse or a BA worker wearing a visible cross (or kara, or other symbol of their faith). It would be very petty to be offended by such things, and I'm not. I would also not be offended if someone offered to pray for me - I would explain that I am an atheist but that the person in question was of course free to do as their conscience dictated. But not in my presence.

I do very strongly object to people refusing to do their jobs on religious grounds. Pharmacists refusing to prescribe the pill, registrars refusing to officiate at civil partnerships, relationship counsellors refusing gay couples - they have to accept that this is what their job role entails, and that they cannot pick and choose which bits of their job they wish to do.

Even there I would make an exception for people not wanting to take part in ending what they perceived as a life - doctors not referring someone for a termination, for instance. However, I would want such a doctor to be obliged to refer to a colleague who would help, and in a timely manner. The same would apply to euthanasia (disclaimer - I am pro-choice and pro-euthanasia).

I don't see very much intolerance by atheists at all, and in fact my personal relationships with family and friends who believe are harmonious because we all respect each other - it's just that translating this mutual respect into societal structures that work is going to take a long time. We've only just started.

Not abusive? Bizarre crap, woo woo, fantasies etc etc? Mild compared to other threads on the same subject, but still.

Re: secularism and the French ban. I think there was also a survey like the German survey, which found that French people believe their "way of life" is undermined by Islam. I think. It's possible this also had an impact.

I like your post, pointy: it has a lot of clarity. I would take issue with some of it but I'm tired now. But I think it's a very cogent assessment.