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

[ivykaty44]

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

Thanks, gooseberry - I freely admit I'm speaking from an atheist point of view so I suspect there are many things we will not agree on, but at least we are not slinging insults at each other. I am a bit wary of threads like this one - I feel very strongly about the role of measured secularism in society, but will happiily admit I don't have all the answers. We certainly won't get the answers by shouting at each other.

I'm tired too, but if you want to PM me to continue the discussion I'd be delighted. Am going to bed soon, but I'm always up for a frank debate with a different world view .

Well, nailak, burqa and veil, not to mention the whole being submissive to men thing are the products of a medieval viewpoint. It is possible to very solidly argue this with references, and it has nothing to do with prejudice, intolerance, racism, or any other knee-jerk reaction you can come up with.

EAP - re why France banned the burqa: It's a bit late in my corner of the world, so I will not go into this now but I've talked about this in detail on the recent burqa thread.

I'm quite tempted to stand and defend the Middle Ages against the assumptions made that medieval necessarily equals backwards and stupid, but suspect this would be a tangent too far. Good posts, pointy.

"do not agree that you can assume things about a persons viewpoint from their style of dress"

Burqa and niqab are not "styles of dress" though. They are what you wear if and only if you think you should not show an inch of your face or body to men.

This is not an assumption. It is fact.

Habbibu. Speaking as an archaeologist and someone who hasn't been too good at giving birth, I wouldn't have liked to live in the Middle Ages, but they did have their good points. I'd have chosen the Stone Age though - average working day about 3 hours for all life's necessities. Life expectancy crap, though.

Pointy it's mutual. You have articulated better than anyone the reasons why you disagree, with sensitivity to the opposite view.

"Right now, Christians feel marginalised because their traditional position of privilege is being eroded by the rise of (IMO) necessary secularism."

This, for example, demonstrates an understanding of why religious people have a sense of intolerance - while at the same time you feel that intolerance is not real. In many ways this would be my position: I do sense a certain intolerance, and I'm sure it is there in some bodies and individuals. But I don't know if it's widespread or growing, or, indeed even pernicious.

Also I agree that spending too much time on these threads could lead to a sense of intolerance which could be out of perspective.

Goodnight!

Pointybunnyears - I agree that the perception of intolerance comes 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.

One of these priviliges is the ingrained habit of expecting religuous practices and beliefs to be treated with reverence and exagerated respect by all.

Reasoned debate is a good thing, but so too can be a bit of mockery and irreverence ('sky fairies' and the like). People say much more cutting things in political discussions, and even on questions of style and beauty.

I really am tired now. But speaking of France, it puzzles me that while it is a robustly secular state, it is also culturally a profoundly Catholic country. Its culture is not defined by its secularism.

I didn't say anything about "backward" and "stupid". I said "medieval".

The Western world has moved on from thoughts such as hiding away all skin for "modesty".

Ach, it was mostly a joke. But I was a professional medievalist for a while, and DH is now, and I just feel like leaping to their defence sometimes (though yy, I wouldn't have chosen to live there). Not a dig at you, Cote, just a bit of post-professional pointless stroppage.

fwiw, though, the middle ages were a lot less modest than I'd expected.

Gooseberry - Why are you puzzled? "Secular" does not mean "lack of belief", it means "separation of state and religion".

I suppose, though, you could say there's a genuine (and reasonable) intolerance to the privileged status of christianity within the law, education, etc, and that could be read as an intolerance to the religion itself. I'll hold my hand up to the former, but not the latter.

How much tolerance do we need?

I have never come across anyone who actively tried to make their way into my brain to change my beliefs. Nor have I ever been hauled to prison despite these same beliefs being known. The vast majority of unbelievers aren't even prepared to go to the lenghts of being rude about my beliefs. How much more do I need?

Like the US, too - secular state, but far more explicitly religious in state tone than France?

Cote "Religion is the opiate of the masses" is not an entirely incorrect observation. ... I don't see why saying this or agreeing with it makes one "intolerant"."

I did not say it was an incorrect observations or agreeing with it makes one intolerant. Mr Marx was not stupid by any account.

What I said was there are historical examples of societies build around ideologies based amongst others on militant atheism (marxism/leninism/stalinism), which is itself is a form of religion.

I'm puzzled because secularism is also a firm object of France's cultural ideology. They seem passionate about it.

Hi Himalaya,

I remember you from similar threads of old, and I agree with most of your POV. Deep in my heart I probably am one of the 'sky fairy' brigade - I feel very strongly that we humans have intelligence and reason and that we should use it, not throw it away by believing things that run counter to reason.

However I also feel that there is a lot of good debate to be had on MN, and that sometimes the slinging of mud gets in the way of that debate. Not pointing the finger at you in any way, you are sensible and articulate, but some people go beyond tongue in cheek and veer into the realm of just plain rude. That just isn't me.

CoteDAzur when it comes to burqas I agree with you 100%. Especially because it isn't in the Qu'ran, only in the hadiths. I find the whlle thing that 'women must cover themselves because men can't contain their animal lust' deeply offensive, probably more to men than to eomwn, because actually I don't believe there are that many men who really can't contain themselves if they see a bare ankle/nose/shoulder. It's just a crap excuse. However, there is a group of women who see wearing the burqa as an affirmation of their personal faith, and I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that. However, I would not accept having them teach my children dressed like that. As I posted above, the job comes with its requirements (in this case teaching requiring proper face to face contact, your religion does not give you the right to walk away from that.

Going to bed now, look forward to the continuation tomorrow night!

bemybebe Mon 25-Apr-11 19:22:46
SardineQueen I can give historical examples of atheistic intolerance, which in my view is just another form of religion. Karl Marx said "Religion the Opiate of the Masses".
----------------

Sorry, but it does look like you gave Marx's "Religion is the opiate of the masses" quote as a "historical example of atheistic intolerance".

Cory, I think much of the current anxiety does stem from what pointy said - the erosion of privilege for christianity. Or "aggressive secularism". Apparently. The aggressive bit is just odd.

I still don't see what puzzles you re France's Catholicism and secularity.

Those two are not mutually exclusive attributes.

Why shouldn't most French be Catholic and want their state free of religion? Isn't faith supposed to be between God and the faithful?

cory - how much tolerance do we need? Lots. On both sides. And I'm not at all sure that the Mormon elders who come to my door every so often (looking clean shaven and about 17, bless!) don't want to get into my brain to change my beliefs. A friend of mine has also wanted to do the same - absolutely meant well, but her fundy brand of Christianity was about as appealing as sardines in strawberry jelly.

And boy, did I mangle the word 'women' in my previous post. Blame the wine. Really going to bed now.

What all these bucketheads are whining about is the refusal of intelligent people to take their imaginary friends seriously. All these cases of 'anti-christian discrimination' invariably turn out, when examined properly, to be cases of people who had been making utter nuisances of themselves to work colleagues and clients and ramming their particular superstiton down everyone's throats until management were forced to act against them, not because they have imaginary friends, but because they are going out of their way to inflict their imaginary friends on everyone around them.
I don't mind people believing in gods any more than I mind people believing in their horoscopes, watching sport on the television or only eating pink food. Do what you like. Just don't expect more rights than everyone else because you've got an imaginary friend.

Oh dear.