Seems like hard-core hate for anyone religious is fine in many circles. Is there a point where it becomes as problematic as other forms of bigotry? Not any specific religion necessarily just the disdain for the religious in general.
If you hate them just because they’re religious that’s bigotry
but there are a lot of people who use religion to justify bigoted or harmful beliefs. for those I have no tolerance and I’m not sorry 💅
My stance is anyone using any belief system to excuse hate is wrong.
So, does that mean that you have no issue with a religious person who does not use their religion to excuse hate or violence?
The way you phrased that is kind of confusing. I’m fine with religious people, assuming they don’t use their religion as an excuse to hate or promote violence. For example, I think many anti religious people think of all Christians as believing in a type of Christianity similar or the same as what the Westboro Baptist church preached. In reality, many Christian denominations are accepting of lgbtq+ people as well as any race or ethnicity. Even the catholic church took a more progressive stance on gay people a few years back.
If you hate people simply for being religious, without respect for their beliefs, then that would be bigotry.
However, largely, the paradox of intolerance applies, especially if a given religious belief is being forced on the general populace. That is, if a religion or individual of a religion supports bigoted behavior/ beliefs (such as against human rights) then it isn’t wrong to say that you hate those beliefs and those who support them. This does include “simply” being a member of a church that actively promotes harmful beliefs since people are supporting those beliefs through their membership.
The reality is that many religions are problematic in these ways, so it isn’t bigoted to oppose bigotry-- but you should clarify beliefs first. Like The Satanic Temple? Rock on.
I struggle with the idea that being part of a religion means you support the negatives without acknowledging the positives. For example, the catholic church has a horrible track record with child abuse. Sentiments I hear accuse catholics of loving and supporting pedophiles. But the catholic church also funds thousands of hospitals, clinics, food banks, orphanages and schools. They were also one of the few institutions setting up and running programs for needy people historically. Can someone hate aspects of the institution while supporting others and still be considered moral? Surely if you were to poll catholics, almost none would condone acts of child abuse. But, they would all support helping the needy. Is it reasonable to hold all members accountable for the horrible acts of a few? Maybe, maybe not, I really don’t know.
Don’t hate people.
Hate the perverse, uncivic, inherently tribalistic ideas of “belief without evidence”, “felt truth”, and “chosen people”
They are all toxic memes antithetical to a modern inclusive pluralistic society.
Hate the institutions not the members of them?
I suppose it’s similar to when you criticize something like, say, China or the USA. Are you also hateful towards the Chinese or Americans? Similar here.
A favourite phrase of mine that comes up in so many different areas of life is: “soft on people, hard on structures.” Individuals tend to be pretty good, genuine and caring people.
It’s much like how an atheist might be a great person, but the new atheist movement became a festering cesspool of anti-feminist right wing bigotry. Having a religion doesn’t change much really, shit people are universal.
Lots of assumptions in this thread that the concept of ‘religion’ is interchangeable with ‘theism’. It isn’t. There’s quite a few large religions that are, or can be practised, in a nontheistic way including Buddhism, Hinduism, Taosim and Jainism. There’s even a branch of Quakerism that is nontheistic.
Wider definitions of religion exist than simply ‘belief in a supernatural deity/deities’, including my own - that of modern atheistic Satanism.
In terms of bigotry - being shitty to whole groups of people based on their belief in a non-existent being feels weird to me. Being shitty if they then use that belief to justify their own bigotry is not weird and is called activism. Or to put it another way - if someone believes in a god and prays in a church and makes no comments that support the infringement of other peoples rights to exist and live their lives as they want to then that’s totally fine by me.
Newsflash: adherents to other religions that have deities don’t take them literally, either, whether they say so or not. Tibetan Buddhism is one.
That’s an excellent point and not something I or the majority of commenter have taken into consideration. I’m really curious to know if any of the major detractors in these comments have more good will to nontheistic religions. Considering the numbers of comments that reference people being stupid for believing in a fake being.
Free blocklist in the comments!
This falls under the paradox of intolerance for me
You would consider all religious people intolerant then?
I consider every form of religion to be highly dangerous and I think every religious person is delusional, irrational and illogical, to say the least. I simply avoid them like the plague and mind my own business. It’s a massive dealbreaker for any personal relationship with me. Nope, thanks. I don’t need that in my life.
Would you consider yourself a bigot ?
I consider myself anti-religious, but I don’t knock at your door at fucking 7:30 in the morning asking if you’d like to talk about atheism. I don’t creep around public places handling out pamphlets promoting atheism. I don’t deny people their rights to be moronic simpletons who can’t think for themselves. I do, however, say ‘go jump in a lake’ to religious people whenever they bother me.
That’s fair. You’re morally and intellectually superior but you don’t HATE anyone. That’s been the general consensus I’ve seen so far.
They consider themself to be morally and intellectually superior.
By definition they are… Considering oneself as one is a different matter ;)
That’s the part that I find interesting though.
When they stop legislating their doctrine.
Who is “they”?
In the US or in general? Both is reasonable as well I guess.
Nothing good comes from hate. Hate is an emotion, and when you’re emotional, you cannot fix or improve things.
Never, religion is an opinion and you can hate dumb opinions all you want.
If you consider someone’s religion an opinion I don’t think you’ve ever had a meaningful conversation with a religious person. Which is fine, just gonna lead to a fairly narrow view of the world.
I had very meaningful conversation about all kinds of fiction, including religion.
I don’t think thats the roast you want it to be.
No “roast” was intended.
deleted by creator
I think this is a great question because it absolutely gets the point. The enemy is the system, not the people. This informs you both who and how you fight back. So when someone is saying something bigoted for religious reasons, the problem isn’t necessarily that particular person, but the religious system that brainwashed them. In fact, it was a specific flavor of that religious system.
I think a more clear distinction can be found in feminism. Feminism isn’t about fighting men, but fighting patriarchy. So, sure, there are men who are dickhead misogynists, but they are also potential allies that are also hurt by patriarchy. It’s the system and those who specifically aim to perpetuate said system. Social philosophers tend to point to systems rather than people constantly, because it’s so common for people to point out symptoms rather than the cause. So when we know to identify patriarchy rather than misogynists, yeah, we’ll still call out misogynist men for sure, but also women that perpetuate patriarchy.
So if I’m blaming the system rather than the person, maybe I’m recognizing the religious person’s commitment to truth and appealing to that rather than labeling them the enemy and writing them off completely. I think something that gets lost in all the polarizing bullshit as of recent is recognizing that a great way to make another bigot not exist is to persuade them to not be a bigot anymore. The enemy isn’t people, it’s the fucking system. Like the great poets have said: “Don’t blame it on the Needy, don’t blame it on the Poor, don’t blame it on the Jew, blame it on the system. Blame it on the fucking system.”
Interesting and well thought out reply, thank you.
I just think hate is generally an unproductive feeling regardless of who it’s towards. Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to claim that I’m perfect and never find myself feeling it, I just try to avoid it.
That’s honest
It becomes bigotry when you are unwilling to change your mind, or when you hate people of that religion for that reason alone.
I decided I don’t mind if people are religious, there’s a lot of religious people who I’d rather be allies with than enemies
If they are against fascism we have something in common
That’s reasonable. Enemy of my enemy and all that jazz.
