I resent being called a bigot, because I find racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism appalling.
I find them appalling because things like race, age, gender, orientation and ability
are things people cannot change,
and should not have to be ashamed-of.
But from where I stand, Religion is in a class by itself,
and should never have been "protected" in the exact same way that these other things are protected.
1. Religion is ideology. It is a choice, it is not naturally-occuring, like your gender, age or race.
(And it isn't even political ideology, based on practical, real-world considerations,
and therefore open to debate.
It is ideology based on differing claims of "Divine" intention
and for that reason often tries to prohibit any contest or criticism).
It would be fine and good to talk about religious freedom in the context of Pilgrims coming to the New World to escape religious persecution in their country of origin;
but I think I scarcely need illustrate the flip-side of that coin, to Atheists;
....how corruptible and evil religion can be at its worst,
and how, even at its most innocuous, it can be guilty of acting out of privilege,
as we so often see with Christian America.
2. Religion is unnecessary.
It is entirely possible for people to believe in God without strapping all kinds of dogma onto Him.
I find it a bit contradictory that so many Atheists criticize Agnosticism as being a watered-down version of Atheism, when in fact I think allowing for the possibility...however remote...for the existence of a God is an important step to promoting the idea to Theists of something more logical and less volatile, like Deism, over the dogmas, especially the Abrahamic dogmas;
yet I apparently fit the description of "bigot"
simply because I refuse to separate the Religion from the Religious.
3. Religion is unproven
If someone could prove to me tomorrow that one religion over another was, beyond all contest,
the "right" one, then I would be the first to sign up.....but they can't.
yet, their "religious freedom" to profess something as "Truth"
...when it is just an unsubstantiated theory...is PROTECTED.
Why are Theists not REQUIRED to always present their religion as a BELIEF,
...rather than being allowed to pass it off as TRUTH??
To me, it is the constitutional protection of religion, or dogma
...as opposed to the protection, for example, of mere personal faith in God...
that results in cases like Kim Davis.
You protect people's right to adhere and profess a dogma,
and it seems to come with strings of privilege attached.
So, perhaps you're right.
Perhaps I'm a bigot,
because I see religion as not only the single biggest evil in the world,
but the most tenacious, the most difficult to oppose,
and the most needless.
And perhaps I'm a bigot because
(while I of course acknowledge that the majority of religious people
are not extremists, and are probably just ordinary, decent people)
...I ultimately will still regard them as being accountable
for their own personal choice to be a member of an ideology;
an ideology that, in its service to a Divinity, should be irreproachable
...yet strangely is far from being such.
So I will take your accusation to heart.
Because I regard religion as an enormous, needless, hateful evil,
that would not exist but for its followers,
...and despite being opposed to racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism...
I am a bigot of the first water.
I find them appalling because things like race, age, gender, orientation and ability
are things people cannot change,
and should not have to be ashamed-of.
But from where I stand, Religion is in a class by itself,
and should never have been "protected" in the exact same way that these other things are protected.
1. Religion is ideology. It is a choice, it is not naturally-occuring, like your gender, age or race.
(And it isn't even political ideology, based on practical, real-world considerations,
and therefore open to debate.
It is ideology based on differing claims of "Divine" intention
and for that reason often tries to prohibit any contest or criticism).
It would be fine and good to talk about religious freedom in the context of Pilgrims coming to the New World to escape religious persecution in their country of origin;
but I think I scarcely need illustrate the flip-side of that coin, to Atheists;
....how corruptible and evil religion can be at its worst,
and how, even at its most innocuous, it can be guilty of acting out of privilege,
as we so often see with Christian America.
2. Religion is unnecessary.
It is entirely possible for people to believe in God without strapping all kinds of dogma onto Him.
I find it a bit contradictory that so many Atheists criticize Agnosticism as being a watered-down version of Atheism, when in fact I think allowing for the possibility...however remote...for the existence of a God is an important step to promoting the idea to Theists of something more logical and less volatile, like Deism, over the dogmas, especially the Abrahamic dogmas;
yet I apparently fit the description of "bigot"
simply because I refuse to separate the Religion from the Religious.
3. Religion is unproven
If someone could prove to me tomorrow that one religion over another was, beyond all contest,
the "right" one, then I would be the first to sign up.....but they can't.
yet, their "religious freedom" to profess something as "Truth"
...when it is just an unsubstantiated theory...is PROTECTED.
Why are Theists not REQUIRED to always present their religion as a BELIEF,
...rather than being allowed to pass it off as TRUTH??
To me, it is the constitutional protection of religion, or dogma
...as opposed to the protection, for example, of mere personal faith in God...
that results in cases like Kim Davis.
You protect people's right to adhere and profess a dogma,
and it seems to come with strings of privilege attached.
So, perhaps you're right.
Perhaps I'm a bigot,
because I see religion as not only the single biggest evil in the world,
but the most tenacious, the most difficult to oppose,
and the most needless.
And perhaps I'm a bigot because
(while I of course acknowledge that the majority of religious people
are not extremists, and are probably just ordinary, decent people)
...I ultimately will still regard them as being accountable
for their own personal choice to be a member of an ideology;
an ideology that, in its service to a Divinity, should be irreproachable
...yet strangely is far from being such.
So I will take your accusation to heart.
Because I regard religion as an enormous, needless, hateful evil,
that would not exist but for its followers,
...and despite being opposed to racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism...
I am a bigot of the first water.
