A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the forum....

[The Grand Nudger]

In fairness, I don't know that anyone tells themselves these lies to feel good about being christian (because non christians are just as capable of mounting the same psuedo-defense).  I think we tell ourselves these lies to feel better about other people.  

Tack found a way, for example, to feel better about the christians he knows, even though (as you surmised) he clearly thinks this is a shitty thing to swing a religion around like a club for. The misapprehension he has about anti-religionist ideology is that it contends that those other shitty christians actions implicate him or all christians, somehow. That's not what anti-religionist ideology maintains. It maintains that their religion is what implicates them. Either by it's shared content, combined influence, or barring that, the doomed mutual defense pact underlying any attempt to play burden ping pong on behalf of assholes. Broadly and succinctly the anti-religionist contention is that religion fucks people up, in big ways..in small ways. It fucks up the religious, and it fucks up the targets of their ire and dissatisfaction. That it can and often does compell a good person to do a bad thing, or a good person to defend some bad person who's done a bad thing - and in either of these cases there are victims. All parties, in the anti-religionists assessment, have been victimized first and most....by the religion.

[Belacqua]

As a Christian who knows many Christians, none would have supported this issue if it was just the issue.

When some people say "religion," what they really mean is a subset of American dummies who disagree with them on politics. 

They oppose dumbing down by dumbing down.

[vulcanlogician]

When some people say "religion," what they really mean is a subset of American dummies who disagree with them on politics. 

In fairness, it is the subset of American dummies who refer to themselves this way. Liberals just take them at their word that these folks are genuinely inspired by their religion to support these things.

[notimportant1234]

Religion is not against science in the same way that the church in Romania isn't saying, that Sex Ed is the same as Kamasutra Classes.

[Belacqua]

In fairness, it is the subset of American dummies who refer to themselves this way. Liberals just take them at their word that these folks are genuinely inspired by their religion to support these things.

In fairness to the many many atheists who try not to dumb things down, many people think it's too simple to reduce complex historical issues to simple labels, and hope to avoid "us vs. them" views of the world.

[vulcanlogician]

In fairness, it is the subset of American dummies who refer to themselves this way. Liberals just take them at their word that these folks are genuinely inspired by their religion to support these things.

In fairness to the many many atheists who try not to dumb things down, many people think it's too simple to reduce complex historical issues to simple labels, and hope to avoid "us vs. them" views of the world.

I was referring to the tangential subset of dummies. We could have a nuanced discussion about history. Maybe the Christians were less cruel than the Romans, that sort of thing.

But as far as I'm concerned, it really is "us vs. them" when it comes to the religious right in modern America. These folks are trying to influence our government (and succeeding at it). I don't want to destroy their religion, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to stand in their way.

[The Grand Nudger]

The christians were the romans, they couldn't possibly have been -more- roman, even the magic book got romanized. 

They've had their ups and downs, though, for sure.  American christianity just happens to be at the bottom of one of the troughs at present, positively insisting that this -be- an us vs them situation. OTOH, we have a subset of christians who may dream that american christianity can crawl it's way back up. I don't see how, but if it can be done, it certainly isn't going to be helped along by giving them cover and excuses for staying bunkered down in the sewage of their ridiculous culture war.

There is no end to this that's good for america..or even american christians.... that doesn't involve a complete rejection of their theocratic wishes.

[Belacqua]

it really is "us vs. them" when it comes to the religious right in modern America.

There are bad people who are Christians, and they should be opposed. 

Using this fact as an excuse to pretend that "religion" is monolithic, that religious people are bad, and to develop an ideologically-based false view of history is also bad and should be opposed.

You can call it "nuance," but in fact many of the anti-intellectuals among the atheists are wildly wrong. It is hypocritical to give them a pass.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and those bad people insist that their chistianity dictates that they be bad people.  They're not wrong.

Again, anti-religionist statements run to the effect that religion is bad, not that religious people are bad. Religious people are the same as the rest of us, and that means being subject to the same common failures and ticks. Thankfully, most people just completely ignore their own silly fucking religions, lol. I say thankfully, because religion is one of (if not the most) compelling things in human experience. Uniquely suitable for exploiting our manifold human weaknesses.

We see what people do when they think that their god has demanded it. I think that the only other near competitors are state and family. Religions subverts these more often than they subvert religion.

Imagine a pie baking grandkid watching plaid apron wearing hymn singing nana - who pickets abortion clinics with nastygrams and won't talk to her niece on account of how she;s a godless babykilling slut. Nana appears to be motivated by her religion. Nana herself claims to be motivated by her religion..and on account of doing these things Nana feels that she is doing good in the world.

What is anti-intellectual about accepting the fact that it is Nanas religion that has made her so in this instance. With positing an alternate Nana who wasn't a frothing fundy who would, all other things being equal, still be a pie baking grandkid watching plaid apron wearing hymn singer?

The real shittiness of religion isn't to be found in the most obvious suspects or the cruelest places. It's as wholesome as apple pie. It's in the otherwise lovely people that we all know and care for and respect and need to create excuses for - for our own comfort, if for no other reason.

[vulcanlogician]

it really is "us vs. them" when it comes to the religious right in modern America.

There are bad people who are Christians, and they should be opposed. 

Using this fact as an excuse to pretend that "religion" is monolithic, that religious people are bad, and to develop an ideologically-based false view of history is also bad and should be opposed.

You can call it "nuance," but in fact many of the anti-intellectuals among the atheists are wildly wrong. It is hypocritical to give them a pass.

I'm not very much a fan of anti-intellectuals regardless of their belief (or lack thereof). I've seen enough "YouTube skeptics" to know that most 19th century Christian philosophers had a better understanding of (and appreciation for) skepticism than they do. I've even butted heads with some of the less intellectually inclined atheists on the forums. I may pick my battles, but I don't give anti-intellectualism a pass. It bothers me to no end, no matter where it comes from.

My motto is: "I'm a critical thinker first, and an atheist second." Critical thinking led me to atheism. (It doesn't work the other way around, as some atheists imply.) 

I don't think religion is monolithic, either. It's more complicated than that. But one way I've thought about it is this: if we ever did establish peace on earth, and were able to allow everyone to live and thrive, with no starvation or subjugation... the people calling such a world foul and irredeemable, (and maybe even blowing up subway trains with suicide bombers as a means to oppose it) would be the religious fundamentalists. 

We've both been moved by people who found the good in religion, taking the better parts of its nature and amplifying them, creating things which convey a profound love and a profound understanding. I dig these guys as much as you do, I bet. But religion can be quite destructive, too. I don't know whether the good outweighs the bad. If I had to put money on it, I think I'd say the bad outweighs the good.

***

"I have often wondered, that persons who make a boast of professing the Christian religion, namely, love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity to all men, should quarrel with such rancorous animosity, and display daily towards one another such bitter hatred, that this, rather than the virtues they claim, is the readiest criterion of their faith."

-Baruch Spinoza