‘Day of Monologue’ Response Card

Funny, I missed the ‘they’re going to hell’ part. 

“That’s why as a Christian—someone who follows Jesus—I will stand up for students
around me being teased, bullied or harmed for any reason.”  The “friendly” atheist does not seem to appreciate this sentiment, even though the “Day of Silence” is ostensibly about protesting bullying.  The so-called parody is not a parody of the actual “Day of Dialogue” card but of what the “friendly” atheist imagins the Christian might intend to say. 

“Because God cares so much about us, I also believe that He designed the best plan for our sexuality and relationships.”

While many Christians are interested in standing up for LGBT students, the person who chooses to distribute this card is not.

If you take the “and you’re going to hell” out of the Christian message then Christianity loses its punch. Now I am all for Christianity losing its punch. That would be a good thing. If Christianity morphs in to a non-denominational Deistic humanism, the world would be a much better place. I don’t really think, though, the people participating in this Day of Monologue have that in mind. It is just a stealth way to proselytize and not look like an asshole doing it.

“Because God cares so much about us, I also believe that He designed the best plan for our sexuality and relationships.  And that He created every one of us, male and female, so that we could enjoy an intimate relationship with Him.” So the Christian God is a bisexual, eh?

“And that He created every one of us, male and female, so that we could enjoy an intimate relationship with Him.”

Did they actually read that before they had it printed? They make it sound like God is a profligately promiscuous bisexual.

Was there a whole book of the Bible lost somewhere? The one where Jesus said the big focus should be homosexuality?

They were on the third tablet Moses dropped.

Ah, the typical “hate the sinner, love the sinner bullshit”. Homosexuality simply is not behavior. People have feelings for someone of the same gender – often very early on before they even fully realize it. Whatever they do is only a result of those feelings. Just as straight people only engage in sexual behavior based on feelings they have for other people.

This isn’t a commentary on the Day of Dialogue people, btw. If they were actually interested in dialogue, they’d have listened to what every accredited psychological and mental health organization of the past forty years has had to say on the matter. Of course to them, “dialogue” means getting to ignore the mountains of evidence contradicting them and spouting off about various conflated Bronze Age traditions and morals (see evolution/creationism, abstinence-only/comprehensive sex education, etc.).

But if you just became a Yankee fan, you’re life would be so much better!

Feel free to disabuse us of our ill conceived notions, and also to join us in standing up against your less enlightened brethren.

The vast majority of us realize that not all christians are alike, because we used to be christian ourselves, or have christians in our families and social circles. Our vast experience with christians and christianity is what we draw from when criticizing silly doctrine and spurious claims. If you don’t like what the mirror reflects, change the way you’re perceived.

 75% claim to be or identify as Christian.  I can identify as an Eskimo, but it does not change the fact that I’m Lebanese. To have a meaningful exchange we’d have to agree on what it means to be Christian. Methinks we have differing viewpoints…

The same is true wherever you look.  As a former agnostic, I began to notice that
those around me who spurned religion were, as often as not, typically not that
deep, not that moral, not that kind, not that intelligent, not that reflective,
and not that charitable.  I also noticed
that, despite popular narratives to the contrary, only a handful seemed capable
of discussing their rejection of religion in any coherent manner. It was, in part,
looking around that caused me to start allowing for the fact that non-religious
believers weren’t typically any better than religious believers.   There were other reasons, of course.  But realizing the narrative of my culture:
non-religious = good and smart, religious = dumb and mean, was about as baseless
as saying all rock stars understand physics, helped kick me along a new path
regarding the topic of religion. 

This all boils down to the “hate the sin, love the sinner” concept, which is just as harmful as mindless bigotry. It’s basically saying, “What you’re doing is evil, but you shouldn’t be bullied for it.” Well, congratulations, that’s halfway there.

The belief that homosexuality is evil, harmful, or wrong is a harmful belief, one that needs to be eradicated… just like the belief that blacks/hispanics/any race is inferior to another… and the belief that women are inferior to men. It’s as silly, to us, as believing that redheads are somehow inferior and are living evil lives with red hair.

We can only be “friendly” to a point, Ted. Being friendly doesn’t mean being complacent push-overs for the more vocal religious bigots to run roughshod over the rest of us.

Just like Christians often do with the Bible, you seem to be cherry-picking only the parts of the DoD card above that you find nice and good, while ignoring the rest.

Isn’t identification for religion (which is not an innate characteristic, like race, ethnicity or orientation) what matters? We often rip Christians for going all No True Scotsman on other Christians who do generally shitty things. I don’t think we can do the reverse here. The *only* universally-defining characteristic of a Christian is the belief that Jesus died on the cross for their sins. The rest varies, and each denomination has every right to call themselves Christian, even if they don’t agree with the majority of Chrisitans on various issues.

 Anyone who seriously believes that Fred Phelps and Glenn Beck do serious research on anything is too deluded to have a rational conversation with anyone.

About that…

http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

Ah yes, the legendary survey.  Two
things.  First, I find atheists are often
quite adept at learning religious information. 
They often, however, don’t get how it comes together.  They don’t grasp it as anything beyond an
academic project – if that. Second, while it would be nice for more religious
believers to improve their knowledge (as with anything) of their own faith,
much less others, religion is more than merely a cognitive exercise.  A person who has never had sex but can
describe the process scientifically is at a disadvantage when compared to the
individual who may not know all the medical processes, but has experienced
it.  The very fact that so many seem to
equate knowing ‘about’ religion with actually understanding and experiencing it,
speaks volumes. 

With that said, let me repeat, it would be nice for people of faith to
realize that it’s not just all emotion and spirit and experience either.  That, especially in our current age, having a
cognitive understanding of their own faith and others couldn’t do anything but
help.

So let me get this straight.  You’re
saying that their beliefs that homosexuality is evil and wrong and harmful are,
themselves, evil or wrong or harmful and need to be eradicated?   

So you are basically saying, good for atheists and their general knowledge, but since they don’t believe in religion, they cannot have the superior understanding that believers do…… ?    We can’t really ‘get it’ because darn these critical thinking skills….

When one person suffers from delusion, it’s a mental disorder.     When many people suffer delusion, it’s religion.  Mass delusion does not equal superior understanding of the universe.   Now, studying religious belief in human cultures from a scientific perspective, and understanding the cognitive, emotional, and spiritual needs fulfilled by faith is very helpful, and great strides have been made in these areas.   

Sexual orientation is another good example of how scientific understanding of a subject can alleviate suffering and improve quality of life.   The point in calling out this BS Day of Dialogue is to acknowledge that there is a large and powerful group of religious people who make it their business to judge, harass, and belittle others based on perceived immorality, and to push back against it.   

If you think you are different, and are some unicorn breed of kind-hearted, nonjudgmental, 100% pure love Christian, then please try to be louder in condemning your hateful brethren.   

So the problem, apparently, is that instead of just agreeing to the point you agree with, these Christians are expressing an additional viewpoint of their own, which you don’t agree with.

Wow!  That’s quite a claim.  Do you really know what “every accredited psychological and mental health organization of the past forty years” has said, and who accredited them?  And in addition you have an accurate knowledge of an often pre-literate Bronze Age traditions and morals, and can identify them somehow with Christian traditions?  

Could it be possible that you misunderstood the atheist’s point? There’s no evidence that the Jews were ever in Egypt at all. There’s no evidence that they spent 40 years in the desert. Not one shard of pottery, nothing.

As for not reading the book, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to tell “Christians” about things that are actually in there. Jepthah comes to mind. I had to explain to someone who had never heard of him, that yes, he did indeed sacrifice his daughter.

But the most important point, which you’re apparently unwilling to consider, is that there is no need to study a religion in depth before summarily dismissing it as extremely improbable. Have you done in depth studies on every religion you dismiss? Wicca? Jainism? Asatru? Cao Dai? Zoroastrianism? If you haven’t, how do you know they’re not true? What if you die and end up standing in front of Ba’al, trying to explain why Elijah wiped out his followers?

tl;dr: your argument is invalid

 You and Kevin S are missing my point. I don’t CARE what somebody labels themselves as. For purposes of having  meaningful discourse, it is best to understand what WE mean when WE use the term “Christian”. When we discuss cladistics, we are likely to be on the same page when we refer to cats, for example. We know what a cat is and what defines a cat.
Defining terms like Christian and Muslim get tossed about so as to almost have no useful meaning whatsoever to many of us.

Well, I don’t know how WE define Christians. I define a Christian as anybody who calls themselves that. Nothing more, nothing less. I don’t think any other definition is useful in most contexts.

You clearly don’t live in the Northeast.

Replace the word “homosexuality” with just about anything else that’s harmless, legal, and has been hounded upon by the religious right, and you might see how silly you sound.

That being, of course, a belief.

That’s not really an answer.  Either you’re saying beliefs you believe to be evil, wrong and harmful need to be eradicated, or you’re not saying it.  It’s a fair question. And one I want to make sure I understand correctly.

The entire point is that other people’s legal and harmless private relationships are none of your or anyone else’s business.

Because not all of it is language, but is wrong.  The idea that religious individuals are
somehow this or that is no different than saying atheists are this or
that.  It’s simply not true.  If it’s been said incorrectly, then clarification
is fine.  But if it continues to be
insisted upon, then it is simply wrong and there’s nothing wrong with me
pointing that out.

I cannot even. :/

As an anti-bullying conversation, this is entirely inappropriate. (Of course, I think anyone who looks over the site will see that it is obviously NOT a genuine anti-bullying campaign, but an evangelism campagain.) An anti-bullying campaign should be about stopping bullying, not about changing people from targets of bullying into non-targets (i.e. from being gay to straight). Whether you have the ‘right’ sexual morality doesn’t change the fact that people are continuing to bully others. Maybe they should talk to bullies about converting to Christianity and displaying Christian love towards all… they would get to evangelize AND actually support anti-bullying…

The real problem (one of many) is that they don’t even take bullying that seriously to begin with. (So again, they are being very dishonest – and damaging, imo – presenting this as anti-bullying.) On the “Whose Voices Are You Listening To?” page, they suggest that bullying can actually have a good impact on your life. (“Whether that impact [of bullying] is for good or for bad ultimately depends on what do you with the pain.” In the story they have, the author also suggests that the bullying occurred in part because of her own bad views about herself – she was making herself a target. The problem is “solved” when she gains a better self-perspective (through a Christian spiritual experience), after which the bullies just don’t want to harass her anymore.

I can only understand this as saying that the real reason bullying happens is because there is something wrong with you, and that the only way to stop bullying is to change yourself. Which again, IS NOT ANTI-BULLYING. Anti-bullying should mean “stopping people (and perhaps yourself) from bullying others.” It should mean addressing what makes bullies into bullies. 

I think it profoundly misunderstands the problem of bullying and does perpetuate it as a problem by placing the responsibility for ‘ending’ bullying onto the victims. And this isn’t even getting into the specific LGBTQ focus.

There’s no need
to study in depth every possible religious alternative.  But then, I’m not spending my time saying how
ridiculous it is that people believe in Jainism.  I don’t, since my basic survey of various
religious traditions suggested it didn’t have the answers that my own faith
possesses.  And the paper trail and
philosophical underpinnings of my faith have, at this point, satisfied.  I can appreciate those who disagree.  But in his case, that is exactly what he was
focusing on, that the book of Exodus had not one piece of evidence to support
it (that’s actually a broad statement that doesn’t cover the complexity of the
issue, but that’s for a different post). 
But that he would make such a glaring mistake that shows he hasn’t read
a book he is trying to disprove, that was the point. 

I don’t mean a
person has to be an expert on every conceivable alternative to any topic before
he can have an informed opinion.  That
would be ludicrous.  But I am saying that
if I’m going to sally forth and declare that it is ridiculous that people
believe in the book of Exodus since the Jews never built the pyramids, you can
bet your bottom dollar I’ll do my research lest I expose my ignorance of the
text I’m trying to insist is stupid to believe in.

I don’t mean a
person has to be an expert on every conceivable alternative to any topic before
he can have an informed opinion.  That
would be ludicrous.  But I am saying that
if I’m going to sally forth and declare that it is ridiculous that people
believe in the book of Exodus since the Jews never built the pyramids, you can
bet your bottom dollar I’ll do my research lest I expose my ignorance of the
text I’m trying to insist is stupid to believe in.

“they can do so in the privacy of their own homes”

I think you mean, in the closet.

It’s not just disagreement. It’s denying of basic consitutional rights. If I deny you your rights, does that mean I love you?

Sheesh, need negative attention much?

You can run circles around it all you want. Your anti-gay bigotry is still morally indefensible.

Heh, no not really. 
Just talking.  Or the blog equivalent.  Just trying to get folks to take a look at
things from a different POV.  After all,
it’s not much fun to just sit around with people who all think the same way and
believe the same way. 

Who said I don’t like it here?  On the whole, most folks haven’t been
terribly rude.  It’s just that overall
too much of it was based on group think stereotypes, not clear and honest
discussion, at least IMHO.  That’s why I
popped by.  It’s too easy to sit around
and pat each other on the back when everyone thinks the same things.  Most religious blogs I know have their share
of atheists stop by.  No problem.  Keeps everyone  honest. 
That’s all I was doing. No harm, no foul.   

“It became my business when the 2000 moral tradition upon which our society understood humanrelations was called upon to be changed.”
Yeah, and people said the same thing when women wanted to vote and black people got fed up with sitting at the back of the bus.  Unexamined tradition is a piss-poor reason to continue doing anything.  Unless you can actually present a compelling argument as to why and how a practice is 1) harmful and 2) legislating against it is not in violation of people’s rights, then you have no leg to stand on.  There have been many decades-long studies involving LGBT families and relationships, and I have yet to come across a scientifically accurate one that proves either of the above points.  Your personal morality has no place in a discussion about the basic rights of other people.  In fact, there’s a word that neatly wraps up the idea of exhibiting intolerance without examination or evidence of wrongdoing: bigotry.

His statements above clearly show that he isn’t one of those elusive “good Christians”.

Great response to Christians saying “we’re not all like that.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IrEsHtSSWfs#!

(Of course, DG downthread showed he is *actually* like that.)

traditional = coming from religious authority, vs. evidence-based reasoning.  Yes, I understand quite well that many people just believe whatever they are spoon-fed without any questions.   Hence the problem. 

Bryan Stow says ‘hi.’

Of course it isn’t. 
But just because it’s tradition is no reason to assume it has nothing
valid to say either.  History is filled
with the study of the latest, hippest research of the day that is often the
dismissed and rejected as a dead end ideal of tomorrow.  Unless you have a crystal ball that works,
you have no way of knowing just what such ‘research’ will say. Remember, it was
in my own lifetime that homosexuality was said to be a disease, not by
religion, but by the very sources you cite. Question: Is it because of clear
evidence they changed their minds? Or is it because they already changed them
and then worked backwards? It wouldn’t be the first time that happened. 
Tough thing about history, you have to wait for it to happen before you can
figure out who was right and who wasn’t. 

The problem with “hate the sin, love the sinner” mentality is when it turns into “hate the sin, so prevent the sinner from having the freedoms which would allow them to have a long and happy life while repeatedly harassing them about what horrible people they are for having urges they can neither control nor change.”

“I forgive you as a person, but I cannot allow you to live happily” is no consolation at all.

Exactly. Given enough mob mentality and rabid fanaticism, anything can be dangerous. Even liking a sports team.

Thank you…

 Actually, the parody card is just dumping the double-speak of the original.  The original claims it’s against bullying of any kind as it seeks to bully anybody who isn’t a heterosexual Christian.  The essential message is “God’s plan is for you to follow him and be straight, and if you refuse you’re a reprobate moral degenerate”.    

 So Fred Phelps, the KKK, all real cristians. Right?

Is it just me or is anyone getting a mildly threatening vibe from “He knows your name…”?  I wonder if any of those “loving” Christians will use these cards to “out” gay people or to bully people with accusations that they are gay?  All the while masking their own bullying as “caring” and “Christian” behaviour.

It’s probably just me, right?  

Belief isn’t necessarily evidence free. There are good reasons to believe in some things.

Faith however…that is just belief without – and often in spite of – evidence

You are just stuck in conventional moral reasoning, my troll friend.

 “”I don’t know what makes a Christian “real”
This is indeed something to think about.

The topic is Christians and their attitudes towards gays.  What is your attitude?