I do understand where you are coming from. It just gets on my nerves when you have UNPROVOKED comments bashing religion on lists and arguments that have the barest relevance. I was referring to those who assume MOST people of faith are close-minded, backwards, condescending or have some sort of moral superiority complex.

Now, would you agree that there is also a slight sense of an intellectual superiority complex on the part of some atheists? some would seem to believe that they are “smarter” because they “arent fooled into believing in a ridiculous sky fairy.” Believe me, the condescension grates both ways…

Now, I have to say that in my humble opinion, the most vocal Christians are Americans. The evolution vs creationism debate is something you dont really hear outside the US (at least not whether to teach creationism in school).

I understand frustration but I guess it just surprises me when I come across such instant (and in some cases unwarranted) hostility.

I think you’re making an apples-to-oranges comparison GTT. I think the difference in the two scenarios is that gays (or racial minorities, or women, as other examples) aren’t trying to be accepted as anything more than “equal”, or that it be a non-factor, whereas the so-called Christian movement stems from a self-perceived, self-proclaimed position of moral superiority. Again, as I replied to you earlier about this, this is a generalized statement and not meant to label everyone in a given group. Anyway, this is what tends to get people’s hackles up. That position is a belief system that can be debated (ad homs aside) by people that don’t happen to follow those doctrines or are perhaps offended by the subtle condescension. Whereas those other groups are what they are. They can’t change their stripes (though homophobes like to argue otherwise), so any type of discrimination against them would be more likely to find sympathizers outside of their groups. I am not a member of any of those three example groups, but I abhor discrimination (as likely most everyone does), so I would definitely stand up against it and defend those groups if I feel their rights are being violated. I am not Christian either, but I would likewise oppose discrimination against them. Difference being, I don’t equate debating against dogmatic beliefs as being discriminatory. I do agree with you that using terms like “delusional, ignorant and fundamentally opposed to all rationality” might not be correct debating protocol and I’m probably guilty of using those type of terms myself and I’m not saying it’s ok, but the usage is driven more by a sense of frustration, rather than being a form of “hate”, as seems to be the motivation behind those that oppose the other groups.

“…calling a christian brainwashed diminishes their argument…”

Are you kidding me?How would that diminish any argument? It´s ad hom at its best, trying to “diminish” an argument by attacking the person. Give me a break.

And back to the original argument:
“Also, despite the ’second class’ connotations, I don’t think it’s possible to argue that these particularly women have no ‘moral compass’ solely on the basis of them wearing a burkha. Who knows what their specific moral ideology is?”

No, but it´s still ironic in the same way the other pictures are. For example, the guy lying on the grass in front of Department of Labor sign could well be on his lunch break, taking a nap after a three day all day, all night work session. His specific work ethic could be excellent, he could very well be a workaholic for all we know. It doesnt make a difference to the perceived irony of the picture. That´s the point.

And just as a side note, anyone who takes freaking Christina Aguilera as a role model has serious mental deficencies… Just saying.

I see where you’re coming from but you could argue almost the same thing for women wearing revealing clothes in our society – that they’re being forced to (by society), that they’re second class as they need to do this to ‘fit in’, that it affects the rest of women etc. Look at Christina Aguilera for example – would you agree the way she dresses is influencing women, particularly young girls?

Also, despite the ’second class’ connotations, I don’t think it’s possible to argue that these particularly women have no ‘moral compass’ solely on the basis of them wearing a burkha. Who knows what their specific moral ideology is?

The fact is that Jfrater didn’t put the photo up because of the burkhas – he explicitly stated that early on. If people happen to be finding it ironic for another reason, that’s great, but the initial bigotry remains.

“And you dont usually see non-Christians stand up to this while you do see, for example, straight people stand up against homophobia. Why is it not OK to call a homosexual a queer or fag but it it is considered correct debating skills to call a Christian ignorant and brainwashed?”

Because being homosexual has little if anything to do with one’s point of view. Being christian on the other hand will influence opinions in lots of areas. Also, calling someone a fag does nothing to advance an argument – calling a christian brainwashed diminishes their argument.

I’m not agreeing that it is okay to call christians brainwashed etc (just saying why people would) but it again comes back to homosexuals not being as represented in society. Christians (especially in America) are extremely common to the point of assuming most audiences you come across will be largely comprised of christians.
Attacking christians isn’t as dangerous because christians are generally able to band together – not true for other groups.

“Why do you find it reprehensible if they choose to wear burkhas?”

For the simple fact of what it means to women. It means they need to cover up so they wont “tempt” males, it means that to that society one woman is pretty much the same as another, it means women are second class citizens. A lot of women are FORCED to wear them which is just another form of oppression. And while I know that some women choose to wear them, I have to ask what they are saying about the role of women in society. Enough reasons?

Re the whole Christianity thing: I´ve seen more than my share of arguments revolve around the fact that we´re delusional, ignorant and fundamentally opposed to all rationality and truth because we belive in a “mystical sky fairy”. And you dont usually see non-Christians stand up to this while you do see, for example, straight people stand up against homophobia. Why is it not OK to call a homosexual a queer or fag but it it is considered correct debating skills to call a Christian ignorant and brainwashed? (And before someone jumps on me, NO,I do NOT think it´s OK to call a gay person queer or fag). It´s just a hypothetical question.

“It’s much more relevant to Americans, who I’m guessing take up a large portion of this site.”

Yes, they might. But again, this site is not catering solely to American interests, it has a pretty wide and diverse fan base. As a WORLDWIDE phenomenon, the KK just isnt that important.

“I have to say this his opinion would tend to carry a lot of weight on this site. ”

Meh, yes, he´s the owner of this site but I´ve never seen his opinion carry an inordinate amount of weight. Stick around and you´ll see for yourself.

Hmmm I can’t say I agree. I’m not saying all Muslim women are choosing to wear burkhas but we can’t assume it’s necessarily a bad thing or that they’re being forced into it. Why do you find it reprehensible if they choose to wear burkhas?

Responding to your 152:
“On a side note, why is it that everytime a negative comment is made about Muslims/Jews/homosexuals/black people, everyone jumps up and screams BIGOT and yet they themselves jump on the bandwagon when the Christianity bashing begins?

Sorry if this starts a flame war, just honestly curious… I dont find that hatred of Catholics here in LA so I´m curious as to why it exists elsewhere… Why do people feel that being one thing is OK, praise-worthy or whatever and the other is instrisically wrong? Anyone?”

Christians don’t really need to be represented by others as much because they are constantly seen and portrayed not only in real life but in the media, movies, etc, in a positive way. As you’ve seen here people think it’s okay to get away with attacking Muslims. Why? Why didn’t Jfrater put a photo up of KKK members protesting? It’s much more relevant to Americans, who I’m guessing take up a large portion of this site.

Movies and the media both demonize Muslims but people can’t seem to separate that from reality. Christians, on the other hand, are thoroughly well-represented in western society. It’d be the same thing in other countries – the majority is rarely spoken for because it’s so well represented otherwise.

Saying “all christians are evil” in America isn’t going to influence people and degrade the rights of people as much as saying “Muslism/Jews/Blacks are evil” solely because people don’t have as much basis for identification with them.

I hope that answers your questions.

Also:

“He never encouraged, just said that is why HE found picture ironic.”

I have to say this his opinion would tend to carry a lot of weight on this site. If jfrater endorses something, I’d more listverse users to agree than people who don’t frequent the site.

Here´s hoping that (s?)he´ll respond this time!