A few weeks ago I was engaged in a discussion with a Christian over on the Friendly Atheist blog, on which we were discussing gay bullying and the recent spate of tragic suicides of young children who had been tormented by the abuse of their peers (original article here). Below the article, I posted a comment asserting something along the lines that the Bible inherently presents a worldview that leads to hate, and someone using the handle "RWLawOffice" made the following reply: (Warning: fairly long/messy, feel free to skip to the summary at the bottom. My posts in red)
Ad then we got onto the topic of bullying:
I agree with him that bullying should be prevented, and the people are bullied for a variety of reasons. I'd also say that he is right to recognize any suicide of a young person as a tragedy. However, he is wrong when he says "Those in the homosexual community refuse to acknowledge the religious beliefs of Christians and instead call them bigots and are intolerant to these beliefs." This is utter nonsense. I've never heard any gay person ever say "I don't acknowledge that Christians have this set of beliefs". In fact, I find it hard to believe that any gay person, in the United States at least, hasn't had at least one person in their life try to shove the Christian worldview down their throat. RWLawOffice is confusing "agreeing" and "acknowledging". Just because one group of people (for the most part) don't agree with Christian ideology on this one issue does not mean that they are completely ignoring them and refusing to accept that they or their belief system exists...
He (or she) then says "The Christian community fails to express their moral beliefs in a loving manner." You will see in my upcoming response exactly how I handled this assertion, but I'm curious how you would have? Feel free to comment now (before reading farther) with your responses to this claim, I'm curious how others would answer this. This exercise will help us all improve our ability to dissect and discuss claims, which in tern makes us better skeptics and critical thinkers. After a few atheististic replies, RWLawOffice goes on:
Here's my reply:
Summary:
The purpose of posting this conversation was to highlight an important concept when dealing with religious beliefs: Religiously held beliefs are often based upon presuppositions that the believer may not explicit profess (or even realize). With the poster above, his/her moral beliefs were clearly based upon the teachings of the Bible, yet he/she never attempted to demonstrate that the Bible was the word of the god. When I presented my stance on the issue of homosexuality, based upon my moral worldview, RWLawOffice claimed that it was merely my beliefs and is basically on even footing with his/hers. Of course, this is a logical fallacy because, if accepted, we must admit that anyone's moral beliefs are equally valid and thus deserving of equal merit. So if someone commits a murder, but the murdered asserts that in his beliefs, killing is not wrong or immoral, we cannot punish him because his belief that killing is not wrong is just as valid as the government/society's belief that killing is wrong! I'm currently working on a very long and in depth series of morality in which I will be exploring ethics in a much deeper and more broad sense.
The second main point I wanted to make was that intolerance and bigotry is not inherently wrong. As I said in one my responses, I am a bigot! I am a bigot to dumb and ignorant ideas and assertions. I am not tolerant of racism, sexism, or homophobia. Ideas are evaluated on their merit, nothing else. So when the poster makes the claim that I am just as much a bigot as he is in that I am intolerant of Christian bigotry, he is wrong because his intolerance is demonstrably worse for society than mine. The idea that gay people are immoral solely on the fact of their biological sexual orientation is an immoral view itself! And I don't think that I am a bigot to point that out and protest against such ignorance.
The reason I asked was because of your comment that the worldview presented in the Bible leads to hate.To which I replied:
As far as forcing their morals on others, I view that is what is being done by the homosexual community. As a Christian I am being told that I cannot believe that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral. I am being told that if I believe that marriage should be between a man and a women then I am a bigot. And if i do believe that I am to keep it to myself and not talk about it. Yet, it is perfectly okay for the homosexual community to spread their view that this lifestyle is morally equal to a heterosexual lifestyle. If that is their belief, fine, but I am not allowed to disagree with that belief or teach my children otherwise.
"As a Christian I am being told that I cannot believe that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral".He replied:
Sure, you are free to believe that. You would be wrong, but I would never say a person does not have a right to their own beliefs.
"I am being told that if I believe that marriage should be between a man and a women then I am a bigot. "
Again, believe whatever you would like, that is your right. But A) Don't attempt to insert your personal morality into the public sphere, e.g. not giving homosexuals the right to get married and B) If you are going to assert that your morals are worth respecting and using on a societal scale, then they need to have evidence and reason to support them. Whether you like it or not, "because the Bible says so" is perhaps the one of the worst justifications for believing anything. Believe whatever you want, but when you start asserting to others your personal morality that is clearly bigoted, then you will get called a bigot.
"Yet, it is perfectly okay for the homosexual community to spread their view that this lifestyle is morally equal to a heterosexual lifestyle. "
I am more than a little disturbed that you you are so morally opposed to equality. Further yet, you assert that the homosexual community is spreading the view that their lifestyle (which it is not, it is a biological function, maybe do a little research into these things, especially if you are going to promoting your own beliefs as better) is equal, which they aren't. They (and most people whose minds' have not been poisoned by religion) are merely asking for equality. Gay people don't want everyone else to be gay. They don't want everyone else to have a different kind of marriage because of them. They simply want the same rights and benefits that homosexual couples acquire through the social/legal contract of marriage.
" If that is their belief, fine, but I am not allowed to disagree with that belief or teach my children otherwise."
I can't say this enough: Believe whatever nonsense you want! That is your right. But be warned that reasonable, rational people will point out that your beliefs are not justified, especially when you try to enforce them upon others. In fact, I, as someone who cares not only about myself but the well-being of society, would prefer that every single person would hold beliefs that were justified and supported by reason and evidence, so don't complain when your views, which you can't provide justification for, get attacked.
And who said anything about what you can and cannot teach your children? You have every right to teach your children to follow the same morality that you do, but don't be surprised when they grow up to be ignorant bigots just like you. How about instead, you teach your children critical thinking, and the application of science and reason to discover truth, rather than trusting some bronze age fairy tales.
You just proved my point. In one sentence you say that I have every right to believe the way I want to and then you call me an ignorant bigot for doing so.My response:
There is a difference between "having" a right, as in "I have the right to vote and drive a car (as long as I have a license and follow the rules) and I can spend my time as I wish (as long as I don't violate any laws) and so on, and "being" right. Everybody has the right to be an idiot, but when it comes to objectively evaluating the claims either side is making, "being right" is more important than exercising your right to be an idiot.
My views are, as far as I can tell, demonstrably not ignorant nor bigoted (whereas yours clearly are). THIS IS THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. Sure you have the right to be an ignorant bigot, but don't be angry when reasonable people justifiably call you out on it.
This issue is not some relativistic "everyone has their own opinion so everyone is right'. One view demonstrably promotes more well being whereas the other side promotes harm. Do you disagree that something that is more harmful and promotes well-being less is immoral, or at least less moral than the alternative?
Ad then we got onto the topic of bullying:
Bullying of any type for any reason is an outrage and should be prevented as much as possible. Unfortunately children are bullied for being short, being too tall, being skinny, being fat, being considered unattractive, being religious, being homosexual, etc. The list could go on. Middle school has to be the hardest time for almost all children and particularly for those that have been targeted by their peers for bullying or humiliation. When these children commit suicide to get relief it is truly a tragedy. Compassion for those that experience this tragedy should be the response. However, with this being said, stepping back from the instant tragedy and looking at the overall picture, it would be false to say that either side to this controversy are tolerant and handling it in a correct manner. Those in the homosexual community refuse to acknowledge the religious beliefs of Christians and instead call them bigots and are intolerant to these beliefs. The Christian community fails to express their moral beliefs in a loving manner. Both sides need to learn to talk to each other in a more productive manner. That will never happen if each side expects the other to accept their views as being morally equivalent.
I agree with him that bullying should be prevented, and the people are bullied for a variety of reasons. I'd also say that he is right to recognize any suicide of a young person as a tragedy. However, he is wrong when he says "Those in the homosexual community refuse to acknowledge the religious beliefs of Christians and instead call them bigots and are intolerant to these beliefs." This is utter nonsense. I've never heard any gay person ever say "I don't acknowledge that Christians have this set of beliefs". In fact, I find it hard to believe that any gay person, in the United States at least, hasn't had at least one person in their life try to shove the Christian worldview down their throat. RWLawOffice is confusing "agreeing" and "acknowledging". Just because one group of people (for the most part) don't agree with Christian ideology on this one issue does not mean that they are completely ignoring them and refusing to accept that they or their belief system exists...
He (or she) then says "The Christian community fails to express their moral beliefs in a loving manner." You will see in my upcoming response exactly how I handled this assertion, but I'm curious how you would have? Feel free to comment now (before reading farther) with your responses to this claim, I'm curious how others would answer this. This exercise will help us all improve our ability to dissect and discuss claims, which in tern makes us better skeptics and critical thinkers. After a few atheististic replies, RWLawOffice goes on:
Way to paint with a broad brush. And all homosexuals who are intolerant to the views and beliefs of Christians who call them names and treat them with hatred are bigots. But it seems that this label is only left for the Christians.
Bullying of any kind for any reason is wrong and should be prevented. Period. If I herd my children bullying anyone for any reason I would not condone it and would punish them. At the same time I will teach them that I do not believe that the homosexual lifestyle is a moral equal to a heterosexual marriage. Just as I will teach them that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong. I can do that and still teach them to be kind to others, to show love and to show respect to others that may think differently then them. The fact that we have different moral compasses does not mean that by definition we are bigots for not agreeing.
Here's my reply:
You are correct, homosexuals are intolerant, just like I am. We are intolerant of your ignorance and bigotry. If you want to sit alone in your house for your entire life and hate gay people for something they don't necessarily choose, you are free to do that. I would argue that it is an immoral thing to do, but I don't withhold your right, and overall it wouldn't be a big deal. But when you are teaching your children these views, you are most likely voting for politicians who believe the same things as you, you are having an impact on the shared reality that we live in, and I would prefer that to be the best, most productive and most moral society possible.
How can you say that teaching your children that a whole group of people in the world are morally inferior because of something they don't necessarily choose will still be taught to be kind to others and show respect? If you actually had an understanding of compassion and empathy, you would understand that inequality for ANY group of people in a society is morally worse than the alternative. You say you would teach them to respect others that may think differently, yet you are clearly demonstrating in your posts that you do not respect homosexuals (even though you believe that they "think" differently than you). The fact that we have different moral compasses means only that one of us is wrong. So how do we figure out who is right? We look at the evidence and we use reason and rational thinking to determine which view causes more harm and which view promotes a better overall well-being for society. And if your views clearly are promoting inequality and are not supported by evidence or reason, then you are, in fact, the bigot.
Summary:
The purpose of posting this conversation was to highlight an important concept when dealing with religious beliefs: Religiously held beliefs are often based upon presuppositions that the believer may not explicit profess (or even realize). With the poster above, his/her moral beliefs were clearly based upon the teachings of the Bible, yet he/she never attempted to demonstrate that the Bible was the word of the god. When I presented my stance on the issue of homosexuality, based upon my moral worldview, RWLawOffice claimed that it was merely my beliefs and is basically on even footing with his/hers. Of course, this is a logical fallacy because, if accepted, we must admit that anyone's moral beliefs are equally valid and thus deserving of equal merit. So if someone commits a murder, but the murdered asserts that in his beliefs, killing is not wrong or immoral, we cannot punish him because his belief that killing is not wrong is just as valid as the government/society's belief that killing is wrong! I'm currently working on a very long and in depth series of morality in which I will be exploring ethics in a much deeper and more broad sense.
The second main point I wanted to make was that intolerance and bigotry is not inherently wrong. As I said in one my responses, I am a bigot! I am a bigot to dumb and ignorant ideas and assertions. I am not tolerant of racism, sexism, or homophobia. Ideas are evaluated on their merit, nothing else. So when the poster makes the claim that I am just as much a bigot as he is in that I am intolerant of Christian bigotry, he is wrong because his intolerance is demonstrably worse for society than mine. The idea that gay people are immoral solely on the fact of their biological sexual orientation is an immoral view itself! And I don't think that I am a bigot to point that out and protest against such ignorance.
