Friday, June 5, 2009

Atheists Still Deny the Hate While Demontrating it At the Same Time

Photobucket




Evidence of the effect of this board. I was really the frist to open start saying that atheism is a hate group. Maybe some fundies said it too, but I think I was the first to get serious about it. But that seems to have had an effect far beyond this blog. Now that effect has not been to change their behavior, but hey has evoked many many denials.


The Board Ahteist Revolution says:

Any Hate Groups Near You?



Religion may be an important factor in perpetuating hatred and intolerance, but it is certainly not the only one. Here in Mississippi, we know a thing or two about hate groups. Believe it or not, the Klan is still alive, and we still have some misguided folks who think the Confederacy is a source of pride.


That site is a good example of the hate group aspects. Their legend reads: "Breaking free form irrational belief and opposing Chrsitian extremes in America."

I think one quality of the hate aspect is perpetuating the idea that "Christianity" (whatever that is, the whole faith all over the world throughout history? or jut the fundies?) is a force of irrational ideas filled with extremes, but of course atheism is a voice of rationality--even though they can't bother themselves to read a single page of theology or look up one study.

In article they had about "what do Atheists think of Christians" they start out assuming the worst, stereo-typing Chrsitian views:

It seems that we atheists rarely have to wonder what some Christians think of us because we are often being told exactly what they think of us. But how about Christians? It is only natural that some might wonder what we think of them.


Where it says "what they think of us" they link to a statement on You Tube by a Catholic Cardinal, "Watch as a high-ranking Catholic official, Cardinal Cormack Murphy-O'Connor, clearly indicates that he does not consider atheists to be fully human." What the Cardinal says they have taken so totally out of context that its obvious they are missing the obvious. The reason is not far to seek. They don't understand what the guy means when he speaks of "understanding humanity." What he said was essentially that you can't understand the nature of humanity if you leave out the divine." They twist that to mean "atheists aren't really human." They cease upon one little glitch to make that seem so obvious when it's not. He said:

Impoverished understanding of what humanity is...There is a diminishing of what is human if they leave out the transcendent...if you leave that out than you are not fully human.


What he's saying is diminishing the understand not the humanity. He's not saying they are literally not human, he's talking about their understanding of being human! But they twist that to get the greatest millage.

That is a hate tactic because it stems form distrust, they want to interpret him in the worst possible way. They use it as propaganda, so they are in effect saying, they think this of us so let's think that of them. What really clenches it is how he uses this as an excuse to deny any rational dialog:


Am I really to attempt meaningful dialogue with such a man? I think not. How could I possibly expect it to lead anywhere positive? I would not expect it to be any more fruitful than it would for my Jewish colleagues to attempt the same with a Nazi or my African American colleagues to try it with a Klan leader.

When one side refuses to acknowledge even the basic humanity of the other, the barrier to bloodshed is thin indeed.


Be sure we don't straighten it out. Let's don't' try to reach a dialogue with these guys now. These are all hate group tacit. These are classic moves that any agent provocateur would know.

13 comments:

J.L. Hinman said...

The distinction is between the Cardinals statement that the atheist understanding of humanity is incomplete and their allegation that he says atheist aren't human.

when he says "not fully human" means their understanding of being human not the people themselves. we can be human and fail to comprehend all the implications of being human.

A Hermit said...

At worst that's a misunderstanding, or perhaps oversensitivity, but not hate. The Cardianl's comment certainly doesn't sound very good on the face of it. Even accepting your interpretation it remains a rather insulting thing to say about people like me.

I don't think objecting to that insult is an act of "hate". Sounds like self defense to me.

J.L. Hinman said...

you are just making excuses for them. The Cardinal clealry did not say they are not human. if they understood theology would know that.

this just points up the need for atheists to learn some theology.

A Hermit said...

"this just points up the need for atheists to learn some theology."

Maybe it points up the need for theologians and religious leaders to choose their words more carefully.

Really Joe; first we have the Cardinal calling us "not fully human" than we have you calling us stupid for not being familiar with theological jargon (a bit of a cop out in this case, I think).\

but it's atheists who are being hateful here?!

To borrow your favourite expression "FUCK YOU!"

J.L. Hinman said...

Really Joe; first we have the Cardinal calling us "not fully human" than we have you calling us stupid for not being familiar with theological jargon (a bit of a cop out in this case, I think).\


so you just totally missed he fact that he didn't say that was the whole point, how could you miss that? Typical atheist bull shit. that' why you can't figure out that God is obvious. Because you care about facts. don't confuse me with the facts.

but it's atheists who are being hateful here?!

Its' atheists who took the quote out of context and lied about it. that is hate.

To borrow your favourite expression "FUCK YOU!"


fuck you with the facts. take those facts and shove em!

J.L. Hinman said...

That's gonna be my new cuntry and western name, Jonny Reubttle. My new song "Take those facts and shove em!"

A Hermit said...

"so you just totally missed he fact that he didn't say that was the whole point, how could you miss that? "

I didn't miss it, dickhead, I just see what he said as a disgusting insult even in your watered down, tidied up version. You and your precious Cardinal are telling me my understanding, my experience, are inherently inferior to yours. It's a smug, arrogant, self righteous comment which is belittling and demeaning of atheists.

And standing up to smug, arrogant, self righteous crap like that is not an act of hate.

Making excuses for it might be...

J.L. Hinman said...

why would you think it's wattered down fuck wad? If you had any knoledge of theology you wuold understsand that really is a big deal to the ideas about what it means to be human. that's why he says it's cut off.

how much gluten do you eat in your diet? do you eat oats and what a lot?

A Hermit said...

You know I went and looked up the actual statement again, just in case I was misunderstanding it; but it actually sounds even worse the second time around...not only does the idea that atheists' understanding of humanity lacks something (a strawman allegation suggesting that atheists don't think of anything beyond themselves) constitute a nasty piece of slander he actually by saying that if you "leave out" the idea that man was made by God "you are not fully human". Not "your understanding of humanity lacks something" but "you are not fully human."

That's me he's talking about Joe...

But if I object to being told I'm that makes me a member of a "hate group"!?

I can't believe you're sticking up for this pompous, pedophile enabling preist...

J.L. Hinman said...

You know I went and looked up the actual statement again, just in case I was misunderstanding it; but it actually sounds even worse the second time around...not only does the idea that atheists' understanding of humanity lacks something (a strawman allegation suggesting that atheists don't think of anything beyond themselves) constitute a nasty piece of slander he actually by saying that if you "leave out" the idea that man was made by God "you are not fully human". Not "your understanding of humanity lacks something" but "you are not fully human."

No the only argument he made was atheists leave out the imag dei dimension. that's the context. He did not say anything else. He is talking about that. He says they are only into themselves he's talking about just understanding themselves as the limit on being human excluding the divine.

I am so totally convened that atheists have problems understanding things. I see it al the time.


That's me he's talking about Joe...

you are hearing what you wan to hear.


But if I object to being told I'm that makes me a member of a "hate group"!?

I can't believe you're sticking up for this pompous,


because you distort what he said into order to make it something it was not for ideological reasons.

J.L. Hinman said...

how could you hear what he said? the text is gone. I can't find it now, the link doesn't go there.

A Hermit said...

You can listen to him here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbrfz1DIq9Q

He quite clearly says at the end that if you don't accept the belief that man was made by God then "you are not fully human"...not "your understanding of humanity lacks something" but "you are not fully human."

"No the only argument he made was atheists leave out the imag dei dimension. that's the context. He did not say anything else. He is talking about that. He says they are only into themselves he's talking about just understanding themselves as the limit on being human excluding the divine."

And that's still grossly insulting and unfair to atheists. Even if we accept that the last bit about people like me not being "fully humans a slip of the tongue this whole attitude of smug superiority is really galling. It misrepresents the appreciation that atheists, humanists and secularists (he seems to be lumping them all together here) have for humanity.

"I am so totally convened that atheists have problems understanding things. I see it all the time."

In this case I think you're the one who's having trouble understanding. If you tell people they are "less than human" or even that their understanding of their own humanity is "less than human" they tend to get angry. Reacting angrily to a disgusting comment like that isn't hateful. Defending a disgusting, hateful comment like that by pretending it's the listener's fault for allegedly being too stupid to understand the plain language of what this man said is what's hateful.

A Hermit said...

You can also listen here; where Stephen Law explains the Cardinal's offense perhaps better than I have:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/05/cardinal-cormac-murphy-oconnor-atheists.html