Why mocking belief IS an attack on the person

[kentauros]

The latest Islamophobia in Texas and DU's general reaction with regards to Free Speech has brought this subject back to my mind. I don't know if we've ever addressed my subject directly, so I'd like to now, and perhaps develop a good definition of why.

First, here's how I define why mocking someone's beliefs can can at least hurt, and at most, inflame to the point of violent reactions. That is, those that have strongly-held beliefs are attached to them as any one of us might be attached to a loved one/significant other. The Love we have for our beliefs (and the content thereof) is as strong as the Love we have for a friend, relative, offspring, sibling, and/or spouse/SO. Attacking, mocking, ridiculing, and all of the other negative means of laying into someone's belief is akin to doing exactly the same to a loved-one. Our reactions will be the same, yet most will acknowledge that mocking a loved-one is assholish behavior. And yet, mocking a strongly-held belief is not considered the same.

My analysis for why a belief is interpreted differently between the two (beliefs and loved-ones) is that a belief isn't defined in the same terms by those that would willingly mock us. It's considered to be an abstract thing and can't be interpreted as anything physical. We have to define our beliefs as we would a loved-one, and hold to that definition. It could have the effect of diminishing the mocking, save for those few that are jerks and would have as little remorse about insulting a loved-one, too.

~~~

I think my distillation here may need some refining. Partly because I want it to be crystal-clear, yet also because the mockers will attack it because of their Free Speech right to do so, and so they can twist our words around against us. I'd like to avoid as much of the tedium from their "gotcha" style of arguing a point so that there can't be any confusion on why a belief is akin to a loved-one, emotionally and mentally.

Thanks, y'all

[hrmjustin]

1. Violence is wrong and the attack on them is wrong.

But this Gellar woman is a despicable bigot and I will not shy away from saying that.

I wonder if she was hoping for something like this to happen.

That being said the shooters were in the wrong and this woman's group has the right to do the garbage they do.

[kentauros]

2. Oh, I'm not saying that violent reactions are acceptable.

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 11:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Only that we do get upset when our beliefs are mocked, due to how they become a part of us.

Having read some of the OP about why Muslims consider cartoons of Muhammad an attack on their belief taught me that they see it as an attack on their "identity." I think that's the word I want to use here, because truly, aren't our beliefs part of our identity as a person?

[hrmjustin]

3. Yes you can say it is a part of their identity.

They take the no images rule very seriously.

I think some here just like to mock these beliefs because it is fun for them.

They like to upset people of faith.

[kentauros]

4. I agree with that about some people.

Some people are jerks at heart. It makes them happy to see other people unhappy.

Here's the OP about the Muslim-identity idea. I think I have a better idea now, too, of how to define our beliefs as identity.

[hrmjustin]

5. It is a good op.

[Starboard Tack]

8. Not only people of faith, but all who do criticize their mocking

The irony is that they believe that mockery of believers is, in some bizarre way, progressive, yet when they are called on their own misguided belief, they become extremely defensive.

[hrmjustin]

9. Lol. well i find most atheists to be live and let live but there are a few that are rather dogmatic

about their non-belief.

And then there are some that enjoy mocking.

On DU I notice that most are rather respectful of my beliefs even though they will give a good give and take with me.

The ones that can not play nice you just can't take what they say personally because if you do it will hurt.

It used to hurt me but I just learned that it is their issue and not mine.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Very healthy attitude.

[hrmjustin]

12. It is only recent.

It came to me after the paris attack and I threatened to peave du for awhile.


I came back and realized I just can't take this stuff too seriously here.

[okasha]

11. I think this is right on.

In Tsalagi, the same word is used for "culture," "history" and "religion.". For us, as for other Native Americans, those three concepts can't really be prised apart. You can be a "cultural Catholic" or ""cultural Jew," but there is no way to be a "cultural Apache" in that same sense.

[el_bryanto]

6. I honestly don't think there is anyway to make this argument fly

I understand what you are saying. Belief is close to identity as is ethnicity or race or sexual preference or gender. In general we wouldn't attack someone for being a specific race, gender, or sexual preference; we also wouldn't tolerate stereotyping on those grounds.

When it comes to ethnicity it's a little more complex - for example, the American South has a pretty distinct culture. Some elements associated with Southern identity are positive, others are negative. While people at DU are pretty comfortable stereotyping American Southerners, would they feel the same way about Italian American communities or Latino communities? Probably less so. And while Culture is a general learned set of opinions and attitudes, and thus subject to change, most would accept that cultures and ethnicities have both positive and negative traits - so people would be encouraged to dump the negative traits while embracing the positive traits of whatever culture/ethnicity they come from.

I agree with the formulation that belief in whatever faith you participate in is akin to love - but I don't think that will be understandable or acceptable to those anti-Theists on this board. To them, since belief is a foolish affectation to begin with, you should drop it entirely, or at least join a faith that they approve of a bit more. They literally don't understand why a person would choose to be religious except in the most shallow of terms, and as such there will always be a gap.

Bryant

[kentauros]

7. Okay, finally have a clear enough mind

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 05:24 PM - Edit history (1)

(though not so much the other inner-head stuff) to reply

I understand your point about ethnicity and culture. And while culture is a learned aspect to each human, my point was to go a little deeper than even that. We all know what that kind of deepest-felt Love is like, whether it's through our spiritual/religious beliefs, our physical loved ones, or even our culture to some extent.

That's the part I want to define. That connection to a part of us so complete that mocking it is akin to mocking us as a person. It's probably why I bristle whenever people make broad-brushed attacks at Texas and the South. I don't really consider myself a Southerner, but it does make me wonder about the learned emotions of the person doing the attacking. My love for my Home State is just as deep (if not moreso) as their seeming "hate" for the same place. Yet, it's okay to attack my Home and dismiss my reactions because "it's just a place." Same kind of reaction as those that mock and attack a belief. "It's just an abstract thought. It's not truly part of you." Or so they would argue.

And yes, I agree with you that we likely can't get this concept through the thickheadness of some of DU's anti-theists. As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, they simply don't care. Getting an emotional rise out of us is their form of intellectual sport, and their psychological make-up is developed to react with glee. I've always thought this was endemic to the mind and actions of a bully, but we all know how far you'll get trying to point that kind of thing out...

Well, it does look like folks here like this discussion, so maybe we'll be able to define this connection to our spirituality and religious feelings in ways that just might cause the "opposition" to pause, reflect, and ponder. Selah.

[el_bryanto]

26. There was a good article at Salon this last weekend about what religion provides

And how many Anti Theists refuse to grapple with it. Here's the article.

The problem is that the New Atheists think of God only in epistemological terms. Consequently, they have nothing to say to those who affirm God for existential reasons. New Atheist writers tend to approach religion from the perspective of science: They argue that a particular religion isn’t true or that the empirical claims of religious texts are false. That’s easy to do. The more interesting question is why religions endure in spite of being empirically untrue. There are, of course, millions of fundamentalists for whom God is a literal proposition. Their claims concerning God are empirical and should be treated as such. For many, though, God is an existential impulse, a transcendent idea with no referent in reality. This conception of God is untouched – and untouchable – by positivist science; asking if God is true in this sense is like asking how much the number 12 weighs – it’s nonsensical.

These sorts of questions pervade literature and philosophy. The existentialist authors, most of whom were atheists, took seriously the problem of meaning and truth. Dostoevsky, for instance, although a Christian, refused to defend Christianity on positivist grounds. He considered God a motive force, not an empirical claim about reality or history. For his part, God was a bridge to self-transcendence, a way of linking the individual to a tradition and a community. The truth of Christ was therefore less important than the living faith made possible by belief in Christ.

Richard Dawkins may find this distinction trivial, but I don’t think it is.

Bryant

[kentauros]

27. I saw cbayer's thread in Religion on this Salon article.

And I saw the "Whoosh! Over the head" reactions to it. Either it's an example of willful ignorance, or the connection to a belief is perceived as inconsequential to being religious.

It is a good article, though I have to admit that my education in philosophy is severely lacking. Mostly because I just don't have much interest in reading such things. So the following passage went over my head (or maybe it's just the Allegra clouding my mind) :

The more interesting question is why religions endure in spite of being empirically untrue. There are, of course, millions of fundamentalists for whom God is a literal proposition. Their claims concerning God are empirical and should be treated as such. For many, though, God is an existential impulse, a transcendent idea with no referent in reality. This conception of God is untouched – and untouchable – by positivist science; asking if God is true in this sense is like asking how much the number 12 weighs – it’s nonsensical.

To me, God/Source does indeed exist, and I'm as far from being a fundamentalist as one can get. I simply don't attempt to define Source in terms most religions use. I'm still a dabbler, cherry-picking what sounds good to me, and finding my particular meaning from all that. Yet, I still believe in something larger than any of us, encompassing All (as in the universe, all dimensions, and everything else science has yet to discover.) If my life depended upon me renouncing all of that in order to live, I could certainly say the words, but they wouldn't be sincere. That connection to what gives me meaning in life is as permanent as the coding in my DNA.

[rug]

13. Beliefs are inanimate. It's like mocking a stone.

"Attack the belief not the believer" is pure bullshit. It is a cowardly gloss to cover antisocial behavior against others. The ones who are disrespected, mocked or attacked are human beings.

Those who are fond of that tactic demonstrate an incapacity to engage other people rationally and an incapacity to respect people.

[hrmjustin]

14. Agreed! I think some of them realize they hurt people with their mocking and just don't care

or take enjoyment out of it.

[rug]

15. The realize it before they open their mouths. That's the intent.

[hrmjustin]

16. I can take a good natured joke or two but I must admit irl i never experience

what I experience online with mocking my religion.

[okasha]

17. The thing is, they lose the power to hurt

when you realize that their attacks are divorced from both reality and rationality. They don't address anything in you. They express a need for power and dominance that is apparently unfulfilled in their real lives.

[hrmjustin]

18. Well put. Something is missing in their lives so they need to inflict it on us.

[okasha]

19. The internet lets them do it anonymously, too,

so that behavior that avoids the consequences it would provoke in real life becomes possible.

[hrmjustin]

20. Keyboard warriors.

My view now is to limit my interaction with that kind of mean spirited mocking on the internet.

That is why I am limiting my time in the religion room.


My profile now says the HRC room is my favorite room.

[okasha]

21. There was a truly ridiculous post yesterday

I couldn't resist replying to, so let my evil twin take over for 60 seconds. Normally I gnore the Usual Suspects, just scroll past them without reading.

[hrmjustin]

22. I have no problem with good questions that make you think.

And that does happen

But not all the time .

[okasha]

23. It does happen, but not often.

[hrmjustin]

24. It is what it is.

[hrmjustin]

25. kicking.