Race is different than atheism in my book. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s just how it is.
Maybe we can’t influence the Biologos moderation, but we can help see to it this becomes a teaching moment.
1 Like
Sure, everything is different from everything else. But how does that affect whether it’s hate speech? Antisemitism is not just racial; it’s religious too. What about anti-Muslim hate speech? Any identifiable group (even imaginary ones) can be the subject of hate speech.
Task completed.
2 Likes
I think part of it is the relative political power between the parties. For example, someone pushing the classic tropes about the Irish in the US is probably going to be laughed at more than anything, although that might not have been the case further back in our history. The Irish aren’t being discriminate against in the US, and they have as much or more power than other groups. I tend to focus more on the cultural and political impact of hate speech than I do on the semantics of their speech.
1 Like
Well, such language is at minimum inflammatory, usually well astray from “on topic”, and leading the conversation far from substantial dialog. I would think that moderation would be appropriate on that basis if nothing more. A conversation on population genetics is rarely enhanced by “I’m praying for you that your mind be released from bondage”, nor is banjo playing or spaghetti monster cults germane to the topic. Often enough,I am following an interesting thread, then suddenly it is >boom<, shot out of the sky. I think that we as participants can assist the moderators by using the “off topic” flag when appropriate. Actually “cancelling” people should be in my mind a last resort.
3 Likes
Then why is the current topic not hate speech? Don’t atheists have almost no political power?
Atheists have as much political power as theists, at least from where I sit. Secular government has a way of doing that.
Where are you sitting? In the US, I don’t know of a single admitted atheist in government at the federal level. All levels of government are suffused with Christianity, from congressional pastors to national prayer breakfasts to the pledge of allegiance to Joe Biden. I suspect there are closeted atheists in congress, but why are they closeted?
3 Likes
Then I would think that nearly every political position you hold is shared by a publicly elected theist in one of our two dominant political parties. I don’t see any evidence of atheists being prevented from getting housing, education, or services because of their views on religion. The 1st Amendment continues to be strongly supported by the judicial system which prevents anyone’s religious rules from being enforced on others. Sorry, but I just don’t see atheists being persecuted in any meaningful way. Racial minorities are a different story, however.
2 Likes
What does government-sponsored persecution have to do with hate speech? And how does your first sentence follow from my quoted sentence? As far as I can tell, you aren’t making any sense.
There is of course no persecution of atheists, just public disapprobation combined with public support for and approval of theism, which translates to a mild form of persecution. It’s certainly enough to keep politicians from admitting their beliefs. Still, that seems irrelevant to the question of hate speech.
2 Likes
As stated earlier, I view hate speech through the lens of relative political power.
I am assuming that many of your political views are echoed by at least some of our elected officials. As you stated, nearly all of them are theists so there are theists that represent your political views.
It is relevant to me. Again, I could be wrong, but that’s just how I see it.
What does the absence of government-sponsored persecution have to do with relative political power?
How is that relevant to the political power of atheists? If you’re muslim and free to vote for a Christian who reflects many of your political views, does that mean that muslims have political power and there can be no such thing as anti-muslim hate speech?
You have failed to explain why it’s relevant to you.
1 Like
No. They are suffused with fake Christianity, with posturing.
4 Likes
Sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy. Anyway, posturing serves the point that government is acting in service to Christians but not to atheists. Where’s the pro-atheist posturing? And again, what does any of this have to do with hate speech?
4 Likes
Everything.
If you have representatives who are pushing for your political views then you are politically empowered.
Then I guess you will have to be flummoxed because I have explained it the best I can.
I will remain flummoxed then.
In the US, Atheists do not have as much political power as theists, especially in the Trump administration. Yes, the US Government is supposed to be secular but really isn’t. Pence, Pompeo, DeVos, and many others in the Trump administration put Christian Nationalism as the State religion in America. The Biden Administration does realize that Biden/Harris got over 90 percent of the Atheist, Agnostic, and Nothing-in-particular voters which was for the first time a larger voting block than Evangelicals Christians in this election. Political power of the Nones has certainly increased in the Biden Administration as Nones are more aligned with science, climate change, LGBT tolerance, racial and income equality than White Evangelicals Christians. Biden’s Catholicism and Harris’ pantheism are not seen as a treat to Atheists, Agnostics, and Nothing in Particulars. Neither are Christians like Dr. Collins, NIH Director, are Dr. Fauci, Jesuit Trained Catholic. It is the Huckabee, Franklyn Graham, Rev. Jefferies, Gov Abbott brand of Evangelical Christianity (Christian Nationalism) that is the biggest treat to secular government as well as to science. And of course YECism remains a primary treat to science and reason in this country.
1 Like
The 9 member US Supreme Court today has 7 Catholics and 2 Jews. The US population in 2021 by religion is somewhere around 30% Protestant, 25% Catholic, 5% Mormons, 2% Judaism, and 30% Nones. So Christians are still a 60% majority in the US.
1 Like
As far as I can see, the Democratic party supports the same principles of secular government that both you and I support. Nationally, Democrats are getting way more votes than Republicans. I would call that a parity in power, even with the less democratic Senate that allows for disproportional representation.