7 ms·

I grew up in a red state, too, and as an atheist, I got tired of being told I was going to hell by peers and forced to pray at school events. As such, I have a

I grew up in a red state, too, and as an atheist, I got tired of being told I was going to hell by peers and forced to pray at school events. As such, I have a lot of Christian friends but, it is understandable that some "intellectuals" are hostile to those with strong religious beliefs given that many with similar beliefs deny scientific concepts like evolution, advocate teaching creationism in schools, and deny the existence of global warming.

talmand 11y ago
I'm curious, how exactly were you forced to pray at school events? Regardless, maybe the intellectuals should stop being hostile, have an honest dialogue with such people, and maybe they'll get somewhere.
- munin 11y ago
  being forced to pray at school events is pretty simple, the teacher asks "why aren't you praying?" and sends you to the principals office. nobody within a 200mi radius of you thinks that there is anything wrong with this because "it's the way it's always been" and there's no higher power to appeal to, so... how can you "have an honest dialogue" with someone that thinks that you are going to burn in Hell and tells you that your ideas about women, voting, and abortion are "the Devils"?
  - talmand 11y ago
    No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray, you can continue to refuse to pray in that case. Were you somehow forced to pray once you got to the principal's office? There is always a higher power to appeal to unless the head of your country's government and legal system agrees with the sentiment. I agree it's a hard path to take, but the option is there. I guess in the same way you try to have an honest dialogue with a person that insists you are stupid and they can dismiss anything you say because of your beliefs. Both are equally guilty of refusing to participate in the dialogue. Many of the intellectuals refuse to see their failing is evident as much as the overly religious person's failing.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray Imposing punishments for failure to comply is coercion, and fairly described as forcing, or at least attempting to force, someone to do the act toward which the coercion is directed.
      - talmand 11y ago
        So, going to the principal's office is a punishment so severe that it forces the student to pray when said student doesn't want to? I mean, if they were beating the child I could agree, but a trip to the principal's office? I fail to see how that can force anyone to do anything.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      So we're not forced to pay taxes or refrain from murdering people?
      - talmand 11y ago
        No, you are not. Years back the head of the IRS famously made the statement that the US federal tax system is voluntary. You volunteer to pay it in the manner they describe. Now, I agree that if you refuse to pay it then there will be consequences for failure of payment. But that's not the same as someone beating you to force you sign the check. It seems that people are doing their best to impose their definition of being forced to do something without bothering to see what it is I mean by my original statement. Here's a simplistic view of it. If I do some sort of negative thing to you before you do/don't commit an act I don't/do want you to make, then I'm forcing you; "ex: I'll stop hurting you when you do this!" If I do some sort of negative thing to you after you do/don't commit an act I don't/do want you to make, then I'm punishing you; "ex: You did this and now I'll hurt you!" There's a difference between those two things, but I agree the line dividing them is very fine. I hope I got those do/don't and don't/do parts right and it's understandable. So, for the kid refusing to pray in school. Being sent to the principal's office after refusal is not forcing the student to do anything. So far the student hasn't prayed, therefore not forced. If the student views being sent to the office as punishment and decides to pray from then on to avoid going to the office again, you could have the view that the kid is being forced with threats of future punishments. I don't necessarily agree with that but I can understand the thinking. The reason I don't agree with it is because if I rob a bank and get caught, I go to jail. I've been punished. I know that if I rob another bank I'll likely go to jail again, therefore with that logic I'm somehow being forced to not rob another bank if I choose to not do so. But, I can easily rob another bank to face possible punishment afterwards. To force a student to pray in school can simply be paddling the student and then demand they pray so the paddling shall stop. In the story I responded to, the student was punished (possibly repeatedly) for not praying.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Obviously you were downvoted for making a point. My personal intellectual growth was stunted for quite a long time because so much of the opposition were so dismissive and egotistical about things that were discussed. They were obviously right, I was obviously backward and they never felt the need to explain any of it because obviously a dumb, backward redneck would NEVER understand these complex thoughts. When you engage in a discussion, you can either pursue the enhancement of your ego, or pursue the conversion of the opponent, and you can never do both. The vast majority of people go for the former.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> As such, I have a lot of Christian friends but, it is understandable that some "intellectuals" are hostile to those with strong religious beliefs given that many with similar beliefs deny scientific concepts like evolution, advocate teaching creationism in schools, and deny the existence of global warming. I think the usual word with hostility toward people not because of things they do, but because of things other people that share a characteristic with them do, is "bigotry".
- dhimes 11y ago
  Do you consider being a Christian something you do or is it a trait?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Do you consider being a Christian something you do or is it a trait? It doesn't really matter which, given that the GP was in response to a post about it being understandable to have hostility to "those with strong religious beliefs" not because of what those directly receiving the hostility do, but because of various things that "many with similar beliefs" do. Whether or not "being a Christian" or "having strong religious beliefs" is "something you do" or "a trait", if you are hostile to people to which the description applies because other people who share that description do other things which justify hostility, that's bigotry.
  - Radim 11y ago
    Excellent question, goes straight to the heart of it. Does a public declaration of strong allegiance to religious views say something actionable about a person or not? Do people feel that strong religious beliefs are a direct threat to themselves and their loved ones? Or is it just something a person "carries in their head", harmlessly, and acting on the perceived dangers would be bigotry, as dragonwriter says? Is pre-emptive (verbal) defence against ideologies and memes ever justified? I submit that the answer is usually determined by economy in the end, not by philosophising. Is it more cost-efficient to do indiscriminate public shaming of certain ideologies, or is it cheaper to defer punishment to a concrete person after having observed concrete damage? Note "damage" can mean different things to different people (money lost, limbs lost, emotional anguish...). In genetic evolution, the answer turned out to be clearly "discriminate!". Organisms take strong, immediate reactions based on observable surface characteristics of the other party (the phenotype), without performing deep analysis of its particular gene combination or its mutations, or waiting for their concrete manifestation in action.
FussyZeus 11y ago
It is not any more understandable for you to dismiss a religious person as less intelligent than you than it is for a religious person to assume you're going to hell for being Athiest. Stop trying to justify your prejudices. Two wrongs, etc. etc.
- isolate 11y ago
  I think you can dismiss them as less sane, however. You don't have to treat wacky beliefs as equally valid alternative viewpoints. There's a lot of totally supernatural stuff religious people believe that didn't / doesn't happen. The moral and community aspects are generally okay.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    My sanity is perfectly fine, thanks, and my beliefs are not beholden to the standard you define as "wacky."
    - isolate 11y ago
      Do you believe God communicates with you?
      - FussyZeus 11y ago
        No. Does that make me less wacky? Do you have a wackiness scale documented that I could check out?
dang 11y ago
Religious flamewars, which is where this thread is headed (indeed crosses into, below) are off topic on Hacker News. So we detached it from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10747716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10747716 and marked it off-topic.
- fromMars 11y ago
  I think the parent poster's original comment should also probably be marked as off topic, too, given that he inserted religion into the discussion. I personally agree with Jose Duarte, that his political beliefs should not be grounds for denying admission. My point was meant to counter the notion that a certain segment of the country has a monopoly on making judgements about those in the out-group. I experienced the same things FuzzyZeus complains about it growing up in one of the red states.

talmand 11y ago

I'm curious, how exactly were you forced to pray at school events? Regardless, maybe the intellectuals should stop being hostile, have an honest dialogue with such people, and maybe they'll get somewhere.

munin 11y ago
being forced to pray at school events is pretty simple, the teacher asks "why aren't you praying?" and sends you to the principals office. nobody within a 200mi radius of you thinks that there is anything wrong with this because "it's the way it's always been" and there's no higher power to appeal to, so... how can you "have an honest dialogue" with someone that thinks that you are going to burn in Hell and tells you that your ideas about women, voting, and abortion are "the Devils"?
- talmand 11y ago
  No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray, you can continue to refuse to pray in that case. Were you somehow forced to pray once you got to the principal's office? There is always a higher power to appeal to unless the head of your country's government and legal system agrees with the sentiment. I agree it's a hard path to take, but the option is there. I guess in the same way you try to have an honest dialogue with a person that insists you are stupid and they can dismiss anything you say because of your beliefs. Both are equally guilty of refusing to participate in the dialogue. Many of the intellectuals refuse to see their failing is evident as much as the overly religious person's failing.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray Imposing punishments for failure to comply is coercion, and fairly described as forcing, or at least attempting to force, someone to do the act toward which the coercion is directed.
    - talmand 11y ago
      So, going to the principal's office is a punishment so severe that it forces the student to pray when said student doesn't want to? I mean, if they were beating the child I could agree, but a trip to the principal's office? I fail to see how that can force anyone to do anything.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    So we're not forced to pay taxes or refrain from murdering people?
    - talmand 11y ago
      No, you are not. Years back the head of the IRS famously made the statement that the US federal tax system is voluntary. You volunteer to pay it in the manner they describe. Now, I agree that if you refuse to pay it then there will be consequences for failure of payment. But that's not the same as someone beating you to force you sign the check. It seems that people are doing their best to impose their definition of being forced to do something without bothering to see what it is I mean by my original statement. Here's a simplistic view of it. If I do some sort of negative thing to you before you do/don't commit an act I don't/do want you to make, then I'm forcing you; "ex: I'll stop hurting you when you do this!" If I do some sort of negative thing to you after you do/don't commit an act I don't/do want you to make, then I'm punishing you; "ex: You did this and now I'll hurt you!" There's a difference between those two things, but I agree the line dividing them is very fine. I hope I got those do/don't and don't/do parts right and it's understandable. So, for the kid refusing to pray in school. Being sent to the principal's office after refusal is not forcing the student to do anything. So far the student hasn't prayed, therefore not forced. If the student views being sent to the office as punishment and decides to pray from then on to avoid going to the office again, you could have the view that the kid is being forced with threats of future punishments. I don't necessarily agree with that but I can understand the thinking. The reason I don't agree with it is because if I rob a bank and get caught, I go to jail. I've been punished. I know that if I rob another bank I'll likely go to jail again, therefore with that logic I'm somehow being forced to not rob another bank if I choose to not do so. But, I can easily rob another bank to face possible punishment afterwards. To force a student to pray in school can simply be paddling the student and then demand they pray so the paddling shall stop. In the story I responded to, the student was punished (possibly repeatedly) for not praying.
FussyZeus 11y ago
Obviously you were downvoted for making a point. My personal intellectual growth was stunted for quite a long time because so much of the opposition were so dismissive and egotistical about things that were discussed. They were obviously right, I was obviously backward and they never felt the need to explain any of it because obviously a dumb, backward redneck would NEVER understand these complex thoughts. When you engage in a discussion, you can either pursue the enhancement of your ego, or pursue the conversion of the opponent, and you can never do both. The vast majority of people go for the former.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> As such, I have a lot of Christian friends but, it is understandable that some "intellectuals" are hostile to those with strong religious beliefs given that many with similar beliefs deny scientific concepts like evolution, advocate teaching creationism in schools, and deny the existence of global warming. I think the usual word with hostility toward people not because of things they do, but because of things other people that share a characteristic with them do, is "bigotry".

dhimes 11y ago
Do you consider being a Christian something you do or is it a trait?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Do you consider being a Christian something you do or is it a trait? It doesn't really matter which, given that the GP was in response to a post about it being understandable to have hostility to "those with strong religious beliefs" not because of what those directly receiving the hostility do, but because of various things that "many with similar beliefs" do. Whether or not "being a Christian" or "having strong religious beliefs" is "something you do" or "a trait", if you are hostile to people to which the description applies because other people who share that description do other things which justify hostility, that's bigotry.
- Radim 11y ago
  Excellent question, goes straight to the heart of it. Does a public declaration of strong allegiance to religious views say something actionable about a person or not? Do people feel that strong religious beliefs are a direct threat to themselves and their loved ones? Or is it just something a person "carries in their head", harmlessly, and acting on the perceived dangers would be bigotry, as dragonwriter says? Is pre-emptive (verbal) defence against ideologies and memes ever justified? I submit that the answer is usually determined by economy in the end, not by philosophising. Is it more cost-efficient to do indiscriminate public shaming of certain ideologies, or is it cheaper to defer punishment to a concrete person after having observed concrete damage? Note "damage" can mean different things to different people (money lost, limbs lost, emotional anguish...). In genetic evolution, the answer turned out to be clearly "discriminate!". Organisms take strong, immediate reactions based on observable surface characteristics of the other party (the phenotype), without performing deep analysis of its particular gene combination or its mutations, or waiting for their concrete manifestation in action.

FussyZeus 11y ago

It is not any more understandable for you to dismiss a religious person as less intelligent than you than it is for a religious person to assume you're going to hell for being Athiest. Stop trying to justify your prejudices. Two wrongs, etc. etc.

isolate 11y ago
I think you can dismiss them as less sane, however. You don't have to treat wacky beliefs as equally valid alternative viewpoints. There's a lot of totally supernatural stuff religious people believe that didn't / doesn't happen. The moral and community aspects are generally okay.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  My sanity is perfectly fine, thanks, and my beliefs are not beholden to the standard you define as "wacky."
  - isolate 11y ago
    Do you believe God communicates with you?
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      No. Does that make me less wacky? Do you have a wackiness scale documented that I could check out?

dang 11y ago

Religious flamewars, which is where this thread is headed (indeed crosses into, below) are off topic on Hacker News. So we detached it from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10747716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10747716 and marked it off-topic.

fromMars 11y ago
I think the parent poster's original comment should also probably be marked as off topic, too, given that he inserted religion into the discussion. I personally agree with Jose Duarte, that his political beliefs should not be grounds for denying admission. My point was meant to counter the notion that a certain segment of the country has a monopoly on making judgements about those in the out-group. I experienced the same things FuzzyZeus complains about it growing up in one of the red states.