3 ms·

Except in America, people do shop around for religions. Something like half of people convert from one religion to another in their lifetime here [0]. It's also

Except in America, people do shop around for religions. Something like half of people convert from one religion to another in their lifetime here [0]. It's also not uncommon for conservative politicians to adopt a more evangelical form of Christianity as a gesture to constituents. Someone as obviously atheistic as Trump even put on a meager show of doing this during the campaign. And please don't conflate the basic humanity of LGBTQ people with the ideologies of people who consistently try to rob it from them. I grew up in a conservative Christian part of the Midwest and was routinely beaten and threatened by your run of the mill Christians for "seeming gay." What they did to actual gay people was even worse. Of course people use religion to justify their prejudices - there's almost no reading of human history that would suggest otherwise. You can toss around some No True Scottsman nonsense about how that doesn't reflect the true values of Christianity, but until mainstream American Christianity walks away from all its hypocrisy and monstrosity, it's a distinction without a difference. [0]https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Gods-Secular-History-Conversion/dp/0375423753 https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Gods-Secular-History-Conversi...

humanrebar 10y ago
There's too much to unpack and critique in here, but No True Scotsman applies when people move categorical goalposts (to mix metaphors), it doesn't apply when talking about people who don't meet the basic tenets of their professed beliefs (hatred is evil). I haven't been beaten for seeming effeminate, but I have been ridiculed and bullied for the same reasons. I don't decide to find which demographics about the bullies are salient (some were latino, some were athletes, are either of those fair game?) to form prejudices around. More importantly, you misunderstood my core point: > Except in America, people do shop around for religions. I agree, but whether people shop or not, the existence of God is a factual question. It's either true or not. Same goes for a particular moral framework. Either it's true or not. We are all making our best bets on those dimensions. It's important not to judge, hate, outgroup, closet, ostracize, or despise because we happened to weigh available evidence and experiences differently. In this specific case (to stay on topic), it's fair to criticize the science of whether embryos count as people. It's fair to discuss, philosophically, the benefits and drawbacks of using embryos in research. It's fair, again, to discuss whether we want corporate industries involved in embryo production to improve health outcomes. I think we need better empathy and reasoning if we're going to act like bringing God into existence was a choice people made some day and could just as easily unmake. That's where there are very strong parallels with other justice issues like the treatment of people based on sexual orientation, immigration status, marital status, or mental health conditions.

humanrebar 10y ago

There's too much to unpack and critique in here, but No True Scotsman applies when people move categorical goalposts (to mix metaphors), it doesn't apply when talking about people who don't meet the basic tenets of their professed beliefs (hatred is evil). I haven't been beaten for seeming effeminate, but I have been ridiculed and bullied for the same reasons. I don't decide to find which demographics about the bullies are salient (some were latino, some were athletes, are either of those fair game?) to form prejudices around. More importantly, you misunderstood my core point: > Except in America, people do shop around for religions. I agree, but whether people shop or not, the existence of God is a factual question. It's either true or not. Same goes for a particular moral framework. Either it's true or not. We are all making our best bets on those dimensions. It's important not to judge, hate, outgroup, closet, ostracize, or despise because we happened to weigh available evidence and experiences differently. In this specific case (to stay on topic), it's fair to criticize the science of whether embryos count as people. It's fair to discuss, philosophically, the benefits and drawbacks of using embryos in research. It's fair, again, to discuss whether we want corporate industries involved in embryo production to improve health outcomes. I think we need better empathy and reasoning if we're going to act like bringing God into existence was a choice people made some day and could just as easily unmake. That's where there are very strong parallels with other justice issues like the treatment of people based on sexual orientation, immigration status, marital status, or mental health conditions.