Bigotry Map

[★ Citsonga ★]

In an ironic twist, the bigots at the American Family Association have come up with a "Bigotry Map" targeting nonreligious and gay-rights activist groups:

 

http://www.afa.net/bigotrymap

 

Here are the four specified target groups:

 

HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

Advocates for the legalization and promotion of same-sex marriage and viciously attacks Christians who exercise their First Amendment right to voice support for God’s plan for marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

Yeah, it's so "bigoted" to support marriage-equality. As if any gay marriage advocates are trying to take away the right for straights to marry.

 

ANTI-CHRISTIAN

Actively engages in the complete eradication of the Christian faith from society, government and private commerce. These groups file lawsuits and use intimidation to silence any reference to Christianity from the public square.

 

Something tells me that most of these groups aren't trying to kick religion out of society. They probably largely don't care what one's private religious views are. But, hey, it must be "bigoted" to not want the government to force religion on the public or to not want corporations to force their leadership's views on their employees.

 

ATHEIST

Does not believe in God and is critical of those who express their faith in public.

 

As if not having an imaginary friend is "bigoted." Christians can talk down about nonbelievers all they want and that's OK, but if someone voices an opposing opinion, then they're a "bigot." Oh, the hypocrisy!

 

HUMANIST

Believes critical thinking and physical evidence are the sole basis for beliefs. Humanists believe science triumphs faith in issues of morality and decision-making.

 

And here we learn that those who actually care about evidence and critical thinking are "bigots." What better way to ignore evidence than to slander those who care about it? (And notice that they completely ignore the positive moral aspect of humanism.)

 

 

 

On a brighter note, here's a satirical article about the so-called Bigotry Map:

 

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/uncomfortable-whole/Do-Atheists-and-Humanists-Hate-Christianity-295031781.html

[mymistake]

 

 

ATHEIST

Does not believe in God and is critical of those who express their faith in public.

 

 

 

 

If only that was all the Christians would do.  If they want to thank Jesus during an award ceremony or put a Christian bumper sticker on their car that is fine.  What too many Christians want is for government land to display only Christian symbols, for government meetings to be opened only with Christian prayer, for Christians to have the right to deny basic services and even human rights to minorities that fall outside of the Christian agenda, and to censor, silence and demonize those who do not have a god.

 

You are so right, Citsonga, about the Christians projecting their own bigotry onto the innocent.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Their words are a revealing insight into their misunderstanding of each point.  There are so many straw man arguments here you could light bonfire the size of a midwest farming town.

 

Excellent post, Citsonga.

 

In an ironic twist, the bigots at the American Family Association have come up with a "Bigotry Map" targeting nonreligious and gay-rights activist groups:

 

http://www.afa.net/bigotrymap

 

Here are the four specified target groups:

 

HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

Advocates for the legalization and promotion of same-sex marriage and viciously attacks Christians who exercise their First Amendment right to voice support for God’s plan for marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

Yeah, it's so "bigoted" to support marriage-equality. As if any gay marriage advocates are trying to take away the right for straights to marry.

 

Their characterisation of the issue is so tangential: they want to exercise free speech about their beliefs about marriage?  Fine, go right ahead. Absolutely no one is stopping them.  

 

Also, advocating the legalisation of same-sex marriage is not the same as promoting it.  No one is suggesting same sex couples who aren't deliberately wanting to marry should be encouraged to consider it.  No one is suggesting the precious teenage children of xians should be encouraged to identify as gay if they are not.  Sheesh.  

 

But we are suggesting that gay people should have marriage equality, because they have human rights too, and by extension, we hope this will make the world that little bit safer for teens who identify as gay, so that their xian parents won't beat or kill them or drive them to suicide.

 

ANTI-CHRISTIAN

Actively engages in the complete eradication of the Christian faith from society, government and private commerce. These groups file lawsuits and use intimidation to silence any reference to Christianity from the public square.

 

Something tells me that most of these groups aren't trying to kick religion out of society. They probably largely don't care what one's private religious views are. But, hey, it must be "bigoted" to not want the government to force religion on the public or to not want corporations to force their leadership's views on their employees.

 

No, dumbasses, the lawsuits are not aimed at eradicating xianity from everything.  Like penises, keep your religion private.  Read the first amendment.  Read it again.  There is supposed to be separation of state and church, that is all.

 

ATHEIST

Does not believe in God and is critical of those who express their faith in public.

 

As if not having an imaginary friend is "bigoted." Christians can talk down about nonbelievers all they want and that's OK, but if someone voices an opposing opinion, then they're a "bigot." Oh, the hypocrisy!

 

No, atheism does not include criticising anyone.  It is simply non belief in gods.  As an anti-theist I am proud to criticise theism, because of the harm it does, but "expressing their faith in public" is not intrinsically bad, and is indeed protected by the first amendment.  I love free speech.  Knock yourselves out with it.  Just don't infect government activity with your religion.  And keep your penis to yourself.

 

HUMANIST

Believes critical thinking and physical evidence are the sole basis for beliefs. Humanists believe science triumphs faith in issues of morality and decision-making.

 

And here we learn that those who actually care about evidence and critical thinking as "bigots." What better way to ignore evidence than to slander those who care about it? (And notice that they completely ignore the positive moral aspect of humanism.)

 

If a humanist values critical thinking, physical evidence, and science, sign me up.  To be correct though, these things relate more to skepticism, but who am I to complain.  There's a lot more to humanism than skepticism, as you say, Citsonga.  Isn't it turgid with irony that they think critical thinking and evidence are bad?

 

On a brighter note, here's a satirical article about the so-called Bigotry Map:

 

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/uncomfortable-whole/Do-Atheists-and-Humanists-Hate-Christianity-295031781.html

[NoOne]

Wait, so you're telling me that Christians are bigoted towards homosexuals and the irreligious? And that they claim to be persecuted whenever someone disagrees with them, though it's hypocritical because they do persecute those who don't have the same views as they do??

 

Wow, who would've ever expected that?!?!? (*sarcasm)

[Ellinas]

I suppose this really just points to the basic problem with human nature that so many have failed to overcome.

 

"The bigot is the person who states that he does not agree with me."

[Justin]

"No one is suggesting the precious teenage children of xians should be encouraged to identify as gay if they are not. Sheesh. "

 

Actually NZ, I know some Christians who do believe this.

 

To the religious, you are either with them or against them and thus persecuting them. There is no middle ground.

[Penguin]

For Fundies, it comes down to their belief they have the right definition of marriage because God defined it, so no one has a right to "redefine" it. I know some Christians who have said that gays should be able to have civil unions with all the rights and privileges and penalties of a marriage, but they should not be able to get married because it would "redefine marriage."

[FreeThinkerNZ]

It's just another way to discriminate against people, dressed up to make it seem more justifiable.

 

I'm pretty sure the general direction of the statements attributed to jesus was not to treat people badly if they were "sinners".

[★ Citsonga ★]

I guess one positive aspect of the so-called "Bigotry Map" is that it can help some American freethinkers find good groups in their area.

 

For Fundies, it comes down to their belief they have the right definition of marriage because God defined it, so no one has a right to "redefine" it. I know some Christians who have said that gays should be able to have civil unions with all the rights and privileges and penalties of a marriage, but they should not be able to get married because it would "redefine marriage."

 

Even non-fundy Christians use that argument. My father-in-law is a minister, but he's actually a really good guy who supports the separation of church and state, and he would give you the shirt off his back if you needed it. However, even he has used the "civil unions" argument, and we had a brief mutually respectful email exchange last year about the matter. Anyway, here is the bulk of my final email to him:

 

It is true that our culture has traditionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but have you given consideration to why this is so? Until recent times same-sex marriage has been illegal nearly everywhere, so obviously any legal definition would reflect those laws. More to the point, though, gays have historically been marginalized, ridiculed and looked down on by society at large and especially religious groups, so it's not the least bit surprising that the historical definition of "marriage" would discriminate against the gay community. Just because it has long been that way does not automatically mean that it should be that way.

I do take issue with your "no exceptions" claim. Many societies throughout history have recognized more than simply one man and one woman for marriage. Even in your own Bible, notably the Old Testament, men were allowed to have multiple wives, so the "definition" of marriage isn't quite as stringent as you make it out to be.

I do agree that churches have (and should continue to have) the right to their own views, so whether or not a church wants to support gay marriage within their circle is their own business. I would not support any attempt to force churches to perform gay weddings, because that would be a violation of the Separation of Church and State. On the other hand, I also do not support any efforts by churches to prohibit the government from recognizing and performing gay marriages, because that would also be a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

You mention the "Civil Union" option, which is a common argument. Contrary to what advocates of that stance claim, though, it does not "provide equal civil rights" to gays. Calling it merely a civil union carries with it the implication that it is not on the same level as marriage, clearly stemming from the idea that those of us who are straight are somehow better than gays simply because we are different. Claiming that it provides equal rights is very much like a segregation-era person pointing to black people in the back of a bus and saying, "See? They can ride the bus too, so they have equal rights."

As far as the government is concerned, gay couples should have the exact same rights as straight couples. Anything less than that is suppression, and as an advocate of justice and fairness, I cannot support suppression.

 

He didn't respond to that email and hasn't brought the issue up again, so I don't know if he still holds to the "civil union" argument. Since I know he supports the separation of church and state, I hope my point from that angle sunk in.

[Lilith666]

They're just butthurt because they have been told they are bigots. They are trying to turn it around and make themselves feel better. Don't try to reason with them....

 

I liked what Diane Cormican said in the Philadelphia article: that they're worried about Christianity not being a "trump card" any longer. They don't get to decide who's in and who is out, what people are/are not allowed to do. They feel pushed out of the way.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Agree with people who have commented already. To the AFA, any limitation on fundamentalist Christianity's enormous power to control public policy is seen as persecution. Take my privileges away - you're persecuting me! Let someone else have what I expect as my sole and unique right - you're persecuting me!