I have never heard a bigger load of nonsense. I refuse to respect superstition. When I see a severed rabbit's foot it doesn't look like luck to me; it looks like amputation.

I wish my stupid religious beliefs had been mocked way more often.

According to who?
Nobody I respect or would invite to one of my parties.
Nobody I even want to share space with.
Seems like Bill Maher, Stone and Parker, Colbert and Dawkins do just fine mocking religion.
What famous comedian doesnt make a living off of mocking religion?
The whole problem in the world is not enough people do mock religion.
If somebody would have mocked Islam sooner maybe we wouldnt have Trump/ISIS.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/26/2017 06:33PM by koriwhore.

If early Christians were out actually spreading The Gospel instead of bickering in committee meetings at the Council of Nicea, Islam might not have even happened.

bad ideas deserve no respect.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/Submit
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"

Tolerance begets tolerance.

Intolerance begets bigots.

I hear you, Amyjo, but.

Mockery isn't by definition always absolutely negative is it? You can have gentle mockery, humourous mockery, well-intended mockery, teasing mockery, all kinds of mockery.

When donbagley says "I refuse to respect superstition" I can give him that. Obviously, it grates to a religious person that their cherished beliefs are questioned or derided. But it's not realistic to expect non-believers to stay silent. Just as we want to talk about what we think/believe, so do they. And that's only fair.

I don't like to be made fun of - who does? But a belief, even one we hold, shouldn't be expected by the faithful to be sacrosanct to outsiders. And if it's the belief people question, I try not to equate that with questioning or mocking me. (However, sometimes the latter is the case, or feels hurtfully personal. Oh well. You can't legislate how people express their opinions. You can try but it's not the way we usually do it in civil society, thankfully).

Hearing others not like ourselves express their ideas and beliefs is interesting, instructive, educational. How else can we examine ourselves and our sacred cows? (Unless we don't want to - then we can cut ourselves off from the outside world and see and hear only what we want to, in order to protect our sensitivities. Oh wait. Some groups DO that. Don't listen, don't look, their leaders say. Too often that is an effective way to get people to stay in line. JWs come to mind, with their organization's strong emphasis on withdrawing from the world).

One of my most instructive moments came through Bill Maher, surprising to many I'm sure. Although not raised in it, I have always felt a strong pull towards Christianity. I have just had trouble deciding on which flavour to go for. And, unfortunately, have had some exceptionally negative experiences while looking for the right perch for myself inside its gates, so have never settled into one group for the long haul. But I always thought there was something wrong with me for not fitting in, not that maybe something was amiss with whichever group.

One night I happened to watch Bill Maher's TV show. I had never heard of him before. It was obvious he was "anti" religion but the discussion with a panel was interesting and I kept listening (my first big mistake, so my particular brand of religious friends/leaders would say). But, benignly for him, Maher's main point that night was that you are who you were always going to be, whether you're religious or not. (He meant your character). Many would say that's not true, especially if they were "troubled", such as addicts who got clean via religious belief. But for me it was a novel idea. I did think I was a fairly decent human but never felt good about myself, in large part because of the emphasis on being sinful and having to make frequent pleas to make ourselves better. When I heard Maher say you are who you were always going to be anyway, nice would be nice and nasty would be nasty, it was quite an enlightening thought for me and highlighted how I had been feeling without recognizing it.

I like enlightening thoughts.

I was averse to religious leaders advising cloistering ourselves. If that's the only way to keep on believing, or becoming or being a good person, it makes no sense to me. It also makes no sense that only a small select group will be "saved", quite a common religious teaching. That too was a lightbulb thought to me when I was a JW. It just didn't ring true to me that only JWs were God's chosen people. I was fortunate, I guess, to be out working in the world so not isolated like so many JWs, especially females. Also, I was a type of missionary for them for a year back East (Quebec). In that endeavour and also at work I met countless really good people who were not JWs and never would be. That got me thinking more deeply about JW theology. It was a start.

(I finally got out when my father had a serious accident here at home and the JWs back East told me, in line with WatchTower Society teaching, that I shouldn't go home to help out my family and see my dad who had nearly died but rather should stay and fulfil my missionary obligations. That made no kind of sense to me, especially for religious people who extol the virtues of family life, helping those in need, doing good deeds, etc. How, I asked myself, was it better for the world, for God, for the JWs, for me, for my family, if I stayed thousands of miles away from home, knocking on doors of people who weren't in or were happy in their own faith/or none, rather than if I returned to B.C. to see Dad and help Mom and the younger sibs. I was SO GLAD I made the right decision and came back. Family really needed me and I could help them, which is more, much more, than I was accomplishing in Quebec. This led to me eventually leaving the JWs - so to them, I'm positive - this is an object lesson in being "unfaithful". Disobey and "fall away". And look where it got me. Disfellowshipped actually. They disfellowship you for leaving the fold. That way you won't pollute anybody else's mind with your own free thoughts and actions. Members who think become their enemy. And thinking may well lead to leaving.

What kind of belief system is that, I still ask myself.

So I'm never going to say that hearing alternative opinions is a negative. And Bill Maher, like him or loathe him, uttered a profound thought that night that helped me more than a lot of other comments I had heard til then, or since. I still think that just because he derides religion is no reason to turn him off. Not caring for his content or the way he expresses himself or his life choices or his guests - OK - so flip the channel. But not just because he enjoys a bit of mocking here and there. :)

Again, I'm not saying I enjoy the shots at my own sacred cows, or myself. But we are never going to all agree on the one true way. Should that make us enemies? That way we miss out on meaningful friendships, I have found. And sow discourse in the world. That can't be right.

I don't deny people business/service based on their religious beliefs.
I don't not hire them or promote them based on their religious beliefs.
I don't relegate them to less-than-full-citizen status based on their religious beliefs.
I fully "tolerate" any religious beliefs, and defend peoples' rights to have them.

None of which, of course, means I should or do "respect" their religious beliefs. Their beliefs are fully open to discussion, debate, criticism, and yes, even mockery.

So are any of my beliefs.

So...no, not bigotry. Pointing out how ridiculous someone's beliefs are is not the same as discriminating against them or being bigoted.

Really? Try that if you're a waiter to customers, a checker in a supermarket, a doctor to patients, a boss to employees, a teacher to students, or a politician to constituents. Are others' beliefs actually "ridiculous," or is that just a personal judgment?

Since you know French (although that's not necessary), you've probably read Moliere's, Le Misanthrope. Is Alceste correct in his socially alienating 'radical honesty'? Others' wrongness serves to underscore my rightness? Is this projection onto others in order to see oneself as blameless? Is the very fact that we "see" differences an indication that we're looking at the glass-half-empty, and is that our choice? (just some associated speculations...)

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? Try that if you're a waiter to customers,
> a checker in a supermarket, a doctor to patients,
> a boss to employees, a teacher to students, or a
> politician to constituents.

I'm talking about personal situations, not business or government.
Part of learning one's way around in a society is learning when one is acting for oneself, and when one isn't. As an employee, dealing with customers, I'm acting for my company -- and would of course go by company policy/laws. My own religious beliefs or lack thereof are kept to myself in those situations (something "christian" bakers and florists should keep in mind).

> Are others' beliefs
> actually "ridiculous," or is that just a personal
> judgment?

Of course it's a personal judgment. So are others' religious beliefs. That it's a "personal judgment" doesn't mean it's not debatable, discussable, or "sacred" in any way, or immune from criticism or mockery. As I said above, so are any "beliefs" of mine. All fair game.

I would point out, though, that a great many "personal beliefs" are clearly and demonstrably false, shown so by massive amounts of evidence. Those particular "beliefs" are more ridiculous (and worthy of criticism) than some others...

Examples: flat earth. Earth is 6,000 years old. First humans were magically created from dirt 6,000 years ago. Mohammed flew to the moon on a magic horse and split it. And so on.

> Since you know French (although that's not
> necessary), you've probably read Moliere's, Le
> Misanthrope. Is Alceste correct in his socially
> alienating 'radical honesty'? Others' wrongness
> serves to underscore my rightness? Is this
> projection onto others in order to see oneself as
> blameless? Is the very fact that we "see"
> differences an indication that we're looking at
> the glass-half-empty, and is that our choice?
> (just some associated speculations...)

I have read it (and in French!).
This would engender a much longer discussion, but...
I'm all for "radical honesty," though I don't agree with "others' wrongness serves to underscore my rightness." Honesty is ultimately a way of disseminating facts in our societies -- and wider knowledge of facts leads to more useful decision-making than decision-making without facts, and based on fantasy or wishful thinking.

My biggest gripe is with those who declare some "beliefs" to be "sacred" -- immune from discussion or criticism, even though such "beliefs" have influence in societal decision-making. As far as I'm concerned, nothing is "sacred." If you can't defend what you believe -- with at least a reasonable argument, or even better with facts -- then simply declaring it "immune from criticism" is worthless and rather silly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2017 01:18PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Tolerance and respect are two different things. I tolerate political hacks and fraudulent religion. But I am going to mock the hell out of both.

That's what I always think of the 'lucky rabbit's foot', donbagley, it certainly wasn't lucky for the poor rabbit :(

But when it comes to their thinking about science, history, and politics, it is open season.

And yet I'm sure you're like me. If someone starts spouting off junk science and crap politics, we don't call it blasphemy and claim that our tender little feelings have been hurt. I just quickly assess if it's worth continuing the conversation--it rarely is.

Calling something sacred does not make it so. I don't believe anything is sacred. Sacred alludes to a deity that requires certain things off limits. I'm not going to needlessly antagonize people, but bs is never off limits.

I'll continue to mock as I see fit.

I would never make a mockery of mocking. It is one of life's valuable tools when done properly as in the person being mocked is laughing too. Sometimes mocking works best though when the other person isn't laughing anymore, at all. Leaving them speechless is a good sign. Mocking is versatile. No?

Whatever your tolerance or intolerance level is, all "reasonableness" should be thrown out the window, when religious cults try to recruit YOUR CHILDREN. That's what put me over the edge with Mormons. When I found out the adult Mormon leaders had shoved, kicked, man-handled, threatened, and humiliated my children--it was OVER for all of us!

--I hire employees who meet the qualifications of the job.
--I hire people who fit into our company's philosophy of respect for others (male and female alike).
--I prefer people who's loyalty is to their family and their career and friends, above any loyalty to a cult.
--I do business with people I can trust to not lie or steal.
--I don't tolerate people who deliberately and underhandedly manipulate others.
--I don't tolerate any form of child abuse.
--Hatred, racism, sexism, and homophobia are very difficult to tolerate.

As for "pure" religion, if a person is a decent human being, it wouldn't matter to me if they were atheist, or believed in a different kind of God, or Idol, or whatever. However, if a person is a follower who emulates/worships a leader who was a polygamist, adulterer, abuser of women, pedophile, and/or a criminal, I would not want that person in my life. I feel I am justified, because I am a woman, a mother of children, I operate an honest business, I aim to help others, and not harm others, and I don't want anyone in a position to harm me. Such a person as Joseph Smith would not be good fit--no matter what God he believes in.

If mocking is part of intolerance, then I'm guilty, too.

If you don't like to be ridiculed, don't say and do ridiculous things. If I am too polite to mock you, someone else will. That's just the drawback of being an idiot. You cannot escape exposure for long. You're gonna get mocked. Get used to it.

I think some religious beliefs are silly and I will say so to like minded people if it comes up and I will stand up to religious.people who want to force their beliefs on others.. However, being rude and mocking people to their faces without provocation or ridiculing harmless religious customs or dress just because it seems strange is not something I will do. That crosses a line for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2017 05:53PM by bona dea.

Once again I say to whomsoever I disagree with "I can accept that you believe that to be true. I do not concur with that and I do not believe that to be true. However I would never try to forceably interfere with your right to believe as you wish."
This clearly states my policy without mocking someone else's right to believe.

That isnt mocking. Rather it is expressing your opinion.I probably wouldnt go around initiating that particular conversation either. If someone brings it up first,I wont pretend to agree with them, but I wont be a jerk either

Who decides which beliefs/customs/dress are "harmful" and which aren't?

I mean, it's not like there's some fact-based standard that we can refer to...

For example, the vast majority of muslims don't consider the forced female wearing of hijabs/burkas "harmful."
I do. So do many/most other non-muslims....

Some are questionable and some are not. If a woman chooses the hijab, and many do as a sign of pride in their heritage, I have no problem with it. If she is forced against her will, then I object.
Jew wearing a skull cap or a Catholic crossing himself are not things I would ever ridicule. Same thing with the vestments of clergy, belief in the virgin birth or the Trinity.

I ran into all kinds of things that were new - and frankly startling - to me when I was in Europe.

I had learned at an early age to maintain a "Poker face," which I used when I didn't know what else to do. I didn't want to antagonize anyone, so I would make generically neutral comments like, "That's interesting! Where does that custom come from? I got a lot of information, didn't alienate anyone, and having understood the origin of customs, gained a better understanding of people.

My grandmother always insisted that "good manners" will get you through any number of sticky situations, and I found that gracious interest, even if you don't agree, doesn't generally alienate people, and will help to smooth relationships even when people hold very different beliefs from your own.

If y'all don't keep mocking, I'm outta here. Tee hee.

Mocking can be mean and unnecessary, but usually it's just funny.

I mock myself when I see me being silly and ridiculous.

It's fine to calmly state that your belief is different, but that you respect the other person's right to have a certain belief.

It's also boring and not worth the time it takes to type it up.

Please keep serving up funny jabs at the usually sad reality of religion.

I have every right to mock mormonism. Having been in a religion most of my life, I still feel that way.

I'm sorry, but even when my boyfriend tells me some things about Judaism (he is a convert), I have to tell him that I find it crazy. Sometimes, believe it or not, I think he wants me to convert, but there is no way I'll ever be involved in any religion again.

I have yet to learn about any religion and not find something to mock.

I don't think it is mocking of religion that some find so offensive, rather, the mocking being interpreted as blasphemy - the denuding of the sacred. What good is sacred, without a consensus. Taken to the extreme, how much would we care if there was one or twelve ISIS nuts?

There is power in that "group sacred," and a naked, powerless myth without it. Open mockery can and will - eventually - reduce the number of group adherents, and therein lay the fear and anger. Were the god being mocked more powerful than the mocker, then the true believer would know a devine justice will be had, and care much less about how many believers were in the group. Mocking would not inspire wrath. Faith would be calm, confident, sure. Nothing can damage real faith, certainly, not mockery.

Numbers is the purpose of blasphemy. What is permitted and acceptable among the numbers, and what is not. Religions are cults, far removed from the original Joseph Smiths. I've seen many a thread insisting that Mormonism must be false, because the Nicene creed is true, i.e., biblical claims sans the claims of Smith. How do the Q differ from the guys at Nicea? How does Constantine differ from Smith in the belief and holy claims arena?

Mock atheism, laugh at it, call it stupid and unbelievable. Try to label the "belief" I have in reproducible scientific tests to be "faith." I don't care. I have no weak-ego-ed gods whose thunderbolts, outer darkness or hellfire will be sent to destroy or await anyone's forked tongue. Being an atheist, I have no part of my identification (or ego) inextricably linked to a best god myth. If a believer doesn't think himself superior via his god, why not try rereading this, except, replace the word "god" with "zeus," and see if the same "attack of self" occurs.

I could spit on a statue of zeus, and nary a Christian, Jew, or Muslim would care, in fact, some might join me. They have no problem mocking gods, just not their own god, nor any god to whom he might be related.

The numbers.

It's the public numbers that matter to them, else belief would be left a private matter. It cannot be both. They like to proclaim it as a personal choice, but of their own volition, call it blasphemy to mock (or defy) the god of Abraham. Is not the god of Abraham powerful enough to punish me, should he see fit?

Though I've written in generalities, I'm fully aware that not all believers wear their god identities as a badge of a cult. Some believers know the history, and have actually read and believe their bibles in their own ways, attend tolerant gatherings of like-minded individuals. For them, I hold a much greater reverence. It's those who go 'round yelling "Blasphemy!" whom I find to be mock-worthy, and I don't care to which cult they might belong, which god symbol they slap on the sign.

And, don't get me wrong. I don't generally mock believers. I just identify them by their strength of protest against what they identify as blasphemous. They may as well be standing in an arena, waving a red cape, "Come, see! Behold the power of our god!"

What they really mean is "votes."

Numbers.

They are not about faith nor the god of Abaham. They are about Caesar.

By their fruits, they are mock-worthy.

I suppose each of us has a burden to espouse defensible beliefs, and furthermore, have a skin thicker than a micron.

I personally think there's a time and place for mocking religion, and a time to let others believe what they will. I enjoy Maher, Colbert, and the rest. When I watch them I know I may hear some form of mockery of religion. Anyone else with much knowledge of them should know that as well. If someone doesn't like it, don't watch 'em.

If anyone asks for your or my opinion, they should get what they asked for, which may include a mockery of religion. You or I are under no obligation to humor them.

If a person mocks another's lack of religion, he or she deserves any mockery of his own religious beliefs he receives in return.

In many other situations, I'm comfortable leaving it alone. I'm not, for example, going to approach an open mike at the funeral of a religious person and take shots at the religious beliefs expressed by others. If some sanctimonious survivors [especially if not including a deeply religious spouse, whom I'd be inclined to cut some slack] chose to turn a non-believer's memorial service into some sort of religious extravaganza, I would be sorely tempted to make the biggest mockery of it that I could. Instead I'd probably walk out and pay my respects in some other way to the departed, but still I would be tempted.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of mockery in a democracy.

There is a reason the church condemned "loud laughter." Laughter is sometimes the greatest tool a people have against tyranny. It is frequently the only way people can expose the irrationality and cruelty of a social organization or a government.

That is what Milan Kundera explained in The Joke. It is why humor at the expense of Mao or Stalin or Kim resulted in torture and execution. If you live under an emperor, sometimes the little boy who points out the nudity is the true revolutionary. If you live under a religious zealot, or a hierarchy of zealots, humor is sometimes the best possible way to force a degree of introspection and humanistic reforms. If you live under a budding authoritarian, humor and ridicule are extremely important means of preserving a country's freedoms.

There is a difference between humiliating individual humans and ridiculing a leader or a movement. But in many instances mocking a movement collaterally means embarrassing individual followers. That is generally regrettable but can be an unavoidable collateral effect of exercising one's responsibility to resist dictatorial tendencies.

The Founders of the US constitution understood that. It is why the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the freedom of association. Any government or religion that is afraid of comedy clubs, SNL, the Comedy Channel, or the like is up to no good and deserves to be challenged aggressively.

Don’t disagree, Don.

But let’s not pretend that the divide between person and belief is so clean, so clear and so absolute that mocking one isn’t also mocking the other.

Beliefs don’t exist in mid-air, like an unmoored balloon. Mocking beliefs is 9 times out of 10 mocking a person.

But the truth is, there are plenty of people quite deserving of a good mocking, and not a gentle one at that.

But there are plenty of other people who really don’t deserve to be mocked, regardless of what they believe or don’t believe.

Human

I have no problem with the notion that privately held beliefs are no business of mine, but of course one can always come up with exceptions that the majority will agree with, such as believers in ISIS and its ends, or more pointedly, its means.

I'm sure many of you have seen street corner preachers. Surely no one here believes that they should not be challenged, if one feels the need and has the time to waste.

Likewise, no one here thinks (I'd like to hope) that we are exercising a (ho ho) divine right when we crash a religious meeting to announce our opposition in the group's beliefs.

And what about "public forums", such as, oh, I don't know... RfM? Is it enough that when we disagree with a stated opinion, that in voicing (typing) our opposition, we respect the person, while disparaging the belief?

Given that atheist sentiments seem to hold sway here, what keeps the Justin Believers coming back? Any Justin Believers care to comment?

If Jim Jones had been subject to a well-deserved campaign of mockery, there might have been fewer 'guests' at Jonestown.

Indeed, there must be hundreds of North American sects that would benefit from such a campaign.

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing—fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion has gone hand-in-hand.

Why shouldn't we mock beliefs (religious or otherwise) designed to manipulate humans into being irrationally fearful?

If by mocking it we can prevent it from becoming law, I say mock religion early and often.

I believe that any system of thought that is founded on reasonable assumptions and motives can withstand mockery, and religions and ideologies that cannot withstand ridicule should be destroyed.

Let mockery sift the wheat from the chaff.

I think there is not a thing wrong with mocking someone's beliefs, which are chosen by the person, and not part of "who they are." It's not like mocking someone for being blind, or deaf, or disabled in some way, physically or mentally. And I draw the line at mocking children who parrot what they have been told, and therefore probably actually believe their "beliefs." I don't laugh at them or mock them. But I also don't automatically nod my head and agree with them. I try to go for a "Yes, I know many people think that, too." Or sometimes something like, "I'm sure that's a comforting thing for many people to believe," or even, "I'll bet your mother/dad/Sunday school teacher would be proud to know that you remember that!" Then...change the subject.

It is wrong to mock someone for who they are or for a life condition that they are not able to change: short, tall, fat, thin, gay, straight, bi, old, young, genius or room-temperature IQ, blue eyed, black skinned, jobless, desperately poor, homeless, etc.

I have been mocked for things I choose, but I don't care. I have been mocked for buying food and some socks for a homeless man when it caused my own bank account to overdraw. I have a bank account, even if it's now $37 in the hole. The homeless man had no food, and his socks were so old they were full of holes and terribly thin. I bought him an 8-pack of white tube sox, and lunch, and some food that he could take to the tent-like structure he was "living in"--things that wouldn't spoil. I have a job. I'll pay the overdraft on payday and still have enough to pay my bills. I have food. So go ahead and give me the "Charity begins at home!" lecture and the "Well, no wonder you never have any extra money when you end up giving it all to panhandlers! That's just stupid!"

Mock away, mock away. Mock my politics. Mock my atheism. Mock my choice in clothes. Mock my love of animals. But if you mock my transgender granddaughter, I'm likely to swing my leather purse in a way that it lands where your face was. Oops.

As a general rule, this is sometimes impossible to assert new beliefs without tearing down the old ones.

Some religious beliefs stem precisely out of a mockery of other religious beliefs. Joseph Smith's First Vision, Martin Luther's 95 theses and other works, it all stems from a criticism and even mockery of other belief systems.

Should we not mock racist beliefs that just happen to be rooted in religion?

Should we avoid mocking religious leaders, who are just bilking suckers out of their money?

Should we fail to mock the religious inspired hatred for LGBT persons?

Where does a person get off saying this--except without thinking. Totally agree with boilerluv religion is not something you are just born with like skin color or sexual orientation--it's something you assert--though its popular to treat it like those other things.

Anyone have a problem with Thai authorities 'punishing' the two tourists who displayed Full Moons while on Buddhist temple grounds, in what was likely an attempt to mock?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42164668

Ugly American ass.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone have a problem with Thai authorities 'punishing' the two tourists who displayed Full Moons while on Buddhist temple grounds, in what was likely an attempt to mock?



That's a very good point. I tend to side with the oppressed in any given situation, and given what the Thai people have suffered, I would want to kick some ignorant-as-sh## American butt in this case. Caning comes to mind.

Besides that, words and actions are different things. It would disgust me if the opposition mooned a Mormon Temple, but those same people could challenge the crap out of the Q, using much mockery in the process, and I'd likely enjoy the show.

The mooners - well, I guess they learned a whole new lesson abut playing nicely as guests in a foreign land. Too bad they didn't get three months on a cement floor, eating buggy rice or something.

I have a problem with it. And so would Buddha ---

When you meet the Buddha on the road . . . show him your ass.

oh Don I hope I didn't say that

I just wish people wouldn't call each other names at the table. One colleague __ told me he enjoyed arguing and name calling so much in his family, said he thought of me like a sister and so he enjoyed arguing, making up anything to argue. I avoid the gym when he's there, there he is, wanting another debate. Grinning joyously. (sigh shake my head) He only got a masters degree & maybe needs more intellectual repast. Changed the color of my hair hoping he wouldn't recognize me lol

If I said that, I would hope one would have manners and not name call about someone's culture or religion next door to them on the excersize machine at the gymn, or mock their ugly garments when they self righteous glance and sniff at your gorgeous underware. Telling yourself they're jealous can only go so far I know.

I believe actually in the fine points of debate about all of it.

just can't imagine sitting to eat or ride an excersize bike heckled and argued criticized for a religion I was born in or how I left just like the color of my hair- it changed- within an inch of my life. right there in person- that's whats so horrible about being approached by missionaries on your own front side walk or way to the gym or groceries in your arms, I don't think they have the manners and its polite to interrupt and interfere with my religious /irreligious mixed up religious life. If I prayed to a rock today it is not up to them so set me right.

Kindness first for sure. I would never call anyone names or seek confrontation.

How else will they realize their own silliness?

Do you really think this helps them? Compassionate mocking?
In relationships, mocking is recognized as verbal abuse, a form of emotional abuse. Do people respond positively to that?

I think mocking is venting for the mocker and not out of any concern for the mocked.

Is it a matter of power? Like when you mock down (in rank) it's bullying but when you mock up it's free speech?

Is it just "arguing" if the mocked and his mocker are peers?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2017 02:48AM by elderolddog.

Isn't a bullying classmate a peer? Of course there are different kinds of power and social ranking among "peers." I think if someone is mocking another, there is not a presumption of mental or emotional equality.

Peope are allowed to be silly so long as they are not causing harm to others. Besides mocking is not a good way to get people to change.

I try to not disrespect other peoples religious beliefs, but I do enjoy venting with other people who think like I do about religion and especially about the LDS cult. I used to call myself a Christian, even after I left the LDS Church, but today I really do not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but rather a great teacher during his time on earth.

I memorized this statement by John Stuart Mill (English philosopher, writer, and member of Parliament): "It is conceivable that religion may be morally useful without being intellectually sustainable". This quote has been helpful to me over the years.

once decreed, "Some things that are true are NOT useful."

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the
sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife
is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken