>On Sun Jul 24, Jim Farmelant wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you can do us the favor of citing some examples where religious
>>listmembers were attacked on account of their religiosity.
>
>I think this misses the point, Jim. You don't have to attack religious
>people personally to make them feel attacked. You can achieve that by
>attacking religion harshly in the abstract.
They should probably join alt.i.heart.cats. this is a discussion list where we harshly attack all kinds of things. If someone is of the view that religion is "bad" for progressive movements (I don't know who that'd be except for Carl and Chuck0 -- maybe), they can rationally defend that view, be asked to do so, whatever.
> Responding that no one has been attacked personally (which is perfectly
> true) is a little like fundies telling feminists or homosexuals that they
> don't hate them personally -- they just think their beliefs are causing
> disaster in the world and that if they had any sense they'd realize this
> and change.
I don't see the similarity. I don't know anyone who is personally insulted by these people. We ask them to defend their views and subject them to scrutiny. If they can't do it, then they are dismissed as cranks and we usually turn to explanations as to why these types of folks exist to begin with. Thus, we look at the dynamics of oppression.
I think WDK hit the nail on the head: this is a transparent attempt to claim the status of "oppressed group". i.e., identity politics, only on the left.
Kelley
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin