mdk said
There is no word in the english language that describes malicious anti-religious zeal (in the way that 'Bigotry' describes malicious religious zeal). That's led to a sort of societally-acceptable...... 'persecution,' I guess, I don't like that word, but 'discrimination' doesn't fit either.
What I mean is, Homophobia is BAD. Racism is BAD. Sexism is BAD. But 'generalizing religious people according to negative stereotypes and passing judgment' isn't even in our lexicon. We can't even have a conversation about that, because there isn't a word for it -- unless we're talking about 'Mooslims,' because Islamophobia also has racial implications, which puts it on the radar.
I figure that the reason there's no special word for discrimination based on religion is twofold. First, it's because religious people as a whole have never actually been a minority or second-class group that was the victim of awful oppression and the like. Certain religions have been, such as Judaism, but they were discriminated against by other religions rather than because of the fact that they were religious. Blanket anti-religious discrimination is a new thing, and it hasn't reached anywhere near the point of religious people being a disadvantaged minority. Anti-non-religious discrimination has been a thing for a lot longer, but there's no special word for that either; I'd guess this is partly due to the fact that atheists and co. are such a small minority in the world that they don't have much of a voice to be heard above the din of other groups that are discriminated against, partly due to the fact that atheism is already becoming very widely accepted in the western world without the need for any big movement, and partly due to to my next point.
Second, religion is not an innate characteristic of a person. Race and various racial markers are the products of genetics. A person's physical gender is also the product of biology that cannot be changed (though it can be fucked with through surgery and hormones). Based on current scientific research, sexuality and sexual preferences are also things that are largely programmed in (not just base genetics, they're also influenced heavily during fetal development), though this one is more shaky than the other two because it's an inclination and behavior system rather than an obviously immutable physical characteristic. Religion, however, is not even close to an innate characteristic. People change their religious views all the time. Children will not suddenly develop religion at a certain age if they are not exposed to it. Religion is a social construct, a learned behavior that can be changed almost at will. Religion is in fact a choice (really and truly a choice, not a "choice" like anti-homosexual propaganda nonsense talks about), just as lack of religion is a choice, so treating someone a certain way based on their religion or lack thereof is treating them that way because of a choice they have made. Some would say that it wouldn't be the bad kind of discrimination (just the kind which means "to make a distinction") to look down on a person who chooses to decorate their lawn with those atrocious little gnome things, so there's an argument to be made that it isn't the bad kind of discrimination to look down on a person for their religious choices. This is basically bullshit, treating someone poorly based upon what group they belong to is the negative kind of discrimination, but this is the sort of reasoning I've seen used for why it's fine to discriminate against religious people or atheists in the past. The stuff about it being a choice is just why it's probably set aside as a totally different category even by those who don't think it's cool to discriminate based on choices, because discrimination based on innate characteristics is seen as being far worse.
Add those two things together and I think they make a decent answer to why there is no special word for anti-religious (or anti-non-religious) discrimination. Give it some time and there might be some ridiculous term (religiophobia maybe? whatever ends up sticking on social media and then gets picked up by news media first will be the one, I wager, regardless of how silly or inaccurate it might be) to describe this relatively new kind of discrimination. Honestly, I'm surprised Fox News hasn't already pushed something like this, particularly Bill O'Reilly with his major segments about anti-Christian hatred around every holiday. Here's hoping that whatever becomes the popular term, it isn't religiophobia or anything as awfully stupid as that.
Jannah said
I'll also let it be known I'm no fan of the "New Atheism" movement, because reasons I'd rather not reveal here since it'll certainly devolve into political discussion.
Hah, that term. It amuses me that people felt the need to relabel secular humanism as "New Atheism" just because Dawkins and Hitches and others got big sales with their books. But yeah, I can understand why you'd be hesitant to bring up specifics, because I can guarantee that there would indeed be debate, and I'd almost certainly be one of those arguing against you.
Magic Magnum said
If you mean Atheism+ I agree with you 100%.
Atheism+ and its ilk are garbage, largely because they're not "New Atheism" in any way. They have all sorts of dogma at work and reject a lot of reason (particularly that which contradicts their dogma), so they don't fit into the modern secular humanist category that is "New Atheism." Understandable mistake to make though, if you'd never heard the term used before. Took me half a minute to remember it was something else, heh.
mdk said
You know, us literalist fundies tend to be the ones who sit quietly and listen to organ music and sing hymns, and contemplate the laws of god and nature.
But I don't expect you to get that, I mean.... if anybody can name an example of a fundamentalist christian being portrayed in pop-culture (of any media) in a positive and respectable way, I'll paypal you five dollars.
That's not just true of media, it's also the perception in general social interaction. The quiet and contemplative ones of any group are rarely the ones who get seen because the loud and stupid ones grab all the attention. Take a look at how poorly vegans are perceived because of the loud and stupid ones, but then you have all the vegans who just do their thing and don't cause any problems. It's one of those shitty things about how humans work, generalizations happen based on what we see.
