[Julie Steiner]

Andrew M., I don't consider critiques of religious beliefs themselves (rather than critiques of the people who hold them) to be pot shots--particularly when some participants in a discussion are voluntarily bringing their personal religious views into that discussion.

If people don't want their religious views to get paintballed, they shouldn't wave them about while playing paintball.

To me, though, there's a significant difference between saying "Your belief system is flawed, because..." and "You are stupid, because..." The first is a discussion of an idea, and the second is an insult. The first has at least some--however slight--chance of convincing someone to concede a point or two. The second doesn't. No one has ever said, "Oh, yes, I see now--I really am stupid. Thanks for bringing it to my attention."

[Nigel Mace]

Your humanity, Charlie, was not in question - though Trump's certainly is. It was the character and reality of your fears that were at issue. I'm not sure what your restaurant encounter has to do with my point, but, for the record, I do know of the subjects of whom we speak. I've worked with and for asylum seekers and personally pledged myself for one, a neighbour in an English city. He was a Muslim, law abiding, sincere and utterly without anything - except good intentions - and would have been an ideal victim in Trumpist sights. He was a victim, first, of islamisist terror - to the loss of his wife and children - and then, shamefully, of the xenophobic paramoia of the British state and of the reactions of a poisoned British public. Exactly the polity that exults in the isolationist insanity of Brexit and sounds all too familiar in the ranks of Trump's followers.

I'll say it again - 1984, The Plot Against America and Quake, Quake, Quake - we read it there, there and there first.

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

Originally Posted by Julie Steiner

Andrew M., I don't consider critiques of religious beliefs themselves (rather than critiques of the people who hold them) to be pot shots--particularly when some participants in a discussion are voluntarily bringing their personal religious views into that discussion.

If people don't want their religious views to get paintballed, they shouldn't wave them about while playing paintball.

To me, though, there's a significant difference between saying "Your belief system is flawed, because..." and "You are stupid, because..." The first is a discussion of an idea, and the second is an insult. The first has at least some--however slight--chance of convincing someone to concede a point or two. The second doesn't. No one has ever said, "Oh, yes, I see now--I really am stupid. Thanks for bringing it to my attention."

In all fairness Julie, I appreciate what you are saying. But what exactly is stupidness if it can't be applied to the willing embrace of alt facts to feed an ideological need for an exclusionary them? These are dangerously violent ideas that historically lead to bloodshed and misery of every kind. When, in fact, does anyone clinging against all odds to beliefs like these that they believe are God inspired and integrated into their identity. For years I have shared with groups large and small and almost never the choir. I have seen conversions but always from those with a desperate commitment to empathy above all else. They were the only ones with the courage to let go their theologies and dare to look at strangers and see them as fellow humans even at the cost of their own securities in State and Steeple. Once people have let the disease into their thoughts as fully as Charlie has in his Jihadi children post I have never seen dialogue of any kind get through. Face to face confrontation with a blood soaked body of their own makings? Then, a few times. I have given up screaming against the stupidity in order to change it years ago. I scream now to keep the stupidity from changing me.
With respect,
Andrew