Christians give online threats to High School girl

[JGG]

Are you saying that your comparison is justifiable and mine is not?

Which comparison?

When people actually get to stating that they don't think there is a God, but supported a religious organization for another reason, then it gets rather clear.

Well yes, agreed, I think. For what reason might such a person support a religious organization?

 

[heymikey80]

Which comparison?

I'm sorry, the comparison linked in the prior post.

Well yes, agreed, I think. For what reason might such a person support a religious organization?

Hm. If you want a list of different items atheists and agnostics have talked about positively about religious organizations:

• It's a supportive atmosphere for people going through tough emotional times.
• It's a sociable place.
• It makes people think about things nobody else talks about.
• It's a heritage thing to give to their children.
• It's a place to leave kids for a rest.
• It's interesting to see how other people think.

 

[JGG]

I'm sorry, the comparison linked in the prior post.

Okay, a comparison between what and what? I admit to being lost.

Hm. If you want a list of different items atheists and agnostics have talked about positively about religious organizations:

• It's a supportive atmosphere for people going through tough emotional times.
• It's a sociable place.
• It makes people think about things nobody else talks about.
• It's a heritage thing to give to their children.
• It's a place to leave kids for a rest.
• It's interesting to see how other people think.

Ah, okay, fair enough, and agreed.

 

[Grizzly]

I'd suggest you look into statistics when documenting the concentration of managers in a group, and consider that when coworkers are also added who are self-declaredly atheists, and the numbers calculate out fairly readily.

Add in agnostics and it becomes pretty easy to arrive at this situation.

When lacking information on the conditional probabilities, going with the baseline rate of occurrence is a good place to start. About 85% of the people in the united states are theists.

Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So unless you have evidence that nonreligious people make up a greater percentage of those at the managerial level (which would be interesting in its own right), I'll stick with the baserates.

It's not rare in groups of only a dozen or so to even randomly come up with a significant number of coworkers who are atheists. Statistics being what they are, it's just easy to do the numbers and recognize the situation.

Again, if the baserate of nontheism is 15%, it would be uncommon to find a "significant number of coworkers" who are atheists. It would be far more common to find a significant number of theists. In fact, if given the size of the group, I could estimate the probability of that group containing more atheists than theists. Math is cool that way.

I'm just intrigued by the lack of mathematical recognition in all of this.

Indeed.

 

[heymikey80]

When lacking information on the conditional probabilities, going with the baseline rate of occurrence is a good place to start. About 85% of the people in the united states are theists.

Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not when you're dealing with a specific instance.
Birthday problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So unless you have evidence that nonreligious people make up a greater percentage of those at the managerial level (which would be interesting in its own right), I'll stick with the baserates.

Encyclopedia of religion and society - William H. Swatos, Peter Kivisto - Google Books

Neglecting a complex phenomenon doesn't allow for accurate conclusions.

Again, if the baserate of nontheism is 15%, it would be uncommon to find a "significant number of coworkers" who are atheists.

Again, does not follow:
Birthday problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would be far more common to find a significant number of theists.

As I am presently in one working group, the commonality would be 100% for my specific case and 0% of the cases I am not in.

In fact, if given the size of the group, I could estimate the probability of that group containing more atheists than theists. Math is cool that way.

Actuality deviates from probability in specific cases on a predictable range.

Math is cool that way.

Actually, reality is cool that way. "You can pigeonhole ideas. You can't pigeon-hole experiences."

 

[JGG]

I'm sorry, the comparison linked in the prior post.

So one more time, do you agree that atheists and rapists are comparable?

 

[Glass*Soul]

I'd suggest you look into statistics when documenting the concentration of managers in a group, and consider that when coworkers are also added who are self-declaredly atheists, and the numbers calculate out fairly readily.

Add in agnostics and it becomes pretty easy to arrive at this situation.

It's not rare in groups of only a dozen or so to even randomly come up with a significant number of coworkers who are atheists. Statistics being what they are, it's just easy to do the numbers and recognize the situation.

I'm just intrigued by the lack of mathematical recognition in all of this.

Wow. Almost as bad as "Republican Candidate".

You don't mind if I'm not that sympathetic.

The Congress reflects one openly atheistic member on its own.

It's interesting that atheism is so heavily underestimated in this country. I've known many atheists for years, and it's not unusual; nor is agnosticism.

That even excludes the vast number of nominal theists who are actually agnostic or atheistic. They're very prevalent in my circles.

Well, then we need to ask what constitutes a "significant number" and what the number being "significant" indicates. Is there a statistical tipping point beyond which systematic discrimination against non-theists in the work place can no longer occur?

I recently received a widely circulated email at work (I received it three times actually) claiming that non-Christians are characterized by:

1. Loss of direction
2. Foul vocal emissions
3. Amnesia of origin
4. Lack of peace and joy
5. Selfish or violent behavior
6. Depression or confusion
7. Fearfulness
8. Idolatry
9. Rebellion

This was the most recent email, not the most disturbing. The most disturbing was sent to me directly by my boss and claimed that the ACLU was attempting the have all military cross-shaped headstones removed (false) and that they should be "put in front of a firing squad" for it.



What percentage of those in a workplace must acknowledge that they are non-Christians (either non-theists or other religions) before stuff like this stops? What percentage of the administrative personnel? If it is really simple math, I want the formula.



I also want to know how I can use the formula to solve my little problem: My coworkers think I am a Christian. It is sad that this email campaign has intimidated me enough to preemptively silence me, thus creating the impression that the number of unbelievers in my workplace is even smaller than it is. As someone who has been successfully intimidated, I am now an unwilling part of the intimidation process by right of my mere silence. There may be others like me doing exactly the same thing or I may be the only one. I don't know.

 

[Cabal]

Well, then we need to ask what constitutes a "significant number" and what the number being "significant" indicates. Is there a statistical tipping point beyond which systematic discrimination against non-theists in the work place can no longer occur?

I recently received a widely circulated email at work (I received it three times actually) claiming that non-Christians are characterized by:

1. Loss of direction
2. Foul vocal emissions
3. Amnesia of origin
4. Lack of peace and joy
5. Selfish or violent behavior
6. Depression or confusion
7. Fearfulness
8. Idolatry
9. Rebellion

This was the most recent email, not the most disturbing. The most disturbing was sent to me directly by my boss and claimed that the ACLU was attempting the have all military cross-shaped headstones removed (false) and that they should be "put in front of a firing squad" for it.



What percentage of those in a workplace must acknowledge that they are non-Christians (either non-theists or other religions) before stuff like this stops? What percentage of the administrative personnel? If it is really simple math, I want the formula.



I also want to know how I can use the formula to solve my little problem: My coworkers think I am a Christian. It is sad that this email campaign has intimidated me enough to preemptively silence me, thus creating the impression that the number of unbelievers in my workplace is even smaller than it is. As someone who has been successfully intimidated, I am now an unwilling part of the intimidation process by right of my mere silence. There may be others like me doing exactly the same thing or I may be the only one. I don't know.

That's really disturbing. Sorry to hear that you're going through this.

Do any of these people circulating the email see that #7 is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the environment they're creating?

 

[Glass*Soul]

I don't know if anyone read my rather long answer to the challenge to point out the scriptures that allow for the sorts of insults that were in the online threats to the high school girl, but do please compare the passage from Titus to the email I received at work.

Titus 1:10-16: "For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good."

1. Loss of direction
2. Foul vocal emissions
3. Amnesia of origin
4. Lack of peace and joy
5. Selfish or violent behavior
6. Depression or confusion
7. Fearfulness
8. Idolatry
9. Rebellion

There are similarities, but the passage from Titus is really even more objectionable, I think. It may not have started out this way, but Christianity fell into this way of thinking and talking early on. It is sad, and even more, it is scary.

 

[Glass*Soul]

That's really disturbing. Sorry to hear that you're going through this.

Do any of these people circulating the email see that #7 is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the environment they're creating?

That has occurred to me. I am getting ready (hopefully) to seek some counseling for my work-related stress and anxiety. I don't know how much is due to these emails, as anxiety has been a long-standing problem for me and would probably be occurring emails or not, but it certainly is distressing when I receive them. I keep the knowledge of how my co-workers and my bosses feel about non-Christians close to my vest.

 

[Cabal]

That has occurred to me. I am getting ready (hopefully) to seek some counseling for my work-related stress and anxiety. I don't know how much is due to these emails, as anxiety has been a long-standing problem for me and would probably be occurring emails or not, but it certainly is distressing when I receive them. I keep the knowledge of how my co-workers and my bosses feel about non-Christians close to my vest.

What about labour laws where you are? (you don't have to say where that is)

I'm assuming the bosses are part of the problem if you feel you can't go to them, but can you submit a complaint to some regulatory body anonymously?

 

[Grizzly]

Not when you're dealing with a specific instance.
Birthday problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The birthday problem doesn't apply in this situation. You were talking about the likelihood that a group of people would be comprised of of nontheists (or a significant number of nontheists). The birthday problem if applied to this situation would tell you the likelihood of of a group containing a two nontheists. Not a significant number of nontheists. And either way, the birthday problem is also a "sample to population" problem and relies on a frequentist interpretation of statistics (not specific instance).

Neglecting a complex phenomenon doesn't allow for accurate conclusions.

You'd be surprised how well simple models do in getting close to predicting complex phenomena.

As I am presently in one working group, the commonality would be 100% for my specific case and 0% of the cases I am not in.

Again, your specific instance may not generalize to the population as a whole. Which would make your case less likely (or rare). Which is the point.

 

[Supreme]

This young woman does not deserve such death threats. She should be allowed to voice her opinion and launch a legal battle without death threats against her. It really is disgraceful that Christians would do this.

I think the whole situation is a bit silly in the first place- people at my school were always too busy with schoolwork and their social lives to care about prayer murals- but just because a situation is silly, it does not mean the girl deserves to have the life frightened out of her.

 

[Glass*Soul]

This young woman does not deserve such death threats. She should be allowed to voice her opinion and launch a legal battle without death threats against her. It really is disgraceful that Christians would do this.

There are good people everywhere who would refrain from these sorts of threats.

I don't see any reason to suggest that we are more likely to find such good people among Christians. On the contrary, this sort of talk has been codified as a part of Christian scripture. If we are dealing with a group of people who believe they have been mandated by divine inspiration to behave in this way, we might be justified in hypothesizing that we are actually more likely to find this sort of activity.

It would be interesting to do a study. Not sure how we would go about it.

So, yes, it is disgraceful to act this way but not more disgraceful that Christians act this way. That would imply that we have reason to expect better, when we actually have the opposite.

It's been a hard lesson for me to learn. My not learning it has actually, I think, resulted in me being a meaner person due to my being perpetually angry, disappointed and hurt and unwisely using that anger, disappointment and hurt as weapons to try to effect some sort of change. It's been an interesting journey.

 

[Glass*Soul]

What about labour laws where you are? (you don't have to say where that is)

I'm assuming the bosses are part of the problem if you feel you can't go to them, but can you submit a complaint to some regulatory body anonymously?

I would have to look into the labor laws. I know that they are against company policy which does not allow emails with religious content, but the occasional email reminding us not to engage in these sorts of communications have not eliminated them.

I've been wary about taking any steps as I don't know what unintended consequences they might bring on myself and my co-workers. I don't wish them ill or wish to make my own situation worse. I suppose that makes me a coward.

I probably should not even bring them up here if I am unwilling to take steps.

 

[GodsDaughter1981]

Glass*Soul, I have not much constructive to add I'm afraid other than to say that co-workers flinging these emails about is bad enough, but your boss doing it, on company time, on the company's email network is totally unprofessional. If s/he wants to send emails like that out to all and sundry s/he should be doing it from his or her own personal email address in his or her own time.

I'm so sorry you're having to deal with this. Intimidation of anyone, regardless of faith or otherwise, is just not on in any civilised society.

Edit: Also, sadly, in this case, it looks like #6 on that list is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy too

 

[Supreme]

There are good people everywhere who would refrain from these sorts of threats.

I don't see any reason to suggest that we are more likely to find such good people among Christians. On the contrary, this sort of talk has been codified as a part of Christian scripture. If we are dealing with a group of people who believe they have been mandated by divine inspiration to behave in this way, we might be justified in hypothesizing that we are actually more likely to find this sort of activity.

It would be interesting to do a study. Not sure how we would go about it.

So, yes, it is disgraceful to act this way but not more disgraceful that Christians act this way. That would imply that we have reason to expect better, when we actually have the opposite.

It's been a hard lesson for me to learn. My not learning it has actually, I think, resulted in me being a meaner person due to my being perpetually angry, disappointed and hurt and unwisely using that anger, disappointment and hurt as weapons to try to effect some sort of change. It's been an interesting journey.

I would have to disagree.

Christianity may have come a long way from the pacifists that were fed to lions without resistance at the beginning, but we still have the example of Jesus to venerate and aspire to. Jesus simply would not have threatened this girl. He would have forgiven her and brushed it over a silly thing to get angry over in the first place.

 

[keith99]

I would have to disagree.

Christianity may have come a long way from the pacifists that were fed to lions without resistance at the beginning, but we still have the example of Jesus to venerate and aspire to. Jesus simply would not have threatened this girl. He would have forgiven her and brushed it over a silly thing to get angry over in the first place.

I'm not so sure you may have hit near the mark, but not dead center.

Jesus never either attacked or forgave those who did not claim to worship his Father as far as I can remember.

I'm inclined to thnik Jesus just might think that prayer in a school assembly might be pretty close to prayer on a street corner.

 

[heymikey80]

There are good people everywhere who would refrain from these sorts of threats.

I don't see any reason to suggest that we are more likely to find such good people among Christians. On the contrary, this sort of talk has been codified as a part of Christian scripture. If we are dealing with a group of people who believe they have been mandated by divine inspiration to behave in this way, we might be justified in hypothesizing that we are actually more likely to find this sort of activity.

It would be interesting to do a study. Not sure how we would go about it.

So, yes, it is disgraceful to act this way but not more disgraceful that Christians act this way. That would imply that we have reason to expect better, when we actually have the opposite.

I'd disagree, but only partly.

To me the corruption of cultural preferentialism, of "everybody's special", has affected modern theology. I think it's not unusual to find Christians who act this way because it's not unusual to find Christians assimilating with cultural outrage and preferentialism.

Trained this way, Christians behave much like the culture behaves.

 

[JGG]

I would have to disagree.

Christianity may have come a long way from the pacifists that were fed to lions without resistance at the beginning, but we still have the example of Jesus to venerate and aspire to. Jesus simply would not have threatened this girl. He would have forgiven her and brushed it over a silly thing to get angry over in the first place.

You're suggesting Jesus would not have threatened violence toward a teenage girl?! Shocking, the things I learn on here.