If you wouldn't advise a moderate, accommodationist approach to David Icke's lizard hypothesis (or any other brand of silliness), why single out Christianity for special treatment? Shouldn't we be nice to all the whackaloons?
Note how the problem is not the hypothesis, it is the individual.
No, I only mentioned the individual because I guessed that at least some people here might be unfamiliar with his hypothesis, and by googling his name they could get more detail if they wanted.
Also, I am getting pretty tired of being called an accommodationist when I suggest equal treatment for everyone.
Irony: I also want equal treatment for everyone.
As I see it, Christianity is not just nonsense, it's privileged
nonsense. Christians who publicly promote their nonsense, expect national policies to be decided on the scribblings in their magic book, etc., do not get the same "giggle factor" treatment that other charlatans and mountebanks promoting foolish, fact-free ideas receive. Imagine if Rick Perry had emerged at a major Republican rally in Druid robes, and performed a ceremony offering milk and honey to the Seelee Court of the Faerie Kingdom so that they would send rain to Texas. His campaign would have been over
before the day was out. Heck, Howard Dean got his
campaign destroyed because he yelled "YEEEAAAAAHHHH!" too loudly.
However, since Rick Perry emerged at a "prayer rally" claiming that mouthing entreaties to an invisible Christian
creature in the sky could change the weather
, he continued to be treated as a legitimate, serious candidate, rather than a laughingstock. Why is this important? The President of the United States is likely to be called upon to make important decisions about our nation's response to climate change. A President who thinks the behavior of Earth's atmosphere, oceans, ice caps, etc. is a product of the whims of an Invisible Magic Person with whom he has a special "relationship," is not someone who can be expected to make wise decisions on the matter. We do not have another century or two to wait while our leaders talk to their imaginary friends in public before we as a nation grow up enough to stop imagining that Universe can be bargained with
Different opinions and/or thoughts. Being black is not an opinion and/or a thought. Being homosexual is not an opinion and/or a thought.
A racist would agree that being black isn't an opinion, but they still don't want one marrying their daughter. Why shouldn't that opinion be given the same kind of respect Christianity is entitled to? The people on the other side of the gay rights issue think homosexuality is
"an opinion and/or a thought," i.e., a choice, and if gays would only accept Jesus as their personal Lord an' Savior, why, they could be good heterosexuals like the rest of us.
Thinking that being black is OK is. Neither group got anywhere until other people started agreeing with them. This is one of the downsides of a democracy - unless the majority agrees with you, you're fucked.
What does WASP mean?
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, aka "Real American."
I would like to once again make it clear that I don't think Christians should be oppressed.
No concentration camps, no separate water fountains. I don't even object to one being President if, like President Obama, they're willing to make their political decisions on the basis of facts and secular reasoning rather than what the voices in their head--or words in some old book written by ancient barbarians listening to the voices in their
heads--tell them to do. And, I want them to respect the separation of church and state, which is a bulwark not only of our freedom as atheists, but theirs as religious believers as well. However, belief in talking snakes and zombie god-men is no less ridiculous than belief in faeries, genies, or that Queen Elizabeth II is a shape-shifting alien lizard. Christianity deserves no more respect, kid-glove treatment, etc. than any of those other beliefs do.