The De-Humanizing of non-Christians?

[Tristan Jay]

Something that's come to my attention, partly on a Christian forum, but also on a thread here recently, and this is something that I find very troubling, but I'm not sure if I'm reading into it too much.  On the Christian forum, I was conversing with a Christian about love, friendship, and compassion; and he seemed to believe that a non-Christian's capacity for these emotions and sentiments were somehow lesser or inferior compared to the emotion and sentiment of a Christian.  And here on this forum, in a thread about Dignity, again a Christian is arguing that a non-Christian either does not have dignity, or that dignity is inferior compared to that possessed by a Christian.

I feel that the arguments are stupid, and insulting; but worse than that, it feels insidious and demeaning in a very dangerous way.  It never occurred to me that my basic humanity would be questioned, within the context of not being a Christian.  Does this appear to others as a de-humanizing practice, or am I being alarmist?  I feel confident in my basic humanity, it just worries me that these are the sort of people you can't persuade that their attitude is a the first big step along a very harmful path.

Anyone have thoughts on this?  See it differently?  Experienced similar attitudes?  I don't like the way this looks.   

[xSilverPhinx]

Any "us versus them" mentality, with clear divisive lines can dehumanize or lessen the other side - the one that isn't us. The problem is that religion often infiltrates itself into aspects that define humans, such as the capacity for such emotions, worth as a species and so on. So yes, they do dehumanise, and by extension justify, in their minds, the persecution of others that aren't part of "them". I agree that it's tribalism (ironically a primitive behaviour that is part of human nature, not anything that would be seen as 'divine' as in humans surpassing themselves) that can get a bit dangerous.

Religions certainly latch onto that natural psychological and social tendency.    

[Tristan Jay]

I wonder if Islam or Judaism goes for this kind of thing?  Approaching it delicately, I have to believe that Jews have a heightened awareness of which direction de-humanizing attitudes can lead other human toward in their actions.  I know that there's a certain amount of de-humanizing that goes on in wars, and combat situations; to a certain degree this make soldiers capable of fighting their opponent, yet to a greater degree this can lead to war crimes and so forth.

I think I remember one of Pat Condell's videos on youtube saying that Christianity (and Islam) are really hung up on their obsessive need to be The One True Religion.  It's just awful, because I don't come here, and go to the Christian Forums to play an "Us vs. Them" game.  I don't play to win (or I usually try not to); I prefer to play in a way so that everyone wins.  This is really creepy.

[Tank]

The root of this issue is in-group, out-group behaviour rooted firmly in our competitive tribal history. Dehumanizing or demeaning a group that opposes your groups world view is intended to reinforce one's feelings of superiority over the 'other' group. In extreme cases it can lead to genocide in the cases of the Nazis and the 'Final Solution' to deal with the 'Jewish Problem'. Of course that is an extreme case used to illustrate the point.

Any group generalisation intended to demean a group follows the same trend, "All Christians are stupid.", "All atheists are immoral." are classic cases of creating de-humanised categories that allow one to feel superior to the out-group.

Once you have de-humanised a group you can ultimately start killing people in that group secure in the knowledge that you aren't really killing people.

[Too Few Lions]

I don't think you're reading too much into things at all, I think there is a genuine problem with this sort of behaviour from Christians, but I've also experienced similar statements from followers of other religions too.

I think it's because they claim their dignity or campassion or love or whatever derives from their god, therefore it's obviously so much better than a mere mortal like us could experience 

It can indeed lead down a very dark path. For a large part of Christian history, non-believers were considered to have forfeited their lives if they believed in any other 'false' god and didn't convert to Christianity.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

This is a human issue, not a religious one exclusively.  It comes from our basic tribalistic nature from our evolution. It was a survival strategy to be able to distinguish between "us" and "them."  "Them" were always considered as possible enemies.  It exists today in totally non-religious contexts: Democratic v. Republican, black v. white, even in high school football.  Two towns in Texas that are 5-10 miles apart can grow fierce rivalries that often end in violence - the "Eagles" vs. the "Bulldogs", or some such.  It exists on atheist fora, as well (not talking about this one).  On the Sam Harris forum, for example, I was called a "paramecium," a "turd in the punchbowl of life," a "human vermin," and "mentally ill," - all because I expressed views on my faith. At times, I responded in fully human fashion and engaged in name-calling myself.  All such activity dehumanizes a person.  Humans dehumanizing humans is in our bones. 

[history_geek]

I agree with xSilverPhinx about the "us versus them/those" attitude, though I would like to add that I dubt religion is causer in this, just a tool or excuse would be more correct.

i started to think about this for a while, and came to the conclusion that there are basicly three kinds of "dehumanising"...hmmm, systems, should we say? First is National, which in my opinnion would include things like ones pride on ones home nation and "race"-thinking. The second is Idological system which would include religions and, unsuprisingly, ideologies. And lastly a combonation of the first two.

For example, a basic example of national dehumanising is over the top natinalism, where ones country and people are better in every aspect to any other. You might think that US is a good example of this, but it can barely hold a candel to the type of fervor that existed in the European contries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the most powerful countries like Great Brittain and Germany. As a Finn I can also say that our attitude would also be a prime example, as we were still under Imperial Russian rule until 1917, and there was a system called "russification" being used by the General-Governour. This meant that we would have been made russians in culture, language and every aspect of our culture would have been whisked away. It was not a popular system and the General-Governour was infact assainated in 1904.

(Warning! GODWIN'S LAW! Warning!) Another, and I might say the most extreme National dehumanising system was Nazism. Not only did it state that the "Arian race" was a race superior to all, it also combined the idea that it was specifically chosen by a creator (wheter this is suppose to mean the Abrahamic one or not, can be discussed in another thread. My point is the inclusion of a "creator" and it's "chosen people"-ideas, while the emphasis being on "race" and nationalism).

A strong contestor to the "most extreme" position is communism. Now, as I've understood it, the original marxist idealogy did not base itself on nationality but purely ideology that the workers who were down trodden in mid to late 19th century would make idologically superior rulers, or rather a better social system, hence socialism, that made the workers and socialists superior to anyone else. Do correct me if I'm wrong here though, I can only hold my attetion on goofy ideologies for so long In any case, the more nationalist outlook only took root later, perhaps first envisioned by Lenin, but most certainly advocated by Stalin, as well as the over the top "war on classes"-ideology.

Lastly, I think I should mention the European nobility and royalty, who saw themselves, and perhaps even were seen as, "divinely chosen". And they most definately had strong connections to the church be it on land ownership to crowning seremonies to securing a place in heaven by donations or building a new church. After all, in those times the catholic church had it's testic....err, I mean tentac....err, butter fingers in pretty much everyone pie...*innocent whistleing* Anyway, my point it that they were also in a certain way dehumansing the "lower classes", based upon a religiously toned ideology.

So, I wouldn't say that dehumanising is in anyway a "religion thing", though religion does offer a strong excuse or even fuel for such thinking. Mostly I would blame the ambuguity of certain peices of scripture coupled with peoples desire to make them feel special but also because some people just can't understand difference from what they think is "old and safe", and this fear of the new outbursts as a form of arrogance, agressivness and even as hate. Is this what is happening with atheist being dehumanized? Possibly, since as Greta Christina noted in the vid posted by Asmo, we athesit have become more and more visivle and vocal over the past few years, so we are the "new guys with the new thing", dispite the fact that there have almost certainly always been atheists. Though that's just my opinnion.

Did I ever tell you guys that psychology is another dear hobby of mine?    Though I have to admit, it's more on a philosophical level then something based on studies and what not....

Also, two history rants in such a short time!?  

[xSilverPhinx]

This is a human issue, not a religious one exclusively.  It comes from our basic tribalistic nature from our evolution. It was a survival strategy to be able to distinguish between "us" and "them."  "Them" were always considered as possible enemies.  It exists today in totally non-religious contexts: Democratic v. Republican, black v. white, even in high school football.  Two towns in Texas that are 5-10 miles apart can grow fierce rivalries that often end in violence - the "Eagles" vs. the "Bulldogs", or some such.  It exists on atheist fora, as well (not talking about this one).  On the Sam Harris forum, for example, I was called a "paramecium," a "turd in the punchbowl of life," a "human vermin," and "mentally ill," - all because I expressed views on my faith. At times, I responded in fully human fashion and engaged in name-calling myself.  All such activity dehumanizes a person.  Humans dehumanizing humans is in our bones. 

Wow, that's harsh, but another dehumanising feature is anonymity (talking about internet fora) If what you see from people are writings on a screen - a username with no nonverbal displays of emotion, then people generally empathise less. Might explain why there's an even more aggressive tendency to seek like-minded individuals (an "us" of an ideological tribe) than others.

 

[xSilverPhinx]

Did I ever tell you guys that psychology is another dear hobby of mine?    Though I have to admit, it's more on a philosophical level then something based on studies and what not....

Me too

One of the major reasons why evolutionary psychology (yes, we evolved and we do have these deep-rooted psychological mechanisms, despite what fundies say ) is that it's easier to spot these sorts of problems. I wouldn't switch the chance to understand for some thought of having "divine dignity" for anything. It's rather useless, IMO, unless of course you want division for your own reasons.

[Stevil]

I think it's because they claim their dignity or campassion or love or whatever derives from their god

They have been reprogrammed, reading the bible, going to church, Sunday school, bible study, bible camp, it all results in a programmed person. Their words have different meanings to us, generally having god injected into the meanings.
Some of them truly struggle to understand how an Atheist can come to love, dignity, compassion without a god.
Some of them certainly struggle to understand why Atheists don't go around killing people because we don't have god's morality to stop us.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

but another dehumanising feature is anonymity (talking about internet fora) If what you see from people are writings on a screen - a username with no nonverbal displays of emotion, then people generally empathise less. Might explain why there's an even more aggressive tendency to seek like-minded individuals (an "us" of an ideological tribe) than others.

I think that's true.  The hardest thing is to look another human being in the face and then dehumanize them. Any form of communication that removes the possibility of looking another person in the eyes increases the likelihood of dehumanization.  Sitting down with another person and just hearing their story usually softens the heart, except for psychopaths and the truly insane - usually.  Any form of mask that we can put over our faces and the faces of others increases the likelihood of demonizing and dehumanizing others.

[Squid]

Just social dynamics that have been at work since the dawn of social animals - in-group/out-group bias and homogeneity as well known in the socials sciences.  If it weren't religious belief, or lack thereof, it could very well be some other social characteristic with the same social-cognitive actions at work.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I agree about many of the comments that people have suggested here about the process "othering" . Might I add that it's part of the reason why I like the civility rules that are in place at HAF. We're all people and I've never had a taste for tearing other people apart (even just verbally) on masse.

[Sandra Craft]

This is a human issue, not a religious one exclusively.  It comes from our basic tribalistic nature from our evolution. It was a survival strategy to be able to distinguish between "us" and "them."  "Them" were always considered as possible enemies.  It exists today in totally non-religious contexts: Democratic v. Republican, black v. white, even in high school football.  Two towns in Texas that are 5-10 miles apart can grow fierce rivalries that often end in violence - the "Eagles" vs. the "Bulldogs", or some such.  It exists on atheist fora, as well (not talking about this one).  On the Sam Harris forum, for example, I was called a "paramecium," a "turd in the punchbowl of life," a "human vermin," and "mentally ill," - all because I expressed views on my faith. At times, I responded in fully human fashion and engaged in name-calling myself.  All such activity dehumanizes a person.  Humans dehumanizing humans is in our bones. 

I agree with this, sad as it is and unhappy as it makes me with myself whenever I give in to it.  I'm sure at some point in our history the "us vs. them" mindset was very useful but now it seems like a deathrace to outgrow it in time. 

[The Magic Pudding]

Anyone have thoughts on this?  See it differently?  Experienced similar attitudes?  I don't like the way this looks.   

I had similar thoughts about the Dignity thread, I posted there before I saw this thread.

Just social dynamics that have been at work since the dawn of social animals - in-group/out-group bias and homogeneity as well known in the socials sciences.  If it weren't religious belief, or lack thereof, it could very well be some other social characteristic with the same social-cognitive actions at work.

Probably/possibly but religion as espoused by some is so freaking weird.
Maybe you could have reasoned with a Nazi under different circumstances, but the far out theists are off the planet, I almost said literally.
I don't think we'd tolerate a Nazi here for too long anyway, not that I want way out theists banned.  I don't expect any meaningful exchange of ideas, just a chance to observe a bizarre, perverse and deluded creature in action, it could be a mutual feeling.