I’ll call it: “Godism”… [edit], wait, I call it: “Monotheism”. 
Instead of saying one race is superior to the other, this has to do with one person saying that his or her god is superior to another person’s god.
Non-issue Dan(squiggle here…), ask faust.
Nietzsche killed God. No more problem.
Except that by linear logic, if Nietzsche killed God, God being God, he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and Nietzsche would have to be comprised of all these traits, only to a greater degree, Nietzsche must in essence be the super being of all creation, having destroyed the “lesser” God, and as a vacuum cannot exist realistically, the former God’s position as the initial cause of the universe, must be filled. Ergo, Nietzsche is now God, and he too must be destroyed.
Yes, we must venture to kill Nietzsche, and save humanity.
No more Nietzsche, no more spiritual abuse.
I have solved this for you, I’ll accept your gratitude in lira, if you don’t mind. (By proxy of faust’s knowledge, you will also owe him recompense, for this enlightened position was not attained solitarily, but in union with faust’s inspirational discertations of the Ubermensch)
… 
I get the impression, Dan~, that you only read the first line of that cut & paste, since your follow up only relates to it. Since after that first line, the rest of the post has nothing negative to say about monotheism, God, or indeed exclusivist teachings on any of those things, I’d be curious to know what your point is. I especially thought this part
which seems to be saying that continually attacking someone’s religious beliefs and forcing them to defend them all the time is, in fact, spiritual abuse.
You’ve never gone out of your way to make anyone’s spirituality seem defective, have ya?
Was I too obscure, or somehow errant in my logic?
It would appear that I have unjustly saddened the squiggle. My shame knows no boundaries.
The idea that there is only one god – is part of the potential spectrum of freethought, just like belief that there is one supriem race on earth.
There is a big difference between critisizing a person and critisizing a person’s theory. People don’t need to take anything as a personal insult when it’s not directed at their self in the form of an insult.
This gets to be a tricky game, as you could chose to begin to cry and feel deeply insulted as I said that I thought hotdogs were horrible. But it would always be you who were taking what I said as an insult if I insulted something which was not you.
There’s pleanty of times which I should have minded my own business, but in reaction to the amount I was preached at in my passed [IRL], I felt like preaching against bible-like ideas.
That’s okay. Hug booboo:
Dan~
I don’t handle implication and subtely very well. Ask anybody here, they’ll tell ya.
So. I am willing to agree that racial supremecy and monotheism have in common the fact that they both involve thinking that one thing is better than some other things. But that’s as far as I’m willing to go. If you mean to imply something else by what you said above, I’m afraid you’ll have to come right out and say it.
Are monotheists the only ones who need to learn this lesson?
You should have minded your own business? That's one possibility. Another possibility is that 'spiritual abuse' is pretty poorly defined in the article you cited. A third possibility is that spiritual abuse requires a position of authority- for example, neither of us can 'spiritually abuse' the other, because neither of us is obligated to give a fig what the other one thinks if we don't want to.
I wasn’t implying an insult, I’m just saying that it doesn’t matter whether something is “right” or “wrong”, people have the right[?] to think and believe in what the personally wish to believe in.
Now I’m gunnu have to make up a new word here, unless I can find one for this:
Preferencism
Saying one race is better then another, is like saying one flavor of pizza is better then another, or one type of car is better then another. Each person has a combination of reasons for ther perferance. Racial hate is not racial pride, but each are “racist”. But, preferance is not a form of hate, it is a particular form of love for a specific model of instance. Due to each individual’s needs being unique, some things are better for an individual then others, and thus, they develop preference, taste & bias, because of their own unique focus point. If nothing was ever shunned whilst other things were given more attension, focus itself would not exist, and thus conscious-thought may also not exist. Preferencism is only deluded if it becomes too vast an obsession.
^
IMO, it’s okay to think that your god is better then the other gods, and it’s okay to think that your race is better then other races. Let’s just hope you’ve found allot of reason for your belief. =D>
Nope.
Are the authors of holy-books, and the leaders of organized religions – in the position of authority?
Is one person having authority over the spirituality of another – a completely useless idea?
I consider a person’s spirituality to be something like their body. It is theirs, not owned by others, not to be intruded upon. I don’t believe in spiritual authority. What do you think about spiritual authority?
I’d have a hard time arguing with that, though, having the right to believe something is not the same thing has having the right to keeping your beliefs safe from criticism, questioning, and even ridicule. But, I don’t really believe in rights so much, so maybe I’m not following you correctly.
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call this an ‘ism’, since everybody is doing it, all the time. Monotheism doesn’t really fit very well, either- I don’t know any monotheists that believe there’s a whole bunch of gods out there, and the one they worship is ‘the best’ from among them.
Yeah, I agree with that. Though, again, I don’t see monotheism as being about thinking one’s god is ‘better’ than some other gods. To follow that line of reasoning, an atheist would be one who thinks nothing is better than God, and that can’t be right.
Another question about this. Suppose that the believer has the responsibility to not take criticism of their system personally. Where does tolerance fit in? Suppose I devote some serious time to ragging on Wicca, or you devote some serious time to ragging on Judaism. Suppose further that someone comes into the thread saying “wahh wahh wahh, tolerance. Understaning, harmony, bitch bitch bitch.” Are they, in fact, just crying and bitching, or do they have a legitimate concern?
Mmm, not if they’re dead. I can’t imaging a book abusing me. The leaders of organized religions, the living ones, are so far divorced in contact from the laymen, that I can’t really see it from them, either. Maybe a David Koresh type of figure, but what can the Pope in Rome do to abuse a Catholic in New Jersey? I think the connection would have to be more immediate- your immediate pastor or priest, a parent, that sort of thing.
My answer would be “Hell no!” See below.
I consider spirituality to be a primarily social thing, and not an individual thing- it considers how humanity should be, and how individuals should treat each other. I also consider it to be an external subject- what I believe about spirituality is internal to me, just like what I believe about history is internal to me. But I get those beliefs by going out into the world and seeking the information. Again, since it’s a subject to learn, that opens the possibility of a teacher. And I do think a teacher is a certain kind of authority, though I suppose that’s debateable.
They want to be left alone.
So they may then believe in preaching against people whome are preaching against a belief.
They “fight fire with fire”.
Phones police
“Help! I’m being telespiritually abused by the Pope!”
Well, I reckon this is a bad place to come for that!
I encountered all of these on a mormon mission when I was 20. It actually felt like rape or abuse of a sorts. And I wanted to kill myself when I came home from the 2 year mission. (one of my friends actually did kill himself afterwards)
I know this kind of research is in its infancy, is very subjective etc, but I am glad that it is happening though. 
Well, at least you did not take the left side of the original statement and can understand how mentally abusive some religious leaders can be with their twisted preaching.
Thanks for understandin’.
[edited]
Religious abuse is the teaching of religious fear-laced fantasies to people as if those fantasies were real and with the implied intent that those people should believe the fantasy for the rest of their life.
When such is taught to children it is rightly called childabuse.
Spiritual abuse is any physical or verbal behavior that crosses one’s healthy boundaries and causes affective damage to that person’s psyche.