 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
32 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
48 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
125 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
7 new comments | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
| | | | | 'Mockery Of Religious Faith Is Inexcusable' | | | | | found on the New York Times (registration required)
written by Ajax, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Tue 4 Mar 1:14pm | | | | |
 | "Though the point of view summarized by that headline isn't exactly uncommon," Ajax points out, "it's not often that one hears it expressed by a member of the 'elitist liberal media conspiracy,' in this case Nicholas Kristof, in his latest column for the New York Times. And that, says Kristof, is exactly the problem:
[T]here's one area where accusations of institutional bias have merit: nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans. That's the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians.
| |
| | | "Forty-six percent! Numbers like that mean (it can be argued) that the values of 'America' are a darn sight better represented by George W. Bush and John Ashcroft than by the Grey Lady -- and, of course, Plastic ... but we knew that, didn't we?
"Some other percentages that might give pause to those who foresee the inevitable triumph of empiricism and logic over superstition and received wisdom: 48 percent of Americans believe in creationism, and only 28 percent in evolution (most of the rest aren't sure or lean toward creationism). Americans are more than twice as likely to believe in the devil (68 percent) as in evolution. Kristof admits that he doesn't agree with the evangelicals about much of anything, and also feels that in areas like sex education, their influence does a lot more harm than good. However, that doesn't impact his argument that liberals in general, and the media in particular, don't give conservative Christians a fair shake:
[L]iberal critiques sometimes seem not just filled with outrage at evangelical-backed policies, which is fair, but also to have a sneering tone about conservative Christianity itself. Such mockery of religious faith is inexcusable. And liberals sometimes show more intellectual curiosity about the religion of Afghanistan than that of Alabama, and more interest in reading the Upanishads than in reading the Book of Revelation.
"Well, my excuse for mocking deeply held conservative Christian beliefs is that it's loads of fun. What's yours? And another thing -- why is it that some of us liberals seem to be the only ones who worry so publicly about being fair to the people we disagree with?" |
| | |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | | 11. Re: Our society... | | | | by Goldmund |  | | | at Tue 4 Mar 1:52pm | score of 2 funny | | in reply to comment 4 | | | | | |
Well, a bit of sarcasm and a bit of a reminder to Bush and Co. that we are not ruled by the Majority. As someone whose name I can't recall once said, "The Founding Fathers of this nation hated two things, they hated Monarchy and they hated Democracy and they saw to it that we would have neither."
It is my opinion that he and Ashcroft are doing everything in their power to bring the State closer to the Religious Establishment in this nation. They believe they are doing a good thing since, hey, most people are Christians, right? And Christians are better people, right, they got Jesus on their side, right? I really think Bush is fully prepared to gut the Constitution to fulfill the 'Will of the People' (read: Will of George W. Bush). Hey, he's already trampling it down, just wait until he brings out the carving knife.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 18. Re: Our society... | | | | by Screename2000 |  | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:09pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
a reminder to Bush and Co. that we are not ruled by the Majority
Actually, I don't worry about Dubya not knowing that. Given his drive in the face of the anti-war sentiments of the public, including Christian conservatives, it's pretty clear he's not a blind follower of public opinion. His alignment with Christians, IMO, is due to the fact that he actually does believe in God.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 20. Re: Our society... | | | | by Goldmund | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:14pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 18 | | | | | |
I he believed he was God's Messanger on Earth here to watch over Godless America and covert as many people as possible before the Rising Tide out of the East begets the Anti-Christ and begins Armageddon.
At least, if you read Revelations with a Born Again Christian, that's the story you get...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 22. Re: Our society... | | | | by ninjagirl |  | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:14pm | score of 3 informative | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
A friend of mine directed me to a clumsy but compelling essay by Martin Amis published today in The Guardian. It's a lot to choke down, but it makes a good point about Bush's near-fanaticism and its effect on the rest of us:
All US presidents - and all US presidential candidates - have to be religious or have to pretend to be religious. More specifically, they have to subscribe to "born again" Christianity. Bush, with his semi-compulsory prayer-breakfasts and so on, isn't pretending to be religious: "the loving God behind all life and all of history"; "the Almighty's gift of freedom to the world." "My acceptance of Christ", Bush has said (this is code for the born-again experience of personal revelation), - "that's an integral part of my life." And of ours, too, in the New American Century.
I am a Christian, and I appreciate Kristof's well-intentioned defense of my beliefs. I really do. However, when our president is holding "semi-compulsory prayer-breakfasts" and ascribing his hatred of North Korea to his religious beliefs...Houston, we have a problem.
I can't help but believe that this is not the time for the liberal media to go all soft and gooey on the far right fundamentalists. Now more than ever we need people willing to keep a wary and critical eye on a government led by a man so intent on fundamentalist Christian doctrine. I am sickened by the idea of being governed by George Bush's "experience(s) of personal revelation". The way Bush and Ashcroft et. al. seem to elevate religious intuition over logic is extremely upsetting to Christians like me who prefer to see church and state remain separate.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 31. Re: Our society... | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:35pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 20 | | | | | |
I'm not actually very familiar with many details of Revelations, let alone Born Again interpretations. Where exactly would that "Rising Tide out of the East" come from? The Black Sea? The Pacific?
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 35. Re: Our society... | | | | by Astuo | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:43pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
As someone whose name I can't recall once said, "The Founding Fathers of this nation hated two things, they hated Monarchy and they hated Democracy and they saw to it that we would have neither." It was either Gore Vidal (November 2001):We should stop going around babbling about how we're the greatest democracy on earth, when we're not even a democracy. We are a sort of militarised republic. The founding fathers hated two things, one was monarchy and the other was democracy, they gave us a constitution that saw to it we will have neither. I don't know how wise they were.
or Negativland/Chumbawamba (1999):The founding fathers hated two things--they hated democracy and they hated monarchy--and they saw to it that we would have neither I guess Vidal's a tubthumper. (Though I suspect an earlier version of the quote they're both familiar with; just couldn't find it.)
Vernacular? That's a derby!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 115. Re: Our society... | | | | by wagamama | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 6:20pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 31 | | | | | |
I'm pretty sure the Book of Revelation doesn't refer to a 'rising tide out of the East', but there's a whole lot of references in the book. That's why it provides so much fodder for millenarians - because the visions contained therein are so open to interpretation.
The book of Revelation is full of poetic, disturbing, imagery: I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth."
If you have no other reason to read the Bible, it does help you bone up on your literary references. ( Katherine Ann Porter - Pale Horse, Pale Rider.)
Pretentious? Watashi?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 150. Re: Our society... | | | | by stevetherobot | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:17am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 115 | | | | | |
Here's more disturbing imagery.
Revelation 8:7
The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up
Revelation 14:20
They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia.[ 14:20 That is, about 180 miles (about 300 kilometers)]
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 157. Polybius | | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 5:51am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 35 | | | | | |
Leaning on the ideas of Polybius about the nature of government and the Roman form of representative government, Alexander Hamilton expressed during the Constitutional Convention that "if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy." And as Charles Beard noted, the Founding Fathers feared monarchy more than Original Sin.
Gore Vidal has actually written quite a bit about the American government's avoidance of both democracy and monarchy. Probably the smallest and most easily accessible book is Odonian Press' The American Presidency , published in 1998, of which the description has Vidal writing about the Constitutional Convention as a meeting of landowners frantic to prevent both monarchy and true democracy.
In actuality, it's quite likely that Chumbawamba is the Gore Vidal fan, rather than the reverse, as Vidal had written as early as 1982 that "The Framers feared monarchy and democracy" in The Second American Revolution and other essays (shown here as reproduced in Gore Vidal United States Essays 1952-1992, ISBN 0-679-41489-4, The Second American Revolution, page 961.)
It's also important to keep in mind another Charles Beard quote: "One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence."
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 158. Re: Our society... | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 5:54am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 148 | | | | | |
Oh, and Gog and MaGog are Russia, or at least that's how they were interpreted in the 1950's through 1980's. Of course, in the 1800's they were the Turks. And in the 1400's they were somehow the Moors. And in the...
Well, you get the point.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 161. Re: Our society... | | | | by Adipic Acid | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 6:23am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 31 | | | | | |
Where exactly would that "Rising Tide out of the East" come from?
All the backed up storm sewers in the Washington, DC Metro area as the snow melts. (Guess who spent the weekend bailing his basement out!)
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 191. Re: Our society... | | | | by natophonic | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:40am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 150 | | | | | |
after reading revelations a few years ago, i occurred to me that if they were to do a graphic and accurate portrayal of the story in a movie, it would probably have to be rated NC-17.
What we do is never understood but merely praised or blamed.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 2. Politics | | | | by JET24 | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 1:30pm | score of 3.5 nuanced | | | | | | |
Well, my excuse for mocking deeply held conservative Christian beliefs is that it's loads of fun. What's yours?
I mock the politics of conservatives on occasion, which might be misconstrued as Christian belief-bashing, but when you decide to pull your religion into a political system that is founded in debate, you're going to find your religion is debated, questioned, and probably ridiculed. Don't like it? Keep your religious beliefs out of the political arena (and I'm talking to you, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson).
And another thing -- why is it that some of us liberals seem to be the only ones who worry so publicly about being fair to the people we disagree with?
Because unlike some people, liberals concerned about being fair tend to follow a certain religious tenet of "treating others the way you would like to be treated", which correlates to respecting others' right to disagree. Some would rather see a true democracy with mob rule and no respect for dissent instead of what we have, which is a democratic-republic hybrid system in which we all have individual rights to disagree (well, I haven't read anything from Ashcroft today, so it's hard to tell if that's still true, but I digress)...
Religion don't mean a thing; it's just another way to be right. - Spoon
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 149. Re: You can all go to Hell. | | | | by JennaBush | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:16am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 94 | | | | | |
Fuck you, Saddam.
You just wait and see what happens when we use your precious Presidential Palace to film Girls Go Wild in Iraq II - Desert Tequila.
Love and kisses,
Jenna
"The nature of Jenna was ... irrepressible!"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 3. Bullshit. | | | | by Frito KAL | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 1:31pm | score of 2.5 astute | | | | | | |
I'm calling bullshit on this one - I suspect that they are lumping the following
Some believe that God Made the Planet.
Some believe that God influenced the Big Bang.
Some believe that God has taken a direct hand in leading the evolution of humans.
Some believe that God started the watch and set some directions, and left it alone from then on.
all into Creationism - without accounting for the fact that the latter THREE are people who are trying to maintain religious beliefs in the face of science.
If this is so - my parents, both well-educated, smart people who I know believe in the theory of evolution, would be lumped in with the Holy Roller Types who believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth in seven days.
The article goes on to say that only 28% of people believe in "Evolution" - and again, I call the accuracy of this into question. Is that "Believes in the current theory of Evolution 100%"?
If so, I don't fall into that category. I think the current theory probably needs revision. I don't trust into it entirely.
The article provides no clear definitions of what is "Creationism" and what is "Evolution."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 30. Bullshit? | | | | by feed_me_cereal | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:35pm | score of 2 informative | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
The article goes on to say that only 28% of people believe in "Evolution" - and again, I call the accuracy of this into question. Is that "Believes in the current theory of Evolution 100%"?
Perhaps in your community the numbers are more how you would believe them to be, but you might not be looking at the big picture that is the U.S.
ONLY 89% of americans 18-24 know where the USA is on a map of the world! Only 28% of people believing in evolution is absolutely no suprise to me. A very large number of americans, although properly educated, refuse to believe in the concept of evolution, or at least admit to being a follower of the theory for fear that they will be seen as un-christian. Trust me, in rural Indiana (where I've spent a decent portion of my life and where you'll see bilboards on the highway that read "Pray to End Abortion" in huge block letters around a cross) many people see it this way, and these are just the educated people. Consider how many people in this country are illiterate. Do you expect most of them to be taught the subtleties of evolution? As for the area between, most of them probably fall into the "don't get it" category. It's not exactly a light concept for most people, and if they don't understand it, and they're told it contradicts the bible, do you honestly expect them to say they believe in it?
"Strange game, the only winning move is not to play" -WOPR
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 59. Re: Bullshit? | | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 3:25pm | score of 1 compelling | | in reply to comment 30 | | | | | |
You know, I've always wondered how many people on those surveys answered incorrectly on purpose because they're jerks or think it's funny.
I've also formed a theory that phone surveys are completely inaccurate because the majority of normal people would hang up the phone the instant they realized it was a survey/telemarketing-type thing.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 92. Re: Bullshit? | | | | by WhosYerDaddy | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 5:03pm | score of 1.5 novel | | in reply to comment 30 | | | | | |
I once read that only ~30% of the U.S. population knows that it takes a year for the Earth to go around the Sun. I didn't believe it, so I started asking around. Guess what...it's true!
If you can get away with it without sounding like a jackass, ask some of your acquaintances the following:
How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun?
a) 28 days
b) a month
c) three months
d) a year
One good friend of mine, who is a very delightful person and a functioning member of society, actually responded with "That's a trick question, isn't it? The Earth doesn't go around the Sun."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 56. Can We Test the Theory of Christianity? | | | | by Zi | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 3:20pm | score of 2 succinct | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
Excellent point.
I would add that I think the Gallup poll is being very disingenuous when it uses the word believe when referring to evolution.
As if it's a matter of faith. One could more accurately refer to Christianity or Islam as a theory.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Organisms evolve. It has been proven again and again and again, and has never once been disproven in any way, shape or form.
As for the "Theory of Evolution," this phrase usually refers to myriad investigations into how the process of evolution can explain the history of life on earth.
These ongoing investigations, like any science, are experiments testing ideas generated from existing data. The experiments sometimes fail to support a hypothesis. This is part of the scientific method, and actually does help us to better understand evolution because the "failure" of a hypothesis allows that channel of investigation to be closed, so resources can be refocused on more promising hypotheses. Has it all been explained? Not yet. But what has been explained is verifiable, testable, and undeniable.
I think most non-scientific people think of evolution and the "Theory of Evolution" as synonymous, and they are not.
Of course, (some) religious leaders are more than happy to play on this confusion to lead thier followers away from the scientific truth. Why should they do that? As more people understand science and the scientific method, the more they'll realize that most religious concepts are not rooted in any verifiable truth.
Until churches start running studies and experiments to test the validity of thier claims and offer some proof, I'll remain unconvinced.
And if you tell me that the basis of religion is faith, so by it's very nature has to remain unverified, I'll tell you that's a cop-out, and you know it.
If you want an easy excuse to explain the nature of the universe and your existence, go ahead and cop out. Go to church and let the man massage your ego. As for me, I'll keep looking out for the real reasons we exist, and keep my mind open for the proofs, as they come.
So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 86. Re: Can We Test the Theory of Christianity? | | | | by curve06 | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 4:54pm | score of 1 incoherent | | in reply to comment 56 | | | | | |
Evolution is a scientific fact. Organisms evolve. It has been proven again and again and again, and has never once been disproven in any way, shape or form.
Its common knowledge that it was the lord Jesus Christ Almighty who specifically planted so-called "evidence" of evolution, all of the fossils and all of that carbon which claims to be older than 5000 years, to show those scienticians to be the fools they are.
If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 117. Two thoughts... | | | | by jukeboxcharlie |  | | | at Tue 4 Mar 6:22pm | score of 0.5 incoherent | | in reply to comment 56 | | | | | |
I would add that I think the Gallup poll is being very disingenuous when it uses the word believe when referring to evolution. As if it's a matter of faith.... Evolution is a scientific fact. Organisms evolve. It has been proven again and again and again, and has never once been disproven in any way, shape or form.
This is precisely the attitude that the article is talking about. We are under no requirement to agree with anyone's ideas about the origin of species, be it Darwin's or Falwell's, but it is incumbent upon us (both sides I might add) to listen to the other side respectfully.
Moreover, evangelicals simply do not accept the empiricist paradigm- "proof" is meaningless. I've always been skeptical about calls for proof myself (though I'm no evangelical, so I come by it differently). Reminds me of a poli sci lecture about anti-democratic theory from my undergrad days- rationally prove that rational choice theory is superior to other theories (monarchy, fascism, Soviet style totalitarianism). It can't be done- at best you can compare the properties of rationality to the properties of other theories, but you cannot prove that rational choice is superior. It is simply asserted, irrationally, and then you go on and build governments, economies, everything else that has rational choice theory as its foundation.
Likewise, you can't prove that science is superior to religion. You can compare the properties, but choosing on or the other is fundamentally irrational. Did evolution occur? Yes- there is evidence and research to back it up. I understand, however, that siding with the evidence and research is just as irrational as siding with Genesis (i.e. Book of, not Phil Collins). And there is an element of belief here.
And if you tell me that the basis of religion is faith, so by it's very nature has to remain unverified, I'll tell you that's a cop-out, and you know it.
And if you tell me that the basis of science is proof, so by its very nature is only valid when verified, I'll tell you its a cop-out, and you know it.
As if to prove my point above, this is just an irrational assertion that cuts both ways.
This is my sig. Here I have a pithy quote, or wry comment.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 182. Re: Can We Test the Theory of Christianity? | | | | by Saadiq | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 8:42am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 56 | | | | | | |
And if you tell me that the basis of religion is faith, so by it's very nature has to remain unverified, I'll tell you that's a cop-out, and you know it.
Well, the basis of religion is faith. As to whether or not it is verified...this is simply irrelevant to a person of true faith.
My personal opinion is that faith is a very personal relationship with one's respective deity, and a more broad-based approach begins to touch the socio-political sphere, which becomes very problematic, very quickly.
If you want an easy excuse to explain the nature of the universe and your existence, go ahead and cop out. Go to church and let the man massage your ego. As for me, I'll keep looking out for the real reasons we exist, and keep my mind open for the proofs, as they come.
Puh-lease. Explaining the nature of the universe through 'verifiable' facts, statistics, and the scientific method is an easy way, too! Science can be just as much a crutch as faith. People who have never attempted a spiritual life have no idea exactly how difficult it can be.
As for massaging our egos...the basic purpose of most religions is the destruction of the ego...it's the only way in which life, society, and yes, the universe, can be honestly examined.
I agree with you about the 'The Theory of Evolution' as an ongoing investigation, but will add that the problem many people have with this theory - including myself - is that it sometimes is paraded around as an iron-clad answer to questions surrounding the origins and evolution of all life, when in fact it is not; Darwin himself admitted as much in his preface to Origin of the Species. Where, for example, does genetic mutation - a verified phenomenon that bypasses the conventional theory of survival of the fittest - fit in?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 106. Re: Can We Test the Theory of Christianity? | | | | by 0tim0 | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 5:50pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 86 | | | | | |
Its[sic] common knowledge that it was the lord Jesus Christ Almighty who specifically planted so-called "evidence" of evolution, all of the fossils and all of that carbon which claims to be older than 5000 years, to show those scienticians to be the fools they are.
I wonder if this is what he meant by "mockery of religious faith?"
--t
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 131. Re: Two thoughts... | | | | by Arcane Gazebo | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 7:22pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 117 | | | | | |
Likewise, you can't prove that science is superior to religion. You can compare the properties, but choosing on or the other is fundamentally irrational.
Suppose you went to the emergency room, and were told that no doctors were available, but a faith healer was on staff and could see you immediately. Would this be an acceptable alternative to you? Some people go to faith healers or pray instead of seeing a doctor when they are sick. Do you think these people are just as likely to recover as those who call upon modern medicine?
On a fundamental philosophical level I agree that science cannot be rationally justified. However, the fact that I trust science and not religion with my health indicates that I feel it is more justified than religion on some level, and odds are you behave the same way. (Unless of course you have no problem with the faith healer; in fact you may be one of those who would prefer him over the doctor, but I'm guessing such a person is rare on Plastic.)
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 132. Re: Two thoughts... | | | | by robozoid | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 7:42pm | score of 1.5 scholarly | | in reply to comment 117 | | | | | |
This is a false dichotomy. The mistake is in the assumption that science in some way supplants religion. Science has supplanted religion as the dominant mode for 'reasoned discourse' and the dominant framework for the collection of knowledge about our world, but science as viewed as a discipline never sets out to make those claims.
Science (in terms of the natural sciences) is an empirical discipline that seeks to determine the 'how' of our world. How does an apple fall ? How do planets form ? How do organisms evolve ?
Science is not interested, and in fact has no language to discuss the Why ? Why are we here ? Why are the weights of the natural constants exactly what they are ? Science admits the limitations of reason and essentially gives this space over to belief and faith, and ultimately religion.
The scientific method, and the idea of evidence collection and empirical proof, is part of the scientific process. One is free to reject that knowledge can be attained only by experimental evidence, and Kant and Hume spent more time on this than I can, but science itself is not trying to take over all our beliefs; rather, historically it has been religion that has tried to extend the power of belief to natural phenomenon
Karma Karma chameleon - you come and go, you come and go...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 139. Re: Two thoughts... | | | | by Zi | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 8:33pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 117 | | | | | |
Your post is intriguing, but I have difficulty following it.
I have "listened to the other side" respectfully, and rejected the concepts as there no way to test the claim of the existence of paranormal entities. The concept of God is a construct. One in which there is no evidence, in the same manner as the claim for ghosts, reincarnation, ESP, etc.
You state that "evangelists do not accept the 'empiricist paradigm.' There is no proof." I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that the religious leader reject having to prove thier theories, and that this is somehow freeing or validating, I heartily disagree. How can you be skeptical of proof? The concept of proof hasn't been proven to you? A bit circular, yes? Would you buy a car without checking prior title or mechanical history? Would you buy a home without an inspection or deed search? Why would you accept then the meaning of life with no verifiable criteria?
Your example is a little off point. Your poli sci thought experiment is a useful exercise in logic, but my point was about science and judgement based on experience and testing the real world, not mental constructs.
As to proving science "superior" to religion, I think the empirical evidence is overwhelming. Since the advent of the scientific method, we have made amazing leaps in knowledge, health and well-being. More has been discovered in the past 300 years, than in the prior millennia. I suppose you would reject the evidence as a proof, and therefore inadmissible?
I completely fail to understand the statement: "And if you tell me that the basis of science is proof, so by its very nature is only valid when verified, I'll tell you its a cop-out, and you know it."
I don't get it. Science is the search for truth and is only accepted with outside verification. How is that copping out?
So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 162. Re: Can We Test the Theory of Christianity? | | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 6:32am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 86 | | | | | |
Its common knowledge that it was the lord Jesus Christ Almighty who specifically planted so-called "evidence" of evolution, all of the fossils and all of that carbon which claims to be older than 5000 years, to show those scienticians [sic] to be the fools they are.
I actually had a college professor (of English) make this claim. My immediate response was "So, God's trying to deceive us?" which shocked the classroom (all freshmen who weren't used to challenging their teachers) but the prof definitely remembered me when I bumped into him shortly before graduation...
... anyway, I believe two things: 1) God exists;
2) God is not an idiot. To have the whole "God created fake data to suggest the Earth is older than it really is" thing be true, #2 has to be violated.
Actually most organized religions require that rule #2 be violated in a big way. I first realized this with Catholicism and Holy Days of Obligation. The Church has a law that one must attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. To not do this is a mortal sin. But, what ARE the Holy Days? Well, there are 6 in the US, 2 in Canada, and as many as 10 in parts of Europe! The Apostle's Creed says that there's one universal church, meaning it's supposed to be the same everywhere. So either we have over-achieving Europeans, or that the application of the law on Holy Days in the US and Canada is lax and everyone there is going to hell.
When I realized that they couldn't even sort out the details of something as simple as this, I realized that their chances of dealing with a really difficult problem like birth control was out of the question.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 165. What if... | | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 6:44am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 86 | | | | | |
What if our universe were, like, just an atom of some even bigger universe, and we were, like, just a speck on some alien's fingernail? Or how about what if we were all just, like, cogs in this great big machine... like, you know, we were being bred as batteries for some big society of computers, and, like, the world as we know it was just some illusionary software program to, like, keep us ignorant and stuff? Then there'd be, like, no "proof" or "evidence" or anything, 'cause it's all, like, faked and stuff.
Like wouldn't that make a cool movie?
Hey, quit bogartin' that joint...
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 193. Re: Can We Test the Theory of Christianity? | | | | by Zi | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:48am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 182 | | | | | |
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I have a few questions about faith you may be able to answer. You state that verification is "simply irrelevant to a person of faith."
Why is that? How can you accept an explanation of the universe, it's beginning and nature without some basis in observable phenomena?
I believe religion can be a good thing, strictly in a personal psychological way, in that one can use the constructs provided to maintain a useful life, or to overcome personal frailty, but it is a crutch as there can be no real outside validation, only belief in non-provable concepts.
You then state "science can be just as much a crutch as faith." What do you mean? In what way is science a crutch?
When I said that religion allows one to massage his ego, I was referring to the method that most religions have of placing humanity as the central focus of a higher paranormal being. I suppose that's what you mean by "destruction of the ego," ie, being subservient to a more powerful supernatural thing. Not very destructive to put oneself at #2, is it? It seems from the discovered data the man is a lucky accident and little more.
You state that "destruction of the ego...it's the only way in which life, society, and yes, the universe, can be honestly examined." While this is more of psychological question than a question about religion, I am intrigued as to why you think this is. Why is it necessary, and in your words "the only way" to to "honestly" examine anything? I have no basis in my experience for such a concept and am eager to understand your motivation.
As to your last question, the answer can be found here, or really in any good biology book.
So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 197. Re: Can We Test the Theory of Christianity? | | | | by Saadiq | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:25pm | score of 1.5 nuanced | | in reply to comment 193 | | | | | | |
Thanks for the discussion.
Let me start off by saying that, while I have a pretty deep faith, I am not a creationist...I believe that creationism is not only an oversimplification of how most individuals of faith view the universe, but it also kills intellectual curiosity.
You state that verification is "simply irrelevant to a person of faith." Why is that?
This sounds awkward, but the very basis of spirituality is this placement faith in the unseen and unverifiable. In other words, if the existence of god were to be revealed and verified scientifically, then it would be accepted as fact and no faith would need to be placed anywhere. Human spirituality would wane, I believe.
How can you accept an explanation of the universe, it's beginning and nature without some basis in observable phenomena?
Concerning observable phenomenon, if I am not mistaken, scientists believe most of the universe is made up of dark matter, called so because it has not yet been observed (or measured). And I'm not sure any scientist can explain - but merely form theories about - the beginnings of the universe; theories are terrific if they can be tested, but in the instance of cosmology the vast majority cannot...does the line between theory and faith blur here? I'm not sure.
You then state "science can be just as much a crutch as faith." What do you mean? In what way is science a crutch?
Phrenology - the study of the shape of the human head and it's predetermination of our strengths as individuals - was accepted as scientific fact back in the 19th century, and was used to justify the subjugation of non-European peoples. I'd call that a crutch (or, at least, a tool of oppression).
You stated that science is a dynamic, unfolding process of ideas...certainly over time, some of what is considered 'fact' in one era may be debunked in another, as more research comes to light. I love science myself, I just think that placing too much emphasis in its conclusions can be just as misguided as you view placing faith in an unseen higher power.
Science can actually reinforce faith; the patterns and laws found in nature, for example, reaffirm my faith in a divine plan. Quantum mechanics is where it gets tricky...
It seems from the discovered data the man is a lucky accident and little more.
From the 'discovered data'. I don't argue that our existence is incredibly unique, but whether it is an accident or divine will is merely a matter of perception.
Why is it necessary, and in your words "the only way" to to "honestly" examine anything?
This is difficult to explain concisely...but I believe the ego drives a wedge between our interior (intellectual, spiritual) world and the exterior world (our environment): it destroys our acceptance of reality because it makes us want to reshape our reality according to our own desires, no matter how minor or insignificant the change. This is not necessarily a bad thing - it can lead to positive growth - but I don't know how one can study the universe with true objectivity without subjugating their ego first and being open and accepting of all possible outcomes...otherwise, it would seem the very course of examination would become prejudiced.
I hope I've been coherent here and completely addressed the arguments you put forth...a recent issue of Wired magazine ran several articles on these topics...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 200. Re: Can We Test the Theory of Christianity? | | | | by JackH | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:34pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 182 | | | | | |
As for massaging our egos...the basic purpose of most religions is the destruction of the ego...it's the only way in which life, society, and yes, the universe, can be honestly examined.
Well, not really. Buddhism, for instance, is less about annihilation of the self than an awakening or enlightenment of the true nature of the self as a transitory state.
I think "destruction" might be too strong a word - many of the traditions Westerners associate with destruction of the ego actually center around a merger of the self with God or a changing of the base ego into something different, but still the self.
"If you demonstrate a personality deficit in comparison to the likes of John Kerry, you've got major problems" - Anon
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 201. Re: Can We Test the Theory of Christianity? | | | | by Arcane Gazebo | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:44pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 197 | | | | | |
Concerning observable phenomenon, if I am not mistaken, scientists believe most of the universe is made up of dark matter, called so because it has not yet been observed (or measured).
Dark matter has been observed through its gravitational interaction. It's "dark" because it doesn't seem to emit much electromagnetic radiation, and therefore can't be seen through a telescope.
theories are terrific if they can be tested, but in the instance of cosmology the vast majority cannot...
Observations of the cosmic microwave background anisotropy provide an astonishing amount of information about the beginning of the universe. You may have heard about the recent WMAP results which greatly narrowed the field of viable cosmological theories.
Cosmologists may have a paucity of data to work with compared to, say, condensed matter physicists, but their work is still far from religious faith.
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 206. Re: Can We Test the Theory of Christianity? | | | | by profpeach | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 2:17pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 182 | | | | | |
Where, for example, does genetic mutation - a verified phenomenon that bypasses the conventional theory of survival of the fittest - fit in?
The theory is really descent with modification, not survival of the fittest. Genetic mutation fits in quite nicely as the source of variation that natural selection works on, which leads to the "fittest".*
Darwin spent a lot of time on the variation part of Origin
*What is fit can change over time.
I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 235. Re: Two thoughts... | | | | by Hound | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 1:34pm | score of 1.5 brilliant | | in reply to comment 117 | | | | | |
Likewise, you can't prove that science is superior to religion.
I disagree. We have a few measures by which we can compare science to religion: Human lifespan and quality of life are two of the most significant.
Under the secular (and scientific) democracies of Europe and the US, the average human lifespan has roughly doubled in the past 100 years.
Not only are people living longer, but the quality of their lives are better. Chronic disease is less prevalent than a century ago, infant mortality is measured in deaths per 100,000 rather than deaths per 1,000.
There is no similar improvement in the quality of human life that can be attributed to religion.
Hound
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 243. Re: Two thoughts... | | | | by stevetherobot | | | | at Fri 7 Mar 1:00am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 235 | | | | | |
Not only are people living longer
But according to Genesis, people still aren't living as long as they used to. In the beginning people were living hundreds of years. IIRC Adam lived over 800 years, Methuselah was almost 1000 years old, and even Noah was over 600.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 246. Re: Two thoughts... | | | | by Hound | | | | at Fri 7 Mar 8:54am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 243 | | | | | |
Not only are people living longer
But according to Genesis, people still aren't living as long as they used to. In the beginning people were living hundreds of years. IIRC Adam lived over 800 years, Methuselah was almost 1000 years old, and even Noah was over 600.
So the impact of religion has actually made things worse! If you accept that Genesis is true and that Methuselah lived to 1,000, then, under the influence of the church, that lifespan dropped to roughly 40 in the middle ages. Not a ringing endorsement of the effect religion has on the human lifespan.
Hound
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 58. Re: Bullshit. | | | | by Lemmy Caution | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 3:23pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
I'm pretty sure that the notion of "evolution" is the broader one - at its core is whether we have non-human ancestors, with our forebearers ultimately sharing a cold-water flat with other one-celled organisms. If you buy into this, like Teilhard de Chardin did, with the notion that this was all God's idea, I am pretty sure you continue to get counted as an evolutionist, by every standard that I've seen. (Teilhard de Chardin, interestingly enough, was silenced by the church, but for another doctrine: the idea that God was evolving with humanity, and that humanity was evolving towards God, a "heresy" earlier adopted by Michael Servetus and the Socinians - who later became the Unitarians - back in the 16th century.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 163. Religious Beliefs vs Science | | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 6:35am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
I can't say for sure how many americans believe in creationism, but here's some figures on how many want creationism taught in the public schools (courtesy of People for the American Way.) surprisingly, this survey shows it as much lower than I expected. - 33% think evolution and Creationism should be taught exclusively or in conjunction with evolution in science classes,
- 29% say creationism should be mentioned in science classes as a "belief" but not as science,
- and most of the remainder (29%) think creationism should be excluded entirely from science classes.
Now different surveys will give different figures, in part due to bias in the formulation of the questions or bias of the questioner, but in general I think it's mostly hyperbole to make a claim that the majority of americans are Bible thumping anti-science ideologues. So it looks as though you're right to be skeptical of the figures as given in the writeup, although this doesn't assuage misgivings about the general state of education or rationality of the public at large which, for instance, is plagued by a general inability to reason and a lack of fundamental scientific knowledge. So much so that - In worldwide testing of average 17 year-olds, the US ranked dead last in algebra.
- In a chemistry test, students in only two of 13 countries did worse than US students.
- Britain, Singapore, and Hong Kong were so high as to be almost off the scale. 25% of the general Canadian senior student body did as well as the top 1% of American high school seniors.
- 75% of americans do not know that antibiotics kill bacteria but not viruses
- 57% don't know that electrons are smaller than atoms
- A significant proportion of college undergrads do not know that the stars rise and set each night, or even that the Sun is a star
- Only around 10% of US students ever opt for a course in physics
- A major electronics company reports that 80% of its job applicants can't pass a fifth-grade mathematics test. The US is losing some $40 billion a year in productivity because workers, to too great a degree, can't read, write, count, or think
Obviously the fault can't be directly attributed to "christians" or Christianity (laziness and lack of education would be better targets, to my mind), but when you have the director of the Creationism Museum (yes, that's right-- in Kentucky) stating, "We're not doing this to say, 'Here's the evidence for and against, now you decide.' We admit our bias right from the start... The Bible is not a science textbook... This is the truth... This is a cultural war. It's heating up. [Scientists] need to know: We're coming." it requires no great stretch of the imagination to see why some christian beliefs are ridiculed.
In general, Kristoff's fears about a sneering tone to the "liberal" side of the debate are simply inconsequential. It's human nature to bridle when one's beliefs are questioned; and christians, like all people, are apt to take offense when challenged on their beliefs, whether a "sneering tone" is present or not. Coincidentally, I see no particular worry from Kristoff at sneers flowing in a torrent in the other direction (i.e. against liberals, non-christians, or the non-religious.) And that's not because it's not happening.
So whatever. As Plastic teaches daily, if you're going to take place in a fevered debate, you'd best develop a thick skin. Life's tough. Get a helmet.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 5. 22% is a big difference | | | | by veratrine | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 1:34pm | score of 1.5 informative | | | | | | |
Most of the sources I've looked at suggest that about 50% of Americans believe in some form of evolution (about 40% believe in 'theistic evolution' while about 10% believe in non-theistic evolution). See, for example, a 1999 study, or even other references to Gallup poll numbers seem to substantiate this.
Of course, if you want to do a story about how wackily out-of-touch the media is with the pulse of the nation, you pick numbers that will wow the audience: "Twice as many believe in the devil as evolution!" It looks to me like just another angle on the liberal-media story we've been hearing ad nauseum for the last few years.
eggiwegs...I'd like to smash 'em!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 54. Re: 22% is a big difference | | | | by norcalwindows | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 3:19pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
"Of course, if you want to do a story about how wackily out-of-touch the media is with the pulse of the nation, you pick numbers that will wow the audience"
you touch on key elements to consider when using polls to formulate policy or procedures (and especially opinions):
who is asking the questions?
what, exactly, are the questions?
who is interpreting the data?
what issue prompted the poll?
what (policy/procedure) potentially hinges on the results of the poll?
who stands to gain from one interpretation or another (of poll data)?
Despite what most poll 'citers' would have the general population believe, poll number aren't black and white depictions of trends and belief in the target population.
"Some pollsters say that no polls, except perhaps exit polls, should ever be described as predictions because they only measure voting intentions some time before people vote."
Polls are twisted, abused and are never the last word in any situation. If a journalist (or her/his editors) won't take proper precautions when using a poll as a base for a story, that story is suspect. This link goes into detail on the issue of polls.
a www.ncpp.org link
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 6. But we already know about the religion of Alabama. | | | | by Arcane Gazebo | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 1:36pm | score of 1.5 astute | | | | | | |
And liberals sometimes show more intellectual curiosity about the religion of Afghanistan than that of Alabama, and more interest in reading the Upanishads than in reading the Book of Revelation. I don't think this is a fair criticism. Since American society is predominantly Christian, any given American liberal is likely to have acquired a certain level of information about the Bible and Christianity as part of his upbringing and education. Religions less prevalent in America but important in world affairs are the ones he is going to research, simply because he knows less about them to begin with.
Of course, this is a very different issue from that of mockery. Personally I find the temptation to mock certain Christian beliefs very strong due to their self-inconsistency. I'm reined in by a desire not to disrespect the people holding these beliefs, who are often intelligent and well-meaning. (Those who don't have these qualities are fair game, of course.) I'm not sure it's possible to mock the belief without also mocking the believer; if I say this is a silly idea the implication is that a person who believes in it is foolish. My solution to this problem is usually to restrict my mockery to forums like Plastic, where such behavior is expected.
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 91. Re: But we already know about the religion of | | | | by Chasuk | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 5:01pm | score of 1.5 brilliant | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
Of course, this is a very different issue from that of mockery. Personally I find the temptation to mock certain Christian beliefs very strong due to their self-inconsistency. I'm reined in by a desire not to disrespect the people holding these beliefs, who are often intelligent and well-meaning.
Religious belief isn't a special category deserving protection or exemption from mockery, IMHO.
(Those who don't have these qualities are fair game, of course.)
I hold just the opposite view. The innately stupid deserve our pity, not our derision. The intelligent who CHOOSE stupidity deserve our contempt, hence our mockery.
Neopets - the best free game on the Internet.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 97. Re: But we already know about the religion of | | | | by Arcane Gazebo | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 5:30pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 91 | | | | | |
Religious belief isn't a special category deserving protection or exemption from mockery, IMHO.
I'm not actually trying to say that religious belief is a special category. Rather, that mockery of any belief (religious, political, scientific...) carries with it a mockery of the believer, and this is what I think should be avoided. One can disagree with or criticize a belief without mocking it, after all.
I hold just the opposite view. The innately stupid deserve our pity, not our derision. The intelligent who CHOOSE stupidity deserve our contempt, hence our mockery.
I realized after my original post that I phrased this part poorly; it's those believers who are not well-meaning that are fair game for mockery, regardless of intelligence.
As for intelligent people who believe stupid things, I'm willing in most cases to give them a pass (as far as mockery goes). It seems to me that having an intellectual "blind spot" in some subject or another is so common that I probably have one myself; if not in the religious sphere, perhaps in my political views or something else. If someone wants to point out my blind spots, I'd prefer they do it in some other way than mocking them, and so I extend the same courtesy to others.
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 109. Re: But we already know about the religion of | | | | by Chasuk | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 6:02pm | score of 1.5 | | in reply to comment 97 | | | | | |
One can disagree with or criticize a belief without mocking it, after all.
You are right, of course. I am ashamed to confess that I sometimes forget this, all the while preaching tolerance. :-(
it's those believers who are not well-meaning that are fair game for mockery,
Again, agreed. And you practice what you preach, for you have been very courteous.
Thank you for the exchange.
Neopets - the best free game on the Internet.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 159. Re: My poll is mighter than your poll! | | | | by J Doe | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 5:55am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
Lying with statistics is fun! 20% of Americans believe that all statistics quoted on television are true. 90% believe that USA Today is a newspaper.
These statistics are made up and meaningless. The ones quoted in the article may not be made up, but they can still be meaningless.
I think the authors points were interesting, not surprising and not likely to change anything. The statistics and their use is a bit unfair to the reader.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 8. Gee, Nick, did you phone this one in? | | | | by hermenewt | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 1:44pm | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
Kristof's argument would have been helped a lot if he had bothered to offer any evidence of the supposedly ubiquitous mockery he's talking about. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it would be nice to know what sort of thing he's referring to. And what would the American media do differently if they were chock-full of evangelical christians instead of wishy-washy secularists, as aleged?
The polling data is indeed very interesting. I'd like to see a more detailed breakdown of the numbers, and also how questions were asked. Also, how these numbers relate to other things, like education. It also seems to be assumed that all religious people are conservative, and vice versa--a bit of an oversimplification.
I guess Kristof saw all those magazines on the rack featuring articles on how pious Bush is, and figured ought to get a column out on religion before the next hot topic comes along. It's a very insubstantial effort, however.
different(42), human(37), language(37), always(33), every(32), article(32)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 10. Jesus, what a mess! | | | | by eminem enterprises | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 1:47pm | score of 2 intriguing | | | | | | |
I'd like to think there is no point in challenging other people's faith. It's a pluralistic society, and there's no point increasing the amount of negative vibes (to get metaphysical) going around.
BUT, when fundamentalist religious views start to affect the political world, then it's up to the seculars to market their product more aggressively. This process has to accentuate the positive, because mockery, as satisfying as it may be, doesn't "work". Lots of people automatically tune out that sort of thing - that's how GWB got elected despite the widely circulated "Bush is stoopid" meme.
Speak of the devil, the cover story in this week's Newsweek on Bush's religious faith (e.g. he doesn't accept the theory of evolution), combined with Kristof's piece, certainly gives secular non-Americans such as myself cause for pause. We really don't understand what the hell is happening in your country. We have absolutely no idea.
Everybody has a share
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 26. Re: Jesus, what a mess! | | | | by thomp | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:21pm | score of 1.5 clever | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
We really don't understand what the hell is happening in your country. We have absolutely no idea.
Sure you do. It was called the Middle Ages. A highpoint (or lowpoint) was the Crusades. Are you coming with us to take back the Holy Land?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 15. Here I Jump with Both Feet in the Hog Trough | | | | by Anonymous Idiot |  | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:02pm | score of 4.5 clever | | | | | | |
Bible-thumping, snake-handling, put-your-hand-on-the-TV-set-and-pray-along-with-me trailer trash wear their ignorance and stupidity like a badge of honor in this country, and you can take that to the bank. Hallelujah! There's absolutely no need for effete, liberal, secular humanist pinkos to make fun of their religion, because their religion is already a grotesque parody of itself.
This spiritual circus goes back to the 1830's, when the American forest primeval started gushing forth self-appointed Christian prophets like shit from the ass of a Tijuana tourist. The really dangerous thing about Protestantism, you see, is that it maintains, in various forms, the proposition that every individual should read the Scriptures and interpret them as they see fit, and, moreover, seek and cultivate a personal relationship with the Almighty.
This has lead to more than one 600-foot apparition of Jesus telling some yokel to go out and do any number of damn-fool things in the name of God. A hillbilly alone in the woods with the King James version is an awesome thing, to be sure.
So it's no surprise that roughly half of 21st century Americans are stuck in the 1830's with their spiritual forefathers. The real surprise, and a relatively pleasant one, is that roughly half of them are not.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 16. Just remember... | | | | by Zaphod Beeblebrox |  | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:04pm | score of 5 succinct | | | | | | |
As someone said in the sub queue, "Not all Conservatives are Christians". The opposite is also true, not all Christians are Conservatives (politically speaking).
Not all Christians fall into the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson camp. Not all Christians voted for Bush, in fact many distrust him despite his professions of faith (see Time mag).
Some Christians have no designs on the government. Some Christians take Christ seriously when he said, "My Kingdom is no part of the world." (it's political system) - John 18:36 and that his people "are no part of this world" - John 17:16.
Some Christians believe in the absolute and complete separation of Church and State, because the intrusion of the Church into matters of State is unseemly and the intrusion of the State into matters of the Church is intolerable. Some Christians believe that forcing kids to say the Lord's prayer in public school, diminishes the value of the prayer. Some Christians believe that mentioning God in public oaths is artificial religiosity and not a genuine expression of meaningful faith.
So mock away, but realize that your mockery is often misguided and poorly aimed. If your problem is with Christianity, fine, we can talk about that, but if your problem is with Bush style Republican conservatism, then realize that it's not the same thing.
Zaphod
Don't Panic
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 17. Falwell is an ass, that is why we mock him | | | | by My name is Mudd | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:07pm | score of 2.5 brilliant | | | | | | |
This might be off topic, but I will never understand the sizable number of people who profess a belief in Angels but not in God.
As for the topic at hand, I think a lot of religious people bring the mockery on themselves by their actions. The Amish, for example, have extremely conservative religious views. Aside from relatively benign jokes about buggies* and bad fashion sense, they are not mocked. Why? 'cause they leave people who want to be left alone alone.
In contrast, there are a lot of religious people who have nothing better to do than mind my business. I've read pretty extensively, and I don't see where God made known His** opinions on school vouchers, land-use regulations, or inter-racial dating. Religious people, like all people, can and should have opinions about art, politics, culture, etc. It is entirely right and proper that their religious views shape their other views.
Its when they start to assert that their view is but a reflection of God's will, that they are revealed as morons who deserve to be mocked.
* what is "clop clop clop bang?" an Amish drive-by shooting
**sorry, but I hate "his/her," and "its" seems somehow tacky to apply to a supreme being.
Short then is the time which every man lives, and small is the nook of the Earth wherein he dwells.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 19. So... | | | | by Goldmund | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:10pm | score of 4 compelling | | | | | | |
Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Reid and the like can go around claiming that we're all sinners and that events like 9/11 were caused by lesbians, secularism, the ACLU, People for the American Way, etc. They can go on TV and declare that people like me and many other Plasticians are going to an imaginary place of fire and brimstone just by living our lives the in a way we see fit.
They can sit around and declare science as being full of godless secular humanists, television as being full of satanic or otherwise evil people who promote sin, vice, violence, and questioning of authority (by providing what society wants to see), the 'media' (of which they are a part) as being godless and 'lost' in the path to righteousness and the government as being full of Christian-hating bigots (you know, for daring to claim that this is a secular nation).
They stand by and attempt to deny teenagers and adults access to birth control, (possibly life saving) abortions, sex education, and if they had their way would probably like to make adultery, divorce, sodomy, homosexuality, fornication and PDAs illegal.
I'm not talking about all you xians out there who have actually read the Bible and realize the message that it teaches isn't about control or authority. It's about love, respect, tolerance and the realization that people need to be allowed to make their own mistakes and their own choices. If they choose to seek you out, there should be nothing stopping them in their quest. I'm also not talking to charitable xians or those of you who donate portions of your life to helping those not blessed with the same advantages that you were. I'm talking to those of you who force your beliefs down the throat of people who didn't ask for it, I'm talking to the people who prey on the downtrodden, the mentally weak and unstable and the social outcasts for the dangerous cults disguised as Christianity that serve as little more than little zones of control for modern demi-prophets.
We don't stand in the way of allowing these bigots who cloak themselves in the mantle of faith to espouse their views of hatred, intolerance, provincialism and domination of their fellow men/women, why should we temper our language to be careful of their feelings?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 25. Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:19pm | score of 0.5 obnoxious | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
Kristol pretty clearly wasn't talking about Falwellesque politicoreligionoids -- he was talking about the 100 million Americans who consider themselves "evangelical or born-again Christians." Do you think all of them fit into the dandy little stereotype box you've built?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 32. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by Linux Ate My Dog! | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:41pm | score of 2.5 astute | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
If the 100 million do not fit in that box, they are making awfully little noise against the people amongst them who portray them as being in it.
Considering the structure of religion in this society, I think many of the 100 million evangelical born-agains Kristoff mentions have no problem at all being lumped into that politicoreligionoids category. If they did, Falwell and his ilk wouldn't be allowed to speak so much for them as he does, and his audience would be as empty as Al Sharpton's is for his rebuke of the state of the union.
The rest of the 100 million, if they are vocal at all, are not very vocal in theor opposition of being seen as Goldmund says. I really am not getting the signals that large part of the born-again movement feels that their image has been co-opted by Pat Robertson, and, if he has, that it was done negatively.
Unless Falwell goes way over the top and claims these 100 million are co-responsible for 9/11 because they allowed me to have equal protection under the law. Then, for a brief moment, the media will voice annoyance at these two, and I am not even sure it is actually coming from that 100 million, or the 160 Million who are not born-again.
Me, I like to make fun of one evangelical born-again belief: the one that states that they and Christianity are victims in this current society. It is so false and so galling, because without fail it is predicated on the inability of the people professing it to force their evangelical life-style on others.
"He's old school." -- byrne
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 37. Hello and welcome to my opinion... | | | | by Goldmund | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:46pm | score of 1.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
Yes, but the Falwellesque Politicoreligionoids (good word, BTW) are the ones that get them mobilized, out and about politically, feed them their slanted news, sell them their slanted opinions, and beat into their (oftentimes intelligent, but ignorant) minds what is "right" and what is "wrong" in today's world.
You may believe that Kristol wasn't talking about them specifically, but these are the people who complain loudest when they perceive that Conservative Christians are getting an unfair shake in the media (which is to say, every single day) and they are the ones that have the most to lose by the media being mostly secularly liberal. These people in power ARE the problem, the 100 million evangelical Christians are only living their lives and as long as I don't have to listen to one of them declaring that myself and people like me are doomed to an eternity of hellfire, I don't care if they want to live their lives in whatever way they see fit. They want to change my life, I don't want to change theirs.
Part of the Problem?
Do I have a national voice? Do I make Policy? Am I any more influential than any other member of plastic (well, maybe those who can't vote in the subQ)? How am I part of the problem? I want to live in a world where I am free to act how I wish and not be subjected to the whims of superstitious demagogues who have been swept into power by posing as moral leaders. I don't want to live in a world where the mantle of faith is an excuse to lie, cheat and steal your way to the top. I don't want to live in a society where laws exist that would deny me the right to live my life with my choices simply because of the timing and choice of my manner of prayer.
When I'm a nationally syndicated columnist who spends his time mocking the silly, contradictory nature of Christianity and the ignorant yokels who make up some of it's adherents, you can accuse me of being part of the problem. But since I'm a little nobody on a semi-obcure message board, I'd like to ask you to please shovel your hyperbole somewhere else.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 41. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by NomiMalone | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:49pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
Kristol pretty clearly wasn't talking about Falwellesque politicoreligionoids -- he was talking about the 100 million Americans who consider themselves "evangelical or born-again Christians." Do you think all of them fit into the dandy little stereotype box you've built?
My guess is that many, many of them do, frankly. I have a few friends and acquaintances who consider themselves "recovering" pentecostal/evangelical christians, and one thing they've all made very clear to me is that questioning what you are told by spiritual leaders or read in the bible is not looked on too kindly in conservative churches. The world is generally seen as two sided - good and bad, saved and damned, us and them - and there is really not much room for subtlety of thought, independence, or deviation.
I'm loud, and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because someone's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 166. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 6:45am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
Well, if they're not in that box, then shouldn't they speak out so that Falwell, et alia do not presume to speak FOR them?
Because from where I'm sitting, "Christian" in the US might as well mean the most Fundamentalist right-wing christian sect because that's what seems to be driving policy in the US, regardless of the mythical separation of Church and State.
Yeah, we've all heard that other denominations are less severe, but they do a piss-poor job of standing up and confronting the media and confronting the Fundamentalists on areas where they disagree. They take the attitude of "live and let live" and "difference of opinion" too lightly while the other side has no problem turning their opinions into actions.
Yesterday in Massachusetts we had the issue of same-sex marriage come up (again) to a judge. Among the questions posed to the different legal teams, we had to endure idiotic things like "isn't that the same as legalizing polygamy?" and "isn't the reason for an institution of marriage to procreate and have families?" Now anyone with a brain knows that the first stupid question's answer is "no - duh" and that the implication of the second is that any couple who is infertile then is as undeserving of marriage as a same-sex couple (assuming that any reproductive aid is also denied them), and one could extend this to say that marriage should be dissolved as soon as the couple can no longer create more children.
Where are the so-called "liberal" churches now? At least three permit same-sex services within their congregations, but there's ne'er a peep whenever the Fundies attempt to dictate how all should live.
Standing by while someone commits an immoral act is also an immoral act.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 196. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 11:33am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
"Do you think all of them fit into the dandy little stereotype box you've built?"
If you grind 'em up real fine and dry it out, I bet lots of people fit in all sorts of boxes.
Oh, that isn't what you had in mind. Sorry.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 44. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:53pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 32 | | | | | |
The "they're not speaking up enough" argument can be applied to virtually any group on virtually any issue. And any counterexamples I set forth would simply be dismissed as one-offs. Goldmund painted an ugly stereotype that was precisely what Kristof (who, as far as I know, is not one of those people that you lambast for whining about their victimhood) was talking about.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 46. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 3:00pm | score of 1.5 | | in reply to comment 41 | | | | | |
Do you think all of them fit into the dandy little stereotype box you've built?
My guess is that many, many of them do, frankly. Yes, and I know a lot of black people who really enjoy fried chicken. And the convenience store on the corner by my apartment is owned by a bunch of Arabs.
Kristof's entire point is that for some reason, the values of tolerance and diversity and respect for other people's opinions and not drawing ugly stereotypes about huge numbers of people go right out the stained-glass window when those huge numbers of people are "those wacky pentecostals."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 52. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by Linux Ate My Dog! | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 3:16pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 44 | | | | | |
The "they're not speaking up enough" argument can be applied to virtually any group on virtually any issue.
I disagree with you a) that your statement is true b) that it is the case about evangelical christians being represented by Falwell.
As a vocal member of political minority I know exactly what the repercussions are when it comes to people who are perceived as representing you. It is actually why there are so many GLBT action groups in existance, and why there are so many messages. A politically savvy minority will make damn sure that 'their' message is getting out, either by starting a representation or sending dollars to projects and people that represent them, and if there are many messages, there will be many representatives. That's what you do so you actually have a story when people ask you, personally you, about Proposition Y and Horrific Occurrance X, as if you represent everyone.
I'm not seeing it for evangelical born-agains. Not even good cop/bad cop. It's all bad cop and salvation. One (co-opted) voice with a very definite set of opinions about How We All Should Submit. I am not seeing the born-again plurality of views. If it is there, it is not making the big-time.
That's actually an astounding thought: even if it were a minority of evangelical christians who feel they are not accuratly being represented by Falwellian politiconoids like Goldmund portrays, that still millions of people. Are you telling me that the debate over values of 25 million people against the other 75 million is not getting portrayal? Seriously?
I would say the debate is not there.
"He's old school." -- byrne
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 55. Re: Hello and welcome to my opinion... | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 3:20pm | score of 2 compelling | | in reply to comment 37 | | | | | |
How am I part of the problem? Because your treatises about the evils of a bunch of evangelicals and born-agains are pretty much exactly what Kristof was talking about -- would you make that same kind of statement about Muslims or Africans or guys named Steve? But they are different? They deserve it. Because they oppress people. Because they are evil.
Well, I don't happen to think they are. And I'm an agnostic who would tell their God to go fuck himself if he exists. I happen to believe that the vast majority of evangelicals and born-agains and pentecostals and whatever other "ignorant yokels" you want to come up with just... aren't that bad.
I believe that the vast majority of people genuinely do not give a flying fuck what the rest of the world does and pretty much just want to live out their own personal lives in health and comfort.
I believe that of the 100 million born-agains in the U.S. today, well over 99 million bear me no personal ill will because I choose not to believe in their magical sky fairy.
And I believe that your antipathy toward them is just as bad as the antipathy that you think they feel toward you, if only because you cling to your own moral superiority as the reason that you dislike them for their self-perceived moral superiority.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 63. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by gaspacho | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 3:35pm | score of 3.5 brilliant | | in reply to comment 46 | | | | | |
Yes, and I know a lot of black people who really enjoy fried chicken.
Maybe, maybe not... but no one's out there using Congress and the courts to try and make beef, pork, and spinach illegal, and Colonel Sanders doesn't have his finger on the nuclear trigger. So your deflective comment isn't really relevant.
Kristof's entire point is that for some reason, the values of tolerance and diversity and respect for other people's opinions and not drawing ugly stereotypes about huge numbers of people go right out the stained-glass window when those huge numbers of people are "those wacky pentecostals."
You know what?
When "those wacky pentecostals" work en masse to tell me what I can read, how I can live, who I can screw, to brand me as "Un-American" because I happen to be an atheist, and to set Western Culture back 400 years, I shall certainly feel entitled to debate them in any reasonable and rational manner I deem fit. If their views cannot stand up to rational inquiry, then that reflects upon the views themselves, not upon me. Their feelings aren't really my problem.
Common civil courtesy tells me not to barge into the churches of strangers and interfere with their faiths, but in the public sphere I'll blaspheme all I like, thank you very much.
socialism is bad!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 64. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 3:37pm | score of 1.5 compelling | | in reply to comment 52 | | | | | |
Truth be told, I don't see the debate you're talking about among GLBT groups, either. Perhaps that's because I'm not as involved in that as you are. Perhaps you're not as involved in evangelical Christianity as you are in gay rights. Perhaps the vast majority don't feel any particular need to speak up about Falwell's latest grotesqueries, because they don't consider him part of "their" church. Perhaps there's some other reason that neither you nor I can think of.
But if Falwell had the kind of influence that you seem to think he does over 100 million people -- also known as "nearly the total number of people who voted in the 2000 presidential election" -- do you really think we'd even be having this conversation? You'd be in the re-orientation camp, and I'd be in the quit-calling-God-a-magical-sky-fairy camp.
My point remains that indicting the 46 percent of Americans who describe themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians based on the actions of a few of their supposed leaders is rather like indicting all Muslims because some of their self-appointed leaders have participated in plots to murder thousands upon thousands of innocents.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 74. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 4:09pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 48 | | | | | |
Ah, well, they've got websites. They must speak for 100 million people if they have websites.
Okay, lemme lay it out again. From the article:[L]iberal critiques sometimes seem not just filled with outrage at evangelical-backed policies, which is fair, but also to have a sneering tone about conservative Christianity itself. Such mockery of religious faith is inexcusable. Your response:
I'm talking to the people who prey on the downtrodden, the mentally weak and unstable and the social outcasts for the dangerous cults disguised as Christianity that serve as little more than little zones of control for modern demi-prophets. By making that response, you implicitly rebuke the argument Kristof puts forth. Your subtext is "Anyone who follows Falwell or Robertson must be mentally weak." That's an ugly stereotype, and you were painting the hell out of it.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 75. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 4:21pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 63 | | | | | |
There is a distinct difference between "reasonable and rational" and "I'm talking to the people who prey on the downtrodden, the mentally weak and unstable and the social outcasts for the dangerous cults disguised as Christianity that serve as little more than little zones of control for modern demi-prophets."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 77. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by NomiMalone | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 4:32pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 46 | | | | | |
Are you really equating being black or Arab to being an evangelical Christian? Because, as I understand it, Michael Jackson aside, your race is not something you can change; your mind, which is where your beliefs are held, is.
I am not basing this opinion on some "liberal media" representation of evangelical and pentecostal christianity; I am basing it on my experiences of growing up around people with those beliefs, and people I know who were raised with those beliefs. Unlike moderate religions, which strive to find a place in the world and to do good works in their communities, evangelism is based on a model of exceptionalism; there is the church, which is your home and family, and the world, which is filled with temptation and vice. (This may sound simplistic, but compared to some of the literature that's out there, the pamphlets and leaflets and the books about the end times and biblical prophecies, I'm practically Socrates.)
And to address something from one of your other posts: I believe that your antipathy toward them is just as bad as the antipathy that you think they feel toward you, if only because you cling to your own moral superiority as the reason that you dislike them for their self-perceived moral superiority.
Their beliefs, among which are a belief that homosexuality is at best a pretty major sin, and at worst an abomination, have a great amount of potential to affect how I live as a gay man. It's difficult to argue the merits of gay marriage and adoption when you are talking to someone who uses terms like homosexual deathstyle.
My not being allowed to marry has a fairly large effect on my life (theoretical at the moment, since I'm single). My being allowed to marry would have very little effect on their lives, aside from providing fodder for another pamphlet or newsletter.
I'm loud, and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because someone's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 80. Re: Hello and welcome to my opinion... | | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 4:39pm | score of 1 compelling | | in reply to comment 55 | | | | | |
And I believe that your antipathy toward them is just as bad as the antipathy that you think they feel toward you, if only because you cling to your own moral superiority as the reason that you dislike them for their self-perceived moral superiority.
I have never stood in a park or public place and preached that all who do not agree with my interpretations of the collected writings of a bunch of itinerant desert wanderers has some sort of relevance in this modern world.
I have never walked around pretending to become friends with people who I perceive as 'outcasts' or 'needing support' so that I can invite them into my cult and 'save' them by re-organizing their worldview to align with my own.
I have never stopped being friends with someone because of their personal beliefs.
I have never told one of my friends that they were a bad person, that their views were 'immoral', that their lives were being wasted, that their family and all the people they come in contact with are satanic since they reject Christ and they will burn in hellfire for all eternity.
I have never gotten together with my neighbors and sought to either a) drive out or b) convert a neighbor of another faith.
I have never gotten together with my neighbors and torn down decorations of a holiday that was not part of my faith.
I have never tried to physically assault someone whose worldview is different from mine.
I do not support a leader who is a bigot, racist, demagogue, or who puts his trust in anything but reason, rationality and humanity.
I do not vote for people who seek to oppress other people through imposition of one religious view over another.
I make no secret of my antipathy, stankow, I grew up an outspoken Jewish/Agnostic in the deep south and have been subjected to every form of attempted conversion that you could name. I even had a neighbor try to baptise once when we were kids (he called his preacher and everything, tried to do it in the swimming pool).
With all my antipathy and derision toward their faith, I respect it as a valid expression of their choices in life and I seek not to change it. That's more that can be said to many of the people who profess this faith that I have come in contact with. I don't believe that 100 million people in this country are actively working against me (how much hubris is that?). I don't believe they impart any ill will in my general direction, but day after day, week after week, the people that come up to me and tell me I'm wrong, a sinner, hellbound, evil, bad, or whatever are religious. Every single one of them.
I called no one 'evil' and I do not seek to force anyone to act against their own choices. I just want people to have access to all the information in the world so they can make up their own minds about it and not rely on people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to spoon-feed them a singularly disgusting and pathetically superstitious collection of beliefs.
I don't dislike them for their moral superiority, deep down, everyone thinks they are the only right, sane people in the world. I do, however, dislike them for the actions they take towards people of different faiths and different worldviews. Challenging someone's worldview with a friendly discussion is one thing, seeking to change their behavior or worldview through deceit, guile or emotional leverage is not something that I equate with the teachings of any religious prophet, or secular philosopher, for that matter.
These people have no antipathy towards me, in fact, I'm sure they think they love me, doing what they are doing. They have no respect for my right to be left the fuck alone. That's why I have antipathy for them.
Goldmund
(posting anonymously, because I've posted the max commments that I am allowed to)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 82. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by CaptainLiberal | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 4:46pm | score of 1.5 informative | | in reply to comment 64 | | | | | |
Stankow's right about there being an active struggle for control of the various churches. Maybe people not hooked into the system don't see it, but the Baptists (who certainly fit the bill of evangelical christians) are constantly at war with each other here in Texas, over what their official positions are going to be. Believe it or not, they have conservative and liberal divisions too.
The answer to the question of whether the battle between different ideologies inside of faith groups is getting coverage is "yes" as well. It's just not getting covered in major media, generally.
Again, I'll talk about Baptists. The Southern Baptist Convention meets to discuss where they want to stand on issues. Everytime they meet, it's a huge battle. There's always a group pushing women as Pastors, always a group fighting for a kinder stance on Gays and lesbians, and dozens of other groups to boot. When it does get coverage in major media, it generally only gets covered down South.
Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 84. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 4:50pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 77 | | | | | |
Are you really equating being black or Arab to being an evangelical Christian? No, I'm equating the ugly stereotyping of evangelical Christians to the ugly stereotyping of blacks and Arabs.
I am not basing this opinion on some "liberal media" representation of evangelical and pentecostal christianity; I am basing it on my experiences of growing up around people with those beliefs, and people I know who were raised with those beliefs. And a lot of other people can base their own stereotypes on actual examples, too. But I'm guessing that you didn't grow up around all 100 million people who claim to be evangelical or born-again.
My not being allowed to marry has a fairly large effect on my life (theoretical at the moment, since I'm single). My being allowed to marry would have very little effect on their lives, aside from providing fodder for another pamphlet or newsletter. This is a reasonable response, free of stereotyping, and one that I entirely agree with. I think that they have no place at all deciding who you or I or anyone else spends our lives with.
Look, I think that Falwell's a giant horse's ass, too. I think that anyone who willingly follows his hate-spewing moronicity deserves scorn. But I don't think that there are as many people who follow him as he thinks there are. Or as many as a lot of his opponents think there are. And I especially don't think that 46 percent of the population of the U.S. follows him, and I think that bringing him up as the example of why we should have scorn for that 46 percent is intellectually dishonest.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 87. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by NomiMalone | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 5:00pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 82 | | | | | |
This is an interesting point, and one I wanted to mention in my post, but couldn't think of how to tie it in.
It's a mistake to believe that any religion is a monolithic unified force, and the Southern Baptist Convention is but one example. The Anglican church is currently undergoing a schism regarding gay marriage, especially here in B.C..
However, it's a little bit like lawyers discusing law; most of the time they're not asking whether the law is fair, or pragmatic, or even useful, just arguing about how it should be interpreted and applied.
I'm loud, and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because someone's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 90. Re: Hello and welcome to my opinion... | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 5:01pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 80 | | | | | |
That's quite a list of things you've never done, Goldmund. And by posting it, you imply that every one of "these people" is guilty of all of these things. What an... interesting way to defend yourself against my charges of stereotyping.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 96. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by Linux Ate My Dog! | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 5:23pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 64 | | | | | |
But if Falwell had the kind of influence that you seem to think he does over 100 million people
I am not saying he has influence over them. I am saying I am not hearing many of them protesting when he claims to represent them.
Truth be told, I don't see the debate you're talking about among GLBT groups
Yeah, the Log Cabinites have so much in common with HRC which just parrots GLAD. In other words, I can point to heterogeneity quite easily. Can the born-agains point me to an opposing voice, equally representative and as strong yet diametrically opposed to Pat&Jerry Roberwell? All they have to agree on is the evangelical born again stuff, just like all the HRC and Loggies agree on is that homos are people too.
"He's old school." -- byrne
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 102. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 5:48pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 96 | | | | | |
Truth be told, I don't see the debate you're talking about among GLBT groups
Yeah, the Log Cabinites have so much in common with HRC which just parrots GLAD. You appear to be calling me a liar, which means you won't believe me when I say that I don't even know what the heck "HRC" is. As for the others, I don't see the debate, okay? I believe you that it happens. But I don't spend a lot of time in GLBT circles, so I don't have any idea what the various groups are up to. All I know about the Log Cabin Republicans is that they're gay Republicans. I have no idea what the hell they do beyond that, so I don't know whether they regularly bash away at GLAD for being "the wrong gay voice." I apologize for my ignorance, but I really don't see it. Perhaps, just perhaps, you are similarly un-knowledgeable of the schisms within the evangelical circles.
In other words, I can point to heterogeneity quite easily. Can the born-agains point me to an opposing voice, equally representative and as strong yet diametrically opposed to Pat&Jerry Roberwell? Well, CaptainLiberal pointed to schisms in the Baptist church, but you probably think he's lying, too.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 119. Re: Hello and welcome to my opinion... | | | | by natophonic | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 6:28pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 107 | | | | | |
I have never told one of my friends that they were a bad person, that their views were 'immoral', that their lives were being wasted, that their family and all the people they come in contact with are satanic since they reject Christ and they will burn in hellfire for all eternity.
[...]
I do not vote for people who seek to oppress other people through imposition of one religious view over another.
these would be very strange things for an atheist to do...
What we do is never understood but merely praised or blamed.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 124. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by jukeboxcharlie | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 6:40pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 77 | | | | | |
Are you really equating being black or Arab to being an evangelical Christian? Because, as I understand it, Michael Jackson aside, your race is not something you can change; your mind, which is where your beliefs are held, is.
Actually, I'm fairly certain that race is just a social construct, so people can and do identify racially outside of what their "biological" race is (I use quotes because race is a meaningless term in science- certain peoples may have more or less melanin, but that's it). Look at Eminem- he's blacker than all my "real" black friends (one of whom grew up in a Jewish neighborhood- he don't know fried chicken, but he knows a good bagel when he sees one).
This is my sig. Here I have a pithy quote, or wry comment.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 127. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by natophonic | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 6:50pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 105 | | | | | |
ok, i would never claim to be an expert on christian theology, but doesn't it go something like: some evangelicals are fundamentalist, but most fundamentalists are evangelicals? of course there are exceptions, such as the amish who are fundamentalist but not evangelical.
as far as i can tell, all the examples he pointed to are fundamentalist and evangelical.
What we do is never understood but merely praised or blamed.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 129. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by chancehunter | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 7:04pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 127 | | | | | |
Yes, usually. Similar to the overlap between "conservative" and "Republican." But then you've got Zell Miller and the Log Cabins to throw it out of whack.
Focus on the Family is probably both. Fred Phelps is solely fundamentalist. Pat Robertson is more properly charismatic/Pentecostal, but is more fundamentalist than evangelical.
That doesn't really clear things up, does it? Well, Billy Graham and Wheaton are evangelical. And this is fundamentalism. A large part of the problem is that all these movements have common roots in pietism. Just knowing that there are differences and trying to sort them out is enough for etiquette's sake. But most "educated people" haven't a clue.
Making Chutney. One part facial hair. Two parts moxy.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 143. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by Substandard | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 9:50pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 32 | | | | | |
The question; "why aren't those 100 million Born-agains that are not represented by the likes of Falwell raising a voice?" is answered simply. We do not hear them because unlike Falwell et.al they are not part of the problem. They tolerate people and their choice of religion or lifestyle without forcing their own ideals upon others.
If a tree falls on a mime in the woods does he make a sound?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 167. Re: Hello and welcome to my opinion... | | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 6:51am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 37 | | | | | |
... but see that's the crux of the problem.
The don't want to JUST say things, they want to set policies that directly affect my life, my liberties, and consequently my ability to persue happiness. It matters not that they have the freedom to NOT choose the same lifestyle as me, and to explore their own version of liberty and happiness - they want the total control too.
It all comes down to money: enforce separation of church and state under economic grounds. If you stay out of the government's business, then you get your tax-free status. Start lobbying at ALL and you get a bill from the IRS as a political organization and you lose any non-profit tax status. Were that in place, I think we'd see things shifting to a more libertarian social ethic (not to be confused with the political party of the same name), and away from veiled theocracies lying in wait.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 173. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:34am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 46 | | | | | |
It's a false analogy.
The critical difference is that you have a group of people (the "true" wacky Pentecostals if you like) that includes Falwell, Robertson, etc. who claim that the 100,000,000 people who self-identify as evangelical christians think like they do and that they have the tacit approval and consent to speak for them.
This is, in effect, the laying down the gauntlet. If a significant fraction of the 100,000,000 people in question are not in fact aligned with the extreme beliefs held by their supposed spokespeople, then they have to make that known.
Their silence to date has been DEAFENING.
Given this, it's not unfair to reach the conclusion that they are silent partners. To distance their association, all they need do is demonstrate that it exists.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 176. Re: Hello and welcome to my opinion... | | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:48am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 55 | | | | | |
I believe that of the 100 million born-agains in the U.S. today, well over 99 million bear me no personal ill will because I choose not to believe in their magical sky fairy.
I'm glad that works for you. But the problem is, it does NOT work for some of us.
Being told there are 100,000,000 born agains and having only 1,000,000 bearing ill will of me but claiming they speak for 9900% of their population while that 99,000,000 stands aside and does NOTHING to prevent it up to and including just making sure that they are identified independently means they are complicit whether they like it or not.
For me, on an every day basis, this amount to an continual infringement of my basic rights and civil liberties, assuming that the ideals of equality in our society aren't a total fraud.
I point out that a "restoration[*] of marriage" bill has been introduced in Vermont to make civil unions null and void. If passed before the Fall, my CU will have lasted less than a year. If these people bear me no ill will, and only wish to be left alone to exercise their beliefs in their own home, why are they permitting a minority to use them to achieve their goals?
[*] now bear in mind that the entire REASON we have civil unions is precisely BECAUSE we're not allowed to call it "marriage" for fear that someone might get confused, or take offense that the two be mixed up...
How can you RESTORE something that was never tampered with? No heterosexual marriage was affected by the creation of civil unions, they don't even use the same paperwork or forms. There was no spike in the number of divorces stemming from the creation of civil unions. Aside from a spike in the tourism industry from people traveling to Vermont to spend money on events surrounding civil unions (and if anyone wants recommendations for an event for ~40 people, I definitely have some!) which can hardly be seen as a "negative", how does this benefit the common good?
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 177. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:51am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 63 | | | | | |
Common civil courtesy tells me not to barge into the churches of strangers and interfere with their faiths, but in the public sphere I'll blaspheme all I like, thank you very much.
Bingo. Thanks.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 178. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 8:04am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 64 | | | | | |
You're missing the point I think --- he doesn't have to actually control the 100,000,000 people. All that is necessary is that he can claim he DOES speak for them, and that most of them do nothing to disabuse the general populace of that notion.
This is, of course, exactly what is happening.
Your example of Muslims doesn't work because the vast majority of Muslims one encounters do not immediately attempt to murder you. However, the vast majority of self-identified evangelical Christians one encounters do not actively denounce the radical right who claims to speak for them. Because of their inaction, that claim becomes practically a fact.
That we're not in some camp is something of a minor miracle, and sensationalism aside, I cannot completely discount the possibility that it will some day happen unless people (those 100,000,000 minus the true radical right) start to speak out for others regardless of their personal beliefs. To some extent, we're already in the camp, albeit an extremely nicely padded one with only moderate security. But that can change as often as one of the radical spokespeople can convince enough of our leaders that "they speak for the majority". Then we begin to "defend" marriage, "save" our children and schools from being tolerant, and "secure" our digital communications.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 245. Re: Hello, and welcome to the problem | | | | by stevetherobot | | | | at Fri 7 Mar 1:16am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 84 | | | | | |
But I don't think that there are as many people who follow him as he thinks there are. Or as many as a lot of his opponents think there are
I think the problem is that there are a lot of people who believe some of what he teaches. These people can be lumped together as followers/supporters even though they may not agree with some of his more objectionable beliefs. Plus it makes if more difficult to criticise him. If you agree with his position on pre-marital sex, it makes you reluctant to criticise him for his stance on homosexual marriage for fear that doing so will discredit the issues you agree with him on.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 40. Re: So... | | | | by nicky | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:48pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
"I'm not talking about all you xians out there who have actually read the Bible..."
er..isnt that the problem?
The Bible is a very old, very long, and very silly book, and to cobble together a vaguely coherent and reasonable ethical system involves junking - or at least rationalising most of it. Exodus? A fable. Leviticus? Bollocks. Most of the OT? Nationalist myth. St. Paul? Fanatic. Revelations? Satire.
Unfortunately the fundamentalists do read the bible, and you can find confirmation of just about any old prejudice in there somewhere.
there aint no future...in england's dreaming
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 45. Re: So... | | | | by Goldmund | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 2:58pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 40 | | | | | |
Yeah, good point. Let me clarify:
I guess I'm just referring to the people who might read the bible without a 'minder' looking over their shoulder telling them what's the 'right' way to interpret that phrase. I'm suggesting that people read the bible outside the confines of a 'Bible Study' class (code for "see the bible as we tell you to see it, no questions"). If you go to one of these classes, you'll be subjected to endless nitpicking about how this line proves X and that line proves Y and so on.
I'm also not referring to the whole Bible (a confusing mess, if ever there was one, your description is entirely accurate), just the sequel (NT). If one reads the New Testament with a keen eye on the lines that the Apostles put in to Jesus's mouth, it's easy to formulate a philosophy of accepting, forgiving, and not judging your fellow man. With a little historical background and a bit of healthy skepticism, I believe it's easy to see the message that Christ preached was inclusiveness, love and toleration, but I see how that could be wrong as well. Unfortunately, not enough people read the bible with any sort of information other than the words of their parents/minister. So, yes, that is the problem.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 138. But... have you? | | | | by wagamama | | | | at Tue 4 Mar 8:30pm | score of 1.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 40 | | | | | |
The Bible is a very old, very long, and very silly book...
True story - I was talking with some friends, and the conversation turned to the Bible. "It's stupid and irrelevant", sneered Peter.
"Yeah, it's just a bunch of lies and bigoted crap." added Michelle.
"So you've read it, then?" I asked.
"No, of course we haven't read it." They laughed at the stupidity of it all.
"So, you don't actually know what's in there?"
"Yes, of course we do. And it's all lies."
My point - we were all liberal-arts majors at university. My friends had the same loathing for the Bible that your average fundamentalist would have for The Wiccan Handbook. The Bible is referenced in so many works of English literature - Chaucer and Beckett, to name just two - why would otherwise smart people embrace ignorance? Why do smart people pride themselves on dismissing the foremost influence on Western culture?
Read it before you lambaste it, is all I'm saying.
And for the record, it's the book of Revelation. No 's' at the end. Every self-respecting fundamentalist knows that.
Pretentious? Watashi?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 185. Re: But... have you? | | | | by Dop | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:22am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 138 | | | | | |
Read it before you lambaste it, is all I'm saying.
No 'e' in lambast.
Actually, I have read and studied the bible both at Church and during Divinity classes, and would have visited the Holy Land had there been more of us studying Divinity to make the trip do-able.
It was that study that led me to the deeply felt opinion that the bible is a right load of old bollocks...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 249. Re: But... have you? | | | | by greta | | | | at Fri 7 Mar 12:04pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 138 | | | | | |
Why do smart people pride themselves on dismissing the foremost influence on Western culture?
I agree with you.
Whatever your own personal beliefs, the Bible really is an important book to have. I'm about as liberal non-Christian as one can get, and I have always kept a Bible handy.
It's right on the bookshelf between Bullfinch's Mythology and the Collected Works of the Brothers Grimm...
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, I'm a dumbass
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 225. Re: Cadillincolns | | | | by jackal | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 1:14am | score of 1 | |
|
|
|
