Rude W*nkers I have met - Atheism & Religion in the Social Context 2

[Sci-2]

This analogy fails. A white dude voluntarily moving to India and bitching about Hinduism is not the same as a white dude being involuntarily born in America and bitching about Christianity.

Agreed. See my last post though.

[A wilding]

I do not agree with women not being allowed to be priests. Mainstream Catholics use birth control. Mainstream Catholic women are not subservient. In developed countries they are not "forced to ignore leanings toward more" egaliterian views. At least in America there is separation between church and state. One doesn't tell the other what to do. There are religious fanatics that include stupid things in party platforms that may be considered religious in nature. People who vote on one issue are stupid, and not mainstream. ...

I agree entirely that there is a separation between Church and State in Western countries. Which is why Catholics in those countries are able to ignore those parts of the Catholic doctrine that they don't agree with and to do so en-masse. However describing them as "mainstream" when the Pope and those around him disagree with them feels a little stretched, given the hierarchical nature of Catholicism. Especially as things are significantly different for Catholics in some other parts of the world (Africa, South America).

I've seen people rail against Christianity but have nothing to say about Islam though things like damnation of unbelievers, treatment of women are comparable when looking at extremists.

I agree that one is more inclined to object to something one has personal experience of, especially personal experience of what they feel to be negative aspects of it.

Personally though I have been exposed to enough Islamic cultures to be quite happy to condemn what seems to me to be the horrific amount of sexism that appears to be frequently bound up with that religion.

[Castel]

What you're really saying is you don't want anything to do with an organizaton that ascribes these characteristics to God. By saying "your God", you're unfairly saying Baitac is kneeling before a deity that has characteristics that she doesn't believe He possesses.

If you declare yourself part of a group that has certain rules and beliefs can you not be expected to on some level agree with those beliefs? If I was a Muslim and decided that I didn't agree with the stoning of the adulterous or the hijab am I a Muslim as defined by my canon or am I a nicer, cuddlier heretic who subscribes to an offshoot religion that allows me to reconcile social rules and religious rules by fiat? Should the Islamic god not be judged on the books or stories we have describing him instead of a vague "I believe god is good and don't agree with what the 'extremists' say".

Of course, the individual person can believe whatever they like about god, but if the book contradicts it why should we go with their interpretation?

[Sci-2]

If you declare yourself part of a group that has certain rules and beliefs can you not be expected to on some level agree with those beliefs?

This seems to be the equivalent of saying every American is responsible for the invasion of Iraq [or whatever atrocity or bad policy you want to stick in here] no?

(I'm flying off the cuff here, so if there's a wild fallacy here let me know!)

[Ser Greguh]

I've seen people rail against Christianity but have nothing to say about Islam

I call bullshit. While it's true that not every atheist in the West will be sufficiently educated as to the abuses to Islam because Islam is not as prevalent as Christianity is in our culture, but I have known a lot of atheists and I've never met a one that wasn't every bit as incensed at the abuses and excesses of Islam in the exact same way that they are incensed at the abuses and excesses of Christianity.

The common Christian narrative is that the Christians are The Good Guys and that Islam is The Bad Guys. It seems to me that a lot of Christians have no real problem flipping that narrative around - they understand that a Muslim might see Islam as The Good Guys and Christians as The Bad Guys - but have more difficulty cogitating a viewpoint that doesn't express the conflict as a simple duality. So when atheists rail against the abuses of Christianity, many Christians automatically leap to the conclusion that we're simply flipping the narrative.

So let me put it succinctly. Christianity and Islam both, as institutions, suck.

[Castel]

Never mind, I need to get my thoughts in order,

[TerraPrime]

By the time of Darwin, he too was comfortable rejecting organized religion but believing in a creator.

Sort of.

He had pretty much lost his faith when his daughter died. It's only through his desire to not hurt his wife's feeling that he continued to believe in God, because it distressed her so to think that they would not be together in the afterlife if he were to become an atheist.

[gryphon strike]

I agree entirely that there is a separation between Church and State in Western countries. Which is why Catholics in those countries are able to ignore those parts of the Catholic doctrine that they don't agree with and to do so en-masse. However describing them as "mainstream" when the Pope and those around him disagree with them feels a little stretched, given the hierarchical nature of Catholicism. Especially as things are significantly different for Catholics in some other parts of the world (Africa, South America).

I agree that one is more inclined to object to something one has personal experience of, especially personal experience of what they feel to be negative aspects of it.

Personally though I have been exposed to enough Islamic cultures to be quite happy to condemn what seems to me to be the horrific amount of sexism that appears to be frequently bound up with that religion.

To some extent I agree with you re the Pope but your making a massive mistake in re to Islam. The teachings of Mohammed were actual extremely liberal towards women. There is one line that is used to justify the cultural oppression of women in Islam " a woman must be modest before God" so once again it would seem to be a case of the blind trying to lead the blind. Is it willful ignorance though? By which I mean you have people in Christianity and Islam who would rather hate something than understand it?

I picked those two because they seem to be the main ones, it could include any religion including my own. People love to blame others, heck is there a single person on this board who has never blamed someone else for their stuff up?

What we are seeing here is more a blame a religion rather than accepting that it is individuals within those religions who have stuffed it up. Hard to do I know when your land is invaded by many thousands of religious fanatics intent on forcefully converting you.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Those passages in Timothy and Corinthians are the precise basis for the prohibition against women priests in the Catholic Church. 24% of all Christians in the United States are Roman Catholics. 26.3% are Evangelicals. Evangelicals might not say that women are lesser, but the majority would say that the role of women and the men in church is different, and that the role of women does not include leadership and/or many teaching positions. This is also based on those same passages.

I can't help it if the majority of Christians in the United States believe certain things about the role of women primarily because of those two verses.

I doubt that the majority of Christians do believe that though. Rather, it's a case of the sort of electoral college vs. popular vote only with Christian institutions and denominations. There are a number of various conservative and evangelicals who probably would not bat an eyelid if there was a female pastor/preacher. Take for example, Roman Catholicism. Due to the hierarchical composition of the church, the ecclesiastical decision-making is concentrated in the hands of the minority, who have a vested interest in maintaining tradition for the sake of tradition and because it threatens their own ecclesiastical power. But how many of those 24 percent are ordained male priests or regular lay people who would speak against female ordination of priests?

ETA: The mainstream Catholic divergence from its leadership is puzzling to me. I mean, the Pope says women cannot be priests. The whole reason you are Catholic concerns your beliefs about the received wisdom of the Pope. At least, this is why everyone else isn't Catholic. If you think the Pope is wrong, how can you have any faith in Catholicism??? I'll never understand it. And it's too bad - if Catholics actually tried to make Catholicism align in its teachings to a religion any of you actually believe in, you might have something there.

I'm not Catholic, but it's like being a part of a family with which you do not agree while following what the family patriarch says. Or it's like living in a country with whose leadership and direction you do not agree, but you hold out for hope that it will change or work towards that change.

[TerraPrime]

I'm not Catholic, but it's like being a part of a family with which you do not agree while following what the family patriarch says. Or it's like living in a country with whose leadership and direction you do not agree, but you hold out for hope that it will change or work towards that change.

I get that.

But, let's be honest - at some point, the "holding out for hope" just becomes indistinguishable from Stockholm syndrom, considering, for instance, the RCC's stance on contraception and abortion, on top of the no ordination-for-women thing.

Still, stranger thing than a female Catholic has happened. Like a gay Catholic or a black Republican.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I get that.

But, let's be honest - at some point, the "holding out for hope" just becomes indistinguishable from Stockholm syndrom, considering, for instance, the RCC's stance on contraception and abortion, on top of the no ordination-for-women thing.

Still, stranger thing than a female Catholic has happened. Like a gay Catholic or a black Republican.

I know many a Catholic who disagrees with those RCC stances. (I was actually utterly surprised when I met my first Catholic who supported these policies. He was a Dominican monk novitiate.) So, yes, let's be honest here. It is incredibly condescending to chalk it up as these people just suffering Stockholm syndrome.

[Sci-2]

Still, stranger thing than a female Catholic has have happened. Like a gay Catholic or a black Republican.

You know the

? They weren't being serious. ;-P

Anywho, I think what's interesting is the most painful stories turn on rejection due to spurious reasons by those who we feel should know better. The idea is that love should offer revelation, as in:

"You, who know me, should see that your judgement is false. Your love/respect for me should be the proof you need to refute the premises you use to reject and/or dehumanize me. Instead you've chosen the safety of your erroneous beliefs."

I feel the same way about people who think I am damned simply for believing differently than they do.

It seems this [is] at least a silver sliver of common ground on which some theists and atheists can rest?

[sologdin]

So if a white dude grows up in India, its okay for him to say he's sick of all the Hindu/Muslim stuff around him?

refer him to the morning sickness thread.

[YellowDogJen]

I haven't read this entire thread, nor the preceding one, but I would like to get this off my chest.

I'm an atheist. I used to self-identify as an agnostic, but decided to get off the fence several years ago - I just can't see any sense in religion, and I do see a lot of harm. Nevertheless, I usually just keep my mouth shut about it, because I know my views are offensive to most people and why bother?

But what really fries my egg is that people at work (well, some Christians - I've never had anyone of another religion do this, but then again, Christians are the religious type I'm around most) will start blabbing to me about God and Jesus and asking for prayers and so on and so forth. It doesn't even occur to them that I might not share their belief system. Or else they don't care.

Anyway, it's rude. I am somewhat resolved to shut them down in the future because I am sick of it.

[sologdin]

Anyway, it's rude. I am somewhat resolved to shut them down in the future because I am sick of it.

i'm referring all persons who claim illness of any sort to the morning sickness thread now.

[TerraPrime]

I know many a Catholic who disagrees with those RCC stances. (I was actually utterly surprised when I met my first Catholic who supported these policies. He was a Dominican monk novitiate.) So, yes, let's be honest here. It is incredibly condescending to chalk it up as these people just suffering Stockholm syndrome.

I too, know many Catholics who disagree with the official Church doctrine on abortion and contraception. That is not in dispute. The merit of their disagreement, however, is questionable, given that the RCC is rather top-down, as an organization, and far as I can see, highly unlikely to shift in positions on these issues in the next 20 to 50 years, at least, if ever.

I understand that a lot of Catholics in the western world recognize the sexism, but simply choose to place the benefits of their faith above the negative consequences of that sexism. I have a friend who's very liberal and feminist, in every way, except that she still goes to Mass every Sunday at her Catholic Church. We talked about this, briefly, and she basically told me that she ignores that part of the Church and accepts that it will always be sexist. I didn't push her on what other organizations is she willing to make that exception for, though I think that's a logical follow-up.

I honestly think that there's a legitimate line of critique for people who profess they support gender equality and who also continue to support an organization that goes against that both explicitly and practically. That's be similar to me saying that I support equality for LBGT people and then continuously vote for the GOP, or for something to say that they support ethical treatment of farm animals and then eat at McDonald's.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I too, know many Catholics who disagree with the official Church doctrine on abortion and contraception. That is not in dispute. The merit of their disagreement, however, is questionable, given that the RCC is rather top-down, as an organization, and far as I can see, highly unlikely to shift in positions on these issues in the next 20 to 50 years, at least, if ever.

I understand that a lot of Catholics in the western world recognize the sexism, but simply choose to place the benefits of their faith above the negative consequences of that sexism. I have a friend who's very liberal and feminist, in every way, except that she still goes to Mass every Sunday at her Catholic Church. We talked about this, briefly, and she basically told me that she ignores that part of the Church and accepts that it will always be sexist. I didn't push her on what other organizations is she willing to make that exception for, though I think that's a logical follow-up.

I honestly think that there's a legitimate line of critique for people who profess they support gender equality and who also continue to support an organization that goes against that both explicitly and practically. That's be similar to me saying that I support equality for LBGT people and then continuously vote for the GOP, or for something to say that they support ethical treatment of farm animals and then eat at McDonald's.

If you believe that the RCC is the "One True Church" then I suppose you have little choice in the matter. Salvation is at stake. Also, the reality is that people are illogical beings who - while they may act in their own self-interest - make choices that ultimately stem from emotional connections they have with these institutions, whether through their family or some religious experience. The RCC is a top-down organization, but if they make enough change at the grassroots level, then they may have an affect on those fellow Catholics who join the priesthood and rise to the upper echelons. The change may not happen in their lifetime, but I can see their obligation to make that change. While not Catholicism, we have seen on this very board how Ormond has helped contribute to a change in the policy of LGBT ordination in the Presbyterian Church USA. I knew it would happen within the next 20 years (make or break the denomination), but I did not expect it to be as soon as it was. And I am certainly glad that the change happened as I personally knew a fair share of LGBT students in seminary who were on the M.Div. and ordination track even prior to this change, and while I am not a believer, I definitely saw that these individuals had gifts in ministry. I also saw many people against LGBT ordination radically change their stances after going through seminary with these students.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Matrim

And I respect people who have the fortitude to work from within the ranks to effect changes.

However.

That does mean that someone has to be actively agitating for change, and not just merely a member, right? If someone is just a member, and go to Mass and participate in other church-related functions, without taking a stance or contributing in effort to groups that seek to change the RCC, then I don't think that falls into what you're describing. In fact, that'd seem that one is passively enabling the Church in areas that one disagrees with. Any idea on how many Catholics support Dignity? Is there a group amongst the Catholics that actively work on sexism issues?

Second, what is the likelihood of the RCC changing on some of these issues? My impression is that there really are no official channels to effect these changes, unlike the Presbyterians. You would probably need to hope for enough of their members demanding it consistently so that the rule-making level bishops etc. cannot afford to ignore it any more. Given how many recruits they got from South America and Africa who do adhere to these rules, I'm not sure that the pressure from Catholics in Europe/U.S. will be enough?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

Aren't you arguing the "no true Scotsman fallacy" in reverse? You can't claim to be a Catholic/Orthodox/Baptist/Presbytarian unless you agree with church dogma in its entirety?

[TerraPrime]

TP,

Aren't you arguing the "no true Scotsman fallacy" in reverse? You can't claim to be a Catholic/Orthodox/Baptist/Presbytarian unless you agree with church dogma in its entirety?

I don't think that's what I am arguing, actually. If someone says they're Catholic, then they are, regardless of how much, or how little, they follow the overall guidelines/rules. However, I do have an opinion on how good a Catholic* someone is, based on how closely they adhere to those rules. My view is that if you're not following the basic rules, then why call yourself a Catholic at all? But hey, I'm an atheist, so what I think of someone else's effort in faith is rather irrelevant.

I also recognize that we don't choose to participate in an organization only when we agree with their goals 100% of the time. For instance, I identify as a Democrat, even though I disagree with several of their stances. At some point, if the parts where I disagree with is numerous enough, or serious enough, I will cease to identify with them. The question that many of us atheists (and maybe even other Christians) have is that why don't more female Catholics part ways with the RCC, given the rather obvious, rampant, and unapologetic sexist views of the Church. Most people who support equal treatment for women at the workplaces wouldn't tolerate a company that hires over a million people worldwide implementing a policy that bars females from become CEOs, right? Those who support legal abortions wouldn't donate to groups that spend part of that donation money to not fight against legal abortions, but which advocates the removal of contraceptives for females, right? At least, that's what we'd expect. So when people do the unexpected, i.e., support legal abortion AND continue to support the RCC, then I think it's legitimate to ask them why, and how they can reconcile the two.

*I also think the same for other Christians. I think most Christians practice a form of selective faith so they can function in a pluralistic society while being a member of a very overtly monotheistic religion that actively denounces other religions as false.