I want to say a few words about Barbara's "Liberal Jesus" post below. I knew when I asked Barbara to post here (and, for that matter, Hume's Ghost, too) that they would post on topics not normally covered here and would express views which are not universally held by the readers here. I didn't ask them to post here despite that fact, but because of it.
As I said at the time, all three of the guest posters only post arguments that they have thought through carefully and which do not come from some reflexive, predictable partisan script. I think that's a virture. I didn't choose who I would ask to post here randomly, but based on the quality and diversity of their arguments. The price might be that readers here end up reading arguments they don't agree with, but I'm pretty confident that most people can handle that.
Without agreeing with all of its assertions, I thought Barabra's post was excellent and highly relevant. Howard Dean often makes the point that Democrats make a huge mistake by ignoring cultural phenomena with which they might be uncomfortable, and religion -- which plays as big of a role in electoral politics as any other factor -- is at the top of that list. I think open discussions of those issues can only yield benefits, and Barbara's post provoked some interesting responses and received some substantial attention precisely because of that.
Having said that, while it's true that there were a few hostile reactions to Barbara's post in comments (I suspect most of the anonymous objections came from the same person), I thought that the discussion which followed was largely as interesting and high-minded as Barbara's post itself, rendering quite premature her declaration that the commenters at her blog are much smarter than those here. That's a claim that she will hopefully reconsider as she posts here more, and I hope she does.
Finally, I've seen some claims that comments in that thread were deleted. The only comments deleted were ones from the authors themselves. I don't think Barbara has the capability to delete comments here, and if she does, she didn't do so. When the author of a comment deletes a comment, it bears the notation: "Deleted by author." If Barbara (or I) deleted a comment, it would say "Deleted by Administrator." None say that. I suspect this accusation that comments were deleted comes from the same disgruntled anonymous commenter. Either way, it is false.
"I thought that the discussion which followed was largely as interesting and high-minded as Barbara's post itself, rendering quite premature her declaration that the commenters at her blog are much smarter than those here. That's a claim that she will hopefully reconsider as she posts here more, and I hope she does."
ReplyDeleteWell, that and her implication that distaste for religion is unreasoned, and probably caused by ignorance about religion or by having been damaged by it. (Both of the latter are very common misperceptions the religious hold about atheists.)
Overall, though, the discussion was good, and neither the named nor the anonymous disruptives were any worse than usual.
I am always happy to see posts that take religion seriously -- for or against. It's the silly kneejerk defenses of or attacks on same that are a waste of time. But those can easily be ignored.
ReplyDelete"her implication that distaste for religion is unreasoned, and probably caused by ignorance about religion or by having been damaged by it."
ReplyDeleteJust wondering - since when is distaste for something which has damaged you "unreasoned"?
I suppose it could be a knee-jerk "fire hot! don't touch!" reflex, but it could also be a well-thought out decision that the damage isn't worth the gain. Especially if the gain was judged illusionary...
(Hey! First time: a pronounceable verification word, ustsyr.)
Well, that and her implication that distaste for religion is unreasoned, and probably caused by ignorance about religion or by having been damaged by it.
ReplyDeleteI make a distinction between "distate" or "disinterest" and outright hostility. I recognize that the whole topic of religion leaves a lot of people cold. I recognize that a great many people feel no compulsion to make religion part of their own lives. I understand and respect this. As I said in the first paragraph, I am not here to convert anyone.
My argument is that one doesn't have to be hostile to religion per se any more than I have to be hostile to tennis and tennis players because I don't play tennis. If it doesn't interest you, just leave it be.
There's a letter to the editor from a liberal Christian in the June 12 issue of The Nation --
"That I am an evangelical Christian is the great conversation stopper of my life, which need not be so. I don't mind the protests, condescending though they often are, from 'atheists,' 'secularists,' etc., who in fact I count among my friends."
I don't think this guy is imagining these reactions. I've seen it happen. There IS a knee-jerk assumption among SOME liberals that anyone who is "religious" must by definition be brainwashed or not "real" liberals. That was the point of the Seidman article I quoted. Several of the comments on the blog also reflect this assumption. (Yes, it can be like that, but it isn't ALL like that.)
And there is the occasional individual (also represented on this blog) who screams SHUT UP as soon as he hears the word "religion." He doesn't even want there to be discussion, never mind a discussion no one's twisting his arm to participate in.
Another common reaction I've had to religion posts on my own blog are from commenters who leave vicious verbal attacks on all religions and religious people -- and the attacks often have nothing to do with what I actually wrote -- but then deny that they or angry or have any "issues" about religion. I call this Zell Miller Syndrome.
Outright hostility to anything comes from fear or conditioning (usually from bad experience). This IS unreasoned.
Religion pushes buttons. No question about that. All I'm saying is, look to your buttons.
You might feel differently if tennis players were trying to force you to play tennis. Or forbid you to get married if you didn't play tennis. Or take away other rights if you didn't wear tennis whites, or a little skirt, or played with a pink tennis ball.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'. It's hard, very very hard, to separate hostility towards the religious and towards the religion...
Well, for Christians to demand that others "accept" their religion after all the wars, deaths, warped and damaged lives, abused children, etc., just because it makes them feel better about themselves is a bit rich.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't have the strength to politely disagree with someone who laughs at you for believing in magic and imaginary beings, you shouldn't be publicly defending your faith.
There realy is no defense for religion other than "because I think so." It doesn't give you a "get out of logic free" card. I accept the religious beliefs of people who admit that there is no evidence for their faith, but they believe anyway.
Barbara -
ReplyDeleteWith all the evil being done in the name of religion in the world, why shouldn't people of faith have to defend themselves?
Just because you personally are avoiding the dark side of the force, doesn't mean it isn't there. In fact, all the good people doing good in God's name allow a lot of ugliness and abuse to hide from the public eye.
The fact that WalMart helps poor families afford food and clothes, doesn't negate the fact that they are destroying small manufacturers across the country, not providing health care, and locking employees in for unpaid overtime.
You might feel differently if tennis players were trying to force you to play tennis. Or forbid you to get married if you didn't play tennis. Or take away other rights if you didn't wear tennis whites, or a little skirt, or played with a pink tennis ball.
ReplyDeleteI understand that. I grew up in the Bible Belt in the 1950s. Worse, I family was "old" church (aka, "sprinkled") as opposed to born-again ("dunked"). By the time I was 8 I'd been told I was going to hell more than most people are damned in their whole lives.
As an adult, after I chose to leave Christianity I went through a period of being hostile to Christianity. Eventually, I got over this. I have no interest in returning to Christianity, but I no longer feel any anger toward it. From this I took two lessons: (1) "live and let live" goes both ways, and (2) you don't have to let old wounds hurt you for the rest of your life.
There's an old country saying that once a cat has jumped on a hot stove he won't jump on a hot stove again, but neither will he jump on a cold stove. Make of that what you will.
With all the evil being done in the name of religion in the world, why shouldn't people of faith have to defend themselves?
ReplyDeleteThat's the same thing as saying "With all the evil being done in the world by white men, why shouldn't all white men have to defend themselves?
"Outright hostility to anything comes from fear or conditioning (usually from bad experience). This IS unreasoned."
ReplyDeleteSorry, no. Many people are quite hostile to Bushco, for example. Come to think of it, though, you could argue that's because of fear and conditioning/bad experience.
Since talking to Americans more on political issues, I've come to see religion in America specifically as quite a big problem.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is a big problem. There's a strong cultural current in the US that mixes a tribalist religiosity with rightwing politics, jingoism, and usually racial bigotry, into one nasty quasi-fascist soup. This isn't new; it's waxed and waned through most of US history. Unfortunately, the alliance between right-wing religion and the Republican Party, combined with mass media, have made this faction stronger and more widespread in recent years.
As I wrote in my original post, "And at the moment Muslim and Christian fundamentalists have gone way beyond the nuisance stage and present a genuine threat to civilization on this planet." Perhaps you missed that part.
There are other religious people fighting on our side; Bill Moyers comes to mind. From time to time he has remarked how saddened he is by the way his church-of-origin, the Southern Baptist Convention, has been taken over by the forces of darkness. Moyers became the voice of Christian liberalism crying in the wildneress, so to speak.
For years some of us have asked, "Where are the other Christian moderates and liberals? Why aren't they speaking out, too?" Because we know they exist; we've met them. Recently there has been (at last) a real, organized effort on the part of progressive Christians to speak out and proclaim that Jerry Falwell's brand of Christianity is not the only one in the religion store. I think liberals, secular and not, should welcome this.
My argument is that one doesn't have to be hostile to religion per se any more than I have to be hostile to tennis and tennis players because I don't play tennis. If it doesn't interest you, just leave it be.
ReplyDeleteThis is an awful analogy. Tennis and tennis players (with the possible exception of McEnroe) have not caused all the pain and suffering of people using religion as a weapon. To be fair, both have hucksters masquerading as pros to pick your pocket.
Whats wrong with talking about Religion?
ReplyDelete"He brandishes his horns on high, and whets them.
Bull who leads the herd; Doing with might heroic deeds.
He moves, a vigorous Steed, adorned with beauteous rays of shining gold,
Becoming Sovran of the streams.
Men beautify him in the vats,
him worthy to be beautified,
him who brings forth abundant food.
Him, even him, the fingers ten and seven songs make beautiful
Well weaponed, best of gladdeners"
- Rig-Veda Book 9, HYMN XV. to Soma-Pavamana.
No it's not. Religion is a faith-based system of beliefs that can be, and often is, recruited to justify immoral acts. But you can stop believing in a religion.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote in the "Liberal Jesus" post, in fact, not all religions in the world are about accepting a belief system, and some do not even concern themselves with believing in a god. The variety of religious experience on this planet is much broader than the narrow-minded, dogmatic brands that dominate American religion.
Further, a great many deeply religious people even in the U.S. are as appalled as secularists at "all the evil being done in the name of religion in the world." They could have been speaking out against it more, of course. There's a very short list of liberal Christians -- Bill Moyers, John Shelby Spong, probably two or three others -- who openly oppose the regressive elements in American religion, but too many have been keeping their heads down in recent years. They may be intimidated. I don't blame them.
But I find your implication that all religious people must take the blame for whatever bad things are done because of other peoples' religions objectionable.
The first problem with Barbara's post is that its premise is flawed. Religion, of whatever stripe, is not in any danger whatsoever from the pitifully small minority of secular-humanists among us, no matter how "hostile" they may be.
ReplyDeleteThe second problem is that many religious people, Barbara among them (though it remains unclear, even at this late date, exactly what her religion consists of), tend to equate any dismissal of religion as "magical thinking," with outright hostility towards people of faith.
Just as Christians can juxtapose hatred of the sin with love for the sinner, we atheists are perfectly capable of disparaging religion while at the same time loving our Christian neighbor. Let's face it, we'd be pretty lonely if we didn't.
Why in fact do you agree to call them christians?
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent argument, and I think you make very valid points. However, as a Buddhist, I don't think it's my place to make judgments about who's a real Christian and who isn't. I would prefer that Christians do that.
As one of my friends said "Everyone is a Hindu - they just dont know it yet".
ReplyDeleteHinduism has NO dogma, NO single holy book, NO "law", NO rules that "must" be followed to call oneself a "Hindu" - NO requirements whatsoever.
eya gang!
ReplyDeletelistening to Glen's interview on Air America Radio Angie Coiro's "Mother Jones Radio" program.
WTG glen! was a good interview.
Apologies for the iterations of the passage on which I based my comment.
ReplyDeleteHindus have NEVER engaged in the "worship my god or die" type behavior that characterises the Revealed Religions. If they had they would all be dead by now - there are litterally thousands of sects that differ from each other in practice quite a bit.
ReplyDeleteGreat point, anonymous! And I do believe that has been Barbara's point all along! She is a follower of Buddhist teachings and a major part of the Buddhist tradition is tolerance for other beliefs. Many of the comments from those who feel such hostility toward Christianity, or of any spiritual beliefs at all, come across as intolerant. That, I believe was the major point she was making. It really seemed quite simple to me.
We have to start somewhere and as always it starts with each us individually.
Leaving aside the button pushing dimension that religious discussion inevitably entails, I'm rather surprised that the purely political ramifications of Barbara's post is so largely being ignored.
ReplyDeleteThe current Republican Party consists of a fragile alliance between its corporatist constituency, which provides the money, and the religious right, which provides the votes. Some 40% of the American people consider themselves evangelical Christians. But even that number vastly understates their potential voting influence when you eliminate from the total voting population the 50% or so that doesn't bother to vote.
As a purely strategic matter, applying pressure sufficient to break the connective tissue between these two factions should be a primary goal of those who want to return the US government back to the people. Naturally, this entails a studied understanding of how the opposition thinks and why. Conceding the religious high ground (and rhetoric) to faux Christians (who don't even seem to understand their own religious principles) is just plain stupid from a strategic and tactical POV.
A significant minority of evangelicals believe we are in "the end times" and see George Bush as their divinely appointed tour guide to the rapture. Concerns about the loss of Constitutional rights at home, or the immorality of invading other countries to facilitate the arrival of Armageddon (not to mention the war profiteering by the Cheney led corporatist wing) are purely secondary in their minds.
And while I don't expect to 'unconvert' large numbers of them from their selfish views by pointing out the inconsistencies between their religion and their politics, it's at least worth trying to reach the moderates and particularly the youth among them.
Propagandee
The second problem is that many religious people, Barbara among them (though it remains unclear, even at this late date, exactly what her religion consists of),
ReplyDeleteMahayana Buddhism. I did most of my formal study of Buddhism in the Zen tradition, with a roshi from the Harada lineage, which combines Japanese Soto and Rinzai methods.
I was raised Lutheran, and although I left Christianity more than 30 years ago I maintain an interest in Christian history and development and what's going on in various denominations.
I am also fond of the literature and sacred texts of other religions, e.g., Sufi poetry, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Tao Teh Ching. Not everybody's cup of tea, I realize.
I hope that's specific enough for you. I didn't write much about my own religious practice (I don't call it "faith" because I'm not into "believing" stuff) because I am not interested in trying to convert anybody. Your religion, or lack thereof, is entirely your own business.
tend to equate any dismissal of religion as "magical thinking," with outright hostility towards people of faith.
I think that dismissing ALL religion as "magical thinking" is a slander, but I admit that most of it does involve magical thinking at least part of the time.
Just as Christians can juxtapose hatred of the sin with love for the sinner, we atheists are perfectly capable of disparaging religion while at the same time loving our Christian neighbor. Let's face it, we'd be pretty lonely if we didn't.
I object to "disparaging religion" wholesale and submit that perhaps you don't know as much about religion as you think you do. However, if you want to get specific about what a particular religious person or group is doing that you think is wrong, I have no objection at all to that.
Byron...so-called liberals
ReplyDeleteWhat, in your opinion, is a "so-called liberal"?
As a regular reader here and an occasional poster..I was sad to see the way some of Glenns readers re- acted to Barbara's post yesterday.
ReplyDelete"Glenn will hear about this bullshit"?That comment sounded like a 4 year old threatening to tattle...
I am also a regular reader of Barbara's blog, and I told her when I learned she would be guest blogging here that you folks were a smart group of people who could carry on an adult conversation whether you agreed or not with the topic.. MOST of you proved me right... Some of you made total asses of yourselves, which is a shame because it showed Glenn and HIS blog no respect what-so -ever.
If Glenn ever posts on the Maha blog , you can be assured that he will be treated as any GUEST should be..whether the readers agree with a post or not, he would be shown respect.
It seems to me if we can't have a conversation between our own without turning on each other we are no better then the right.The idea we must all fall into lock step with the same thought, the same post is disturbing.
I thought one of the best qualities of the left was that all views were on the table...but yesterday I saw a group of people turn on a writer for not writing what they expected, or what they wanted to hear. How is that any different from what the right is doing?
The left must never become a party where it's members are only allowed to say certain things....it must remain the party of open minds... let the GOP keep the closed minded folks.Don't become the very petty thing we so dislike about the GOP....
"I'm sure she's right. If she's arguing, however, that some religions have *no* dogma* I respond by saying exceptional claims require exceptional proof."
ReplyDeleteIts only exceptional to people who known nothing other than the Revealed Religions and think their behavior applies to all religions.
It is the Revealed Religions, Like Islam and Christianity, that are the exceptional cases.
"Virtually all religion is by definition tribal. There is always a "catechism" and always a "dogma" because all religion is a belief system. If you don't believe, you aren't a practitioner of that faith."
ReplyDeleteThere are plent without "dogma" - you obviously just cant be bothered to actually inform yourself.
It astounds me that atheists, who have finally gotten a voice in this country, largely through the blogosphere and the Web, are now being told to to shove off and leave the religious alone.
ReplyDeleteI believe the hostility of atheists to religion is a positive. People can learn from it. I admire clear-eyed judgment and unwillingness to compromise that atheists display. I want more of this, not less. Honest, open debate, no matter however strident it gets, should never be discouraged.
Conceding the religious high ground (and rhetoric) to faux Christians (who don't even seem to understand their own religious principles) is just plain stupid from a strategic and tactical POV.
ReplyDeleteThat mirrors a point I was trying to make in the previous thread. In the world that the Religious Right inhabits the word "secular" is thrown around as if its synonymous with "satanic". They pass themselves off as a persecuted minority while they are quietly taking over the country one school board at a time.
If we can find allies among those who actually notice that what Jesus offered was forgiveness, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't value and develop that relationship.
I'd like to chip in as a liberal Christian.
ReplyDeleteI'm what I call a Baptopalian: I was brough up Low Church Episcopolian, and married a liberal Baptist; now we go to a liberal Baptist church.
We take our faith seriously, and our beliefs lead us not to beat others over the head for their failings, but rather to egg us on to be better people. We do our best, but Lord knows, we could always be doing better.
Even though we are not flawless, we do have a great deal of contempt and disgust for some others in our society: the conservatives who want to use Christianity as an excuse to push social Darwinism, greeed, bigotry and hatred. Bush is a good example of this, as are most big name Republican politicians, preachers and pundits.
Somebody asked why liberal Christians don't object to the fundamentalists use of the name "Christian". Well, we do. We don't consider these people to be Christians, as they seem to show now interest in even trying to follow the teachings that Jesus laid out.
And we consider ourselves evangelicals, too, if rather unorthodox ones. We don't try to convert anybody; rather, what we do is to try to show God's love by living our lives in a way that helps others. This is, I think, the only way to evangelize that's worth the name. Talk is cheap. But we have committed ourselves to helping bilingual schools in a small town in Honduras. This is my work; my wife's is working full time to support me while I do my work. We have taken on this work because we have been deeply blessed by God in our lives, and we feel the need to pass some of that blessing on to others. We do this because of our Christianity, not in spite of it, and because we are liberals, not in spite of it. In fact, it is our belief in God and our Christian faith that we are liberal. We believe that liberal thoughts and beliefs are Godly thoughts and beliefs.
In ending this, I just want to say that Barbara has a point: there is a hostility to religion among some liberals. I saw it in some of the reactions to what she wrote. I don't believe, and I don't think she believes, that atheists are any threat to believers. I know that isn't so. What bothers some liberal Christians (and I presume, liberal followers of other faiths, as well) is that there's no need to be hostile to liberal believers. We're really not the problem; we're really on the same side. We want the same things for our society: peace, justice, prosperity for all, freedom for everybody, and a secular political system. We really aren't trying to convert anybody, much less tyrranize those who don't believe what we do. At ther heart of my belief, is a little bit of humility: I can never really know if what I believe is right or not; I can only, well, believe. I could be wrong; I don't believe I am, but I know I'll never know, at least not in this life. So I don't feel any right to try to force anybody to think as I do. As I said, I think the way I try to live my life, the standards I try to uphold, are far more effective testimony to my belief than any words I could spout off.
But, as long as we're on the same side, I have to ask, what good does hostility to us liberal believers really do? It doesn't threaten us, it's true, but it leaves a bad taste in our mouths. We're human, too, after all, and sometimes liberal believers just get pissed off by the hostility that they say the hell with it and stop working to change things. We should be allies. We should be fighting the conservatives and fundamentalists, not each other. And in closing, I'll say that we don't want you to become Christians, or any other kind of believers. We all have to work these things out for ourselves, and we're not qualified to tell you what to think or believe, and we don't want to.
All we would like is that if you think religion is just so much bullshit (this is possible, as I think most serious and thoughtful believers would admit, as after all, as I have said, we don't know anything for sure), or if you think we're damned fools for believing what we believe (also possible), then, please, just keep it to yourself.
Barbara O'B:
ReplyDeleteWhy in fact do you agree to call them christians?
That's an excellent argument, and I think you make very valid points. However, as a Buddhist, I don't think it's my place to make judgments about who's a real Christian and who isn't. I would prefer that Christians do that.
That's as weak a cop-out as I've heard from any liberal Democrat. By your own account, you were raised as a Christian in a devoutly religious part of the Bible Belt. Adopting a Buddhist philosophy as an adult doesn't erase your cultural origins, it makes you an ex-Christian. As an ex-cult member, you should have plenty of insight on faux Christians.
No one expects you to personally wage a crusade against the evils done in the name of Christianity. However, you've chosen to come here and criticize others for harboring negative attitudes toward Christianity, and even described those attitudes as "bigotry". In my book, that characterizes you not as a Buddhist or a liberal, but a Christian apologist.
If so-called liberal Christians want to earn some respect, they should start by condemning the rampant bigotry of the official bastions of Christianity. Don't expect the rest of us to drink out of your flask before you wash out the poison. Show us how you're going to marginalize and excommunicate the bigots and fascists your creed has empowered, and maybe then we'll sit down and discuss the enlightened side of your spiritual heritage.
To anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI, at least, don't expect you to drink out of my flask.
And the problem here is that Christianity is not monolithic. There are countless flasks. I have no way to excommunicate anybody. Protestants don't do that. Also, the words "Christian", "Christianity", "Jesus", "Christ", "God", and others like them are not trademarks.
There's no way to stop hucksters, cheats and bigots like Falwell, Dobson and Robertson from perverting the words above; we on the other side can only object and call them out on it. Many of us do. We're just not the ones with the biggest voices, so sometimes, people don't know we're doing it.
davidbyron (and anyone else who missed it due to my apparently mind-bending subtlety): My comment about the Hindutvas not being REAL Hindus, was snark.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that the argument a poster made in defense of Hinduism, precisely parallels the argument made to excuse any religion that becomes embroiled in tribalism, jingoism, and that whole sorry lot. My larger point is that religion of any sort almost inevitably becomes embroiled that whole sorry lot because of the nature of religion and the nature of the psychic forces it marshalls.
I doubt it, but you may be correct that in the U.S., Christians don't argue that Falwell isn't Christian. However, there are plenty of people who make the argument that brands of Christianity such as Falwell's are heretical. Ms. O'Brien's original post comes very close to making that claim.
None of this is to say that the post didn't belong here. It seems to me that the big goal of this blog is to discuss ways of wresting America away from the various malignant forces trying to claim it. I'm a pragmatist, and I'm all for working with liberal Christians or anyone else who can help in the endeavor, even if it means making common cause with people "who may be just one bad hair day away from reviving the Inquisition."
If you lie down with dogs, the only way to ensure you don't get up with fleas is to act on the awareness that your bedmates are scratching for a reason.
To Angry & Powerless:
ReplyDeleteYou hit on a problem, which is that nastiness is almost never helpful because that's what the recipient zeros in on, whether it's Deborah Howell or Barbara here, because we're human, and we feel stung. And then where 2 people should be on the same side, now there's emnity.
Dr. Biobrain had a good piece on this lately:\http://biobrain.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_biobrain_archive.html
Scroll down to "In Defense of Civility".
Some of the link might have gotten cut off:
ReplyDeletehttp://biobrain.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_biobrain_archive.html
Damnation!
ReplyDeletehttp://biobrain.blogspot.com/
2006_05_01_biobrain_archive.html
If you want to read it, just copy the 2 lines one at a time, and paste them in above.
"It astounds me that atheists, who have finally gotten a voice in this country, largely through the blogosphere and the Web, are now being told to shove off and leave the religious alone."
ReplyDeleteHaving been an atheist myself, and a proud one at that, I understand where you're coming from, anonymous. However, I also always remembered this:
"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."
-- Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (1951)
I've since become more open to what I'll call "taking another look at the spiritual side of things" and I've also mellowed in my older and wiser years. The more I read and question, the more I realize I don't know. Dogma? It has no place in my life. Atheism? Sometimes that can be a dogma, too. "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true."
The important thing to remember when discussing ideas with our fellow human beings is to show one another respect. Tolerance and an open mind don't hurt either.
I wonder how she feels about our here-to-fore constitutionally mandated separation between church and state?
ReplyDeleteI passionately support the separation of church and state. I object to taxpayer-funded nativity displays at Christmastime, praying and teaching creationism in public school classrooms, and any public law or policy based on a religious belief, e.g., criminalizing abortion.
Her own religious feelings are, it seems to me, irrelevant. As far as her determined cries that she's not a Christian....well.....why does that matter one whit? The particularls don't make her more or less righteous.
I agree.
Virtually all religion is by definition tribal. There is always a "catechism" and always a "dogma" because all religion is a belief system.
No, it isn't. You are wrong. I have explained this several times. The monotheistic religions tend to be dogmatic (to be fair, Judaism is much less dogmatic than Christianity and Islam), but those are not the be-all and end-all of religion.
If you don't believe, you aren't a practitioner of that faith.
A primary teaching of Zen Buddhism and early Taoism is that all beliefs are crap. But it's important not to just accept that all beliefs are crap as a matter of faith. Rather, the student is encouraged to explore the mental phenomena of believing in order to intimately realize that all beliefs are, in fact, crap.
I am not making this up.
Barbara may protest that some religions are less dogmatic than others. I'm sure she's right. If she's arguing, however, that some religions have *no* dogma* I respond by saying exceptional claims require exceptional proof.
Again -- several schools of Buddhism (e.g., Zen, Dzogchen) actively discourage any kind of religious belief. Part of the training involves learning to let go of beliefs. There's a strong influence of Taoism in this, altough modern day Taoism has, I'm told, devolved into a dogmatic religion.
Other schools of Buddhism have replaced doctrine with the whatever-it-is-that-zennies-do, which would take a long time to explain and you probably don't care about it anyway. But even in most of those sects it's understood that what one believes isn't really that important. It's how you live your life that matters.
My understanding of Hindu is that it can be dogmatic or not dogmatic, depending on how you want to approach it. I might be mistaken in this, however.
Believe it or not, Islam has a mystical branch, called Sufism. I think most Muslims consider the Sufis to be heretics.
Finally, as I've said, Christianity can be approached through mysticism, but that's very unusual these days.
At some point, if one is to maintain belief, one is going to be confronted with conflicts between the secular, political world and the religious one.
This is not a problem for me, for reasons explained above. This is a struggle for some people, and they work it out in various ways. Frankly, how they do this is no concern of yours. There have been plenty of religious office holders who have managed not to, for example, support legislation based on their religious beliefs.
Whenever separation of church and state is violated, of course, then you certainly should object.
Unless this is merely an exercise in convenience, that conflict becomes a dangerous fault line.
It can, but it doesn't have to.
It doesn't require that an "earthquake" ensues, but it does require constant seismic surveillance. To the extent that any explicitly religious concepts sneak into political discourse is the extent of political and social risk of conflagration and/or oppression.
To the extent that any explicitly religious concepts sneak into political discourse, I suggest you make a note of it and not vote for the individual doing the discoursing. If you want to work for the campaign of the discourser's political opponent, by all means, go for it.
If one believes in the "ephemeral" and truly believes it beyond words, it has no place in political discussion.
I agree, especially because these things can't be talked about, anyway.
I hesitate to point this oput, but it also would seem to have no place on a political blog.
I agree with that also. My objective is not to convert anyone or promote religion. I'm just trying to promote tolerance for religious people who are not rightwing whackjobs out to turn America into a fundie theocracy.
That just seemed kind of juvenile.
ReplyDeleteI guess it kind of was, but I notice you ignored the title of the post.
And as the remark was meant as a tease for my regulars, I think anyone here taking offense at it is being pretty juvenile, also.
Altho I do not agree with her entirely, I do recommend Indian feminist and leftist Meera Nanda's response to her critics in the journal Social Epistemology(pdf). She therein discusses populist, dangerous religious trends among certain Xians in the U.S as well as vis-a-vis Hindus in her land of origin. (Nanda caused some controversy with her book
ReplyDeleteProphets Facing Backward: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India , hence her having critics to whom she responded.)
davidbyron --
ReplyDeleteI'm being criticized for being a "Christian apologist" in one comment while you accuse me of "attacking religion" because I said,
"People who believe THEIR (fill in blank -- religion, ideology, party, whatever) is always perfect are, by definition, whackjobs. Beware of all whackjobs."
IMO it's always a healthy habit of mind to not check your brain at the door and suspend all critical thinking activity, no matter what you're up to. To do otherwise is, by definition, whackjobiness. Screwy things can happen even in the best of institutions / political parties / social clubs / religions or what have you. Responsible priests and ministers will tell you the same thing.
I've been asking for respect and toleration of religious people, but that doesn't mean you have to respect and tolerate religious people who are trying to destroy the separation of church and state or take over your local school board so they can use the public schools to indoctrinate your children.
Barbara writes,
ReplyDelete"I object to "disparaging religion" wholesale and submit that perhaps you don't know as much about religion as you think you do. However, if you want to get specific about what a particular religious person or group is doing that you think is wrong, I have no objection at all to that."
I freely admit that I don't know as much about religion as you, having never been subjected to any kind of religious indoctrination whatsoever. Nor have I felt compelled to delve into theology, except insofar as it intersects with my academic interest in European history. Neither have I been compelled to delve into the finer points of astrology or phrenology. So what?
As to your latter point, I meant expressly to disparage religion, as opposed to people who are religious. As individuals, religious people do many things wrong, just as atheists do, and they should be judged by their actions. The rightness or wrongness of their concrete actions, however, does not prove the validity of their abstract belief system.
You chose not to address my point that it is atheists, not the religious among us, who are truly in danger of being marginalized and disenfranchised. I can't think of one national figure in politics or the media, with the possible exception of Bill Maher, who self-identifies as an agnostic, let alone an atheist.
When the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance were rightly deemed by the 9th Circuit to be unconstitutional, what was the reaction of the guardians of our "secular" government? Did even one of them hail the decision as upholding the rights of the non-religious or the non-theists? No, every single U.S. Senator made a great show of piety, gathering on the Capitol steps to recite the Pledge in its unconstitutional form, fairly shouting the words "under god."
So I ask again - whence your sense of aggrievement?
You chose not to address my point that it is atheists, not the religious among us, who are truly in danger of being marginalized and disenfranchised.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you are in danger of being marginalized; I think atheists have been marginalized all along. And I think that's a shame. This would be a politically healthier nation if atheists could be elected to public office. The Constitution says there's not supposed to be a religion test for public office, but in fact there is one, and it's been in place pretty much throughout U.S. history.
I'm sorry that I don't have any solutions for that. The best I can do is to promote tolerance and try to persuade people that when you elect a person you're hiring him to do a job, and his religious beliefs shouldn't be relevant. I don't expect that to catch on in my lifetime.
BTW, I haven't said the Pledge of Allegiance for a great many years because of the "under God" thing.
Anon [3:57]:
ReplyDeleteI just doesn't work that way, as bibbles has pointed out. Where my grandfather lives there are 4 churches all in a row on one street: The Church of God, the Church of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ, and the Assembly of God in Christ. I sure as hell don't know the difference. They might have split because someone didn't like the gravy at a potluck supper (sillier things have happened). For that matter, there are at least 2 English versions of the Lord's Prayer ("Forgive us our debts..." vs. "Forgive us our trespasses...") and that prayer comes directly from the Bible.
Then there's the megaphone issue. 700 Club is on every week, but the United Church of Christ's inclusive ad campaign ('No matter who you are... you're welcome here,") was rejected by every network as too controversial. Need I go on?
"So I ask again - whence your sense of aggrievement?"
ReplyDelete(My gosh, how long has Barbara been paring thrusts over here?)
If I can just interject my observation here, princemishkin...(I've read Prince Mishkin. Prince Mishkin is a friend of mine and you, princemishkin... Prastite. Nichevo. OT)
I do believe Barbara was asking for your respect and tolerance for all those who show the same toward you - religious or not. Many of those gentle souls are actually closer to your way of thinking than you seem willing to understand.
Why is this so complicated??
So I ask again - whence your sense of aggrievement?
ReplyDeleteI missed that -- the problem is that many of you are judging me on one essay without having noticed anyting else I've written and posted on the Internets in the past several years.
In fact, I have a real "thing" about mixing religion into politics and the way many religious factions try to use government (e.g., public schools) to promote their religious beliefs. I hate that, and I've been speaking out against it for years.
But it's rather hard to work all of my opinions about everything into one essay.
Oops. Reb meant "parrying." Prastite, apyat.
ReplyDeleteI see more hostility going towards atheists from "believers" than the other way 'round. That's just me.
ReplyDeleteI see more hostility going towards atheists from "believers" than the other way 'round. That's just me.
ReplyDeleteYes, the entire planet is composed of atheists and believers. There is no other designation possible. It's the same as all humans are Democrat or Republican or conservative or liberal.
Of course it's way too much to expect that any of you attacking Barbara or each other step back and recognize the third rate comedy show you're producing here.
The message is: why can't we get along, celebrate our differences, find the common ground that can unify us for some agreed upon positive purpose.
The response is: "THE HELL WITH YOU! My hatred and narcissistic need to cling to my own perceived persecution is way, WAY more important than any possible benefit that could be derived from ever accepting an olive branch from 'them.' Better that the whole planet explode in flames than I be deprived of my nanosecond of smug satisfaction at having one-upped someone who commits the unforgivable crime of holding a belief that's alien to my dogma."
If you ever wonder why we have such difficulty establishing communication and solving problems in the macrocosm, I suggest you consider the evidence of this microcosm.
That is to say, those "other" guys are the obvious cause of all the unrest you perceive...you can rest assured you have no responsibility for it in the least.
anonymous -
ReplyDeleteIt really depends upon who you're talking to. There are the religious blowhards who get all the attention; the smug, holier-than-thou but quieter ones; the humble, genuinely peace-loving ones who think that what you believe is perfectly fine with them as long as it doesn't hurt anyone; the passionate lifesavers (like the ones in the Congo right now- have you watched CNN lately?); the quiet agnostics who really don't know but they feel there is something they can't explain...
Does that help?
I thought Barbara's post was very very good. I am a Zen Buddhist and agreed strongly with her thinking. Religion is part of the overall discussion we need to be having as a nation, especially given the degree to which religion has been employed in the hijacking of our country. Like it or not, it is a piece of the puzzle progressives need to examine in depth. At the very least, people have to become better educated about how religion can be used by those who only wish to cement power. Religious passion is like electricity....it can be used in a multitude of ways.
ReplyDeleteI hope I'm not beating a dead horse when I ask if you believe in something?
ReplyDeleteI suppose, but I try very hard not to take any beliefs seriously.
The absence of belief also means, according to most definitions, the absence of religon.
The definitions are flawed.
Mysticism in and of itself doesn't preclude dogma (and dogma essentially means a central tenet. It's not something necessarily awful).
That's right. But there can be mysticism without dogma, and there sure is hell a lot of dogma without mysticism.
You've set up a definition that virtually renders your concept of a religious state irrelevant to anything we usually discuss. It's so different, so sui generis that I'm having difficulty how this might apply to a discussion of greater religious tolerance on the part of the left. I'm floundering trying to imagine how this in any way comports with what's going on here.
Ah. This is the beginning of wisdom.
What you wrote was interesting, Barbara, and well written. I'm just not sure I understand what your point in writing it was.
Well, my point, which I seem to have been pounding away at for a couple of days now, has two parts. The first part is that that religion, meaning all the religions of the world taken together, is such a vast and varied thing that it defies definition and any fixed view of what it is. I'm suggesting that people who insist that religion is THIS or religion is THAT have a narrow and rigid view that leaves out a lot of religion.
The second part is that many deeply religious people, even here in Pat Robertson's America, are no threat to liberalism or democracy and are capable of being open minded and tolerant toward people with different beliefs or no beliefs. I have met such people, including Christians, myself. I'm asking that the non-religious be tolerant, just as the religious should be tolerant of the non-religious. We don't have to be enemies.
In fact, I argue that religious liberals and atheists/secularists/humanists can be allies against the uglier, repressive, un-liberal forces of religion that infest our fair land these days.
As best as I can determine, you're claiming your way is better (I detect a certain smugness, but I'm willing to ascribe that to my own biases) because of its lack of "dogma" and "belief."
I try very hard not to judge any way superior to any other way, but I'm human. I admit I don't much care for "check your brain at the door and believe what we tell you" religions.
If what turns the engine is beyond words, we're in the region of belief, a faith in the ineffable.
If that's not dogma, what is?
The point of mysticism is direct and intimate experience of (fill in blank -- the divine, God, the ineffable, the Tao, the dharmakaya, Baal, the flying spaghetti monster, whatever) to enable a realization of the Whatever that is outside conceptual knowledge.
It's hard to even explain what this is, because most words are wrong -- goal, knowledge, even "enlightenment" are misleading.
You could argue that a belief that this mysticism thing actually works is a kind of dogma, of course, until it proves itself through experience.
Unfortunately, it has to be your own experience. It's not the sort of thing that can be "proved" by means of a Powerpoint presentation.
And if you want to tell me it's all bunk, that's OK. I'm not here to convert anybody.
That said, by way of demonstration only, I'm pasting in some precepts from the Vietnamese Zen Master Thich Naht Hanh to illustrate the Buddhist approach to dogma:
"Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.
"Do not think that the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice non-attachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout our entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness."
Strictly speaking, pasting those words here is a violation of the precepts, because I shouldn't be trying to prove my way is superior to any other way. I apologize for that and ask your forgiveness.
Well the fundamentalism that you attacked actually is what a lot of people think of when they hear the word "religion" isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI subscribe to Karen Armstrong's definition of fundamentalism, which is (sorta kinda) a rebellion against modernity that takes religion as a cover. All fundamentalism of all religions tend to end up being remarkably alike. See also this and this.
For a lot of people if there's no facts to believe then it just doesn't "count" as a religion at all. Perhaps it would be a "philosophy" an outlook.
Yes, that's a common opinion, with which I disagree.
it sounds like you'd be against any system that creates an assurance of fact. Mathematics for example.
Mathematics can be proved empirically, however. It's all about empirical proof. Religion is about things that cannot be proved empirically except through personal experience.
But you're assuming that critical thinking goes along with never thinking you have the facts perfectly right.
I'd say that part of critical thinking -- and scientific thought as well -- is always assuming that your current knowledge might be wrong or incomplete.
On the other hand, refusing to consider that your current knowledge could possibly be wrong or incomplete is fanaticism.
You are right that most people accept at least some beliefs because everyone around them believes these things. We're all conditioned from the moment we're born to view ourselves and others and life and existence, etc. a certain way. And most people sleepwalk through their lives without ever questioning their conditioning, and they aren't crazy; they are normal.
However, I think fanaticism is a step beyond that, and that most people can tell the difference.
Barbara O'B. said...
ReplyDelete"I missed that -- the problem is that many of you are judging me on one essay without having noticed anyting else I've written and posted on the Internets in the past several years."
You are a guest poster here that I am unfamiliar with having never been to your blog or even knowing that you had one until you mentioned it. For that reason I think it unreasonable to expect people here to judge you not only on what you have written here but elsewhere previously on the web.
Bibblesnæð said...
ReplyDelete"But, as long as we're on the same side, I have to ask, what good does hostility to us liberal believers really do? It doesn't threaten us, it's true, but it leaves a bad taste in our mouths. We're human, too, after all, and sometimes liberal believers just get pissed off by the hostility that they say the hell with it and stop working to change things. We should be allies. We should be fighting the conservatives and fundamentalists, not each other."
The fact is though that the conservative fundamentalists have the public voice and at least in my mind, that leaves it encumbent on you to differentiate yourself from them, not on me to try and determine which you are.
gris lobo:
ReplyDeleteThe fact is though that the conservative fundamentalists have the public voice and at least in my mind, that leaves it encumbent on you to differentiate yourself from them, not on me to try and determine which you are.
So when someone says let's work together to end the war or to try and preserve the Bill of Rights, that's not enough? They also need to provide documentation that their belief system is completely free of any fundamentalist dogma with which you disagree?
I repeat what I've said before in several different ways: For too many people, the goals they claim to want to advance take second place to confirming a "win" for their team and a stroke for their own ego.
It doesn't work. But you can always tell your grandkids in the gulag that you fought the good fight.
I've had this same reaction on other sites: that it's incumbent upon me to differentiate myself from fundamentalists.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't know how to differentiate myself from fundamentalists other than to say that we don't believe the same things.
Beyond that, I don't know what else I, or other liberal Christians, can do. I mean, I try to live my life a certain way that I think reflects well on me and what I believe, but that doesn't really do much here, because nobody knows the first thing about me. So all I can do is say that we aren't the same and ask you to believe me. If you don't, then I don't know what else I can do.
I guess I am not seeing how to distinguish mathematics or science from religious belief purely on those grounds.
ReplyDeleteYes, I guess you're not. Perhaps you should talk to a scientist about this. I've done my best.
The fact is though that the conservative fundamentalists have the public voice and at least in my mind, that leaves it encumbent on you to differentiate yourself from them, not on me to try and determine which you are.
ReplyDeleteUm, with respect, I believe my reaction to that would be that it's encumbent on you to kiss my ass.
What you're saying is "I'm prejudiced, and you have to prove to me that my prejudices against you are wrong." This is unreasonable.
I think it unreasonable to expect people here to judge you not only on what you have written here but elsewhere previously on the web.
ReplyDeleteI think that's unreasonable, too. But I also think it's unreasonable for people to assume what I think except through what I've said or written.
If I haven't said it, don't assume I think it. Deal?
RothBard said...
ReplyDelete"gris lobo:
The fact is though that the conservative fundamentalists have the public voice and at least in my mind, that leaves it encumbent on you to differentiate yourself from them, not on me to try and determine which you are.
So when someone says let's work together to end the war or to try and preserve the Bill of Rights, that's not enough? They also need to provide documentation that their belief system is completely free of any fundamentalist dogma with which you disagree?"
No not at all. It isn't me that is complaining that he is a Christian. It is him complaining about the way he is treated when he identifies himself as one. If he chooses to identify himself as a christian as a part of the discussion then yes, I believe that it is encumbent on him to also differentiate his Christianity from the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world. Not because they are Christian, but because of their philosophy that they should be able to regulate what I see and hear, that they want to regulate the choice that a woman has about her own body, etc. Which in fact puts them at fundamental odds with any notion that they want to preserve the Bill of Rights.
Bibblesnæð said...
ReplyDelete"I've had this same reaction on other sites: that it's incumbent upon me to differentiate myself from fundamentalists.
Well, I don't know how to differentiate myself from fundamentalists other than to say that we don't believe the same things.
Beyond that, I don't know what else I, or other liberal Christians, can do. I mean, I try to live my life a certain way that I think reflects well on me and what I believe, but that doesn't really do much here, because nobody knows the first thing about me. So all I can do is say that we aren't the same and ask you to believe me. If you don't, then I don't know what else I can do."
You have done that here,and that is all I am saying that you should do. It was you that was complaining about knee jerk reactions to you announcing that you are a Christian. My point being that the Christian fundamentalists are the ones with the public voice and the public voice is what people will identify unless you differentiate yourself.
Barbara O'B. said...
ReplyDeleteThe fact is though that the conservative fundamentalists have the public voice and at least in my mind, that leaves it encumbent on you to differentiate yourself from them, not on me to try and determine which you are.
"Um, with respect, I believe my reaction to that would be that it's encumbent on you to kiss my ass.
What you're saying is "I'm prejudiced, and you have to prove to me that my prejudices against you are wrong." This is unreasonable."
No I haven't said that you are prejudice or much of anything else about you including the fact that I haven't said you have to prove anything to me.
As a matter of fact my post wasn't addressed to you. You have stated that you are Budhist, have you changed and now have become a christian?
i must agree with gris lobo 9:25...
ReplyDeletenot only am i a newcomer to glenn's blog site (which is really quite a fantastic find!), i've never even heard of barbara o'b before now. my only experience with her is this particular religious piece.
healthy discussions on religion and beliefs are all fine and good, but this could go on all day.. all week.. all year.. all century...
..as if that's anything new...
sure, being courteous to the "guest" is always a nice thing, as glenn pointed out-- but that should also apply to the guest.
it's been my experience that people don't normally introduce themselves with lengthy religious declarations, no matter what the persuassion or flavor...
otherwise it just sounds like they have an agenda, or that they are, at the very least, not much interested in listening to anyone else's thoughts or opinions.
mr wolf:
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is encumbent on him to also differentiate his Christianity from the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world
ok, I can't stop myself from pointing out that the word is "incumbent."
If you're a self-described leftist, is it incumbent on you to differentiate your beliefs from those of Stalin? Or would you say that the fact that someone equates leftist ideas with a person as radical as Stalin is someone with whom you'll have a difficult time communicating?
In any case, Barbara above said it quite well:
"I'm prejudiced, and you have to prove to me that my prejudices against you are wrong."
Barbara O'B. said...
ReplyDeleteI think it unreasonable to expect people here to judge you not only on what you have written here but elsewhere previously on the web.
I think that's unreasonable, too. But I also think it's unreasonable for people to assume what I think except through what I've said or written.
If I haven't said it, don't assume I think it. Deal?
I haven't personally assumed anything. It was you complaining that others hadn't read what else you have written.
RothBard said...
ReplyDeletemr wolf:
I believe that it is encumbent on him to also differentiate his Christianity from the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world
ok, I can't stop myself from pointing out that the word is "incumbent."
That's fine, I'm not a perfect speller.
If you're a self-described leftist, is it incumbent on you to differentiate your beliefs from those of Stalin? Or would you say that the fact that someone equates leftist ideas with a person as radical as Stalin is someone with whom you'll have a difficult time communicating?
That is the point. I haven't described myself as anything. Nor do I feel the need to. People can judge me by what I post. It's not necessary for anyone to know how I describe myself. If I did so I might feel it necessary to make some comment about it or not.
For instance since I don't believe that most people equate Stalin with the left I wouldn't feel it necessary to differentiate myself from him if I had identified myself as a leftist which I haven't.
No I haven't said that you are prejudice or much of anything else about you
ReplyDeleteI didn't think you had. I was saying that YOU are admitting to being prejudiced. And I believe you are.
If not, prove it. :-)
It was you complaining that others hadn't read what else you have written.
ReplyDeleteYes. And the REASON I complained that others hadn't read what else I had written is that persons were accusing me of holding opinions and attitudes that I do not, in fact, hold.
So, I suggest, EITHER you look up what else I've written on a subject, OR don't make assumptions about what I think.
Does the point sink in now?
it's been my experience that people don't normally introduce themselves with lengthy religious declarations, no matter what the persuassion or flavor...
ReplyDeleteThe topic du jour is tolerance and intolerance regarding religion. If you can figure out how to write an essay about that without discussing religion, go for it.
Barbara O'B. said...
ReplyDelete"It was you complaining that others hadn't read what else you have written.
Yes. And the REASON I complained that others hadn't read what else I had written is that persons were accusing me of holding opinions and attitudes that I do not, in fact, hold.
So, I suggest, EITHER you look up what else I've written on a subject, OR don't make assumptions about what I think.
Does the point sink in now?"
As I said I haven't made any assumptions and actually that wasn't what you said when you complained.
Your words:
"I missed that -- the problem is that many of you are judging me on one essay without having noticed anyting else I've written and posted on the Internets in the past several years."
In that statement you are complaining that people are judging you on the one essay without having noticed other things you have written. You didn't appear at least in that argument to be complaining that anyone was making assumptions. Just that they were judging you on only the one essay.
Barbara writes:
ReplyDelete"In fact, I argue that religious liberals and atheists/secularists/humanists can be allies against the uglier, repressive, un-liberal forces of religion that infest our fair land these days."
I agree that we can, and should be allies against all of these malign forces. But how can I feel like a "liberal" like Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton really has my back when he or she won't even stand up for my rights as an atheist by supporting a duly adjudicated and constitutionally reasoned court decision?
Though I agree with my two Democratic senators from Washington on most issues, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't seek my public support if it were proffered under the aegis of a group devoted to the advancement of atheism in America.
So to the religious among you, show a little forebearance for those like me who must stifle their beliefs to avoid alienating friends and family, but instead choose to blow off a little (still quite respectful) steam in forums like this.
Barbara O'B. said...
ReplyDeleteNo I haven't said that you are prejudice or much of anything else about you
I didn't think you had. I was saying that YOU are admitting to being prejudiced. And I believe you are.
If not, prove it. :-)
I don't need to prove it. You are certainly free to view me in whatever way you wish. Far be it from me to try to tell you or anyone else how to think.
You didn't appear at least in that argument to be complaining that anyone was making assumptions. Just that they were judging you on only the one essay.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the difference between "judging" and "making assumptions"?
And exactly how petty do you have to be to continue this argument?
Well, I'm done with it. Go ahead and stew if that's what you're into.
Barbara O'B. said...
ReplyDeleteYou didn't appear at least in that argument to be complaining that anyone was making assumptions. Just that they were judging you on only the one essay.
What's the difference between "judging" and "making assumptions"?
There is a big difference. Judging is done based on known facts at the time. Assumptions are based what is not known.
Reb,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your paraphrase of Lloyd Bentsen. Obviously, I too have read "The Idiot," and I chose my handle in self-deprecating reference to the title, not to Mishkin the muddled but brilliant character created by Dostoevsky.
You also write:
"I do believe Barbara was asking for your respect and tolerance for all those who show the same toward you - religious or not. Many of those gentle souls are actually closer to your way of thinking than you seem willing to understand."
I understand quite well. I'm quite willing to make common cause with those working for "liberal" causes irrespective of their religion. (I really don't have much choice, do I. I meet so few atheists these days, even outside of fox-holes.)
Tolerance, however, is a two-way street, and my point is that in American society there is little or no tolerance for atheists. I can't claim to speak for all atheists, but I am certainly tolerant of most religious beliefs. I certainly don't respect all of them (why should I), but I respect the right of people to worship any old way they see fit.
Barbara O'B. said...
ReplyDeleteYou didn't appear at least in that argument to be complaining that anyone was making assumptions. Just that they were judging you on only the one essay.
What's the difference between "judging" and "making assumptions"?
A perfect example of an assumption:
"Well, I'm done with it. Go ahead and stew if that's what you're into."
You are assuming that I am stewing even though there are no facts to support the assumption.
It's really unbelievable that someone who opens her first post here by complaining about "the religion haters among us lefties" is now accusing others of being prejudiced. Maybe you should take a look at yourself before judging others.
ReplyDeleteRothBard said...
ReplyDeleteI see more hostility going towards atheists from "believers" than the other way 'round. That's just me.
Yes, the entire planet is composed of atheists and believers. There is no other designation possible. It's the same as all humans are Democrat or Republican or conservative or liberal.
Nice straw man. Please don't put words in my mouth. Pay more attention to the drivel that drools from yours.
And for your information, Rothbard, most atheists I know are actually agnostics, and only atheists by default. And the minute God gets here and reveals herself, they will be "believers" too. Idiot.
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo...
ReplyDeleteWith a name like Rothbard, (see Murray Rothbard), it's not likely he is a leftist. That could be his real name, I suppose.
Barbara,
We are all prejudiced. Some have good reason to be. You seem to be predjudiced against "whackos". Not all "whackos" are dangerous or even bad. Some might call you a "whacko" for your ideas. I hope most people call me on for mine. It let's me know i'm on the right track. We all discriminate, use our discretion and even pre-judge. If we didn't, we would all fall for
the same cons over and over again.
“I enjoyed your paraphrase of Lloyd Bentsen. Obviously, I too have read "The Idiot," and I chose my handle in self-deprecating reference to the title, not to Mishkin the muddled but brilliant character created by Dostoevsky.”
ReplyDeleteWell, now if you had called yourself “The Idiot” I would have had no quarrel with you! Just kidding! Just kidding! Sorry, too hard to pass that one up. I can understand why you chose Prince Mishkin instead – even though you really don’t seem to be like him, but then maybe you are. There might be an unacknowledged bit of Mishkin in all of us.
Anyway, you seem like a nice human being princemishkin. Being a hovering atheist myself I completely understand where you are coming from. It used to irk me no end to see how little room there was for those of us with this persuasion. Our town has an endearing atheist who goes into all the phone booths to check for Christian literature. He replaces them with his own booklets on atheism. He writes frequent pithy letters to the editor of our local paper. He stands on the main drag through town to engage the local “those who are swept away” religious folks who gather there each Saturday morning along with the peaceniks who have protested there since 1978. Now there’s a practicing atheist for you! (We live in an interesting town, by the way)
However, my fervent atheist period was from age 13 until my late 20’s. After that, I gradually slid into agnosticism with a little peak of wonderment when my children were born. Now in my fifties, I’m a foot in the door away from “wondering.” I can no longer subscribe to atheism as I just really don’t know what life is all about. It doesn’t come from fear. I’ve loved science and nature all my life and I guess Einstein’s views come closest to how I feel.
Also, as I get to know all sorts of kind and thoughtful folk, I realize that what matters to me most is that they are kind and somewhat open minded. I find that it’s amazing what a little honest, humble talk can do to open up the heart. Does it really matter what someone believes as long as they are caring human beings? My dad believes in UFO and Bigfoot, but he’s the dearest guy you could ever meet. That, I believe, is all Barbara was trying to say.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo...
With a name like Rothbard, (see Murray Rothbard), it's not likely he is a leftist. That could be his real name, I suppose.
Thanks. I wasn't familiar with the name so I didn't associate it with anything. And as you said, I suppose it could be his real name.
As stated, I am a devotee of reason and reject all forms of mysticism (and all organized religions) as dangerous to the extent they are faith based.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Barbara's post very much although there are many statements Barbara makes with which I disagree.
The play "Defiance" is a fascinating play with more intellectual "themes" runnning through it than in almost any recent play that comes to mind.
It touches upon the military, specificially the Marines, why men go to war, why men seek power, Viet-nam, religion, authority, racial conflicts, traditional marriage, an individual's responsibility to himself and others and especially the concept of "the law" and a "higher law."
In the play one character is a most fascinating Military Chaplain.
The Chaplain makes the case for the necessity of a "higher power" to guide an individual's choices.
Some call this "higher power" God, and some call it a conscience. Not everyone who believes in God has a conscience, and not everyone who has a conscience believes in God.
In the play a character who is at the top of his career commits an action which violates military law, is immoral in the playwright's view (some may argue the action is not immoral but that point is not really relevant to the play), threatens his career, his marriage, causes pain to others and puts is jeopardy everything he has worked for his entire life.
The best line in the play (and there are countless magnificent lines) is when another character, baffled, asks the Chaplain something to the effect of "Why would a man with such a high status and everything to lose do something so stupid and risk everything?"
The Chaplain responds (to the effect) "That's not the right question.
The real question is 'Why wouldn't he'?"
The implication is that unless one's actions are guided by a "higher power", which some would call religion and others, as I, would call a moral philosophy which distinguishes between good and evil, his actions are arbitrary, irrational and dictated solely by momentary considerations or a blind obedience to the "law", whether that law be moral or immoral.
Barbara's post touches upon some of these same issues.
I had read Seidman's article (which Barbara comments on) several days ago. Although I believed that it started out to be interesting, I quickly developed the disquieting notion that it was more than a bit ill-thought-out and off the wall. I only read Barbara's response today (I am an agnostic) and commend her.
ReplyDelete--raj
Me, I get upset at the unthinking rejection of necromancy, astrology and alchemy.
ReplyDeleteOne day this lump of lead is going to make me rich I tell you. Then you'll all see.
Fun stuff. I believe in life and entropy. I'm willing to suspend my belief in the latter if someone smart in the high energy physics field convinces me.
ReplyDeleteA scientist perspective: Beliefs aren't crap unless they're unsupported, rigid, and untestable. They might be wrong though.
That's the same thing as saying "With all the evil being done in the world by white men, why shouldn't all white men have to defend themselves?
ReplyDeleteWhether rightly or wrongly, we do. And I don't mean that in a knee-jerk, right-wing, Ditto-head way. The most recent iteration of feminist theory talks a lot about "white privelege" and "male privelege" and "hetero privelege". Whether you like the terminology or not, it does behoove us to consider the advantages that come to us from our roles in society. And out of that, should come a little more understanding of those who are at a disadvantage or have been disadvantaged by our predecessors who occupied the same roles. Sure, when I was greeted with suspicion while canvassing in my mostly black neighborhood, some of that came from a kind of prejudice. But then again it isn't entirely unjustified, either.
Atheists have been on the sharp end of the religio-political stick for centuries and are still excluded by popular prejudice from public office. Christians have never been subject to the death penalty for their beliefs in America, but in the early years atheists were. I doubt that we'll see those days again, but if the fascistic fundamentalists have their say, our position won't be very pretty - and it'll go beyond the present situation where the Christian stamp of approval is on our money and has been interpolated into the very pledge of allegiance to our country.
A strict secularism ensures not only our equality in the political sphere but ensures my right not to believe, your right to practice Buddhism, and each Christian's sect to believe as they see fit without the bigotry that comes from a political contest for the "holier-than-thou" award or the "my religion's bigger than your religion" vote.
I agree with the poster who said that we must separate "Christianity" from the Republican party as a practical matter of politics.
ReplyDeleteAs for Barbara's original post. A bit of an over-reaction. I thought her point was a simple one. Don't confuse the political exploitation of religion with spirituality.
Ironically, this is the major problem of large parts of American Christianity. These groups have conflated Darwinian capitalism, imperialism, fear of modernity, and race into their spirituality--and in doing so have pushed out the better parts of Christianity.
Also, it seems obvious to me but human cruelity exists with or without religion. Religion doesn't create cruelity; religion is used to defend cruelity.
Side note about Hinduism--let's remember that while there is much to admire about its theological openess, it is also based on a vicious caste system which Ghandi tried to reform.
As I wrote in the "Liberal Jesus" post, in fact, not all religions in the world are about accepting a belief system, and some do not even concern themselves with believing in a god. The variety of religious experience on this planet is much broader than the narrow-minded, dogmatic brands that dominate American religion.
ReplyDeleteAmerican religion is all about a tax exempt license to steal. As wise men from James Madison on down to Gore Vidal have suggested, tax exemption for churches and religious organizations is a very bad idea. Now that organized religion has become purely political, it should be taxed out of existence.
The trouble here is that there is much tossing about of the words "religion" and "Christian" without much precision or consistency in the usage of the words.
ReplyDeleteSome posts seem to equate "religion" with fundamentalist Christians trying to tear down the wall separating church from state in the US. Other posts reserve "Christian" for that group.
This is understandable; the highest profile religious grouping in the country right now are just those fundamentalist Christians. But it's not accurate, and not what Barbara wrote about.
There's an interesting essay in the most recent NY Review of books by Freeman Dyson. It discusses some of these issues in the context of Daniel Dennett's recent book that attempts to discover the evolutionary basis for the widespread, nay, universal human cultural belief in the supernatural.
He rebuts the religion causes evil argument in the following way:
He quotes with approval the famous remark of the physicist Stephen Weinberg: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion." Weinberg's statement is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth. To make it the whole truth, we must add an additional clause: "And for bad people to do good things—that takes religion."
[snip]
I see no way to draw up a balance sheet, to weigh the good done by religion against the evil and decide which is greater by some impartial process. My own prejudice, looking at religion from the inside, leads me to conclude that the good vastly outweighs the evil. In many places in the United States, with widening gaps between rich and poor, churches and synagogues are almost the only institutions that bind people together into communities. In church or in synagogue, people from different walks of life work together in youth groups or adult education groups, making music or teaching children, collecting money for charitable causes, and taking care of each other when sickness or disaster strikes. Without religion, the life of the country would be greatly impoverished.
A standard atheist argument is that we don't need someone telling us what moral behavior is. There is no need to threaten us with Hell to persuade us not to steal. This can be taken as condescending and snobbish, but in point of fact I do believe that there are many people who do benefit from having authority figures make moral rules for them. The alliance of those authority figures with the supernatural is what vests them with the power to rule on moral issues.
That is the central point of the Grand Inquisitor story plunked into the middle of the Brothers Karamazov.
The political burden faced by religious people who are not non-fundamentalist Christian is to reclaim their roles as community leaders. They need to stop the hijacking of their religion by people who plainly have not read the Gospels with any care.
kryten42:
ReplyDeleteFor me, the issue is simple. Either one believes that Jesus lived, or he didn’t. Either one believes that he was honest and spoke the truth, or he wasn’t and didn’t. :)
Nah. One is not forced to make such choices -- this is the "fallacy of bifurcation" (not to mention that this vastly oversimplifies the situation; one might agree that Jesus existed but was just a well-spoken mortal, or that soem fo the things attributed to him were true and others false, etc.). It is true that some people might think that you have to take definite sides in one particular direction on these questions to be a certain type person, and it is further true that some of these folks simplify absurdly so as assume or maintain that anyone else must have definitive views to the opposite, but that simply isn't true (either logically or in fact).
Cheers,
i'll be glad when glen gets back. this religio'matic back and forth is utterly boring.
ReplyDeleteanonymous
ReplyDeleteHume's Ghost is having a discussion on the topic of an "independent" judiciary above. What are you doing still hanging around here if you're bored? Silly you.
jay ackroyd -
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for that link by Daniel Dennet. I read the whole thing.
He reminds us again that the search for “meaning” in life is what we have always looked to religion, spirituality and philosophy to supply for us. We also seek comradeship in a "noble" cause. We human beings have always needed this in our lives in one way or another. To deny that this is so shows that one does not understand human nature.
His suggestion that it might be wise to teach religion in the public school is excellent. Exposure to other people’s belief systems might be just the recipe we need for tolerance and the prescription necessary for inoculation against the narrow-mindedness that so many grow up with. Of course some on the religious right would undoubtedly protest it as being that awful lefty “multiculturalism” they so hate. But it would put them on the spot, wouldn’t it?
The sites to the other books were fascinating, too - especially the mention of the states of mind of the kamikazi pilots. I was ignorant about that aspect of WWII.
oh yes. silly me.
ReplyDeletewhat am -i- still doing here?
trying to encourage some banter elsewhere-- as suggested, perhaps, on the recent post by hume's ghost...
something a little, ahem, more relevant.
reb at 14:58
ReplyDeleteThose words were Freeman Dyson's not Dennett's. Dennett is an evangelical atheist. I happen to fall closer to Dennett than Dyson on this question, but I thought that Dyson made some thoughtful, insightful comments on the role of the supernatural and the institution of religion in human society. So I wanted to pass them on.
jay ackroyd,
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing that out! My eyes tricked me and I got the bylines reversed in my head.
I'd like to read Dyson's books:
"Freeman J. Dyson is Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He is the author of Disturbing the Universe, Imagined Worlds, Origins of Life, and numerous other books. He is a recipient of the National Book Critics Circle Award for Weapons and Hope, the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science for Infinite in All Directions, as well as many other honors. Throughout his career he has worked on nuclear reactors, solid state physics, ferromagnetism, astrophysics, and biology. He lives in Princeton, New Jersey."
Very impressive!
American religion is all about a tax exempt license to steal. As wise men from James Madison on down to Gore Vidal have suggested, tax exemption for churches and religious organizations is a very bad idea. Now that organized religion has become purely political, it should be taxed out of existence.
ReplyDeleteDitto.
anonymous -
ReplyDeleteInteresting debate
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june06/taxing_4-14.html
I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic of religious tolerance, though.
(you aren't the same anonymous who was bored here earlier, are ya?)
Religion, especially Christianity in America, has to be taken seriously. That said, religion is, basically, an indoctrination based on a human penchant for magical powers.
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, every proclamation from the religious must be filtered by that understanding. The good, the bad, all that they do or say has some amount of "baggage." The same can be said of those who reply to them in a volatile manner. Their mistake is not giving giving the religious their due.
I found Barbara's post thoughtprovoking and worthwhile. It certainly sparked some great replies. I hope to see more of her views here in the future. Her being religious does not render her irrelevant.
Appreciate the hand of tolerance you offer. Just a couple of disagreements over some of your assumptions, however.
ReplyDeleteReligion is, basically, an indoctrination based on a human penchant for magical powers.
This certainly does describe many religions. However, "magical thinking" also describes a certain human penchant not confined to those who consider themselves religious. (Crop circles and UFO's, some conspiracy theorists, etc.) It's part of our natures to be inclined toward magical thinking, however it does not describe some religions.
"Religion - A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."
"Spiritual - Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul"
"Soul - The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity."
(Buddha comes to mind, as do many of the Greek philosophers and later philosophers such as Spinoza)
Although magical thinking may be inherent in human nature, these thinkers are/were attempting to rise above this, into the realm of questioning everything. Science evolved from questioning. In fact, if not for superstition, I doubt science would have evolved at all. Both imply a need to "understand" - one on a more emotional and personal level, one on a wider view. Both imply a desire to control. (Don't step on a crack; if we put a metal rod up here, the lightning will pass harmlessly to the ground).
Don't you see how the two are related?
Now, if you can answer exactly what a soul is, and be 100% certain you're correct, then I guess magical thinking has no place in your life. Maybe.
The good, the bad, all that they [human beings] do or say has some amount of "baggage."
Reb...you make some excellent points. My take on the "soul," is that it likely does not exist beyond what humanity's "magical thinking," has come up with. We certainly have no scientific proof of its existence.
ReplyDeleteGiven that, any "religion," concerned with the soul is not necessarily dealing with a reality but with those voices in our heads which suggest some kind of soul. Naturally, we are going to speculate about them.
You are right on about Science arising from superstition, I suspect.