Looks like someone’s got a little crush on the Feministe ladies. And, apparently, we (or at least I) are/am tools of the religious right (who knew?), intent on making gays and lesbians hate themselves by way of discovering Jesus. You learn something new every day.
I would just keep arguing this out on RA’s site, but I’m tired — and since he doesn’t leave trackbacks here, I’m bringin’ it home. I probably won’t argue my point much further here, because I think I was pretty clear in the first place, but here’s my take on religion: I consider my own beliefs to be private. I don’t think they’re any better or worse than yours, and I don’t like arguing about them in a public forum, because to me, they’re deeply personal, and between me and my God. If the fact that I believe in God makes me an idiot, fine. I don’t promote my own religion as the best one; I don’t think you’re going to hell if you don’t follow my line of belief. I recognize my religious and spiritual beliefs are often inconsistent. When it comes to the religious beliefs of others, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone and they’re not being pushed onto me, I’m cool with it. I don’t think it’s my place to tell anyone that they’re stupid or wrong for believing what they do; I don’t think hostility towards religion in general is at all productive.
Interestingly, the Raving Atheist also posts on Dawn Eden’s blog — although you wouldn’t even know they were the same person by the tone of the posts. I wonder how Dawn feels about being told her religion is a joke and she’s “retarded” (not my word choice) for believing in God at all?
Hm…
In cahoots with Dawn Eden and making fun of your faith. A bit of cognitive dissonance, no?
In my past life when I was known as Adam Eden, I came across a girl named Dawn Eden, in a totally platonic way. After our shadows walked together across the walls of a cave, I became convinced even my platonic feelings would remain unrequited. Quite a shock that! But even so I would not say the fever of her fervor in religion is retarded.
I think that as long as you keep it off DE’s blog, she’ll refuse to ban you for the same of being seen as open and accepting and tolerant and so on.
And let’s face facts, here: the woman is no stranger to constructive ignorance.
Looks like someone’s got a little crush on the Feministe ladies.
Dude, until I read a little further, I was like, Jesus, how did she know?!?!
Hee hee.
Huh. Interesting. He or she really is a Raving Atheist.
While I understand the argument behind “Christianity is evil,” I don’t think RA’s frame of the sane sects–particularly the ones set up to serve queers–is accurate. They frequently do acknowlege the following:
1) The Bible is a historical document that prejudices that were alive and well at the time. We are no more compelled to adhere to the ones that have managed to survive than we are compelled to adhere to the ones that have not. In sum: polyester devotional banners good, civil unions good.
2) God is love. Hating people, no matter what you call it, does not bring them closer to God.
3) Not everyone believes in God.
4) Good for them!
There’s also his inability to distinguish between religion as a potential motivator for homophobia, and religion as an evil in and of itself. Most queer people agree with the former. Lots of queer people–like the ones who are Christians–disagree with the latter.
I doubt that he could actually attend a service at, say, Glide and come away with the impression that it’s no different from an evangelical service.
RA is also wrong about the rationale for setting up a church specifically to give queer people a place to worship. The rationale isn’t to keep them away from other churches–and in any case, yeah, that sounds like a much more effective tactic than straightforward exclusion–but to give them a place, period. It’s a gesture of inclusion, and a formal recognition that queer people in the congregation may feel wary or marginalized.
Okay, so this was somewhat delayed, but oh, my God.
You know what? Reasonable people reasonably disagree on interpretations of scripture! There’s a lot of credible evidence to suggest that God does not in fact hate teh gay! There are dozens of interpretations of Leviticus and of the inclusion of the Levitican codes that leave gays totally out of the picture. And I realize that, being an atheist, RA wouldn’t have much reason to expose him- or herself to any form of Christianity but the most virulently hateful, but maybe RA could, I dunno, admit that alienation can sometimes lead to ignorance?
This church insists that Christianity does not need to go hand in hand with homophobia. It’s willing to take on establishment Christianity, which has its finger in every mainstream pie. It’s refusing to toss gay people to the sharks to appease the fundies that will inevitably descend on it. Why is there a problem with that?
jill, i agree with you that this series has not brought out the best in my hero RA. and i agree that of course your religion is your business, etc.
i hope you understand, some of us atheists (freethinkers, choose your own word) are a little testy. they make my little boy pray -oops, pledge – in school, all that stuff.
and i thought i saw an add on your site: “if you’re feelin’ that way, c’mon down to unity where god loves you.” if you don’t want to make the raver rave, then you shouldn’t huck for the hucksters.
people ask me all the time, don’t i believe in god? no, they say, why not? when i tell them why not, they say, “why don’t you mind your own business?”
Mike, you have a friendly atheist on this blog as well. RA seems most offended by our pro-choice stance.
Calling Jill’s faith into question is just window dressing for a larger agenda. Especially since s/he spends a lot of time calling Jill a “retard” while simultaneously lauding the beauty and depth of Catholicism on Dawn Eden’s blog.
Maybe it’s just that Jill isn’t the right kind of Christian. From an atheist’s perspective.
What the fuck.
mike, I’m not sure how making your little boy pledge is similar to allowing a liberal church to advertise on one’s site.
I have a lot of problems with, e.g., animal rights groups, but I don’t begrudge them running ads on lefty blogs.
*(As a Quaker, believe it or not, I’ll be struggling with the same issue when my kid reaches school age. Friends don’t believe in split allegiances…)
And to clear things up, the only ad on this site is for my web design. We don’t get paid a dime for blogging.
I love it! Of course atheism doesn’t compell this. You can be a woman-hater regardless of your religious beliefs.
I’m an atheist and I don’t hate women. I have a feeling RA and Dawn Eden are the same person, trying to construct a “Women Suck” argument for both religious and non-religious people.
Mike-
I agree, and I feel for ya. I don’t like to see religion injected into every inch of public life, either. I don’t think it’s appropriate to invoke God’s name in the pledge; I don’t think it’s “Christian persecution” to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.
But I also don’t think that being actively hostile toward private religious beliefs is helpful. I can understand being testy, but how is criticising and attacking my religion any better than being attacked for a lack of faith? RA posts information about atheism and groups that are in line with his belief system on his site — I fail to see what’s problematic with me posting information about an organization that’s in line with my beliefs on this blog (and I post about a lot of organizations that are in line with my own beliefs — I think this is one of very few that have religious ties).
I know I’ve said it hundreds of times, but here’s my take on religion:
When you believe God is blue and has four arms, you’ve got to have a sense of humor.
Jill,
The irony of that guy calling you a “retard” is so thick I can’t even get my spoon into it, much less choke it down. Just pointless nastiness.
Being an atheist, I know for a fact it doesn’t mean that I have to be anti-religion. My reasons for not believing in a god are just as deeply personal as anyone else’s reasons for believing. And my atheism the sanity of those who DO believe in god are not mutually exclusive.
I can be comfortable in my unbelief, while acknowledging that other people have a right to believe, and even acknowledging that maybe their belief is even a positive influence on the world.
The arrogance of assuming that your atheism necessarily means that others are just insane morons is just as bad as the arrogance of assuming your religion is the only truth, and must be accepted by all.
I second what Kevin said.
I love it! Of course atheism doesn’t compell (sic) this. You can be a woman-hater regardless of your religious beliefs.
Ah, because all pro-life ethicists are “women-hater(s),” even the women (clearly self-loathing), I suppose.
Truly you continue to stun with your cartoonish idiocy, Marcotte.
Damn, you sound like Bill Bennett trying to argue he’s not racist.
Shorter Bill Bennett: Because I claim aborting all pregnancies of black women would stop crime doesn’t make me racist.
Shorter Sexists Who Hide Their Anti-Choice Beliefs Behind Blather About Babies: Just because I want the law to force my desires on women I don’t know doesn’t make me sexist.
RA is a sexist pig. He wrote THREE posts where he whines incessently about Jill because she won’t just do as he tells her on the subject of religious beliefs. Pathetic. I know men like that and I’m onto that game. Having a pet cause or two to demonstrate you are so liberal doesn’t mean that you’re aren’t so sexist.
Can I “third” what Kevin wrote?
Anyone trying to insult the intelligence of either Jill or Lauren is beneath contempt. I frequent this blog for the very intelligent discourse, the humor and compassion I see in the writing here.
I am also an atheist who doesn’t hate religion. I do dislike religious people attempting to impose their belief system upon me. I do dislike religious people who think they know all about me because I’m an atheist. I do dislike religious people who insist that there can be no morality without religious belief.
I heartily endorse freedom of religion, and the freedom to lack religion as well.
Just my rambling .02.
No, but that’s the way to bet.
That’s a compelling vision for America: full rights for the microscopic some, sneering contempt for the HIV-positive-seeking-a-nurturing-community others! In the words of Yakov Smirnoff: What a country!
THREE?! And it follows that he’s “sexist” how? Because he’s addressing/arguing with/perhaps even patronizing a – GASP – woman? I hear they’re more than half the population, you know.
For the record, RA berates most everyone that won’t “do as he tells” them on religious belief. He’d stand on a beach and lecture a mollusk about its bigoted condemnation as an unfit table food in Leviticus. As an atheist, I tend to agree more with the above commenter kevin’s position – that RA’s stridence is overdone – but the guy is on a mission. In this case, I’m fairly certain that his characteristic aggression on the topic of religion (see: “RAVING ATHEIST”) doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that his opponent has a vagina.
Ooh, you have extra special powers of deductive reasoning – you can smell the musky, insidious assault of the patriarchal oppressor in random men on the internet based on your experience with those “men (you) know.” A regular sexist-detecting gumshoe, you are. Man, your workplace HR department must LOVE you.
And the larger point of your post is that pro-lifers are all “woman-haters,” which is a cartoonish demonization of a more diverse and subjective ethical determination (which I don’t agree with).
Now don’t you feel silly, little lady? Settle down and get daddy some pie.
(that was meant to be ironic, btw. False alarm, stand DOWN YOUR VAGINA-DEATH-RAY)
thank you lauren for the clarification about my former hero, RA.
i’ve pretty much just ignored his pro-lifeboat ravings up til now. but i’ve checked him out at dawn eden and i guess i see where, all in all, he has pretty much just lost his judgement.
everybody should be atheist and pro-choice just like us, hunh?
i also apologize if i confused anybody when i compared jill’s post to an advertisement.
thank you, too, jill, for your response.
atheists pretty much think that non-atheists (pardon the double negative) are mistaken about a thing or two (three for christians). that is not the same as being “anti-religious.” non-atheists, christians for example, think that atheists are mistaken, but also think we are immoral sinners who should and will burn in hell, and they say so very publicly. i guess some of us consider that a little bit of a put-down.
that’s at least the best answer i can come up with. truth is i pretty much agree with you.
trouble is, i guess, i think they don’t stay private for long. if people would really just pray in their homes or something, great. but they seem to, at the very least, need to do it where i can see it. no i don’t want to stop them, but they certainly don’t want it to be private. they want to “reach out”. they have a right to do that. i have a right to tell them off when the do.
some of the non-atheists (i just make that word up tonight and i like it) have no greater agenda than to get someone else to pray with them. others maybe want to badmouth the atheists. others want to make the usa an officially christian nation. so, when we hear someone say, isn’t god great, why should i have to repectfully keep quiet?
i don’t have any right to speak for RA, josef stalin, or the rest of the gang, but i’d say you’ve been chewed out enough for that one post about about a church that didn’t preach gays would burn in hell (as long as they believe in god).
Wait a minute, wait just a minute. I think we’re missing an ultra-important thing, here. Badmouthing Christians? Fine. But misquoting one of Groucho Marx’s most famous remarks? Now that’s the sort of thing which shouldn’t be allowed.
Man, it must be wonderful having an in-house bl-auditor.
Stark Raving Me
Looks like I blew another menage a trois. Jill of Feministe responds to yesterdays post at her own blog: Stark Raving Atheist Looks like someones got a little crush on the Feministe ladies [linking to my posts to their blog] . And, apparently, we (o…
Personally, I think expecting people to keep their religious views private is like expecting them to keep their political views private — it’s silly and not at all practical. Religious beliefs motivate a person’s actions just as much political belief, yet you have no problem debating political beliefs, but if religion comes into the picture, suddenly its beyond debate! (BTW, how is religion “deeply personal”? Aren’t all beliefs one holds equally personal?) Religious claims shouldn’t be given special treatment — if you don’t want to expose them to criticism, don’t state them.
I don’t think your beliefs make you stupid, and I honor your right to believe whatever you want, but I do think you are wrong, and I think I am perfectly in bounds to say so. (Though I do agree with your general sentiment that as long as it hurts no one, then there’s no great need to criticize it. So long as someone isn’t looking for discussion, challenge, or says something particularly stupid, I don’t feel much need to disagree with them.)
But, ye Gods, do I hate it when RA talks about abortion, or anything related to it. His normally sharp reason disappears and is replaced with a crazed stance; disappointing to say the least. And don’t even get me started on his alliance with that hideous Dawn Eden person. He does seem very unstable at times. And he is picking on you rather unfairly.
I would call bullshit on RA but I’m bored with him already.
Ditto.
I see what you’re saying, and I guess I should clarify what I meant by “private.” Religion is an important part of many peoples’ lives (I’ll be honest, it’s not a particularly large part of mine, which is why it’s confusing as to how I turned into some spokesperson for Christianity here). Not being religious is an important part of many peoples’ lives. I don’t expect people to stay silent in public about it. But what I do expect is that someone else’s religious doctrine won’t be pushed on me as absolute truth; I expect that I should be allowed to go about my business when it comes to faith, and they can go about theirs. If we all want to talk about it, and if I want to wear an “I *heart* Jesus” shirt every day, whatever — but I think the line should be drawn when I expect my God to be prayed to (or pledged to) in schools, and when I throw a hissy fit because my holidays aren’t the only ones that are recognized. Religious views, like you said, are certainly up for debate — I just don’t see the point in eviscerating an individual for theirs, unless they start the trend by using their religion to persecute others. Of course, RA and anyone else can do whatever they want, I just think at this point his argument is pretty ridiculous and unnecessary. Hope that clears things up!
But this is not true of the Christians Jill supports. It is not true of the most of the churches that accept queers. It is possible to be a Christian and believe not merely that it is rude to proselytize, but that it is un-Christian and injurious to attempt to jar people loose from their beliefs about the eternal. I know that that doesn’t seem to make sense to people with an outsider’s view of religion–proselytizing and condemnation are much more obviously consistent with the idea that there is a God who must be believed in. Some Christians honestly believe that God doesn’t want them stepping on other people’s dialogue (or lack thereof) with their spiritual psyches.
Also, while people like RA don’t think that Christians will burn in hell–that would be a contradiction in terms–they do believe that Christians are cut of from all that’s good, sane, and just by virtue of their religion. There’s a similar lack of respect, a similar belief that these people are lost. That’s what Hell amounts to, really: “damned” means “hopeless.” He talks about faithful people the way that Gary Bauer talks about queers. Of course, RA is an unusual kind of atheist.
Jill,
Prevarications seem to be your stock in trade.
I was the one to call you Retarded in the comments, not RA, but the misrepresentation works well for you doesn’t it?
Further, it is funny how someone who has made 44 posts under the category Religion can now turn around and claim it a “private matter”.
Maybe some of your readers will want to check out for themselves your backtracking and misrepresentations http://ravingatheist.com
Good luck retard.
This just gets worse and worse. Because some beliefs are shared with certain brands of religion, promulgating them automatically means that you are doing so for religious reasons? If you agree with one form of religion, you may not criticize any interpretation of God’s will, no matter how destructive? If you insist on respect for your private practice of religion, you may not complain or use insults like “wingnut” when other people attempt to force their religious beliefs onto you, your children, and your biology teacher? If you insist on respect for religious beliefs, you may not engage in any kind of debate about the sense of other people’s religious beliefs? Belief in a life after this one _automatically_ makes it impossible to regard consequences in this life as remotely important?
Unbelievable. This is like the arguments I have with wingnuts in reverse:
1) Atheism makes morality impossible: without a belief in God, there can be no underlying moral obligation.
2) Without a belief in the soul and the afterlife, life here on earth is so much coarse animalism.
3) If you complain about my religion on your physics textbook, you are discriminating against me.
4) If you criticize my interpretation of scripture on any grounds and in any forum, you are hating on me.
5) An insistence on the separation of church and state is the same as state-enforced atheism.
Dick-
I didn’t say that RA called me retarded. I said:
I was referring to the various points on RA’s blog where that word was used — one of those points was when it was directed at me, by you. Interestingly, it’s RA who takes credit for directing it at me. Sounds like he’s the one you should have beef with.
I already clarified what I meant by “private matter.” I think abortion is a private matter too, but I talk about that a whole hell of a lot. “Private” doesn’t have to mean “invisible.” It just means, “keep your belief off my body.”
I guess I’m confused as to why you guys are so angry about this. So I believe in God, big fuckin deal. You don’t. Fine. What’s the issue? As Kevin wrote earlier, “The arrogance of assuming that your atheism necessarily means that others are just insane morons is just as bad as the arrogance of assuming your religion is the only truth, and must be accepted by all.”
It should also be noted that the 44 posts filed under religion are overwhelmingly critical of institutionalized faith, and the use of religion as a tool of persecution. It’s not like I’ve posted 44 times (or even one time) proselytizing for Christianity or asserting that my faith is in any way superior to anyone else’s (or to no faith at all). I’d also like to point out that I didn’t say religion is a private matter, period, never to be discussed. I said that I consider my own beliefs to be private; that is, I’ve said that I believe in God and that I loosely identify as Christian, but that’s a pretty broad statement that means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I’m pretty sure I haven’t articulated the details of my faith in this space, argued for its superiority, or berated someone for not sharing it.
If you guys want to sit around on RA’s blog talking about what a “retard” I am because I don’t see eye to eye with you about the existance of God, then fine. I won’t be reading it, and I certainly won’t be partaking in such a mean-spirited, reductive discussion. You’re welcome to comment here as long as you like, but I’m not going to continue arguing about this issue. And if you continue to throw around bigoted insults (particularly words like “retard,” which gets under my skin), I can guarantee your comments will be deleted.
Of course Raving Atheist hangs out at Dawn Eden’s; he gets no end of stroking there for being on their side of the abortion issue while at the same time being non-religious. He’s their pet atheist.
Eh, everyone’s already said what needs to be said, but I must say that pissing off idiots = a job well done.
Piny writes: “It is possible to be a Christian and believe not merely that it is rude to proselytize, but that it is un-Christian and injurious to attempt to jar people loose from their beliefs about the eternal.” Uh? In this view, Christ would be excluded from His own Church for all that preaching he did (unless, perhaps, He sincerely apologized for being so “rude” and for the “injury” he caused). Same goes for the Apostles, and St. Paul, and so many other Christian saints. Christ instructed his Church to go out and proselytize: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Beyond that, when one experiences the joy of the Christian faith it is only natural, and in no way wrong, to want to share that joy with others.
Yes, but reasonable people reasonably disagree with how this teaching is to be applied; the justice of different kinds of proselytizing is disputed, as is the obligation to certain kinds of preaching and prayer–as, for that matter, is what shapes of life are considered to be obeying “everything I have commanded you.” It would seem that you consider the people who feel this way not to be correct, but your view is not universal. RA seems to be under the mistaken impression that it is.
I used to be exactly the kind of jerk atheist that RA seems to be (in my limited reading of his/her blog). I work hard at not being that much of a jerk (though I’m often told, in various ways, that I’m not succeeding). My pet theory is that lots of atheists go through a phase where they’re playing preacher of the non-god or some such, and they get dogmatic, bitter, uber-pseudo-logical and angry. They just don’t understand how somebody could believe all of this stuff.
And I still find myself, at times, feeling this way, as an atheist. I had something of a discussion going with Hugo once in his comments section because I see the Bible as pretty much inherently sexist (woman from the rib, woman as the evil temptress who accepts the apple and condemns us all to be forced out of the garden, it’s ok to stone yer daughter for disobeying you..there really are just a lot of examples); and while I understand that there may be various interpretations of the stuff I see as sexist, it’s hard for me to take it all as the word of god in the way that people who believe in it seem to be able to do. I have a hard time understanding why one would go to all the trouble to interpret the Bible as non-sexist and non-homophobic and such, instead of just believing in some other god, belief in whom doesn’t require all of this revesionist stuff–it reminds me of copernican epicycles: If you have to work so hard to make it be the truth (and it’s supposed to be the Word Of God), then why not believe in some other god?
And yet, as I said before, I try, try, try to respect what other people believe. I know that I don’t have all of the answers, or even know all of the ways to get to some of the answers. RA, on the other hand, talks about Jill’s religious beliefs the way Fundamentalist Christians talk about porn: Loudly, with passion, and with a lot of releasing of (hitherto repressed, in my opinion) anger. Why the heck is he/she so angry about the beliefs of a person who, while holding sway over a bunch of blog-readers (I visit daily), isn’t preaching The Word in any normal sense of the phrase?
RA has yet to ask himself/herself in any meaningful way: “Why am I so angry about this?”
THAT’S what the “44 posts”–or whatever, over multiple posts per day for how long?–reminded me of! Dawn Eden’s insistence that Amanda Marcotte writes about nothing but sex, sex, sex!
Because EBC for rape victims is hot.
Until this post, I had no idea what Jill’s religious beliefs were. Now, I know that she believes in a supreme being of some sort, and I would guess that she’s probably a Christian, since she posts about a liberal church rather than a liberal synagogue or liberal interfaith association. I’m pretty sure she thinks gays are okay, and that she doesn’t like it when priests molest children. And–this is just conjecture–I get the sense that religion as an excuse for misogyny doesn’t sit well with her.
Other than that, I have no idea what she thinks. I certainly didn’t see any recommendation that I should attend services or become religious if I weren’t already. (Incidentally, the idea that announcing the existence of a gay-friendly church is proselytizing is like saying that blogging about an explicitly gay-friendly daycare center is telling gay people to have children.)
Joseph Ratzinger points out in his book “Introduction to Christianity” that atheism is a form of faith, that just as the believer in God must live with the question “But what if there is a no God?” the atheist must live with the question “But what if there is a God?” When an atheist asserts that it is a certainty that there is no God and that, therefore, religion is “stupid,” he (or she) engages in a rigid and simplistic way of thinking of which the religious (sometimes rightly, but more often not) are often accused.
For what it’s worth, since I was at this blog for three years before I invited Jill on, most of the oft-cited “44″ religion posts are probably mine.
And I’m the atheist, dick. I mean, Dick.
Dan: So far, I have not heard a convincing reason that a carnivorous pink unicorn who lives inside of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter does not exist. And, as you and I see it, we have an equal burden of proof.
Oh no! Comment 44! As a member of the Temple of Orthodox Numerology, I must now fast for 44 days.
I find it interesting that Jill was all in favor of giving it to prolifers because of their supposed inconsistency (regarding punishing women who’ve had abortions) a few days ago but is quite open to admitting her religious beliefs are inconsistent.
Her religious beliefs don’t lead to legal policy, now do they?
They’re mostly complex in a way that gets redefined as inconsistent when RA conflates different levels and definitions of privacy and intrusion; his charge of “inconsistency” doesn’t really refer to Jill’s personal determination, I don’t think. If, like RA, you think that discussing religion amounts to proselytizing, or that having religious beliefs means that you think everyone else should share those beliefs, Jill does indeed seem off her nut. If, on the other hand, you are a reasonable person who does not use a self-serving definition of religion along with a nonexistent consensus among religious people to blur real distinctions between religious practices, her beliefs are both rational and consistent.
Also, there’s a difference between saying that someone can be inconsistent when it comes to personal beliefs they have no desire to force on anyone, and saying that someone can be inconsistent when it comes to formulating public policy to which everyone must adhere. The one inconsistency affects exactly one willing person: the illogical believer. The other inconsistency affects everyone, and is therefore liable to more rigorous standards of logic.
Norbiz, I’m not sure what you are trying to get at, but if you are saying there are no rational reasons one might have faith I think you are quite wrong. Here are some reasons one might:
1. It is reasonable to think that creation has a creator. The argument that nothing created something out of nothing is not very persuasive. (It begs the question to say “we can’t know.” Of course we can’t. The question is what do we believe.)
2. The testimony of the great mystics. Atheists must believe that the Jewish prophets, the Apostles, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Francis and the many others like them are “nuts” or “deluded.” This is a highly implausible explanation of their testimony.
3. The challenge of Jesus Christ. No credible historian believes that Jesus Christ was not in fact an actual man who lived in Palestine 2,000 years ago. Who then was Jesus Christ? A nut case, merely a prophet, or the Son of God? I do not think you can read the New Testament fairly and believe that he was a nut or can be understood as merely a prophet.
4. The mystery of our own being and consciousness. If the universe is devoid of spirit, we are just so many atoms moving at different speeds. But we know there is more to life than matter.
5. The reports of miracles, such as what occurred in Fatima, Portugal.
Heh.
It’s so embarrassing when someone manages to say what you said in two thick paragraphs in, let’s see here, eleven words.
This is why Lauren’s the blogger, and I’m the, uh, blog-talkin’ guy.
Yes, but you will have a blog.
No, don’t get a blog. I like you policing my comments. :)
As to all this business about “imposing moral viewpoints,” Mary Ann Glendon says it better than I can so I quote from her article “The Women of Roe v. Wade”:
[C]ountless women and men [have taken] refuge in slogans like: “Who am I to be judgmental?” and the famous “Personally, I’m opposed, but I can’t impose my opinions on others.”
I have to admit that, back in the 1970s, I was rather uncritical of such phrases. I remember asking the former dean of Boston College, a Jesuit priest, “Father, what do you think about this abortion issue?” He said, “Well you see, Mary Ann, it’s very simple. According to Vatican II, abortion is ‘an unspeakable moral crime.’ But in a pluralistic democracy, we can’t impose our moral views on other people.” “Oh,” I said, “OK.”
I know this story doesn’t reflect any credit on me, but I mention it to show that many of us just didn’t focus on the issue all that closely. I know now that I should have questioned the word “impose.” But it took some time before growing numbers of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews stepped forward to point out that when people advance their moral viewpoints in the public square, they are not imposing anything on anyone. They are proposing. That’s what citizens do in a democracy—we propose, we give reasons, we vote. It’s a very strange doctrine that would silence only religiously grounded moral viewpoints. And it’s very unhealthy for democracy when the courts—without clear constitutional warrant—deprive citizens of the opportunity to have a say in setting the conditions under which we live, work, and raise our children.
It was only after I started to look into how controversial issues like abortion and divorce were handled in other liberal democracies that I realized how my dean’s slogan has been used not only to silence religiously grounded views, but to silence all opposition to abortion. I should have asked the dean why citizens should have to withhold their moral views on abortion but not on other issues where he did not hesitate to advance religiously grounded moral viewpoints—the Vietnam War, capital punishment, civil rights, and relief of poverty.
Morality and spirituality are not the same thing. Glendon kids herself.
And yet, believing their word on the word of God means that Christians must accept the implicit premise that hundreds if not thousands of other great mystics are equally wrong.
See number 2. Most historians agree that Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and a host of other founders of religions were real. I assume that, as a Christian, you would read the Quran and come away with the impression that Mohammed was either delusional or misguided.
Well, no, we don’t. We know that there’s more to life than we’ve been able to figure out yet, and that it’s more complex than our technology can easily conceptualize, but “there is no explanation” is not the same as “there must be a mystical explanation.” Scientists a century ago would have named inheritance as equally inscrutable, and scientists a few centuries ago would have named schizophrenia, epilepsy, and a host of congenital defects as evidence of supernatural interference. They would not have been able to comprehend our level of understanding of life and matter as a human possibility, and they would have seen many things we’re doing now as utterly impossible. Their divisions between knowable and inexplicable were as premature as yours are now.
5. The reports of miracles, such as what occurred in Fatima, Portugal.
There are plenty of psychological explanations for any number of people sincerely believing in things we generally don’t think can happen.
Jill says waaaaaa! Followed by a threat,
“And if you continue to throw around bigoted insults (particularly words like “retard,” which gets under my skin), I can guarantee your comments will be deleted.”
I see your insults are valid, just not ones directed at you.
Jill says waaaaaa! Followed by a threat,
“And if you continue to throw around bigoted insults (particularly words like “retard,” which gets under my skin), I can guarantee your comments will be deleted.”
I see your insults are valid, just not ones directed at you.
You might as well keep banning and deleting away, since it is easier than making substantive responses. But it is a vanity site now isn’t it?
“Bigoted” /= “retard.” Retard is a hateful, demeaning term that is never appropriate to apply to anyone for any reason.
Someone keeps repeating himself.
the universe certainly doesn’t seem to care why it’s here.
If that is the case, then why did the universe dredge up so many creatures who spend so much time wondering why it’s here? :P
Piny, would you say the same of “dickfart”? When I mentioned that this was what “HissyCat” called me, Jill responded:
“Personally, I thought “dickfart” was pretty funny. If only for the mental image.”
That’s Entry No. 55 in the string under “Scopes Trial.”
I find much of the name calling on this blog disturbing. Name calling is simply a mode of expressing hatred for a person. It is ugly and it is wrong. Incidentally, it is something that does not occur on the conversative blogs I read when a liberal makes comments (here I have in mind for example Amy Welborn’s blog).
I should amend the last entry. Some name calling occurs from time to time on Amy’s blog but when it does she asks for it to stop. It certainly occurs there with much less frequency then here.
Piny,
Jill’s the one that called her beliefs inconsistent – maybe she was being sarcastic – but I’m not referring to what RA said – I’m referring directly to what she said in the post – “I recognize my religious and spiritual beliefs are often inconsistent” –
My point is again as it was in the other thread – that someone’s supposed personal inconsistency in taking actions based on beliefs does nothing to prove that the belief is wrong.
I’m pointing out how Jill is open to keeping her religious beliefs even though she openly admits inconsistency yet has no problem giving it to prolifers because she deems them inconsistent in how they would take actions with regards to their beliefs.
Dan, for the most part we let people make comments and let others call them to task. The only time I remove negative comments is when they are blatantly racist, sexist, or homophobic, or if they contain a threat.
This isn’t intended to be a safe space for liberals to bash conservatives, if that’s what you’re thinking, though that’s not uncommon. I’m quite libertarian about comments and Jill is as well.
Eh, ban the trolls.
Thanks to piny for #54, a much more cordial rejoinder than I could have mustered. Here’s something for everyone and noone; the credo of the apathetic agnostic, taken from their “church’s” website:
1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.
2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.
2a. (my own) The presence of people who are actively concerned about whether a Supreme Being exists (and in what form) is not itself evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being.
3. Therefore, I am apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.
Like Lauren said — my standard for when name-calling crosses the line is when it’s racist, sexist, homophobic, ect. I think we can all see how “retard” falls under the category of bigoted name-calling.
Jivin J, as for the inconsistency aspect, the difference is that I don’t think my religious beliefs should be legally mandated. If anti-choicers want to have inconsistent beliefs, go for it (and as Scott point out in the post you’re referencing, they certainly do). The trouble with inconsistency isn’t when it’s in one’s own personal code; it’s when you try and institute it as law.
I know I do a poor job of expressing myself, but please bear with me if you can. I’m even punctuating, capitalizing and all that. And I haven’t called anybody a retard since I was about ten years old.
Among the many reasons that so many atheists come across as being shrill and defensive is that so many of us are shrill and defensive. But there are reasons for that too. And reasons for the reasons.
I always find it terribly irritating to read about atheists crossing the line to become “anti-religious.” Something is terribly backwards here. I use the word atheist just like everyone else, because we all know what it means. But the word itself is wrong. Even “freethinker” is wrong. (free from what?)
How did logic and adherence to the U.S. Constitution get to be considered rude and out of line? And fanciful nonsense should be silently respected? But most people think it just as bad as being called retarded when I analogize belief in God to belief in the Tooth Fairy. Or, if you must, the Spaghetti Monster. Yes, I’ll admit that either one is pretty close to calling the belief (if not the believer) stupid, but can the believer distinguish the beliefs for me? Or is one just stupid and the other not?
It’s almost as if the very ridiculousness of religious belief is its own best defense. “Okay, Mr. Smarty-pants Atheist,” they challenge us, “if my belief is so stupid, then why do I believe in it?”
No.
“Dickfart” is crude, mean, and schoolyard-level. That’s why I try to reserve it for people like Tom “Dickfart” DeLay.
“Retard” is not merely crude, mean, and schoolyard-level. It is also hate speech.
Were this my blog, I probably would reserve childish name-calling for myself and people who agreed with me. However, I appreciate the distinction being made between words like “retard” and words like “asshat.”
Yes, I read her reference to her own religious beliefs as inconsistent. I explained what I think she’s talking about and why I think that inconsistency is different from what RA accuses her of. Then I explained why there’s a difference between inconsistent beliefs whose inconsistency you admit to and privatize, and inconsistent beliefs you attempt to enforce as social policy.
An atheist is just a Fundamentalist who got caught not believing in God?
(agnostic here).
So inconsistency is only important the inconsistent person believes their views are correct and the law should agree with them? That’s quite convenient for you. If that’s the case then why do you think its appropriate for advocates of same-sex marriage to impose their views on me and the rest of society.
So if I could find inconsistencies in the pro-choice argument then they wouldn’t have the right to have the law agree with them? Would it be wrong if the pro-choice movement forced its inconsistent opinions on fetuses?
I think pro-choice people have numerous inconsistent positions.
Many claim that they want abortion to be rare but also think that tax dollars should pay for abortions (something that increases the number of abortions) and they fight tooth and nail to stop pieces of prolife legislation that could reduce the # of abortions.
Many have limited qualms about aborting healthy 28 week fetuses but would defend the rights of a born child at the same age.
Many think self-awareness is what makes a child worthy of protection, many think its consciousness, many think it is separation from the mother – pro-choice people are quite inconsistent as a whole in the reasons why and when it should be wrong to kill a developing human being.
Many think the unborn are valuable when women want them but have no qualms about killing them if they aren’t wanted.
It’s almost as if the very ridiculousness of religious belief is its own best defense. “Okay, Mr. Smarty-pants Atheist,” they challenge us, “if my belief is so stupid, then why do I believe in it?”
This is the best thing I’ve read in the last week. Thanks.
Jivin, pro-choice people who want abortions to be rare want them to be rare because they’re not needed, not because artificial barriers have been set in place to prevent them. I’ll bet the “pro-life” legislation you’re referring to was intended to make abortion law more restrictive, not, say, to provide more comprehensive sex education and make contraceptives cheaper. Or am I wrong?