--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think going after the religion rather than the behavior > > > > > > risks becoming a crusade and even a pogrom (figuratively > > > > > > speaking), and it doesn't affect the behavior. > > > > > > > > > > I missed this first time through. This is a legitimate > > > > > point to consider. > > > > > > > > Even though the point you go on to consider is not > > > > at all the one I was making...OOOOO-K. > > That is the point of going back and forth, to understand > what points are being made.
Never mind. You know why I made that comment. <snip> > Since I don't portray everyone who shares a specific > religious heritage as bad guys it doesn't apply to me. > But I can think that they are wrong about what they are > asserting or that there is little evidence for fantastic > claims. And that the people who make less fantastic > claims are shielding the ones who do while still > maintaining the absurd premise that they have a unique > insight into the mind of the creator of the universe and > his desires concerning this world. Yeah, that's the latest antireligion talking point, that moderate religionists are equally as dangerous as fundamentalists because by being moderate, they "shield" the fundamentalists. I think that's a crock and a half. It sounds to me as though the antireligionists are pissed off at the moderate religionists because they aren't as easy to mock and challenge. So the antis have dreamed a basis for attacking moderates for being *more rational*. I repeat, the militant antireligionists seem to me just as fundamentalist and absolutist as the most fundamentalist religionist. The antis simply don't think anybody should be allowed to have any religious beliefs whatsoever. You said something revealing in a previous post, that we have "erred on the side of" not suppressing religion and of not being uncivil to religionists. I commented that I hoped "erred" was just a figure of speech, but I'm not entirely sure it is. I think the antis really do believe deep down that it's a mistake to allow religion to exist and to treat religionists with civility. It's particularly ironic on this forum, where a defense of one's spiritual views is constantly attacked as being intolerant of other spiritual views, but intolerance of *all* religious views--even beliefs that can't be shown to result in bad behavior--is considered perfectly fine. I just don't think that's rational, and I think it's potentially dangerous. There needs to be a middle ground. (Fortunately there are far more religionists than antis in this country, so we probably don't have to be concerned about anything worse than incivility from the antis.) > > > > > If a person today claims the holocaust never happened > > > > > we challenge the idea with facts. If people claim > > > > > Jesus rose from the dead we have a right to say "what > > > > > is your proof?" > > > > > > > > Do you see any significant differences between > > > > these two claims? > > > > > > Sure, among them that the claim that Jesus physically > > > rose from the dead is among the protected ideas in our > > > culture that is felt is beyond challenge despite it > > > being asserted as a fact. > > > > Any other differences? > > This is annoying. There are many which one is important > to you? The claims about both Jesus and the holocaust are > based on historical evidence. One has good evidence and > one has bad evidence. But they are both asserted as > physical history about something that happened in this > world, not the afterlife. the Bible uses accounts of > people at the time as evidence for what they claim > historically happened. That's usually the type of evidence given for historical claims before the advent of photography and newspapers and other more dependable methods of documentation. There's a surfeit of reliable documentation of the Holocaust. There are even survivors to testify to it. If Jesus had actually risen from the dead, what other kinds of evidence *would* there be but accounts of people at the time? You're demanding something you know is impossible on its face and then waving the victory flag when it isn't forthcoming as if *you* had proved something. And BTW, that the Holocaust occurred is certainly among the most "protected" ideas in Western culture in terms of the social consequences of challenging it. <snip> > > > > You sound as religious here about your perspective > > > > as the most fundamentalist Christian, Curtis. > > > > > > That claim is bogus. I am doing the exact opposite of > > > a person who uses scriptural authority. I am saying > > > that every claim religious or not is up for discussion. > > > This is not my perspective, it is the basis for Western > > > civilization. > > > > And therefore not up for discussion, right? > > We are discussing it. What's not up for discussion is the assertion "Every claim is up for discussion because that's the basis for Western civilization." > Are there topics that should not be discussed? Not as far as I'm concerned. <snip> > > > > To me, it's not a matter of whether religious belief > > > > is exempt from challenge; it's a matter of whether > > > > indulging in such challenge is a distraction from > > > > focusing on the *behavior*. I really don't care > > > > whether someone believes Jesus rose from the dead > > > > as long as they behave humanely. I don't even > > > > especially care whether someone who holds this belief > > > > thinks of themselves as better than me as long as > > > > they don't allow that belief to affect their behavior > > > > toward me (or anyone else). > > > > > > You are taking a wack-a-mole approach. I am addressing > > > the root of the problem. Expecting people not to have > > > their religious convictions effect their behavior seems > > > unlikely. > > > > For good or ill. But I think the root of the problem is > > failure of compassion, which hijacks religious beliefs > > as justification. > > Our application of compassion is often shaped by our > religious beliefs. I remember Diane Sawyer interviewing > a man who had murdered his sister who had sex to regain > the honor of their family. For him it was an act of > compassion for the girl and he felt nothing but pride in > restoring his family's honor. Compassion is not a > universal quality especially in how it is applied. > Removing it from the context of protected religious > absolutes allows us the freedom to say "this is bullshit > man you just killed your sister" instead of "atta boy > son you are doing the work of God on earth." You make my argument for me. Go after the *behavior*. Do you think there might be devout Muslim men who would decline to murder their sisters to regain the honor of their families? <snip> > > > So is it Ok to believe > > > that Lincoln was not assassinated? Which historical > > > assertions are exempt from normal questioning? > > > > Huh?? Is the belief that Lincoln was not assassinated > > a religious one that can't be either proved or > > disproved but is held on the basis of scriptural > > authority? What bad behavior does it generate? > > It is an historical event and Jesus's resurrection is > presented as an historical fact. It is not exempt from > the kind of research we do to try to find what happened > in the past. What would you expect to find as a result of such research if Jesus had actually risen from the dead? > > And please stop attributing to me the view that beliefs > > are somehow inherently "exempt" from questioning. Again, > > you're putting words in my mouth. > > You accused me of unsavory things like being a bigot for > questioning the basic precepts of religious beliefs. I did no such thing. What I said was that making the problem of oppression all about religious beliefs was a *recipe for bigotry*--in other words, it has that potential. > That is the shield I am talking about. Claiming that > someone is out of line for questioning the claims of > religion as if they were any other claim we evaluate. No, that isn't what I said. I said I thought it was pointless--impractical, ineffective--in the context of opposing bad behavior. Curtis, you aren't reading what I write. <snip> > > > But one uniting belief for most Christian groups is the > > > physical resurrection of Jesus and the authority of the > > > Bible as an accurate statement of how the world works. > > > > I'm not sure it's "most Christian groups," Curtis. There's > > quite a bit of variation, particularly with regard to the > > "accuracy" of the Bible. > > Sure there is a continuum of beliefs ending in Unitarian > probably. But the majority do believe that Jesus's death > and resurrection has an effect on how they will spend > their afterlife. You can only drift so far from that > claim and still be a Christian. Right. But that claim in and of itself doesn't automatically translate into bad behavior. As PaliGap pointed out with regard to karma (to no response from you), you have to add other claims to it before you get bad behavior--i.e., because I believe Jesus died for my sins and was resurrected, I am "saved," and therefore I am entitled to...(insert list of bad behaviors). But the part after "therefore" isn't in the Bible or even in doctrine; and people who have a need to engage in bad behavior will find an excuse to feel entitled to do so *whether they're religious or not*. PaliGap added at the end of his post: "(And perhaps the real villain is not 'fatalism', but something that lies behind that: religious hubris, the idea we can know the intentions of God. But personally I wouldn't think we moderns should get too smug about that, as hubris seems to be the sin of our age too!)" Hubris is not by any means peculiar to religionists. <snip> > > By all means go after their oppressive behavior. By > > all means challenge their false statements with regard > > to facts (e.g., that gay men are pedophiles). > > > > But I'd leave it to clergypersons to challenge the > > belief that Sodom got zapped because its men were > > homosexual; or that St. Paul was condemning > > homosexual orientation rather than pagan practices. > > Why? I think it can be a team effort. The Bible does > condone things including slavery that we reject. > Picking and choosing while still viewing it as a special > book with an insight into God's mind and intention is > missing the root of the problem that derails this > discussion. If that's the premise you're insisting on, promoting it wouldn't exactly be a "team effort" with clergy, now would it? > How can you argue with a person who claims that their > view is God's view? How can such a person argue with someone who claims the person's view *isn't* God's view? > > (Nothing wrong with an intellectual discussion among > > laypeople about biblical hermeneutics, but again, that's > > not the first order of business for them, IMHO.) > > I'm not sure what you mean by the first order of business > for laypeople. In my life determining my views about > religion pretty much trumped everything else for a large > part of my life. No, I'm talking about the order of business for people who are motivated to do something about the suffering and oppression in the world. The first order of business for them, as I keep saying--where they should put the bulk of their time and energy, IMHO--is in challenging the behavior that causes suffering and oppression, not arguing with the perps about their belief systems and the correct way to interpret scripture. > > > > It strikes me that the objection to *ideas* simply > > > > because you find them "superstitious," rather than > > > > evaluating people in terms of their *behavior*, is > > > > akin to condemning gay people for what they do in > > > > their bedrooms instead of evaluating how they behave > > > > in society. > > > > > > You are confusing your own point here. The parallel > > > would be if gay people asserted that they had to be > > > gay because their gay Bible told them to be that way. > > > > Different parallel drawn on a different basis. I'm not > > even sure what yours has to do with anything. I thought > > the relevance of mine was pretty clear; I don't know why > > you have a problem with it. > > Because it is a non sequitur. It was an observation. It didn't necessarily follow anything except the general arc of the discussion. We are looking at different > logical levels. I am interested in one you are interested > in another as a priority. Gay sex in private does not > effect me. Believing that God is against abortions so > poor people in my state should have limited access does. Here's my parallel: Gay sex in private = private religious belief What gays do in society = what people who hold certain religious beliefs do in society, i.e., behavior It's entirely possible to believe that God is against abortion without trying to limit access to it for poor women. <snip> > I have stated why I put my attention where I do. I > majored in philosophy and spent years reading scriptures. > Of course this is going to interest me and I will see > behavior as stemming from beliefs. Ordinary schmoes can > refute the absurd claims of religion too. We each choose > our battles and go with our interests and strengths. I am > not judging you negatively for your choices. I don't > believe my choice is better in general. It is just > better for me. Sure. For one thing, it's a whole lot easier. The question is whether it's as effective against suffering and oppression. I mean, is it all about what's better for you, or is it about what's better for those you want to help?
