(no subject)

[stonebender]

Via baerana, firecat surelars and serenejournal:



10 favorites...
Favorite Color: Red, though I like lots of colors.
Favorite Food: Something fried I'm sure
Favorite Song: Today I have been playing the heck out of "The Distance" by Cake
Favorite Movie: Matewan, today
Favorite Sport: I just don't care for sports. How about those robot fights?
Favorite Season: In Illinois: autumn; Here: spring
Favorite Day Of the Week: any day
Favorite Ice Cream Flavor: Ben & Jerry's Heath Bar and coffee crunch
Favorite Time of Day: nighttime

9 Currents...
Current Mood: bored
Current Taste: The bacon and coffee from the breakfast
Current Clothes: gray T-shirt, blue jogging pants and black tennis shoes.
Current Desktop Picture: A picture of the surface of Titan
Current Toenail Color: N/A
Current Time: 9:37am let's see how long it takes me to post this thing. Current Surroundings: My study
Current Annoyance(s): General life stuff nothing of import
Current Thought: Jelly.

8 Firsts...
First Best Friend: Richard Mulvey.
First Kiss: It was at summer camp at a kissing booth of all things. I'm slightly embarrassed that I don't remember the girl's name.
First Screen Name: guywt I'm the imaginative sort. :-)
First Pet: Slowpoke, a turtle (This is not a mistake. I actually had a turtle of the same name as serenejournal's)
First Piercing: Ear, age 20?
First Crush: Renee Fosdick, yes quite an unfortunate name.
First Music: Beatles. Although, I do remember being quite the Bobby Sherman fan for a short time.
First Car: 1973 orange Volkswagen bus.

7 Lasts.....
Last Cigarette: Sometime in 1979 I was never a huge smoker unless I was drinking.
Last Drink: Coffee.
Last Car Ride: With serenejournal and munchkin to Rasputin's records.
Last Kiss: loracs maybe this morning (I was sleepy) definitely last night.
Last real kiss: All my kisses are real
Last Movie Seen: The Shawshank Redemption
Last Phone Call: To loracs, she heard Big Moves being interviewed on NPR!
Last CD Played: Cake, "Fashion Nugget"

6 Have You Evers....
Have You Ever Dated One Of Your Best Friends: All my lovers are my best
friends
Have You Ever Broken the Law: yes
Have You Ever Been Arrested: yes, twice
Have You Ever Been on TV: yes, several times
Have You Ever Kissed Someone You Didn't Know: yes

5 Things....
5 Things You're Wearing: pants, shirt, shoes, socks, and glasses
5 Things You've Done Today: got up, got dressed, ate breakfast, got on the Internet, made a phone call.
5 Things You Can Hear Right Now: clock ticking, music playing, ice dropping in the ice machine, next-door neighbors dogs barking.
5 Things You Can't Live Without: food, water, shelter, air, brainwaves
5 Things You Do When Your bored: I fool with the formatting on text files downloaded from the Internet (You know, fix weird page breaks, cut out strange characters etc.), try to figure out possible ways to emigrate to another country (not that I'm planning to, although it would be nice to have a second citizenship), look at porn, listen to music (although I do that when I'm not bored as well), fill out live journal surveys.
4 Places You've Been To...
1. New Orleans, LA
2. Canada
3. Houston TX
4. Tijuana
5. Memphis TN

3 People You Can Tell (most) Anything To...
My partners

2 Choices...
1. Black or White: Black
2. Hot or Cold: Hot

1 Wish...
World peace (I wonder if I wished for economic equity would I get 2-for-1?)

Comments

Re: Really?

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

A day later, and hopefully cooler, let's review the bidding.

I originally objected to this statement:

... how much of religion and power are about making sure someone else doesn't have the stuff you want?

To which my basic reply, as regards religion, is none. People frequently abuse religion this way; but it's like saying that silk stockings are "about" murder by strangling because they've frequently abused in that way.

Religion is about ... well several things, of which the most important are (a) trying to make sense of life, (b) trying to find the correct way to behave in the world, and (c) speculative stuff about God or gods/goddesses/whatever and afterlife and such. The third of these is optional: a religion does not necessarily have to partake of the supernatural. But it isn't about power.

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that people use it for power. Likewise, money, patriotism, sex, etc.

That (spelled out more fully) was the core of the nit I picked with serenejournal's original statement. I note in passing that she, at least, does not seem to have gotten bent out-of-shape about it.

But you did, for reasons I think I have to turn to general-semantics to understand.

True statement: Some people use religion to excuse bigotry, violence, moneygrubbing, and/or powerseeking.

False statement: Religion is about bigotry, violence, moneygrubbing, and/or powerseeking.

I have been trying to make this distinction, to which you seem extraordinarily resistant no matter how you protest that you "spend a significant amount of time trying to correct" others' misconceptions that all religious people are ... etc. When you make a flat, all-ish statement like "religion motivates violence," rather than "many people have used religion to excuse their violence," you come across, to me, as an anti-religious bigot.

No, as noted, I have never been threatened with Hell by an atheist. That's a dumb point, however, because atheists don't have a Hell to threaten me with. I have been told, not only that I'm stupid for my religious belief, but that I am criminal (this word was used) for speaking openly about it, because I'm helping to deceive others.

Have people been killed in the name of atheism? Ask Stalin and Mao.

Re: Really?

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

I note in passing that she, at least, does not seem to have gotten bent out-of-shape about it.

You should probably not assume that someotherguy is bent out of shape unless he says so, or that I'm not because I haven't said so. I will address the content of your argument when I return from work, but I think you're mistaking disagreement with anger. In the substance of this discussion, someotherguy and I are in complete agreement.

While I'm off at work, please tell me how I'm supposed to separate religion from its followers in the way you suggest. For instance, the Catholic church's doctrines have been the cause -- the direct cause -- of many many people's deaths over the centuries, and the indirect cost of countless others (I am thinking specifically of its anti-condom stance at the moment, among other things). How am I to look an "active Catholic" in the eye and not connect him/her with the official doctrine of the church he/she is loyal to?

Re: Really?

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

A fair question, deserving an honest reply:

I am "loyal to" the Catholic church in very much the same way that I am loyal to the United States of America. That is, I perform my duties as a citizen even while disagreeing (often strenuously) with some of the stands taken by my government. I can similarly disagree with positions taken by Rome, without being (in my opinion) a disloyal Catholic. The Church's position on birth control is an excellent example; I am also in disagreement, on a different level, with the Church's position on abortion -- that is, I agree that abortion is not a Good Thing, but I oppose any attempt to make it illegal, and have supported women of my acquaintance (including my sister) when they felt it necessary to have one.

For instance, the Catholic church's doctrines have been the cause -- the direct cause -- of many many people's deaths over the centuries,

I disagree. Taking, for example, the Inquisition, the doctrine -- "heresy has no place in the Church" -- was not the problem; the problem was the way they tried to implement the doctrine, i.e., torture and murder.

And this crime, as I noted in my previous, is not limited to religion: millions were starved, imprisoned, tortured, and killed in the XXth century in the name of atheist philosophies, such as Stalinism, Maoism, and ... oh, hell, whatever the Khmer Rouge's brand of Marxism was called. China still kills people for their religions.

Re: Really?

[someotherguy.livejournal.com]

I originally objected to this statement:

... how much of religion and power are about making sure someone else doesn't have the stuff you want?

To which my basic reply, as regards religion, is none. People frequently abuse religion this way...


No, your reply was that for you religion is not about those things (which I have no reason to doubt) and that anti-religious bigotry is just as bad as religious bigotry.

In context that sounds an awful lot like you're comparing stonebender's and serenejournal's criticism of religion with the violence routinely done by religious bigots. Even if you're not suggesting that, you are suggesting that actions taken by the anti-religious (usually no worse than rude comments) are some how comparable to the horrific violence done in the name of religion.

Religion is about ... trying to find the correct way to behave in the world, and ...


True statement: Some people use religion to excuse bigotry, violence, moneygrubbing, and/or powerseeking.

False statement: Religion is about bigotry, violence, moneygrubbing, and/or powerseeking.

You're setting up a false dichotomy by omitting the actual position I (and I think serenejournal) hold: Some, but not all, religion is about bigotry, violence, and powerseeking.

The thing you seem to be missing is that "trying to find the correct way to behave in the world." often includes teachings that lead to bigotry and violence, sometimes directly, some times indirectly, often by trying to amass the power need to impose "correct" behavior. A religion based on book that says homosexuality is a capital crime cannot claim innocence if its followers are anti-gay bigots.

I have been trying to make this distinction, to which you seem extraordinarily resistant...

You're not making a distinction, you're making excuses. You're trying to claim that religion doesn't motivate violence. It very clearly does. That's not all it does, but nobody claimed that it was.

When you make a flat, all-ish statement like "religion motivates violence," rather than "many people have used religion to excuse their violence," you come across, to me, as an anti-religious bigot.

It's pretty easy to make a statement seem "all-ish" when you remove it from context: "Neither statement implies that religion/money always motivates violence or that every one has religion/money is evil or that religion/money is the only motivator for violence."

That said, I acknowledge a certain amount of anti-religious bias on my part, but while my anti-religious bigotry occasionally leads me to be rude to people, it has never led me to or any other "anti-religious bigot" I know to commit an act of violence. I personally know at least three people who have been physically attacked apparently because of their attackers religious views.

Have people been killed in the name of atheism? Ask Stalin and Mao.

You know what would be cool? If you answered the questions that I asked instead of making up new questions so that you can give answers that you think make some kind of point.

Do you personally know a single person who was assaulted and who's attacker was motivated by his or her lack of belief?

And what point are you trying to make anyway? That the Catholic church is no worse than two of the most evil governments in history? That we as a nation should deal with the Vatican the way we dealt with the Soviet Union?

Re: Really?

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

You know what would be cool? If you answered the questions that I asked instead of making up new questions so that you can give answers that you think make some kind of point.

All right; direct answers to every question in this post, and nothing else. (In fairness: I believe I was making a real point, that murder, etc., has been done in the name of atheistic philosophies.)

Do you personally know a single person who was assaulted and who's attacker was motivated by his or her lack of belief?

Yes.

I know several people who were beaten, imprisoned, etc. in China for being Christians. I don't personally know any Falun Gong, but I gather they're treated far worse.

And what point are you trying to make anyway? That the Catholic church is no worse than two of the most evil governments in history?

No.

That we as a nation should deal with the Vatican the way we dealt with the Soviet Union?

No. Rather,

1. That a thing can be abused does not make it evil. (Thus I oppose prohibition laws for things like guns, drugs, and alcohol. By placing moral value on an inanimate object they make the problem worse.)

2. That every power structure attracts evil people to it. I will happily point at a number of Bad Things done, not by the Christian religion, but by Christians using their religion as an excuse.

3. That, applying these two points specifically to religion, saying that that religion is a cause of violence is neither more nor less legitimate than saying sex, money, patriotism, and many other things which are good in their proper use are causes of violence.

4. Because of this, if you speak the way you do of religion, but not of sex, money, patriotism, etc., then I have cause to think that you are acting from a (low) level of anti-religious bigotry.

Have I missed any of your questions?

Re: Really?

[someotherguy.livejournal.com]

In fairness: I believe I was making a real point, that murder, etc., has been done in the name of atheistic philosophies.

I never said that it hasn't been. I simply don't think it's a significant problem here and now.

I know several people who were beaten, imprisoned, etc. in China for being Christians. I don't personally know any Falun Gong, but I gather they're treated far worse.

Okay, I'm able to believe that in China Christians are an oppressed minority who are persecuted due to their oppressor's anti-religious bigotry while at the same time having little or no ability to harm people with their religious bigotry.

But I don't live in China and whatever limited anti-religious bigotry I may have has no effect on people in China.

Do you know anyone who was assaulted because of their attacker's anti-religious bigotry in the US, Canada or Western Europe?

1. That a thing can be abused does not make it evil. (Thus I oppose prohibition laws for things like guns, drugs, and alcohol. By placing moral value on an inanimate object they make the problem worse.)

I agree, but the fact that something can be abused makes it dangerous, and the fact that it is currently being abused makes it worthwhile to speak out against it.

2. That every power structure attracts evil people to it.

I agree with that too.

I will happily point at a number of Bad Things done, not by the Christian religion, but by Christians using their religion as an excuse.

This is where you lose me. I don't see how you can say it's people using the religion as an excuse when the religion's teaching encourage the activities in question.

3. That, applying these two points specifically to religion, saying that that religion is a cause of violence is neither more nor less legitimate than saying sex, money, patriotism, and many other things which are good in their proper use are causes of violence.

4. Because of this, if you speak the way you do of religion, but not of sex, money, patriotism, etc., then I have cause to think that you are acting from a (low) level of anti-religious bigotry.

You didn't happen to say anything about sex, money or patriotism that I disagreed with. Tell me that anyone who doesn't get horny thinking about Dubya's economic policies isn't a real American, and we can discuss those other things.

I do tend to comment on religion more oftem than patriotism or money. In general, I don't feel like I have much to add when the discussion turns to the evils of money and patriotism, I do often feel like I have something to add when talk turns to religion. That may in fact indicate some anti-religious bias on my part. But the fact remains that my anti-religious bias doesn't threaten anyone's health, job, ability to get married, or equal protection under the law.

Have I missed any of your questions?

Yes. You haven't explained how when a follower of a religion does something taught by his religion that action is not religiously motivated.

Re: Really?

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

I don't see how you can say it's people using the religion as an excuse when the religion's teaching encourage the activities in question ... You haven't explained how when a follower of a religion does something taught by his religion that action is not religiously motivated.

I simply deny that the religion's actual teachings motivate such actions.

The religion's teachings include things like "Thou shalt not kill," "Turn the other cheek," "Love the sin, hate the sinner," "I [God] desire mercy, not sacrifice," etc. They use the religion as an excuse while ignoring its actual teachings ... just as you ignore its actual teachings when making such statements. The actual teachings of Christianity do not permit, let alone encourage, dragging someone into an alley and beating him.

Period.

And when someone says they do, they're lying.

G.K. Chesterton put it very well: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and not tried."

Re: Really?

[someotherguy.livejournal.com]

Is this one those circumstances where you're using a word to mean exactly the opposite of what the word really means? Like when people say "His head literally exploded" when they mean "His head figuratively exploded."

I can understand you saying that religion should teach those things, but the simple, obvious truth is that many religions actually teach bigotry, intolerance and violence. If you want to say that the ones that teach that stuff are false religions that puts you in the awkward position of explaining how that's not being intolerant.

I also find it interesting that it doesn't even appear to occur to you that there are religions other than Christianity, or that other Christians might see religion differently from you.

By the way, assuming you take the Bible seriously, your religions teachings include:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Re: Really?

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

I take the Bible quite seriously. One of the things it says is that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic law; indeed, that to try to be bound by it is to court condemnation. "The Law cannot justify, it can only kill." Christianity (based on the Bible, sc. the New Testament) teaches that the Law was given to show that we cannot live justly by our own power, and that what we need is not justice but mercy; even the later parts of the Old Testament, which I quoted in my last, make it clear that legalistic Judaism had missed the point. (This is not an anti-Jewish statement; it is a statement about the specific form of Judaism that was prevalent in the later pre-exilic period.)

*****

Yes, I take the position that a religion teaches what it teaches, rather than what its worst exponents say it teaches. Judging Christianity by gaybashers is like looking at a Trek convention and concluding that SF Fandom is all about geeks with no lives who live in their mother's basement to the age of forty ... which, of course, isn't even a fair assessment of Trek fandom. But that's what I say you're doing here.

Or if you were to say that all conservatives think the Constitution gives the President the right to bug US Citizens without a warrant, that would be a similar way of forming conclusions.

Regardless of what individual Christians say or do, Christianity teaches "Judge not, lest ye be judged"; it teaches mercy. It also teaches that those who are merciless in the name of Christ will have a very nasty surprise at the end of things. This is not me making shit up; check out the story of the sheep and the goats in ... I think it's Matthew 23 or so; I'm not the sort of person who can quote chapter/verse from memory.

Atheism, of course does not teach mercy, because atheism doesn't teach anything.

Nor have I seen any evidence that atheists, on the whole, are more merciful, less judgmental, or less violent than Christians. In societies where atheists have power, they abuse it in much the same way Christians do where they have it. This is a statement about humans, not about religion ... and one for which Christianity offers a plausible explanation. So does atheism: it's called evolutionary psychology, and most atheists I know reject it because they think it's "genetic determinism." As a Christian, I accept evolutionary psychology because it seems to explain why people are the way they are rather well. Go figure.

As for "religions other than Christianity" ... well, I speak for myself, not for Buddhists, Moslems, Jains, Jews, or Born-Again Pagans. I don't even speak for the Catholic church.

If I were to speak about other religions, I might be snide about Islam and patronizing about Buddhism. I have no desire to do either of those things, so I remain silent; similarly, I remain silent about religions like Jainism and Zoroastrianism about which I know relatively little. My relationship to Judaism is more complex, and I'm not going into it here except to say that if I weren't a Christian I'd probably like to be a Jew.

Re: Really?

[someotherguy.livejournal.com]

I take the Bible quite seriously. One of the things it says is that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic law;

I don't need to go to Mosaic law:

1 Corinthians 11:3-8 Is a very clear statement sexism, in part:

...the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man...For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

Besides which the cool thing about having a holy book that contradicts itself so often is you can prove pretty much any point you'd like to:

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Yes, I take the position that a religion teaches what it teaches, rather than what its worst exponents say it teaches.

No, you take the position that the things that religion teaches that don't support your argument don't count. You still haven't explained why, other than to say that in your opinion that's the way it should be.

Judging Christianity by gaybashers is like looking at a Trek convention...

Not exactly, because there's nothing in the Star Trek canon that says "Thou shalt live in thy mother's basement til the age of forty." While there is something in the Christian canon that says "kill men who sleep with other men."

If there was nothing in the Bible that promoted gaybashing, or only something that had to be really twisted to support it, then you would have a point.

I never said all Christians were gaybashers. Many Christians choose to emphasize the happy fluffy parts and I have very little problem with them. That doesn't change the fact that some Christians, and some people of other religions, emphasize the nasty parts.

Atheism, of course does not teach mercy, because atheism doesn't teach anything.

Atheism teaches that there is no god, but basically you're right. There's no such thing as atheist morality. Most atheists I know are also Humanists, but it's not a necessary connection and probably doesn't hold true everywhere.

Nor have I seen any evidence that atheists, on the whole, are more merciful, less judgmental, or less violent than Christians.

Google "prison population by religion." and you'll see that atheists make up a disproportionately low percentage of the prison population. That's not proof, but it is evidence.

In societies where atheists have power, they abuse it in much the same way Christians do where they have it.

Since all the societies where atheists have power are communist dictatorships, I'm not sure that means much, but regardless in this society the atheists don't have power, so their anti-religious bigotry can't cause the damage that religious bigotry does. How much having your toes stepped on depends on whether or not you're the one wearing the sandals, or you're the one wearing steel-toed boots.

Regardless of what individual Christians say or do, Christianity teaches "Judge not, lest ye be judged"; it teaches mercy.

Yes it does, but it also teaches bigotry, sexism, and horrible acts of barbarism. Which is emphasized dependeds on the sect. And let's not forget that some Christians are so sure that they're right that they concider it act of great mercy to force their beliefs on "poor lost sinners"

As for "religions other than Christianity" ... well, I speak for myself, not for Buddhists, Moslems, Jains, Jews, or Born-Again Pagans. I don't even speak for the Catholic church.

Exactly. Your personal religious views seems fairly reasonable. I don't think I would have much trouble hanging out with you in real life. But there are other people out there who have religious views that are not reasonable, and those people are motivated by those unreasonable religious views to do horrible things. The fact that those views are not part of your religion does not change the fact that they are part of other people's religion.

Re: Really?

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

At this point all I can really say amounts to: Whatever. It seems to me that we're ... not exactly talking past one another, but talking about two different things, and I won't talk about what you're talking about, and you won't talk about what I'm talking about, so what's the point in arguing?