Monthly Archive for March, 2008

Spirituality needs no God or religion

Published
by
Christian
on March 31, 2008
.
John Remy
John Remy at Mind on Fire is one of those atheists who don't deny their religious history. John puts it this way, calling himself an "Atheist-Quaker and secular humanist, cultural Shinto-Buddhist-Christian, and former Mormon." Wow, thats sort of a lot more religious background than I can claim for myself. It seems that his position is quite similar to mine when it comes to coexistence between believers and non-believers. He is assisted by co-blogger xJane.

John is host of the Humanist Symposium #17, the carnival that probably fits best the fundamentals of Free Thinking Joy. This edition presents a bunch of nine great posts on amazingness, honey and vinegar (the ingredients of Peking duck marinade), hidden freethinking power, teaching the controversy, lunching with believers, justice, and emotional truth. Every single post is a must read.

I added Mind on Fire to my blogroll today.

Conservative Protestants’ Religious Beliefs Contribute to Their Low Wealth, Duke Study Shows

Published
by
Strappado
on March 31, 2008
.
"Duke Sociology Professor Lisa A. Keister examines how religion affects the wealth of believers [...]
The study examines why conservative Protestants are dramatically overrepresented at the bottom of the U.S. wealth distribution and concludes that the cultural understandings that accompany conservative Protestant beliefs influence wealth ownership directly and indirectly.

[...]

Religious beliefs affect conservative Protestants’ wealth in a number of ways. They influence wealth ownership directly by shaping the values that people use to make work and financial decisions. In particular, Biblical references to God’s exclusive ownership of worldly goods lead to practices which are likely to reduce saving and asset accumulation.
Using the Economic Values Survey and the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, the study found that conservative Protestants tend to hold the following beliefs:
-- Divine advice, advice from clergy and other religious advice about money and work have merit. More conservative Protestants than other people surveyed are likely to pray about financial decisions, for example.
-- Excess accumulation of wealth is undesirable. More conservative Protestants said money prevents one from knowing God than other people surveyed.
Religious belief also can influence net worth indirectly through behavior that impedes the accumulation of wealth. This behavior includes:
-- Low educational attainment. Education is one of the strongest predictors of wealth, and conservative Protestants have significantly less education than members of other faiths.
-- Conservative Protestants tend to have children relatively early and to have large families, both of which make saving difficult. Also, conservative Protestant women tend not to work outside the family, which also reduces the ability to save. Saving and the resulting growth of assets “are perhaps the single biggest predictors of total adult wealth,” the study says.

[...]

Keister notes that the results could be influenced by the conservative Protestants’ socioeconomic class, but she found that religion had a significant effect after controlling for class background, adult class and other indicators such as parents’ education and income.
Nor does race appear to be responsible for the effect of conservative Protestantism on wealth. She found that the effect was stronger among black conservative Protestants, but was significant among whites as well."

Dukenews, March 24, 2008
See also the report: “Conservative Protestants and Wealth: How Religion Perpetuates Asset Poverty”

This is very interesting, and I have to say, sad. It just goes to show how religion contributes to their poverty, thereby dragging them further down into ignorance. I'm not one to say that getting rich is the only good thing in the world, but being poor is hardly desirable either. Especially not when you live in a country where ending up in a hospital can be very expensive.
The Conservative Protestant fear of wealth is also an interesting reminder of the old ties between Christianity and Communism.

Also, that Blacks are poorer can therefore in part be explained by their widespread religiosity. As Norm Allen said in a Point of Inquiry Podcast, in the old days, the Church was the only free space they had. Here's two podcasts with him that I highly recommend March 14. 2008 and November 24. 2006.

The things that offend armchair critics

Published
by
Strappado
on March 31, 2008
.
"Fellow bloggers,

The writer at the Armchair Critic blog says that I should be shot for compiling the list of things that offend Muslims, and goes on to compare me to a terrorist.

Here's the Link.

Here's a short sample,
This guy is a real muppet. I couldn't care to dig up his background or where he came from for that matter. Anyone who stirs shit like that deserved to be shot really. This is simply a case of asking for it. Don't even mention terrorists, this chap could be in real trouble even if he bumped into his Muslim neighbour, if he has any.

Please spread the word about this guy.

Regards,
Kevin, The Amboy Times"
I see that the Armchair Critic has rewritten that post now, and there appears to have been quite a discussion which I haven't followed. But the right honourable Armchair Critic need to realize that merely compiling a list is not the same as contributing to its contents. I'm not one to ask for people to be shot, but if the Armchair Critic wants to point his gun, I mean finger, somewhere, how about pointing it in the right direction? Say, I contributed to that list with the story about this employee at Marks & Spencer who refused to sell the book First Bible Stories to an old grandmother. The real shit stirrer here is not me, Kevin or the Christian grandmother - it's the holier than thou employee. Episodes like this that have made me rethink freedom of religion because I realize that shit stirrers like this will use their religion for anything, so it needs clear limits.

It has to be said though, that there should perhaps have been made a list of "The things that do not offend Muslims", because while there's always a very large majority of Muslims who say nothing, thereby not making a difference(that's the real problem), there will often be a few individuals that champion common sense when faced with silly demands from fundamentalists.
Maybe they should get their own list?

The self-aware elephant

Published
by
Ishy
on March 29, 2008
.

The Intolerant Tolerance

Published
by
Strappado
on March 29, 2008
.

The headline refers to a particular Norwegian debate, but it is fairly relevant to the Atheist movement. I wrote a blog post about in Norwegian, but here's one for the international market!
A common criticism levelled at conservative Christians have been that they are intolerant, especially towards gays. This type of criticism generally comes from liberals, and it's not concerned with scripture. It doesn't really care about religion at all, just tolerance.
In 2004, a Norwegian political commentator and editor, Harald Stanghelle, then warned that this tolerance (that the liberals advocated) was getting increasingly intolerant towards believers, and writing a piece about this, he used the phrase "the intolerant tolerance". The case in question was about how politicians wanted to force a Norwegian missionary organisation called Misjonsforbundet to allow gays and unwed couples into their organisation. Stanghelle is by no means a religious conservative, so it was not a right-wing backlash or anything. He was merely preaching tolerance towards the intolerant.
Late in February, this year, a whole shit storm was kicked up because Aftenposten, the paper that Stanghelle works for(and where he's the political editor), awarded a local Islamist, Mohammed Usman Rana, 10 000 NOK for an op-ed called "The secular extremism" where he criticized that Norwegians are intolerant towards religion. (Rana had earlier said this "I disapprove of the death penalty for homosexuality, but I am not a theologian or an Islam scholar and so I will not answer to what they do in other countries.",(English) so you know the type.). And in a comment a few days after Rana's op-ed was published, and all Hell broke loose, Stanghelle wrote a piece to defend the decision. It was called "Triumph of the godless?" and again he wrote about "the intolerant tolerance",– three times.
Stanghelle is, however, missing the point. Not everyone who puts on their shiny armour is out to fight for tolerance, but justice –- for instance. For what is right, not for what is tolerant. I don't think it was tolerance that was on the minds of those politicians who wanted also religious organisations to abide by Norwegian law, I think it was a sense of justice, and a feeling that they were fighting for the rights of a minority.
Justice can mean that you instead of handing out tolerance in all directions, be it towards Nazis or EMOs, you actively support the group that is most deserving.
Justice is not a simple concept. Those who believe they know what is right and wrong can be seriously mistaken, and will occasionally walk straight into fanaticism. The road to Hell is truly paved with good intentions. However, tolerance is also a good intention. It is in fact quite rare to hear people not advocating something with some or another good intention.
The difference between the two types of arguments(justice vs. tolerance), is that the ones who are concerned with justice, and what is right and wrong make an ethical judgement, while the tolerant doesn't have to. This is not to say that tolerant people do not think ethically, but an argument based on tolerance alone does not need to be founded on any other foundation than "Who cares?"
When I tolerate something, it's because I don't care. I tolerate bad music and art, and I tolerate traffic up to a certain point but if I say that I tolerate violent crime and exploitation, then my tolerance looses its charm. Then it's merely laissez faire.
In Stanghelle's comment from 2004, he wrote about Misjonsforbundet denying openly gays and unwed couples to get membership. He wrote that their opinion is hardly original, that it's shared by religious organisations throughout the world. But that "it doesn't fit the Norwegian zeitgeist in 2004".
He may think that his argumentum ad populum works to his advance, but it's quite to the contrary. Yes, Misjonsforbundet does not represent a minority. Strong forces in Russia, USA, the Middle East, Africa and probably lots of other places, are pressuring to force the homos back into the closet once and for all. It means that Misjonsforbundet is merely a part of a larger international tendency, and we have an obligation to do our job here.
So then the question is: do we want justice or tolerance? If we choose tolerance, we will have to expect to be criticized for not being tolerant enough to those we disagree with. It's a sort of Catch 22. You may perfectly well be tolerant if you like, but once you work against intolerance, you're not any better yourself. In the 90s, in Norway, anti-racists made the error that they used "tolerance" as a slogan, even if they were not particularly tolerant when they met a racist on the street. Instead of saying that they somehow promoted tolerance, which they weren't, they should have said that they were against racism because its unfair. That would do it. I'm against racism. It's not because I'm tolerant. I'm against it because it's unscientific, it's unfair, and it's bad for society. I don't need to resort to "tolerance".
And when I defend gays against religion, it's not because I'm tolerant towards the gays, but because I think it's the only right thing to do and the antipathy against gays is hardly scientific. I don't do it unconditionally. I know my bible, and I know that it does not favour homosexuality. And if there are good scientific arguments against, say adoption for gays, I would be listening (so far there's only been religious ad hoc-noise). The point is: gays have the best case. Not necessarily to become members of a religious organisation, but by being a minority that religious people throughout the world are violently picking on.
I only have to chose between defending people who are the way they are because of biology and between defending people who are as bigoted as they are because of theology. I rank biology over religious bigotry any day.
Intolerant tolerance becomes a problem to Stanghelle as well, because he's tolerant to Islamists and he prefer that we are too. So it's another Catch 22: he is intolerant to our intolerance towards their intolerance. Might it not have been be better if he had merely said he was for or against gays in Misjonsforbundet, or if he was for or against what Mohammed Usman Rana wrote?
The problem with tolerance as an ideal is that it does not inform us, because all roads are just as valid. But if one point of view is reasonable and the other is hair-raising, it doesn't mean that a compromise between the two is the best option.
It is also far more interesting to hear religious criticism against Atheism than smartass "Everything is all right stop this arguing right now" from other Atheists or liberal religious people.
One argument is an argument you can answer, and maybe even agree upon. The other one is authoritarian, merely inviting you to shut up.
I'm by no means against tolerance. A liberal society is after all the best kind of society, and intolerance is a negative thing to me too. But tolerance and intolerance are simply very vague terms that don't mean anything. I mean, Stanghelle would never have said that it was unfair that Misjonforbundet could not bar gay and unwed couples from becoming members. It's not unfair at all, that they have to abide by Norwegian law. He just picked the buzz word of all modern democracies, tolerance, and pretended it meant anything at all, but even a liberal society has to be protected by the law.

Tolerance can also be self-exterminating when you're up against forces that are generally more intolerant than average, like Islamists. Tolerance can therefore not be absolute. You can be against violence, even if you retain your right to self defence.

"We have the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should tolerate even them whenever we can do so without running a great risk; but the risk may become so great that we cannot allow ourselves the luxury. Karl Popper, paraphrase by Richard Robinson, An Atheist's Values (page 215)
In Norway, there's a Neo-Nazi/Neo-Pagan group called Vigrid. I tolerate them. It's because there are not one or two billions of these morons in the world. But if Vigrid is awarded 10 000NOK for writing their opinions in Aftenposten, then I will have to protest.


Told you so!

Published
by
ShawnMilo
on March 28, 2008
.
I realized recently (probably fairly late to the game), that there is a simple refutation to all religious beliefs. It can not be contradicted by any honest person. There are only two possible responses: Think about it honestly, or choose to ignore the truth. Here it is: Anyone who believes in any gods does so for no [...]

What a wonderful day!

Published
by
Christian
on March 28, 2008
.
jog
It has been a wonderful jog this morning, with sun rays bursting through the trees in a crystal clear cold air. I enjoyed it, and when a straight piece of forest road was ahead, I sped up my pace a bit, and - ouch! A nasty chest pain, radiating to my left shoulder. Just this kind of symptom known as warning sign for a heart attack. My last medical checkup is nearly ten years back. My heart has been okay then, but who knows what may have happened meanwhile?

I slowed down to a walk immediately. All of a sudden, the wonderful morning sun appeared kind of differently to me. Not that I really feared of suffering from a heart attack. But the possibility came to my mind, and I remembered all these guys I heard of having died suddenly, even after a visit to the doctor where nothing has been found.

I mused about what if this were my last morning jog ever. I tried to intensify the carpe diem feeling. But I came to the conclusion that there are limits, partly because of my own limited capacity of intensity, and partly because I did not really guess that I had a heart attack.

I also came to sort of a quiet feeling in view of the inevitable and final fate, as it would be in the worst case. Struggle? Despair? Regret? All would lead to nothing, wouldn't change anything. The only reasonable way would be enjoying the last moments in the sun.

After walking home and taking a shower and breakfast, I called my doctor (what I had planned anyway) and got an appointment later this morning. He made an auscultation, a blood troponine check, an ECG, and a thorax X-ray. Result: All! Is! Ooo-Kay! What a really, really wonderful day!

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/akijinn/14608772/

A Lost Gospel re: Virginia Tech Massacre

Published
by
God
on March 28, 2008
.

Hey everyone, Uncle God wrote this months ago but couldn’t find a disciple to type it up for him.  He’s not so good with computers.  He makes a typo, He throws a wrathful lightning bolt, He waits 5 weeks for HP to recover His damaged hard drive.  You know how it goes.  –Jesus

Many true believers have looked at the Virginia Tech massacre and asked themselves, “How could God have let this happen?”

I’ll tell you how: I work in mysterious waystm. Now that I’ve answered that question to everyone’s satisfaction, I will join the rest of the punditry in parading scapegoats through a lineup to see which one gets the highest ratings. I assume there a prize for the winner.

Scapegoat #1: Atheists

Rush Limbaugh has joined a chorus of Christians who concur that future attacks can best be avoided by introducing mandatory religious indoctrination to our universities. Like many of them, Rush is uniquely qualified to comment on higher education because he actually experienced it (albeit briefly) during the two years it took him to flunk out of Southeast Missouri State University. He writes:

Maybe they’re not too young to learn that there are many things in life larger than self, and maybe being able to take comfort in a relationship with that which is larger than self ( i.e., God) would have a calming effect on some of these people who go absolutely nuts and lose their sanity.

As the only thing in the Universe larger than self, I do tend to have a calming effect on people who go absolutely nuts. Most people get a little flustered about murdering innocents, unless they’re confident in My support. Then they can calm down and take a steady aim. I’m not sure why Rush would prefer that, but to each his own.

Omnipotent though I may be, I am not the greatest in the Universe at calming the crazy. That title goes to Allah, whose devout followers can board a plane with a straight face minutes before killing thousands in His name. That brings Me to the next scapegoat: Muslims.

Scapegoat #2: Muslims

If the problem isn’t too little religion, then by elimination it must be the wrong religion! That’s why one of My favorite hellbound pundits, Debbie Schlussel, blames Islam. If there’s one coherent theme in Cho Seung-hui’s video rant, it is his devotion to Allah, who he honors by not mentioning at all. He did frequently mention Jesus, in a transparent attempt to smear My nephew’s name.

Scapegoat #3: Immigrants

Scapegoat #4: Video Games

Scapegoat #5: Television

Scapegoat #6: Too Many Guns

Scapegoat #7: Not Enough Guns

Scapegoat #8: Apples

Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis fame, attempts to explain why I let this happen:

So, it’s not God’s fault that there is death and violence in the world—it’s humanity’s fault, because we rebelled against our Creator. … we have just a taste of what we really asked for in Adam, when the head of the human race disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree.

I like this guy. This crime isn’t My fault, it’s yours. Your ancestor shouldn’t have eaten one of My apples. Now look what you did! When something terrible happens, you were asking for it, and you’re just lucky nothing far worse has happened.  Now stay out of My damn orchard.

Scapegoat #8: Science

Ken Ham also blames science, which was(n’t) Cho Seung-hui’s major:

We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals—and humans—arose by natural processes. … The more such a philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people’s thinking.

Science introduces students to logic and facts. Neither of those two qualities was apparent in Cho’s video, but they are certainly undesirable.

Scapegoat #9: Tolerance of Homosexuals

The Westboro Baptist Church is best known for protesting dead soldiers’ funerals, because they believe I killed the soldiers as punishment for the nation’s tolerance of gays. They will be protesting the funerals of the massacre victims, too, and employing the same argument: all bad things happen because people are too nice to gays. This leaves them with precious little room to blame everything on apples.

Scapegoat 10: Fishing

abc_cho7_070418_ssh.jpgFollowing Debbie Schlussel’s type of logic, I point you to this ABC News photo and analysis, which they describe as:

In the video, Cho wore a khaki-colored vest similar to what fishermen wear.

Coincidence? I think not. Ban fishing. Bass are a bad influence.

Scapegoat #11: Insanity

No, nevermind. This one’s boring.

, , ,

Fitna – the Movie

Published
by
Dave McRitchie
on March 27, 2008
.
I'm probably not the first nor certainly the only blogger to post Geert Wilders' film, but I feel it must get as much distribution as possible. Here it is. UPDATE: Mar. 29,2008. No doubt some...

Stupid AND Poor.

Published
by
Steve Weaver
on March 27, 2008
.
Here's something interesting. Religious people, on average, are less wealthy than non-religious folks. Probably has something to do with them not being as smart as rational people, I would have thought. Let's face it, if you believe in a magical malevolent sky fairy, I'm sure it's pretty easy to be taken in by pretty much any old scam, I would think.
The study examines why conservative Protestants are dramatically overrepresented at the bottom of the U.S. wealth distribution and concludes that the cultural understandings that accompany conservative Protestant beliefs influence wealth ownership directly and indirectly.
But there is a reason for it, it seems. According to Lisa A. Keister, Duke professor of sociology and author of “Conservative Protestants and Wealth: How Religion Perpetuates Asset Poverty,” published in the March issue of the American Journal of Sociology,
The direct influence stems from conservative Protestants’ unique approach to finances -- in particular the belief that people are managers of God’s money and excess accumulation of wealth should be avoided.
In addition, conservative Protestants have tended to be less educated and have large families beginning at younger ages; and fewer conservative Protestant women work, all of which indirectly contribute to slow asset accumulation.
A couple of the reasons made me laugh out loud. Apparently, conservative christians tend to ask for
...Divine advice, advice from clergy and other religious advice about money and work...More conservative Protestants than other people surveyed are likely to pray about financial decisions, for example.
Clearly, it's not helping. Let's be real here, you can't trust your kid with a priest, so why would you trust him on money matters also? And, not surprisingly, low educational attainment is a factor too:
Education is one of the strongest predictors of wealth, and conservative Protestants have significantly less education than members of other faiths.
So there you go. Christians: Stupid and poor.

Late Easter….

Published
by
Steve Weaver
on March 27, 2008
.
I know it's a little late for Easter, but I thought since it was a festive time, I'd add a few quotes from George Carlin (courtesy of the "Orgy of George" desk calendar for last weekend):
I have as much authority as the pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham will lead a nationwide prayer vigil and ask God to do something about America's moral climate. God will promptly strike all three of them dead.
(Note - Jerry met his maker, or not, depending on your viewpoint, last year)

Frequently Asked Questions

Published
by
Christian
on March 27, 2008
.
questionmarks
What is the joy of freethought?
The positive primordial feeling of using our own brain on the so-called last questions before it has been replaced by imposed religious beliefs, and after it has been regained by deconversion. A view that emphasizes the good sides of living with a free mind as opposed to attacking bad sides of religion.

Dare it? Is it dangerous?
No. At least not more dangerous than religion. But for most adherers, religion implies a big value which will cause fear of loss if threatened. Only a shift of view will show that the real values of religion will not be lost, and that the gain of freethought will exceed a possible loss by far.

Do it? Do you want to proselytize?
Not quite. Rather encourage. I have the impression that many out there are not really comfortable with their religion. Instead of living it in a compromised, undecided way, they could be happier with undogmatic freethought and a full commitment to a secular humanism. But for all those who are happy with their religion, it might be better to stay with it.

Do you hate Christianity?
No. I have just grown out of it, and I still appreciate its content that is relevant to humanism, and I admire the great cultural achievements such as the music of Bach. I am also comfortable with my first name and with the reasons of my dad to choose it for me. The spiritual world in which I have grown up is and will forever be part of my life, and I do not deny this part of my personal history.

Are you an atheist?
This question may be less important than you may think, but yes. At least at the moment. Freethought is a thinking mode, not a belief, and for a freethinker every belief is subject to a possible change. But it is not very likely that I'll come again to believe in a personal God who has planned my life and who does guide it.

Do you believe in a soul?
Yes, but not in one that is separate from my brain and that has existed before my brain and will exist after my brain has disappeared. The soul is a function or phenomenon of the brain, and this is not meant as a depreciation but, on the contrary, as admiration and awe of natural wonder.

So you do not believe in afterlife?
No. I did not exist before I have been conceived, and I'll return to this same state after my death. But, due to my life, the world has changed its state - see also my remarks on butterfly effect. I think that the finite duration of life, as opposed to a supposed endless duration, adds more value to it. When there is no life after death, life before death becomes more important and precious.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/ccsd/2315262576/

God Murders 11 Year Old Girl!

Published
by
Vince
on March 27, 2008
.
Okay I suppose a more accurate headline would be:

Delusional parents allow their innocent daughter to die a very slow and excruciatingly painful death while waiting for an imaginary man in the sky to issue a "healing" instead of seeking medical attention.

but you get the point.

Hat tip to Scott for the story.

In which 3rd-world, provincial backwater did this tragedy occur? Yup, you guessed it; right here in the land of the free and home of the brave. Free to believe in silly invisible men and brave enough to entrust your physical well-being to him.

Thanks to religious belief, Weston, Wisconsin now has 1 less little girl that will ever get to play with her friends again, have her first kiss, or get to fall in love. Her parents decided that, what must have been several weeks of illness, was a matter best left to god; and prayed for a healing rather than take their child to a doctor. Sadly, the child had undiagnosed diabetes and her death could have been avoided by the simple administration of insulin. This little girl needed insulin but got prayer instead. Great.

Read the full story from the Associated Press HERE.

As a father, I can only begin to imagine the crippling grief that comes with the death of your child. But the utter senselessness of this tragedy makes it infuriating.

How many millions more must die in religion's name before we cast off the chains of magical thinking?

A Woman’s Place…

Published
by
DocMike
on March 26, 2008
.
One of my employees, who happens to be a young woman, said today that she would never vote for because she is a woman and the says that women should not be leaders.

"That's a man's job," she said.

I asked her where it says that in the and she didn't know. She just knows that it's in there and she knows that intended women to be submissive to men.

I wanted to rant and rave and fire her ass for being so fucking stupid! But I realized that it's not her fault. I pity her because she is a young, attractive, intelligent woman who has been indoctrinated all of her life and accepts that she could never be equal to a man. It's really sad!

And the fact is she's right about the . It does say that:

1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

It's a shame that, in this day and age, young women are still limiting themselves because of this horrible, antiquated book that was obviously written by men! Makes me fucking sick!!!

Here’s some more female denigration from the :

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

1 Corinthians 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Also see Women in the Bible from The Skeptics Annotated Bible for many more examples.

Technorati Tags:
Thank you for subscribing to "By The Book Comics"

Why I respect beliefs that are not mine

Published
by
Christian
on March 26, 2008
.
checkmate
Disrespect of others' beliefs seems to be common in the blogosphere. Even more, there has been some reasoning recently (see links at the bottom) to justify such a stance. I do not agree, and I have missed two points in the discussion so far. Firstly, respect only makes sense if both sides disagree in their views. Secondly, I can only expect to be respected if I am ready to respect others.

As a passionate chess player I have learnt that mutual respect in a situation of extreme disagreement is a vital part of this game. And I don't see why this concept should not be used in philosophic dispute as well.

One important point is the fact that a player who disrespects his opponent may still win but probably will not play his best chess. Most strong players always assume the strongest replies to their moves, even against weaker opponents and even if they doubt whether the opponent would find the strongest reply. Applying this principle to online disputes, I think that it is cheap to attack the weakest points of the opponent, and that it is much more rewarding to look for the strongest points and attack these.

Respect and disagreement

If someone shares my view, there is no need at all for respect. Why? Because there is no conflict. Even in the case of self-respect, a conflict is required. There are two situations where self-respect is of vital importance: Being attacked by others or being "attacked" by an inner conflict, for instance by doubts about the own value. Thus, the function of respect is handling of conflicts, and in the absence of a conflict there is no need for it.

Self-respect and self-esteem are often used as synonyms. But I think my point is exactly about the difference between them. I think that conflict makes the difference. There is a basic feeling of well-being that can be described as self-esteem. If it is still held up in a conflict situation, the same feeling may be called self-respect. But I think that conflict adds a different flavour.

My own beliefs are a matter of self-esteem as long as they are not challenged. In a dispute, they become a matter of self-respect.

Respect is no form of agreement

As a consequence, I also reject the idea that a belief deserves more respect if it is close to mine, or if it is more likely to be "true", or if it is shared by a lot of people, or if books have been written about it, or the like. What I reject in particular is the idea that respect is a somewhat weaker form of agreement.

I respect people who believe in God. I respect them as persons, which never has been disputed in the posts that I have come across. But I also respect their belief as such. I do not share it. But I respect that it is up to every person to set up a system of belief to live with, and that for some people this may be a belief in God or gods.

In turn, I also expect theists to respect my atheism, in particular, that I have my good reasons not to believe in God or gods, and that for me, such a view is best for coping with the ultimate questions of life, moral, and death.

Mutual respect is a matter of the Golden Rule: Respect others as you would like to be respected by others.

The limits of respect

One major reason not to respect a belief is one that disrespects my own belief. Tit for tat. You respect my belief, I'll respect yours. You disrespect my belief, I'll disrespect yours. That is, not the whole content but only the part involved with disrespect. But this may be difficult because it would imply a dialogue or dispute, and disrespect is a dispute killer in most cases.

The problem with mutual disrespect is that both sides, usually, only see the disrespect on the other side. A disrespectful response seems to be justified, then. But it may not be easy to figure out who has started the disrespect war.

Another problem is the anonymity of the web which does not favour a polite, fair dispute but facilitates disrespect and ad hominem attacks.

Besides violation of the Golden Rule, there is only one reason for me to deny respect: violation of human rights and threatening humanism in a wide sense. But I guess that all these are just special cases of violating the Golden Rule.

Other views

There is much more to be said about the matter, and others have done so in a better way than I possibly could, so I just try to review what I have found.

Simon Blackburn's paper Religion and Respect (PDF) has been published in 2005 already, but has gained new attention recently. It comes to the conclusion that respect is a case of true or false, rational or irrational, close to my own or far from my own belief.

Lindsey, at regardant les nuages, interestingly, has been convinced by Blackburn, counter-intuitively, to respect beliefs that she does not share. Lindsey is a theist and does respect atheists as far as they are ready to respect her theism. She says: "It is because of our fallibility that we should respect opposing beliefs held by others."

Chris, at Mixing Memory, says that it is important how someone comes to a belief. The reasons, and also the consequences of such beliefs are important when it comes to respect. I agree. I'll never respect a belief that implies bad, inhuman behaviour.

The Uncredible Hallq, at the group blog God is for Suckers, (no wonder) argues against respect, stating that truth is what counts, but missing the point that for different people, different truths exist, and that there is no (God-like) instance that may tell us which one is really true.

Harry, at Crooked Timber, just points out this uncertainty about truth, stating that "there is a gap between certainty of one’s own infallibility and very-close-to-certainty that one is right, and that gap is what makes respect possible".

Richard, at Philosophy et cetera, agrees to respect a belief only in so far as it is reasonable. While most religions are based on irrational assumptions, he also admits that he would respect a reasonably mistaken deist more than an atheist who is so without a good reason.

Brandon, at Siris, in addition to reasonability, also sees the beauty of content respect-worthy. This is not exactly what I would say, I rather would take respect as the default position and look for cases of disrespect. Brandon gives links to a number of other posts.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/uckhet/268319752/

If you pray are you less likely to confide in other people?

Published
by
Ishy
on March 26, 2008
.
I've found that during the times when I had no one to talk to I got a lot more accomplished emotionally when I talked to myself instead of talking to god. First, and most important, I found people I was able to talk to by first talking to myself.

And sure, sure, when you talk to god you're really just talkin to yourself. The difference for me was that when I talked to myself I didn't have faith that someone else would work out my problems for me magically.

Also, it never prevented me from opening up to people because I was taught that god will work through other people in my life, so I was always aware of people who were willing to listen.

And anyway, there is NO community like the church community, except maybe your own family. EVERYONE at church knows all your business. All it takes is one person finding out one thing about you, and everybody knows by next Sunday. Awww man. Church is like high school on crack. I had Christian friends at school and I'd go to their youth group events and just hear gossip all night. I started preaching out against the gossip at my own church, but they fought hard to keep it by saying they didn't gossip. I starting blowing my metaphorical "rape whistle" whenever someone attempted to engage me in gossip. I was better than them.

Prayer for me didn't stop me from opening up to people. Everyone already knew my business and told me about what I should be doing different all the time. I didn't even have a chance at keeping my shit to myself. At that point it doesn't matter that they praise you for the good things you do. It's been made clear to you that an entire community of people will know and judge every mistake you make. Who cares about an occasional high-five. I will pick privacy over praise ALWAYS. Again, I think that's another point for me, the atheist.

To answer the question from a Christian perspective, it is impossible to even consider the option of not confiding in other people.

Arabs campaign for women to “Take off the Veil”

Published
by
Strappado
on March 25, 2008
.
"A group of Arabic websites and blogs have launched an international campaign against the Muslim headscarf (hijab), arguing the move is a response to what they see as “intellectual terrorism” practiced by strict Islamic groups and individuals.
The campaign is called "Take Off The Veil”, and was launched March 8, 2008 to coincide with International Women's Day.

[...]

Manea, a professor of Yemeni descent and who works in Switzerland, said she believes the headscarf was never part of Islam and chose International Women's Day for the campaign as she views the headscarf as a symbol of women's oppression and to warn women deceived by Islamists into putting "this rag on their heads."[more]"

Al Arabiya, 10 March 2008
Not bad at all!

Civil Rights Webcomic

Published
by
Stupac2
on March 25, 2008
.
So the ACLU has started a new Civil Rights webcomic, and wouldn't you know what the first one is about:



In case you're unaware, that's my high school, and my principal. I was utterly unsurprised when this happened, as it's exactly the reaction I would have expected from him. It's also utterly absurd, given that seniors do an archery unit in Gym. I can't really tell why arrows shot from bows are ok in our gym, but a picture of a sword isn't. I guess it's just school administrator logic.

So that's my town's little bit of fame.