My Religious Intolerance

that's my opinion.

I think you and share pretty much the same views towards religion, Ed, I just try to avoid viewing others as "stupid" b/c they are religious.

If only religious folx could be so tolerant of others. . .

But my problem with fundies transcends religion to politics and philosophy and cultural tastes. Randroids, hardcore unshaven Marxists, Christian fundies, hyperradical animal rights people, et al. make my skin crawl.
(xpost)

Atheism isn't a belief-set because there's only one fundamental belief - no god or gods. You can be a secular humanist atheist or an Objectivist atheist, or whatever you want. It's kind of like calling theism of any form one beliefset because one belief is shared.

xpost/gareth

"Our technology and our spirituality are increasingly one and the same if either has any meaning. The ultimate materialization of spirit* is indistinquishable from the ultimate spiritualization of matter. By this last I mean (among other things) the increasing subjection of all things material to conscious purpose and control. The material is gradually subsumed by conscious intent, by spirit if you will. Nanotech is a very deep and important step in the progression."
*I would have precised "The materialization of the material mind into another support"

"I think we need more love and understanding, story-telling, poetry, imagination, laughter, fun and companionship, not religious mysticism.
I think we do need some things often seen in the best of relgion and
mysticism. We need a unified, uplifting and compelling vision and a deep ethics/morality in the way we deal with one another and acheive that vision. To date I have not seen anything along these lines as unitive or compelling as the best religion/mysticism has to offer. It would surprise me if religious/mystical memes were entirely absent from such a unitive Vision. I don't think the memes will be sufficiently viable without such."

BTW, I would recommend "The Age of Spiritual Machines" and Moravec's "Robot -
Mere Machines to Transcendent Mind".

Having religion is a lot like having a big dick. It's comforting to you but nobody else wants it shoved down their throat.

sorry. . .derailment.

That's a fucked-up thing to say. Your saying that everyone who has faith in God (Mother Teresa, CS Lewis and Desmond Tutu) are deluded. One thing I'll concede is that we don't know... but alot of very intellingent folks have spent a lifetime immersed in this faith and has given them courage and strength in very trying times.

religion is that it inshrines the notion of the inferiority and subservience of people

Just because of a belief in God? What if I believe God is just the collective unconscious or some hippie shit like that? Or Eastern religions that are nearly atheist? Religion can be important in terms of community and ritual, etc. Haven't found a religion I'd like to be a part of, still, but different strokes sink ships.

It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious

This must be why the Native Americans signed all those treaties. They knew that the Christian settlers were trustworthy because of their religiously-derived values.

I'm looking to organize a Group Shrug for fellow agnostics in the Boston area in 2010. Who's in?

humanism is a religion too.
― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, March 9, 2004 8:13 PM (5 years ago) Bookmark

i've been an atheist-agnostic-whatever for more than thirty years, in the rural sticks and in the big city. and i've always known quite a few others (most of my friends, really), and have almost never encountered much shock or negativity from the faithful.

i've had the same experience - i was atheist-agnostic-whatever for most of my post-age-of-reason life and it seemed to me like most of the religious negativity came from political movements, not from people in everyday life, even in rural ny (which is more like the midwest than the city). it is probably a function of a) living in new england now and b) being in academia, but i come across anti-religious statements in person far more commonly than anti-atheistic ones.

i do think christianity plays a primarily negative role in american politics right now, but in terms of everyday interactions, do you guys worry about people knowing you're not religious? have you experienced harassment because of it? and where do you live, is it more of a southern/midwestern problem?

I grew up in suburban Georgia, and the exit you take off the highway to go to my (public) school has had a huge yellow billboard up that just says "Jesus" for as long as I can remember. There was a megachurch across the street that I watched get bigger and bigger every year, and all the popular kids would carry their bibles around with them. Sometimes the church would hold events after school on school grounds and I really hated that.

I was never ever harassed or taunted but I think that's probably because I was in a very extreme minority and I am a genuinely peaceful person. Mostly I was just excluded from being social with my peers. In order to hang out after school with most people I was friends with in my classes I would have to go to 'Youth Group' and I didn't like the sound of that.

I think the first time I realized things would be difficult was in elementary school when we were taught about Manifest Destiny. The teacher was explaining it and everyone else seemed pretty OK with it but I thought it was a load of genocidal bullshit.

I'd love to read some more first hand accounts like this.

thanks, adam. i'd love to read more as well.

i live in the southeast an dwhile i don't particulary care if people know i'm not religious, i certainly don't bring it up in mixed company. the last thing you want is some fundie, however genuinely loving they may be, trying to "save" you. i imagine a lot of the antipathy towards atheists is that they may bring into relief some people's own insecurities w/r/t their faith.

of course i don't mean to suggest that being occasionally (or often) "insecure" in your faith doesn't automatically result in dickishness.

doesn't automatically result

automatically results

You get taught Manifest Destiny at school? Do you mean as something-that's-true, or as something-that-people-thought-once?

it was taught to me in a very watered-down way - i was told manifest destiny is an idea american settlers had that their nation's special mission was to expand westward to the pacific, not really any mention of "because god said so" or "but there were already native people living there." but it was more a phrase of vocabulary we had to learn than anything we spent much time discussing, it's quite possible that my teacher was uncomfortable with it.

Yeah my teacher explained that it meant settlers could invade and take over the land "because it was a God-given right". God had already granted the puritans escape from religious persecution in the Old World, and was gracing them with this New World and thus it was destined theirs for the taking. Perhaps my teacher was just trying to combat the liberal bias that so obviously permeates the public school system. j/k

The idea of my country being founded on such a hypocritical stance, one that looked to the bible for validity, made a big impression on me as a youth.

parallels with the 'right' to invade afghanistan/iraq?

damn Adam. what year was this, if you don't mind me askin

when i was in high school i staged a one-man protest against the "see you at the pole" group which organizes a day to hold a public prayer on campus around the flagpole (thus further conflating religion and nationalism). my sign had matthew 6:5 quoted and "keep church and state separate" on the other side.

unfortunately this day also happened to be the one-year anniversary of 9/11. so from that day forward, the rumor spread that i was in the taliban. 4 realz.

do you guys worry about people knowing you're not religious?

It's more or less the other way round in the UK

50/50 in ireland, depending on context. with older relatives it's a 'thing', and quite a few people that i work with i'd say it would be too.

re: maifest destiny

texas history is taught in texas in 4th and 7th grade and it is very much in line with the manifest destiny horseshit (ie tx just wanted to be free but the stupid mexicans - boo! - wouldn't let 'em be free so davy crockett freed us at the alamo blah blah texas joins america to form velvet revolver supergroup now we are awesome yay!)

I was in elementary school in the mid-late 80s, so yeah the era of Reagan.

M Bison, I feel for you. I can't imagine how difficult it must be growing up atheist (or otherwise non-Christian) post-9/11.

i think that era i was around my most strident, dawkins-level bilous but i was p recently divorced from churchin as well.

Many xposts, specifically to that picture of the secular group billboard:

it really annoys me that people confuse secular and atheist. I presume all atheists would be in favour of a secular state, but there's no contradiction between being religious and being in favour of secularism too; arguably that's what Jesus's 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's' line is all about. You hear it all the time, even the news will talk about things like 'people of faith' as opposed to 'secular people'.

'Secular' is a really useful word and concept, it isn't getting treated right.

Real Jeebus freaks call the rest of us 'downcast'...

Well, they're right about that at least

This is one of the things that annoys me about religion in politics - it's the loud intolerant ones who make all the noise, but the ones who actually favor secularism don't usually counter it with "WE'RE CHRISTIANS TOO, NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT BECAUSE THIS IS CIVIL SOCIETY" because that would be, well, hypocritical. (Also the loud intolerant ones just say "well, clearly you're not REAL Christians.") Drives me crazy when politicians have to recite their religious bona fides when they clearly find it inappropriate too. I have no idea what the solution is for this.

I thought all American politicians were religous?

they all say they are, and maybe they're all very sincere, but some of them only seem like they're talking about it because they have to to get votes, not because they think it actually has a place in politics. i respect that position and wish they did not feel obligated to say anything about it at all.

any of the ones you hear about have to make a more than passing nod to it.

Sorry, but your country is weird

Not 1 in 10 Texas students ever learn that the Texas revolution was largely fought to retain slavery: 1, 2, 3. Few Americans in general are taught that the intellectual bulwark of slave trade apologists was the Bible.

As a Texan living outside Austin, in a largely Republican area with 4 megachurches within a few miles, I don't mention religion or politics to anyone without a long acquaintance.

Few Americans in general are taught that the intellectual bulwark of slave trade apologists was the Bible.

incidentally, the intellectual bulwark for slave trade abolitionists was ALSO THE BIBLE

Amen to that

derelict, that def resonates with my own schooling, the whle slave territory landgrab was something i learned in high school independently (and later in college in more detail).

where are you in tx?

m bison:
SW Houston at present, due to sick parents, though I'm looking at Montrose/Museum District real estate for a move in the near future.

i'm only barely familiar with that area as my company's base/home is in west houston in the galleria area. museum district is dope iirc.

i'm in san antonio, went to high school kinda far nw (a lot of kids who live in the hill country go that school and there's an ag program, so pretty conservative area).

Incidentally, the megachurch phenomenon in suburban America is really unique in the developed world. From what I've seen of them, they're totally antithetical to any mystic/spiritual/religious subjective experience. My theory is that we as a culture turned to them as an escape from the all-together too-easy socal isolation among atomic families, in the land of the lawns. Any professed belief is secondary to deeper strains of loneliness and loss. I'm trying to recall the name of a recent book on the inner lives of political conservatives that made similar points, but coming up blank.

SA's most prominent megachurch is cornerstone church (led by chrsitian zionist rev hagee, i live like less than 10 minutes drive from it. i've known a couple of ppl who have attended/were members. one was a family who had only lived here for a short while and subsequently moved shortly thereafter, the other was younger and single and i think in both cases there's the appeal of a big brand name church to identify with.

This is one of the things that annoys me about religion in politics - it's the loud intolerant ones who make all the noise, but the ones who actually favor secularism don't usually counter it with "WE'RE CHRISTIANS TOO, NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT BECAUSE THIS IS CIVIL SOCIETY" because that would be, well, hypocritical. (Also the loud intolerant ones just say "well, clearly you're not REAL Christians.") Drives me crazy when politicians have to recite their religious bona fides when they clearly find it inappropriate too. I have no idea what the solution is for this.

^^so very very otmfm. makes me hate moderates almost as much. quit being pussies, guys.

derelict, was it related at all to this article?

http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/the-radical-christian-right-is-built-on-suburban-despair

ah found the neuroscience article I was thinking of upthread: It sounds cockamamy, but it is true. Scientists have found that the brain’s 100 billion neurons are surprisingly unreliable. Their synapses fail to fire 30 percent to 90 percent of the time. Yet somehow the brain works. Some scientists even see neural noise as the key to human creativity. Boahen and a small group of scientists around the world hope to copy the brain’s noisy calculations and spawn a new era of energy-efficient, intelligent computing. Neurogrid is the test to see if this approach can succeed.

m bison, that's the one. I don't think I care much for the title of his book American Fascists; its just crudely inflammatory. But I've come to similar conclusions about the diagnosis. Organized religious communities have sprung up because many have abandoned the support networks that were once found in more urban life. Britisher's may be amazed by this, but the place I'm residing in has moderate suburban density, on the order of the less compact suburban hamlets outside big UK cities. The nearest pub or bar is more than 3 miles distant. There are 3 liquor stores nearer. There's a lot of lonely drinking going on.

don't forget the meth and oxycontin

"incidentally, the intellectual bulwark for slave trade abolitionists was ALSO THE BIBLE"

As cool as the story of John Brown is, man he crazy!

I'm not too keen on the idea of atheists organizing as a vocal group/self-identifying as a minority separate from the rest of humanity. If Obama is the closest we get to an atheist president, I'm totally cool with that.

i just long for the day when a candidate, when asked about his super-jesus credentials, can just say well that's really none of your business and won't affect my performance one iota so stfu.

You hear it all the time, even the news will talk about things like 'people of faith' as opposed to 'secular people'.

This polarization is my main grief, it's either you believe in YHWH (God, Jesus, etc. as long as it's close enough it's OK) or you have no faith in anything and think the universe is a big accident with no meaning and no truth. There's no room in-between.

Also not that there's anything wrong w the latter view.

i do think christianity plays a primarily negative role in american politics right now

Agreed. That seems obvious, I think, to all but the most evangelistic and willfully blind.

but in terms of everyday interactions, do you guys worry about people knowing you're not religious?

Not really, no. But I do not lead with this information. It's irrelevant to almost all common human interactions.

have you experienced harassment because of it?

It's not quite harassment, but -- and I think this is kind of heartbreaking -- religion divides my family in a very harsh way. My relatives who are Jehovah's Witnesses, including my only remaining grandparent, all but one remaining aunt or uncle, and a great deal of my extended family, are almost totally cut off from me. (Grandma makes an exception, but only because she still thinks she can evangelize to me.) I can't speak to them, because they are not allowed to speak to me. There are people that I grew up with that I can't so much as send an email to, asking how they are, how's the wife and new baby, etc. They are not allowed to speak to me, because I do not share their religion. That is some fucked up shit, right there.

and where do you live, is it more of a southern/midwestern problem?

Even back when my uncle on my mom's side was still a JW, he moved to LA for a few years, and reported that even the JW's in California are a lot more easy-going and open to culture and life in general. I don't know about the Midwest, but there's certainly a generalized head-up-ass thing in the South.

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/12/15/north-carolina-fundamentalists-are-on-the-offensive-to-oust-atheist-councilman/

Funny how this guys pick and choose what parts of the constitution to promote and uphold, just like they do with the Bible.

But I do not lead with this information. It's irrelevant to almost all common human interactions.

same here. i feel a little nervous when it does come up, usually just in terms of weekend/evening plans if i'm going to a service or event, and then i sort of subconsciously look for opportunities to explain that my church isn't evil.

i'm sorry to hear about religion dividing your family that way. i have a friend from upstate ny who is cut of from her entire jw family similarly (in part due to being queer) and it's very, very painful for her. heartbreaking is right.

Another charmer crawls out from under his rock:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Mecklenburg County Commissioner Bill James has responded after referring to another commissioner's son as a 'homo' during Monday night's debate on domestic partner benefits.

During the discussion, Commissioner Vilma Leake, a Democrat, spoke in support of providing benefits for the domestic partners of county workers in same-sex relationships. The commission voted 6-3 in favor of providing benefits.

Shortly after Leake's speech, James could be heard (on recorded audio) saying the following:

James: "Your son was a homo?"

Leake responded, "Don't make me hurt you. Don't do that to me. Don't talk to me about my son."

Following the incident, FOX Charlotte received a statement (via email) from Bill James, who says, "I can type but I can't talk."

In the statement, James says:

"Vilma is a religious hypocrite."

"She was married to a Bishop in the AME Zion church. This church has historically opposed homosexuality."

"In justifying her position last night in public she used her son’s ‘lifestyle’ and his death from HIV-AIDS to justify voting for benefits to allow individuals to use tax dollars to engage in the same behavior that resulted in her son’s death."

"It is akin to someone whose son is an alcoholic and died from the disease, using his death from drinking as justification to have the taxpayers pay for more booze."

"Her position was that her ‘faith’ demanded that she do this to support her son and his ‘lifestyle’ which she acknowledges killed him."

"In doing so, it is legitimate to ask her what ‘lifestyle’ and in particular whether her son was a homosexual. Her response was to threaten me with physical violence (typical for her). Of course, this isn’t the first time she has threatened elected officials. On the School Board she had a long and checkered history threatening to harm those she disagrees with."

"Well, if she didn’t want to make her ‘son’ an issue – why did she use him, his lifestyle and his tragic self-inflicted death from AIDS as the reason for her vote?"

Mecklenburg County Commission Chairwoman Jennifer Roberts says Commissioner Bill James should apologize for his comments.

Make sure to read the comments there. They're a real hoot.

http://www.orthocuban.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Calvin-and-Hobbes-05.gif

OK, the dude in my post right above kenan's decides to double down: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/latest_eruption_from_bill_your_son_was_a_homo_james_de_infest_areas_where_g/

Homosexual conduct is illegal in NC (even after Lawrence V Texas). We arrest 250 homosexuals each year in Mecklenburg alone for either a ‘crime against nature’ or ‘solicitation of a crime against nature’. Unlike prostitution (exchanging money), even suggesting homosexual sex is a criminal offense in NC. If we were all that ‘progressive’ would we be arresting 250 homosexuals a year? Setting up sting operations to de-infest areas where they congregate? Point is, if you want to delude yourself that homosexual conduct is ‘ok’ go ahead. The law, the police and the DA however have a different view.

I think that if you’re someone who is homosexual and you believe that you are born that way and have every right to engage in that behavior, I think the offensive thing, I would surmise, is not the word ‘infest’ or ‘de-infest’ but the fact that the police are actually doing the sting operations. We can parse words — what phrase should I have used? But the central question for most people is not what particular term got used but whether the action was occurring. Was I accurate in saying there are these sting operations going on and those sting operations — whatever term you want to use — target homosexual men? That is why the county took and spent significant amounts of money to rework the park to take out certain landscaping things to prevent, once the sting operations cleared them out, prevent them from re-congregating — or re-infesting if you use my original term.