Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "Some of Gary's posts strike a chord with me. There's a lot that makes sense. Some ... go to an extreme that I don't think is necessary nor does it go with his normal logical tone. That's just the truth ... as I see it. "That's fair, and you are right to question it. Have you considered however that some of what I say is within your comfort zone, while some of it is outside of it which perhaps leads to the disparity?
For example I find that a lot of people seem to accept easier the concept of freedom of religion (probably due to the splintering of the Church since the reformation) however a common statement is;
"It is not important what you have Faith in, just that you have Faith."
This statement I refute.
Shannon wrote: "often gives only extreme examples, which I don't get"
Well to be honest its the extreme problems that need to be addressed first. I am more concerned about people blowing themselves and others to pieces than I am about the Catholic idea that sex should only be for procreation. But I don't think you can cure the problem of extremism without addressing the core principle that extremism is built on.
Gary wrote: "May I ask, why have you changed your position from addressing the issues to addressing my motivations? One could assume that this is a subtle ad-hominem attack where your intention is to undermine my arguments by implying bias, without actually supplying evidence of that bias?"
As I've mentioned in previous posts, your posts often strike a chord in me. They're often quite intelligent and rational and make me think, even challenge my beliefs. The majority of them carry a certain tone, one of intelligence and even an openness to discourse. But, sometimes, your posts ... or parts of your posts ... are very, very different. They carry a different tone altogether. They veer to the extreme, use only extreme examples, and ignore the full picture, in my view.
That's the why of it. I sit and read your posts and think things like ...
"Wow, good point."
"I never thought of it that way."
"Holy cow! I don't even know what he just said. I need to re-read that puppy and do some research."
"I wonder if I need to think about this. It makes me uncomfortable, but he has a point. I need to suck it up, ditch the discomfort, and give this some thought."
Then, once in awhile, I think, ...
"Why is he going extreme all of a sudden? Where's the logical, rational Gary I'm used to? What the heck is the point of going to the extreme?"
When people go to the extreme, Gary, it makes me more than a bit nervous. Not just with you. With anyone. It's like an alert goes off in my head, and I immediately start to wonder what the person's motivations might be. For me, extreme thoughts, extreme arguments, etc... point to someone who .... I don't know.
That's why I asked.
As I was sitting here that night reading Cerebus' statement, about not truth being found in religion and your statements, I started to wonder. Why do two people, who are more often than not very logical and reasoned and open to discourse, coming out with such definitive and extreme statements ... so different from their normal statements and normal tone.
I started to wonder why .... A thought that popped into my head was ... I wondered, as I said, if, after having left your church, you found it more comfortable to believe things like ... no truth can be found in religion ... no good can come from religion (and I've not said that you've said no good can come from people), etc....
You guys ask people questions all the time. All sorts of questions. As I've said, I think that's cool. And, I believe I've answered every question anyone has asked of me. I decided ... you know, I think I'm just going to ask them what's going on with those posts. So, I did.
I don't believe I've attacked you, Gary. In fact, while you have never attacked anyone on this thread, there are people who have attacked others. Big time. Have you noticed that? By comparison, you think my questions are an attack?
Regarding bias, I'll give you an example. Home-schooling. You remember that. Then, when you attempted to prove your original point again, you gave data from 2003. That data supported your argument. Sure. But, there was data from 2007 that did not support your argument. It supported mine. I shared the site I got the data from and asked you ... did you not see the 2007 data?
You never answered. That made me think ... either he missed that 2007 data, which is possible ... but given your intellect and thoroughness, I just wasn't sure. Or, you ignored the 2007 data in favor of older data that supported your argument. I don't know which is true. Maybe one. Maybe neither. But, that would be a specific example of bias, in my mind. At the very least, Gary, you made an argument about home-schooling parents, who keep their children home in order to fill their minds with thoughts of the devil, without having done research and without having known the full picture. And, you made that argument as if it was true, 100%. It's not, and that concerns me.
Now, regarding debate and argument, you've mentioned that you debate theists. I'm going to say something that I said to Cerebus awhile ago. He asked a question and I answered. You've not asked me a question regarding this, but my thoughts are the same.
You've got the argument when it comes to evidence. Hands down. Big time. I can't argue that point. Anyone who is remotely honest would admit that s/he could not argue that point. There is no scientific evidence or verifiable evidence that God exists.
You've got the argument when it comes to things like ... why does scripture contradict itself. Which religion is true? Etc....
I don't know why, when people have such good arguments, that they'd resort to name-calling (not you) or citing extreme examples and, largely, only extreme examples, etc.... You lose the argument at that point, for me. The other things have me thinking and wondering and processing. When names get hurled or people go to the extreme, I shut down and start to question the person's intentions and arguments in general. That's as an aside.
Now, regarding my church ....
Why do you call it "your church" ...?
I've stated, in multiple posts, that I was raised and confirmed United Methodist. However, I've not been to church in years. I've not attended a church regularly in decades. Yes, I get posts from the United Methodist Church in town and read them; however, I do not belong to that church, am not a member, and don't attend services there. In fact, I believe I mentioned months ago that I, about 14 years ago, called the church I was confirmed in. I told them I did not feel comfortable with my confirmation and being confirmed as a United Methodist. If anything, I was a non-denominational Christian. I did not feel it right, for me to be on the books as a confirmed member of a church whose tenants I didn't hold with, whole-cloth. I asked to be removed from their roles. They advised me of the seriousness of my request. Did I realize it would be as if I had never existed? I believe, if I remember correctly, I laughed and said I was pretty sure God would still know I existed. The person was not pleased with my response and told me she meant within the United Methodist organization. I told her that was okay with me. Now, in addition, when I first started taking part in this thread and started answering people's questions and started questioning myself, I called that church and asked if I was on their rolls as having been confirmed. I was not. I wanted to make sure they followed through with my request. I believe I shared that with people at the time.
So, on the off chance that you were, for some reason, under the impression that the United Methodist Church in my town is "my" church, it is not.
As I've mentioned in previous posts, your posts often strike a chord in me. They're often quite intelligent and rational and make me think, even challenge my beliefs. The majority of them carry a certain tone, one of intelligence and even an openness to discourse. But, sometimes, your posts ... or parts of your posts ... are very, very different. They carry a different tone altogether. They veer to the extreme, use only extreme examples, and ignore the full picture, in my view.
That's the why of it. I sit and read your posts and think things like ...
"Wow, good point."
"I never thought of it that way."
"Holy cow! I don't even know what he just said. I need to re-read that puppy and do some research."
"I wonder if I need to think about this. It makes me uncomfortable, but he has a point. I need to suck it up, ditch the discomfort, and give this some thought."
Then, once in awhile, I think, ...
"Why is he going extreme all of a sudden? Where's the logical, rational Gary I'm used to? What the heck is the point of going to the extreme?"
When people go to the extreme, Gary, it makes me more than a bit nervous. Not just with you. With anyone. It's like an alert goes off in my head, and I immediately start to wonder what the person's motivations might be. For me, extreme thoughts, extreme arguments, etc... point to someone who .... I don't know.
That's why I asked.
As I was sitting here that night reading Cerebus' statement, about not truth being found in religion and your statements, I started to wonder. Why do two people, who are more often than not very logical and reasoned and open to discourse, coming out with such definitive and extreme statements ... so different from their normal statements and normal tone.
I started to wonder why .... A thought that popped into my head was ... I wondered, as I said, if, after having left your church, you found it more comfortable to believe things like ... no truth can be found in religion ... no good can come from religion (and I've not said that you've said no good can come from people), etc....
You guys ask people questions all the time. All sorts of questions. As I've said, I think that's cool. And, I believe I've answered every question anyone has asked of me. I decided ... you know, I think I'm just going to ask them what's going on with those posts. So, I did.
I don't believe I've attacked you, Gary. In fact, while you have never attacked anyone on this thread, there are people who have attacked others. Big time. Have you noticed that? By comparison, you think my questions are an attack?
Regarding bias, I'll give you an example. Home-schooling. You remember that. Then, when you attempted to prove your original point again, you gave data from 2003. That data supported your argument. Sure. But, there was data from 2007 that did not support your argument. It supported mine. I shared the site I got the data from and asked you ... did you not see the 2007 data?
You never answered. That made me think ... either he missed that 2007 data, which is possible ... but given your intellect and thoroughness, I just wasn't sure. Or, you ignored the 2007 data in favor of older data that supported your argument. I don't know which is true. Maybe one. Maybe neither. But, that would be a specific example of bias, in my mind. At the very least, Gary, you made an argument about home-schooling parents, who keep their children home in order to fill their minds with thoughts of the devil, without having done research and without having known the full picture. And, you made that argument as if it was true, 100%. It's not, and that concerns me.
Now, regarding debate and argument, you've mentioned that you debate theists. I'm going to say something that I said to Cerebus awhile ago. He asked a question and I answered. You've not asked me a question regarding this, but my thoughts are the same.
You've got the argument when it comes to evidence. Hands down. Big time. I can't argue that point. Anyone who is remotely honest would admit that s/he could not argue that point. There is no scientific evidence or verifiable evidence that God exists.
You've got the argument when it comes to things like ... why does scripture contradict itself. Which religion is true? Etc....
I don't know why, when people have such good arguments, that they'd resort to name-calling (not you) or citing extreme examples and, largely, only extreme examples, etc.... You lose the argument at that point, for me. The other things have me thinking and wondering and processing. When names get hurled or people go to the extreme, I shut down and start to question the person's intentions and arguments in general. That's as an aside.
Now, regarding my church ....
Why do you call it "your church" ...?
I've stated, in multiple posts, that I was raised and confirmed United Methodist. However, I've not been to church in years. I've not attended a church regularly in decades. Yes, I get posts from the United Methodist Church in town and read them; however, I do not belong to that church, am not a member, and don't attend services there. In fact, I believe I mentioned months ago that I, about 14 years ago, called the church I was confirmed in. I told them I did not feel comfortable with my confirmation and being confirmed as a United Methodist. If anything, I was a non-denominational Christian. I did not feel it right, for me to be on the books as a confirmed member of a church whose tenants I didn't hold with, whole-cloth. I asked to be removed from their roles. They advised me of the seriousness of my request. Did I realize it would be as if I had never existed? I believe, if I remember correctly, I laughed and said I was pretty sure God would still know I existed. The person was not pleased with my response and told me she meant within the United Methodist organization. I told her that was okay with me. Now, in addition, when I first started taking part in this thread and started answering people's questions and started questioning myself, I called that church and asked if I was on their rolls as having been confirmed. I was not. I wanted to make sure they followed through with my request. I believe I shared that with people at the time.
So, on the off chance that you were, for some reason, under the impression that the United Methodist Church in my town is "my" church, it is not.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "That people who read your words, despite that fact that, from time to time, you encourage people to do their own research, would take what you say as, hmmm, gospel? Do you think it might be more responsible to acknowledge all aspects of a topic, not just those that fit with your argument or opinions?”
I do try to take into account all aspects of the topic, the problem is that you are assuming that I am objecting to the principle of monotheism in general and perhaps Christianity in particular. That is not true, I address Christianity more because that is our common background (and with many English speakers). However, it is not just Christianity I am criticising, it is the entire concept of belief or faith as a virtue that I object to. I see no net positive to this behaviour. Whether a religion is intolerant, apologist or neutral, it is still based on the idea that belief or faith is a good thing. I disagree with this at the base level."
I'm unclear as to why you would make that assumption. I know you're saying I'm assuming you have issues with monotheism. I have to tell you, though, you're making an assumption. Is your conclusion based on my words and your dealings with me, me, or is it based on your dealings with theists? Interestingly, I've never thought of myself as a theist.
I actually wasn't thinking about monotheism or polytheism or any other "ism" when I made that statement. We can even take religion out of the mix entirely. If you want to understand me and what I'm saying, please re-read my words and think about what you know about me. I'd make the same statement to anyone, making any argument. In my opinion, words carry great weight and great power. Perhaps, given the fact that I'm a teacher, I think about that often. I weigh and measure my words with my students. I'm careful about what I say and what I don't. I realize how impressionable they are and I don't want to lead them. I want to encourage them to keep open minds and question. But, I don't want to lead them to certain, we'll call them thoughts or opinions.
When you make definitive statements ... when anyone makes definitive statements, they can lead people to certain conclusions. I'd say it might be even more so with you. Given your logic, given your knowledge, people could very well see you as an authority, Gary. If you're so knowledgeable about so many things and so rational, they might think, frankly, that everything you say is the total truth. Have you considered that? I think if you did, you'd be horrified. Because, I know you've told people from time to time to do their own research and make up their own minds. So, I truly think you'd be beside yourself at the idea that people were taking what you say as truth, without giving it thought, and would adopt your opinions as their own. I can totally see that happening. I'm pointing that out to you. To be a pain in your arse and to make you think I'm attacking you? No. I'm pointing it out because I can see it happening, I think you'd be horrified at the prospect, and I thought it might be something you'd like to consider. And, everything you say isn't the total truth. You sometimes leave things out (2007 data, for example) and could leave people with misunderstandings.
I do try to take into account all aspects of the topic, the problem is that you are assuming that I am objecting to the principle of monotheism in general and perhaps Christianity in particular. That is not true, I address Christianity more because that is our common background (and with many English speakers). However, it is not just Christianity I am criticising, it is the entire concept of belief or faith as a virtue that I object to. I see no net positive to this behaviour. Whether a religion is intolerant, apologist or neutral, it is still based on the idea that belief or faith is a good thing. I disagree with this at the base level."
I'm unclear as to why you would make that assumption. I know you're saying I'm assuming you have issues with monotheism. I have to tell you, though, you're making an assumption. Is your conclusion based on my words and your dealings with me, me, or is it based on your dealings with theists? Interestingly, I've never thought of myself as a theist.
I actually wasn't thinking about monotheism or polytheism or any other "ism" when I made that statement. We can even take religion out of the mix entirely. If you want to understand me and what I'm saying, please re-read my words and think about what you know about me. I'd make the same statement to anyone, making any argument. In my opinion, words carry great weight and great power. Perhaps, given the fact that I'm a teacher, I think about that often. I weigh and measure my words with my students. I'm careful about what I say and what I don't. I realize how impressionable they are and I don't want to lead them. I want to encourage them to keep open minds and question. But, I don't want to lead them to certain, we'll call them thoughts or opinions.
When you make definitive statements ... when anyone makes definitive statements, they can lead people to certain conclusions. I'd say it might be even more so with you. Given your logic, given your knowledge, people could very well see you as an authority, Gary. If you're so knowledgeable about so many things and so rational, they might think, frankly, that everything you say is the total truth. Have you considered that? I think if you did, you'd be horrified. Because, I know you've told people from time to time to do their own research and make up their own minds. So, I truly think you'd be beside yourself at the idea that people were taking what you say as truth, without giving it thought, and would adopt your opinions as their own. I can totally see that happening. I'm pointing that out to you. To be a pain in your arse and to make you think I'm attacking you? No. I'm pointing it out because I can see it happening, I think you'd be horrified at the prospect, and I thought it might be something you'd like to consider. And, everything you say isn't the total truth. You sometimes leave things out (2007 data, for example) and could leave people with misunderstandings.
Gary wrote: "I have asked several times where there was a clear advantage, and I have yet to have an answer that has even given a possible advantage."
I've heard you on this. I've read the question and I've spent time pondering it. As yet, I can't think of an advantage ... other than, as previously discussed, the fact that local churches have a structure ... a building, kitchens, dishes, a congregation that meets weekly, etc... that enable them to do good works in the community. Other secular organizations, at least in my town, lack the same structure and resources.
Something that I've been considering based on this question ... and ... I'd like to point out, I really do think a lot about these things .... Not because I'm lonely and obsessed ... ;) ... but ... working with 12 and 13 year olds, well, I'm taking this as an opportunity to stretch and grow. To dialogue with intelligent adults who challenge my thinking.
At any rate, something I've been rolling around in my head based on your question ....
Does it have to have an advantage to be worthy?
Scientifically, I would imagine the scales are tipped to things that have the advantage. Maybe. Heck, I'm the humanities person, so I don't know and am NOT an authority in any way, shape or form on anything involving science.
I'm the humanities person ... and I'm coming at the question from a humanities bent. Does it have to have an advantage in order for it to have a place in the lives of those who want to live religious/spiritual lives?
I haven't figured that out yet. So, I've not answered.
I've heard you on this. I've read the question and I've spent time pondering it. As yet, I can't think of an advantage ... other than, as previously discussed, the fact that local churches have a structure ... a building, kitchens, dishes, a congregation that meets weekly, etc... that enable them to do good works in the community. Other secular organizations, at least in my town, lack the same structure and resources.
Something that I've been considering based on this question ... and ... I'd like to point out, I really do think a lot about these things .... Not because I'm lonely and obsessed ... ;) ... but ... working with 12 and 13 year olds, well, I'm taking this as an opportunity to stretch and grow. To dialogue with intelligent adults who challenge my thinking.
At any rate, something I've been rolling around in my head based on your question ....
Does it have to have an advantage to be worthy?
Scientifically, I would imagine the scales are tipped to things that have the advantage. Maybe. Heck, I'm the humanities person, so I don't know and am NOT an authority in any way, shape or form on anything involving science.
I'm the humanities person ... and I'm coming at the question from a humanities bent. Does it have to have an advantage in order for it to have a place in the lives of those who want to live religious/spiritual lives?
I haven't figured that out yet. So, I've not answered.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "However, true to my word, if you continue to hold with these opinions, Gary, I support your ability to think for yourself and decide upon your own opinions, even though I'd disagree. I do; however, believe it's for you to choose your own thoughts.”
Well thank you for that (somewhat condescending) endorsement, but I will forgive you because you are overheated :-)
"
It wasn't meant as condescending. I was walking the walk. Remember, you asked if I'd always hold with my truth ... that people should have the right to think as they choose and believe as the choose ... or not. You asked if I'd always hold with that, even if people thought things or supported things that are against my thoughts and opinions.
I was pointing out, to myself and to you, that ... even when I really, really disagree with you or with anyone, indeed, I'm still holding with that truth.
I wonder what it was that I said yesterday ... that lead people to react as they did. Was it my words? Was it my tone? Was it something else? Was it assumptions based on past experiences with others? Was it a combination?
Well thank you for that (somewhat condescending) endorsement, but I will forgive you because you are overheated :-)
"
It wasn't meant as condescending. I was walking the walk. Remember, you asked if I'd always hold with my truth ... that people should have the right to think as they choose and believe as the choose ... or not. You asked if I'd always hold with that, even if people thought things or supported things that are against my thoughts and opinions.
I was pointing out, to myself and to you, that ... even when I really, really disagree with you or with anyone, indeed, I'm still holding with that truth.
I wonder what it was that I said yesterday ... that lead people to react as they did. Was it my words? Was it my tone? Was it something else? Was it assumptions based on past experiences with others? Was it a combination?
Gary .... I realized I didn't comment on Sharia and evangelists ...
Regarding Sharia ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/ju...
It's my opinion, based on what I've read about Sharia, that it is pretty scary. This is one example.
Now, regarding evangelists, again, I'm not aware of a similar movement to bring Mosaic law to our respective countries. Though, in the research I just did, I found Canada has or had Christian and Jewish councils to settle certain disputes, in order to ease the burden of the court system. That was used when people came out against Sharia. How could there be Christian and Jewish councils to deal with some legal disputes and not Muslim? Needless to say, I was shocked and horrified by that information. Personally, I don't think religion should have any place whatsoever in legal systems. But, that's my opinion. I think justice should be blind. Whether it is or not is another story. I think it should be. How can justice be blind when it's based in religion? I think that could be highly problematic.
Regarding Santorum ....
I don't support Santorum in any way. In fact, I all but ignored his campaign. I knew there was little chance that someone with such extreme views would win the primary. I was right. Therefore, I paid no attention. If I had been wrong, I would have engaged and taken a stand against him.
However, having said that, I don't remember hearing him advocate for Mosaic law/a change in our legal system. If he did, anyone can let me know, as I didn't pay attention and he might have done so.
I'm sure he would have tried overturn Roe v. Wade. Is that what you mean by Mosaic law? Not sure.
But, again, while I can't stomach Santorum, I'm not aware that he was advocating for a Christian/Jewish form of Sharia.
Regarding Sharia ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/ju...
It's my opinion, based on what I've read about Sharia, that it is pretty scary. This is one example.
Now, regarding evangelists, again, I'm not aware of a similar movement to bring Mosaic law to our respective countries. Though, in the research I just did, I found Canada has or had Christian and Jewish councils to settle certain disputes, in order to ease the burden of the court system. That was used when people came out against Sharia. How could there be Christian and Jewish councils to deal with some legal disputes and not Muslim? Needless to say, I was shocked and horrified by that information. Personally, I don't think religion should have any place whatsoever in legal systems. But, that's my opinion. I think justice should be blind. Whether it is or not is another story. I think it should be. How can justice be blind when it's based in religion? I think that could be highly problematic.
Regarding Santorum ....
I don't support Santorum in any way. In fact, I all but ignored his campaign. I knew there was little chance that someone with such extreme views would win the primary. I was right. Therefore, I paid no attention. If I had been wrong, I would have engaged and taken a stand against him.
However, having said that, I don't remember hearing him advocate for Mosaic law/a change in our legal system. If he did, anyone can let me know, as I didn't pay attention and he might have done so.
I'm sure he would have tried overturn Roe v. Wade. Is that what you mean by Mosaic law? Not sure.
But, again, while I can't stomach Santorum, I'm not aware that he was advocating for a Christian/Jewish form of Sharia.
Shannon wrote: "Hey! Hazel is egging me on! I'm really not a stalker. I wasn't even thinking about Sean Bean (fingers crossed behind my back) until Hazel mentioned him. Sigh ... "actually, this time its that I was astounded that theres actually a blog out there that is devoted entirely to putting sean bean pictures up everyday. Madness. But then the unspoken rule is that if you can think of it, it exists on the internet, and of course there's rule 34:there is porn of it, no exceptions...
Don't worry Travis, I'm not going to find bean porn...
Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hey! Hazel is egging me on! I'm really not a stalker. I wasn't even thinking about Sean Bean (fingers crossed behind my back) until Hazel mentioned him. Sigh ... "
actually, this t..."
Even I must admit, it is madness. Though, I still looked!
actually, this t..."
Even I must admit, it is madness. Though, I still looked!
I would definitely want to live in a world without religion. If there is one reason the world is fucked up now, it is because of religion. People claim they fucking understand a religion and God better than anyone else. Look, in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church just went around killing people if they even put a toe against their beliefs. In colonial America, Puritans would kill you for anything. In the Crusades, the Christians and the Muslims tried to fucking kill each other. Now, you have Muslim extremists attacking people everywhere and the Israelis trying to invade the freaking Middle East. I was raised a Muslim, but I am strongly opposed to religion. I just believe in being a good person. Besides, why do we even bother trying to understand what we can't understand. I mean, it's hypocritical. One moment, a person says we can't ever understand God, and the next moment, he's trying to tell someone why God planned some misfortune for them. Sorry, if I offended anyone, but that's just the way I feel.In science, we have the ability of our extent to make new discoveries and actually prove things. And then you wonder why the religious people get so fucking mad.
Mustafa, please. We all want to hear your opinion. But dropping the F-bomb every other word is offensive. I'm sure you have a lot to contribute to this discussion. But I, for one, will NOT read your comments if you continue to use such profanity. We are a civilized,educated (for the most part) group here. Come on, you can state your case without being crude. You obviously have some unaddressed issues with religion. Be calm and address them here. We will not judge. We will comment and question. But not judge. Now.... try again. You believe in being a good person. That is fantastic. Tell us a little more about your background. We are friends here.
Since religion is simply a way to get people to behave for a future in heaven, since it creates division, since it is the basis for 99.9% of wars...I choose science!
Jeanne wrote: "Since religion is simply a way to get people to behave for a future in heaven, since it creates division, since it is the basis for 99.9% of wars...I choose science!"
Religion has created much division and religious leaders (...and followers) have been responsible for horrible acts.
While there have been many religious wars, the idea that 99.9% of wars have been religious wars is inaccurate. If people were to think this and think that, if religion went poof, 99.9% of wars would end, they'd be sadly mistaken. If we truly wanted to end wars, we'd need to do a lot of work; it wouldn't start and end with religion.
Religion has created much division and religious leaders (...and followers) have been responsible for horrible acts.
While there have been many religious wars, the idea that 99.9% of wars have been religious wars is inaccurate. If people were to think this and think that, if religion went poof, 99.9% of wars would end, they'd be sadly mistaken. If we truly wanted to end wars, we'd need to do a lot of work; it wouldn't start and end with religion.
Nadir wrote: "Actually, this is a question on the reading group guides. I like the topic so I bring it up here.I'm an atheist myself so I'd rather live in a world without religion. But, I'm not implying that re..."
I like that! When I read it, I never expected the camerlengo to be the one behind it all. I was so shocked. It made no sense to me at all. I thought: Why would a person so religious even consider cold blood murder like that? And when he said it was God's will I thought he was one of those wackos that bring in something that GOES AGAINST their religion and says it was for God! I don't know much about Christianity but I'm pretty sure blood sacrifice isn't something you get a pat on the back for! It reminded me of that religious cult where there was this mass susicide (can't remember what it was called). Anyway, I just expected the camerlengo to save the day and that would be the end of it but no, Brown brings in another more shocking twist. And the IRONY! the camerlengo was trying to destroy science when in actuality, if it wasn't for science he would never have existed. wow!
I myself am agnostic but mostly leaning towards athesist. I do believe that we all have souls and they have to go somewhere when we die. Science states that all energy is recycled so it must go somewhere. However, I think it is more likely that we are reborn instead of going on to an after life. To me, I don't really care whether or not I know there is or isn't a God/Gods. I am perfectly content not knowing. If I did know for sure there was a God and a heaven waiting than I would not be motivated to actually LIVE on Earth. What would be the point anyway? The human race would cease to evolve and create and discover! Without discover and exploration than life would not be worth living.
Shannon wrote: "Gary .... I realized I didn't comment on Sharia and evangelists ...Regarding Sharia ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/ju...
It's my opinion, based on what I'v..."
I'm not sure but it is said that in the US any Sharia/Mosaic law agenda is impossible as long as the separation of church & state as enshrined in the constitution is still intact. Santorum is pretty extreme but not really that extreme. I've seen a Muslim organization in the US doing a campaign for Sharia law but they also talked about the correct method of stoning & how it is a humane punishment for adultery on their website so I doubt many people will buy that.
Gary wrote: "Sorry but in a society where it is allowable for anyone to endorse the murder of others, then people will be murdered for those reasons. At that point the responsibility is on the people who endorse the murder as well as the perpetrators."Sorry I meant to write "hold" instead of "endorse". I've fixed that.
I wouldn't call anyone who say "love the sinner, hate the sin" or "suicide bombings are sometimes justified" liberal. On the other hand, I completely agree with your assessment & criticism on liberal churches or religious organizations/followers, though I personally see them as less important than the difference between fundamentalists or theocracy supporters & everyone else.
Shannon wrote ... a lot!Wow, I thought I waxed verbose on occasion! :-) I will try to respond as succintly as I can, for clarity not any criticism of the sheer amount of thought and work you put into your responses.
Shannon wrote: "When people go to the extreme, Gary, it makes me more than a bit nervous. Not just with you. With anyone. It's like an alert goes off in my head, and I immediately start to wonder what the person's motivations might be. For me, extreme thoughts, extreme arguments, etc... point to someone who .... I don't know."
That is fair enough and generally a good instinct. However, though I may indeed at certain points succumb to the dramatic, are the points I am making really extreme, or am I commenting on extremism? Has my position abruptly changed or am I just pointing out the stark difference?
For example;
Shannon wrote: "As I was sitting here that night reading Cerebus' statement, about not truth being found in religion and your statements"
If you are referring to my comments that I have found no net positive to religion. Is that an extreme point, or is it the logical conclusion of the points I have been making so far? To someone with faith it may seem like an extreme position, because in our society we are brought up to believe that faith itself is a virtue unto itself.
Shannon wrote: "You guys ask people questions all the time. All sorts of questions. As I've said, I think that's cool. And, I believe I've answered every question anyone has asked of me. I decided ... you know, I think I'm just going to ask them what's going on with those posts. So, I did.
Asking questions is fine. I hope I have answered clearly enough. Feel free to ask again if not, and if you would if you could point out if and how I am being "extreme" and I will gladly re-examine and comment on my position.
Shannon wrote: "I don't believe I've attacked you, Gary. In fact, while you have never attacked anyone on this thread, there are people who have attacked others. Big time. Have you noticed that? By comparison, you think my questions are an attack?
Oh yes I am aware of that. However with you I felt I could comment on the motivation behind asking me my motivations just to be clear. You see asking someone that kind of question carries within it the implicit assumption that they are being unreasonable and therefore have hidden reasons. I think I have been quite clear on my reasons.
Shannon wrote: "Regarding bias, I'll give you an example. Home-schooling. You remember that. Then, when you attempted to prove your original point again, you gave data from 2003. That data supported your argument. Sure. But, there was data from 2007 that did not support your argument. It supported mine. I shared the site I got the data from and asked you ... did you not see the 2007 data?
I did and it did not seem to "disprove" my point but perhaps did show a healthier trend, which gives me some hope. I think the home-schooling debate may be somewhat muted anyway when I think about the stuff that is leaking into schools from Creationists and their ilk.
Shannon wrote: "I don't know why, when people have such good arguments, that they'd resort to name-calling (not you) or citing extreme examples and, largely, only extreme examples, etc.... You lose the argument at that point, for me.
If you can be more specific about the examples that you think are extreme? Certainly I cite the worst excesses that religion results in, but I do this because that is the problem, and when it comes down to it the only thing that stops most religious people from falling to that level is their own conscience, which is an inverse of how people generally think religion works.
Shannon wrote: "Now, regarding my church .... Why do you call it "your church" ...?
Your particular denomination as opposed to general Christianity.
Shannon wrote: "So, on the off chance that you were, for some reason, under the impression that the United Methodist Church in my town is "my" church, it is not.
My mistake there then, with your comments about faith based initiatives and charities I got the wrong impression. I would say well done for standing for your convictions and clearly breaking with a Church you didn't fully support, I am not particularly surprised that they tried to cajole you into rethinking but your response made me literally laugh out loud. At work. The IT liaison is looking at me funny, but she usually does that.
Shannon wrote: "I'm unclear as to why you would make that assumption. I know you're saying I'm assuming you have issues with monotheism. I have to tell you, though, you're making an assumption. Is your conclusion based on my words and your dealings with me, me, or is it based on your dealings with theists? Interestingly, I've never thought of myself as a theist.
"Theist" as in having a belief in a god or gods. It's a bit more specific than "religious" which can include non-theistic faiths, but less specific than monotheist or polytheist.
I wasn't making an assumption as much as I was referencing other discussions with theists who commonly make the same implicit assumptions, the most common one being making a false equivalency between having and lacking a belief.
Shannon wrote: "If you want to understand me and what I'm saying, please re-read my words and think about what you know about me.
I will do my best :-)
Shannon wrote: "When you make definitive statements ... when anyone makes definitive statements, they can lead people to certain conclusions. I'd say it might be even more so with you. Given your logic, given your knowledge, people could very well see you as an authority, Gary. If you're so knowledgeable about so many things and so rational, they might think, frankly, that everything you say is the total truth. Have you considered that? I think if you did, you'd be horrified.
Well even if it was true my main message is that belief without reason is dangerous. If people listen to what I say and view me as an authority then what is the worst that can happen? They stop believing and start to think about the reasons they believe or accept certain "truths".
I will admit that yes, if one monotheistic sect has stumbled across the truth and because of me people turn from it then perhaps I have doomed people to hell, but when it comes down to it just on percentages the majority of people are in the minority of religions existant or former.
Shannon wrote: "the fact that local churches have a structure ... a building, kitchens, dishes, a congregation that meets weekly, etc... that enable them to do good works in the community. Other secular organizations, at least in my town, lack the same structure and resources.
Again as I said before, this simply means that the religious organisation has already filled that niche, it does not mean that without religion a secular organisation would not have assumed a similar role.
Shannon wrote: "Does it have to have an advantage to be worthy?
I'd say yes by definition. To be worthy is to have "worth". If that worth is eclipsed by disadvantage then the net worth will become negative and therefore by definiton it would no longer be worthy.
Ethically speaking, if a mental construct costs resources and yet is primarily engaged in its own propagation to new hosts then this is a problem as it takes potential resources from those that need them. This is why certain biologists have pointed out the surprising correlations between the patterns and forms that beliefs share with virii. From the pattern of infection and adaption, and then the spread as it reaches a new population.
In less esoteric terms, look at the less extreme examples where lives are lost due to religious ideas. When Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for themselves (which is their choice) or their children (which is horrible) due to a strict interpretation of Mosaic law that is a tragic cost, but at what advantage?
Shannon wrote: "Does it have to have an advantage in order for it to have a place in the lives of those who want to live religious/spiritual lives?
I would say "yes" here too. Beliefs are not personal at all, beliefs inform peoples choices their actions and their attitudes to others. Beliefs also lead to their own propogration to the vulnerable, in particular children who have evolved not to question the beliefs and concepts they are given in their literally "formative" years. This often makes later questioning of those assumptions painful, difficult and occasionally impossible for the child after they have matured.
Again our culture carries an implicit concept that beliefs are private and personal and being religious and spiritual is synonymous with being altruistic and "enlightened" when all evidence is to the contrary. This is how strong the grip of religion is on our cultural psyche.
Shannon wrote: "I haven't figured that out yet. So, I've not answered.
Which is technically a good answer in itself, and a good reason to discuss it.
Shannon wrote: "I wonder what it was that I said yesterday ... that lead people to react as they did. Was it my words? Was it my tone? Was it something else? Was it assumptions based on past experiences with others? Was it a combination? "
I'd say that some of the things you said seemed to fall back to common theistic misconceptions which you usually actually avoid.
Shannon wrote: "It's my opinion, based on what I've read about Sharia, that it is pretty scary."
Oh don't get me wrong, I think Sharia Law is an abomination, and when it expands to its fullest extent in Sharia run states then it is truly horrific. However, Muslims who support it in the UK will turn around and claim that the majority of rulings are fair and just and that pointing out that there is little to prevent it from becoming tyrannical is unfair and prejudice. This attitude is the exact thing people like me see when I hear Republicans going on about the basis for Law being the bible, and following agendas intending to impose that religious views on others, or in the UK when Gove is sending Bibles to schools because he and other conservatives believe that youth problems are being caused by a lack of religious morality.
Shannon wrote: "Personally, I don't think religion should have any place whatsoever in legal systems. But, that's my opinion. I think justice should be blind. Whether it is or not is another story. I think it should be. How can justice be blind when it's based in religion? I think that could be highly problematic."
Amen to that (if you'll forgive the conceit). The first amendment is one of the most important parts of the constitution to avoid tyranny and yet it was shredded in the 1950s and is still under relentless attack. The gay marriage issue is nothing more than a fight over the right of religion to both judge and rule all, the same with the fight over womens rights, the Bible belt lost the fight over slavery (at least on the surface) but they have come back strong.
Shannon wrote: "But, again, while I can't stomach Santorum, I'm not aware that he was advocating for a Christian/Jewish form of Sharia.
The sad thing is that Santorum's campaign was so successful. If it wasn't for Romney spending him into the ground he stood a serious chance of being the candidate, and that worried me considerably. Santorum will not have necessarily pitched it as establishing Mosaic law, but he would have pushed for changes to US Law based entirely on the precepts of his religion and on biblical law.
Santorum said: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."Looking to impose papal doctrine on Americans whether they are Catholic or not. (He mentions elsewhere his wish that states could make laws outlawing contraception)
Santorum said: "What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism."
Preamble to support the various rolling back of laws designed to give women equality.
Santorum said: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values."
Scary quote that I would be very nervous about if I was in the middle east.
Santorum said: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does."
Looking to re-criminalise homosexuality.
Santorum said: "And we should lay out areas in which the evidence supports evolution and the areas in the evidence that does not."
Creationist. Enough said.
Santorum said: "What kind of country do we live in where only people of non-faith can come in the public square and make their case?"
Completely misunderstanding JFKs speech which said that despite being a Catholic he wouldn't blindly obey the Pope as president. JFK said it shouldn't matter what faith someone was, not that they should have no faith. But I think it is pretty clear that President Santorum would have tried to do everything that Ratsinger ordered him to.
Jada wrote: "I don't know much about Christianity but I'm pretty sure blood sacrifice isn't something you get a pat on the back for!"Er... Blood sacrifice is the basis of the entire Christian religion. "Christ shed his precious blood on the cross for your sins to be forgiven."
Jada wrote: "It reminded me of that religious cult where there was this mass susicide."
Branch Davidians, a former protestant sect that incorporated ideas of Messianic Judaism?
Jada wrote: "I do believe that we all have souls and they have to go somewhere when we die. Science states that all energy is recycled so it must go somewhere. However, I think it is more likely that we are reborn instead of going on to an after life."
To be honest science has a damn good idea where the neuro-electrical energy that is our clearest scientific idea of a soul goes. It dissipates via heat and subsequent biological decay into other organisms.
The idea that the "energy" of our souls goes on perpetually (whether afterlife or reincarnation) would be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, not a confirmation of it.
It's hard to see a world without religion or science. Simply because they have both played a large part in the development in the world. When you really think about it aren't they both similar? Religion changes based on everyone's interpretations and science is subject to change when new variables are put into play. Living in a world without either is not a world I would like to be in.
Laura wrote: "When you really think about it aren't they both similar? "No they are really not.
Science looks for truth, religion claims it already knows truth and keeps being forced to change whenever it fails to obstruct science's search.
Laura wrote: "Living in a world without either is not a world I would like to be in."
We used to have a widespread belief in the existence of magic, now it is very rare outside of religion (in the developed world at least)
Can you imagine a world were most people don't believe in wizards?
Xdyj wrote: "I personally see them as less important than the difference between fundamentalists or theocracy supporters & everyone else."The problem is that when you have a systematic set of unfounded beliefs then some people are always going to take the most strict interpretation. Extremists do not exist in spite of moderates, they exist because they take the moderate position to its logical conclusion.
Gary wrote: "Santorum said: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, we..."Yeah, personally Santorum scared me. As people just seemed to see the happy smiling guy, and not hear the stuff he was saying.
Gary wrote: "Laura wrote: "When you really think about it aren't they both similar? "No they are really not.
Science looks for truth, religion claims it already knows truth and keeps being forced to change ..."
I enjoy the irony of someone talking religion and starting with 'if you really think about it...'
because if you are really thinking, you'd have to admit it's just one more set of myths.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "When you make definitive statements ... when anyone makes definitive statements, they can lead people to certain conclusions. I'd say it might be even more so with you. Given your logic, given your knowledge, people could very well see you as an authority, Gary. If you're so knowledgeable about so many things and so rational, they might think, frankly, that everything you say is the total truth. Have you considered that? I think if you did, you'd be horrified.
Well even if it was true my main message is that belief without reason is dangerous. If people listen to what I say and view me as an authority then what is the worst that can happen? They stop believing and start to think about the reasons they believe or accept certain "truths".
I will admit that yes, if one monotheistic sect has stumbled across the truth and because of me people turn from it then perhaps I have doomed people to hell, but when it comes down to it just on percentages the majority of people are in the minority of religions existant or former."
First, thank you for the information on Santorum. I wasn't aware of those statements, but, as I said, I ignored him. That's what I get for ignoring him. His stance is definitely extremist and, in my opinion, that's a huge problem. Having said that, I still don't think there's the same kind of movement by evangelicals to bring Mosaic laws to our court systems, at least not in the same, systematic way as the movement to adopt Sharia. Regardless, neither of us think religion should be part of our legal system ... especially when, in Sharia in the UK, a woman's testimony doesn't count for as much as a man's, for example ... anti-woman and very concerning.
Now, regarding the above, (...and regarding your question on specific examples where I think you veered to the extreme) ....
It's not the general message that I find problematic. Believe it or not, I'm not sitting here in fear that people, who read your posts, will turn from their faith. No. If people went with your general message, to not follow blindly, to not give way to belief, to question ... even if that meant changing their beliefs, changing their faith, or turning from their beliefs and faith altogether, I wouldn't take issue with that.
Please "hear" me when I say that. I'm not some theist that you're debating. I'm Shannon. And, I really do say what I mean and I'm really not like, I imagine, most theists. At least, most believers in various religions I've come across tend to see me as a heathen or worse and would be quite shocked to hear me labeled a theist. Yes, I'm aware of the definition of theist ;) ... they'd still be shocked.
The problem isn't your general message. The problem is specific arguments you make that are extremist and inaccurate. The problem would be people reading those specific points or arguments and adopting them as truth.
Example .... Homeschooling. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but you did ask.
You made an extreme statement. Parents who homeschool do so to keep their children home, away from others, and to fill their heads full of the devil and fear of the devil and hell.
That's an extreme statement. You also made it sound very definitive.
Some who read that, who don't know much about the issue, might read that and think ... Wow, Gary, who is very smart and rational, must know what he's talking about. People who homeschool must be a bunch of extremist whack jobs whose purpose in life is to indoctrinate their children into believing in extreme forms of religion and the devil and hell.
Take that a step further. When those people, who have now formed their opinions on parents who homeschool based on your extremist and inaccurate post, might go around and about in their lives and meet people who homeschool their children. They might meet people like my friends, who are in the military, and pulled their children due to violence in the only school available to them. These people, whose views are colored by your post, might assume my friends are extremist religious freaks who are forcing their children to write essays about the devil and how hot hell is and whether or not it smells of sulfur. They might not try and get to know my friends, who are wonderful people and aren't even religious ... don't even go to church. They might not let their children play together. They might shun them. They might even spread rumors about them in the community. "Did you know "John" and "Jane" are religious kooks who homeschool? They're born again and teach their children about the devil all day."
Do you see what I'm saying, Gary? I hope you do. I hope you're open to that. Now, some could say ... we're not responsible for other people's choices.
When I was taking an education course on language and how language develops in children, the professor had us read a book about how language develops in various countries. As I read the book, I found it, in my opinion, was biased. The English language and English speaking countries were painted in a very positive light. All of these wonderful things were mentioned. One of the only statements regarding ... I can't remember if it was China or Japan ... dealt with something from their culture ... not really language at all ... it was a stretch. That, in their culture, it's seen as rude to tell someone no or to speak out against something. So, they might go along with what's being said only to later be seen as liars. Whoa!
At the end of the class, the professor asked us to discuss the course. Some of the students started to go on and on about how amazing the course was ... it about made me ill. (Please give me an A, professor.) One started going on about how amazing the professor was for having such wisdom in his choices of reading materials; the books were so amazing. At that point, I raised my hand and discussed my concerns over this one book.
The professor pressed me ... even if it seemed to me to be biased, what if what the author said was true, was there a problem in that, and what if parts of it were the author's opinion ... didn't he have a right to his opinion. My point, yes; however, .... It's right to tell the truth and he had a right to his opinion. But, he also had a responsibility.
He didn't write the book as if it was based on his opinions. He wrote the book as if it was the truth and nothing but. Yet, while he wrote glowing things about English speakers, he only wrote things that could be seen as negative about non-English speakers. Was that really the truth, the full truth? He never wrote anything positive about non-English speakers. Really? That was a problem for me. It wasn't responsible. If someone is going to write something, in this case a book, that thousands of people are going to read ... that college professors are going to force their students to read ... and when people might form their thoughts and opinions based on his words, in my mind, he has the responsibility to be responsible, to weigh his words and give them thought, to give a true account of the thing.
The professor disagreed. The author (...and the professor) were not responsible for thoughts and opinions people might develop based on their reading of the book. I just don't see it that way.
It's the same for me with regard to this particular post that you made. And, now, you say you did see the 2007 data. That confuses me. If, when you wrote your follow-up post, you saw both the 2003 and 2007 data, why did you only share the 2003 data? Data that made it look like the overwhelming majority of people who homeschool do so for religious reasons? Was it true? Well, yes ... for 2003 .... It wasn't true for 2007. Not at all. Yet, you left out that information.
Again, people who read your follow-up post might have thought, yup, Gary was right about the whack jobs.
But, you weren't. You were supporting your argument with data that supported your argument, which was true almost a decade ago but isn't true now ... at least it wasn't true in 2007 and we have no data to prove what might or might not be true now. So, it was an extremist view. Giving an extremist argument and not sharing all of the facts is concerning to me. I question it. And, as I've said, there's no reason for it. When one has the argument in so many other ways, proof, etc..., why would one go to negative extremes? It just doesn't make sense to me ... and got me wondering about the reasons for it.
Other examples ... your view on religion and community support. At first, your standpoint was that religion only supports the community by frightening people into behaving. That's just not true. It might be part of the truth. But, it's not "the" truth. It leaves things out ... as I mentioned. Then, the argument turned to ... okay, maybe local religious folk in your community do good works, but they'd do good works anyway and good works can be and are done by secular groups. Agreed. But, by my reading, that wasn't your original point. Your point was that the only community support given by churches is to frighten people into behaving. That's an extreme standpoint and not the full truth.
Another example would be mentioning the most wacky of religious folk, like the minister or pastor or whatever he was, who was bitten by the snake. Now, granted, yes, that did happen. I heard about it on the news. Yes, sometimes, when you go to the extreme, you're "simply" citing information about extremists. However .... Think about this. Think about all of the ministers and pastors and priests who weren't throwing snakes around in the last few weeks. Think of all of of the religious folk who don't follow such extremes. There are a boatload of them. Stay with me for a moment ....
Please don't start to go down the ... but moderates are apologists for extremists ... road ... at least for a minute. You've asked why I think some of your posts are extreme and I'm giving an example.
When, on several occasions, you mention the most extremist believers, it seems ... extreme. Then, it seems biased. And ... I start wondering. Again, yes, there are those extremist believers and, in those instances, you're stating facts. However, you're leaving out a whole segment of the religious population. As I've mentioned, there are liberal, not moderate ... liberal, religious leaders and congregations. I can't tell you whether or not the United Methodist Church in my town has an anti-Ratsinger. I don't go to the church. I don't know. But, I can tell you there is another church a town or two over. Not United Methodist. The pastor is a woman and is openly gay. Again, I can't tell you the particulars of that situation as I don't attend that church. But, I can tell you there was an outcry in the community at large at the time. Years ago, I'd say 10 or more, there was an outcry. People even started calling out on the female pastor of the United Methodist Church in my town at the time. She was young and single. Maybe she was gay. People in this area started talking out against women being pastors and homosexuals being pastors. Not just the religious community, of which I'm not a part. On the street. In the grocery stores. In the letters to the editor. At scrapbooking parties. (Yes, I used to attend scrapbooking parties.)
Here's the thing. It was ugly and ugly things were said. However, I can tell you that some, including myself ... including a lot of people ... including some religious folk ... including the congregations that these women led, spoke out against the ugliness ... took a stand in their behalf ... said women, and, yes, gay women, should have the right to be women and be gay and be in the pulpit.
(Wow! Guess I am writing a lot ... I'm out of characters ... more to follow ...)
Well even if it was true my main message is that belief without reason is dangerous. If people listen to what I say and view me as an authority then what is the worst that can happen? They stop believing and start to think about the reasons they believe or accept certain "truths".
I will admit that yes, if one monotheistic sect has stumbled across the truth and because of me people turn from it then perhaps I have doomed people to hell, but when it comes down to it just on percentages the majority of people are in the minority of religions existant or former."
First, thank you for the information on Santorum. I wasn't aware of those statements, but, as I said, I ignored him. That's what I get for ignoring him. His stance is definitely extremist and, in my opinion, that's a huge problem. Having said that, I still don't think there's the same kind of movement by evangelicals to bring Mosaic laws to our court systems, at least not in the same, systematic way as the movement to adopt Sharia. Regardless, neither of us think religion should be part of our legal system ... especially when, in Sharia in the UK, a woman's testimony doesn't count for as much as a man's, for example ... anti-woman and very concerning.
Now, regarding the above, (...and regarding your question on specific examples where I think you veered to the extreme) ....
It's not the general message that I find problematic. Believe it or not, I'm not sitting here in fear that people, who read your posts, will turn from their faith. No. If people went with your general message, to not follow blindly, to not give way to belief, to question ... even if that meant changing their beliefs, changing their faith, or turning from their beliefs and faith altogether, I wouldn't take issue with that.
Please "hear" me when I say that. I'm not some theist that you're debating. I'm Shannon. And, I really do say what I mean and I'm really not like, I imagine, most theists. At least, most believers in various religions I've come across tend to see me as a heathen or worse and would be quite shocked to hear me labeled a theist. Yes, I'm aware of the definition of theist ;) ... they'd still be shocked.
The problem isn't your general message. The problem is specific arguments you make that are extremist and inaccurate. The problem would be people reading those specific points or arguments and adopting them as truth.
Example .... Homeschooling. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but you did ask.
You made an extreme statement. Parents who homeschool do so to keep their children home, away from others, and to fill their heads full of the devil and fear of the devil and hell.
That's an extreme statement. You also made it sound very definitive.
Some who read that, who don't know much about the issue, might read that and think ... Wow, Gary, who is very smart and rational, must know what he's talking about. People who homeschool must be a bunch of extremist whack jobs whose purpose in life is to indoctrinate their children into believing in extreme forms of religion and the devil and hell.
Take that a step further. When those people, who have now formed their opinions on parents who homeschool based on your extremist and inaccurate post, might go around and about in their lives and meet people who homeschool their children. They might meet people like my friends, who are in the military, and pulled their children due to violence in the only school available to them. These people, whose views are colored by your post, might assume my friends are extremist religious freaks who are forcing their children to write essays about the devil and how hot hell is and whether or not it smells of sulfur. They might not try and get to know my friends, who are wonderful people and aren't even religious ... don't even go to church. They might not let their children play together. They might shun them. They might even spread rumors about them in the community. "Did you know "John" and "Jane" are religious kooks who homeschool? They're born again and teach their children about the devil all day."
Do you see what I'm saying, Gary? I hope you do. I hope you're open to that. Now, some could say ... we're not responsible for other people's choices.
When I was taking an education course on language and how language develops in children, the professor had us read a book about how language develops in various countries. As I read the book, I found it, in my opinion, was biased. The English language and English speaking countries were painted in a very positive light. All of these wonderful things were mentioned. One of the only statements regarding ... I can't remember if it was China or Japan ... dealt with something from their culture ... not really language at all ... it was a stretch. That, in their culture, it's seen as rude to tell someone no or to speak out against something. So, they might go along with what's being said only to later be seen as liars. Whoa!
At the end of the class, the professor asked us to discuss the course. Some of the students started to go on and on about how amazing the course was ... it about made me ill. (Please give me an A, professor.) One started going on about how amazing the professor was for having such wisdom in his choices of reading materials; the books were so amazing. At that point, I raised my hand and discussed my concerns over this one book.
The professor pressed me ... even if it seemed to me to be biased, what if what the author said was true, was there a problem in that, and what if parts of it were the author's opinion ... didn't he have a right to his opinion. My point, yes; however, .... It's right to tell the truth and he had a right to his opinion. But, he also had a responsibility.
He didn't write the book as if it was based on his opinions. He wrote the book as if it was the truth and nothing but. Yet, while he wrote glowing things about English speakers, he only wrote things that could be seen as negative about non-English speakers. Was that really the truth, the full truth? He never wrote anything positive about non-English speakers. Really? That was a problem for me. It wasn't responsible. If someone is going to write something, in this case a book, that thousands of people are going to read ... that college professors are going to force their students to read ... and when people might form their thoughts and opinions based on his words, in my mind, he has the responsibility to be responsible, to weigh his words and give them thought, to give a true account of the thing.
The professor disagreed. The author (...and the professor) were not responsible for thoughts and opinions people might develop based on their reading of the book. I just don't see it that way.
It's the same for me with regard to this particular post that you made. And, now, you say you did see the 2007 data. That confuses me. If, when you wrote your follow-up post, you saw both the 2003 and 2007 data, why did you only share the 2003 data? Data that made it look like the overwhelming majority of people who homeschool do so for religious reasons? Was it true? Well, yes ... for 2003 .... It wasn't true for 2007. Not at all. Yet, you left out that information.
Again, people who read your follow-up post might have thought, yup, Gary was right about the whack jobs.
But, you weren't. You were supporting your argument with data that supported your argument, which was true almost a decade ago but isn't true now ... at least it wasn't true in 2007 and we have no data to prove what might or might not be true now. So, it was an extremist view. Giving an extremist argument and not sharing all of the facts is concerning to me. I question it. And, as I've said, there's no reason for it. When one has the argument in so many other ways, proof, etc..., why would one go to negative extremes? It just doesn't make sense to me ... and got me wondering about the reasons for it.
Other examples ... your view on religion and community support. At first, your standpoint was that religion only supports the community by frightening people into behaving. That's just not true. It might be part of the truth. But, it's not "the" truth. It leaves things out ... as I mentioned. Then, the argument turned to ... okay, maybe local religious folk in your community do good works, but they'd do good works anyway and good works can be and are done by secular groups. Agreed. But, by my reading, that wasn't your original point. Your point was that the only community support given by churches is to frighten people into behaving. That's an extreme standpoint and not the full truth.
Another example would be mentioning the most wacky of religious folk, like the minister or pastor or whatever he was, who was bitten by the snake. Now, granted, yes, that did happen. I heard about it on the news. Yes, sometimes, when you go to the extreme, you're "simply" citing information about extremists. However .... Think about this. Think about all of the ministers and pastors and priests who weren't throwing snakes around in the last few weeks. Think of all of of the religious folk who don't follow such extremes. There are a boatload of them. Stay with me for a moment ....
Please don't start to go down the ... but moderates are apologists for extremists ... road ... at least for a minute. You've asked why I think some of your posts are extreme and I'm giving an example.
When, on several occasions, you mention the most extremist believers, it seems ... extreme. Then, it seems biased. And ... I start wondering. Again, yes, there are those extremist believers and, in those instances, you're stating facts. However, you're leaving out a whole segment of the religious population. As I've mentioned, there are liberal, not moderate ... liberal, religious leaders and congregations. I can't tell you whether or not the United Methodist Church in my town has an anti-Ratsinger. I don't go to the church. I don't know. But, I can tell you there is another church a town or two over. Not United Methodist. The pastor is a woman and is openly gay. Again, I can't tell you the particulars of that situation as I don't attend that church. But, I can tell you there was an outcry in the community at large at the time. Years ago, I'd say 10 or more, there was an outcry. People even started calling out on the female pastor of the United Methodist Church in my town at the time. She was young and single. Maybe she was gay. People in this area started talking out against women being pastors and homosexuals being pastors. Not just the religious community, of which I'm not a part. On the street. In the grocery stores. In the letters to the editor. At scrapbooking parties. (Yes, I used to attend scrapbooking parties.)
Here's the thing. It was ugly and ugly things were said. However, I can tell you that some, including myself ... including a lot of people ... including some religious folk ... including the congregations that these women led, spoke out against the ugliness ... took a stand in their behalf ... said women, and, yes, gay women, should have the right to be women and be gay and be in the pulpit.
(Wow! Guess I am writing a lot ... I'm out of characters ... more to follow ...)
Continued ...
So, when I read some of your posts, some, that only mention extremist religious leaders or extremist religions or "moderate" religions that apologize for extremists and allow for extremists, I see those posts as extreme and I bristle.
That's not always been my experience. Now, heck yes, Gary, there are a lot of extremist and, frankly, nasty religious folk out there. I've met a lot of them. I've discussed that here. So, yes, that has been my experience ... on several occasions! However, that's not been the whole of my experience. I've also had the above experience. I was one of the people who lived that, in this area, and took a stand. I saw many others take a stand. And, in the end, those women stayed in the pulpit. One recently moved to another location. However, the gay woman, she's still there ... and a respected member of the community, not by all ... some people are still ugly ... but ... the community at large said ... no, we don't do ugly here ... we will not allow ugly to win.
I have that as one of my "religious" experiences, really an experience in humanity or the lack thereof, and I think it's important. I think it's important to acknowledge that those people and those congregations exist. There are churches that have reformed. There are churches who are liberal and don't make apologies for extremists or allow extreme and horrid beliefs and actions to take root.
(Yeah, people can start screaming "Cherry-Pickers" at the top of the lungs. But, you know what .... That's a different point ... a different argument.)
Anyway ... I have to say ... I've never run out of characters before. I'll blame it on the fact that it's the first week of summer vacation and I'm not doing writing samples for my classes.
Now, on another note, Travis ....
We're all so sick of the heat here that we can't stand ourselves. Going to The Avengers this afternoon to be in an air-conditioned place. I hope it's as good as you said. Will let you know.
So, when I read some of your posts, some, that only mention extremist religious leaders or extremist religions or "moderate" religions that apologize for extremists and allow for extremists, I see those posts as extreme and I bristle.
That's not always been my experience. Now, heck yes, Gary, there are a lot of extremist and, frankly, nasty religious folk out there. I've met a lot of them. I've discussed that here. So, yes, that has been my experience ... on several occasions! However, that's not been the whole of my experience. I've also had the above experience. I was one of the people who lived that, in this area, and took a stand. I saw many others take a stand. And, in the end, those women stayed in the pulpit. One recently moved to another location. However, the gay woman, she's still there ... and a respected member of the community, not by all ... some people are still ugly ... but ... the community at large said ... no, we don't do ugly here ... we will not allow ugly to win.
I have that as one of my "religious" experiences, really an experience in humanity or the lack thereof, and I think it's important. I think it's important to acknowledge that those people and those congregations exist. There are churches that have reformed. There are churches who are liberal and don't make apologies for extremists or allow extreme and horrid beliefs and actions to take root.
(Yeah, people can start screaming "Cherry-Pickers" at the top of the lungs. But, you know what .... That's a different point ... a different argument.)
Anyway ... I have to say ... I've never run out of characters before. I'll blame it on the fact that it's the first week of summer vacation and I'm not doing writing samples for my classes.
Now, on another note, Travis ....
We're all so sick of the heat here that we can't stand ourselves. Going to The Avengers this afternoon to be in an air-conditioned place. I hope it's as good as you said. Will let you know.
Gary ...
Forgot something! Glad I made you laugh. The woman on the other end of the phone sure didn't. Some don't appreciate my ideas or my sense of humor. ;)
Forgot something! Glad I made you laugh. The woman on the other end of the phone sure didn't. Some don't appreciate my ideas or my sense of humor. ;)
Shannon wrote: "As I've mentioned, there are liberal, not moderate ... liberal, religious leaders and congregations."Agreed.
Shannon wrote: “Having said that, I still don't think there's the same kind of movement by evangelicals to bring Mosaic laws to our court systems, at least not in the same, systematic way as the movement to adopt Sharia. Regardless, neither of us think religion should be part of our legal system ... especially when, in Sharia in the UK, a woman's testimony doesn't count for as much as a man's, for example ... anti-woman and very concerning.”As I said I doubt that there will be such an obvious move to adopt it, however the mosaic laws form the basis of the right wing Christian belief and the eroding of the First Amendment of the US constitution has been relentless. Evangelists repeatedly challenge for the right to post the ten commandments in courts and public schools. GW Bush introduced a sweeping amount of faith-based initiatives which directly placed taxpayer money into the hands of religious organisations with no adequate protection or oversight against that money being used for proselytization.
Sharia Law is indeed anti-women, but look at the recent right wing moves against women which are all based in the biblical morality you can see in Mosaic Law that treats women as little more than incubators. Last year saw states introduce a record 1100+ provisions that restricted access to reproductive rights. Earlier this year a republican in congress convened an all-male panel to discuss contraceptive mandates for health insurers. They are trying to introduce measures that would make it legal for employers to impose their religious beliefs over their employees access to contraception whether or not the employee was of that religion. They have in other bills tried to redefine the definition of rape by specifying “forcible rape”. At the same time as this bills have been introduced to repeal equal pay legislation, with several comments that imply that “feminism” is responsible for making women leave their “traditional” place in the home.
"You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious." - Glenn Grothman (R)
Apparently the Violence Against Women Act has also been fiercely fought over by the right because again fears of Feminism with at least one quote I saw of the usual complaint that the act helps break up families.
Shannon wrote: “Example .... Homeschooling. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but you did ask.”
I did make a statement that was one sided and after you made your point I said “To be honest I had only heard about it as linked to religious indoctrination but I shall consider myself corrected”.
I did not intend to mislead, but I had not heard any other good reasons for it, but you appraised me of them and I thanked you for it.
However…
Shannon wrote: “That confuses me. If, when you wrote your follow-up post, you saw both the 2003 and 2007 data, why did you only share the 2003 data? Data that made it look like the overwhelming majority of people who homeschool do so for religious reasons? Was it true? Well, yes ... for 2003 .... It wasn't true for 2007. Not at all. Yet, you left out that information.”
Not exactly, I read the report from the NCES and indeed you were correct about the percentages of people who said that religious instruction was the primary reason for home schooling, however you omitted the other part of the same study.
“From 2003 to 2007, the percentage of students whose parents reported homeschooling to provide religious or moral instruction increased from 72 percent to 83 percent.”
This means that your statement above is misleading, not mine. The overwhelming majority do homeschool for religious reasons and it is increasingly the reason. Your statement just took advantage of the fact that the it was not necessarily always put as the number 1 priority. The other questions themselves are also somewhat misleading too as both “concern about the school environment” and “dissatisfaction with academic instruction” would both potentially be valid first priorities for a religious parent too (i.e. concern about the secular school environment, and being academically concerned about evolution thanks to the well mobilised ID crowd.)
So extreme statement, perhaps, I lacked the context that you then provided – however in view of only 17% not citing religious reasons as part of their motivation this means that the clear majority do.
Shannon wrote: “Other examples ... your view on religion and community support. At first, your standpoint was that religion only supports the community by frightening people into behaving.”
Actually that was the only function that I could see being unique to religion. Secular enforcement of morality lacks the certitude of punishment that can be found in religious adherents, which may be a valid function of religion, but I would not term it positive (because it can be easily abused and ultimately morality through fear is not really morality)
Shannon wrote: “That's just not true. It might be part of the truth. But, it's not "the" truth. It leaves things out ... as I mentioned.”
The things left out I left out as I did not believe them to be unique to religion. I do not know of any evidence that clearly shows that religion increases the amount of good work and charity in an otherwise similar population. Perhaps you could contrast European charity against American charity as Europe is generally more secular, but then Europe also has generally less severe poverty due to more generous welfare. You raised the point and we debated it, but it was not left out of “the truth” as it has not been clearly established that religion has this advantage.
Shannon wrote: “When, on several occasions, you mention the most extremist believers, it seems ... extreme. Then, it seems biased.”
The point I am making with the extremist believers is that in many cases they are just following the logical conclusions of believing that the Bible is a message from the supreme being (whether direct or indirect) and there is no other check or balance to that view that you can point to. If people believe in the Bible then some people are going to believe the more insane stuff such as the faithful will not be harmed by snakes. This is a problem to my mind.
To contrast in science you have peer review. Now sometimes the majority view in science is wrong, and sometimes the maverick is wrong, but in science there is the clear methodology for checking and balancing these hypotheses. Creationists are fond of pointing out so called flaws in evolution as they operate under the assumption that if a mistake was made then it is all wrong. Certainly what counts for evidence for evolution has moved on and is still compelling, and those actual “flaws” are understood for why they were mistaken and the wealth of good evidence is overwhelming,
If there was a mechanism for religion to turn around to Father Snake Charmer and go “actually that’s not true you realise” or “hey that’s just allegorical” there would be less of an issue, but with belief and faith it is impossible.
Take for example the First Commandment. That is biblical mandate for the murder of non-Christians, now obviously it has been many a century since it was enacted (outside Africa at least) but there is nothing to stop an extremist from using this scripture as an excuse to murder people.
Shannon wrote: “At scrapbooking parties. (Yes, I used to attend scrapbooking parties.)”
A what? (No idea what that is!)
Shannon wrote: “There are churches who are liberal and don't make apologies for extremists or allow extreme and horrid beliefs and actions to take root.”
I accept that and this is why, as I have said several times, it is not religious people I have an issue with, it’s religion itself. I also have met nice Christians, Muslims, Pagans and indeed even one kind and thoughtful Satanist. I have a lot more “faith” in people than I do in religion.
Compare that to some of the theistic responses on here and elsewhere. There is a strong tendency for theists to forgive the ideology and blame the extremist for “getting it wrong” even when they cannot decide how they can measure this. They are also the people who tend to stereotype and condemn “atheists” as opposed to “atheism”.
Gary wrote: "They are also the people who tend to stereotype and condemn “atheists” as opposed to “atheism”. "
I try not to stereotype ... people or the "isms" to which they belong.
Now, regarding scrapbooking parties, they were all the rage here about 10 years ago. Companies began that sold scrapbooking papers and stamps and everything you could imagine. They worked sort of like old-fashioned Tupperware parties, etc.... Mostly women would sign up to sell their wares, other people would host parties. The consultant would show her products and people would buy. Then, there were, in my experience, women, who would invite all of their friends over to have a mass scrapbooking extravaganza. Yes, a rather dark chapter in my and our history.
One woman saved part of the Cheerio box from her son's first Cheerio and adhered it to her page, with a picture of her son eating the Cheerio. Yes, that's just how dark it got.
I try not to stereotype ... people or the "isms" to which they belong.
Now, regarding scrapbooking parties, they were all the rage here about 10 years ago. Companies began that sold scrapbooking papers and stamps and everything you could imagine. They worked sort of like old-fashioned Tupperware parties, etc.... Mostly women would sign up to sell their wares, other people would host parties. The consultant would show her products and people would buy. Then, there were, in my experience, women, who would invite all of their friends over to have a mass scrapbooking extravaganza. Yes, a rather dark chapter in my and our history.
One woman saved part of the Cheerio box from her son's first Cheerio and adhered it to her page, with a picture of her son eating the Cheerio. Yes, that's just how dark it got.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: “Having said that, I still don't think there's the same kind of movement by evangelicals to bring Mosaic laws to our court systems, at least not in the same, systematic way as the mo..."
Regarding Sharia ....
You originally said something along the lines that Sharia isn't as frightening as American right-wingers think and not as frightening as what evangelicals want to do.
Okay ....
I, personally, think Sharia, even as practiced in the UK, is pretty darned frightening and, as mentioned, I've read the opinions of several people, not right-wing Americans, who think it's pretty frightening. In addition, I mentioned that I wasn't familiar with a similar movement among evangelists to bring something similar to Sharia to our courts.
At one point around this time, you responded by saying ...
"Sharia Law is practiced in the UK as a method of civil dispute resolution between Muslims and is mostly benign (if a little bias against women)."
Mostly benign if not a little bias against women ...?
Hence my posting an article about how women are treated under Sharia in the UK ... including things like ... their testimony isn't given as much weight as men. Horrifying, in my opinion, and more than a little biased. Not my definition of benign.
Now, I'm aware that you've now stated that Sharia is anti-woman. I agree. In Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa and in the UK.
Could your statement that Sharia is "a little bias" against women as practiced in the UK be an example of what we're talking about ... be an example of how important words can be ... and how opinions might form based on those words? I think so.
Regarding the homeschooling information, I did not intend to mislead, if I did. I'd also like to mention that I copied my source, so people could read and see for themselves. I don't tend to study studies and data. I do a lot of study regarding my students' testing data. But, that's very different.
I know the 2007 data I saw only listed 42%, if I remember correctly, of parents choosing to homeschool based on religion. Now, did that say it was the primary reason? If you say it did, it did. I actually have, after reading your post, a recollection of that phrase.
Now, I start to wonder. How were the questions asked of the parents? Were they allowed to give their primary reason and only their primary reason? How many had only one reason? How many had only one reason but were asked to rate the other reasons ... if that's how it was done? How many had more than one reason? Of those who listed religion as a secondary reason, how secondary a reason was it? I know those are ... sort of ... questions I ask when looking at student data. Which question did the majority get wrong? What was the question? How was it phrased? Does it show a gap in my teaching? Was there an issue with the question or vocabulary within the question? Etc....
I went to the primary reason parents home schooled in 2007, I assume, for two reasons. It was in front of me and I'm not used to reading studies and I went with it ... without doing as much thought as I do when I look at student data. And, your post talked about the, the, reason parents homeschool ... which could be seen as a primary reason.
But, this points out a very important point and goes to why I included my source of information, with a cite. People would be wise to think things through and to do their own research and thinking.
We both agree on that.
Sadly, not everyone does think things through, including the two of us, from time to time. Given that, in my opinion, it's very, very important to be mindful of that and to be careful with one's arguments and words.
Regarding Sharia ....
You originally said something along the lines that Sharia isn't as frightening as American right-wingers think and not as frightening as what evangelicals want to do.
Okay ....
I, personally, think Sharia, even as practiced in the UK, is pretty darned frightening and, as mentioned, I've read the opinions of several people, not right-wing Americans, who think it's pretty frightening. In addition, I mentioned that I wasn't familiar with a similar movement among evangelists to bring something similar to Sharia to our courts.
At one point around this time, you responded by saying ...
"Sharia Law is practiced in the UK as a method of civil dispute resolution between Muslims and is mostly benign (if a little bias against women)."
Mostly benign if not a little bias against women ...?
Hence my posting an article about how women are treated under Sharia in the UK ... including things like ... their testimony isn't given as much weight as men. Horrifying, in my opinion, and more than a little biased. Not my definition of benign.
Now, I'm aware that you've now stated that Sharia is anti-woman. I agree. In Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa and in the UK.
Could your statement that Sharia is "a little bias" against women as practiced in the UK be an example of what we're talking about ... be an example of how important words can be ... and how opinions might form based on those words? I think so.
Regarding the homeschooling information, I did not intend to mislead, if I did. I'd also like to mention that I copied my source, so people could read and see for themselves. I don't tend to study studies and data. I do a lot of study regarding my students' testing data. But, that's very different.
I know the 2007 data I saw only listed 42%, if I remember correctly, of parents choosing to homeschool based on religion. Now, did that say it was the primary reason? If you say it did, it did. I actually have, after reading your post, a recollection of that phrase.
Now, I start to wonder. How were the questions asked of the parents? Were they allowed to give their primary reason and only their primary reason? How many had only one reason? How many had only one reason but were asked to rate the other reasons ... if that's how it was done? How many had more than one reason? Of those who listed religion as a secondary reason, how secondary a reason was it? I know those are ... sort of ... questions I ask when looking at student data. Which question did the majority get wrong? What was the question? How was it phrased? Does it show a gap in my teaching? Was there an issue with the question or vocabulary within the question? Etc....
I went to the primary reason parents home schooled in 2007, I assume, for two reasons. It was in front of me and I'm not used to reading studies and I went with it ... without doing as much thought as I do when I look at student data. And, your post talked about the, the, reason parents homeschool ... which could be seen as a primary reason.
But, this points out a very important point and goes to why I included my source of information, with a cite. People would be wise to think things through and to do their own research and thinking.
We both agree on that.
Sadly, not everyone does think things through, including the two of us, from time to time. Given that, in my opinion, it's very, very important to be mindful of that and to be careful with one's arguments and words.
Shannon said:"You made an extreme statement. Parents who homeschool do so to keep their children home, away from others, and to fill their heads full of the devil and fear of the devil and hell. That's an extreme statement. You also made it sound very definitive. Some who read that, who don't know much about the issue, might read that and think ... Wow, Gary, who is very smart and rational, must know what he's talking about. People who homeschool must be a bunch of extremist whack jobs whose purpose in life is to indoctrinate their children into believing in extreme forms of religion and the devil and hell."
This is a common misconception. I began homeschooling my son when he was in 7th grade - I did it through an accredited distance learning school which provided all curriculum, textbooks, and had full teacher support. The work is sent in to the teachers to be graded and sent back with detailed critiques. Quite a bit is done online and via email.
My decision had absolutely nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with the dangerous, dumbed-down school system in my area. In an effort to have "no child left behind", if a kid couldn't pass, the work was made simpler, catering to the lowest common denominator. In first through sixth grades there was a Montessori Magnet program in the public schools that my son was thriving in. It simply disappeared after 6th grade, and all those magnet students who were way ahead in their learning, were mainstreamed in with students who were failing and didn't care. Moving was not an option. Private schools are way too expensive. This was a great fit for our family.
He's now finishing up his Senior year and will get his diploma from the distance learning school and is preparing to go to the local university. He wants to be an archeologist with a minor in history.
So homeschooling is not just a bunch of religious fanatics who don't want their kids exposed to "Satanic influences"!
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying parents homeschool in order to teach religion and the devil. I was paraphrasing an argument Gary made awhile ago.
I agree with you. It's been my experience, as a teacher, that the majority of parents homeschool for reasons like ... violence in the schools, bullying ... which can be violent, the special needs of their children ... whether they be "gifted" or have certain challenges, horrible illnesses, etc.... While the 2007 pointed to a considerable percentage of parents who say they homeschool for religious reasons (list that as their primary reason for homeschooling), the majority do not homeschool for religious reasons ... at least as their primary reason.
I'm glad you and your son were able to find an educational program that worked for him.
I agree with you. It's been my experience, as a teacher, that the majority of parents homeschool for reasons like ... violence in the schools, bullying ... which can be violent, the special needs of their children ... whether they be "gifted" or have certain challenges, horrible illnesses, etc.... While the 2007 pointed to a considerable percentage of parents who say they homeschool for religious reasons (list that as their primary reason for homeschooling), the majority do not homeschool for religious reasons ... at least as their primary reason.
I'm glad you and your son were able to find an educational program that worked for him.
Thanks, Shannon. I know that you were quoting Gary and that you were not the one making the statement. I do know parents who homeschool for religious reasons and they actually refuse to go through the type of distance learning school we do, they actually make up their own curriculum. It's a little scary - I'm sure as a teacher you'll agree. Some of the parents are not highly educated themselves, to put it mildly, and have no business "teaching" their kids anything school related. In my area you have to turn in your homemade curriculum if you plan to use one, but they waive that requirement if you say you're homeschooling for religious reasons- it's pretty much a free-for-all. All you have to have is a high-school diploma, and you can be your child's "teacher". Un-freakin-believable. That's why I'm so glad that we went the route we did with curriculum and teacher support included in the tuition.
I do agree. I know some states are moving toward a mandatory homeschool curriculum ... that one must actually purchase. That was the case for my friends in the military. There were three "packages" to choose from ... the cost ran from something like $1,200 to $2,500 for the materials/curriculum. They also had to turn in assignments, take assessments on the computer, etc.... While I'm not crazy about parents being charged a fee, it seems to add insult to injury in some cases ... like pulling your children due to violence and bullying, I do totally support a mandatory curriculum, supplied by the state, with accountability along the way.
All the homeschoolers I personally know did not have high school diplomas. I knew three sets of parents who chose to home school. They bought curriculums recommended by other Christians from church. After looking at prices, they chose the cheapest ones available. They taught how to read, write and basic arithmetic. They taught that earth is 6,000 years old. They taught a lot of bible study. Later, they joined a group that organized 'science' fairs for the homeschooled. Dioramas of the Noah's ark won awards, as well as potted plants. Hallelujah, praise Jesus. None of the kids went to college. One 16 year old girl I talked to, years later who was homeschooled down the street from me, at a fourth of July fireworks show praised God at every burst of rocket, because God made the show. We spent the rest of the show with me asking questions about god made the earth in six days. I did not tell her anything. She was amazed at my ignorance. On my street at that time were three households where the man of the house decided to become his own preacher because the various churches they were members of were 'liberalizing' meaning, women were taking charge of various functions, or they didn't like the ministers that were insinuating that Genesis wasn't real history. I wanted to understand, so I didn't interrupt, like I do here on Goodreads. Besides, I had no idea of how to talk to people like this on the ground, in reality, who do not read or write much. They do not even know the words theology or theist. One father could read and write well. He filled dozens of notebooks with incredibly small handwriting without punctuation, his life work, thousands of pages about the true interpretation of the bible.These people were honest, good,moral citizens who went to work every day and worked hard at maintaining their homes and house. Their kids had clean clothes, didn't swear or have any individuality. No long hair, no tight clothes, jewelry, make up or violent toys. They didn't have a lot of money, but they did have as many kids as the mom could safely have. For one couple, that meant one kid, for the another four, for the other, 8 so far. They have a lot of family nights, with no TV except the religious or safe TV, no radios, no music except religious music. They use a lot of construction paper. Their cars are crap. Their furniture are motel and used. Punishments are spankings and restrictions even more than they already live with, plus hours and hours of praying.
They would have no idea what most of the literate Christians here are talking about. I'm amused by the huge gap, frankly.
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "They would have no idea what most of the literate Christians here are talking about. I'm amused by the huge gap, frankly. "
I have no doubt that there are people who homeschool for religious reasons. I have no doubt that there are parents who, while homeschooling their children, teach that God created the world in six days. I consider such things to be extremist; however, I'm sure they don't. I'm sure they'd find my ideas to be extremist.
Interestingly, I don't find the gap between what "most of the literate Christians here are talking about" and your experience with your religious friends and/or neighbors to be amusing.
I find myself wondering why. Why would all of the people I know who homeschool do so for reasons other than religion? Why would all of the people you know who homeschool do so for religious reasons?
I wonder if the answer could be geography. I don't know where you're from, April, but I'm from New England, as I've mentioned. Could that be why?
Why would it be important to wonder about such things? Well, if we truly wanted to make positive change in the world, we might look at such things, I think.
Yes, in the 1600's, New England was the "home" of Puritanical persecution. Interestingly, though, in the 1700's, Vermont became the first state to outlaw slavery. On the day that "Vermonters" met and declared statehood and wrote a constitution, they wrote, in the constitution, that there could be no slavery in Vermont. During the American Revolution, when the Green Mountain Boys took over Fort Ti, they found a slave and her son. They set them free. Years later, in the late 80's and the 90's, New England states were among the first to lead the fight for gay rights. MA and VT were among the first states to grant civil unions. Some of New England's states were among the first to grant gay marriage.
Many believe New England is more liberal than many other areas of the United States. I don't know the reasons why, but I think it would be worth study. Some would say it has to do with religion. Vermont and New Hampshire, for example, have a much smaller percentage of people who practice religion ... attend services, etc.... Some would see that and say ... that must be it. That might play a part. I'm sure it does. But, when I go back to stances on slavery, for example, when New Englanders were very religious, well ... I don't know. Also, in the 1600's there was a woman in Boston, I believe, who claimed, if I remember correctly, that she had the right to preach, despite being a woman and not being given the right by a church. She spoke out against certain religious tenants and stood for equal rights. She, whose name I sadly can't remember, stood up and had followers. Of course, she was, again, if I remember correctly, forced to leave the colony and never come back upon penalty of death.
I don't know. I actually think it might be due to a large variety of reasons.
Today, New Englanders have more access to cities, for example, with a wider variety of cultures, etc.... While some of us might believe we live in the boring sticks, we're, usually only an hour or so from a fair sized "city" ... with the exception of those in Northern Maine. Maybe that plays a role.
I just don't know what all of the reasons are that could account for this "gap" ... this disparity. Personally, I think there are many. But, it does perk my interest.
I have no doubt that there are people who homeschool for religious reasons. I have no doubt that there are parents who, while homeschooling their children, teach that God created the world in six days. I consider such things to be extremist; however, I'm sure they don't. I'm sure they'd find my ideas to be extremist.
Interestingly, I don't find the gap between what "most of the literate Christians here are talking about" and your experience with your religious friends and/or neighbors to be amusing.
I find myself wondering why. Why would all of the people I know who homeschool do so for reasons other than religion? Why would all of the people you know who homeschool do so for religious reasons?
I wonder if the answer could be geography. I don't know where you're from, April, but I'm from New England, as I've mentioned. Could that be why?
Why would it be important to wonder about such things? Well, if we truly wanted to make positive change in the world, we might look at such things, I think.
Yes, in the 1600's, New England was the "home" of Puritanical persecution. Interestingly, though, in the 1700's, Vermont became the first state to outlaw slavery. On the day that "Vermonters" met and declared statehood and wrote a constitution, they wrote, in the constitution, that there could be no slavery in Vermont. During the American Revolution, when the Green Mountain Boys took over Fort Ti, they found a slave and her son. They set them free. Years later, in the late 80's and the 90's, New England states were among the first to lead the fight for gay rights. MA and VT were among the first states to grant civil unions. Some of New England's states were among the first to grant gay marriage.
Many believe New England is more liberal than many other areas of the United States. I don't know the reasons why, but I think it would be worth study. Some would say it has to do with religion. Vermont and New Hampshire, for example, have a much smaller percentage of people who practice religion ... attend services, etc.... Some would see that and say ... that must be it. That might play a part. I'm sure it does. But, when I go back to stances on slavery, for example, when New Englanders were very religious, well ... I don't know. Also, in the 1600's there was a woman in Boston, I believe, who claimed, if I remember correctly, that she had the right to preach, despite being a woman and not being given the right by a church. She spoke out against certain religious tenants and stood for equal rights. She, whose name I sadly can't remember, stood up and had followers. Of course, she was, again, if I remember correctly, forced to leave the colony and never come back upon penalty of death.
I don't know. I actually think it might be due to a large variety of reasons.
Today, New Englanders have more access to cities, for example, with a wider variety of cultures, etc.... While some of us might believe we live in the boring sticks, we're, usually only an hour or so from a fair sized "city" ... with the exception of those in Northern Maine. Maybe that plays a role.
I just don't know what all of the reasons are that could account for this "gap" ... this disparity. Personally, I think there are many. But, it does perk my interest.
I think people may homeschool for a number of reasons, I am facing this dilemma now, my child wants to be homeschooled, she thinks the teachers at her school didn't know how to teach, this is not due to religious beliefs, this is her individual learning. Will see how this goes, I may go in for a program once she realizes there is no unschool type of school.
Religion without science = Taliban.Science without religion = Nazi Holacaust.
History is filled with examples of both.
Bottom line: You're screwed wither way.
Religion and science should complment one another.
Rob wrote: "Religion without science = Taliban.Science without religion = Nazi Holacaust.
History is filled with examples of both.
Bottom line: You're screwed wither way.
Religion and science should complmen..."
Religion had a lot to do with the Holacaust, what are you on?
Drew said:"Religion had a lot to do with the Holacaust, what are you on?"
It sure did. The Jews were exterminated because of their race, not religion, but Hitler took issue with any group that did not cowtow to the Nazi's, especially if it were for religious reasons. People forget that not only Jews, but many Jehovah's Witnesses were killed as well because they would not renounce their faith in favor of the Nazi party. Hitler also killed homosexuals, retarded people, anyone he considered weak. But then, LOTS of Americans supported a "genetic cleansing" back in the 30s and 40s - many of them authors we are reading who's books are on this site.
Hitler supressed religion and replaced it with his own mythos. The only organized religion was the cultish worship of himself. That is fanatascism, but not religion.But let's set Hitler aside. How about Stalin, Mao, Castro, ad Pol Pot?
All supressed religion and tens of millions died.
Ben Stein did a fine job of showing what happens in godless societies. The rulers become God and genocide follows.
Drew wrote: "Religion had a lot to do with the Holacaust, what are you on? "
Well, it did and it didn't. I'm not backing Rob's argument that science without religion equals the holocaust. However, I would like to speak to your point.
The holocaust, in large part, had to do with WWI and the fact that Germany's economy was totally and completely decimated by WWI and the powers that were "victorious" at the end of that war. People who have wheelbarrows full of money that is worth nothing ... who are starving and can't feed their children become vulnerable and wildly desperate. Enter Hitler, Hitler's need for power and twisted mind and desires ... and the need for a scapegoat. Now, yes, the popular scapegoat became the Jewish people, the people the Europeans turned to for over a thousand years as an easy target ... in large part due to the idea that they were responsible for Christ's death, religion ... also in part due to the fact that they were different, their numbers were fewer, money and money lending was considered dirty and given, as a means of employment, to the Jews, who the Europeans considered to be dirty ... and, if you can't pay your loan, cry out on the Jews for poisoning the town well, etc.... So, religion, yes ... but ....
You also have the others who were killed. I'm not saying you don't know about them, Drew, but a lot of people don't. Many are unaware that almost 6 million other people died as a result of Hitler's holocaust. Intellectuals. People with different political allegiances. People who didn't fall in lockstep with Hitler. People with mental illnesses. People with special needs. Homosexuals. I don't believe they were experimented upon, forced to labor for the Nazi's, and murdered for religious reasons.
Given the fact so many of my students come to me not knowing about that and the fact that I meet so many people who think WWII started and ended with religion and the murder of 6 million Jews, I wanted to point out some of the other parts and pieces of that dark time in our history.
Well, it did and it didn't. I'm not backing Rob's argument that science without religion equals the holocaust. However, I would like to speak to your point.
The holocaust, in large part, had to do with WWI and the fact that Germany's economy was totally and completely decimated by WWI and the powers that were "victorious" at the end of that war. People who have wheelbarrows full of money that is worth nothing ... who are starving and can't feed their children become vulnerable and wildly desperate. Enter Hitler, Hitler's need for power and twisted mind and desires ... and the need for a scapegoat. Now, yes, the popular scapegoat became the Jewish people, the people the Europeans turned to for over a thousand years as an easy target ... in large part due to the idea that they were responsible for Christ's death, religion ... also in part due to the fact that they were different, their numbers were fewer, money and money lending was considered dirty and given, as a means of employment, to the Jews, who the Europeans considered to be dirty ... and, if you can't pay your loan, cry out on the Jews for poisoning the town well, etc.... So, religion, yes ... but ....
You also have the others who were killed. I'm not saying you don't know about them, Drew, but a lot of people don't. Many are unaware that almost 6 million other people died as a result of Hitler's holocaust. Intellectuals. People with different political allegiances. People who didn't fall in lockstep with Hitler. People with mental illnesses. People with special needs. Homosexuals. I don't believe they were experimented upon, forced to labor for the Nazi's, and murdered for religious reasons.
Given the fact so many of my students come to me not knowing about that and the fact that I meet so many people who think WWII started and ended with religion and the murder of 6 million Jews, I wanted to point out some of the other parts and pieces of that dark time in our history.
Sorry I don't have time this morning to read all the previous answers, as they sound fascinating, but I can answer the question posed very simply. Science is keeping me alive and has since I was born, since I was born disabled. In a world without science, neither I nor my mother would have survived my birth. I am a person of faith and I thank God for the developments that helped my family, but the question is an either/or so that is what my answer has to be.
Rob wrote: "Religion without science = Taliban.Science without religion = Nazi Holacaust.
History is filled with examples of both.
Bottom line: You're screwed wither way.
Religion and science should complmen..."
No religion in the nazi policies...?
Seriously?
and people keep saying religion and science should compliment each other, but can't say what religion brings to the partnership that you can't get without religion.
Rob wrote: "Hitler supressed religion and replaced it with his own mythos. The only organized religion was the cultish worship of himself. That is fanatascism, but not religion.But let's set Hitler aside. How..."
How can you say that the cultish worship of himself is not religion, that is religion in a nut shell, that is what religion does, it makes people crazy.
Maria wrote: "Drew said:"Religion had a lot to do with the Holacaust, what are you on?"
It sure did. The Jews were exterminated because of their race, not religion, but Hitler took issue with any group that..."
Jehovah's witnesses are not a race, they are a religion. So, religion was still a part of the nazi thing.
and Hitler thought he had god on his side.
I'm pretty sure that god is a religious thing as well.
I rather live in a world without the execrable nonsense of Dan Brown's books. Religion and Science are the fingers and thumb of life - you can't live without one or the other. And if you object to religion, then substitute 'spirituality' instead. Comes to the same thing.
Graham wrote: "I rather live in a world without the execrable nonsense of Dan Brown's books. Religion and Science are the fingers and thumb of life - you can't live without one or the other. And if you object t..."I substitue 'mythology' and I can live just find without it.
I know that religion is "part of the Nazi thing", Travis, that's why the first few words in my previous post were "it sure did". Hitler knew that religious zealots of any sort would not support him or his party and they were targeted because of it. Religion scared Hitler because he knew that he could not compete with God for people's devotion and worship.Also, any films I've ever seen of Hitler speaking to a crowd - he had his followers whipped up into a religious frenzy just like a televangelist. That in itself makes Nazism religion-like.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
As far as I am aware, Jesus was never quoted as addressing homosexuality though the New testament does still contain a lot of anti-gay references.
However I also found this which has brightened my day considerably! :-)
PTBG wrote: "I don't know how I missed this before, but I did. Luke 17:34, that is.
"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." - Luke 17:34
And since Jesus clearly said that only a small minority would be saved (Luke 13:23-24, Matthew 7:13-14) the best way to improve your chances of being saved, if you are a man, is to go to bed with another man. (50% is better than a virtually zero chance.)
Or to spend you time grinding with other women, if you're a woman, as Jesus said in Luke 17:35.
"Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left." - Luke 17:35
But what if you're not blessed enough to be gay? It's not too late: Pray to be gay!"