Do you work for Upjohn pharmaceutical company, Bob? Or just have an affinity for Xanax?
I suspect that the less educated and well off you are, the more you are likely to be attracted by godism.
Oh you mean like John Calvin, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Luther, Kenneth Valpey, C.S. Lewis, Hans Kung, Rev Dr Mona West, Hans Frei, MArtin Luther King, Rosemary Radford Reuther, and David Tracey (to name but a few of the uneducated slobs who believed or believe in God).
I likewise suspect that the godism is an artefact of the educational and economic ills, rather than a primary cause of them.
Where fundamentalist christianity and islam, eg, may become part of the problem, and help to cement the disadvantage, is their stupid dislike of birth control and rational discussion of sex.
Gosh it's hard to argue with so clearly a rendered idea. So a stupid dislike of birth control leads to what? More babies? And more babies lead to societal ills? And to what does a stupid dislike for the rational discussion of sex lead? Less sex? Less babies? And less babies lead to societal ills?
Also, both (and other religions, too) have acted to cement in disadvantage and lack of education for women (christianity less so now).
Doesn't the fact that Christianity is less responsible for the subjugation of women than in the past, and less so than modern Islam, strongly suggest that religion follows social evolution and advancing knowledge in much the same way science does? After all, it can easily be argued that science has, in the past, played a role in the subjugation of women.
Hmmm, re "godism": I tend to mean by it the more fundamentalist branches of faiths, I dont have a real justification of it, it is a phrase I use in real life debates, where people know what I mean, and it crept in here.
I don't know why you need a term other than ultra-fundamentalists.
I remain interested in how you came up with the term. Is "godist" similar to "sexist," "ageist," or "speciesist?" These are terms which have been coined to represent a belief structure that advances one characteristic of life over another. In this vein, "godism" would seem to mean either a belief that one's god is superior to all others or that as a god one feels superior to other deities. I can appreciate why you may have refined "fundamentalism" into "My God is better than your god," but, of course, this a limited and biased rendering of the concept.
Yep, some stellar examples of religious folk exist, I am speaking in generalities.
Indeed. Generally speaking, blacks tend to be uneducated and criminally inclined. Generally speaking, gay men tend to be promiscuis and incaple of committed relationships. Generally speaking, Jews tend to be obnoxious and money grubbing. Generally speaking, women tend to be emotionally flighty and unable to lead. Generally speaking...
I note a number of your examples (the ones I know) are from history, when religion was a more living and unchallenged force. I suspect that being religious today (ESPECIALLY born again/fundamentalist type religion) is, generally speaking (not in all cases of course) more a feature of the lesser educated. This was clearly not so historically, at least, wghile the religious masses WERE uneducated, most of those who made a place in history for themselves were not.
I fully understand what you suspect. I fully believe it is nonsense.
I am not denying many wonderful things have come from religion and the religious. I am discussing generalities here.
I don't understand this comment. Might we not contend that, generally speaking, many wonderful things have come from religion?
Refraining from being rhetorically cute, the problem I have with positions such as yours and those expressed on this thread is that they imply the very principle with which you seem to disagree: That there is a supernatural force governing our actions.
Whether or not God exists, religion is a construct of man, not God. To impose upon religion the perfection of God is, in my humble opinion, the action of people who want to believe in God, but are having trouble doing so.
Whether or not God exists, religion is simply another instituion of humanity. As imperfect creatures, we are quite unlikely to come up with a perfect institution, and yet the most impassioned critics of religion seem to be arguing that it should be perfect but is not.
" So a stupid dislike of birth control leads to what? More babies? And more babies lead to societal ills? And to what does a stupid dislike for the rational discussion of sex lead? Less sex? Less babies? And less babies lead to societal ills?"
More babies, of course. And yes, more babies born to people not able to care for them well leads to social ills, surely you do not dispute this?
This is the argument of a "timeist."
There was a time when excess population was not a problem. There was a time when more more babies meant more prosperity because so many babies died in infancy. As a matter of fact, as human civilization goes, those times far exceeded those (ours) where over-population is a possible problem.
Throughout all of these times, there was religion.
You may dispute the role of bigoted religion in the equation, but surely you admit the role of single parenthood and multiparity in economic and societal ills?
I do not understand this question. What is "multiparity?" What is the connection between single parenthood and religion? In times when religion held greater sway, there was far less single parenthood. It is quite possible that there were accompanying problems related to the restriction of single parenthood, but to the extent that single parenthood engenders problems, a religious environment that disuades such a state avoids such problems.
Do you dispute that good information about sex and birth control and the ability to discuss these openly and without shame is protective against unwanted pregnancies?
Timeist
Do you deny that god info about and access to safe sex methodlogies is also protective?
Ditto and I will refrain from pointing out the Freudian slip you made using "god" instead of "good."
"Doesn't the fact that Christianity is less responsible for the subjugation of women than in the past, and less so than modern Islam, strongly suggest that religion follows social evolution and advancing knowledge in much the same way science does?"
Sure. I would argue, though , that christianity has been forced by the power of secular thought in many christian countries to change its ways re women. It still holds out as a bastion against equality in many ways...eg not admitting women to the clergy in many churches.
How presumptive. Secular thought has corrected religious though. To the extent that there was secular thought during the Middle Ages, it remained. largely, ignorant thought. Secular thought is not enlightened thought any more than religious thought is. To the extent that you or others believe that secular humanist thought is enlightened thought, you have bought into religion!
"After all, it can easily be argued that science has, in the past, played a role in the subjugation of women."
Can it? Go for it, that sounds interesting.
Right off the top of my head: Scientific medical thought believed women, due to their emotional natures, were subject to the vapors. Allow or insist that I research the issue more and I'm positive that I can.
Remember, this is the same "science" that has held, at one time or another, that negroes were intellectually inferior to whites.
Finn, debate properly, in which case I will bother with you, or crap on as you are doing, in which case I shall ignore you as you deserve..
Just one example of your ridiculosness.
The "vapours" by which I suspect you ignorantly refer to the old belief that women were "hysterical" because the womb moved around, was subject to falsifiability, and duly replaced.
The primitive dictates of a projected old testament god, and Saul of Tarsus, are subject to no such tests, and have not been.
And your birth control thing is a perfect example of what you are badly arguing against.
In old times, many kids made sense.
Now they don't,
The stupid religious strictures against birth control (look at Bush inc trying to stop condoms being distributed in countries pulullating with overpopulation in clinics the US funds because of their primitive superstitions) continue.
Now try harder, and I may bother to look at your "arguments" again.
I am not in the least un calm and your stupid baiting only makes you look stupid.
I have not attempted to bait you, stupidly or otherwise. If you rise to a bait which has not been offered, I cannot be held responsible.
If you wish to debate, then answer the points eg the one about the "vapours" being subject to scientific falsififiability, while the primitive prejudicial rantings of the old testament god and its prophets and the similar rantings of Paul (as the christians call him ) are not.
It is not that hard to fathom I would not have thought.
But it is.
Your original contention was that irrational religion (or godism) has lead and/or leads to the subjugation of women. I don't argue that this is the case, and so all the blah, blah, blah about Saul and Paul is immaterial.
You questioned my contention that so called rational science has contributed to the subjugation of women. I don't know how else I can offer the (formally) scientifically accepted diagnosis of "vapors" as proof.
And, again, I would have thought it not beyond you to understand my points about religion, which generally considers itself as truth dictated by some deity at a particular moment in human history, having its attitudes and strictures therefore frozen in time and NOT being responsive to new information and understanding.
This is something entirely new to your argument. I'm not sure I understand it, but it is new.
Do you consider this not a handicap for religion in responding to the exigencies of changing times?
By your own admission, Christianity is less subjugating of women than it once was and less so that Islam currently is so. It seems to me that this is evidence of religion responding to the exigencies of changing times.
I will reiterate my argument. Religion is a construct of mankind, and therefore it is subject to the overall changes in the knowledge and understanding of mankind.
Religion is a reflection of man, not of God. That men (at least Western men) do not torture non-believers is not evidence of the maturation of God, but of man.
This is worth repeating: Religion is a reflection of mankind. Good and bad, it does not force mankind to act in any particular way.
dlowan wrote:I am not in the least un calm and your stupid baiting only makes you look stupid.
I have not attempted to bait you, stupidly or otherwise. If you rise to a bait which has not been offered, I cannot be held responsible.
If you wish to debate, then answer the points eg the one about the "vapours" being subject to scientific falsififiability, while the primitive prejudicial rantings of the old testament god and its prophets and the similar rantings of Paul (as the christians call him ) are not.
It is not that hard to fathom I would not have thought.
But it is.
Your original contention was that irrational religion (or godism) has lead and/or leads to the subjugation of women. I don't argue that this is the case, and so all the blah, blah, blah about Saul and Paul is immaterial.
You questioned my contention that so called rational science has contributed to the subjugation of women. I don't know how else I can offer the (formally) scientifically accepted diagnosis of "vapors" as proof.
And, again, I would have thought it not beyond you to understand my points about religion, which generally considers itself as truth dictated by some deity at a particular moment in human history, having its attitudes and strictures therefore frozen in time and NOT being responsive to new information and understanding.
This is something entirely new to your argument. I'm not sure I understand it, but it is new.
Do you consider this not a handicap for religion in responding to the exigencies of changing times?
By your own admission, Christianity is less subjugating of women than it once was and less so that Islam currently is so. It seems to me that this is evidence of religion responding to the exigencies of changing times.
I will reiterate my argument. Religion is a construct of mankind, and therefore it is subject to the overall changes in the knowledge and understanding of mankind.
Religion is a reflection of man, not of God. That men (at least Western men) do not torture non-believers is not evidence of the maturation of God, but of man.
This is worth repeating: Religion is a reflection of mankind. Good and bad, it does not force mankind to act in any particular way.
This in itself does not make religion worthless or dangerous. All humans hold nonrational beliefs, and some of these may have both individual and societal value. But historically, societies run into trouble when powerful religions become imperial and absolutist.
The claim that religion can have a dark side should not be news. Does anyone doubt that Islamic extremism is linked to the recent rise in international terrorism? And since the history of Christianity is every bit as blood-drenched as the history of Islam, why should we doubt that extremist forms of modern American Christianity have their own pernicious and measurable effects on national health and well-being?
We shouldn't shy away from the possibility that too much religiosity may be socially dangerous. Secular, rationalist approaches to problem-solving emphasize uncertainty, evidence and perpetual reevaluation. Religious faith is inherently nonrational.
finn
Get some more of those painkiller meds...you are achieving an unnecessary level of dickitude here. From the original Brooks piece heading up this thread:
Quote:This in itself does not make religion worthless or dangerous. All humans hold nonrational beliefs, and some of these may have both individual and societal value. But historically, societies run into trouble when powerful religions become imperial and absolutist.
Quote:The claim that religion can have a dark side should not be news. Does anyone doubt that Islamic extremism is linked to the recent rise in international terrorism? And since the history of Christianity is every bit as blood-drenched as the history of Islam, why should we doubt that extremist forms of modern American Christianity have their own pernicious and measurable effects on national health and well-being?
Quote:We shouldn't shy away from the possibility that too much religiosity may be socially dangerous. Secular, rationalist approaches to problem-solving emphasize uncertainty, evidence and perpetual reevaluation. Religious faith is inherently nonrational.
You mentioned Niebuhr in your first post. Neither I nor (I expect) dlowan nor others on this thread would have much grievance if it was Niebuhr's understanding of christianity which was at issue. But it very decidely is not such a vision or understanding of christianity held by Bush's 'base'.
Criticism of christian or evangelical or fundamentalist extremism is NOT a criticism of christianity, but merely a criticism of one radical version of that faith. Note that Brooks (and the study referenced) talk about 'absolutist' faith. Niebuhr would, with near certainty, hold that Falwell's version of religious understanding is closer to that of Osama than it was to Niebuhr's precisely because of its absolutism and thus its intolerance for competing visions and values.
But what remains at issue here most primarily are the correlations (return again to the original piece) between absolutist belief systems and such social factors as teen pregnancy, murder, etc.
Finn, frequently your personal rudeness to people IS a bait, and if you do not know that, it is time you did.
OK, how's this for rudeness: Please spare me your gauzy indignance. I'm afraid I refuse to be bound by situational niceties. Your barbs are clever and so fly free; my barbs sting and so are rude. Your resorting to admonitions about my civility only reveals the paucity of your argument.
It was not my contention that religion necessarily leads to the subjugation of women, however I do observe that frequently, when invented by patriarchal societies such as those where Judaism, islam and Christianity arose, it acts as a means of continuing this subjugation by painting this as the will of the deity.
Thank you for that clarification as it was not self-evident previously. However, there are far more religions in the world than the three you have cited. Do you mean to suggest that the cultures that have given birth to Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, and any number of forms of Animism have not been patriarchal? Typically, Western Liberals have not had much trouble with religions other than Christianity and Judaeism. Of late, Islam has thrust itself into their perspective. One must wonder why this is the case. Why are the other irrational beliefs in deities and spirits harmless, while those that attach themselves to Western culture reveal themselves to be so dangerous?
If you do not argue that this is the case, then why all the blather?
If it's such blather? Why respond at all?
There are any number of religious and secular ideals which have been (as CS Lewis might say) "bent" by the application of mankind. I have no problem, what-so-ever, if your position is mankind sucks. I do have a problem if you attempt distinguish between the religious and the secular when it comes to general sucking.
The Paul/Saul stuff is NOT blah blah blah in discussing christianity, by the way. This man had a huge effect upon the direction of the evolving church, many argue very much for the worse for women. You may not be interested, but there it is.
It is blah, blah, blah because it was not rendered in a cogent manner, and because it is precisely my point that one cannot fault a modern institution based solely upon the ignorance of its antecedants.
The argument you call new to my argument is not. You simply failed to understand it before I went over it again and stated it more simply. Following from this, you also failed to understand my point about science.
Well of course. I'm wrong because I don't understand your wisdom.
Of course it has been used to justify all kinds of thinking and behaviour which has been damaging to various groupings of people, including women and black people.
My entire point re this is that, unlike the beliefs of religious people, who generally consider that their religious beliefs have been revealed by a divinity, once and for all, and are eternal, the dictates of science are, in and of their very nature, subject to constant revision when they bump up against reality, and change. Often less quickly then they should, humans tending to be what we are, and clinging to our beliefs, but they change.
And, despite your insistence upon ignoring the very proof that you yourself have offered ("...not so much as before...") religious beliefs evolve as well. Perhaps not at the same pace as with scientific beliefs, but that is to be expected when the proof of one (as opposed to the other) inserts itself in our faces on a daily basis.
We have no argument that religion is a human construct. However, as one of the sequelae of its adherents refusing to acknowledge this, it changes very slowly and is often used to justify and continue behaviours that are otherwise likely to change more easily.
And so this is a criticism of religion or its adherents, and are not these adherents humans and thus likely to infect each and every school of thought they touch with the same limitations?
Would you deny that fundamentalist Islam, for example, is a force for the continuing appalling situiation of women in many Islamic countries?
Now, as before ---Not at all. Your point is?
Yes, religion changes, but very slowly, and it seems subject to recurring frenzies of resistance to this change, such as the resurgence of fundamentalism in the Islamic world and the west (especially in the USA, as far as I can see).
And your point is? Things are not changing fast enough for you?
Decide not to engage, (because you decree, in ignorant prejudice, in my view,that it is just the same weary old Bush bashing) with my point about the US current government, led by a man who surrendered to one of these outbursts of fundamentalism when he was "born again"
Your ignorance and bias is revealed in this statement. I imagine that you would be surprised by the number of people with whom you have an affinity (Jimmy Carter for example) who claim to be "born again." But even if you would not be, you evidence a complete misunderstanding of what "born again" is meant to represent. True it is a something of a slogan, but no more than "give peace a chance."
at 40, which is consciously attacking the provision of comprehensive sexual education, and effective birth and STD control, both in the USA, and in countries where it gives aid for family planning, because of "christian" values, if you will.
I'm afraid I find it incredible that people, such as yourself, seem locked into thinking of religion in terms of sex. It is the very sin of which you accuse the "religious." Surely you accept that there is more to fundamental Christianity in particular and religion in general thanreactions to human reproduction behaviors.
But it is a prime example of how religious thought affects negatively affects things which have a real impact on the well being of many people.
Well, religious (and for than matter moral and ethical) thought can impose limitations on how people behave. Some, obviously, see this as a negative effect on the well being of people.
You and blatham trust people to self-organize in a manner which promotes general welfare. I do too. The difference is that I see religion as an integral part of the social solution.
