What is feminism?

[Netzach]

So if a counseling student in Iran doesn't believe in stoning homosexual men she should be kicked out Tehran Poly Tech for her personal beliefs? Because stoning would be their commonly held professional norm. In fact, they've stoned many more homosexuals than we have murderers in the last 40 years. 8000 or so. No wonder President Acnejackoffnejad says they don't have a homosexual problem in Iran.

And this has what to do with anything? She should move there then, probably if her views will be embraced by her professional associations then, eh?

Again, why exactly is someone entitled to earn a living incorporating their personal preferences in a professional workplace- if I believe that leeches are a valid medicinal cure I am not entitled to be an MD because of it.

 

[bridgeburner]

So if a counseling student in Iran doesn't believe in stoning homosexual men she should be kicked out Tehran Poly Tech for her personal beliefs? Because stoning would be their commonly held professional norm. In fact, they've stoned many more homosexuals than we have murderers in the last 40 years. 8000 or so. No wonder President Acnejackoffnejad says they don't have a homosexual problem in Iran.

There was an interesting segment on public radio tonight exploring the idea of whether or not there is an organized/official anti-evangelical bias in higher education. There have been more and more lawsuits in recent years by fundamentalist Christians claiming discrimination by universities and academia.

The whole question is backward.

What we should be asking is WHY we have, as a nation, begun to allow a single segment of Christianity --- and a radical one at that --- to co-opt all of Christianity.

Most people in this country --- this includes doctors and nurses --- have a religious affiliation. All of these people were able to attain their credentialled status despite their supposedly persecuted and reviled religious leanings.

We're being sold a bill of goods and like any tent-revival huckster the sellers are damn good at their job. We've come to take it as a given that there really is a war on religion in this country. That the faithful are afraid to publicly gather or express their faith.

With the exception of non-Christians, this just isn't true.

The only people who have trouble are those whose religious beliefs are in direct opposition to scientific and medical practice, and they only have trouble when they start insisting that their beliefs be given equal weight to scientific research.


This woman is not being questioned because she is religious, but because she refuses to accept current medical teaching. She wouldn't be able to earn an M.D. if she believed cancer to be the manifestation of demonic posession and only the fringy few would be crying about her religious freedom if that were the case.

The only reason anyone reasonable is entertaining her is because what she believes is not sufficiently outside the norm for people to recognize it as what it is: contrary to accepted medical belief.

 

[WriterDom]

Like I said it's not my view but a lot of these people are brought up believing that the bible is the absolute and final word. And it doesn't even translate into English well at times.

But I don't blame Moses for being antigay. If you are roaming around for hundreds of years fighting every Tom, Dick, and Harry's country and there is homosexuality in your tribes, I can see the justification for weeding it out. Sounds cruel, but we're talking about survival here. And I mean in the sense that Gay + Gay = Nothing when it comes to offspring. Not an issue today.

And the Catholics asked for trouble telling priests they can't marry and to dress festive, hold big parties, and bend an ear to every bit of gossip. And then a never ending train of young boys handed over in total and absolute trust year after year. Just like Muslims when your sample set is over a billion it doesn't take a very high percentage of "evil" to generate alarming numbers.

 

[Etoile]

I've been reading about the Mormons lately. Scary shit.

 

[Homburg]

My root problem with religion?

So many people get stupid over it.

 

[sweepthefloor]

I noticed the other day at work, and this happens frequently...I work on a large unit. When the charge nurse is a staff nurse with patients, the supervisor will choose 2 female nurses to be in charge, one for each side of the unit.

When the charge nurse happens to be a man nurse...even with a patient assignment, he is the lone charge nurse for the whole unit.

Happens all the time.

 

[Netzach]

My root problem with religion?

So many people get stupid over it.

Which is why my personal jury's out on the "bad apples" concept. I'm uncertain that the worst in religiousness is not its logical conclusions, its actual tenets taken to their full extent, not just a series of aberrations.

IE: at what point does, for example, Catholic laity say to itself "this IS our problem, this IS us" and at what point do de-radicalized Muslims take back their religion, at what point do diaspora Jews decide to divorce themselves from a racist fundamentalist-mafia-run state that they don't even live in?

Every religion teaches some version of "love thy neighbor be a good person" but only a few of the newest suggest that everyone else may not necessarily be subhuman because they don't think the same thing.

 

[Seurat]

Which is why my personal jury's out on the "bad apples" concept. I'm uncertain that the worst in religiousness is not its logical conclusions, its actual tenets taken to their full extent, not just a series of aberrations.

IE: at what point does, for example, Catholic laity say to itself "this IS our problem, this IS us" and at what point do de-radicalized Muslims take back their religion, at what point do diaspora Jews decide to divorce themselves from a racist fundamentalist-mafia-run state that they don't even live in?

Every religion teaches some version of "love thy neighbor be a good person" but only a few of the newest suggest that everyone else may not necessarily be subhuman because they don't think the same thing.

I think you could probably replace 'religion' there with any concept or philosophy, couldn't you? Most structured elements of any society have, at their core, a fairly standard and good moral base. It is the people that take elements to the extreme, that promote the 'us vs. them' or 'do as I say' elements that fuck things up for the ones that aren't like that. Granted, there are plenty of cases where things got completely out of hand (Inquisition anybody?) but the general and founding concepts are usually not disagreeable.

 

[KoPilot]

Just thought I'd like to share a very old website that I stumbled upon and read years ago about methods of brainwashing and hypnosis in religious circles; mostly Scientology if I remember correctly. Interesting and scary. These methods are of course different from life-long conditioning that you see in some societies... this is more short-term.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/TR/sutphen.html

 

[intothewoods]

Which is why my personal jury's out on the "bad apples" concept. I'm uncertain that the worst in religiousness is not its logical conclusions, its actual tenets taken to their full extent, not just a series of aberrations.

IE: at what point does, for example, Catholic laity say to itself "this IS our problem, this IS us" and at what point do de-radicalized Muslims take back their religion, at what point do diaspora Jews decide to divorce themselves from a racist fundamentalist-mafia-run state that they don't even live in?

Every religion teaches some version of "love thy neighbor be a good person" but only a few of the newest suggest that everyone else may not necessarily be subhuman because they don't think the same thing.

All reform or similar spinoffs have to leave behind adherence to everything in the original text in order to be palatable. The universalist tendency isn't always there, and I don't know if that has more to do with tribal tendencies or religion itself -- or they're one in the same, I guess. Why celebrate Passover and think only about Jewish suffering (the history of which is convoluted anyway) when most of us are all comfy and living a life just about as far away from slavery as can be?

I think you could probably replace 'religion' there with any concept or philosophy, couldn't you? Most structured elements of any society have, at their core, a fairly standard and good moral base. It is the people that take elements to the extreme, that promote the 'us vs. them' or 'do as I say' elements that fuck things up for the ones that aren't like that. Granted, there are plenty of cases where things got completely out of hand (Inquisition anybody?) but the general and founding concepts are usually not disagreeable.

One of the things that religion historically provided -- in addition to answering unanswerable questions -- is rules, laws, order, etc. So just like any society, rules and laws change and evolve over time or the society will probably eventually fall apart.

 

[Homburg]

Which is why my personal jury's out on the "bad apples" concept. I'm uncertain that the worst in religiousness is not its logical conclusions, its actual tenets taken to their full extent, not just a series of aberrations.

IE: at what point does, for example, Catholic laity say to itself "this IS our problem, this IS us" and at what point do de-radicalized Muslims take back their religion, at what point do diaspora Jews decide to divorce themselves from a racist fundamentalist-mafia-run state that they don't even live in?

Every religion teaches some version of "love thy neighbor be a good person" but only a few of the newest suggest that everyone else may not necessarily be subhuman because they don't think the same thing.

That is a huge problem. Let's face it, Yussef, the non-radical Muslim, might seriously dislike his Taliban neighbour, but speaking out is dangerous. Not only does Taliban Asim have an A-to-tha-muthafuckin-K, he's also technically "right" per the hardline tenets of the faith. So not only will Taliban Asim shoot Yussef, he can grab the local Qazi to get a quick legal justification on how it's proper fatwa to waste Yussef's blasphemous ass.

Same goes for the local baptist, on a less shoot-people-in-the-face level (usually). That dominionist next door might be a fundamentalist douchebag, but by the tenets of the religion in its' own core text, dominionist douche is "right".

Those oh-so-racist Israeli IDF cats whacking Palestinians? They're just defending Israel.

And on and on...

--

I think you could probably replace 'religion' there with any concept or philosophy, couldn't you? Most structured elements of any society have, at their core, a fairly standard and good moral base. It is the people that take elements to the extreme, that promote the 'us vs. them' or 'do as I say' elements that fuck things up for the ones that aren't like that. Granted, there are plenty of cases where things got completely out of hand (Inquisition anybody?) but the general and founding concepts are usually not disagreeable.

Goodness, no. The bahai don't shoot people in the face. Barring certain craziness here and there where people joined monasteries for politics reasons, buddhist priest and monks don't tend to jack people around. Jainist are so peaceful that a proper Jaine will carry a broom and sweep the floor before him as he walks so as to not accidentally step on a bug.

There are many religions and philosophies that don't even remotely accept violence as a means of problem solving. Unfortunately, this all too often causes them to lose to the ones that do.

Societies that decide "We ain't gonna study war no more," are basically doomed.

--

Just thought I'd like to share a very old website that I stumbled upon and read years ago about methods of brainwashing and hypnosis in religious circles; mostly Scientology if I remember correctly. Interesting and scary. These methods are of course different from life-long conditioning that you see in some societies... this is more short-term.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/TR/sutphen.html

Scientology? Pfft, look into tent revivals and the things they do. They've been perfecting their rather blatant brainwashing techniques since the early Scottish Revival movement in the 1800's (if not earlier).

It's equal parts scary and fascinating.

Oddly enough, this is my take on religion as a whole, and probably explains why I've spent so much time studying it, writing about it, etc.

ETA: Heh, should've read the article before posting, as they go into the exact sort of revivalists that I was talking about. Good to see that my education hasn't completely wasted away in my brain.

--

One of the things that religion historically provided -- in addition to answering unanswerable questions -- is rules, laws, order, etc. So just like any society, rules and laws change and evolve over time or the society will probably eventually fall apart.

Of course. Once the creative type what comes up with the story that explains the wind howling beyond the firelight realises that these stories have power, he set about using that power to organise shit. The separation of religion, culture, and government is very much a recent invention of human thought. For the vast history of our species, the priesthood has always meant Power. And all you have to do is look at people like the Pope, the Ayatollah, etc to see that it still does.

But therein lies the problem. When your government and culture's rules are supposedly handed down by the invisible dude in the sky what runs all creation, evolution doesn't happen. This is god's word, it's set in stone, dammit. Keeping kosher made a lot of sense when the concept first originated. Nowadays, not so much.

And worse, those who take the invisible dude in the sky's teaching in the wrong direction tend to retrograde. The Arab world in the dark ages was the bastion of science, learning, literature, medicine, etc in the west. If I remember correctly, the Mamluks were responsible for the shift away from learned thought. It's been a long time since I got into that side of the history though. These days it's the wahhabiists that are really keeping that concept going.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Like I said it's not my view but a lot of these people are brought up believing that the bible is the absolute and final word. And it doesn't even translate into English well at times.

But I don't blame Moses for being antigay. If you are roaming around for hundreds of years fighting every Tom, Dick, and Harry's country and there is homosexuality in your tribes, I can see the justification for weeding it out. Sounds cruel, but we're talking about survival here. And I mean in the sense that Gay + Gay = Nothing when it comes to offspring. Not an issue today.

And the Catholics asked for trouble telling priests they can't marry and to dress festive, hold big parties, and bend an ear to every bit of gossip. And then a never ending train of young boys handed over in total and absolute trust year after year. Just like Muslims when your sample set is over a billion it doesn't take a very high percentage of "evil" to generate alarming numbers.

Moses was antigay? I don't remember that from the OT

 

[intothewoods]

But therein lies the problem. When your government and culture's rules are supposedly handed down by the invisible dude in the sky what runs all creation, evolution doesn't happen. This is god's word, it's set in stone, dammit. Keeping kosher made a lot of sense when the concept first originated. Nowadays, not so much.

And worse, those who take the invisible dude in the sky's teaching in the wrong direction tend to retrograde. The Arab world in the dark ages was the bastion of science, learning, literature, medicine, etc in the west. If I remember correctly, the Mamluks were responsible for the shift away from learned thought. It's been a long time since I got into that side of the history though. These days it's the wahhabiists that are really keeping that concept going.

Well, there are a gazillian interpretations of God's word. It's not that set in stone. Many orthodox Jews will not associate with those who are loose with various rules, but in a reform synagogue, for example, nobody is likely to inquire what you do in your own home, at least not to make a determination of your Jewishness. Not that there aren't other criteria for judgment -- but that's my point, people interpret rules differently - and most of this stuff isn't so clear. You have churches with ministers who preach that homosexuality is a sin. And then you have gay Episcopal priests.

Obviously it's not like there's just this big world shift towards liberalizing the texts. There are shifts towards fundamentalism as well. Plenty of times in history, as you mention, when you find fundamentalism has become more popular. But the same goes for most governments -- there are shifts toward conservative leaders and then shifts again toward more liberal ones. I'm not saying that I think mixing religion and government is a good thing, btw, just noting the common threads.

And really, how often are people familiar with the original texts. One problem with the really old texts is that you've got a ton of different translations over time. We don't even have all those for the OT. But funny thing about people. Who bothers to read our laws, which are actually available? I am willing to bet that most people who are pissed about the law in Arizona being overturned have no idea what the basis of that decision was. Hint: it wasn't - yay, illegal immigrants!

 

[intothewoods]

Moses was antigay? I don't remember that from the OT

He was a founding member of Westboro Baptist Church. It's all there if you read the OT closely. This is in fact the plot of The Da Vinci Code, part III, coming soon to a theater near you.

 

[WriterDom]

He was a founding member of Westboro Baptist Church. It's all there if you read the OT closely. This is in fact the plot of The Da Vinci Code, part III, coming soon to a theater near you.

Ask Netz. she's read the Torah.

Westboro will just yell that you are going to hell.

Moses sent the Fuckee and the Fucker there.

"Modern" Islam seems to take a different view. Only assfucking gets you stoned while cocksucking is good for ten years in prison.

 

[Homburg]

Well, there are a gazillian interpretations of God's word. It's not that set in stone. Many orthodox Jews will not associate with those who are loose with various rules, but in a reform synagogue, for example, nobody is likely to inquire what you do in your own home, at least not to make a determination of your Jewishness. Not that there aren't other criteria for judgment -- but that's my point, people interpret rules differently - and most of this stuff isn't so clear. You have churches with ministers who preach that homosexuality is a sin. And then you have gay Episcopal priests.

Eh, sort of. The problem is that most believe that it is set in stone. The supposed letter to Dr Laura is a good example of this, and of folk not reading their own texts. But, and this is a big but, the vast majority do not see it as interpretation, at least from my experience. God's word is god's word.

Obviously it's not like there's just this big world shift towards liberalizing the texts. There are shifts towards fundamentalism as well. Plenty of times in history, as you mention, when you find fundamentalism has become more popular. But the same goes for most governments -- there are shifts toward conservative leaders and then shifts again toward more liberal ones. I'm not saying that I think mixing religion and government is a good thing, btw, just noting the common threads.

And really, how often are people familiar with the original texts. One problem with the really old texts is that you've got a ton of different translations over time. We don't even have all those for the OT. But funny thing about people. Who bothers to read our laws, which are actually available? I am willing to bet that most people who are pissed about the law in Arizona being overturned have no idea what the basis of that decision was. Hint: it wasn't - yay, illegal immigrants!

I do not honestly think that the original have a bit of added meaning over the modern translations. If, like me, you do not accept the OT as the word of some all-powerful creator, it's just another book. And if it is a lost book in a dead language, it has no functional meaning. The modern translations are what the modern faiths are based on, and thus are what hold meaning in the modern world.

That said, I completely agree that far too few read their own core texts. Most christians will read whatever passage the preacher tells them to hit when they manage to get to church, and very, very few will read the quran or anyone else's texts.

And don't get me started on the bloated morass of all-too-often unneeded complexity that is our legal system. Ugh, twice over.

 

[intothewoods]

Eh, sort of. The problem is that most believe that it is set in stone. The supposed letter to Dr Laura is a good example of this, and of folk not reading their own texts. But, and this is a big but, the vast majority do not see it as interpretation, at least from my experience. God's word is god's word.



I do not honestly think that the original have a bit of added meaning over the modern translations. If, like me, you do not accept the OT as the word of some all-powerful creator, it's just another book. And if it is a lost book in a dead language, it has no functional meaning. The modern translations are what the modern faiths are based on, and thus are what hold meaning in the modern world.

That said, I completely agree that far too few read their own core texts. Most christians will read whatever passage the preacher tells them to hit when they manage to get to church, and very, very few will read the quran or anyone else's texts.

And don't get me started on the bloated morass of all-too-often unneeded complexity that is our legal system. Ugh, twice over.

I think understanding that there is a difference in translations helps people to understand that "God's word" is kind of a fluid thing. We don't know what God's word is.

For every passage in the Torah there are eight billion rabbis to argue about it. People think God's word is God's word because that's what they've been told. Or that's what they want to hear.

Oh, and I don't accept the OT as the word of an all-powerful creator but it's more than a book to me. Or at least more significant than the Sweet Valley High series.

 

[intothewoods]

Ask Netz. she's read the Torah.

Westboro will just yell that you are going to hell.

Moses sent the Fuckee and the Fucker there.

"Modern" Islam seems to take a different view. Only assfucking gets you stoned while cocksucking is good for ten years in prison.

I've dabbled as well, but I don't have a good memory for passages. I am amazed by Netz's knowledge of everything. Shit just does not stick in my brain that well.

And I really don't know the anti-gay passages - just the big quotes. I don't know the context. Is the Moses connection because Moses was supposed to have written most of the Torah? Anyway, in my defense, we did not study homosexuality in Hebrew school.

Oh look, Wikipedia told me Leviticus was God talking to Moses on Mt. Sinai. And that's where the whole don't lay with a man as a woman line comes from.

 

[CutieMouse]

And really, how often are people familiar with the original texts. One problem with the really old texts is that you've got a ton of different translations over time. We don't even have all those for the OT. But funny thing about people. Who bothers to read our laws, which are actually available? I am willing to bet that most people who are pissed about the law in Arizona being overturned have no idea what the basis of that decision was. Hint: it wasn't - yay, illegal immigrants!

Random comment -

My manager is an evangelical Christian, and was listing off the school supplies she bought for her 13 year old to attend a local christian Academy; a KJV Bible was required. I couldn't help myself - I pointed out that it's the worst possible translation (simply in terms of errors), and therefore prevents a true understanding of God's word [as interpreted by man]. So pleasepleaseplease do not let the kid's only exposure to Christian dogma be cloaked in the KJV. Beautifully poetic book, decent piece of literature, but a highly inaccurate view of "the word of God".

I was blown off for being the kooky agnostic. Which was the point at which I remembered free thinking and devout Christianity don't always go hand in hand.

 

[swordandsandle]

Random comment -

My manager is an evangelical Christian, and was listing off the school supplies she bought for her 13 year old to attend a local christian Academy; a KJV Bible was required. I couldn't help myself - I pointed out that it's the worst possible translation (simply in terms of errors), and therefore prevents a true understanding of God's word [as interpreted by man]. So pleasepleaseplease do not let the kid's only exposure to Christian dogma be cloaked in the KJV. Beautifully poetic book, decent piece of literature, but a highly inaccurate view of "the word of God".

I was blown off for being the kooky agnostic. Which was the point at which I remembered free thinking and devout Christianity don't always go hand in hand.

They can never go hand in hand. Devout Christianity, by the very definition of it, requires you to submit your opinions and morals to a higher power, thus robbing you of any sence of individuality. The Satanists honestly got the idea of actual independent religon much better.

 

[Netzach]

. Barring certain craziness here and there where people joined monasteries for politics reasons, buddhist priest and monks don't tend to jack people around.

Ahem, just needed to point out that the baddest muthafuckas this side of the Vikings were technically Buddhists all.

 

[Netzach]

Ask Netz. she's read the Torah.

Westboro will just yell that you are going to hell.

Moses sent the Fuckee and the Fucker there.

"Modern" Islam seems to take a different view. Only assfucking gets you stoned while cocksucking is good for ten years in prison.

Derp, actually no, to my embarrassment. I've read the NT more than I've ever read the OT, and probably more than a lot of churchgoing Christians. That godless lefty education at work.

But yes, the laws alluded to in the viral email thing above, are all out of Leviticus. I thought Aaron was getting the law at this point, Moses having pissed Hashem off terribly by throwing those tablets or something?

 

[Netzach]

Random comment -

My manager is an evangelical Christian, and was listing off the school supplies she bought for her 13 year old to attend a local christian Academy; a KJV Bible was required. I couldn't help myself - I pointed out that it's the worst possible translation (simply in terms of errors), and therefore prevents a true understanding of God's word [as interpreted by man]. So pleasepleaseplease do not let the kid's only exposure to Christian dogma be cloaked in the KJV. Beautifully poetic book, decent piece of literature, but a highly inaccurate view of "the word of God".

I was blown off for being the kooky agnostic. Which was the point at which I remembered free thinking and devout Christianity don't always go hand in hand.

Oh, man, but at least their brain won't be rotted by the crap lit of the newer translations. Ick.

The KJV is at least a fine bit of poetry.

 

[WriterDom]

Just to get from Leviticus through 2 Kings takes the patience of Job. Outside of a few surprises like talking donkeys, floating iron ax heads and a guy who springs to life after being thrown on some bones, it's pretty slow going. No wonder it is condensed down to the cool stories in most Christian churches.

 

[satindesire]

Just to get from Leviticus through 2 Kings takes the patience of Job. Outside of a few surprises like talking donkeys, floating iron ax heads and a guy who springs to life after being thrown on some bones, it's pretty slow going. No wonder it is condensed down to the cool stories in most Christian churches.

*chuckles* Amen.

I shake my head when I read stuff like that. No wonder some Atheists think Christians are crazy, when you have books that are -supposed- to be the "Word of God" (no matter how many times it's been tampered with for political purposes in the past ) telling us about our religion.