The New Atheists

[Winston Legthigh]

With that said, I find the comparison between remaining in an organization that discriminates, and living in a country with a history of discrimination weak.

Well then, at what point on the sliding scale does it not become weak? How far would the U.S. have to go before you'd be ready to pack up your bags?

Would you have fled Nazi Germany?

[Good Old Neon]

The U.S. is still an organization that discriminates.

 

A question, for clarification: are you baffled too by Americans who are members of religious denominations with institutional discrimination? Do you hold them accountable for violence perpetrated against persons outside of the United States, by different branches of their organization?

 

If that's true, one of the reasons I find your statement so...I can't think of a word...frustrating, maybe? Still not sure that's right...Anyway, one of the reasons it frustrates me is that you don't account for religious institutions' capacity for change, despite the fact that they have evolved pretty significantly throughout the course of history. Or do you, and I'm missing that?

 

I agree.

 

Yes - I don’t understand why anyone would choose to be a member of an organization that discriminates. For example, I’m a member of the Sierra Club, if, tomorrow, the Sierra Club decreed that, for whatever reason, they are joining the fight against legalizing same sex marriage I would quit. No questions asked. Now, as a citizen of this country, a country that discriminates against gays and lesbians in relation to marriage, rather than leave, which, for me, is 1000 times the magnitude of leaving a group, I would rather stay and fight for those rights - and I do and have done that by writing to my state and federal government.

 

As for a religious organizations capacity for change, I agree that they do, and have - but right now, in the case we are discussing, it’s a change towards the deplorable. I would respect the decission of someone who would choose to stay, but fight for change - my issue, is with people who choose to stay, don’t agree with the church, but remain silent. There’s no true way to determine the percentage, but I would be willing to bet that the percentage of people who will stay and fight, is much smaller than those who simply remain quiet. And I base that opinion, in part, on the Catholic church and it’s history of covering up child molestation.

 

If, tomorrow, the church reversed its decision, I could understand why someone would consider going back, assuming they left for reasons having to do with the church's position.

[MattZ]

By definition, as a democracy, this country is an institution set up for change from within. The fact that religion HAS changed, while commendable, is irrelevant to me for purposes of this discussion.

 

For all these reasons, the glacier that GON refers to is big enough to make the analogy silly to me. I understand that others see the glacier as a rationalization. Maybe there's no difference.

 

EDIT: when I say "irrelevant" above, I only mean in the context of the issue that SpeedRacer raised. Of course, it's relevant in all other respects.

[Guest Speed Racer]

By definition, as a democracy, this country is an institution set up for change from within. The fact that religion HAS changed, while commendable, is irrelevant to me for purposes of this discussion.

 

Why? All of the organized religions I'm aware of have democratic bodies within them that debate, vote on, and institute reforms. I'm not so sure about Catholocism, but I'm sure someone will pipe in. Occassionally, certain bodies don't agree on those reforms and opt to leave the organization.

 

As I said to you earlier, this democratic institution set up for change from within has done very well for itself NOT changing at times, going out of its way to discriminate.

[Good Old Neon]

 

Would you have fled Nazi Germany?

 

The truth is, I don't know what I would have done, as there is no way of knowing. But I have to imagine renouncing your membership to a group, is roughly about one billion times easier than picking up bags and moving oversees.

[MattZ]

Why? All of the organized religions I'm aware of have democratic bodies within them that debate, vote on, and institute reforms. I'm not so sure about Catholocism, but I'm sure someone will pipe in. Occassionally, certain bodies don't agree on those reforms and opt to leave the organization.

 

Well, now we (or, more correctly, I) may be blurring issues, but the entire concept of the word of God being up to a vote is one that is hard for me to wrap my head around. I get it. But only sort of.

[Good Old Neon]

Why? All of the organized religions I'm aware of have democratic bodies within them that debate, vote on, and institute reforms. I'm not so sure about Catholocism, but I'm sure someone will pipe in. Occassionally, certain bodies don't agree on those reforms and opt to leave the organization.

 

As I said to you earlier, this democratic institution set up for change from within has done very well for itself NOT changing at times, going out of its way to discriminate.

 

The difference, for me, is that democracy allows for change. At the very least, I get to vote in favor or against politicians, laws, bills, etc. Whereas, when the Vatican makes a rule, it’s final - you can bitch and complain and scream and shout that that change is wrong, but as he is infallible, the Pope’s word is pretty much final.

[Guest Speed Racer]

the entire concept of the word of God being up to a vote is one that is hard for me to wrap my head around. I get it. But only sort of.

 

The ELCA just voted to ordain GLBT pastors. The only way gay marriage will happen in the bounds of the ELCA, PCUSA or any other denominational organizational will happen is if their democratic bodies vote to institute the change. All of the organized religions I'm aware of interpret the word of God through democratic vote. Does that change your opinion on the matter at all?

 

Edited to clarify: Each of these denominations has congressional bodies of representatives, elected from churches, districts, etc., and these are the persons voting on decisions.

 

the Pope’s word is pretty much final.

 

(Honest question from a former protestant) When the Pope dies, can't Pope v2.0 augment that decision?

[Winston Legthigh]

But I have to imagine renouncing your membership to a group, is roughly about one billion times easier than picking up bags and moving oversees.

That I don't know. Membership (to a social group, country, political action group, religion) are all forms of identity, and I don't know how much weight those forms of identity carries with each person.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I don't know how much weight those forms of identity carries with each person.

 

I would have to imagine that for people who believe that [DENOMINATION] is the one true way of life, removing themselves from that one true way of life because 5% of that way of life (to be generous) - 5% which never affects them personally - might be hurtful to some people they don't know is completely and utterly unfathomable.

[MattZ]

The ELCA just voted to ordain GLBT pastors. The only way gay marriage will happen in the bounds of the ELCA, PCUSA or any other denominational organizational will happen is if their democratic bodies vote to institute the change. All of the organized religions I'm aware of interpret the word of God through democratic vote. Does that change your opinion on the matter at all?

 

Nothing to change my opinion about. I get it. I know that democractic bodies are the only way to change and I applaud it. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around interpreting the story of Adam and Eve as anything other than an offense to women. No matter what a democracy says about it (or wants it to mean). That's what I meant about blurring issues -- now we are moving onto one of the hard things for me to accept about religion in general.

[Winston Legthigh]

but as he is infallible, the Pope’s word is pretty much final.

That's a misunderstanding. He is only infallible when he elects to make a certain teaching, and historically, the "Infallability" thing has only been invoked a handful of times, the most recent of which was to define the Assumption of Mary, meaning she was invited to take the escalator while she was still alive.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Nothing to change my opinion about. I get it. I know that democractic bodies are the only way to change and I applaud it. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around interpreting the story of Adam and Eve as anything other than an offense to women. No matter what a democracy says about it (or wants it to mean). That's what I meant about blurring issues -- now we are moving onto one of the hard things for me to accept about religion in general.

 

To plenty of people, middle of the road Prostants primarily, I would wager that a lot of the fire & brimstone of the Old Testament is not all that much different from the 3/5's clause in terms of direct relevance to their day to day religion/civic engagement. There's a lot about religion that people who are a part of these organizations don't like, don't get, or don't care about. A lot of religions these days treat women equally, thanks to democratic votes, not really giving a rip that Eve is subjugated. Other denominations still won't ordain women.

 

Edit: I guess what I don't get is that the problems you have with religion, it seems to me, aren't that much different from secular situations (pay inequities between male and female employees and the like). I mean, I imagine pay inequities bother you, too, it's just that problems I have with religion in general seem to me to be problems with humans in general.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I know that democractic bodies are the only way to change and I applaud it.

 

One more edit (and hopefully the last I say on this particular point): this is why my analogy makes sense to me - democratic bodies are responsible for instituting change in both religions and the U.S., both institutions we can opt in and out of, and both discriminate against certain people, and both have many, many members who oppose this discriminations.

[Good Old Neon]

I would have to imagine that for people who believe that [DENOMINATION] is the one true way of life, removing themselves from that one true way of life because 5% of that way of life (to be generous) - 5% which never affects them personally - might be hurtful to some people they don't know is completely and utterly unfathomable.

 

Some golfers might feel the same way, but you can renounce your membership to a certain club, and still play golf elsewhere.

[MattZ]

To plenty of people, middle of the road Prostants primarily, I would wager that a lot of the fire & brimstone of the Old Testament is not all that much different from the 3/5's clause in terms of direct relevance to their day to day religion/civic engagement. There's a lot about religion that people who are a part of these organizations don't like, don't get, or don't care about. A lot of religions these days treat women equally, thanks to democratic votes, not really giving a rip that Eve is subjugated. Other denominations still won't ordain women.

 

Yeah, I get that. And frankly, I respect it too. We are just arguing over some dumb hypothetical analogy. Don't get me wrong, just because I have a hard time wrapping my head around the issue of voting on the word of God, doesn't mean that I don't very much root for it. In the end, I want all people to be treated fairly/equally. I dont care if someone is religious or not religious.

 

In other words, I don't waste a lot of energy focused on what I perceive to be the oddity of a Catholic who "herself" doesn't believe that homosexuality is a sin, even if her religion says it is. I focus on the fact that she is a good person that doesn't discriminate. That's all I really care about.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Golf and salvation are kind of different to most people.

 

If you believe you denomination is the one true way, then you would rather stay on that path and hope to amend that 5%, or just ignore it, for eternal salvation. This isn't 18 holes to most people, and you know that.

[Good Old Neon]

Golf and salvation are kind of different to most people.

 

If you believe you denomination is the one true way, then you would rather stay on that path and hope to amend that 5%, or just ignore it, for eternal salvation. This isn't 18 holes to most people, and you know that.

 

You’ve never met my uncle.

 

Neither I, nor you, necessarily know that. Some people devote their lives to the pursuit of religion, some sports, others, Parcheesi.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Some people devote their lives to the pursuit of religion, some sports, others, Parcheesi.

 

Exactly. People devote their lives, GON, to their religion. They can't just pack up and 'move' to a different denomination.

[Good Old Neon]

Exactly. People devote their lives, GON, to their religion. They can't just pack up and 'move' to a different denomination.

 

Religion can be practiced outside the church.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Some people find it acceptable to practice their religion outside the church, others believe that leaving their church will condemn them to damnation.

 

Fixed it for you.

[Atticus]

I thought we lived in a republic

 

[bleedorange]

I thought we lived in a republic

 

 

Not for long.

 

[Good Old Neon]

others believe that leaving their church will condemn them to damnation

 

So much for free will - capitulate or burn for all eternity.

[Guest Speed Racer]

So much for free will - capitulate or burn for all eternity.

 

Is it that much different than choosing to jump off a mountain? A lot of choices we make, religious or not, condemn us to our own fates. Some people believe in different end points.

 

You and I, for the most part, agree on these issues in that neither of us care what people choose to believe or practice or care how they practice it. I don't care one bit if Joe Catholic goes to the polls and votes against a pro-abortion referendum because the Pope told him so any more than I care if Joe Stupid votes blindfolded or chooses the box starting with the letter highest in the alphabet; that's what democracy is. I DO care how our elected officials make their decisions, what with that whole oath and all, but I don't care how people choose to elect them.

 

All of us belong to at least one organization or institution that has practices we disagree with, some of which might be reprehensible, but that doesn't compel us to leave those organizations, because it's far more complicated than "they do 'x' wrong so I'm outsies."