Where is the outrage from religious moderates?

[Winstonm]

Severely edited to the two points I wish to address. (I hope it is OK with you if I edit like this)

 

I'm going to disagree with you publicly, only because Winston says if I don't then I agree with you.

 

The fundamentalist Protestant Christian right has occupied the megaphone for a while, at least in the US. They don't speak for all Christians. That fact, if you are either part of that section of Christianity or outside it completely, can be difficult to notice.

 

First, if I said what you claim then I was wrong and unclear, not only in my statement but in the thinking that preceded that statement. What I was trying to get at was that if one is a member of what is viewed as a tribe, then what a small segment of the tribe claims to be true will be accepted by the public as the viewpoint of all of the tribe if it is not loudly castigated.

 

This leads directly to your second point, which I agree with completely - the megaphone has for too long been held by the extreme members of the xtian tribe, especially in North American, and to me the simplest solution is to abandon the whole concept - but if that is too radical the very least the majority of moderate and liberal xtians should do is vehemently denounce the nonsense the minority is spewing.

[barmar]

So marriage should be no different from any other partnership, where the "business" is the operation of the family?

 

But don't forget, we have all sorts of legal regulations governing other civil contracts. It seems absurd to imagine that there wouldn't be regulations governing marriage contracts. You're not going to get out of it that easily.

[hrothgar]

I do want to "get rid of all the legal benefits awarded to married couples" — and any legal detriments, too. Level the playing field. Joint taxes? No, the tax laws — if we're going to have taxes, which I would argue we should not — should not treat a "married couple", whatever that means, any different from two single people living together. Inheritance is a matter for the individual leaving whatever he is leaving to whoever he wants to leave it, not a matter into which the government should insert itself. Ditto the other things you mention, and probably all the things you didn't mention.

 

Marriage, in my view, should be as far as the society at large is concerned a civil contract between two or more people. The exact form of that contract is their business, not any religion's. If a member of a particular religion wants to make a contract that complies with his or her religion's tenets regarding marriage, more power to him (or her), but again that is the decision of the contractees involved. The religion (or the State) has no business trying to compel anyone to adhere to those tenets.

 

This is one of those rare occasions that Ed and I actually agree on something

[barmar]

First, if I said what you claim then I was wrong and unclear, not only in my statement but in the thinking that preceded that statement. What I was trying to get at was that if one is a member of what is viewed as a tribe, then what a small segment of the tribe claims to be true will be accepted by the public as the viewpoint of all of the tribe if it is not loudly castigated.

 

And sometimes even if it IS loudly castigated. Consider all the Americans who think that the views of Al Qaeda represent Muslims in general, despite the fact that moderate Muslim leaders have been shouting the opposite ever since 9/11.

 

Extremists, by their very nature, will always shout louder.

[blackshoe]

This is one of those rare occasions that Ed and I actually agree on something

Uh, oh. B-)

[kenberg]

A "Solution". The government has to decide who can be buried in a Veteran's cemetery. It could decide (it probably won't, but it could) that a Vet is entitled to two burial spots. One for himself/herself, another for a person of his/her choosing. An Aunt, a son, a spouse, a mistress, it's the Vet's choice. That would get the government out of the business of deciding who is married and who is not, at least for the purpose of burial.

 

However: Now I am guessing of course, but I am guessing that Ms.Taylor would not be particularly enthusiastic about this solution.She wants, yes, I am still guessing, she wants her marriage to be recognized. It's not a matter, or not just a matter, of where who gets buried. She wants her marriage recognized as a marriage.

[mike777]

Where is the outrage from religious moderates? Idaho Homopobia?

 

 

In todays University/College of debate If you have conservative belief that is thought of as immoral, that belief is suppressed.

 

My sister is gay and married but the debate has shifted to if you disagree you should be suppressed.

 

Lose your status, your job, think of you as the worst case Nazi.

 

If you debate gay marriage you are a Nazi or worse...if that is possible.

 

At the very least do not have a college/teaching job.

[mike777]

I do want to "get rid of all the legal benefits awarded to married couples" — and any legal detriments, too. Level the playing field. Joint taxes? No, the tax laws — if we're going to have taxes, which I would argue we should not — should not treat a "married couple", whatever that means, any different from two single people living together. Inheritance is a matter for the individual leaving whatever he is leaving to whoever he wants to leave it, not a matter into which the government should insert itself. Ditto the other things you mention, and probably all the things you didn't mention.

 

Marriage, in my view, should be as far as the society at large is concerned a civil contract between two or more people. The exact form of that contract is their business, not any religion's. If a member of a particular religion wants to make a contract that complies with his or her religion's tenets regarding marriage, more power to him (or her), but again that is the decision of the contractees involved. The religion (or the State) has no business trying to compel anyone to adhere to those tenets.

 

"Marriage, in my view, should be as far as the society at large is concerned a civil contract between two or more"

 

NO

 

My best guess is marriage is more than just some contract.

 

OTOH if so you make a strong argument.

 

If marriage is just such a contract then proof it.

 

--

 

fwiw I made the same statement long ago on bbo. The issue always comes back to the state.

[mycroft]

Winston, you started by saying that we as more moderate Christians need to speak up every time any one of those do anything wrong, or unChristian, or...

 

I was sort of joking in the statement you quoted, but I wasn't in my original post to this thread - if you think that I have to say something every time one of these things happen, then you have to say something every time the government (any of at least the 51) do anything your "minority opinion" considers unAmerican. If you want to view people as a tribe, then I get to too.

 

I also see no acknowledgement that in this case, I actually *did* speak up, and in a way that completely separates at least 100 000 people from the megaphone.

 

What annoys me specifically about this case is that the law doesn't require the proposed burial (although changes to the laws relating to the military and veterans may end up requiring it); but as far as I can tell, the law doesn't forbid it either. The person doing the denying isn't being forced into the choice, he's choosing to be a bigot because he can, and then arguing that he's only doing what the law tells him to do. Petty bigoted bullshit he thinks he can get away with, in other words.

 

As to how that reflects on his own faith, I will leave that to those with eyes to see.

 

As to how to remove the megaphone, it has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with power. If the Religious Right weren't a vehicle to power, some other group would have the megaphone; and it would prey on the people who are afraid of losing their power just as well. Fear has always been the best leash.

[mikeh]

I read the Op as being more about the apathy he perceives in the public stances taken by Xian organizations that claim to occupy the moderate part of the spectrum that makes up organized Xianity, rather than an attack on the Xian moderates who post here, or Xian moderates as individuals everywhere.

 

Thus I read Rik's initial response with some bemusement.

 

I may have misread the OP, but personally I am no more critical of the failure by the Riks and Mycrofts of the world to publicly denounce fundie-inspired bigotry than I am of my own failure to write letters to editors, march up and down with placards and the like.

 

Edited

 

A moderate arguing with a fundie is reduced to saying: I know how to read the mind of god better than you do.

 

However, the moderate and the fundie start from the same premise and have exactly the same information, so there is no logical reason why the moderate should win. A moderate simply points to fashion.

 

Since that is so, it isn't surprising that moderate religious orders rarely tackle the insanity of the fundies directly. The best anti-fundie arguments are off-limits to and indeed often seem invisible to moderates, since such arguments invalidate the beliefs of the moderates as effectively as those of the fundies.

 

An atheist arguing with either a moderate or a fundie says: why do you even have a need to have a god in the first place?

 

The entire universe and, in particular, observable human behaviour makes so much more sense once one accepts that man created god rather than the other way around :P

[Winstonm]

Winston, you started by saying that we as more moderate Christians need to speak up every time any one of those do anything wrong, or unChristian, or...

 

I was sort of joking in the statement you quoted, but I wasn't in my original post to this thread - if you think that I have to say something every time one of these things happen, then you have to say something every time the government (any of at least the 51) do anything your "minority opinion" considers unAmerican. If you want to view people as a tribe, then I get to too.

 

I also see no acknowledgement that in this case, I actually *did* speak up, and in a way that completely separates at least 100 000 people from the megaphone.

 

What annoys me specifically about this case is that the law doesn't require the proposed burial (although changes to the laws relating to the military and veterans may end up requiring it); but as far as I can tell, the law doesn't forbid it either. The person doing the denying isn't being forced into the choice, he's choosing to be a bigot because he can, and then arguing that he's only doing what the law tells him to do. Petty bigoted bullshit he thinks he can get away with, in other words.

 

As to how that reflects on his own faith, I will leave that to those with eyes to see.

 

As to how to remove the megaphone, it has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with power. If the Religious Right weren't a vehicle to power, some other group would have the megaphone; and it would prey on the people who are afraid of losing their power just as well. Fear has always been the best leash.

 

I appreciate your views. My basic position concerning this case is that the basis for these anti-gay laws is religious bias. When a minority religious bias paints an entire group a single color, I would think that those within that group who disagree would try to "shout down" the minority.

 

I understand it is about power - but the power sought is the power to instill religious belief into society - theocracy, whether viewed from the side of religion or secularism - should be castigated. And loudly.

[mycroft]

I disagree. I believe quite strongly (as I said above) that the power sought is the power to control others - and one thing I will not argue against is that religion, in particular official religion, and in the last 1000 years at least Christianity and Islam in the regions they have held sway over, is a particularly easy and powerful handle to exercise those powers. But were it not there, there would be something else, sure as the Communists flowed into the Drug Dealers flowed into the Terrorists.

[gwnn]

When we celebrate the intellect of Newton, we don't say "Were it not for him, there would've been someone else", that would be bad form. So why isn't it bad form to mention that when it comes to terrible things done by people or groups of people? Another thing that this reminds me of is "guns don't kill people, people do", i.e. "if he hadn't had a gun, he could've killed those people with a knife or his bare hands if he had tried enough". Simply put, not all tools are created equal in killing people or even controlling large masses of people. Worshipping George Carlin, for example, who made fun of the government at every turn in his acts, will make you less of a sheep than worshipping someone who preaches obedience and meekness. I am painting with a broad brush, I know, and I know that many Christians have highly developed critical thinking, but I think we can both agree that that skepticism is not overtly mentioned as a virtue in most typical forms of Christianity.

[Winstonm]

I disagree. I believe quite strongly (as I said above) that the power sought is the power to control others - and one thing I will not argue against is that religion, in particular official religion, and in the last 1000 years at least Christianity and Islam in the regions they have held sway over, is a particularly easy and powerful handle to exercise those powers. But were it not there, there would be something else, sure as the Communists flowed into the Drug Dealers flowed into the Terrorists.

 

Ultimately, power is about self-replication, about creating mini-mes. The control you speak of is an attempt to control the thoughts and beliefs of others.

 

If you will notice, the basic tenet of religion is not "think for yourselves" but "follow (and think like) me". It is hard to gather and wield great power if the stated objective is to encourage critical thinking and independent decision-making.

[mycroft]

I think Winston, you should ask a practising Jew or a Jesuit about that last paragraph. Again, while frequently true, it's by no means the tenet (unless, in Christianity at least, "be like me" means - a whole bunch of things that most Christians, myself included, I'm embarrassed to say, don't actually practise, or even promote). That's the power talking, not the Christ.

[akwoo]

I go to a church that believes every person has direct access to continuing revelation, and your should interpret scripture, pronouncements from religious figures, and other people's expressions of what is revealed to them based on what is revealed to you personally.

 

If that's not promotion of independent thinking, I don't know what is.

 

Baltimore and New England Yearly Meetings (and possibly one or two more) have publicly disagreed with Friends United Meeting's understanding of the relationship of homosexuality and the Bible, and the church policy implications thereof, for more than 15 years now, and they continue to not only remain affiliated with each other but to keep working to understand each other's interpretation of the Bible and of what God has personally revealed to different people on this issue. It would've been easy to split up and denounce each other as heretics, but they're still working on finding that Hegelian synthesis.

 

I think on these kinds of matters, the Talmudic mode of disputation (which was actually practiced in precursors of Hinduism long before it was practiced in Judaism) works better than the Cartesian one. Instead of thinking and saying "You are wrong", one can more gently say "You are not interpreting your beliefs correctly."

 

Here is my religious philosophy in a nutshell:

 

Wittgenstein famously wrote: "If a lion could speak, we would not understand him."

 

Except for a brief, dimly remembered period somewhere around 2000 years ago, God is even more unlike us than a lion is, so we have even less hope of understanding God, but whatever God has to say seems really important, so it's worth continuing to try.

[Winstonm]

I go to a church that believes every person has direct access to continuing revelation, and your should interpret scripture, pronouncements from religious figures, and other people's expressions of what is revealed to them based on what is revealed to you personally.

 

If that's not promotion of independent thinking, I don't know what is.

 

Baltimore and New England Yearly Meetings (and possibly one or two more) have publicly disagreed with Friends United Meeting's understanding of the relationship of homosexuality and the Bible, and the church policy implications thereof, for more than 15 years now, and they continue to not only remain affiliated with each other but to keep working to understand each other's interpretation of the Bible and of what God has personally revealed to different people on this issue. It would've been easy to split up and denounce each other as heretics, but they're still working on finding that Hegelian synthesis.

 

I think on these kinds of matters, the Talmudic mode of disputation (which was actually practiced in precursors of Hinduism long before it was practiced in Judaism) works better than the Cartesian one. Instead of thinking and saying "You are wrong", one can more gently say "You are not interpreting your beliefs correctly."

 

Here is my religious philosophy in a nutshell:

 

Wittgenstein famously wrote: "If a lion could speak, we would not understand him."

 

Except for a brief, dimly remembered period somewhere around 2000 years ago, God is even more unlike us than a lion is, so we have even less hope of understanding God, but whatever God has to say seems really important, so it's worth continuing to try.

 

Well, I wouldn't want to point to someone as an example of a critical thinker who: A) accepted without question that a supernatural being that leaves no objective evidence of its being is real, and then decides that this being that has no evidence of actually existing could care enough to reveal anything to a bunch of evolved chimps who walk on two feet and B) who believes that this invisible superbeing "reveals" truths.

[barmar]

I think Winston, you should ask a practising Jew or a Jesuit about that last paragraph. Again, while frequently true, it's by not means the tenet (unless, in Christianity at least, "be like me" means - a whole bunch of things that most Christians, myself included, I'm embarrassed to say, dont actually practise, or even promote). That's the power talking, not the Christ.

 

There's plenty of hypocrisy in religion. If you belong to a religion with lots of restrictive tenets, living by them is difficult.

 

In some cases, one can view them as ideals that you aspire to, but simply find yourself unable to achieve. It's like a smoker saying that they know they should quit. Analogously, a Christian can believe that premarital sex and adultery are sins, but might still engage in them because they have a moral lapse.

 

But it can also be because people are different. You might believe in most of the tenets, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to believe in all the preachings.

[nige1]

Well, I wouldn't want to point to someone as an example of a critical thinker who: A) accepted without question that a supernatural being that leaves no objective evidence of its being is real, and then decides that this being that has no evidence of actually existing could care enough to reveal anything to a bunch of evolved chimps who walk on two feet and B) who believes that this invisible superbeing "reveals" truths.

Some religious people are critical geniuses :) but few satisfy Winstonm's criteria :(

[mikeh]

I go to a church that believes every person has direct access to continuing revelation, and your should interpret scripture, pronouncements from religious figures, and other people's expressions of what is revealed to them based on what is revealed to you personally.

 

If that's not promotion of independent thinking, I don't know what is.

 

Baltimore and New England Yearly Meetings (and possibly one or two more) have publicly disagreed with Friends United Meeting's understanding of the relationship of homosexuality and the Bible, and the church policy implications thereof, for more than 15 years now, and they continue to not only remain affiliated with each other but to keep working to understand each other's interpretation of the Bible and of what God has personally revealed to different people on this issue. It would've been easy to split up and denounce each other as heretics, but they're still working on finding that Hegelian synthesis.

 

I think on these kinds of matters, the Talmudic mode of disputation (which was actually practiced in precursors of Hinduism long before it was practiced in Judaism) works better than the Cartesian one. Instead of thinking and saying "You are wrong", one can more gently say "You are not interpreting your beliefs correctly."

 

Here is my religious philosophy in a nutshell:

 

Wittgenstein famously wrote: "If a lion could speak, we would not understand him."

 

Except for a brief, dimly remembered period somewhere around 2000 years ago, God is even more unlike us than a lion is, so we have even less hope of understanding God, but whatever God has to say seems really important, so it's worth continuing to try.

 

Hmmm...

 

I would like to suggest for your consideration the notion that what any individual perceives as 'revealed' to him or her is likely a confirmation of his or her prejudices, beliefs, desires, wishes etc. Thus, attributing these revelations to 'god' is attractive but self-deceiving. Indeed, since it is (I trust) well established by now that humans are prone to confirmation bias and wishful thinking, and self-deception, isn't it somewhat more logical to think of this sort of revelation as our creating our god as we want it to be, rather than actually perceiving immaterial messages from an immaterial entity?

 

Many children invent invisible friends with whom they have serious conversations, but almost all outgrow them. Pray tell me the difference between such imaginary friends and your idea of god? Please be specific, rather than just asserting: they are different because one is real and the other isn't. Such a response contains no information :P

 

As for the final paragraph, I suspect already that I am talking to a blank wall: but what evidence do you have, external to the self-referential contents of the texts, that anything in the bible actually is the word of a god? Please, should you choose to answer this, take pains to explain why you can say that about your holy text but that when adherents to a different set of beliefs point to their holy texts, they have it wrong.

 

I know: I am wasting my time. I have never, despite many hours of reading works by believers, found anyone who actually addresses these issues with any argument that does not boil down to: I believe, therefore it is true. Which, to a non-believer, appears a tad circular :D

 

As for the Talmudic disputation process, I can see why that would be attractive to a believer, since it presupposes the conclusion. It is all about belief, rather than knowledge. It is all about what is revealed rather than about evidence. It is all about superstition (altho to a believer, superstition is a term reserved for the beliefs of others) rather than reason. Since believers can never, as far as I can see, argue past their starting premise, that only a god can explain the universe [aka known to non-believers as the god of the gaps, or the explanation from ignorance], the last thing they can countenance is logically based argument as espoused as long ago as Socrates, wherein one should strain to examine one's fundamental premises.

[hrothgar]

I have some sympathy for Winston's post

 

Every time there's some new idiocy in the muslim world - and lord knows this happens often enough - we're subjected to a never ending stream of conservative Christians and Jews asking "Why we don't see moderate muslims condemning this action?".

 

I can point to a fair number of such posts on the watercooler if folks want.

 

I don't think that its at all unreasonable to tar this group with the same brush.

[mycroft]

I, too, have some sympathy. But you will note that I do *not* call for "moderate Muslims" to condemn those actions; I'm pretty certain it's out there, and if I care, I go looking to find it (and I do). My issue is that several of the comments - most of the ones I responded to, basically - showed implied biases in what Christians (or generally "religious") are like that showed a large dose of presuming the conclusion and/or "feed me, I see no reason to go looking myself" (arguing with an internal image of a "moderate Christian" rather than what's actually out there). And, as I have some sympathy, and as in the past the OP has deminstrated that while of a particular persuasion (which I tend to share), he is also willing to review his biases, I decided to step up this time and do the cooking.

 

I will admit that some of my examples were Canadian and as such, invisible to the U.S. media net; but I could have replace the United Church of Canada and it's issues with the Canadian Conservative Parties in power with the United Church of Christ and its lawsuits over the state not recognizing *their* religious beliefs (had that hit my radar when this thread started).

[akwoo]

I see no evidence that we are not brains in a vat.

 

I'm not going to refuse to believe in the reality of everything. The 'brain in a vat' hypothesis is a pointless one because I would behave exactly the same way whether my empirical experiences are really there or merely simulated.

 

I choose to explain some of my experiences as religious experiences. I could explain them naturalistically as psychological quirks caused by brain biology, but why should I? Don't I have the right to choose which language I use?

 

I grew up without religion, and I was converted to some form of postmodernism long before I was converted to any form of religion. I think almost all of our ideas are human constructions. Take trees. Sure I can agree that the tree I see outside my window exists independently of me (assuming I'm not a brain in a vat). But the idea that it, and all the other various other things that look like it, should be grouped together into one category and called 'trees' is a human creation.

 

Most of what we call 'reality' or 'facts' consists of relations between what are actually human constructions. The empirical background says very little.

 

Given that, systems of human constructions can't really be called 'true' or 'false'. They can be judged to be 'useful' or 'not useful'. Once you are inside a system, then of course the relations between the axioms of our system and their interactions with the empirical background can determine what is 'true' or 'false' within that system. But outside any system, without any axioms to work with, 'true' or 'false' makes no sense.

 

Note: 'useful' immediately brings to mind the question, 'For what?' Which means the judgement of 'useful' or 'not useful' can depend on purpose.

 

I find some of the many (different but related) systems of thought labelled as 'Christianity' useful to me. It seems like they are also useful to some others. Some also seem to be harmful to some people. You go figure out what's useful to you. But keep in mind you're not allowed to cherry pick parts of a system out of their context.

 

Marilyn vos Savant famously tried to argue that the Wiles-Taylor proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was wrong because it used mathematical ideas that have no physical referent. She was missing the point. (That doesn't mean we wouldn't all like a proof that could be understood without a half dozen years of graduate mathematics.)

[helene_t]

But keep in mind you're not allowed to cherry pick parts of a system out of their context.

Why not? You can create your own favorite dish by picking a little bit of this and a little bit of that. You will end up with something idosyncratic, but that doesn't matter as long as it makes you happy. You might also end up with something inconsistent, but then again, you might not.

[Winstonm]

I see no evidence that we are not brains in a vat.

 

I'm not going to refuse to believe in the reality of everything. The 'brain in a vat' hypothesis is a pointless one because I would behave exactly the same way whether my empirical experiences are really there or merely simulated.

 

I choose to explain some of my experiences as religious experiences. I could explain them naturalistically as psychological quirks caused by brain biology, but why should I? Don't I have the right to choose which language I use?

 

I grew up without religion, and I was converted to some form of postmodernism long before I was converted to any form of religion. I think almost all of our ideas are human constructions. Take trees. Sure I can agree that the tree I see outside my window exists independently of me (assuming I'm not a brain in a vat). But the idea that it, and all the other various other things that look like it, should be grouped together into one category and called 'trees' is a human creation.

 

Most of what we call 'reality' or 'facts' consists of relations between what are actually human constructions. The empirical background says very little.

 

Given that, systems of human constructions can't really be called 'true' or 'false'. They can be judged to be 'useful' or 'not useful'. Once you are inside a system, then of course the relations between the axioms of our system and their interactions with the empirical background can determine what is 'true' or 'false' within that system. But outside any system, without any axioms to work with, 'true' or 'false' makes no sense.

 

Note: 'useful' immediately brings to mind the question, 'For what?' Which means the judgement of 'useful' or 'not useful' can depend on purpose.

 

I find some of the many (different but related) systems of thought labelled as 'Christianity' useful to me. It seems like they are also useful to some others. Some also seem to be harmful to some people. You go figure out what's useful to you. But keep in mind you're not allowed to cherry pick parts of a system out of their context.

 

Marilyn vos Savant famously tried to argue that the Wiles-Taylor proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was wrong because it used mathematical ideas that have no physical referent. She was missing the point. (That doesn't mean we wouldn't all like a proof that could be understood without a half dozen years of graduate mathematics.)

 

You are quite right - the best we as humans can do is to make assumptions about reality - it is the basis for those assumptions that is the crux of the matter. Whether we believe it exists or not, there is evidence that shows that when a thousand pounds of rocks, seen or unseen, falls on an unsuspecting hiker, that fragile human body is crushed. From this we can assume that the rocks' existence are independent of an observer. Likewise, we can extrapolate that idea to the moon, known to contain rock formations, that it, too, exists regardless of observation.

 

Ideas about immaterial beings are not made up of this type evidence. The best we, as humans, can do is to try to explain how things might occur within the confines of known or understood physical properties, or laws.