Hi, Daisy. Hmm, I think I've gotten rubbed by just the thing Parrothead mentioned. I'll see if I can explain it. Lack of belief in god is a religious belief (world view, etc.) Belief in a god is religious belief Right, back to this. It's right there in, "People can't prove lack of a god any more than they can prove existence of a god, so each belief is equally religious/worldviewy/philosophical." My previous post tried to point that out. You believe in Jesus Christ as your savior (I'm assuming). That is part of your religious belief. You do not believe that tribbles are tempting you to eat too much ice cream. (I'm assuming :)) This is a religious belief too --- or is it? Can you prove that Tribbles are not tempting you to eat too much ice cream? No? Then should I be able to claim that such is a "religious belief?" I'm not really angry about this because I think it's inadvertent, and you're trying not to step on toes (being very careful to use "world view" and "philosophy" but I don't think that's where the frustration lies. The frustration and hurt comes in by making the equivalent between your belief in Jesus and your lack of belief in ice-cream tempting tribbles. Are they equivalent, or not? If not, it's not right to say belief in god and lack of belief in god are equivalent. Does that make sense? T.

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you, Daisy, and I'm not really, I just see a lot in your posts. The difference in claiming the lack of a god, and the existence of a god is this--we assume something doesn't exist until we have proof it does exist. When someone proposes that something exists, the onus is upon them to prove it. For instance, if I claim there's a big red gorilla in my dishwasher, the onus is upon me to prove it. I don't have to prove the lack of a god, or the lack of a tea pot that reads minds. It is up to the person who claims these things to prove them. If they can't be "proven" this is where faith comes in. Which is not to actually argue with you on the "world view" aspect. Just to point out the "shiften the burden of proof" here. Believing in the existence of something is not the same in believing in its non-existence. T.

LOVE x 1000 (as all the cool kids are saying) :)

See, I could live with that. If religion were definted to mean a deeply-held belief, that encluded thriftiness, environmentalism, co-sleeping, baby-wearing, green-living, pro-lifeness, I could see fervent atheism fitting in. And, then, we see that basically everything would be religion :) That's certainly one possibility, and the one I was wondering about. T.

I hear that a lot "Atheists have more faith than Christians." Ray Comfort has a book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist." I think that this usage of "faith" co-opts the Christian definition of faith, actually. It takes faith to believe that an invisible bunny-monster, that only the 2-year-old can under, her bed exists. It does not take faith to believe that the invisible bunny-fairy does not exist. Or, slightly tangentially, but to use a Christian metaphor that I once often used: "If you have faith that the ice will hold you up, you will step out on it. If you don't step out on the ice, that means you don't have faith that it will hold you up." T.

Ah, you're quite right, I got confused there. You're right about LaVayan Satanism being anti-theistic. I actually agree with what you've posted. :) T.

Oh, I don't think it's a problem is someone accidentally calls an atheist a religious person, and doesn't mean any harm. (Or, at least not to me). I think the harm comes when a religious person goes on to tell the non-religious person what is is that the non-religious person believes, and imposes their own beliefs about that persons non-beliefs on them. :tongue_smilie: Clear as mud? :lol:

Hi, Daisy. Actually, you explained it well. And I've gotten some good answers. I think I "get" the way that people are explaining it here. In fact, I do understand why "areligious" needs to be listed when talking about religious adherents. I just googled religious beliefs in the world, and found a pie chart. In that chart, non-religion was also listed, and I see why that would need to be. I hadn't thought to equate "religion" to "worldview" in Christian parlance. When I was Christian, one who big into "world view" I think that's how I would have seen it as well. In fact, now that I think of it, I might have even done just that. I do wonder if "world view" is just a Christian euphemism for "religion." Really, it's the only place I ever hear about world view. :) Thanks, everyone, for your input. I think I learned a lot. I'm used to people saying, "atheism is a religion, and you're just as religious as I am. You just worship. . . [insert dreck here]" but it seems that's not what folks here are saying. Interesting. Thanks, all! T.

Why can't it be considered non-belief? If Buddhism doesn't meet the definition of religion, why can't atheism avoid it? What about atheism makes it religious...more religious than Buddhism for example. Atheists don't have creed or practices or Atheist traditions. We don't worship supernatural entities nor do we acknowledge any. Satanism is a theistic religion, actually. Though there are small subsets that aren't, most Satanists do believe in a god (or, most likely, a monotheistic God), but they worship that god's enemy. Similar to most Christians believe in Jesus's divinity, and that he is the member of a god-head, but not all. T.

I didn't want to hijack another thread, so I'm asking here. Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. (I know, "it's not a religion; it's a relationship," but it terms of religious studies is it, so could we just work within that framework for this question?) Hinduism is a religion. Wicca is a religion. These require belief in some supernatural/invisible force. When I hear "atheism is a religion" I'm curious. Atheism is non-belief. So, therefore, to people who say atheism and these other frameworks are all equally religion--isn't that basically to say "a" equals religion and "not-a" equals religion So, everything equals religion. You can't avoid it. Everything is religion. I don't believe that, and I definitely don't get it. If both belief and non-belief are both religion, then, everything is religion. But it doesn't work that way with other binaries. Pregnant or not-pregnant. Alive or dead. Non-believer or believer. We don't say being not pregnant is being pregnant. Being alive is being dead. Being an atheist (non-believer) is being religious (believer). If you believe atheists are religious, what in the world do I have to do/be to be non religious? What can I possibly do to avoid being labeled "religious"? T.

Wow, TXMom! I literally said, "Ho. Lee. Mackeral," at Asparagus lasagna. Would you mind sharing this recipe. I'll be happy to. . . uh, make it and eat it, and be really happy and grateful to you :)

You're saying that by the laws of the land Mormons can only marry one person. By the laws of the land gays can marry no one. You claimed that Mormons have had their religious rights infringed upon by limiting themselves to one spouse, despite their own teachings. My point was that, no, their teachings changed. Whether by "God" or by mere expediency, I'll leave that to the individual to decide. Anyone can have a spouse, so long as they aren't of the same gender. Everyone is equal, just some people are more equal than others. "Oy."

Mormons can still marry a spouse. Gays, for the most part can't. I'm pretty sure Mormons don't want to give up their spouse. Most gays would just like one. In order for them both to be equal in the eyes of the law, one or the other would have to happen. T. Also, I think that according to the LDS "God" changed his mind about polygamy, or that Joseph Smith explained that polygamy was only needed for a short time (and this from their god). I believe whatever the case, Mormon theology says that the change in marriage standards was their God's doing, and not simply a tenant changed to have the state of Utah accepted into the Union. But, I admit I could be wrong. MamaSheep, would you clarify why the CoJCLDS no longer practices polygamy? Wasn't it once a requirement for exhaltation? But it is no longer? (Does this need to be an s/o?) ;)

It's been nice to chat with you, MamaSheep. :)

Ohh, that's a good point! Interesting. That's another aspect. Because I was unaware of how grievous or petty the shoes issue might be, I definitely would have been more careful about keeping my shoes on. Since I was very familiar with Christianity, and had a good idea about how "Oh, my gosh" and "Oh, my god" are used among a majority of the Christian population, I might have been a little less afraid of offending people. :) Either way, I'd have wanted to be nice. . .but I'd bring my own knowledge of the cultural issues into it. I think that's why so many people have taken up this thread. To many, even Christians, this is a non-issue, and it's really interesting to see other perspectives. T.

No, no. If you thought I meant to keep my shoes on only because it was a MUSLIM student who told me to keep them on (Saudi Arabia--the only legal religion is Islam) I did not express myself clearly. I said I was more likely to make an issue of keeping them on because it was _already_ a part of my culture, and I already was aware of it. It was a little unprofessional on my part to have my shoes off. As to the Christian student, I'd do my best by her to clean up my act, petty though I thought her worries might be. :) The reason I see a difference here is that for the one (the shoes) this is something already promoted by my culture (wear shoes in class). "Oh, my god" isn't. "Oh, my god" is considered a perfectly ok colloquialism by most of the culture, and therefore something I'd shrug at, though I'd try to be more polite. (Just like my response to "gosh" and "golly". Even though that's downright nutty to me.) (Also, as a former Christian, I'm already sensitized enough to OMG, that I don't use it anyway.) The point of those examples was to respond to Lauri who was curious about whether we were more aware of more distinct cultural differences and whether we'd more likely bend the more different they were. My point was, and is, that our culture in America is strongly Christian, and that most reasonable accommodations have already been made because of our history with Christianity. T.

Not accommodations--just cultural matters of course. For example: Christmas break for one. Christmas holiday off. Some state schools, including the university where we live, have Good Friday off. Weekends that include Sunday as a day off of classes and work. These are big ones, and ones, that because of the privileged status of Christianity, are a given. We simply assume these. It's easy for folks to not see them because they're a part of the culture. How about Blue Laws? We still have those in my part of the country. Yes, Christianity is privileged. Hugely so. Say "God" and Christians automatically assume their deity is being invoked. :) Convert to Christianity in jail, and you're more likely to be parolled. (Far more than if you become a non-believer :)) You're more likely to be voted into office as any branch of Christian. If you're atheist, you can darn-near forget about it. If you like, you can Google "Christian privilege". You might not totally agree with everything you read. About.com has a great list, and even if you don't agree 100% perhaps it will help you understand how predominantly Christian our culture is. It's hard to feel wet when you live in the water. *Christians can assume they will hear songs, see programs, etc. related to their major holidays all over the media. * Christians can erect signs and billboards without expecting vandalism (Google "atheist signs defaced" to see dozens of signs in the last year that have been defaced.) * Look around your town. How many Christian buildings do you see compared to those of other faiths? * When someone says "thank god" or "god bless you" (Or, "Oh my god" :)) you can assume they're talking about the Christian one. * Christians will find their holy book in motel rooms. * Christian children will easily find Christian clubs and events for them in their schools/communities. * Christians can more easily find schools for their children than those of other religions. * The word "Christian" is typically used connote only good things. * Christians can assume public prayers will be Christian in nature. I think it's perfectly fine for anyone to make any accommodation they want, but if I can't live up to the "gosh" standard (which, by both our reckonings is odd) am I persecuting someone? I'd like to see some grace in both directions. T.

That's an interesting questions, Laurie, and I've been thinking on it a bit. Here's what I come up with. Yes, I can definitely see the point about being potentially more cognizant of traditions/religions that are unlike those that are most common around us, but. . . I'm unsure, and I really do mean unsure, about being prepared to listen and accommodate simply based on something's degree of differences. But, then again. . . I dunnoh. I once had a Saudi student who wrote on my evaluation that I didn't wear shoes in class and that I "always must to wear shoes!" I slipped off my shoes one day in class, I think I was getting a blister on my foot, and I don't think anyone would have noticed but I subsequently stubbed my toe on a desk. :) If he had mentioned it at the time, I would have been more careful about always keeping my shoes on--but that was something I would normally have done in class anyway. It's just appropriate to wear shoes in class, and I knew that. (He didn't complain about anything else because I wore long dresses and a headcovering at the time, but I do wonder. . . .) If a student came to me and please said not to use "Gosh" in class because it was blasphemy (I've heard a number of people say any type of exclamation is simply a cover-up for vulgarity, and anything starting with a "g" or "j" sound is just a cover-up for blasphemy of "God" . . . Well. . . And back to your point. . . I think the difference is between stark differences, as we might see between Muslim/Buddhist/Sikh practices and those of the priviledged religious customs/beliefs. Most of our US culture is already attuned to the most aggregious rude things that can be done against the prevailing religious culture and does try not to do those things, since it's part of the culture. Accommodations that might be made for those of the prevailing religious culture, have, for the most part, already been made. The accommodation for "oh, my god" might be different because so few people actually see it as religious and cruel to Christians. And the fact that it is EVERYWHERE! Perhaps that's why the response on this thread has been so great. Most obviously people, even most Christians on this thread, don't see "Oh, my God" as blasphemous, any more than they see "Gosh," or "Jeez" as blasphemous. (Though, some, admittedly do). How far is one obligated to take religious accommodation? I would certainly try to avoid saying OMG, but I'd find it absurd to purge my speech of all exclamations over one, quite unusual, plea to religious belief. As to telling the OP maybe she should go somewhere else to school, I'm pretty sure if there were Sikhs here upset that their male instructors didn't wear turbans, we would kindly point out that not all people are Sikhs and that perhaps they should go to a Sikh school if that's what they wanted. I don't think that the OP is being singled out there. If she wants people to behave up to her particular standards, she should go somewhere that insists upon them. Any other group on the boards would be told the same thing. At least that I'm pretty sure of. :) T.

I've been wondering that myself. In fact, when you mentioned your area being Catholic, that made me ponder something else. I read an interesting piece--I'll look for it--on religious exclamations and acceptability. The writer was a female, Ph.D. and a devout Catholic, just to play those cards for her. And her thoughts were that Catholics tend to partake regularly in exclamations such as "Oh, my God" because of their tradition of ejaculatory prayer. Saying "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph," or "Mother of God," or even "Jesus Christ" aloud was encouraged, and even believed, by some, to help a person out of Purgatory. (I didn't know that this was still practiced, actually, until I was reviewing a Catholic instructional book for children. I worked for a Christian professional magazine, and we were often sent books to review and promote at the magazine. The book was very specific about the types of exclamations that might ease a loved-one's time, or one's own time, in Purgatory.) It's possibly the availablilty heuristic that makes me take note, but I remember from my fundamentalist years, that I was always shocked at how my Catholic friends woud so freely partake in what I considered shocking. I wonder it's somehow related. Ponderingly yours, T.

Thank _you_ for being so lovely about this discussion :) I'm very aware of the discrimination in the past against the LDS. I always think that people who know what it's like to suffer it discrimination, or have it in their past, should be more sensitive and understanding to those who are suffering the same thing these days. But I know that's not always the case. Yes, but when we talk about "affiliation". . . this is where the difference comes. You don't have to be a part of a GLBT "group" to be gay. Gay people are discriminated against and denied basic right because they are gay, not because they belong to a group. Yes, joining the group is voluntary, being gay isn't. Being gay is what gets you dehumanized and discriminated against, separately from being part of a group or not. This really is different from religious affiliation. You're absolutely right! All people should have the right to safety and humanity. But, there are some who aren't right now, and we ought to be doing our best to point that out and to support those who are being discriminated against. It's all well and good to say, "Let's treat everyone the same," but it also very important to make sure that we recognize those who aren't being treated equally so that we can focus there. To disregard that is, I think, disingenuous. When Mormons are denied the right to marry, take care of the deceased bodies of their partners, join the military, etc. I'll make sure to stand up for your rights and put a big friendly LDS sticker on my classroom door :) T.

I don't want to stir the pot, I really don't, but here's my thoughts on your thoughts. Since Jews and Christians are not systematically and legally denied the rights of other groups in the US that's where, for me, the difference comes. Also, religion is a choice. As LDS, you do believe that's a choice, do you not? (I know children can't be baptized until they're 8, and can be said to make a decision on their own). Straight? You didn't choose that? Gay? You didn't choose that--and yet, you can be marginalized and dehumanized, so says the government and most churches. That's why it's nice for GLBT to know what places/what people are safe. Nothing says other professors don't put up indicators of what/who they support. When I went to a state college, I put up Bible verses all over my office. I even solicited prayers from my students when I was a grad student TA. When I worked in a government building, I put Bible verses all over my desk to memorize and think on during the day. (Eek, I think back on it with no small embarassment, actually). Certainly, the professor can create examples about Johnny the missionary and his little missionary children. But, I think that's a completely different issue than trying to support groups which are legally disenfranchised, and who did not choose their area of disenfranchisement. (See above). T.

My father uses profanity quite liberally, in situations where it makes no sense at all, AFAIC :) But, I know it's a habit with him so. . . . I don't mind hearing it if I understand it has a meaning and use. If I slam my finger in the door, I might say something vulgar (ok, I almost certainly will), but folks must have a way to express feelings, and not all feelings are pleasant. I rarely use vulgarity or profanity of any sort, but when I feel it's appropriate I will. OTOH, I know families who disallow any sort of exclamation "drat" "darn" "rats" "blast" because they're all just "cover-ups" for "bad words". To them, saying these euphemisms is just as bad as saying an actual "bad word." Frankly, I worry for these people. There is no way to verbally express displeasure, shock, frustration, etc. That's not healthy. T.

Oh, there are tons of places I'd love to go. But remember, just because you want to go there, doesn't mean you'll be permitted to immigrate. Find places you're interested in, and then see if you meet the criteria. :)

Two-thumbs up!:lol:

My favorite professor in college was very unconventional. I enjoy unconventional--in my Christian life, I was very unconventional (on the conservative end), and like anyone who can push an envelope with panache. He was (and still is) PETA faculty advisor on campus, boxer, Harley rider, Atheist-Jew, fluffy bearded and known to wear a mumu from time to time. He cursed like a sailor, and I was a very serious Christian and taking his Honors Philosophy class. He was on the "dangerous" list that Campus Crusade at out at our university at the time. I made it a point to take classes from as many of those professors as I could. The ones that I had the fortunate of learning under were all exceptional. This professor was outstanding, and I contacted him earlier this year to thank him (15 years after my last class with him) for his teaching. T.