freethinkermama
-
Posts
378 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by freethinkermama
-
-
There are those who believe as you have stated, but I tend to think of atheism as a religion/philosophy/worldview simply because the lack of a god cannot be proven any more than the existence of a god or even multiple gods can be proven. It all falls within the realm of religion and philosophy. That some atheists would prefer to avoid the branch of religion & philosophy altogether doesn't negate the fact that the subject does indeed fall within that branch.
If I knew it offended the atheist to call atheism a religion, I would avoid doing so for their sake. Perhaps calling it a philosophy would be the better way to go. It is hard as most of us do interact with our world using our own worldviews. I don't think that necessarily makes religious folks prejudice against non-religious folks. I think it just means we have to learn new and unfamiliar language to interact with you. We are bound to occasionally fail in our ability to communicate.
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.
-
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
LOVE x 1000 (as all the cool kids are saying) :)
-
I know when we lived in PA, many were trying to find a loophole in the homeschooling laws by homeschooling for religious reasons. The state itself had defined "religion" as any deeply held conviction or belief. Thus, if one deeply held to their atheism, it would be considered a religion in PA (so would environmentalism, thriftiness, political philosophy, etc... as long as it was "deeply held").
I find that I tend to use the word religion when referring to atheism (falling into the "deeply held" definition), but what I really mean is a belief system or worldview or life perspective. I am referring to the individual's consciously chosen path. However, in conversation, this is often too long and complicated to explain, so I shorten it to "religion" or "belief system" and hope that I am understood, forgiven, or both.
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 don't believe athiests are religious. Religion is man's attempt at reaching up to God, trying to earn favour through works and rules. Christianity is God reaching down to man, the work was done on the cross.
It sounds like the word faith is key here. Athiests DO have a lot of faith. ;)
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.
-
Wrong. The most popular kind of Satanism is LaVayan Satanism, which is the polar opposite of Christianity. Is is anti-cultural, full of self-worship and hate for other religions, and believes in no God or theistic being in any shape or form.
It is an example of an atheistic religion; a group of people following the same set of beliefs.
Atheism, in itself, is not a religion, because it is not a unified group with a unified set of beliefs. A LaVeyan Satanist is just as atheistic as any person who just labels themselves 'atheist', for example.
Saying atheism is a religion is like saying theism is a religion; theism encompasses many religions, just as atheism encompasses many religions, and many people who do not follow a religion.
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.
-
There are those who believe as you have stated, but I tend to think of atheism as a religion/philosophy/worldview simply because the lack of a god cannot be proven any more than the existence of a god or even multiple gods can be proven. It all falls within the realm of religion and philosophy. That some atheists would prefer to avoid the branch of religion & philosophy altogether doesn't negate the fact that the subject does indeed fall within that branch.
If I knew it offended the atheist to call atheism a religion, I would avoid doing so for their sake. Perhaps calling it a philosophy would be the better way to go. It is hard as most of us do interact with our world using our own worldviews. I don't think that necessarily makes religious folks prejudice against non-religious folks. I think it just means we have to learn new and unfamiliar language to interact with you. We are bound to occasionally fail in our ability to communicate.
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:
-
I think people state atheism is a religion only if they are defining religion as a worldview. Defining religion as our worldview is especially common among Christians. Worldview is defined pretty much as the lens through which you interact with your world. Thus they are more likely to say atheism is your worldview or your religion.
No insult is intended.
And I do realize that some atheists will claim they have no lens whatsoever and that they view the world logically and with only facts....
But honestly, that is what the above people are thinking when they state that atheism is a religion. Like it or not, they are assuming that you have a particular worldview. They assume that you have reached the conclusion that God does not exist and you now filter all the information you receive around you through that filter (belief system, non-belief system, worldview, religion).
I don't feel like I said this as well as I could have, but I don't have time to elaborate.
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.
-
For the sake of religious discussions, I've always included atheism as a religion. Atheism is, in itself, not really a religion, although there are atheistic religions (Satanism, for example, and, depending on who you ask, Buddhism, although it doesn't really fit the definition of a religion).
So, for the sake of religious discussion, it should be thought of as a religion, but for the sake of definition, it should not be thought of as a religion.
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.
-
In order of how much I love them:
1. Asparagus lasagna - grilled asparagus in a goat cheese sauce. Heaven!
2. Chicken spagetti with broccoli cornbread
3. Zuchinni, bacon, gruyere quiche with fruit and "to die for sauce"
4. Fajitas - beef and chicken, peppers, onions, sour cream, cheese, guacamole
5. Steak with baked potatoes, fresh green beans and fresh bread.
Now - who wants to come cook at my house?
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 :)
-
Oy, you didn't get it.
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."
-
In a sense they have been. Their leaders had to change certain tenets of their faith because of it. They believe in marriage, but their marriage is limited to one spouse, just as marriage is limited to those of opposite genders.
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.
:)
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. And I'm glad to hear that you'd at least try to be more polite, that's kind of you.I think I'm with Laurie on this one--there is a LOT in popular American culture that in no way accommodates for common Christian belief and practice. But I do see your point.
-
I think this could possibly be because people are more aware of the conflicts, debates, and vagaries of the religion/culture they are most familiar with, and are more sensitive to the ones they don't know as well. And within that, a much higher percentage of people in this country are Christian so you see the effect you're talking about.
I'm Muslim, although I'm not a professor. If I were, and a Muslim student came to me and said I had to do X (X=dress a certain way, speak a certain way, etc.) I would know the background of some of these requests and having heard them before and decided for myself, I would probably ignore the request. Or I might try to accommodate it, but because I agreed and was grateful he had pointed it out. If a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu etc came to me and told me what I was doing was offensive, I would be more likely to accommodate them based on my lack of familiarity with their religion and frankly, because I would be embarrased.
So I'm not sure if it's the "dominant" group as much as it is the "other" and there happens to be a large difference in group size. In the almost 100% Muslim country of my origin, people would be mortified if they did something offensive to a visiting Christian, but would not be that bothered is a fellow Muslim was offended by something because they would understand the ins and outs of that offense and think some people were too sensitive, or that if they made the accommodation an equal number of people would be offended the other way. In other words, they would be familiar with the "offense".
IOW, if someone came up to me and said, "Wow, that's offensive to Buddhists" I would censor myself, as the alternatives are to continue to offend or to learn all the vagaries of Buddhism and decide for myself. If a Muslim came and said it was offensive I don't wear shoes I would probably roll my eyes. :tongue_smilie:
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.
-
I am finding it quite fascinating that you say that if your Sikh student had mentioned it at the time, you'd have been more careful to wear shoes--at least during the class when you knew he'd be present, and yet you would be offended if a Christian student mentioned that your language was a distraction and see no reason to make any adjustment, even just for the time she was in your class. The reason you give, if I understand you correctly, is that this person would be clearly a minority within the predominant majority culture, and therefore should not be accommodated.
I am wondering, would you feel differently if the person letting you know she was uncomfortable with your usage of the word God was Sikh, or a Sunni? If the person making the request were a member of a religious group that is NOT part of the religious majority here, would that be different to you than if the person is part of a small minority within that religious majority?
I am not trying to be snarky here, I'm truly curious. I'm interested in understanding how you choose to draw your lines. But if this is too personal, please do feel free to ignore my question.
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.
-
To me, there is a huge difference between being willing to change something I might be saying without thinking and without particularly meaning to and being asked to go out and buy a turban and wear it in a culture which doesn't wear turbans. I am a barefoot person, do go barefoot at work, and wouldn't necessarily see anything wrong with it, but if your Saudi student was in my class and expressed his aversion, I'd try to accomodate it.
I think religious sensibilities are enough to change something that is meaningless to the prof anyway, whether it is saying gosh or something else I and others regard as innocuous. Religious sensibilities would be important enough to me to wear shoes when I would prefer not to--simply out of respect. Though the OP was apparently only thinking of whether she was supporting something she experiences as blasphemy (whether other Christians do or not is rather off topic), I think it would be appropriate for someone of any religion to ask for minor accomodation on this level. There is no hard and fast line between minor accomodation and what I would draw the line at (wearing a turban would involve rather more than trying to watch what comes out of my mouth), I think the polite thing to do is to accomodate when possible. And when only a minor accomodation would solve the problem (if that's what she wanted, though she didn't), then I would wonder why people would be making suggestions that she should leave the educational institution rather than ask.
As for this part: "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. "
What current accomodations do you see made for Christians as a matter of course? I don't see our broader culture as Christian, and there is much that is egregiously "offensive" , so there is something I"m missing between my perspective and yours.
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 meant this only as an illustration that we more easily recognize that there are religious sensibilities at stake and are willing to accomodate them when they are other than what has traditionally been the dominant religious group in the US--of Christians. So if a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. student were to speak to a professor and tell him/her that what she was saying was religiously hurtful or offensive, (or if a person were to have written a thread about it) as a culture we are primed to listen to that and accomodate. If a member of the Christian religion, which has been in the majority religious culture in the US has the same types of feelings, those tend to be more easily disregarded as not being worth accomodating, but rather there is more feeling that it is incumbent on that person to consider whether it is she who is at fault for how she perceives the situation and for her feelings . I don't think there would be as many suggestions that a woman of a different faith (one which has been or is a nonmajority religious) silently put up with it and adjust. (There are of course bigots who would say the opposite, but there are few if any on this board, nor would that point of view be typically represented at community colleges.)I don't think it's appropriate for people to be telling the OP that she shouldn't think what she thinks religiously, or feel what she feels, or that she shouldn't have attended an educational setting not run by her religious group or should be correcting her views on blasphemy. I don't think the majority of responses would have been the same had the OP been expressing offense of religious sensibilities that weren't Christian. I think the same level of respect should extend to all groups. She is not "wrong" somehow for thinking/feeling/believing what she does. To me, it's helpful, in matters religious or political, to ask oneself if i would be reacting the same way if it was the same issue, but different "group."
-
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.
Several people have commented that "oh my god" would be unacceptable in a professional setting, and now I'm wondering if I'm the only one who finds that not to be true at all? I've never seen anyone so much as blink an eye at that or its variants, at my workplaces or dh's, which have ranged over three different states. Certainly no one would be called to the carpet over it.I had to laugh a bit at the suggestion to cross herself, or really the response to that suggestion, because that actually would probably not be noticed in my neck of the woods! (heavily Catholic)
-
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.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on my thoughts. It's always nice when people can discuss important issues like this politely, and I appreciate your doing that. I don't want to stir pots either, but I do have a different perspective on this than you, so I thought I would just share a few of my thoughts on your thoughts on my thoughts. :)I hear you on this. And it may be that I am a little extra sensitive on this subject because my faith is one that not all that many years ago WAS systematically and legally denied the rights of other groups in the U.S. My not so distant anscestors were denied legal redress for the vandalism and theft of their property, were the subjects of a governmental extermination order making it legal to kill them on sight without due process of law, had their voting rights stripped, were legally restrained from giving monetary support to their wives and children, and were not allowed to serve on juries if they professed specific religious beliefs. Among other things. A very strange episode for the U.S., but it happened once, so it doesn't seem all that far-fetched, to me, for it to happen again.
That is certainly one way of looking at it, and a very common perspective these days. I have a little different point of view. I think everyone has deep longings and urges of various kinds--be they physical, intellectual, or spiritual--that we don't "choose". I would agree with you that a longing for a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex is not generally something people "choose". I would also say, however, that deep spiritual longings and passions are ALSO not things we "choose". And many of us have insatiable intellectual longings that drive us to learn all we can about a wide variety of things through many different channels of learning in our lives. There are many kinds of longings that we have, even though we don't necessarily pick and choose them. However, I certainly believe that we have a choice in what we do about our longings. A person who experiences attraction to members of the same sex, for example, might "choose" to keep that information to themselves, believing it to be nobody's business but their own. They might "choose" to share that information openly with close friends and family members, but not the community at large. They might "choose", on the other hand, to join openly and publicly with a cultural group that shares similar longings, and supports one another in seeking ways to fulfill those longings. They might even "choose" to formally join an organized social, political, or other institutional association that may be dedicated to educating others about issues they care about, or seeking social or legal change, or some other related cause. Similarly, a person with deep spiritual longings might "choose" to keep that information private and try to "pass" as an irreligious person in order to fit in better in society. They might "choose" to share their spiritual longings only with close family and supportive friends. Or they might "choose" to become publicly and openly part of a cultural group that shares similar longings and supports one another in seeking ways to fulfill those longings. They might even "choose" to formally join an organized association that promotes and supports educating others about issues they care about, seeking changes in society, or other related causes. In this sense I agree with you that religion is a "choice". A person "chooses" to what degree he or she will act on those spiritual longings, and may "choose" to affiliate, or not, with a particular religious organization. However, I believe that those core-level longings for intimacy with God are no more a "choice" than a core-level longing for intimacy with another person. The choice isn't in how we "feel", but in what we "choose" to do about it. The same principle could be extended to intellectual longings. A person could choose to do nothing about them, to study in private, or to enroll at a formal educational institution.
So I would agree with you that open affiliation with a religious culture, community, or organization is a "choice", but if we go there, then I would have to say that open affiliation with a GLBT culture, community, or organization is equally a "choice". And I would have to say that the deep longings involved in both are equally involuntary.
I would also say that I think it is equally wrong to dehumanize or marginalize anybody based on these involuntary, inner longings, in either case.
I agree. In fact, I would go a step further and say that it's nice for EVERYONE to know what places/people are safe. And as a society, I think it behooves us to be mindful of the safety of as many of the members of society as we can manage--ideally ALL of them.
I just want to clarify that my point in my previous post was not that college professors should bend over backwards to make sure they don't offend anyone. My point was only that it is a kind gesture on the part of a professor when they are willing to make an effort to be welcoming, inclusive, and friendly to ALL members of their classes, particularly when doing so would involve making only a minor adjustment and would not infringe on their own personal convictions. Right now in academia it is not a popular thing to be accommodating to people on religious issues, and I think it takes guts for a professor to be willing to do so, especially if they are not, themselves, religious.
-
How much should a professor be expected to conform their classrooms, course materials, and personal habits to reflect the preferences of the student body? Should a professor who has a "Safe Harbor" sticker on the door and includes scenarios based on Kimberly and Eliza's first date on exams in order to help GLBTQ students in the population feel more welcome and integrated ALSO be expected to have a cross or a Christian fish sticker on the door and include questions involving situations that arise during David's first year as a Missionary in Africa with his wife and eight children? And could that go between the Aids ribbon sticker and the autism puzzle piece sticker, or should the stickers be arranged by category with the cross next to the Star of David? Where and how does a professor draw a line? How does a professor decide which groups are worthy of small gestures, such as adjusting a word or two on an exam, in order to help them feel accepted and welcome, and which groups ought to be made to feel uncomfortable even about expressing their discomfort, when all it would take to make them feel welcome would be to adjust a word or two in a lecture? How different is asking a professor to at least make a token effort replace God with some other exclamation from asking a professor to at least make a token effort to include Bob and Steve as a legitimate couple? It's just a slight adjustment of language either way. (Though yes, I acknowledge that both of these adjustments carry a lot of baggage. I think it's a valid comparison nonetheless.)
But yes, lines do have to be drawn somewhere, or it could just get ridiculous and unproductive. And I agree with you that it is interesting to think on where and why people draw the lines that they do.
And yes, academia does tend to be rather on the liberal side, as well as a little more catty and less dignified than some folks would like to think of them as being, and anyone with a different point of view would be very much fighting an uphill battle should he or she work up the nerve to voice an opposing opinion. I find this a little disturbing in a group that ALSO tends to boast of their openmindedness and tolerance, but that's life for ya. :)
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.
-
Why do you think that some words get censored by social convention and cause upset, when others don't (e.g. "Sh!+" bothers but "poop" doesn't?) The referent is the same thing, but we decide one is vulgar and the other is not. I hear "educated people can avoid them," but WHY should they? Who decided that certain words were taboo, and why do we actually get so upset by them?
I'm not talking about words used to insult, such as calling someone a B!+C*, but using the words in animated discourse.
Would love to hear your thoughts....
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. :)
-
On the other hand ;) you could start crossing yourself every time she does it. She might catch on. LOL!
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.
Is everything a religion?
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
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.