s/o - modesty and culture

[Jane in NC]

I don't care why women are asked to cover their boobs.  Really.  There are so many bigger problems in the world.  I think it is silly to act like the future of women's rights turns on the right to show a lot of skin.  Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey cover their boobs.  Margaret Thatcher and Mother Teresa covered their boobs.  I'll bet they don't even mind it and haven't had time to sit and wonder whether it should bother them.

 

Has anyone in this thread suggested that women go topless? 

 

Given that you were commenting on examples concerning sleeves or sleevelessness, perhaps I am not following this leap to toplessness.  I thought most of the discussion focused on hem lengths, form fitting garments, necklines  What did I miss?  The Well Trained Nudists?

 

 

[Veritaserum]

I find this very interesting considering that I have LDS cousins in Utah. One is a dance instructor and cheer coach and was in both herself as a girl in Utah. The outfits I've seen, back then and in recent years, I have a feeling would not fit with "Mormon standards" unless the standards are just for church. I would say that what I've seen worn outside of those two activities have been modest and within standards.

 

 

Many observant Mormons will make exceptions for costumes, if the attire you describe was for cheer or dance. Even then, some more orthodox Mormons will opt out of an activity that requires an "immodest" costume or they will modify it by wearing a t-shirt or whatever underneath (one of the articles I linked features the story of a girl who opted out of a performance because the costume wasn't modest).

 

Swimming is the only time most Mormons will allow sleeveless attire, but the belly must be covered (no bikinis) and there should be no cleavage. I'm seeing more and more rash guards at the pool. That could be for sun protection, but it's an indoor pool.

 

The dress standards are supposed to be followed all of the time, not just at church. Even while doing something hot and sweaty like yard work, you're supposed be modestly covered.

 

 

I don't care why women are asked to cover their boobs.  Really.  There are so many bigger problems in the world.  I think it is silly to act like the future of women's rights turns on the right to show a lot of skin.  Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey cover their boobs.  Margaret Thatcher and Mother Teresa covered their boobs.  I'll bet they don't even mind it and haven't had time to sit and wonder whether it should bother them.

People made the same arguments when Iran made the veil mandatory. "What's the big deal? It's just your hair. There are so many more important issues. Get over yourself and worry about stuff that really matters." The rights of women were reduced beyond "just" covering their hair/arms/legs/etc. Patriarchal modesty rules that unduly focus on covering women are part of the larger problem of sexism against women.

 

And, yeah, a tank top or sleeveless dress is nothing remotely close to toplessness.

[Katy]

I don't follow this reasoning... perhaps I am misunderstanding.

 

I cover my shoulders not because I think they are 'sexual', but because, in my culture/faith, they are *private*.

 

I am not seeing how considering something private is sexualizing it or focused on men and their thoughts (lustful or otherwise).

 

...I do see that when something is private, sharing has the potential to have an intensity that it wouldn't have otherwise, perhaps.

 

...that certainly doesn't obligate you to share my, or anyone else's, boundaries on what is private... and I am completely unfamiliar with your culture of origin, so your perception of sexual assumptions is much more likely to be accurate than my obliviousness!  ...I am disagreeing with the broader application, rather than your personal experience....I do not see an *intrinsic* connection. 

 

Sorry, that is a muddled response...

 

Hey Eliana,

 

I think the sexualizing vs private thing all has to do with how you are taught modesty.  If you are taught that the reason to be modest is that it is private, that private is good and special and I daresay even holy - that is one way of looking at it that has nothing to do with sex. 

 

But if you are taught that the reason to be modest is that your body is a temptation to the visual creatures that are men, that it is sexual (even if you are completely innocent and have *no* idea what that means), that basically your very existence can and will tempt otherwise holy men to sin, that's not only sexualized, it's a very short leap from there to blaming the victim.

[Rebel Yell]

Hey Eliana,

 

I think the sexualizing vs private thing all has to do with how you are taught modesty.  If you are taught that the reason to be modest is that it is private, that private is good and special and I daresay even holy - that is one way of looking at it that has nothing to do with sex. 

 

But if you are taught that the reason to be modest is that your body is a temptation to the visual creatures that are men, that it is sexual (even if you are completely innocent and have *no* idea what that means), that basically your very existence can and will tempt otherwise holy men to sin, that's not only sexualized, it's a very short leap from there to blaming the victim.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

[Rebel Yell]

About the 7 year old sleeveless.  My kids' school bans sleeveless from 1st grade up (might be KG now).  It is not because they think little girls are sex objects.  It is to get them used to the dress code expectations.  They also don't expect little girl shoulders to be covered in church or elsewhere outside of school.

 

I was thinking about this topic yesterday while traveling.  I think the reason I can't relate to the outrage is that for me (and surely many others), the angst I felt daily over what my peers would think/say about my clothes was at least 10x worse than any negative feelings I might have had about the official school dress code.  This was true in school, at work, to a lesser extent at church, and in all kinds of other social settings.  Sometimes it is a relief to have a simple rule to follow.

 

I don't care why women are asked to cover their boobs.  Really.  There are so many bigger problems in the world.  I think it is silly to act like the future of women's rights turns on the right to show a lot of skin.  Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey cover their boobs.  Margaret Thatcher and Mother Teresa covered their boobs.  I'll bet they don't even mind it and haven't had time to sit and wonder whether it should bother them.

 

YES!  At a homeschool group, the dress code is somewhat vague, although (IMO) excessively conservative. As soon as you add a phrase like 'body type' it;s just torturous. None of my girls have ever wanted to go anywhere in booty shorts and a push-up corset, so it;s not like we had to buy special clothes for the dress code....  BUT we had endless debates andtears every.dang.morning over what might or might not be OK.  And most of the time, someone was there in an outfit far 'less' than what i had told my girls was NOT OK according to the dress code.  We have also witnnessed several occasions where different girls were wearing nearly identical outfits (same general pieces/fit/length, different colors/style) but one girl was told she was wrong and another was praised for her cute outfit. :cursing:  We just never knew what was really OK and what wasn't, mostly since it seemed to change on a whim.  Honestly, we would have rather had a uniform.

 

[Rebel Yell]

snipped

 

 

To pick two hot button topics - abortion and marriage equality, I have strong religious positions on how I should make choices around those issues for myself... and equally strong opinions about the immorality of having those faith-based choices imposed on someone else.  I don't see oppression here, I really don't.

 

snipped

 

 

:hurray: :iagree: 

 

[Veritaserum]

I don't follow this reasoning... perhaps I am misunderstanding.

 

I cover my shoulders not because I think they are 'sexual', but because, in my culture/faith, they are *private*.

 

I am not seeing how considering something private is sexualizing it or focused on men and their thoughts (lustful or otherwise).

 

...I do see that when something is private, sharing has the potential to have an intensity that it wouldn't have otherwise, perhaps.

 

...that certainly doesn't obligate you to share my, or anyone else's, boundaries on what is private... and I am completely unfamiliar with your culture of origin, so your perception of sexual assumptions is much more likely to be accurate than my obliviousness! ...I am disagreeing with the broader application, rather than your personal experience....I do not see an *intrinsic* connection.

 

Sorry, that is a muddled response...

Hey Eliana,

 

I think the sexualizing vs private thing all has to do with how you are taught modesty. If you are taught that the reason to be modest is that it is private, that private is good and special and I daresay even holy - that is one way of looking at it that has nothing to do with sex.

 

But if you are taught that the reason to be modest is that your body is a temptation to the visual creatures that are men, that it is sexual (even if you are completely innocent and have *no* idea what that means), that basically your very existence can and will tempt otherwise holy men to sin, that's not only sexualized, it's a very short leap from there to blaming the victim.

Yes, it's what Katy said. There's an undercurrent of "be modest for the boys/men because they are visual and your bodies are tempting" throughout discussions on female modesty. There's also talk of "self-respect," but without real empowerment for girls/women to dress how they feel most comfortable and self-confident I found it to be hollow. Plus, it causes some people to judge any girl who shows her shoulders or legs or whatever as lacking self-respect or as being "slutty" due to her "immodesty."

[Veritaserum]

YES! At a homeschool group, the dress code is somewhat vague, although (IMO) excessively conservative. As soon as you add a phrase like 'body type' it;s just torturous. None of my girls have ever wanted to go anywhere in booty shorts and a push-up corset, so it;s not like we had to buy special clothes for the dress code.... BUT we had endless debates andtears every.dang.morning over what might or might not be OK. And most of the time, someone was there in an outfit far 'less' than what i had told my girls was NOT OK according to the dress code. We have also witnnessed several occasions where different girls were wearing nearly identical outfits (same general pieces/fit/length, different colors/style) but one girl was told she was wrong and another was praised for her cute outfit. :cursing: We just never knew what was really OK and what wasn't, mostly since it seemed to change on a whim. Honestly, we would have rather had a uniform.

 

What many dress codes fail to take into consideration is that female bodies come in a wider range of shapes than male bodies. Bustier or leggier girls are often targets of body-shaming even when they conform to the rules of the dress code.

 

Due to the way modesty was handled in my church, I had lots of body shame as a teen (and even now) because I developed "immodest" curves. I recently saw an article that categorized images of women featured in church publications. A large percentage of the photos involved smaller-busted women (because their body shape is more "modest?"). Those that didn't have smaller busts were cropped to show only shoulders and up or a prop or another person was placed in front of the woman's chest. I read this article last week, but it's subtle things like this that pervade the culture.

[Rebel Yell]

What many dress codes fail to take into consideration is that female bodies come in a wider range of shapes than male bodies. Bustier or leggier girls are often targets of body-shaming even when they conform to the rules of the dress code.

 

Due to the way modesty was handled in my church, I had lots of body shame as a teen (and even now) because I developed "immodest" curves. I recently saw an article that categorized images of women featured in church publications. A large percentage of the photos involved smaller-busted women (because their body shape is more "modest?"). Those that didn't have smaller busts were cropped to show only shoulders and up or a prop or another person was placed in front of the woman's chest. I read this article last week, but it's subtle things like this that pervade the culture.

 

:cursing:

 

So sorry that happened to you. :grouphug:

[Kate in Arabia]

Yes, it's what Katy said. There's an undercurrent of "be modest for the boys/men because they are visual and your bodies are tempting" throughout discussions on female modesty. There's also talk of "self-respect," but without real empowerment for girls/women to dress how they feel most comfortable and self-confident I found it to be hollow. Plus, it causes some people to judge any girl who shows her shoulders or legs or whatever as lacking self-respect or as being "slutty" due to her "immodesty."

 

I think this is the sticky point.  How does a girl determine what dress makes her feel empowered?  It has been said here that if a girl chooses to cover more and says it's her choice for her own personal comfort, it is in fact likely a patriarchal social conditioning.  I think people could also see it the other way, that if she chooses to wear less it is also a product of social conditioning, and not necessarily stemming from her own innate preferences. 

 

I guess the question then becomes, is there such a thing as innate preferences, or in the matter of dress and clothing are we always guided to whatever choices we make by societal pressure?  (whether that be to dress in accordance with or in defiance of societal norms)

 

[mommaduck]

I have to add that in Orthodoxy, bare shoulders are not acceptable in services...preferably not by anyone of any age. That said: 1) it's not about sexuality. It's just not considered appropriate or respectful. 2) it doesn't dictate outside of the services (granted, some carry it outside, but most do not carry that rule outside). 3) Some hold it to be just during services and others hold it to being in the church sanctuary at any time. 4) no one comes down on anyone and I've seen bare shoulders at church. Eyes on your own plate.

[SKL]

Speaking of bare shoulders (again).  I never wear sleeveless unless I have no other acceptable choice.  Why?  Because I don't want to show my armpits.  I think armpits are private.  Men's and women's.  I'd kind of appreciate never having to see either.

 

Nothing to do with sex at all.

 

Kids are exempt IMO because they don't have armpit hair.

 

I don't police what other people wear, but the truth is, I would rather not see your armpits just like I'd rather not show you mine.

 

This might be a personal problem ...  or on the other hand, it might be a very common feeling and a reason why some dress codes require at least short sleeves.  I'm not sure which.

[albeto.]

Let me see if I am following this correctly:

 

I hear three key adjectives here: outmoded, patriarchal, and oppressive, yes? [note: I am going to use 'quotes' around these words below, not to belittle your assertions, just for visual clarity (to me at least), I hope that does not appear disparaging.]

 

No worries. I'm not offended by your putting those words in quotes, I don't attribute that to any patronizing intent on your behalf. I should apologize, however, for the confusion. You see, these words were in reply to Kate in Arabia's post, I simply used her words to keep things simple. I hesitated to go into detail because my posts tend to... frustrate people. People then report my posts to moderators, who then do what moderators do to keep the community running as desired. I don't want to be vague, but in this community I have to censor my words as carefully as possible. Sometimes it's easier to just keep it short and vague. For that I'm sorry. I don't think you're likely to report my post but rather ask me for clarification if you think I'm out of line, but you're not the only one reading. In any case, I'll try to be more careful to answer your questions seriously in as benign a way as I can.

 

RE" 'outmoded' From the word itself, and from the way your comment is phrased, it sounds as if you are saying these faiths were, at some point in time, useful, in some fashion, in something connected to ethical thinking, is that correct?

 

...but that some change(s) in society (?) have altered that and made religion (or at least these specific religions) no longer the best way to achieve certain goals.

 

Is that what you are saying?

 

Not that these religions were useful in some fashion, but the function they served has been exposed as superfluous. We don't need supernatural explanations for making altruistic choices. We don't need supernatural explanations for natural weather or plate tectonic activity. We don't need supernatural explanations for why we behave in the way we do. These explanations have been found faulty time after time. As a methodology for understanding our reality, it is unreliable and therefore irrelevant today, and that's what I meant when I agreed with Kate's word "outmoded."

 

RE: 'patriarchal': I am hearing that a system, religious or otherwise, which views male and female as different (other than biologically) is, in your viewpoint, wrong. Or is it having certain observances which are specific to one gender or the other?

 

I find this one confusing too, because not all Xtian or Jewish branches have gender specific observances - my world, the Orthodox Jewish world, does, but I am hearing here a blanket condemnation of all branches of all three faiths as 'patriarchal', and I feel I am missing a linkage or two here.

 

[it is probably obvious, but, to be clear, I do not see my faith as patriarchal, nor do I see anything about it which elevates one gender over another and certainly nothing which gives one gender authority over another... which is, imho, a key element of 'patriarchal', but I do not expect us to agree on that :)]

 

I don't mean to suggest men and women are the same, or should be the same, or to deny certain strengths and weaknesses when compared as a group. Clearly those comparative elements will vary, and some are objectively true (men are, on the whole, stronger physically than women), and some have been believed through time to be true (women respond, on the whole, with more emotion than men). Some have been challenged recently (men are more qualified to respond to difficult challenges). I suspect the third example follows from the second. I think it should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway to avoid potential confusion - surely there are a great many assumptions-accepted-as-fact that are better examples than the ones I gave, but I hope I've made my point well enough. Anyway, the fact that men and women practice different rituals shouldn't be implied as explaining why men should have more authority, because why can't the same be true in the other direction, right? No, I'm suggesting men have different practices because they have enjoyed greater authority, both individually and collectively, and these practices reflect that. The rituals point to the acceptance of these assumptions as being truthful, and they reiterate this belief with every action. 

 

But herein lies a problem, and one I have with all three Abrahamic religions regardless of which one. You see, these assumptions are believed to be true because in some divine way, this "Truth" was provided by a god who knows all and is morally superior. Because this god supposedly knows all and is morally superior, we "mere humans" have no legitimate claim to challenge this god's ("he" as is traditionally referred to), his authority. And herein lies the rub - we couldn't challenge his authority if we wanted to, because he is beyond our comprehension! This is the clincher that helps support patriarchal customs. How can we "mere humans" question the wisdom of a god who knows all and is morally superior? If his texts reflect submission on the part of the wife to her husband, then who are we to argue? Now clearly, many people have argued against the tradition of submission of women, and this argument is gaining favor in most religious communities. However, I suggest the vast majority of the believers throughout time and throughout the world have overwhelmingly understood and honored the texts as referring to submission to patriarchal authority, and this is the foundation of the Abrahamic religions today. They did (and do) adhere to a patriarchal foundation because their god said so, and this god is beyond reproach. Not beyond reproach in a philosophical way mind you, but in a practical way. How does one question the mind of a god whose mind is "above" ours? How does one research and test and objectively explore a god whose very nature exists outside every facet of nature we have, rendering all our tools of exploration irrelevant? One can question only so much if one wishes to maintain their faith. At some point, one opts to defer to what they understand to be the wisdom of this all knowing god whose morality is superior to any human's. This is true of your faith as much as the others, and the traditional control of men has been sanctified by this very thing. 

 

RE: 'oppressive': I can see viewing some manifestations of each faith as, in some way, or, from some viewpoints, oppressive... but I am not understanding the blanket statement.

 

To be oppressive would you say there needs to be some element of coercion? I cannot speak for the other two faiths, but I experience no coercion - I could (G-d forbid, cv"s) walk away from my observance tomorrow and there would be no coercion to prevent that... no pressure from family, or community (confusion, because it would very out of character), no one would stop talking to me... or stop loving me... and I do not believe I would be 'punished' by G-d for doing so...

 

I believe I would have a less meaningful, less satisfactory life... I believe I would be walking away from a framework that helps me to be my best and truest self... and that being that best and truest self is how I make my unique contribution to the world.

 

Where in this do you see coercion?

 

Or, if you are seeing it from a different angle, whom in my life to I coerce by following my faith? Whom am I 'oppressing'?

 

Again, I do not contest that there have been times, place, or cultures within which my faith has been, or can be perceived as having been, oppressive in some form.

 

...but I do not see the 'intrinsic'.

 

The bold is a nice example. You go on to explain that you believe you would have a less meaningful life, a less satisfactory life. Is this not a coercive idea? You have, in my opinion of course, internalized the value of religious beliefs that are historically biased in favor of men, and has been practiced and ritualized in order to preserve this bias. I would suggest that the fact that you, a modern feminist, can comfortably reject the sexism of your religion is a testament to the ability of your religion to accept evolution of thought and philosophy and evolve according to societal standards in such a way as to maintain the existence of this religion, not a testament to the religion's natural respect for women. Essentially, I understand the patriarchal structure to have been designed to hold a small community together thousands of years ago, in a precarious position in the midst of bigger, more powerful cultures constantly on the move to acquire more resources. But as far as maintaining these archaic beliefs - deferring to the patriarchs of family, community, ultimately your god - these are in my opinion, merely a kind of internalized, mental/emotional coercion. A kind of Stockholm Syndrome, if I may be blunt. Your life would be less meaningful? What an awful choice to make: choose to continue believing something that ultimately cannot be verified, an authority whose credibility cannot be confirmed, who by nature escapes accountability, who is arguably a character of amoral tyranny and vengeance, or give up the very essence that makes life rich and enjoyable - meaning! Gah!

 

And, to come back around to the topic under discussion, my faith's perspective on what we wear, has no bearing on my perspective on public policies... I see no justification for imposing my observances on anyone else, or using my faith to disparage your choices.

 

To pick two hot button topics - abortion and marriage equality, I have strong religious positions on how I should make choices around those issues for myself... and equally strong opinions about the immorality of having those faith-based choices imposed on someone else. I don't see oppression here, I really don't.

 

I feel that, perhaps, you are being uncharacteristically broad-brushed here.

 

When you encourage your kids to adopt the religious beliefs you have, you teach them how to internalize the same patriarchal roots you have internalized. If you teach your daughters and sons that covering skin reflects greater respect and morals, you're shaping their consciences to equate dress with respect, modesty, and ultimately morality. More importantly, you're teaching them that this equation can be found by adhering to the tenets of your religion. You say you don't affect my choices, but I submit that as you rationalize, teach, and ultimately support the belief that there exists a correlation between religion and morality, you contribute to support public policy that does affect me and my loved ones. Clearly you connect these dots differently than others, even in your own Orthodox community I imagine, but the connection itself exists, even if the details vary (which creates a greater problem than it solves, in my opinion). You're teaching your children this link is true. They'll grow up "knowing" this link exists, and like many Americans, they will eventually act individually and collectively accordingly as a result of "knowing" this "truth." Who knows what ethical battles they will have to fight against those who desire to conserve some of these ancient, unethical traditions, but while they're promoting the feminist ideologies you teach them to value, they'll also be promoting patriarchal ideologies if they embrace and maintain your faith.

 

This does affect me because those ideologies are what inspires public policy, everything from reproductive rights to gun control, to education, to body mutilation, to the prison system, to foreign policy, to subsidising Walmart. We live as a community of 300,000,000+ people, and when the desire of the community is to act on behalf of this "known truth" that religion can answer moral questions, it does affect me and mine. It's particularly problematic when these questions are answered through unethical, morally policies that create a system of oppression. It's especially dangerous when these answers are understood to be beyond reproach because the source of these answers (an all-knowing, morally superior deity) cannot be held accountable and is therefore beyond reproach.

[albeto.]

:grouphug:

 

I do recognize how much more work there is to do, you are right.  I know I have a tendency towards rose-colored glasses, so I might be completely off base, when I look at how far it seems we have come...

 

...and I am grateful to live in a time and place where these discussions are possible, where my mother was teaching a Montessori class with a range of diversity that would have been unimaginable not that long ago, where there is a growing recognition that 'other' isn't that scary a concept... where, in fact, the sense of kinship with those who are 'other' is growing.

 

I don't mean we should rest on those laurels, but I think it is a mistake to forget how far we have come... and the debt we owe to the Civil Rights Movement, the women's movement (aka feminism), the labor movement (as the bumper sticker says 'the folks who brought you the weekend'), and so many, many more movements/efforts/valiant people.

 

For my grandparents' generation, television was a game changer (I don't have one, and it cost me something to give such credit to TV), seeing folks of color, and later of different orientations, or with other lifestyle differences, helped them see beyond their limited experience...

 

I don't want to appear to disparage my (amazing) grandparents; they were, for their generation, very open-minded people, without ill-will towards any individual or grouping of people, but their personal experience was limited, and the sense of someone different being just like them, only different, wasn't there for them until they started seeing it in their shows...

 

I am not explaining that well, sorry.

 

...but I think you are right, and the internet is having that role for this generation.  I know that coming here and meeting such a variety of people, and getting to talk about so many things has broadened my world, and, I think, given me a better understanding of how some folks from very different worldviews and/or backgrounds see the universe.

 

 

...though I am a little less sanguine that it will offer a bias towards reasoned discourse rather than appeals to emotion...

 

 

I completely agree with you. I also have hope that society will continue to embrace rational thought and logical arguments, and that recent decades are just a hump in an otherwise positive trend. Surely in the last 300 years we've made great strides even in the midst of religious dogma. Women can now own property, vote, and legally divorce and remarry if they desire. Race and religion and gender are no longer acceptable reasons to discriminate, and I suspect in my lifetime I'll see sexual orientation and identity added to this list across the nation. So sure, there are great advances. The part I bolded sticks out to me particularly because this is the kind of advances we've made in recent generations, and the sacrifices made for these advances should never be forgotten. But how ironic, I think, that these advances are made by religious believers against the traditional customs that developed in response to the Abrahamic religions!

 

Religion is fighting a civil war. Those religious communities that can evolve and incorporate modern philosophical arguments like civil rights and accepting scientific discovery will continue to modify and evolve. Ultimately though, that evolution is religion's Achilles' Heel. There will come a time when the doctrines of these beliefs are no more important than the stories of Zeus and Athena. The ethical arguments will continue, but the religious reasons will eventually fade into obscurity. And this, I suspect, is what inspires the kinds of moral battles we see waged by conservative movements. 

[albeto.]

Hey Eliana,

 

I think the sexualizing vs private thing all has to do with how you are taught modesty.  If you are taught that the reason to be modest is that it is private, that private is good and special and I daresay even holy - that is one way of looking at it that has nothing to do with sex. 

 

But if you are taught that the reason to be modest is that your body is a temptation to the visual creatures that are men, that it is sexual (even if you are completely innocent and have *no* idea what that means), that basically your very existence can and will tempt otherwise holy men to sin, that's not only sexualized, it's a very short leap from there to blaming the victim.

 

I disagree with your first premise. The reason modesty is private is because sex is private. It is taught as being valuable in its privacy, in its intimacy. Sex can be very valuable in this way, and its value can be stripped when these conditions are removed against one's will. But let's keep in mind there exists no universal moral law, much less one that suggests sex ought to be only private, only intimate, only between one life-long partner [conventionally a partner of the opposite gender, of a similar ethnic, racial, religious background]. Sex can, and does for many people, have value when it's separated from emotional expectations. Sex can, and does for many people, have value simply for enjoyment, pleasure, a thrill. There's no universal moral law that says as a behavior, sex has moral value any more than sneezing has moral value. We just "know" it does because that's the culture in which we have been raised, and our culture reiterates this belief all. the. time. It's reiterated even in seemingly unrelated things like clothing - an invention designed to keep the human body protected from the elements.

[Word Nerd]

Hey Eliana,

 

I think the sexualizing vs private thing all has to do with how you are taught modesty.  If you are taught that the reason to be modest is that it is private, that private is good and special and I daresay even holy - that is one way of looking at it that has nothing to do with sex. 

 

But if you are taught that the reason to be modest is that your body is a temptation to the visual creatures that are men, that it is sexual (even if you are completely innocent and have *no* idea what that means), that basically your very existence can and will tempt otherwise holy men to sin, that's not only sexualized, it's a very short leap from there to blaming the victim.

 

It's still a leap, though, and it's still a slippery slope argument. A woman can believe that she bears some responsibility for not causing others to lust (I'm not saying I believe that) without believing that a woman's clothing choices cause or justify rape. I would guess that the majority of those who keep to strict modesty standards do not hold the position that a woman who wears immodest clothing "asked for it" if she is raped.

[Veritaserum]

It's still a leap, though, and it's still a slippery slope argument. A woman can believe that she bears some responsibility for not causing others to lust (I'm not saying I believe that) without believing that a woman's clothing choices cause or justify rape. I would guess that the majority of those who keep to strict modesty standards do not hold the position that a woman who wears immodest clothing "asked for it" if she is raped.

Perhaps not consciously, but most will at least have the thought that they themselves are safe(.r) from assault because they don't attract male attention because they themselves dress modestly. That's not true.

[MercyA]

 

I've been pondering the various modesty threads this past week, and I want to come back to your original question, Katy: "Is there something valuable and Biblical about the concept of modesty?" I believe there is.

 

In my teens and early 20's, I dressed pretty much like everyone else and didn't give much thought to modesty. At times I dressed specifically to show off my figure. In my early 30's, I began thinking more seriously about my clothing choices. I started wearing a prayer covering, and over time transitioned to wearing long skirts exclusively, keeping my cleavage covered, and not wearing extremely form-fitting clothes. I don't wear sleeveless clothing, or expensive jewelry, or jewelry that appears expensive. I have a simple hairstyle and wear a small amount of makeup.

 

I agree with the OP that as Christians, we are no longer under the law. However, we are called to obedience. I believe Christ's commandments to His church are found in the New Testament. I believe the New Testament is inspired, authoritative, and meant for all believers. I also believe that if a commandment in Scripture seems clear and easy to understand, it probably is, and I'd better have a really good reason if I choose to disregard it.

 

I am not and have never been a part of any patriarchy group or movement. I base my clothing choices largely on these verses:

 

• Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 1 Timothy 2:9-10
• “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28
• Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. Romans 14:13 (This chapter speaks specifically about not causing others to stumble by our dietary choices, but I think the general principle applies.)
• Similarly: "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!" Matthew 18:7

 

I believe, in general, men are more likely to lust and commit mental adultery when confronted with scantily clad women, whether that involves exposed cleavage or bare upper thighs or whatever. I don't think that's impugning men, nor do I think it's vanity on my part. I think it's just being realistic. Obviously, not all Christian men are going to stumble when they see part of a woman's breasts, and obviously, some are going to stumble whether a woman is dressed modestly or not. My only concern is this: what is my personal responsibility, as a Christian who is committed to following the truth I see in Scripture? I am accountable for how I dress, just as I am for how I speak and how I spend my time.

 

Some Christians seem to bristle at the idea that they may have a responsibility to help others avoid mental sin. I don't. I think it's Scriptural, and part of being kind and loving. I think our actions can and do influence others, for good or ill. Is everyone ultimately responsible for their own choices? Of course! But that doesn't negate the Biblical instruction to not knowingly do things that may cause our brothers and sisters to stumble.

 

Admittedly, I looked a bit frumpy when I first changed my dress, but I think I look nicely put together most of the time now. I love bohemian-style clothing and pairing cute tops with denim skirts. No jumpers here.  ;)  I've never heard anyone teach that being modest means being unattractive.  :confused:  Beauty is a desirable and pleasant quality to have, just like intelligence or athletic ability or anything else.

 

Far from being constraining, I've found modesty to be very freeing. There's no worry over jeans that don't fit properly, no dismay over "bathing suit season." My bathing suit is almost knee-length, has short sleeves, and is so comfortable! Flowing skirts are also comfortable, feminine and fun to wear.  :)

 

To me modesty means not dressing in ways that draw attention to myself. For me, this means not wearing expensive clothing or jewelry, or clothing that exposes private areas, or clothing that is excessively loud or improper for a particular occasion. It means not dressing in a way that may cause others to stumble. It is a way of showing respect for God, for myself, and for others.

 

I don't have the time or inclination to debate, but wanted to add my perspective.  Peace.

[albeto.]

Thank you.  I appreciate your willingness to share your viewpoint.  I haven't seen every post you've made, but I have been impressed by your candor and clarity, especially combined with your courtesy. 

 

...and I think your voice is an important one here - uncomfortable though it may be to hear someone challenging ideas one holds dear.

 

This is an interesting discussion for me - my brother is an atheist, but not an anti-theist (is that an offensive description? I'll edit it if you think there is a better way to say it, I'm not sure what the best terminology would be), so I've never had the opportunity to talk some of these things through.

 

It is also interesting, because I am more accustomed to be in the minority, and, at least here, as a theist in this conversation, I am not.  Please let me know if I am overbearing or disrespectful or make unjust assumptions.

 

While I will be outspoken myself in responding below, it is with the intention of clarifying my beliefs, not of changing yours; if that is every unclear or feels otherwise to you, please let me know so I can correct it.

 

 My hope is to maintain as neutral a position as possible, as I don't mean to appeal to your emotions and give the impression I'm trying to persuade you either. If my candor comes across as unsympathetic or cold, it is only a testament of my poor expressive skills, not an insight into my personal thoughts. All in all, I think we come from the same position here - a free and open exchange of information and ideas. I value this very much, and I am grateful to have your attention.

 

I have no problem with the adjective anti-theist. It is in the same respect that I consider myself anti-racist and anti-sexist. I don't need to remind you that in my opinion, religion is a system of oppression by its very nature. Not all people are oppressed, of course. Many people benefit from this system, but sadly, they do so by persuading others to willingly participate in their own oppression. Not all (not most?) atheists share this opinion, and so I'll likely have different opinions than your brother (and probably most posters here who share with me the lack a belief in a god or gods). I'm happy to answer any questions you might have, and offer at least my opinion.

 

Finally, I appreciate your consideration for my being in the minority here. I think of you at a disadvantage though, and I'm going to try to be sensitive to that. Please let me know where I don't succeed. I think you're at a disadvantage because for me this topic isn't integrated with my sense of self in the way having a religious belief does. I think I can speak critically about it, and receive criticism about my opinions without the same consequences, simply because I don't have the same measure of emotional attachment to my beliefs. What puts me at a disadvantage in a conversation like this is that I have to work harder to censor my words to minimize the appearance of personal attack, or disrespect for the person with whom I'm speaking. I have lots of respect for you Eliana, but not for your religion, and I'm a little concerned that my lack of respect for your religion will come across as intentionally mean-spirited or hostile towards you or your faith community. It's really not my intention to do that, and I'm afraid the possibility of this appearance itself puts me at a disadvantage, but this disadvantage doesn't have the same emotional consequences as being on the receiving end of such a critique. 

 

 I'll try to incorporate many of your comments into one reply, as I think they fall within a small category of questions/concerns. 

 

That is much clearer, thank you for explaining.  There is the material here for hours of discourse...

 Oh, I think so too. And I think this is really the crux of why religion is losing relevance in today's world, and why some people are fighting so hard to preserve it, even feeling persecuted in some way. The younger generation is leaving the religious community of their childhoods in numbers never before seen. The idea that the god of their faith exists in the gaps of knowledge is getting harder and harder to support. This God-of-the-Gaps is getting smaller and smaller, and will eventually be relegated to mythology in the same way we think of Zeus and Odin today. That's not to say religion will cease to exist. I think humans will always fight against superstitious thinking. It's part of our natural make-up, part of our biology. But this era of religion will come to an end as criticism against it and information that conflicts with its claims becomes harder to conceal and contain. What I'm addressing here is how this god of the gaps affects our moral outlook. His space is getting smaller in the moral sphere just like the scientific one. As this thread is about modesty and its inevitable correlation with morality, I think there's a lot to untap.

 

I don't mind that you see my life so differently than I do, but I'd like to be sure your evaluations are based on accurate data.

 

I'm all ears for accurate data. I confess I suspect at some point the conversation will [or would] get around to accepting these things as being true by virtue of faith. There exists no data to confirm the accuracy of the story of Moses receiving any revelation from the Jewish god, in either written or oral form. To date there exists no evidence to corroborate with the story of the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. History reveals a very different history of Egypt, one that does not include centuries of enslaved Israelites. This throws off the claim that the Law was given to Moses in the first place, as I understand Orthodox Judaism to accept [link: Judaism 101: What Do Jews Believe?]. If the Law was not given to Moses, how was it developed? What accurate data exists about the origins of the Law?

 

Do you see from where my skepticism comes? I'll try to have an open mind, however, and have already learned much of what I thought was true was based on stereotypes and generalizations. So already, this has been a positive experience for me. I'll continue to try my best to keep my opinions objective, and will trust you to show me where I might have a blind spot.

 

There are two pieces: mesorah and seichel (intellect).

 

For the fact (from my perspective) of revelation I have mesorah - a chain of transmission passed down from generation to generation.

 

The intellectual piece involves reading and studying and comparing what I read and study with what I observe and experience...

 

...and part of my tradition includes an obligation to think, to question, to challenge... to wrestle with G-d not to passively accept.

 

Yes, there are pieces I don't understand, but I keep working on it... and while I do, yes, I have faith, but I do so because everything else has held up to the questioning, the observations, etc.

 

I am responsible for my choices...and part of that responsibility is to not rely on blind faith, to have open eyes, an open mind, and an open heart.

 

 I understand this process, but none of this addresses the methodology of testing and falsifying and objectively exploring a god whose very nature is believed to exist outside nature. What data can be collected about this particular god? What data can be collected about his behavior, much less his will? You accept your religion on faith because it doesn't work in any other way. Do you think it would be fair to say you believe you've identified a pattern, and events and experiences fit within this pattern, and your religion explains this pattern? Do you think it would be fair to say you cannot corroborate this pattern, you cannot confirm its supporting details? 

 

I believe you about being responsible for your choices, for what it's worth. 

 

No.  It is a recognition of what in my life I find meaningful and satisfying.  It is knowing my own heart and mind.  This life I live offers me such richness and joy - and helps me to be and become my best self - not in some theory I'm blindly ascribing to, but in what I observe in myself and my life.

 

Could I find some other path that would offer that?  Perhaps.  ...but why would I leave a life that I love?  Yes, I could.  

 

Similarly, I could walk out on my family and marriage tomorrow - no one would force me back... but I know I would grieve, that I would lose something valuable. 

 

...could I find another husband who would feel like the other half of my soul?   I don't know.  ...but why would I leave the man I love, with whom I have shared so much of my life, who gives me joy and brings out the best in me?

 

I have a perception of relationship with G-d.  A relationship which gives me joy, which brings out the best in me... why would I walk away from that?

 

I know that you believe that relationship to be fictional, something happening in my head alone.  ...but that doesn't make it a coercive one. 

 

I believe that I am a partner with G-d in creation, that my soul is a spark of Divinity... in other words that I, and every other human, am part of G-d... sorry, this is hard.

 

I am not sure how to clarify without a whole digression that I don't think would be of much interest to you.

 

 You might be surprised. When I was a believing Catholic, I adored my faith. Like you, I perceived I had a relationship with the god of the bible (Christian identity anyway, specifically the Catholic incarnation). I found the Catholic church to be rich in tradition, history, symbolism, and ritual. Nothing was done without purpose, without a mindful tie to the past. I felt connected to a human family, the vastness of which I would never know "this side of heaven." I felt connected to people around the globe, and throughout time. I felt connected through the rituals, if that makes sense. I was one part of a greater whole, in my mind, and I was so grateful to be aware of this. It would overwhelm me sometimes. I took my faith very, very seriously. I loved it as much as I love my family, and I felt loved by it. I know that probably sounds weird, but it wasn't a mere theology to me - it was the embodiment of the "body of christ." I read your words, the idea that your soul is a spark of divinity, and it reminds me of the faith I once had. It was very real. It was very powerful.  So you are wrong if you think your words wouldn't be of much interest to me. I see them as showing a poetic side of you, a romantic side that I imagine savors meaningful experiences, especially when shared with loved ones. That kind of thing makes me feel all warm and fuzzy like. Like I'm glad to have been born a human, grateful to be aware of beautiful things in life. ;)

 

I'll say again, I do not see a patriarchal structure.  The bigger picture issue of whether belief in G-d is inherently a coercive experience is complicated, and certainly does not apply to what you term the Abrahamic faiths alone - it is a challenge to theism in general.

 

I do challenge theism in general. I am really only familiar with the Abrahamic religions, and mostly the Christian one. I can't speak about other religions. The Abrahamic religions traditionally identify themselves as divinely revealed religions. The Jewish faith believes the Law to have been given to Moses personally by the god of Abraham. This god is understood and celebrated in the Jewish texts as being righteous, just, and trustworthy. The information given is understood to be similarly righteous, just, and trustworthy. This divine revelation explains not only the function and practical application of the Law, but reveals the character of the one who created it. This character, the god of Abraham, rewards loyalty and punishes rebellion. In the ancient texts, punishment is formalized for being disloyal to the Jewish god. This god of Abraham curses those who are not loyal, threatens great suffering upon those who do not obey, and at the very least warns people that a lack of obedience is detrimental to their health and well-being. He's reminiscent of the old mobster boss stereotype, "Say, you wouldn't want anything bad to happen to yer store windows, would ya? A humble payment to me and my boys could ensure they don't get broken and all yer stuff looted in the middle of the night, see?"

 

Further, logically unrelated things are correlated together in order to respect the relationship appropriately. In what functional way could menstruation affect a woman's standing before her god? What is it about her blood that not only makes her "unclean" in his eyes? There is no logical, rational correlation between menstruation and righteousness, but there is some measure of punishment if you don't take care of that invisible, spiritual offense. These are coercive practices by definition - they force a "voluntary" compliance in order to avoid an unwanted consequence, whatever that consequence is understood to be (from neglecting self-improvement to endless reincarnation, to loss of existence in the after-life).

 

I can't help but see these ancient texts as anything less than the expression of a kind of deistic extortion back when the moral code could be summarized as 'might makes right." It's subtle in that the rituals are referred to within a vocabulary of community and beauty and tradition. It's subtle in that it is internalized such that focus is on the reward. But it's no less extortive in its nature, even if it is dressed up in a veneer of voluntary cooperation and celebrations, in my opinion anyway. 

 

Arguments about patriarchy and sexism fall into this. They are practical applications of enforcing this system. As I now understand it, the Jewish faith does not have a history of personal submission by the wife to the husband as conservative Christians do (something I learned, thanks to this conversation). As I now understand it, the "get," or Jewish decree of divorce, is not thrown around haphazardly, although its very existence reveals the historical roots of religiously justified patriarchy. But these are details that are personal practices, individual and communal, that serve to honor the system of coercion. 

 

Do you see that by labeling my andherence to my faith 'Stockholm syndrome', you are devaluing me?  You are saying that you can judge better than I can whether my reactions and thoughts are genuine or imposed on me?

 

I am not offended or distressed - and I respect the sincerity and caring of your position - but it puts me in an impossible position in this discussion.   How do I 'prove' to you that I have chosen my life?  That I am not a victim, but a person with agency who has chosen this path in life?  ...and continue to choose it.

 

No, I do not devalue you. I have a deep and genuine respect for each life, including yours, even though I've never met you offline and this is as much as I've ever interacted with you. I can relate to you as a woman, as a mother, as a former little girl, as a future old woman, as a person with what I can only imagine to be a romantic at heart. We have much in common, even if we don't share the same religious beliefs. I suspect we hold many of the same virtues in the highest esteem, virtues like compassion, respect, cooperation, learning, appreciating and creating works of art, pursuing interests, satisfying curiosities, finding humor in unexpected places, sharing experiences with loved ones, etc. These are things I value. If you share these things, I appreciate them through your unique expression of them.

 

I do think an objective, detached judge is more likely to be accurate than a judge who has a personal investment in the thing being judged. If it weren't your religion we're talking about, would you agree with that premise?

 

Would it help to know that I understand the concept of "free will" to be an illusion? I think you have chosen your life in the same way I have chosen mine - through a series of cause and effect events that were set into motion long before we had the opportunity to respond? We observe and react to things, taking in memories from personal experiences and incorporating information we learn along the way. You're a "victim" of your cultural influences in the same way I am. It's just that we have different influence vying for our attention, and in different measure. 

 

Why would I leave something that is actively giving me so much?

 

Is this a rhetorical question?   ;)

 

I believe there does exist a correlation, but that religion does not have a monopoly on morality.

.

.

.

 

 

...but, yes, faith is part of my political choices - my Rabbi spoke eloquently in our state legislature in support of a gun control measure...and he drew on our texts that say that community leaders who do not take action to prevent murders are considered morally responsible for those deaths.

 

R' Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, says in his book To Heal a Fractured World, "G-d did not create humankind to demand of it absolute submission to his all-powerful will.  In revelation creation speaks.  What is says is a call to responsibility."  and "There are cultures that relieve humankind of its responsibility, lifting us beyond the world of pain to bliss, ecstasy, meditative rapture.  They teach us to accept the world as it is and ourselves as we are.  Judaism is not peace of mind.  'The righteous have no rest, neither in this world nor the next' says the Talmud.  I remain in awe of the challenge G-d has set us...to build, to chance, to ;mend the world until it became a place worthy of the divine presence because we have learned to honor the image of G-d that is humankind"

 

My viewpoint is not radical or unique, it is at the center of a number of strands of traditional Jewish thought and belief.

 

I disagree vehemently  with your assertion that the very fact that I live a religious life is a threat to you or anyone else... but I don't see a constructive way to argue that through here on the boards.

 

I agree with you that religion does not have a monopoly on morality. In fact, I would argue that the religious ideas of morality are as outdated and problematic as the religious ideas of science. That is to say, the more information we have, the less credible religion's claims are. For example, we don't need divine revelation to figure out that cooperative behavior is good for society. We can explain altruism without invoking supernatural agency. We don't need a religious authority to tell us cruelty is problematic to individuals and society.

 

I would go so far as to suggest some of the Abrahamic conditions of morality is based exclusively on the emotional consideration of the god of Abraham. Consider the ten commandments, the first four of which are the ancient equivalent of saying, "I will not be ignored." The others are relative to this god's honor. It's okay to kill an unbeliever, for example, when he worships another god or encourages others to do so. It's okay to covet the neighbor's land if the god of the bible says you'll soon occupy it. Jacob's theft of his brother's birthright resulted in his being one of the Patriarchs of the Faith, a "righteous" man in the eyes of this god. If morality were a concern, and if the god of Abraham knew then what we know now, enslaving humans would never be tolerated, much less be regulated by laws that govern such "purchases". If morality were a concern, genocide would have been fought against, not sanctioned by and perpetuated by the god of the bible. If morality were a concern, all people would be understood to be equal before the law, regardless of gender, race, or religion.  If morality were a concern, education wouldn't be a privilege. If morality were a concern, animals that possess cognitive awareness of their surroundings and state of well-being would be killed in terrifying ways to appease a dietary rule. The correlation between blood and righteousness is not logical, not rational, and yet is protected in moral codes that are honored still today. 

 

As far as your religious life threatening us, I will share a section of Richard Dawkin's book, The God Delusion, in which he explains the practical consequences of learning and believing as true the religious fundamentals such as the moral superiority of one's god, and the ways in which this belief affects those who do not agree. 

 

Tamarin presented to more than a thousand Israeli schoolchildren, aged between eight and fourteen, the account of the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua:

Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction...But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.'...Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword ... And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

 

Tamarin then asked the children a simple moral question: "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?" They ahd to choose between A (total approval), B (partial approval) and C (total disapproval). The results were polarized: 66 per cent gave total approval and 26 per cent total disapproval, with rather fewer (8 per cent) in the middle with partial approval. Here are three typical answers from the total approval (A) group:

 

In my opinion, Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim

In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways. Good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth.

 

The justification for the genocidal massacre by Joshua is religious in every case. Even those in category C, who gave total disapproval, did so, in some cases, for backhanded religious reasons. One girl, for example, disapproved of Joshua's conquering Jericho because, in order to do so, he had to enter it:

I think it is bad, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse.

Two others who totally disapproved did so because Joshua destroyed everything, including animals and property, instead of keeping some as spoil for the Israelites:

I think Joshua did not act well, as they could have spared the animals for themselves.

 

< snip >

 

They seem to show the immense power of religion, and especially the religious upbringing of children, to divide people and foster historic enmities and hereditary vendettas. I cannot help remarking that two out of Tamarin's three representative quotations from group A mentioned the evils of assimilation, while the third one stressed the importance of killing people in order to stamp out their religion.

 

Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by "General Lin" and "Israel" replaced by "a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago." Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7 per cent approved of General Lin's behavior, and 75 per cent disapproved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of the children agreed with the moral judgements that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it.

 

In summarizing another study, Dawkins goes on to explain,

 

The Bible is a blueprint of in-group morality, complete with instructions for genocide, enslavement of out-groups, and world domination. But the Bible is not evil by virtue of its objectives or even its glorification of murder, cruelty, and rape. Many ancient woks do that - The Iliad, the Icelandic Sagas, the tales of the ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of the ancient Mayans, for example. But no one is selling the Iliad as a foundation for morality. Therein lies the problem. The Bible is sold, and bought, as a guide to how people should live their lives. And it is, by far, the world's all-time best seller.

 

This explains what I mean by religion being a threat, as it promotes and protects the idea that a "higher source" of superior morals and knowledge exists, and that to fail to comply to his will is to neglect, or even threaten our well-being. Religion opposes knowledge by accepting "divine revelation" as a reliable source of understanding. Confirmation bias is accepted as evidence, which explains why religious believers believe their experiences genuinely answer their faith questions, their observations accurately support the pattern they've been trained to look for, or have developed over time. Religion looks to the end of the world, it anticipates it with sense of hopefulness. Life is temporary, a mere trial to a bigger and better existence. 

 

It threatens me and mine when these assumptions are used as facts with regard to providing or restricting medical choices, reproductive and educational choices, and civil rights. It threatens others when enemies are identified based on religious belief, regardless of political excuses designed to lend an air of legitimacy to a campaign of aggression. It threatens us all when this belief is protected at the expense of ourselves. 

 

I do appreciate hearing that belief, however... thank you for being so candid... it is a courageous thing to speak your heart and mind in a potentially hostile setting, and there has been, historically, much hostility to even the least assertive expressions of atheism.

 

 

I apologize for both how long it has taken for me to get back to you, and the disjointedness of my response... I've done this, as I often do, in bits and snatches, with the intention of coming back and tidying up... but with Shabbos coming, I want to give you what I have...

 

Well, I think the hostility stems from the idea that I'm not only challenging, but openly criticizing a "someone" people perceive to have a sincere, personal relationship with. It's interpreted as me being a big, fat, meanie to a real persona believed to be intimately and benevolently invested in our own well-being. I don't believe that of course, and although I don't think I've said anything to have broken the rules, just being honest puts me in a position of vulnerability should someone interpret my words as being unjustly hostile. So thanks, and I do hope you understand I'm not challenging you, and I'm not trying to persuade you, only explain why I challenge these claims and identify the nature of these religions as I did. 

 

I hope you had a nice day with your family.

 

:)

[albeto.]

I've been chipping away at this over the past several days - as you can see I'm only partway through your post, but as I head out the door, I'm sharing what I have so far.  (With apologies for the time-lag)

 

 

 

You come across as kind and considerate - and as if you are trying to express yourself carefully, but clearly and in consonance with your deeply held convictions. 

 

I, too value both the respectful, open exchange of ideas... and your willingness to share this with me.

 

 

 

 

That was the impression I had gathered from your posts here, but I wanted to be sure.

 

Thanks, I appreciate that. I appreciate the other compliments as well. I think you and I come from the same point of view, and have the same goal in mind.

 

Although I do not experience faith as oppressive, I do see both historical and modern examples of such oppression - both the use of someone's faith to control him/her and the use of organized religion(s) in oppression individuals or societies.

 

...but, as I understand what you are saying, you are going farther than that. 

 

...the standard counter to historical or modern examples is often that these are misuses of religion and/or faith rather than an inherent flaw in either the religion or in religious faith in general.

 

...but I am hearing you say that faith itself (or, perhaps just involvement in organized religion?) is inherently oppressive (or, perhaps, has the strong inherent probability of oppressiveness?)

 

...that belief in a divinity (or, presumably, divinities) has an inherent element of coercion, and thus either is or is likely to be oppressive. 

 

...and that religion systematizes this.

 

If I am understanding your perceptions accurately, it seems to me that the same critique could be made of adherence to any ideology or (perceived) higher good.  ...or to any set of values.

 

If someone believes something to be 'good' or 'right', then s/he will, at some point, put that perceived good over an immediate want or preference. 

 

I imagine you might respond that the perception of divine sanction to such beliefs is qualitatively or quantitatively different?

 

My (agnostic) mother is passionate advocate for animal rights.  It is something that colors much of her life, and that guides many of her choices.

 

Dear friends of ours from the Central American activism movement of the '80's and '90's had political and social values that were a powerful part of shaping their lives.

 

I won't bore you with a long list of more examples, but when I look around my life, I see so many people who have lived their lives in accordance with a set of values, a perceived higher good.  ...and, from my (admittedly limited) perspective, that subsumption has brought positive things to their individual lives and to the world in general.

 

I have also seen people who have chosen ideals/ideologies/theologies that have not appeared to help them grow in a positive way, or to have brought more peace or caring or beauty into the world. 

 

I believe the problem would lie in the nature of the ideal, not in having overarching ideals.  And I assert that the coercion you perceive is equally inherent in any belief system or ideology.

 

 You do understand my perception, and you're right that this isn't what I mean by it being oppressive, even if we can find example after example of religion being used to rationalize oppressive behaviors. In this, I think you and I agree. Where we disagree is in the idea that the same critique can be made against religion as is made against the adherence to any ideology or (perceived) higher good, or to any set of values. Religious beliefs are made and maintained through faith. That is, they are believed based on virtues like trust, appeal to emotions, subjective explanations of personal experiences. While these virtues do exist in non-superstitious beliefs, they rely on objective fact and are modified when more facts are made known. 

 

Using your mother's advocacy of ethical treatment for animals, for example, I can assume she maintains this position because she understands the objective fact that the animals we eat are generally self-aware, and cognizant of their well-being (or lack thereof, they know suffering). The argument that suggests humans require meat for sustenance has a ready rebuttal. These issues don't require faith. Arguments made from these facts don't require faith either, as they can be critically analyzed and further falsified. PETA's latest appeal to get people to stop supporting animals as food is to connect autism and dairy. Well, this is objectively untrue, can be falsified, and the facts surrounding autism require no divine revelation or deep spiritual mystery to be unlocked.

 

Granted, people do have biases, and sometimes these biases are so strong that even information doesn't break through. That's not to say any non-superstitious belief is rational. Refer to PETA's link between autism and dairy for an example of this. But herein lies the difference - within the foundation of religious belief, there exists no facts to support the major claims. What it is based on instead is an appeal to emotion, an appeal to tradition, an appeal to authority, and most importantly, being raised in a culture in which "everyone knows" something to be a fact means a child will similarly be raised to assume religious beliefs are factual. Like the old joke goes, how very convenient for a person's god to have made him or her born in the very culture that celebrates the one true religion. 

 

 So how is this religion oppressive? Well, I think the Abrahamic religions are religions that explore the world through the idea of a battle between good and evil. Both the hero  and the villain are secretly but not so secretly revealed throughout society through various messages and personal revelation. This thread, about modesty, explores these messages and revelation through clothing. The hero is understood as the role model for others to follow, the epitome of a good and virtuous person. These battles take place in society, in a relationship, and most importantly, in one's own mind. The villain has access to our thoughts, our desires, our fears, and capitalizes on them. The hero does as well, and so arms us with the very tools we need to fight this spiritual villain.

 

But here's the catch, in order to gain these tools, we have to give up certain things. We have to suppress certain natural impulses. The best motivator is an intrinsic motivator, and so we are conditioned to internalize the value of suppressing certain natural impulses so that suppression becomes a virtue. It's not enough to not dress in such a way that appeals to conventional attraction, it's virtuous to cover up unrelated body parts, like elbows and knees. It's not enough to avoid foods that is reminiscent of human sacrifice, it's virtuous to clean the entire house once a year to make sure nothing sneaked its way into the home. It's not enough to show loyalty in some kind of body mortification ritual, it's virtuous to impose this body mortification from infancy, including an otherwise irrational practice of sucking the blood off a raw penis, even at the known risk of spreading a deadly virus. None of these behaviors show a rational correlation between actions and morality, yet this correlation is assumed to exist, and is respected as being a true representation of reality. Rituals are taught by internalizing the value of oppressing these otherwise morally neutral impulses (like attractiveness, food choices, and loyalty), they have become an expectation in order to identify one as morally trustworthy. Bizarre extremes are excused with the No True Scotsman fallacy, as it's a tried-and-true methodology of excusing the connection to an otherwise immoral action perpetrated by others in the same group. 

 

It's oppressive because life is hard enough as it is. Things don't work out the way we expect them to. People don't react in ways we'd like, or hope, or can even understand, and yet people convince themselves (or rather are first convinced by their parents and their community) that by giving up certain pleasures, by adhering to certain unnecessary and restrictive rituals, they will somehow benefit in other, unrelated ways. In reality, I think what they are really doing is appeasing what has traditionally been understood as a deity that owns us by virtue of creating us. This deity decides what we ought to do in the same way we decide what any given invention or work of art ought to do. This deity supervises us, can read our thoughts, even knows the hidden intent behind impulses we can't explain, critiques us, accuses us of thought-crimes, created us apparently broken, in need of some repair that only he can provide, granted we honor and appease his will. This characterisation is no longer popular. It's harder to internalize appeasing the wrath of a spiritual tyrant in today's modern code. So this character has been softened. The branding has been changed to encourage continued brand loyalty, if you will. That the rituals that absent-mindedly celebrate these deep-seated roots of religious belief are personally enjoyable and emotionally rewarding doesn't change the idea that guilding shackles doesn't actually break them. As the late journalist Christopher Hitchens said, "To demand this, to wish this to be true, is to wish to live as an abject slave." 

 

Mesorah.  Transmission from generation to generation.  And, yes, I believe the Torah (Written and Oral) was given by G-d to Moshe at Har Sinai, part of that process in the presence of the assembled Jewish people.  (For that matter, I believe that my soul, and the souls of all Jews were at Sinai, and accepted the Covenant)

 

The latter is, yes, a matter of faith; faith rooted in tradition, but not provable.  (The strongest argument for it is that since all Jews are bound by our covenant with G-d, then we need to have accepted it.  There are other opinions, based on different analyses of the contractual process, but it is the one that, based on the knowledge I have so far, and the teachings I have heard, best fits my hashkafa (worldview/outlook/philosophy)

 

I have chosen to accept the evidence of transmission through the generations - that my people were there and witnessed not just the assertions of an individual (or small group of individuals) who claimed divine revelation, but the revelation itself Though the actual Torah (Written and Oral) was given to Moshe and then to us, the assembled nation experienced direct revelation from G-d.

 

I realize that you do not accept our transmitted memories as reliable evidence, but the fact that I do does not make my beliefs ones of blind faith.  I am relying on data you consider inadmissible, not no data at all

.

.

.

. 

Personally, I derive conclusions about the nature of G-d from G-d's Creation, from the Torah & our mesorah, and from my observations of the effect of living a Torah life.

 

It's not just the latter that is a matter of faith, the very idea that there existed a man by the name of Moshe/Moses, to whom a deity gave special revelation, can only be accepted by faith. Leaving aside the obvious difficulty of finding evidence for this deity that supposedly revealed this information, there exists no evidence to support the claim that this man Moshe ever existed. The stories that he is most notably remembered for (the ten plagues and subsequent exodus from Egypt), are not only not confirmed by any historical or archeological evidence, but in fact history and archeology support a much different, wholely conflicting explanation.

 

What you have chosen to accept is the faith claims of your family and community. I maintain these beliefs were imposed on you as true from infancy, reinforced in the seemingly benign family celebrations and enjoyable holiday experiences. Human children are naturally trustworthy. Humans are naturally superstitious thinkers. These behaviors are explained in our biology (no supernatural elements needed), and religion is likely a perfect side-effect of this biological fact. So right off the bat, if you want to stay within the parameters of accurate data, so far none has been presented. "It works for me" doesn't count for me any more than you would likely accept a Hindu woman telling you her faith is a credible and accurate explanation of the world because it works for her. 

 

[albeto.]

The image is both amusing and encapsulates a not uncommon perception.

 

(especially when the Written Torah is encountered without the Oral Torah)

 

So, I see how you might perceive things that way, but that image does not reflect my view of G-d nor my relationship with G-d.  [Not trying to argue about it, just entering an disagreement in the record that the G-d you perceive here is not what I see.]

 

 

Unclean isn't an accurate translation, or conceptual category for 'tamei'... there isn't really a good way to translate it without paragraphs of explanation.  Ritually impure is sometimes used, but it can also have negative connotations.

 

The concepts and halachos of tumah 'ritual impurity' and tahara 'ritual purity' are some of the most complex ones we have, and I doubt you want a seminar on the topic anyway :)

 

There is no connection between menstruation and righteousness.  Absolutely.

 

Being tamei (ritually impure) does not in any way affect my standing with or relationship with Hashem... it isn't a negative thing at all.

 

...but it is a different ritual status, and someone with that status may not enter the Beis HaMikdash (Temple) until s/he is tahor/tehora.

 

To use a non-gendered issues, contact with a dead body renders one tamei... but preparing the dead for burial and burying them is considered one of the highest mitzvos.  Contact with a meis (dead body) is not an aveira (transgression), not a lessening of righteousness, or a damage to one's relationship with HaKadosh Baruch Hu... it is an unequivocally positive, desirable thing.

 

One aspect of the concept of 'tumah' is the connection with death, or with, in the case of niddah (the tumah of menstruation), the cycling away from a peak connection with the potential for creating a new life.

 

I can expound at greater length on the theological pieces, but my bottom line assertion is that you are mistaken in perceiving a negative attitude toward menstruation and that the link you assert is illogical is, in fact, not there at all.

 

It's interesting to me to see the connection between menstruation and death as things that prevent one from offering appropriate worship to their god, yet interpreted as a good thing. For some reason, menstruation prevents your god from accepting your rituals, your practices that glorify him. There's something fundamental about the way he created women that prevents them from pleasing him in the normal, formal way for 5-7 days plus an additional 7 days (just to be sure, presumably). It sounds odd from the outside, like a story of a creator god who just couldn't figure out how to get that whole reproductive thing working without some unfortunate fall-out that simply has to be endured. Conveniently for him, it can be endured more so if she's out of sight. I do understand you don't see it that way, but all your explanations seem as thinly veiled excuses to not make your god have to deal with something so... icky, without feeling icky. Incorporating this practice into some virtuous effort ("mitzvos") is understandable, but from the outside, there is no reason to look at it other than straight on. This contributes to my overall opinion about the identity and character of your god, and your religion in general. It's not the strongest contribution, mind you, but an integral one nevertheless. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To see coercion, I think there needs to be another assertion (which you made early on in this conversation): that there are no intrinsic benefits to living my religious life.

 

Since I perceive benefits, both spiritual and tangible, I see my people's covenant with G-d, which obligates us in these mitzvos, as an enormous gift... and Torah (in its broadest sense) as a source of insight I can tap to help me live a life that helps me be my best and truest self.

 

The first and foremost reason I perceive no intrinsic benefits to religion is in the very simple fact that there is no ethical consideration that was invented by, or unique to religion.  The 613 commandments Jews are expected to keep (your "mitzvos"), for example,  are more about maintaining a unified religion and honoring your deity than extending general compassion, historically speaking anyway. Society compels religion to either stop in its tracks and maintain traditional views and behaviors (like the Amish), or evolve according to evolving societal ethical values when religious practices are in conflict with evolving social practices. In general, we don't need a divine revelation to tell us passing a child through the fire to a god (in this case, Molech) is unjustifiable, cruel behavior. There is nothing inherently noble to allowing the king to have a personal Torah scroll. 

 

We read religious texts like yours, and assume them to be a good source of moral guidance, a reason we share particular ethical impulses, mostly because that's what most people believe so it's assumed to be true. But then we come across another of your god's teachings on morality: if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep. We immediately render this one not pertinent today for any number of reasons. This illustrates the fact that our ethics, our behavioral choices, don't come from religion, they are organized in various ways within religion. I maintain that this organization provides problematic expectations, permission to turn off what would otherwise be considered ethical behavior for the sake of honoring the emotional well-being of an imaginary character assumed to be watching. At the very least, and most awkward, this watching deity is somehow pleased or displeased with what you eat, or when you have sex, or fabric composition of your clothing. In other words, you readily deny yourself certain objectively amoral personal sensory pleasures for no logical reason, based on a religious belief that it is in some way good for you. Against all evidence to the contrary, this assumption is believed and defended and taught to subsequent generations. That's not the problematic part. At its most concerning, your deity is somehow invoked as justification for waging acts of aggression on other people for "crimes" of blasphemy (an otherwise acceptable means by which one's religious beliefs can be protected from criticism). The otherwise benign practices, like abstaining from sex for 7 days after menstruation is done, reinforces the belief, strengthens the habit of obedience to authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not following you here.

 

Could you, please, share your definition of patriarchy?   We've been going around and around on this one, and I think I might be missing something.

 

I do not see patriarchy in my faith.   I hear, very clearly, that you do.

 

We've cleared up one piece - the marital relationship (and, may I say, how much it means to me that you really listened to what I was saying on that, thank you.), so that clearly wasn't the core of your perception of patriarchy and sexism.

 

 

Very simply, I understand patriarchy to refer to the social mechanisms (and by extension religious beliefs, as it is the justification used to legitimize the social mechanisms) that reproduce and exert male dominance over women in various arenas such as access to resources, control over public policies and personal behavior, and personal autonomy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To get a divorce (which I hope to never experience), only one piece is needed, a get (a divorce document) which, like the kesuvah, the husband has to sign and give (or, more usually, designate some else to give) it to the wife **and she has to accept it**. 

.

.

.

There is and has been much discussion around this.  The solution that is beginning to emerge is that couples sign an agreement before they marry that they will accept the direction of a recognized beis din should one of them wish a divorce.  [i'll spare you the elaboration of the process and its implications :)]

 

So, I see there as being a problem, that has grown as society has shifted, but I don't see the get itself as intrinsically sexist or patriarchal.  ...nor, for that matter, do I see the kesuvah as patriarchal.  It was designed as a document to protect a woman's rights... it is less needful in the western world today, but it was very important for many, many years and was part of a belief system which, I assert, respects a woman's equality and value while recognizing that there have been many societal disadvantages for women.

 

 The very nature of the get exposes the patriarchy to which I am referring. A woman has no authority in traditional Jewish culture to determine her well-being is respected more outside the confines of her marriage. This is her husband's responsibility, it is his privilege. It sounds like agreement signed before marriage is the solution to that - the pressure of a non-religious moral code being imposed on a traditional religious practice. In other words, evolution of morality within the religion as inspired by forces outside the religion, forces that not only reveal a lack of respect for the traditional belief, but actively argue against it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily.  I would be more likely to say that someone who is intimately familiar with a subject is a better judge than someone who knows very little about it.

 

...knowledge and detachment both have their place... there are some circumstances where an outsider's opinion on my child, for example, would have more weight to me than my own, but those would be very, very few... and would be based on that person's expert knowledge of a specific subject, or some (cv"s) deep problem in my relationship with my child that needed outside help.  Otherwise, I believe, that as my children's mother I know them better than an objective outsider could, and my very passion and caring make me more likely to notice the details....

 

If the insider is going to be objective in this case, they have to be able to separate fact from belief. It's hard enough when facts are not known (like the lack of evidence of the Israelites wandering the desert or living as slaves in Egypt, leaving en masse one day), but when beliefs are assumed to be facts because, well, "everyone knows," that complicates things. But I do see your point, and as much as I appreciated people asking me about the Catholic faith rather than telling me about it, I appreciate your insight here as well. I will say, when I no longer held an emotional attachment to my Catholic faith, I found much of what people said was also true, so while I felt like I had more knowledge coming from the inside, I was "protected" by the unflattering facts of my religion by virtue of cognitive dissonance. I'll accept that as my baggage, though, and not assume the same from you. 

 

 

 

 

That helps very much.  Thank you for explaining.

 

I was going to vehemently disagree - bechira chofshi (free will) is a cornerstone of my theological outlook - but then I thought a little more carefully, and I think our viewpoints are a little closer than I first thought.

 

I believe that I have free will, but agree with you that it is limited by the... well, the hand I've been dealt in life.  My selfhood has been shaped by my genes, by my family of origin, by where and when I was born, and that limits the range of possible choices.

 

An essay I read on it used some examples that came to mind reading your paragraph.

 

It isn't really an act of 'free will' that I'm not bashing folks over the head and grabbing their wallets.  It is not 'virtue' in me that I refrain from activities that would be nearly impossible for me to consider.  ...nor is it a 'failing' that I struggle with certain challenges...

 

..but within those limitations, at the point we call 'the bechira point' the free will point, I have free will.  ...and I believe that we can change that level... up or down...

 

I've seen people here share about their (amazing) work overcoming legacies of anger and violence from their families of origin and taking themselves to a place where those choices were no longer options - be they violence of words or of hands.

 

...and I've seen myself lose focus on an area of growth and have something that felt easy become harder again.

 

...but I do not see the complex path that lead me from my secular early life to an adult observant life as supporting your 'Stockholm syndrome' analogy.

 

I think it's a misunderstanding to assume the lack of free will means random behavior is inevitable. Between the two options, free will does make more sense. It's not true, though. A lack of free will doesn't mean behavior is random or necessarily without boundaries of control. Think about it this way, if free will really is an illusion and human behavior can be explained in a more accurate way, does that mean all our past behavior didn't count? Of course not, because knowing something doesn't make observations different, it just explains them in more detail. 

[Aelwydd]

 

I believe, in general, men are more likely to lust and commit mental adultery when confronted with scantily clad women, whether that involves exposed cleavage or bare upper thighs or whatever. I don't think that's impugning men, nor do I think it's vanity on my part. I think it's just being realistic. Obviously, not all Christian men are going to stumble when they see part of a woman's breasts, and obviously, some are going to stumble whether a woman is dressed modestly or not. My only concern is this: what is my personal responsibility, as a Christian who is committed to following the truth I see in Scripture? I am accountable for how I dress, just as I am for how I speak and how I spend my time.

 

Some Christians seem to bristle at the idea that they may have a responsibility to help others avoid mental sin. I don't. I think it's Scriptural, and part of being kind and loving. I think our actions can and do influence others, for good or ill. Is everyone ultimately responsible for their own choices? Of course! But that doesn't negate the Biblical instruction to not knowingly do things that may cause our brothers and sisters to stumble.

 

 

Mercy, you are one of the nicer posters on the board, so please don't take this as me picking on you. 

 

But...men lust because it's sort of their hormonal default.  A breeze is enough to make him horny, lol.

 

Scantily clad women don't induce lust; they just give it a focus.  One focus, among many. If you took all the scantily clad women away tomorrow, you'd then just have to watch out for poor squirrels and other wildlife. :drool5:  :lol:

 

Men, in either conservative or open societies will think about sex, or "mentally sin."  Even if you poked their eyeballs out, I'm absolutely scientifically sure about that fact. :laugh:

 

Also, in of the most restrictive cultures on the planet, where women are covered head to toe, you'll find some of the most sexually aggressive men. A shopping bag blows by, and six men jump it, lol. 

 

So, if mentally they are gonna "do it" anyway, that leaves the physical action.  And I maintain that those cultures where women are pressed to dress conservatively to spare a man's thoughts are so often the ones where she stands the highest risk of getting sexually assaulted or raped and being blamed for it afterwards. 

 

I'm raising my son to understand it's his responsibility, and his alone, to discipline his thoughts and his actions. 

[albeto.]

To be clear, we don't have, and haven't had religious ideas of science.

 

We have had religious thinkers who mention things based on the level of science knowledge of their day, but science is science, and, in general, we've had a strong respect for scientific knowledge and process.

 

[You've been around for some of the creationism discussions here, yes?  I could link some of my posts on the subject of that and of ID, if you want... the short version is that I reject any scientific validity for either one.... particularly the latter.  Until someone designs  (sorry) an experimental model that enables one to test for 'design' it remains a philosophical/theological assertion and is dishonest science.  On the former, traditional Jewish discussion of the literal 7 day creation predates any scientific issues, and the dominant line of thinking is that it is not a literal description]

 

 Science simply refers to the methodology by which the natural world can be explored and understood. Utilizing a religious methodology (ie, belief that certain information was divinely revealed) is making a statement about science, namely that a religious explanation is more accurate than a scientific one. I would argue that any time a religious claim is made, such as the words of the prophets are true, one is rejecting a scientific explanation for a religious one. Morality comes from this, and these moral explanations are evolving as more details are uncovered. 

 

 

 

 

 

I see these not as arguments that my definitions of morality are outdated, but that you believe that I could reach the same definitions a different way.

 

I assert that the framework within which these definitions are made, and the discussions about character and character traits and growth as a human being that are part of my faith have all helped me to implement these understandings of morality.

 

I think in many ways the framework of your religion do help you implement a moral code that is in conformity with a secular, that is non-religious moral code. That's not because your religion makes these claims and directs your actions, so much as your religious community uses religious vocabulary and rituals to organize and legitimize these moral behaviors. As you saw the study about children in Israel and their chilling admission of the moral acceptability of aggression I posted a few posts back, you'll see just how your religion - and any religion really - can and does encourage followers to imagine their concerns are moral when they would otherwise be understood as highly immoral. The Jewish holiday, "Yom Kippur" or "Day of Atonement," isn't a religious moral breakthrough. It doesn't require divine revelation to recognize the superior practice of cooperation within society. In fact, we've evolved to cooperate. We've evolved as a species to feel and foster social bonds, to regard justice highly, to feel compassion for the suffering of the innocent. Religion takes this natural behavior, and applies it to society within the framework of another natural impulse - tribalization. The problem with this is the rationalization of a purposeful turning off empathy for those who are not part of one's tribe, someone who is not one of "us." Religion draws these lines irrationally, violently even. To support a religion financially and socially is to support what a religion believes - it's not only morally acceptable, but morally imperative to identify the line between "us" and "them." 

 

 

I'm not sure how to respond to this. 

 

I'll start by acknowledging that here you are challenging what you perceive as core pieces of my faith's morality.

 

...and follow that by saying that I (not surprisingly) see these things very differently than you do.

 

I don't see a way to continue this piece of the conversation constructively.

 

I mean, I could try to discuss each of these pieces with you, one by one, and explain how I see them, and where I feel you are off-base in your perception of where we hold (as opposed to where you and I might see the same data point differently)... but these are only examples, and I am sure you have more!

 

...but it feels wrong to just say 'you have an incomplete picture' and walk away.  To make an assertion without supporting it.

 

What do you think?

 

I think this is the reason my posts generally get reported and swept under the moderators' rug. They're offensive in that they not only lack a belief for the persona one imagines is real, and good, and is personally watching over, but these ideas challenge the very claim that religion itself is good. That it's even benign. It's interpreted, I suspect, as a claim against the person holding these beliefs. After all, what kind of person believes bad things? Not a good person, right? At least, that's how it felt when I first allowed myself to look at the claims my religion made, rather than focus exclusively on how it made me feel.

 

I don't doubt it's hard to read, and I will say I'm gratified that you've stuck it out this long. Most people don't, as the emotional reaction is generally strong enough to rationalize ending the conversation. I don't think anything I've said is objectively untrue. These parts of the text do exist. These events are recorded to have been sanctioned by the god of the bible. The arguments about the nature and function of blood and the role it plays in the righteousness of a person are clearly laid out. The moral implications of these things are a simple logical argument, generally offset [ignored and distracted] by more modern imposition of a kind of universally benevolent god, an idea antithetical to most of the history of the Abrahamic religions. 

 

 

 

 

 

[i've snipped your Dawkins quote, though I hope to come back to discuss that specifically.  I am not ignoring it, and it raises important concerns, some of which I share, though from a different angle]

 

 

I do not see how the assertions of confirmation bias are any more applicable to a religious person than to a non-religious person - it is something that happens in every aspect of our lives and in connection with every belief or assumption or teaching we absorb.

 

I see as much of it in my non-religious friends and family as within my world - it is hard to avoid, and, imho, not intrinsically a religious issue.

 

 

Confirmation bias absolutely exists outside religion. It's a natural instinct all humans have. It's part of what makes our brains work the way in which they do. It helps explain, and is explained by, the evolution of our species. I don't suggest religion has the corner on this market, but when religious claims are defended by belief in faith, there can be no real accountability to these claims. This problem doesn't exist in beliefs based in objective fact and logical arguments, because there exists information that confirm or conflict with claims, even if that information is a long time in coming. Your mother's belief that it's a greater expression of morality to extend certain rights to animals can be defended or challenged based on evidence. We can absolutely explore a chicken's cognitive skills, a cow's perception of pain and suffering, a goat's fear of bleeding to death hanging upside down. To argue these things don't exist is to ignore evidence. To argue it doesn't matter is a philosophical discussion, but to argue that it pleases YHWH to see that goat bleed to death [knowing its fear and suffering] before it should be butchered it is something no one can touch. How can we? How can one argue that it's more ethical to avoid a preventable fear than to risk offending the creator of the universe? How do you even start with that? Arguments against kosher and halal butchering are stopped at the gate of religious belief. "The holy texts say so" is a game-stopper. One simply can't argue with that. Arguing with the credibility and value of these holy texts is difficult in a way arguing about the credibility and value of other beliefs is not.

 

One of the biggest critiques I have against religion is not that it is evil, or that it produces evil or anything like that, because it also clearly encourages noble and virtuous actions, but that it is impervious to any real accountability. When experiences are valued as providing more credible explanations than objective facts, rational inquiry can go only so far. And how can it when "truth" is understood to be divinely revealed? There exists no objective, scientific method by which a religious claim can be challenged. There exists no sticking point by which one believer can measure how close or far they are from the actual mind and will of their god. That's not to say believers in the same faith don't call each other out, but in essence that has the same effect as a small voice raging into the machine, and only when that machine has too many monkey wrenches in its cogs (unpopular attention) does it stop and recalibrate. This recalibration is the evolution of religion to conform to modern social moral codes, which is why believers in one culture can do things otherwise awkward and unacceptable in other cultures, even when practitioners claim the same belief in the same religion. So yes, confirmation bias is a problem in many beliefs, more so in beliefs we hold most important, but our response is different. 

 

I feel like I'm treading on precariously thin ice here because I'm being more blunt than I have been here before. I do this because I respect you and want to answer your questions honestly, and completely. I feel that I can ask you sincere questions, or if I make a statement, you'll respect me enough to trust I am not trying to pull anything on you but am making a genuine comment, and you'll correct it. You've done so already, and I've learned more than I thought I would already, but I'm flirting with moderation here because these issues are defended by emotional appeals and most of us are intimately emotionally attached to those beliefs we hold most dear. To criticize them feels like criticizing the individual, like I said, but I think that's a consequence of the intrinsic lack of accountability and dependence upon experiential defenses that plagues religious arguments. 

 

 

 

 

[albeto.]

I would not say that this describes my worldview.  Longing for the Messianic era isn't longing for the end of the world... it is longing for a world of peace and well being for everyone.

 

Life is temporary, but it is only during our lives that we can act, that we can build, that we can grow, or help make the world a better place... valuing this life and this world is at the heart of my faith's belief system.

 

I stand corrected (and so again, thank you). It was my impression the Jewish faith believed in an afterlife, and that one's behavior would affect the experiences in that afterlife. I see now, if Judaism 101 is a good source for people like me - generally ignorant in the Jewish faith - that this belief is as subjective as any, and the idea that a world of peace and well being for everyone isn't a matter of utopia as given by the creator of the universe at the end of the world. Another thing I'm learning in this conversation with you, is just how erroneous my understanding about the Jewish religion is. My understanding comes mostly from my Catholic catechism, and so while I was never encouraged to believe the Jews were resigned to suffer and be ignorant of God's grace in order to show true love through Jesus Christ alone (as some Christian theological arguments support), or that Jews were doomed to be "legalistic" and never really had a relationship with God (as some Christian theological arguments support), I did believe the Jewish religion was the first half of the story. I believed Christian beliefs would be supported in Jewish belief. As the old saying goes,  "the New Testament is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed." Now I see that's not accurate at all, and in my journeys I found this article to be particularly interesting to that effect (I'd be interested in your opinion, if you wanted to spend even more time on this ;-) ). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...but religious beliefs and assumptions have been and are used as facts in supporting causes you believe in. 

 

My religious beliefs are part of my support of civil rights, etc, etc.

 

...and I do not see those any more of a threat than someone whose beliefs aren't religiously based, but who works against causes you believe in.

 

 

 

Yes.  That is a horrible misuse of religion, any religion.

 

 

 I agree that religious beliefs are used to support causes I believe in, I disagree there are any facts related to these religious beliefs. Ultimately though, that seems to me a bit mercenary, morally speaking. My problem with religion, like I said in my last post, isn't about some kind of evil nature. In my opinion, religion is a morally neutral thing. As such, it can be (and often is) used to support good causes that serve to enrich the human experience. But it can be (and often is) used to support causes that function to diminish the human (and animal) experience. Religion supported civil rights, but religion previously supported the public policy that required a major, and even deadly struggle for civil rights. It feels morally mercenary for me to ignore the bad in order to suggest the good redeems it, if that makes sense.

 

Consider the photograph below. Statistically speaking, the majority of the white people taunting and supporting the taunting of the protestors would have identified as religious, and would have identified their religion as being moral and supporting moral causes. I don't think it's reasonable for us to assume these taunters believed they were doing immoral things. I think it's more reasonable to assume they believed they were defending the right moral code, the god-given code that was used to support segregation of the races, as argued from religious texts. A look at the writings of segregationists will reveal a Christian undercurrent in this argument. Ironically, they would have likely thought slavery was immoral, even when those same religious texts argued in support of that a generation or two before theirs. Today, reproductive autonomy and the right to be married in the eyes of the law is argued in religious terms, and when social pressure is strong enough to force the religious groups to recalibrate, a new generation of believers will believe these things have always been supported in their texts. And in a way, they'll be right, because the texts can be used to explain and rationalize any number of differing beliefs, even diametrically opposing ones. This, I think, is what happens when there exists no accountability, and personal experience trumps objective data. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That seems illogical to me. 

 

You aren't criticizing G-d (not that I would find it offensive if you did)... how can someone criticize something or someone s/he does not believe in?

 

You are criticizing (as I see it) the act of believing in G-d, the faiths based on such a belief, and what you see as the results of that belief.

 

My background, both in the culture of my family of origin and in my faith, has acculturated me to see disagreement as an opening for interesting conversation, and, perhaps this will sound weird, but an act of engagement, of interest, of connection.  ...and an opportunity to learn.

 

...and I value integrity and open expression, so, given what you believe, it seems right that you should speak up, should challenge, should object... and I believe that nothing true and real can be harmed or devalued by being challenged.

 

 

I don't see challenging as negative.  I do perceive you as challenging, not me, but some of my beliefs, but since our beliefs, in this area, are mutually incompatible, to express yours, you have to challenge mine.

 

I 'hear' nothing but kindness and respect from you on the personal level, and I don't take personally the strong feelings and beliefs you have about my faith.  ...and I am deeply grateful for your willingness to share them with me.

I'm gratified to hear this. Really. It means so much to me because this is exactly my intent. It does bother me a great deal when people assume I'm trying to be nasty, trying to bait, trying to be a troll, is what it comes down to. Like that's my character. Like that's the kind of virtue that inspires my behavior. That couldn't be further from the truth. The way I see it, my commitment to uncovering, understanding, and offering relief for suffering is what led me to my religious beliefs. These are values I pursued in earnest in my faith, and I found them, I did, but I found much more when the emotional defense lost its anchor. I found religion offered erroneous explanations in order to justify beliefs. Or as some suggest, it spread a disease in order to sell the cure. In short, I lost faith in faith. It's been... interesting, let's say, to watch the change in response people have had when I started seriously questioning religion's ability to offer credible explanations. My questions were always well received from other Catholics when these questions were aimed against protestant theology, but when the same skepticism and criticism was aimed against Catholicism well, let's just say people treated me very differently. I don't feel like I changed, but I'm a subjective judge so maybe my impression is not accurate. In any case, to hear this means a lot to me because it means I'm doing something right, in some way I'm clear enough for at least one person to understand my intent (you're not the only believer who trusts me in this way, but here I think you are). So thank you. 

 

 

It was lovely, thank you.  Shabbos is an oasis in my week - and my second daughter came home last week from college, so there was extra joy.

 

How wonderful! My kids are starting to reach that age where thinking about their leaving the house sobers me up pretty quickly. I hope your entire weekend was enjoyable. 

[MercyA]

Mercy, you are one of the nicer posters on the board, so please don't take this as me picking on you. 

 

I appreciate that very much, Aelwydd.  Having read and participated in these types of discussions in the past, I did expect a response like yours from someone!  Thank you for sharing your thoughts in a kind and non-abrasive way. 

[Amy in TX]

Menstruation does not, and did not, interfere with normative religious observance, it does not, and did not, distance a woman from G-d, menstruation, like many of the other things that render someone tamei, is/was part of normal day-to-day life, and has its place in the cycle (sorry) of life. 

 

You are reading in a negativity that isn't there.

 

 

 

Being tamei ***isn't displeasing***.  It isn't a bad thing.  ...and, again, you are misunderstanding the role of the Beis HaMikdash in day to day life.

 

I've been following this discussion with great interest, and just thought I'd jump in very briefly to add that as a Muslim I would totally agree with what Eliana is saying here about menstruation and ritual.  We also abstain from certain rituals and from sexual intercourse during menstruation, and there is absolutely no negative connotation attached to it, not now and not in the earliest days of Islam.  We are absolutely not cut off from God when we are not performing a ritual;  we are always worshipping, we talk to God any time we choose.  Moreover, all of life is worship in our view--every act is an act of worship if done mindfully--this is a fundamental concept in Islam.  And abstaining from sex during menstruation is specifically for the woman's comfort during a time of discomfort--that's not a modern recalibration of the rule, it says so in the Quran. 

 

I do think it's very, very easy to impose our own pov on others' practices--I'm guilty of it myself.  I've had a misconception or two about Judaism corrected here also.  :)

[Dana]

 

The practical application of niddah today is completely unconnected to religious observance, as I believe you understand it... I attend shul (as I would have done back then, btw), daaven (pray), etc... but my husband and I do not touch each other. It is... not the easiest mitzvah... I was going to burble about the positive side effects, but I'm afraid of further misunderstanding while we're still sorting through this one!

 

I appreciate your discussion!

My only exposure to Orthodox Judaism has been through Faye Kellerman's books. The Ritual Bath was where I first heard about some of the strictures. In a later book, she does talk about the benefits :D

 

Thanks for your posts and explanations.

[LucyStoner]

I think Eliana and Albeto should each get a WTM medal for their reasoned, kind but strong discussion.

 

Imagine if we were all so behaved in our discourse.

[Pam in CT]

 

I'm posting this in the rough, as I'm succumbing to a migraine, which is unlikely to contribute to clear, articulate conversation. 

 

(I almost didn't "like" your post because I didn't want to endorse your migraine --  :grouphug: -- but... hope you feel better very soon.)

 

 

I think Eliana and Albeto should each get a WTM medal for their reasoned, kind but strong discussion.

 

Imagine if we were all so behaved in our discourse.

 

:iagree:

 

And cogent.

[albeto.]

Perhaps part of our disconnect here is your perception that not entering the Beis Hamikdash (Temple), is a negative thing.  ...that it interferes with one's relationship with G-d..

.

.

.

I feel that you are seeing this issue through a distorted lens or preconception - separate from your objection to faith-based living itself.

 

You are right in that I perceive not entering the Beis Hamikdash as being excluded from community rituals, and as a negative thing. I personally see a distinction of discrimination between menstruation and the following week, and ejaculation. For one thing, a man can be considered ritually clean by nightfall, so the next day he's good to go. A woman is prevented from communal worship for up to half the month. I don't think this is coincidental. Because I do think there is objective value in community, and community is in part identified and reiterated and solidified through communal behaviors, being denied this experience is noteworthy. Being denied on the basis of gender is also noteworthy. Religious rituals are very important to this end, and so yes, I do perceive menstruation used as justification for alienation from community worship in a negative way.

 

However, I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate your inside view, and I would extend this appreciation to Amy in TX as well. Your inside view seems to highlight the value of personal experience in a way I can't relate to, and so in recognition of this, I do trust you to be sharing accurate information.  I don't mean to negate your experiences, and apologize if I've come across as doing so. Although I can't relate to your experiences, I can relate to defending a faith against the presumptions of nonbelievers who simply cannot know these personal experiences. I should have made this connection sooner, so thank you again for your patience. 

 

I have a follow-up question, if you don't mind. If a personal perception reveals a feeling of misogyny within Orthodox Judaism, what would that mean with regard to validity of these perceptions? Would it be considered a credible conclusion to make on the part of one who relates, or believes s/he had a relationship with G-d as understood and practiced through the Jewish faith? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The nature of the get requires the participation of both parties.  How is that intrinsically sexist or patriarchal?

 

The marriage cannot be ended without the consent of both parties.  *How* that consent is manifested is different. 

 

That the husband writes the get and wife accepts it (or doesn't) parallels the marriage contract (the kesuvah), which the husband signs and the wife accepts (or doesn't). 

 

Why is it that way?  Because the husband is the one making binding promises, so he is the one who has to sign the contract.   ...but without the kallah's (bride's) consent, the marriage cannot happen.

 

[if you want to discuss the kesuvah, we could do that too...]

 

Historically, some rabbis advocated using physical means to compel obedience (siting such things as disobedience as failing to rise when he comes into the home, raising her voice against him, or crying out when hit), whereas others advocated that if a man couldn't honor his wife more than himself, he should divorce her and pay her marriage contract. There are of course many variations in between (link). As an outsider, how would one know which rabbinical opinions are more insightful to the mind and will of G-d? If someone like myself, who doesn't have the benefit of personal experiences, wanted to learn which part of the spectrum more accurately represents the right approach to the written and oral tradition of the Jewish faith, how would s/he go about learning this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to set up such a dichotomy.

 

I was saying that while I see that there are factors which limit our free will - our genes, our upbringing, etc - I don't see that as incompatible with the idea that, within those limits, we have genuine choice.  ...and that as we choose, we can shift those limitations, we can overcome, to some degree, the effects of our early experiences, the impact of a specific education, etc.

 

I think I am missing something here.

 

If we cannot make real choices, then does it matter on what basis someone makes their choices?  ...if I am, by some quirk of genetics and upbringing, a Buddhist or a vegetarian, does it matter what sources I used to end up with those positions in life? 

 

You seem to be advocating on the one hand for scientific data, for rigorous analysis, but on the other to be saying that we can't really choose freely.

 

I don't think rejecting the Abrahamic idea of free will means we cannot make "real choices." We make choices all the time, some more conscious and involving more effort than others. I don't think at any time someone else is making a choice for us, if that makes sense, so the only one behaving is ourselves. The question as I see it is, does "free will" explain this process? I think not, and since it is a fundamental understanding of these Abrahamic faiths, an extraordinary claim has been made. As I see it, everything stems from this premise. The idea as I understood it as a Christian anyway, goes something like this: Humanity has free will to choose good or evil, or any variation in between. Most of the time we choose good, when we choose bad it's very rarely considered evil, but some people do certainly choose to do evil things. Most of us choose to do good things, but we do make bad choices even though ultimately we know better. Religion [Jewish/Christian/Muslim] explains why this is - temptation to choose bad exists because the world has been corrupted in some kind of a spiritual way. The [best] way to address this corruption is to know and embrace the teachings of the faith.

 

Does this jive with your understanding of free will? 

 

[Amy in TX]

I'll just reply within the quote to one or two items that are addressed to me personally or that mention Islam:

 

You are right in that I perceive not entering the Beis Hamikdash as being excluded from community rituals, and as a negative thing. I personally see a distinction of discrimination between menstruation and the following week, and ejaculation. For one thing, a man can be considered ritually clean by nightfall, so the next day he's good to go. A woman is prevented from communal worship for up to half the month. I don't think this is coincidental. Because I do think there is objective value in community, and community is in part identified and reiterated and solidified through communal behaviors, being denied this experience is noteworthy. Being denied on the basis of gender is also noteworthy. Religious rituals are very important to this end, and so yes, I do perceive menstruation used as justification for alienation from community worship in a negative way.  I think it's possible that you're still putting a construction on this that isn't coming from knowledge, but from assumption.  For Muslims, everything God commands of us is for our good.  He doesn't need our worship, but it's good for us to do it.  If we are commanded not to perform the ritual prayers or fasting while we are menstruating, then it absolutely must be better for us not to do so at those times.  Personally, I find a spiritual advantage in periodically breaking the routine;  I'm refreshed and more mindful when I start it up again.  There's nothing inherently negative in formal worship mirroring the cyclical nature of our body systems.  Some commentators have also speculated that the only reason God would put (slightly) less requirement of formal prayer or fasting on women than on men is that women need less of it than men, since our capacity for bringing forth life (of which menstruation is a part) is a something God has shared with us more than with men, and gives us a potential avenue to nearness with  God that men don't have.  I'm trying to get across here that a negative construction is not the only possible or even the most plausible one, and that seeing things through filters is not something only the religious need to be wary of. 

 

However, I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate your inside view, and I would extend this appreciation to Amy in TX as well. Thank you!  Your inside view seems to highlight the value of personal experience in a way I can't relate to, and so in recognition of this, I do trust you to be sharing accurate information.  I don't mean to negate your experiences, and apologize if I've come across as doing so. Although I can't relate to your experiences, I can relate to defending a faith against the presumptions of nonbelievers who simply cannot know these personal experiences. I should have made this connection sooner, so thank you again for your patience. 

 

<snip>

 

The idea as I understood it as a Christian anyway, goes something like this: Humanity has free will to choose good or evil, or any variation in between. Most of the time we choose good, when we choose bad it's very rarely considered evil, but some people do certainly choose to do evil things. Most of us choose to do good things, but we do make bad choices even though ultimately we know better. Religion [Jewish/Christian/Muslim] explains why this is - temptation to choose bad exists because the world has been corrupted in some kind of a spiritual way. The [best] way to address this corruption is to know and embrace the teachings of the faith. Actually, this is not the Muslim view.  We don't believe in original sin or suffering/corruption having entered a pristine creation as a result of human sin.  We believe, in a nutshell, that God created human beings with the capacity to do good and to do evil, and He placed both good and evil influences in his creation.  Our job is to grow spiritually by making choices and (hopefully) learning from them, becoming as spiritually and morally developed as we can, to become as close to God as we can, and to enter eternity in the best state that we can. 

 

 

BTW, Albeto, I'll second Eliana in saying that I have not perceived anything you've said here as rude or threatening.  I've very much enjoyed reading what both you and she have shared.  :)

[Amy in TX]

I'm posting this in the rough, as I'm succumbing to a migraine, which is unlikely to contribute to clear, articulate conversation. 

 

A fellow migraine sufferer wishes you a quick recovery, inshallah. 

[albeto.]

We believe that we all have unique sparks of divinity - souls - which are eternal. 

 

The nature of that eternity is outside our ken - though there are many interesting speculations (based on various teachings).

 

...but, yes, the concept that the choices we make have real consequences is an intrinsic piece of Jewish theology.  ...what that looks like is much less clear.  There are many images and metaphors that have been used at various times and places.

 

...the simplest I can get in presenting one aspect of it is 'the schar of a mitzvah is another mitzvah and the schar of a an aveira is another aveira'  ...schar is often translated as 'reward', which is imperfect in this context, and aveira is often translated as transgression (it is from the root that mean to cross over).

 

...when I make constructive choices, I create the beginnings of a pattern of such choices, and vice versa. 

 

Our choices can build on themselves, and it is harder to unlearn a not-helpful pattern.

 

...and there is so much that needs doing in the world, even just in our day to day lives...and I can think of no consequence more powerful than to really see what I have chosen... the pattern I have made of my life... that can be a positive or a negative or a mixed experience, but it will be one I have created myself.  With the materials of my life and personality, I can build or destroy or do a muddled mixture of both...

 

The materials aren't my choice - I didn't choose my country, genes, family... nor have I chosen some of the formative experiences of my life, but I choose what I make with those.

 

Right now it is easy to not see clearly what I am choosing, but I believe that the 'afterlife', whatever that means, will give me the opportunity to see clearly the pattern of my choices.

 

That's a really oversimplified description, and I don't expect it to appeal to you any more than any other such...

 

...and it leaves out an important point:  cosmological questions aren't where we put a lot of energy...

 

In what way is this eternal soul affected by the rituals found in Orthodox Judaism? I won't ask how you would know because this is solely a faith-based concept, but what contributes to one's confidence in the answer? 

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

It makes me feel so *heard*.  ...one of the greatest gifts one can give is to take the time to really look at someone and see them, and your willingness to reconsider your preconceptions means a lot to me.

 

...I know it doesn't change any of the core issues, but it means you're more likely to be objecting to things we actually do and believe... :)

 

:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since R' Singer is very involved in combating dishonest Xtian proselytizing of Jews, he tends to focus more on drawing the (very real) sharp distinctions than on presenting the nuances of Jewish hashkafa (philosophy/thought)...but he is spot on about the effects of quoting Torah in those contexts.

 

I looked at a few of the other articles as well and they too, understandably, present a fairly surface discussion of some complex topics.

 

...but the core point - that original sin is not a Torah concept is a universal one, across the Jewish spectrum. 

 

Evil, in the sense I think you mean it in another post, isn't possible... not as some external, foreign force.. nor as some intrinsic flaw in our own beings or souls.

 

 

I don't see life as a battle between good and evil, I see it as a striving for improvement, in ourselves and in the world... that I aspire to be the best Eliana I can be, and to use my unique self and qualities to contribute to the world... to help, in whatever way I am able, to make the world a better place, a kinder, juster, better world... to help bring about a time when justice and peace and kindness is the inheritance of every human...

Interesting. Thanks for your insight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can't you think of other common patterns in human existence that have positive and negative potentials?  Do really think that lumping it all together is fair or reasonable?

 

I think you are setting up a false dilemma.  ...and a not very useful one.

 

What false dichotomy do you see? In answer to your question, yes, I can see many patterns in the human experience that have positive and negative potentials. What sets religion apart from these other ideologies that by its very nature it offers answers based on faith - a belief something is true in spite of the absence of evidence, or even contrary to known evidence. Nevertheless, religious beliefs have been systematically protected from criticism across the globe and throughout the centuries. It's even protected by the individual who desires to maintain their faith. It is protected from criticism both formally and informally. Can you think of another ideology that enjoys such privilege?

 

 When faith is accepted as credible support for a claim, when it is considered more valuable than objective data obtained through rational means, then objectively obtained evidence is rendered irrelevant. While that may be benign with regard to certain behaviors like personally accepted dietary restrictions for religious reasons, the problem comes when religiously inspired behaviors affect others in objectively negative ways. Problematic behaviors sanctioned by religious beliefs such as body mutilation, oppressive marriage practices, or allocation of authority and resources are similarly determined to be valuable and reliable in spite of the absence of evidence, or even evidence to the contrary. The problem isn't in identifying the problematic behavior, the problem is with the epistemology itself. Trusting claims that require faith to work has been shown again and again to be unreliable, and yet we still give precedence to these beliefs. Shrugging our shoulders when this happens, praying for something better, seeking the texts for better clues isn't reasonable. I think we have a moral responsibility to do better because we have the means to do better. 

 

 

between Sam Harris, neurologist and author, and an advisor on the President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues:

Harris: What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out his or her eyes at birth, would you then agree that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human well-being?

Advisor: It would depend on why they were doing it.

Harris: Let’s say they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition. In their scripture, God says, “Every third must walk in darkness.â€

Advisor: Then you could never say that they were wrong.

 

The idea that divine revelation could mean anything, that any claim within a personal comfort zone is possible, lends to the functional support of horrendous behaviors. No other ideology sanctions private behavior or public policy based on knowledge believed to derive from a source known to be impossible to understand more than speculation (seemingly impervious to diametrically opposing nature of these speculations). In short, no other ideology enjoys such profound influence when so little can be known, and yet is trusted over that which can be known. 

 

You ask about positive influences, and I see the historical trend that shows cultures that do allow for criticism of religion are the ones that enjoy the greatest measure of "good health" (as understood very simply by things like economic, social, and political stability, health, education, etc). They essentially inspire a modification of religion to adopt a mere shadow of its former self, the vague ideas may be present, but these personal convictions are practically indistinguishable from convictions based on secular reasoning. This internal pressure you talk about is inspired by external variables, such as being aware of new information, and increasingly inclusive social trends. In other words, the more we know stuff, the more we know each other, the less we adhere to archaic, unreliable religious practices. In short, progressivism is good for humanity. Well, in my opinion anyway.

 

Consider the difference between Sweden and Saudi Arabia, for example. Saudi Arabia recently identified atheists as national terrorists. Publicly acknowledging one's lack of belief in a god is criminal behavior for the "safety" of the nation. The discussion regarding the fear of threat due to lack of faith is all but censored in that nation. There are, in fact, 13 countries where atheism is punishable by death. Benign support of religious belief allows these extreme public policies to exist. They lend credibility to the arguments for installing these public policies because after all, when truth is divinely revealed "you could never say that they were wrong." Obviously many people do, but their cries fall on ears deaf to objective data and the logical arguments derived thereof, and accept instead what they believe to be divine revelation as being more credible and valuable with regards to knowing the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be more useful to look for patterns - what factors do positive expressions of religion have in common, for example?

 

I'm afraid my answer won't be flattering, and this is the kind of thing that risks moderation from some who might read in my words hostility or ridicule. Nevertheless, the pattern I see is the acceptance of what amounts to thinking magic is real, can be trusted, and can be used to explain the mechanics of the world, answer important questions, and help navigate the human experience. Even if this magic is relegated only to a vague understanding of the creation of the world and the benign character of the creator, it still refers to impossible acts, a breach of the reliable explanations through which we understand our world. Perhaps YHWH literally "spoke" the world into existence, but at the very least he is understood to have created existence by the power of his own will, power that is not only impossible to explore, but impossible to even identify. Souls are believed to eternal, against the evidence of all we know about life and death, against all attempts to identify, isolate, and explore its existence in the same way magic makes things possible outside the realm of all we know, all we can possibly know. These ideas must be accepted in faith. For the same reason I wouldn't consider the pattern of superstitious thinking with regard to astrology as useful to explain the mechanics of the world, answer important questions, and help us navigate the human experience, I don't consider religious thinking useful for this.

 

 

 

 

 

The human tendency to look for transcendence and higher purpose seems to me to be a very powerful one - not one that is going away any time soon.

 

I agree on both accounts. But here's the thing, we can explain why human nature includes superstitious thinking in ways that don't require faith to work. This article gives a nice introduction, in my opinion (don't let the name throw you off!). At the very least, it's a far more plausible explanation than suggesting that a cognizant, living being outside the natural world created the entire natural world and then offered a certain ethnic group on one planet otherwise secret information unknown [otherwise unknowable] to others. "[Haselton and Nettle’s] Error Management Theory begins with the observation that decision making under uncertainty often results in erroneous inference, but some errors are more costly in their consequences than others. Evolution should therefore favor an inference system that minimizes, not the total number of errors, but their total costs." But read it for yourself if you're interested in an example of a logical alternative to a religious claim. It's not very long. 

 

 

 

 

:grouphug:   Your integrity, sincerity and good will seem to me to radiate from your posts.  I am grateful not only for this conversation we are having now, but for your presence here on the boards - you enrich my experience here.

 

Thank you. The feeling is very much mutual.

 

 

 

On the one hand, it is so hard to watch them head off... but, on the other, it is so beautiful to watch them building their adult lives... to see the amazing people they are, and to see, in retrospect, the seeds of it in the tiny people they used to be.

 

It's like all the stages - infancy is such a wonderous time, and I love that stage... but then being part of a toddler's life has its own wonders and joys... and so on.  I can't really be too sad at leaving one stage behind, because the next one not only has so much to treasure, but is also contains within it each preceding stage.

 

...but, I do miss them when they aren't here!

 

Yes, thank you - and yours?

 

We have kids who march to the beat of their own drums, as they say. All in all, things are going pretty darn well. 

 

 

 

 

This is from another post, but I wanted to respond to this quickly: I don't find your posts hard to read, not at all.  ...I do find it hard to figure out how to respond at times, especially when I feel I'm dealing with a mis-perception & am not sure where it is, or how to tease it out.

 

Your strong feelings about faith in general and my faith in specific aren't uncomfortable for me.  ...and I am fascinated both by your perspective and the process of trying to have this discussion.

 

...and you are a gloriously satisfying discussion partner - you speak out clearly and strongly, you take the time to try to really hear and respond, and you don't pull your punches, so I can hear what you really think.. but at the same time you are considerate of the personal element... which makes me happy.. I like warm fuzzy connections.

 

And, for anyone following along at home: please don't report any of Albeto's posts on my account.  I am fine, really!  ...and if I'm ever not fine, I feel really comfortable saying so and confident that we can work it out without moderator assistance.

 

And, Albeto, if I disappear without a word of warning, it will probably mean I'm off meeting my new grandbaby... not that I'm distressed or offended!  :)

 

I'm posting this in the rough, as I'm succumbing to a migraine, which is unlikely to contribute to clear, articulate conversation.

 

I hope you get relief from your migraine soon. I had a roommate in college who suffered from migraines, and so my heart goes out to you. I understand they can be vicious. 

 

I've been enjoying our talk as well. It's been by far the most profitable one I've had here. 

[albeto.]

I'll just reply within the quote to one or two items that are addressed to me personally or that mention Islam:

 

Okey dokey.

 

^_^

 

 

I think it's possible that you're still putting a construction on this that isn't coming from knowledge, but from assumption. For Muslims, everything God commands of us is for our good. He doesn't need our worship, but it's good for us to do it. If we are commanded not to perform the ritual prayers or fasting while we are menstruating, then it absolutely must be better for us not to do so at those times. Personally, I find a spiritual advantage in periodically breaking the routine; I'm refreshed and more mindful when I start it up again. There's nothing inherently negative in formal worship mirroring the cyclical nature of our body systems. Some commentators have also speculated that the only reason God would put (slightly) less requirement of formal prayer or fasting on women than on men is that women need less of it than men, since our capacity for bringing forth life (of which menstruation is a part) is a something God has shared with us more than with men, and gives us a potential avenue to nearness with God that men don't have. I'm trying to get across here that a negative construction is not the only possible or even the most plausible one, and that seeing things through filters is not something only the religious need to be wary of.

 

Actually, this is not the Muslim view. We don't believe in original sin or suffering/corruption having entered a pristine creation as a result of human sin. We believe, in a nutshell, that God created human beings with the capacity to do good and to do evil, and He placed both good and evil influences in his creation. Our job is to grow spiritually by making choices and (hopefully) learning from them, becoming as spiritually and morally developed as we can, to become as close to God as we can, and to enter eternity in the best state that we can.

Thank you. I appreciate this deeper insight as well. I have to admit, I am attracted to the poetic, romantic interpretation of this. The idea that your god shares more of himself with you through the capacity of bringing forth life is just beautiful. I love the interconnectedness, the nurturing, the strength that comes from this kind of explanation. I found much solace in this aspect of the Catholic faith as well, and I can see the similarities. 

 

But I want to be honest with you too, and that means not just leaving it there but offering you the second half of my thoughts. Although I think it's a lovely way of interpreting these things, I understand this interpretation to be as subjective as the bitter recognition of  your religion as religiously sanctioned misogynistic oppression. How would I, as an outsider, know which interpretation is more accurate to the mind and will of your god? Not which one is better, which one is more logical, which one is derived from more study. These things may or may not reveal the mind and will of a god who exists outside human ability to explore and understand. 

 

Do you see, it's hard for me to accept your account for the same reason you accept mine (which isn't my personal account, granted, but a vague compilation from stories I've read and conversations I've had on and offline for years). So, if personal interpretation is a credible means by which the faith can be understood, how do I know your interpretation is more credible than the other? 

 

 

BTW, Albeto, I'll second Eliana in saying that I have not perceived anything you've said here as rude or threatening.  I've very much enjoyed reading what both you and she have shared.  :)

 

Thank you. That means a great deal to me. I feel like I'm walking on thin ice here, but you and Eliana are so wonderful to talk to because you're patient, don't assume intent from me, and seem like such lovely people in general. It's been a real pleasure for me, too. 

 

:)

 

[Amy in TX]

But I want to be honest with you too, and that means not just leaving it there but offering you the second half of my thoughts. Although I think it's a lovely way of interpreting these things, I understand this interpretation to be as subjective as the bitter recognition of  your religion as religiously sanctioned misogynistic oppression. How would I, as an outsider, know which interpretation is more accurate to the mind and will of your god? Not which one is better, which one is more logical, which one is derived from more study. These things may or may not reveal the mind and will of a god who exists outside human ability to explore and understand. 

 

Do you see, it's hard for me to accept your account for the same reason you accept mine (which isn't my personal account, granted, but a vague compilation from stories I've read and conversations I've had on and offline for years). So, if personal interpretation is a credible means by which the faith can be understood, how do I know your interpretation is more credible than the other? 

 

 

 

Thank you. That means a great deal to me. I feel like I'm walking on thin ice here, but you and Eliana are so wonderful to talk to because you're patient, don't assume intent from me, and seem like such lovely people in general. It's been a real pleasure for me, too. 

 

:)

 

Of course you should be honest... why should you pretend to agree wholeheartedly if you don't?  :)

 

I can't tell you how to understand anything--that is utterly your business.  I can tell you how I have come to the understanding I articulated above, and how most Muslims come to their own understanding of any Islamic teaching:  we read the texts (Quran and authenticated reports of our Prophet's sayings and actions).  We think about them, and we might also read additional commentary by scholars who are trained in the language of the texts, in Islamic jurisprudence, and Islamic history.   If there is more than one way to interpret a teaching, or if scholars disagree, we might follow the interpretation that makes more sense to us, or the one favored by the majority of scholars, or simply the one that's easier to implement.  :)  It's up to each of us to use the knowledge and intellect we have, to seek expert advice, and to come to understandings and make decisions based on them. 

 

In explaining how I understand the fiqh (laws) surrounding menstruation, I wanted to challenge your perception of it as misogynistic/oppressive to women.  If you continue to understand it that way, that is absolutely your right;  all I can say is that Muslim scholars have not historically understood it that way, and Muslim women don't experience it that way. 

 

Thanks for your kind words--I really don't think you need to feel that you're on thin ice!  Honestly, you are coming across to me in this thread as someone who is trying to understand a point of view that they don't share.  Nothing whatever to object to there.  :)  Have a good night...

 

[albeto.]

Of course you should be honest... why should you pretend to agree wholeheartedly if you don't?  :)

 

I can't tell you how to understand anything--that is utterly your business.  I can tell you how I have come to the understanding I articulated above, and how most Muslims come to their own understanding of any Islamic teaching:  we read the texts (Quran and authenticated reports of our Prophet's sayings and actions).  We think about them, and we might also read additional commentary by scholars who are trained in the language of the texts, in Islamic jurisprudence, and Islamic history.   If there is more than one way to interpret a teaching, or if scholars disagree, we might follow the interpretation that makes more sense to us, or the one favored by the majority of scholars, or simply the one that's easier to implement.  :)  It's up to each of us to use the knowledge and intellect we have, to seek expert advice, and to come to understandings and make decisions based on them. 

 

In explaining how I understand the fiqh (laws) surrounding menstruation, I wanted to challenge your perception of it as misogynistic/oppressive to women.  If you continue to understand it that way, that is absolutely your right;  all I can say is that Muslim scholars have not historically understood it that way, and Muslim women don't experience it that way. 

 

Thanks for your kind words--I really don't think you need to feel that you're on thin ice!  Honestly, you are coming across to me in this thread as someone who is trying to understand a point of view that they don't share.  Nothing whatever to object to there.  :)  Have a good night...

 

 

Then it must follow that when people use the same methods you do (like reading the texts, thinking critically, reading additional commentary, study, interpretation of personal experiences, etc), they also correctly interpret the faith, even when they identify it as misogynistic. One problem I can see here is that there exists no external, objective confirmation to say you are closer to the ideal, or I am (after all, I'm not relaying my personal experiences, but experiences of others who, like you, think carefully about their faith). Unless we're going to rely on the No True Scotsman fallacy, we have to conclude sexism is literally sanctioned by the Muslim religion. Egalitarian may also be literally sanctioned by the Muslim religion, but certainly sexist behavior and public policy is. 

 

On a personal note, I'm grateful to your patience as well. I can't imagine hearing a faith you hold dear supports something you likely object to, and so that's why I'm afraid of walking on thin ice. At the very least, I'm concerned you'll find a reason to stop talking, and that always feels to me like watching someone stick their fingers in their ears and walking away. What's more bothersome is when posts I've spent time and effort on, often taking a fair bit of personal time looking into things to confirm or correct my opinion, are suddenly gone. Should someone report this post as being hostile to Islam for example, other posts might be edited to keep the peace. That feels like a violation of sorts. Not in a big way, I get over it quickly enough. ;-) But I'm genuinely glad to be able to talk about this openly with you and Eliana, and know that you trust me to have sincere curiosity, not hostile intent. 

[Amy in TX]

Then it must follow that when people use the same methods you do (like reading the texts, thinking critically, reading additional commentary, study, interpretation of personal experiences, etc), they also correctly interpret the faith, even when they identify it as misogynistic. One problem I can see here is that there exists no external, objective confirmation to say you are closer to the ideal, or I am (after all, I'm not relaying my personal experiences, but experiences of others who, like you, think carefully about their faith). Unless we're going to rely on the No True Scotsman fallacy, we have to conclude sexism is literally sanctioned by the Muslim religion. Egalitarian may also be literally sanctioned by the Muslim religion, but certainly sexist behavior and public policy is. 

 

On a personal note, I'm grateful to your patience as well. I can't imagine hearing a faith you hold dear supports something you likely object to, and so that's why I'm afraid of walking on thin ice. At the very least, I'm concerned you'll find a reason to stop talking, and that always feels to me like watching someone stick their fingers in their ears and walking away. What's more bothersome is when posts I've spent time and effort on, often taking a fair bit of personal time looking into things to confirm or correct my opinion, are suddenly gone. Should someone report this post as being hostile to Islam for example, other posts might be edited to keep the peace. That feels like a violation of sorts. Not in a big way, I get over it quickly enough. ;-) But I'm genuinely glad to be able to talk about this openly with you and Eliana, and know that you trust me to have sincere curiosity, not hostile intent. 

 

Okay, so first I had to go and google No True Scotsman, lol.  Got that now.  I don't see that as much of an issue here, because we (Muslims) don't tend to call each other "not a true Muslim;"  we're actually not allowed to do that.  There's a Prophetic saying to the effect that no one knows the true inner state of someone else's belief.  There can be very bad Muslims, of course, but they can't be called "not true Muslims" based on their sins. 

 

Anyway, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that since there's no central authority in Islam analagous to the Pope, for instance, who can have the one final say on interpretations of teachings, then anybody can interpret anything they like into the faith?  Such as misogyny, etc.  Or are you saying that since religion is not science, the "correct" interpretation can't be arrived at mathematically, so anything anyone wants to say on a teaching must be accepted as true?  Either way, you're right, we don't have all answers to all questions given to us.  Everyone must do some intellectual work.  We believe that people are made to struggle, to learn, and to make choices, and no one can put that responsibility on someone else.  Seek expert advice, yes, but use that advice to make the best decision you can. 

 

So it seems to me that you're saying that religion is not science and religious questions don't have one correct answer that can be empirically shown to be true, and therefore religion is not a valid decision-making system?  (Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here.)  But many areas of human endeavor aren't science or mathematics and don't provide single valid answers, but are still quite important and useful as decision-making systems.  Such as law and philosophy.  Such as political and economic systems.  All composed of scholars/experts who sometimes agree, sometimes disagree, who have human biases and human failings, but who use their training in their disciplines and their knowledge of foundational texts to advise people and governments on courses of action.  So many areas of life require not the correct decision, but the best decision we can come up with given the knowledge and tools we have to work with.

 

I hope I'm not rambling off into the weeds here.  This discussion is going into very interesting territory for me, but I'm getting sleepy now.  Oh, and I come and go on these forums, mainly because I sometimes run out of energy for any kind of interaction (I am a major introvert).  I'm wary of getting into long, involved contentious threads for that reason.  But I won't walk away from a discussion without warning.  :)

 

ETA:  There's more i'd like to talk about here, but I'll leave it till tomorrow inshallah.  Need to go to bed.

[albeto.]

Okay, so first I had to go and google No True Scotsman, lol.  Got that now.  I don't see that as much of an issue here, because we (Muslims) don't tend to call each other "not a true Muslim;"  we're actually not allowed to do that.  There's a Prophetic saying to the effect that no one knows the true inner state of someone else's belief.  There can be very bad Muslims, of course, but they can't be called "not true Muslims" based on their sins. 

 

Anyway, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that since there's no central authority in Islam analagous to the Pope, for instance, who can have the one final say on interpretations of teachings, then anybody can interpret anything they like into the faith?  Such as misogyny, etc.  Or are you saying that since religion is not science, the "correct" interpretation can't be arrived at mathematically, so anything anyone wants to say on a teaching must be accepted as true?  Either way, you're right, we don't have all answers to all questions given to us.  Everyone must do some intellectual work.  We believe that people are made to struggle, to learn, and to make choices, and no one can put that responsibility on someone else.  Seek expert advice, yes, but use that advice to make the best decision you can. 

 

So it seems to me that you're saying that religion is not science and religious questions don't have one correct answer that can be empirically shown to be true, and therefore religion is not a valid decision-making system?  (Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here.)  But many areas of human endeavor aren't science or mathematics and don't provide single valid answers, but are still quite important and useful as decision-making systems.  Such as law and philosophy.  Such as political and economic systems.  All composed of scholars/experts who sometimes agree, sometimes disagree, who have human biases and human failings, but who use their training in their disciplines and their knowledge of foundational texts to advise people and governments on courses of action.  So many areas of life require not the correct decision, but the best decision we can come up with given the knowledge and tools we have to work with.

 

I hope I'm not rambling off into the weeds here.  This discussion is going into very interesting territory for me, but I'm getting sleepy now.  Oh, and I come and go on these forums, mainly because I sometimes run out of energy for any kind of interaction (I am a major introvert).  I'm wary of getting into long, involved contentious threads for that reason.  But I won't walk away from a discussion without warning.  :)

 

ETA:  There's more i'd like to talk about here, but I'll leave it till tomorrow inshallah.  Need to go to bed.

 

I don't know what you mean by a "bad Muslim," but if you would suggest they are following the faith incorrectly, or poorly, or mistakenly, how would you know? By what objective standard would you base your opinion? And if there is no objective standard, then what protects you from the same accusation?

 

You suggest many questions do not require an accurate decision, but that we decide the best we can "given the knowledge and tools we have to work with."  I agree with you. There is no accurate answer to the question of what color albeto should paint her house. However, there is an accurate answer to the question about whether or not Todd Akin is correct about a woman's body being able to identify and shut out "hostile" sperm. I'm saying your faith (not just yours, all three Abrahamic faiths, and all religions in general) ignores known facts and imposes opinion in some measure, unnecessarily, and sometimes to the detriment to humanity. 

[Amy in TX]

I don't know what you mean by a "bad Muslim," but if you would suggest they are following the faith incorrectly, or poorly, or mistakenly, how would you know? By what objective standard would you base your opinion? And if there is no objective standard, then what protects you from the same accusation?

 

You suggest many questions do not require an accurate decision, but that we decide the best we can "given the knowledge and tools we have to work with."  I agree with you. There is no accurate answer to the question of what color albeto should paint her house. However, there is an accurate answer to the question about whether or not Todd Akin is correct about a woman's body being able to identify and shut out "hostile" sperm. I'm saying your faith (not just yours, all three Abrahamic faiths, and all religions in general) ignores known facts and imposes opinion in some measure, unnecessarily, and sometimes to the detriment to humanity. 

 

By a "bad Muslim" I guess I mean someone who violates a lot of the teachings of Islam--who commits grievous sins--who causes suffering to others, violates their rights, etc.  And I think you may have an inaccurate idea of what type of scholarly disagreements there are within the religion.  There is no disagreement among Islamic scholars about things like the oneness of God, that murder and rape are forbidden, that aggressive war is forbidden, that killing of non-combatants is forbidden, that anyone who is managing someone else's money must do their best to increase it rather than wasting it or using it for themselves, etc., etc., etc.  There is disagreement about things like whether all interest or only excessive interest ("usury") is forbidden, what position one's hands must be in during formal prayers, etc.  The questions we struggle to answer, and seek scholarly advice over, are not things like "Is it okay for me to hit my wife?"--but things like "Is it okay for me to take an interest-bearing loan to purchase my house in a non-Islamic economy, or should I rent instead?"  Where there is oppression or harm, the religion is being violated. 

 

As for Todd Akin, his statement was a scientific one, not a religious one.  He wasn't claiming that Christianity teaches that a woman should shut out hostile sperm;  he was claiming that science teaches that a woman can shut out hostile sperm.  "Should" questions are addressed by (religious or non-religious) ethical systems.  "Can" questions are addressed by science.

 

 

 

[albeto.]

By a "bad Muslim" I guess I mean someone who violates a lot of the teachings of Islam--who commits grievous sins--who causes suffering to others, violates their rights, etc.

 

But as there is no objective source that identifies what the accurate teaching of Islam is, one cannot know what violates it, one can only believe. A person's beliefs can be wrong, which is why I don't trust religion as a source of knowing things.

 

And I think you may have an inaccurate idea of what type of scholarly disagreements there are within the religion.  There is no disagreement among Islamic scholars about things like the oneness of God, that murder and rape are forbidden, that aggressive war is forbidden, that killing of non-combatants is forbidden, that anyone who is managing someone else's money must do their best to increase it rather than wasting it or using it for themselves, etc., etc., etc.  There is disagreement about things like whether all interest or only excessive interest ("usury") is forbidden, what position one's hands must be in during formal prayers, etc.  The questions we struggle to answer, and seek scholarly advice over, are not things like "Is it okay for me to hit my wife?"--but things like "Is it okay for me to take an interest-bearing loan to purchase my house in a non-Islamic economy, or should I rent instead?"  Where there is oppression or harm, the religion is being violated.

 

Now you're getting into the No True Scotsman fallacy: There most certainly exists Muslim proponents for murder and rape and aggression, so they must not be proponents of "Real Islam." It illustrates a state of cognitive dissonance to the equation, effectively aspects of one important cognitive belief is reduced or ignored in order to maintain it even though it exists in opposition to another important cognitive belief. It makes this an impossible discussion to have, which renders this portion of the conversation irrelevant. Islam is still every bit as misogynistic as I've seen because "Real Islam" is supported by personal experience in conjunction with knowledge and study of the texts and oral traditions, and those who discount certain aspects are wrong or their arguments don't really count. In this way, a misogynistic Islam is Real Islam, just like an egalitarian Islam is Real Islam.

 

As for Todd Akin, his statement was a scientific one, not a religious one.  He wasn't claiming that Christianity teaches that a woman should shut out hostile sperm;  he was claiming that science teaches that a woman can shut out hostile sperm.  "Should" questions are addressed by (religious or non-religious) ethical systems.  "Can" questions are addressed by science.

 

Akin's profoundly absurd and disturbing comment was used to defense his moral claim - that abortion is immoral in cases of rape, because if a woman is pregnant she'd be lying to say she had sex against her will. That he thought this defense was legitimate is problematic for our nation and highlights the necessity to encourage and support scientific literacy and stop patronizing pseudo-science and mythology as sources of knowledge.

 

The "should" questions stem from what we know. Correct information inspires us with a more ethical "should" than erroneous information does. In this way, Harris is arguing that science can offer moral answers.

[Amy in TX]

But as there is no objective source that identifies what the accurate teaching of Islam is, one cannot know what violates it, one can only believe. A person's beliefs can be wrong, which is why I don't trust religion as a source of knowing things.  I also don't trust religion as a source of "knowing things," if the things we are talking about are objectively verifiable or calculatable physical realities.  That's what science is for.  If the "things" are the answers to questions such as "Should the minimum wage be raised?" or "Should a Muslim eat grassfed beef that's not slaughtered by a Muslim, or should they eat only Islamically slaughtered beef, even if it was factory farmed?", then economists and Islamic scholars respectively must debate those questions and people must study those debates and form their opinions. 

 

 

Now you're getting into the No True Scotsman fallacy: There most certainly exists Muslim proponents for murder and rape and aggression, so they must not be proponents of "Real Islam." It illustrates a state of cognitive dissonance to the equation, effectively aspects of one important cognitive belief is reduced or ignored in order to maintain it even though it exists in opposition to another important cognitive belief. It makes this an impossible discussion to have, which renders this portion of the conversation irrelevant. Islam is still every bit as misogynistic as I've seen because "Real Islam" is supported by personal experience in conjunction with knowledge and study of the texts and oral traditions, and those who discount certain aspects are wrong or their arguments don't really count. In this way, a misogynistic Islam is Real Islam, just like an egalitarian Islam is Real Islam.  I think have not been sufficiently clear here--when I say there is no disagreement on a religious issue, I mean no major scholarly debate.  I hope you believe me when I say that there is absolutely no debate among Muslim scholars that murder, rape, and aggressive war are forbidden in Islam.  And it is not acceptable in Islam for anyone who is not a trained scholar of classical Arabic, the Quran, hadeeth (collected and verified reports of what the Prophet said or did), and Islamic history and philosophy to say otherwise.  Just as I, who am not a legal scholar, cannot say that the 13th amendment doesn't apply in all cases, and go around enslaving people.  I mean, I could do that, but I'd be violating the law and I would be in the wrong, not the legal system.  Bin Laden, for instance, either disagreed or didn't care that harming non-combatants is forbidden (no scholarly debate about that), but his disagreement carried no weight among the ulema (scholars).  Bin Laden was a Bad Muslim if you like, but not a scholar of Islam with the ability to issue fatwas (legal decisions).  He's not "discounting certain aspects" of Islamic law--if you think he is, please tell me what they are.

 

 

Akin's profoundly absurd and disturbing comment was used to defense his moral claim - that abortion is immoral in cases of rape, because if a woman is pregnant she'd be lying to say she had sex against her will. That he thought this defense was legitimate is problematic for our nation and highlights the necessity to encourage and support scientific literacy and stop patronizing pseudo-science and mythology as sources of knowledge.  I couldn't agree more.

 

The "should" questions stem from what we know. Correct information inspires us with a more ethical "should" than erroneous information does. In this way, Harris is arguing that science can offer moral answers.   Absolutely.  Where there is applicable scientific knowledge, it should be used to make the best religious decisions. 

 

[Amy in TX]

Glad you're feeling better, Eliana.  :)

[Catwoman]

I just wanted to say that whenever there's a thread where people get nasty and start insulting each other, someone should always post a link to this thread, because it's such a perfect example of how people should behave and how it's entirely possible to disagree with someone, yet still manage to treat them with the utmost respect.

 

This thread is so interesting, and the biggest reason is because everyone is being nice, helpful, and courteous.

[Amy in TX]

I've heard Xtianity say that. 

 

Amy, does Islam hold that way?

 

...but that isn't an accurate way to describe Jewish theology.

 

 

Albeto has stated once or twice that the three Abrahamic faiths see the universe as corrupted by man's sins, and correct belief as the antidote.  And in her latest post, Eliana had quoted Albeto as saying that the three faiths see religion as a baffle against evil.  (Correct me if I've not paraphrased you accurately, Albeto.)

 

And no, as I've touched on somewhere upthread, Islam does not view the universe in that way.  We don't believe that humans messed up the previously perfect situation and introduced evil/death/suffering into the world.  We have no concept of original sin.  We believe that both good and evil exist in the world because God created it that way, that we might learn and grow spiritually, becoming as close to God as possible by striving to acquire the attributes of God.  We can't learn compassion unless there is suffering, we can't become helpful unless there is need, we can't become generous unless there is want, etc., etc.  The existence of evil in the world is necessary to our development of virtue. 

[albeto.]

I'm not sure I understand the question properly.

 

There have been a non-trivial number of Jewish women who have left, or chosen not to enter, the Orthodox world precisely because they perceived (or experienced) misogyny.

 

Misogyny exists. 

 

I haven't personally seen or experienced it, but I have spoken with those who have, and read things written by others who have experienced and/or perceived it, and I am saddened and, in some cases, horrified.

 

...in some cases it is my perception that there is a mismatch between the woman and the variant of Torah Judaism she has found (or grown up with).  There are certainly communities which would be uncomfortable for me to live in, where I would feel constrained by the specific culture - perhaps because of my own cultural background?

 

...in other cases, the things described go against halacha [Jewish Law] as I understand it.

 

In yet other cases, there are whole communities who are, imho, trying to protect themselves from the larger world... an ivory tower approach.  Although I see some of the possible strengths, I, personally, would suffocate there. 

 

There are a wide range of cultures within the Orthodox world, and not all are a good fit for any one individual.

 

Do I understand correctly that if a personal perception reveals a feeling of misogyny within Orthodox Judaism, it could be because either a woman is not matched to the ideal version of Real Judaism, or the people involved are not practicing Real Judaism, or communities try to sequester themselves away and in doing so miss the mark of Real Judaism? What about those cases in which none of these conditions apply, and misogyny is an accurate hallmark of the faith? I wonder because it would be important to know when one's perception of Real Judaism has been tarnished, and when it is accurate. 

 

So my question was, how are one's perceptions verified as accurately reflecting the real faith? How does one know if their perceptions are of Real Judaism and not a False Judaism? And further, how can one know which faith is the right one? Your criteria for excusing a misunderstanding of True Judaism or being duped by a False Judaism is the same criteria Amy in Tx uses for excusing a misunderstanding of True Islam or being duped by a False Islam, and is the same criteria Christians use to excuse a misunderstanding of True Christianity or being duped by a False Christianity. How would an interested, objective outsider know which personal experience reflects the accurate True Faith?

 

There is, historically, nothing that isn't up for discussion, and many opinions, across a range even wider than those you quote, get brought into the discussion.  ...and many of them are, at least as, mutually incompatible. 

 

Sometimes those ideas are there because they bring something intrinsically valuable to the discussion, other times they are they to be clearly overrriden, with a range of other possibilities, but, always, there needs to be an answer to what do we do about X.

 

The site you linked is not at all from an Orthodox perspective, and its understanding of the halachos of marriage is completely off-base.  (There is no 'ownership' concept - the kesuvah is not a document of acquisition, it is a witnessed commitment from the chasan (groom) to the kallah (bride).) 

 

..the second opinion in your bit above is close to where halacha holds.

 

The site provides quotes and references to Jewish records. Unless there is an objective means by which one can show the Orthodox perspective and its understanding of the halachos of marriage is the accurate one, it's perspective should be as credible as any, especially if its conclusion comes from the same criteria talked about above (ready, study, interpreting personal experiences, faith, etc). It's interesting to me that you suggest certain writings are to be clearly overridden. In your faith, how can one be sure the opinion of the authority is trustworthy if it could be rendered obviously false and meant to be abandoned in future generations?

 

That's a hard question to answer.  It is a complicated tapestry...

 

I would say, assume that if you see a quote from Tanakh, that you are missing at least half of the equation... and if you see a quote from the Mishanah or Gemara, that they are, among other things, a record of discussions...

 

Rabbi Jonathon Sacks's book To Heal a Fractured World: Ethics of Responsibility gives some sense, I think, of approach and flavor while being, I think, reasonably accessible.

 

This illustrates the No True Scotsman fallacy that is used to justify one opinion while dismissing another, even when both are obtained through the same means. That's the problem with No True Scotsman - each individual is assumed to be the objective source from which accuracy and inaccuracy is measured. The same criteria by which you dismiss the conclusions of others, can be and are used to dismiss your own conclusion. It's a hard question to answer, and one that has never been answered, because all anyone can refer to is personal belief, rationalized through this logical fallacy. 

 

No.

 

I do not see the world as corrupted - this is part of the no original sin thing... neither the world nor our souls are corrupted in my cosmology.

 

Interesting to know. Thank you for explaining.

 

The tension comes out of the various drives/pulls we have - we have physical needs and desires, intellectual drives and priorities, and, I would say, spiritual pulls as well.  ...and we have to navigate amongst those.

 

Physical needs and desires, and intellectual drives and priorities can be, and obviously are attended to without referring to information understood to have been revealed by a divine authority existing outside our natural world. What kinds of things are dictated by spiritual pulls, and how does one know the supernatural pull from the natural pull?

[albeto.]

I also don't trust religion as a source of "knowing things," if the things we are talking about are objectively verifiable or calculatable physical realities.  That's what science is for.  If the "things" are the answers to questions such as "Should the minimum wage be raised?" or "Should a Muslim eat grassfed beef that's not slaughtered by a Muslim, or should they eat only Islamically slaughtered beef, even if it was factory farmed?", then economists and Islamic scholars respectively must debate those questions and people must study those debates and form their opinions.

 

The difference being, an economist who ignores data is called out for it because appeals to data and objective information is valued. The religious scholar who ignores data is protected to some extent, as faith is understood to be as credible as objective evidence, if not more so in some measure. It's that lack of respect for information and knowledge that inspires otherwise avoidable burdens. Todd Akin's disastrous appeal to science was quickly called out and readily corrected by the public. In religion, because information is gained and verified through personal faith, there exists no such accountability. No objective data can be used to challenge the faith.

 

 Because how cattle is slaughtered is in some way important to the Muslim's unseeable, unapproachable god with whom it is impossible to have two-way communication, the community of the faithful are compelled by reality to defer to the personal opinions of Islamic scholars. To these scholars, I have the same questions: How can you have confidence your opinion is accurate (because we cannot know)? Because animals unnecessarily suffer when slaughtered to appeal to the personal wishes of this unseeable, unapproachable being with whom his opinion is impossible to confirm, these moral questions do rely on objectively verifiable or calculable physical realities. Only, these objectively verifiable and calculable physical realities are ignored in favor of maintaining a prefered religious practice. 

 

I think have not been sufficiently clear here--when I say there is no disagreement on a religious issue, I mean no major scholarly debate.  I hope you believe me when I say that there is absolutely no debate among Muslim scholars that murder, rape, and aggressive war are forbidden in Islam.  And it is not acceptable in Islam for anyone who is not a trained scholar of classical Arabic, the Quran, hadeeth (collected and verified reports of what the Prophet said or did), and Islamic history and philosophy to say otherwise.  Just as I, who am not a legal scholar, cannot say that the 13th amendment doesn't apply in all cases, and go around enslaving people.  I mean, I could do that, but I'd be violating the law and I would be in the wrong, not the legal system.  Bin Laden, for instance, either disagreed or didn't care that harming non-combatants is forbidden (no scholarly debate about that), but his disagreement carried no weight among the ulema (scholars).  Bin Laden was a Bad Muslim if you like, but not a scholar of Islam with the ability to issue fatwas (legal decisions).  He's not "discounting certain aspects" of Islamic law--if you think he is, please tell me what they are.

 

I can't believe your appeal simply because historical and current events show the opposite. These events may be dismissed, but only by using the No True Scotsman fallacy. See my post to Eliana just above for more.  I never assumed Bin Laden to be an Islamic scholar, but instead a social leader of a growing group of people who sincerely believe they are fighting against terrorism in their own country. Social leaders use personal religion to justify their arguments (and it's not just social leaders, individuals do, too). This isn't an Islamic thing, but human nature in general. 

[albeto.]

I just wanted to say that whenever there's a thread where people get nasty and start insulting each other, someone should always post a link to this thread, because it's such a perfect example of how people should behave and how it's entirely possible to disagree with someone, yet still manage to treat them with the utmost respect.

 

This thread is so interesting, and the biggest reason is because everyone is being nice, helpful, and courteous.

 

Eliana and Amy make it easy. They're very patient, and always kind.

[Catwoman]

Eliana and Amy make it easy. They're very patient, and always kind.

:iagree:

 

Add yourself to that list, albeto. You've been very gracious and your questions and comments have been very polite and non-judgmental. :)

[Tiramisu]

Speaking of bare shoulders (again).  I never wear sleeveless unless I have no other acceptable choice.  Why?  Because I don't want to show my armpits.  I think armpits are private.  Men's and women's.  I'd kind of appreciate never having to see either.

 

Nothing to do with sex at all.

 

Kids are exempt IMO because they don't have armpit hair.

 

I don't police what other people wear, but the truth is, I would rather not see your armpits just like I'd rather not show you mine.

 

This might be a personal problem ...  or on the other hand, it might be a very common feeling and a reason why some dress codes require at least short sleeves.  I'm not sure which.

 

This makes sense to me. I feel funny about many tanks because I also find the skin under and around the armpit something private and intimate. I couldn't really comfortably wear one even in private and wouldn't want to have to look at a person wearing them, male or female. Anything that shows too much of the back or front feels similarly. And I am religious but that's my natural feeling, that has always been there, even before I thought very much about my faith or the concept of modesty.

[albeto.]

Not to quibble, but I didn't grow up in a religious home.  I grew up in a completely secular home - I got Sartre and Camus... we sometimes went to a Blintz brunch during Hanukkah, but we also went to a UU fellowship (where my brother was in a Nativity pageant, one of the few religious things that happened there)... I learned Greek and Latin at home, not Hebrew, etc, etc.

 

I came 'home' at a fairly young age - my religious searching began when I was around 10, and I started going to my local Jewish community center when I was around 12.

 

...but even there, what I found was not what I live now.   There wasn't (and isn't) an actual synagogue there, instead there is a community center with every possible variation of Jewishness.  At the time, there were a handful of observant families.  Friday night services alternated between Reform and Reconstructionist, Sat morning between Conservative and Orthodox...and there were no weekday services at all.  It was (and is) an amazing, diverse community and I had friends and mentors from all across the spectrum.

 

I actively sought out the life and community I have now; I see no conceivable argument that it was, in any way, imposed upon me.

How much freedom can there be when certain ideas are assumed and taught to be respectable and in some way valid, and other ideas are so far off the radar, you couldn't have possibly known they exist? Growing up in a family that respects one religion over another means the children grow up with this mind virus planted in their consciousness, affecting their epistemology in general. I think it's why people are freely and rationally skeptical about religions that are not their own, and yet dismiss identical criticism against their own religious beliefs. So, you say religion wasn't imposed upon you, but I suspect it was imposed in the same way free market capitalism, or feminism, or protection of children and kittens was - it was normalized in your experience, and your ability to think critically and disagree came only after years of indoctrination. 

 

I have not observed most people making their ethical choices based primarily on objective data.  Data can be a factor, but in political, social, and ethical issues I do not see the level of dispassionate rationality you describe.

Objective data, and analysis thereof is all we have. What other method of understanding a situation exists (please don't say Einstein's instinct, I don't think I could take it)? What information supports your religion's credibility? 

 

What I do see is that you assert that, if someone so chose, s/he could use solely objective data to make such choices.

Data is simply objective information. How we interpret, analyze, and apply that information is a product of our epistemology. Religion encourages followers to incorporate the idea that divine revelation is as good as if not better than objectively derived information. For example, there exists no objective information to support any of the stories of Moshe. The historical record shows no sizable Jewish population in Egypt, no sudden mass exodus, no migration through Sinai. No archaeological or historical footprint can be seen, and so to believe it anyway goes against the practice of historical and archeological research, and the like. If the origins of the Passover are believed to have been real events, this is based not on objective information but supposed divine revelation assumed to be as valid if not more so than objective data. For the same reason we would dismiss claims of magical intervention from other religious claims because they lack credibility, why not dismiss this story as well? If we include magical intervention from this religious claim, we dismiss other religions' claims at all? This is precisely why objective data is so important - only that which everyone can recognize as being real can be accepted by everyone. That's why I ask what other sources of information exist?

 

No.  She recognizes those things, but her advocacy is instinctive rather than rational - and part of a drive that has been with her since childhood, and extension of her feelings about the natural world and its value. 

 

By saying that I do not mean, in any way, to disparage her or her convictions, btw, I deeply respect both.

Your respect for you mother and her ideologies are very clear, and sweet I think. I would venture a guess that her instincts are based on the rational argument that it is unethical to impose avoidable suffering on a cognizant, self-aware creature. This is the moral code we go by within our families and our communities, and she's logically extending it past family, past community, past religious and national affiliation, and even past species affiliation. I don't see anything irrational in that argument, but I'm only guessing this is her argument as I can't really know. My point is, unless her behavior is inspired by hallucinatory experiences in which animals talk to her, or some magical insight she picked up in the messages left behind in animal dung or something (which would, and should be dismissed as there is no objective data that supports the claim), I'm guessing she maintains a standard, rational argument for supporting the ethical treatment of animals.

 

My assertion is that these appeals are all present in other ideologies - patriotism, political ideologies, environmental causes, etc

 

...and that the fact that something is a religious belief is no reason not to challenge it when it is impacting the larger society.

I will agree that political and social ideologies do employ such tactics as appeals to emotion, appeals to tradition, appeals to authority, and most importantly, being raised in a culture in which "everyone knows" something to be a fact, but this is not their foundation like it is in religion. There is no objective information in existence anywhere that Moshe existed or that anyone led hundreds of thousands of Israelites on a long journey suddenly from Egypt. There is, however, objective information that supports the idea that a political infrastructure in which a large middle class exists, economic stability is consistent, and people have sizable control over the public policies that govern their lives produces more stable, secure societies with less crime, violence, oppression, and more health, education, technological advances, and self-reported contentment. Whether capitalism or socialism are more likely to provide this security is up for debate - but the debate can (and usually does) rest on objective fact. The issue isn't whether or not appeals to emotion, authority, and tradition can persuade one to adopt an ideology, the issue is whether or not this is the only foundation upon which this ideology exists. If that doesn't make sense, I would ask for an example of a religiously derived theory that has replaced a scientifically derived theory.