quakers: This is disappointing...

Cherish (

mareserinitatis) wrote in

quakers,
@ 2008-04-20 19:47:00

Current mood:

disappointed

This is disappointing...
Religion is ‘the new social evil’
Robert Watts

A CHARITY set up by an ardent Christian to fight slavery and the opium trade has identified a new social evil of the 21st century - religion.

A poll by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation uncovered a widespread belief that faith - not just in its extreme form - was intolerant, irrational and used to justify persecution.

Pollsters asked 3,500 people what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society, updating a list drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago.

The responses may well have dismayed him. The researchers found that the “dominant opinion” was that religion was a “social evil”.

Many participants said religion divided society, fuelled intolerance and spawned “irrational” educational and other policies.

Read the entire article here.

Cross-posted to mareserinitatis

(Post a new comment)

eliset
2008-04-21 01:02 am UTC (link)

The disappointing thing for me is that based on my experiences, every person in my life save 2 who are religious use their religion as an excuse to hate and be intolerant. It's little surprise - the fanatics influence the moderates, and the majority observes the fanatics and moderates.

I personally think - and hope - that the next 50 years will see a rise of agnostics/free thinkers and a decline of the religious bigots in the nation.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	flynd 2008-04-21 12:53 pm UTC (link)
	Feverently seconded. (Reply to this)(Parent)

peterbilt_47
2008-04-21 01:15 am UTC (link)

Interesting. My first thought: it IS a UK survey, and the culture of religion is quite different in the US- Europe is generally far more secular.

My second thought is that many people, not being raised in a religious tradition, get their understanding of what it means to be religious from the most vocal of the churched. Which in our society typically means either Televangelists/Media Demagogues or people coming to your door to try to convert you. I don't find these to be terribly good representatives of what it means to share your spiritual life with others in a church. And many people who HAVE been raised in a religious tradition have a hard time understanding other traditions.

The argument against religion on the grounds of all the terrible things that have been done in its name strikes me as possibly the least compelling argument it is possible to make. I think it would be more accurate to say that humans are wont to be cruel to each other for base reasons of greed and fear, and it is Religion's (deservedly, for many reasons) positive and high-minded mantle that makes it vulnerable to being hijacked and used as a smokescreen for these ignoble motivations.

Taking religion away from the scene does nothing to resolve the true causes of these ills; it merely necessitates a different rationalization for them. Humans have no problem coming up with these- the Atheism-as-State-Policy Communist regimes have some of the worst human rights records in recorded history.

I find that by living my principles and being willing to talk about them as they relate to my religion, I am able to represent parts of the religious experience that are not well represented in the media. And I am always receptive to people who are able to do the same. I think most people are.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

flynd
2008-04-21 12:48 pm UTC (link)

In the U.S, everyone is raised in a religious society - even atheists. We are a religious society.
We receive our ideas about religion 'from the most vocal of the churched' - including the President - because the moderately religious don't stand up to the fear-mongering, pandering, and outright hatred of the Religious Right.

Taking away the right of religion to justify hatred and oppression would do a great deal of good in the world, I believe.

(What Atheism-as-State-Policy governments are you referring to? Nazism? Hitler was not an atheist - he didn't subscribe to the state religion, but he did believe in god.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

tegdoh
2008-04-21 01:07 pm UTC (link)

You are correct in that the moderates do not make enough of a public stand against the extremists. It is difficult to organize around the constant low drone of the religious right vs. a particularly egregious incident that wakes the conscious (such as the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s, which was largely based out of the African American churches of the south, and supported by many white clergy and Jewish leaders.) Yet, I have heard the same complaint about moderate Muslims in the U.S., in spite of the numerous condemnations that have been made against radical Islam by the moderate mosques.

Yet, how does one take away the "right of religion to justify hatred" without taking away the rights of all religious believers - including moderates, progressives and the extremists - to free speech?

(As for a list of "atheism-as-state-policy governments gone wrong," the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cambodia under Pol Pot come to mind.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

flynd
2008-04-21 02:31 pm UTC (link)

I don't mean to eliminate free speech. Not at all. I mean that we, as a people, must move to denounce hatred when we hear it. Refuse to accept the hypocrisy and outright lies of the Religious Right; refuse to accept the use of religious ideas to limit human rights (eg. abortion, gay marriage). Use our free speech to counteract theirs: the lies about hurricaines being caused by gays; the lies that fetus=baby, the lies that god hates anyone.

atheism-as-state-policy governments gone wrong," the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cambodia under Pol Pot come to mind
Of course. I'd forgotten, momentarily. Although I believe the atheism had nothing to do with the human rights violations of those governments - they would have been horrible even with religion.

Yet, I have heard the same complaint about moderate Muslims in the U.S., in spite of the numerous condemnations that have been made against radical Islam by the moderate mosques.
Muslims, however, are discriminated against, currently. The popular view is Muslim-as-extremist, and as long as that serves political purpose, it won't go away.
I don't hear many non-Muslims denouncing that view, either - it always helps to have 'disinterested' parties standing up.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

bsdcat
2008-04-21 05:32 pm UTC (link)

Regarding atheist governments: as

togdoh said, Taking religion away from the scene does nothing to resolve the true causes of these ills; it merely necessitates a different rationalization for them. Humans have no problem coming up with these- the Atheism-as-State-Policy Communist regimes have some of the worst human rights records in recorded history.

I don't think

togdoh is arguing atheism is the cause at all. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	flynd 2008-04-21 05:37 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think togdoh is arguing atheism is the cause at all I wasn't sure - But, re-reading it, you're right. (Reply to this)(Parent)

pepperedmoth
2008-04-21 07:57 pm UTC (link)

"atheism-as-state-policy governments gone wrong," the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cambodia under Pol Pot come to mind
Of course. I'd forgotten, momentarily. Although I believe the atheism had nothing to do with the human rights violations of those governments - they would have been horrible even with religion."

Of course they would have been just as horrible with religion! And horrible religious governments would likely be just as horrible without it. Religion- or lack thereof- often serves as the rationalization after the fact, rarely as the motivating principle (when it comes to despotic regimes, that is). Really, the motivating factor there is power, however it can be acquired or defended.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	flynd 2008-04-22 03:16 pm UTC (link)
	Absolutely! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	flynd 2008-04-22 03:24 pm UTC (link)
	And horrible religious governments would likely be just as horrible without it. Yes, yes, yes. Good governments - and good people - don't need religion to make them good. It may help, sure. But it doesn't always. I don't hate religion. I hate how it's used to justify and cloak. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	king_laugh 2008-04-22 06:40 am UTC (link)
	lies that fetus=baby Well, that one actually isn't a lie... interesting that you call it such without any attempt to justify that view. But i do agree that God doesn't hate anyone. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

flynd
2008-04-22 03:21 pm UTC (link)

A fetus is not a baby.

(dictionary.com)
Fetus: Embryology. (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Baby:
ba·by Audio Help /ˈbeɪbi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bey-bee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -bies, adjective, verb, -bied, -by·ing.
–noun 1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.

There's some overlap here, on no. 5: but as the definition of fetus excludes baby, so the definition of baby including fetus seems to be, at the best, justification.

You'd never look into a cradle and say "Oh! What a beautiful fetus!"

Fetus=/=baby=/=embryo=/=zygote=/=egg=/=sperm. There are different words for these things because they are different things. A fetus may become a baby; a baby has been a fetus; but they are not equivalent.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

peterbilt_47
2008-04-21 01:22 pm UTC (link)

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "we are a religious society." Constitutionally, it is explicit that we are governed secularly. We also have freedom of speech, which allows for a diverse, if not always considerate and intellectually honest, public discourse. That public discourse often includes religion. I expect we have the same objections to a lot of it, but I think it's an exaggeration to describe us as a religious society. Several recent bestsellers have been atheist manifestos, after all.

2. I also don't think it's terribly accurate to say we get our ideas about religion 'from the most vocal of the churched.' (Which, to be clear, I meant as a charitable description of Televangelists, Megachurches, and professional demagogues- please correct me if we're not talking about the same thing). It's certainly true that those are the voices that get the most media play. But I think most of us, including much of this community, got our most strongly held religious convictions from the traditions we were raised in- and not as unquestioning recipients, but active participants and creators of that tradition.

3. Taking away the right of people to be mean to each other would be great. Probably a terribly impractical thing to attempt, though (I would agree that it's possible to improve the situation with wiser legislation, though). I find Quaker ideas about how we are mindful to treat each other are some of the best you could hope for.

4. Atheism as State Policy: the now defunct USSR, Maoist China, and present-day North Korea spring to mind. Marxist contempt for religion as an "opiate of the people" made a lot of socialist states discourage religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

flynd
2008-04-21 02:42 pm UTC (link)

Constitutionally, it is explicit that we are governed secularly.
Well, yes. But it doesn't work out that way.
The fundamentalist Christians have held the reins of the US. for quite a long while - 8 years, at least. And this country has been steeped in Christian thought from the beginning. If we were a country free from religious constraint, there wouldn't 'problems' like the Wiccan soldier: his family wanted a pentacle (pentagram?) on his tombstone and had to fight for years before the Fed. Gov't. would allow it in the cemetary.
This is not the only example. How many presidents have we had that were not Christian? (Kennedy was Catholic; Nixon a Quaker. Both of those, of course, are basically Christian in tenant.) No atheist, no Muslim, no Buddhist, no pagan.

We also have freedom of speech, which allows for a diverse ... public discourse.
Yes. Freedom of speech. But I'll argue with you on the 'diverse' aspect - maybe on the internet, but how much diversity do you see around you every day? I live in a major city, and nearly everyone I know is Christian. (I know only one atheist and two non-practicing Muslims). Obviously we can't force people to believe other things, for the sake of diversity; but diversity only exists if people are actually diverse.

Taking away the right of people to be mean to each other would be great
I don't mean we should legislate 'niceness'. I mean that we have a responsibility to denounce and call out inanity and damn lies when we see them: and we should expect (and require) our government to do the same. Accountability.

Atheism as state policy: yes. And the theocracies don't do any better.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

flynd
2008-04-21 02:47 pm UTC (link)

I meant as a charitable description of Televangelists, Megachurches, and professional demagogues
And I used your expression because I couldn't think of one more polite - we're talking about the same thing :o)

I think most of us ... got our most strongly held religious convictions from the traditions we were raised in- and not as unquestioning recipients, but active participants and creators of that tradition.

Most of the people I know personally were not raised in a strong religious tradition at all (I do not consider weekly church-going to be strongly religious, unless it's backed up by conversation or other activities within the week). It's anecdotal, I know. And I wonder how much is cultural - the area I was raised in ...

(Reply to this)(Parent)

sammka
2008-04-21 08:25 pm UTC (link)

The fact that the government is not supposed to be involved with religion doesn't mean that our culture itself isn't quite religious. Most of the most fervent supporters of the First Amendment when it was first created were deeply religious themselves, they just didn't think that religion should have anything to do with government. There's a whole lot more to our society than our government, thankfully enough.

For better or for worse, Americans tend to attend church at much higher rates than in European countries, and are more likely to say they believe in God.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	pepperedmoth 2008-04-21 07:54 pm UTC (link)
	Everything you said. :-) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	king_laugh 2008-04-21 07:10 am UTC (link)
	Does race divide people and cause conflict? Does gender? Does sexual orientation? No. It is intolerance of these factors, not the factors themselves, which cause the problem. Same goes for religion. Unfortunately, the most fervent religious bigots out there today seem to be the atheists! (Reply to this)(Thread)

	mareserinitatis 2008-04-21 11:52 am UTC (link)
	Agreed, although I would say there are quite a number of religious bigots who do belong to some church or religious organization. I guess I have a hard time understanding the mentality of "you must believe what I do". (Reply to this)(Parent)

	flynd 2008-04-21 12:42 pm UTC (link)
	No. It is intolerance of these factors, not the factors themselves, which cause the problem. Same goes for religion. But some - many - religions teach intolerance, or at the very least uphold the 'principles' of intolerance as virtuous. It's almost inherent in religion, which almost always believes itself to be the One True Way. (Reply to this)(Parent)

notorious_oit
2008-04-21 03:06 pm UTC (link)

Unfortunately, the most fervent religious bigots out there today seem to be the atheists!

Riiiiiight. I'll have to remember that the next time I see racist flyers hung up around my college campus. Sure, the last time I saw those flyers, they SAID something about God hating fags and niggers and abortionists, but it was just those clever atheists trying to throw me off their track.

Fucking moron.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Sorry to be blunt, but

tegdoh
2008-04-21 04:02 pm UTC (link)

Although the quoted statement may have been a bit simplistic, your response does not appear to reflect a respect for the poster that is consistent with Quaker values and principles.

It is a bit ironic that a group devoted to Quakerism can generate this many posts critical of religion-in-general. The Society of Friends does, after all, owe its existence to a Christ-centered, universalist, religious movement and is still considered by most as a religious tradition.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Sorry to be blunt, but

notorious_oit
2008-04-21 05:03 pm UTC (link)

First: you shouldn't apologize for being blunt if you feel strongly about something. It sounds really passive-aggressive when people do that, and it drives me crazy!

Second: you're right, though. I have ZERO respect for idiots who blame society's evils on religion OR the lack thereof. Just because one way works for one person, doesn't mean it works for everyone else. An omnipotent deity is too big to fit inside just one religion, and it's arrogant to think that one way is best, to the exclusion of all else. That's the point I'm trying to make here, in my own "special" way.

Atheists DO have morals and values, just like religious people (and in some cases, BETTER than them), and I'm really sick of people saying just because someone doesn't believe in an invisible sky being controlling their destiny, it means that they're gonna go out and rape puppies and eat babies and ZOMG THE WORLD IS GONNA IMPLODE.

As a side note: I was brought up in a strictly non-religious household, though not altogether atheist, and didn't discover Quakerality until I went to college. Sure, I may be a little rough around the edges, but deep down I do try to live my life through the Quaker ideals of social justice and equality for EVERYONE, and if I have to be blunt and/or vulgar to get my point across, so be it. It doesn't make me less of a Quaker just because I'm quick to anger when I see someone maligning others for their beliefs. Jesus got pretty pissed off himself when he heard His followers disrespecting others, IIRC.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Sorry to be blunt, but
flynd
2008-04-21 05:32 pm UTC (link)

Srsly.

Atheists DO have morals and values, just like religious people (and in some cases, BETTER than them), and I'm really sick of people saying just because someone doesn't believe in an invisible sky being controlling their destiny, it means that they're gonna go out and rape puppies and eat babies and ZOMG THE WORLD IS GONNA IMPLODE.

Frankly ... I wonder about the people who imply that. Do they really mean that if there were no god (to them), they would go out and act with impunity?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

being blunt

da_lj
2008-04-21 06:23 pm UTC (link)

Hm.

I agree completely with this statement. The false "Testimony of Niceness" is really frustrating. Call your truth and don't apologize for it...

However: I'm curious how you reconcile "Jesus got pretty pissed off himself when he heard His followers disrespecting others" with your statements at

king_laugh.

Calling him a fucking moron is uncalled for. My problem's with the "moron" part. Say he's said something that's fucking stupid if you like, but calling someone a moron is just rude. It's not blunt, it's bullying.

Quakerism absolutely needs people like you to call bullshit when you see it. We need our John Woolmans. But Woolman was able to convince Quakers against slavery because he spoke with love and respect.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Sorry to be blunt, but

tegdoh
2008-04-21 06:42 pm UTC (link)

I don't think I'm calling for a false "Testimony of Niceness," just respect for the poster as a human being if not for the opinions he/she expressed. Blunt is fine, pissed off is fine, but try to see that of God(or the light or whatever you want to call it) in whomever you're pissed at.

I also don't think that king_laugh was implying that atheists are without morals, simply that some atheists tend to be as intolerant as the "religionists" they rail against. Speaking from my own (short-lived) experience posting to an atheist-friendly blog that discussed many of these same issues, I can empathize with his point. Very little tolerance was shown for anything but toe-the-line Dawkins atheism.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Sorry to be blunt, but

mareserinitatis
2008-04-21 06:58 pm UTC (link)

Let me guess...Pharyngula? :-)

I could be wrong, but that has been my experience there. Some of his posts are quite intelligent, but he spends most of his time belittling nearly anything associated with religion that he can. He even went so far as to say he didn't see the compassion in religion.

I consider myself an agnostic Quaker, which is kind of a horrid thing to be because I feel offended both when people bash religion and when people bash athiesm. I get horribly tired of both. And it does seem that when I find blogs related to one or the other, inevitably somewhere things get rather negative and I get tired of reading it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Sorry to be blunt, but tegdoh 2008-04-21 07:27 pm UTC (link)
	not at Pharyngula, but its closely related cousin onegoodmove.org :-) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	flynd 2008-04-21 07:58 pm UTC (link)
	(I'm an atheist Quaker: hi!) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Sorry to be blunt, but flynd 2008-04-21 05:33 pm UTC (link)
	It is a bit ironic that a group devoted to Quakerism can generate this many posts critical of religion-in-general. What other posts - what posts in this discussion have been critical of religion? & I don't find anything "ironic" about Quakers arguing amongst themselves. (Reply to this)(Parent)

MOD LAYING QUAKER SMACKDOWN

pepperedmoth
2008-04-21 08:04 pm UTC (link)

Hey! NOT OKAY to namecall.

I know it's the internet, and I know we can get angry with each other, but no matter how angry we are, or how foolish we think the other person is, saying nasty things isn't just antithetical to what we believe in as people of faith, it's just plain not nice.

I shall not go around freezing threads and the like (unless things continue in this vein), but our #1 community rule is 'play nice.'

This is not directed only at you,

notorious_oil, but is a reminder to all. Please listen! :-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

king_laugh
2008-04-22 06:48 am UTC (link)

How dare you?
How dare you come onto this community, a safe place for Quakers and those who are curious about Quakerism, and start calling people fucking morons?
What's the matter with you? Do you think that's what this community is for?
Maybe I should have worded my comment better. Maybe I should have said "In my experience", or "Atheists are among the biggest religious bigots out there today." Then my point would perhaps have been more accurate and less glib.
But there is absolutely no excuse for you to abuse me like that, and I am reporting you to the moderator.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	FURTHER MOD NOTE pepperedmoth 2008-04-21 08:08 pm UTC (link)
	True: There is no Quaker 'testimony of niceness.' Also true: This community DOES have a rule about playing nice. One more true thing: One may be blunt and stand up for what one believes without insults. Words can be as violent as weapons, folks. Please keep this in mind. We DO have a Quaker peace testimony. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: FURTHER MOD NOTE paraleipsis 2008-04-21 09:48 pm UTC (link)
	Word. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…