|
29447. arkymalarky - 5/23/2009 9:06:00 PM Liability of the institutions and those in charge of them for negligence wouldn't hurt either. 29448. judithathome - 5/23/2009 11:00:00 PM Well, Alistair, I wonder if people should be wary of letting their children be put in the charge of the Boy Scouts of America...where the fathers of young boys are usually the troop leaders...or in the schools where, say, the swimming coaches or the sports coaches are routinely put in charge of young people?
Here in my town, a man who was well-respected and in high social circles was found to have been molesting young boys he taught diving to...several men the age of my son recently came forward to testify that this man had been molesting them 35 years ago and that the guy had continued to do so to other boys up until he retired.
Seriously, how does one know whom to entrust their children to when churches, social organisations, and schools have this sort of history? Even relatives have been known to do this...
It seems to me there are very many hazards out there that we might never know about...it's left up to individuals to rely on their own moral compasses and there's simply no way to know if anyone is a safe haven for kids anymore.
29449. anomie - 5/24/2009 12:31:56 AM Atheist here too.
The hypocrisy of religious people would be almost entertaining if it wasn't so cruel and vicious. 29450. Ms. No - 5/24/2009 5:56:46 AM Also atheist but with a deep affection for the Church. Call me a weirdo. I don't mind. ;-> 29451. Ms. No - 5/24/2009 6:03:47 AM The hypocrisy of religious people would be almost entertaining if it wasn't so cruel and vicious.
Hypocrisy is a human failing regardless of spiritual affiliation.
The problem for most of us is that Christianity as an institution is supposed to be about love and striving for right.
The hypocrisy of theists is often more offensive to us because we have higher expectations for the institution they belong to.
A molesting priest who says gays should burn in hell is no more or less hypocritical than a child-care provider who abuses kids, but the appeal to authority backing theists is what seems to tip the scales of outrage.
Or at least it does mine. I resent like hell those who give religion a bad name by behaving badly. I find it blasphemous.
Hard to understand, perhaps, coming from an atheist, but just because I lack Faith doesn't mean I have abandoned my beliefs about what Church is supposed to be about. 29452. judithathome - 5/24/2009 2:12:55 PM Well, easy enough to feel that way since they never tire of telling us how good they are...actions notwithstanding. 29453. Ms. No - 5/24/2009 9:46:40 PM Well, easy enough to feel that way since they never tire of telling us how good they are...actions notwithstanding.
Ha! Yes, and this is what bugs me.
I grew up in the Church quite happily. Of course, I grew up in a liberal-minded congregation dedicated to community service. I don't remember anyone ever preaching about going to Hell ---- you were already in Hell if you were so separated from God as to not have compassion for your fellow man. If you weren't doing your best to make the world better for mankind you had already cast yourself out...but you were welcome to change your ways at any time and rejoin the fold.
I never got the message that sex was evil or that God makes some people rich because he likes them better or that white people are inherently better than brown people or that there is ever any call to nuture hatred in one's breast. I also never got the message that I had any kind of obligation to go around telling everyone I was a Christian self-righteously beating my breast and trying to drag them to Mass.
I didn't become an atheist because I disliked my Church --- actually, we moved away from that congregation years ago and eventually stopped going to church. I became an atheist because I couldn't reconcile myself to the belief in a sentient and eternal creator.
But lack of belief in God doesn't mean I think what I learned was a crock. The point of a good argument is that it doesn't rely on an appeal to authority and what I was taught makes sense to me. We should be kind, caring, accepting and helpful, not because somebody who could crush us told us to but because it is the right way to be.
I heartily resent all of these self-proclaimed Christians who have made that word a bad taste in the mouth. I find that I am prejudiced against people who tell me they are Christian or who talk about their church. I am leery of them and mistrustful and try to avoid them because too many loud-mouthed hate-mongers have stepped up to try and claim Christianity for their own.
It makes me sick. They have stolen something from me. Perverted something that I loved and believed in. They have made me fear and mistrust and avoid people who are more often than not good and caring individuals.
THAT'S why I detest the so-called Christian Right.
29454. judithathome - 5/25/2009 2:31:25 PM That is an excellent post!
The church I went to was the polar opposite of the one you experienced...100%.
In fact, I blame that church for ruining part of my childhood...when I was between the ages of 10-12, boys were my pals...they were the ones I went on hikes with, explored the river with, rode horses with, and formed "clubs" with. I was a tomboy and boys were more fun than girls because they didn't bother with dolls and a little dirt never bothered by boy "friends".
Then one day two ladies from the church told my mom that I seemed to be a little too "boy crazy" and she should keep an eye on me and curtail my activity with the boys. Well, my mom, bless her soul, was not going to let me ruin her reputation as a parent and after that, I was told to curtail all my running around with "the boys"...and this not only pissed me off but made me wonder why. What was so dangerous and special about my boy pals?
And over the next year, of course I found out. And the boys I found out with were older because the pals my own age were just as dumb about it all as I was...I didn't become a sex-crazed teenage but I certainly did everything I could get away with...and by today's standards, that was about equal to first base.
However, that church never ceased to expect the worst from all us teens. No dancing, no "mixed bathing" (swimming together), no mixed parties and God forbid, no rock and roll! It was all verboten...so of course, we ALL snuck around for our fun and none were more fun than the preacher's kids.
It was definitely a two-faced education...and the more the adults said "no", the more we all wanted to do..and DID...whatever they said not to.
Almost all of my girlfriends from those church days left the church after they grew up. I ran in to a friend from my little group from high school the other day and was shocked to see her...she's still in the church and looks a full 10 years older than I...Keoni was amazed we were the same age. I don't know how to explain it but she looks "cramped"...
And the amazing thing is, she is the daughter of the woman who was "kicked out" of that church, the event that caused me to finally sever ties forever with that sanctimonious body of hypoctites.
(I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that I loved: it said "I'm a Christian AND a Democrat") 29455. wabbit - 5/25/2009 2:46:21 PM I see I am in good company here!
Like Ms. No, my atheism stems from an inability to get my head around belief in a sentient and eternal creator. However, like JaH, I also ran into problems with organized religion — not with pastors or priests so much as with the congregants.
When I was maybe six, our church (Lutheran) had an Easter Egg hunt in the small fenced yard. It was strictly for the young kids, no adults allowed, and my mother was keeping my two brothers, who were too young to fend for themselves, out of the hunt. I was looking forward to helping my sister, a year younger than me. But when we got in there, we found ourselves being pushed aside by grown people who were carrying their kids and grabbing up everything in sight, literally just about knocking those of us over who did not cheat. I couldn't understand why there were rules when nobody was required to follow them, or why the pastor didn't boot those grown men (and unbelievably, most of the adults in the yard were men) out of there.
Young as I was, I recognized the Sunday Christians for what they were, and I never felt the same about church again. I stopped going to church altogether when I was about eight or nine.
I enjoy the pageantry, the art and architecture, even the music, and have been to all kinds of religious services, but strictly as an observer. 29456. arkymalarky - 5/25/2009 5:39:55 PM I need a bumpersticker that says what Judith saw, plus "and I don't go to church." Church is too often a way to power trip and get in everyone's business, and they're pushy about getting people involved in their social activities, which is a big turn-off for me, as I didn't go to hang out with people and be pressured with a lot of useless additional things to do. I enjoyed the little church up the road until a handful decided to target the preacher and everything kind of blew up. I hate drama, and I'm certainly not going to sit through it in church, so I just stay hpme.
My grandparents got a lot out of their church and the congregation in Dallas, but my parents got little from the same church. 29457. pelty - 6/22/2009 8:37:00 PM "THAT'S why I detest the so-called Christian Right."
Sounds like you have mistaken a political movement for a theologically-conservative Christianity. Whatever the case, only you allow your self-confessed prejudice to perpetuate. No one "makes you" be prejudiced.
"I never got the message that sex was evil or that God makes some people rich because he likes them better or that white people are inherently better than brown people or that there is ever any call to nuture hatred in one's breast."
This is what annoys *me* about self-righteous atheists, that they take the extreme positions in the church, those that most Christians would denounce, and assign them to all theologically-conservative Christians. Guess what? I have never heard anyone say "sex is evil." In fact, I have heard quite the opposite. Now, the context in which it is permitted for Christians may be different than what you might personally prefer, but that is a different matter.
I do not deny that there are political groups that try to legislate sexuality and, while I may agree with their desire to have humans employ their sexuality in a godly context (i.e., within the bonds of marriage), I think it is foolish and impossible to try to do so through legal channels.
Similarly, I have NEVER heard any sort of racism from any pulpit (again, quite the opposite) and I attend a church that is comprised of a broad range of ethnicities and nationalities. It is disappointing that you feel you must stoop to the lowest common denominator in order to make an argument.
You do have a point that people try to tell others about Jesus and that this might be an annoyance to you, but we all are proselytized to in some form or other about things with which I might vehemently disagree or find annoying, but different opinions add a good and necessary flavor to life, I find. I can certainly disagree with you, which I most definitely do, without hating you or having the type of prejudice to which you admit. 29458. judithathome - 6/23/2009 3:18:33 PM You do have a point that people try to tell others about Jesus and that this might be an annoyance to you, but we all are proselytized to in some form or other about things with which I might vehemently disagree or find annoying, but different opinions add a good and necessary flavor to life, I find. I can certainly disagree with you, which I most definitely do, without hating you or having the type of prejudice to which you admit.
Ah yes, it must get tiresome having all those atheists come to your door, trying to dissuade you from your Christian ways and leaving tracts about "not" being saved.
As to not hearing sex is evil...there is a tacit implication from the pulpit that sex outside of the holy bonds of matrimony is evil...it can send you to hell! How much more evil could it get???
Sounds like you have mistaken a political movement for a theologically-conservative Christianity. Whatever the case, only you allow your self-confessed prejudice to perpetuate. No one "makes you" be prejudiced.
The Christian Right these days IS a political movement. Many preachers are using their pulpits to influence voting for candiates pandering to their views. That's political.
29459. pelty - 6/23/2009 4:11:14 PM "Ah yes, it must get tiresome having all those atheists come to your door, trying to dissuade you from your Christian ways and leaving tracts about "not" being saved."
Right, because that is the only form of proselytization these days... and I said nothing about atheists. Atheists amuse me, so I have no problem with their ilk. In fact, they are quite enjoyable to watch...
"As to not hearing sex is evil...there is a tacit implication from the pulpit that sex outside of the holy bonds of matrimony is evil...it can send you to hell! How much more evil could it get???"
Ummm, clearly you did not read my post nor the OP. S/he said that the horrible, nasty Christian Right teaches that sex is evil. I said that, in truth, this is not the general message found in the pulpit but, rather, that sex is a good thing. I also said that outside the context of marriage it is viewed negatively, NOT because sex itself is evil but because there is a context in which it is spiritually harmful. That being said, you are certainly free to live it up and shag away to your heart's desire. I have no interest in stopping you legislatively from doing that, but I think it would be wrong of me, given my worldview, not to mention the possibility that such behavior (or any behavior that would be deemed "sinful) may have long-term deleterious effects. If you choose to ignore me and wish to live your life in a way contrary to biblical morality, so be it.
"The Christian Right these days IS a political movement. Many preachers are using their pulpits to influence voting for candiates pandering to their views. That's political."
So, undoubtedly, you are vehemently opposed to the same sort of activity being found in the "Left" churches, right? So there must be some sort of Christian Left as well, but they just have an agenda with which you find more to agree? Surely, you hate it when the Dems go into the black churches (funny how they are never found there outside of an election cycle) and sway and clap, usually out of rhythm, to the gospel music and then stand up and peddle (or should that be "pander") their wares to the willing masses? Or is that OK because you like what they have to say in those instances?
That said, I actually agree with you and find it detestable that the Church gets involved with politics. Historically, little good has come from that. 29460. Ms. No - 6/23/2009 5:00:50 PM Pelty,
You've done some selective reading of my post. I'm very aware of the fact that I'm talking about what amounts to a political movement. I'm also aware that the vast majority of Christians don't belong to it.
What I am saying is that this small number, proportionally, of Christians has usurped the name. They are so loud and so ubiquitous that they tend to overshadow the majority. They do this in order to try and show that they are the majority when they most certainly are not. I am disgusted by them in the way that I am disgusted by anyone with polarizing views who claims to speak for a vast group of people.
They are at every turn shouting about how they are Christians so it makes me leery of those who would offer this information up to me without prompting.
Think of it this way: the vast majority of dogs do not bite people. Let's narrow it down even more: the vast majority of Pit Bulls do not bite people, but if one were to have been bitten or know someone who was it might color your view when next you encounter a barking Pit Bull.
The vast majority of Christians are not who I am talking about. However, when someone comes up to me and out of the blue announces his status as a Christian I am leery because in that context my experience has been that such folk tend to be of the politically motivated group.
I also find it a bit odd that you feel the need to sneer at me for being an atheist. I did not sneer at you for being a theist. 29461. pelty - 6/23/2009 6:18:26 PM "I also find it a bit odd that you feel the need to sneer at me for being an atheist. I did not sneer at you for being a theist."
Not sure where I sneered at you. If you are referencing my point about being amused by atheists (in another post), I should have been more clear about about whom I was speaking. I had in mind the public atheists in the Dawkins/Harris molds, not your good self.
As for the rest of your post, fair enough, but you have to go to the fringest of elements to find the sort of racial prejudice of which you speak being preached from the pulpit. Mainstream evangelicalism is vigorously devoted to racial equality and has been for some time. It makes me wonder about who you are listening to or from which media outlet you are gathering your information. It seems more than a little outdated, unless you consider the fringe to represent accurately the whole "Christian Right." 29462. judithathome - 6/23/2009 6:47:23 PM That being said, you are certainly free to live it up and shag away to your heart's desire. I have no interest in stopping you legislatively from doing that, but I think it would be wrong of me, given my worldview, not to mention the possibility that such behavior (or any behavior that would be deemed "sinful) may have long-term deleterious effects. If you choose to ignore me and wish to live your life in a way contrary to biblical morality, so be it.
This may come as a shock to you but I am an atheist and have been married to...and shagging with...the same man for more than 27 years. We are together not because of some holy sanctified matrimony or what some God or book says but because we love one another and respect one another. We were married in a civil ceremony and are just as married as anyone who married in a church and we maintain probably even more fidelity toward one another than some Christians do.
So, undoubtedly, you are vehemently opposed to the same sort of activity being found in the "Left" churches, right?
You bet your ass I am. I am opposed to most things people do "in the name of God" be it your God or anyone else's. I think organized religions have been the cause of some of the worst things that have happened in this world...but maybe by that I mean some of the people involved in organized religions.
The overall message of "love thy neighbor as thyself" would be cool by me if people really lived by it but few seldom do. 29463. pelty - 6/23/2009 7:47:09 PM "This may come as a shock to you but I am an atheist and have been married to...and shagging with...the same man for more than 27 years. We are together not because of some holy sanctified matrimony or what some God or book says but because we love one another and respect one another. We were married in a civil ceremony and are just as married as anyone who married in a church and we maintain probably even more fidelity toward one another than some Christians do."
I find this not at all shocking and congratulate you on your long and happy marriage. If you did not catch my attempt at light humor, then my apologies. I did not mean to imply that atheism = a multiple-partner shag-a-thon. But you obviously have me confused for something I am not. I never would claim that you are somehow "not married" as the result of a civil marriage as you clearly have a sheet of paper that identifies you as married. I am not at all clear why you think that Christians who get married are not married for the same reasons you married your husband - respect, love, etc. - as opposed to because they were forced into it by God, "some book," or what have you. What a strange, rather uninformed, understanding of Christianity, or perhaps religion more generally, you hold.
"You bet your ass I am. I am opposed to most things people do "in the name of God" be it your God or anyone else's. I think organized religions have been the cause of some of the worst things that have happened in this world...but maybe by that I mean some of the people involved in organized religions."
A worthy caveat, but if committing evil is your standard of the veracity or righteousness of a given religious stance, then surely you must be alarmed by your atheism and feel the need to jettison it at once!!! I mean, look at all the evil done under the banner of atheism - Stalin alone must be enough to make you blush. Given your standards, I am more than a little perplexed by your willingness to associate with such folk. But as you say, maybe it is the people who are to blame and not the dogma, eh? 29464. judithathome - 6/23/2009 10:31:54 PM I am not at all clear why you think that Christians who get married are not married for the same reasons you married your husband - respect, love, etc. - as opposed to because they were forced into it by God, "some book," or what have you
I never said anyone who does things differently than I do them is not married, did I? I merely explained why "I" am married...does that automatically imply all others are WRONG?
You have to at least admit than many Christians are fighting for the defense of marriage act because they feel it should be only THEIR way...I was explaining that I don't feel that way about my beliefs or lack thereof.
And if you think these abstinance people....saving oneself for marriage only...aren't obeying some rule book, then I fear it is you who have the problem understaning Christianity, my friend.
I don't have to aoplogize for nor defend Stalin...anymoreso than YOU have to apoligize for or defend the Crusades. So let's drop those smug little attitudes, why don't we?
29465. arkymalarky - 6/23/2009 10:54:15 PM Hey Pelty!
Unfortunately racism is alive and well in at least some churches in the South and probably elsewhere. They're not overt, but a Baptist preacher near here was let go because he was having black kids from the community at his kids and youth programs, and it's not uncommon in churches I've seen. Where I teach isn't like that, which is one reason I like it there so much. The main two churches there have very diverse youth groups, but that's not common around here. Of course people congregate where they commune, so I'm not referring to the community segregation of lots of churches, but to practicing segregation policies. The worst I ever knew was a former classmate whose church told her when she got married her black friends couldn't be in the wedding. They could only come as guests. Of course she didn't stay at that church, but she had no idea it was like that until that point because the issue had never come up. I quit my local church and I suspect but don't know that they're like that. I thought about going to the black church up the road from it, but that would just be using them to try to gig my white neighbors. Like I told my MIL, I've found that my faith is more solid when I stay out of church. 29466. Ms. No - 6/24/2009 3:23:06 AM Pelty,
I think you misread me. I am quite aware of the fact that I disdain a small minority of politicized Christians. That is at the root of my post. There is a vicious minority of self-identified Christians who have usurped the name as if they are the only Christians in the world and all Christians think and feel as they do. They have made it difficult for less politically and socially rabid Christians to receive an open welcome from non-theists or theists of other faiths.
I liken it to the Rush Limbaughs and Anne Coulters of the world giving Republicans a bad name.
Part of my irritation --- a very small part --- is the passing into memory of denominational identifiers. Nobody much says anymore "I'm a Lutheran" or "I'm a Methodist" and those distinctions really aren't useless.
I think the habit of dropping those identifiers has been triggered by the far-right Evangelical movement's attempt to own the word "Christian."
It results in stupidities like claiming that Catholics aren't Christians.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
