WaPo - "Religion: The Ultimate Tyranny" by Paula Kirby

[onager]

In response to a claim that "religion is the source of freedom:"

Religion is the very antithesis of freedom, insisting on our complete subjugation to the unachievable demands of an invisible but supremely powerful overlord...

Religion delights in petty rules and the exercise of power over its followers. What theistic religion does not attempt to curtail believers' freedom with nonsensical decrees about foods that may or may not be eaten, fibers that may or may not be worn, days on which they may or may not work, coverings that must or must not be worn on their heads, books that must or must not be read, images that may or may not be created, words that may or may not be spoken, ideas they may or may not explore, actions they may or may not perform, rituals - whether physical or symbolic - they must perform in order to cleanse themselves of impurities of religion's own invention...?

Religion is the ultimate slavery: it is the slavery of the mind, slavery to the fear of divine judgment and damnation. The devilish irony consists in the fact that 'divine judgment' and 'damnation' are themselves the inventions of religion: religion creates and exquisitely perfects the fear, then cynically declares itself the sole and indispensable liberator from it.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/paula_kirby/2011/02/religion_the_ultimate_tyranny.html

[NeoGreen]

1. Amen... (nt)

[trotsky]

2. Fantastic quote.

"religion creates and exquisitely perfects the fear, then cynically declares itself the sole and indispensable liberator from it"

[cleanhippie]

3. +1

[AlecBGreen]

11. I disagree so much its hard to know where to begin

My belief in Christ has absolutely nothing to do with fear. "Fear of God" as so often found in the bible doesnt mean a whimpering, cowering attitude of terror, but rather a respect for Gods power.

My belief in Christ has shown me that there is NO THING to fear, not man, not death, not hell, NO THING. "Perfect love drives out all fear."

Any fear that is in my heart, that cold-sweat, empty-stomach quaking sense of terror is simply my temporary lack of trust in God. The more I explore my faith, the less fear I feel in my life. That is notable because I was by nature a timid, often-scared person.

Simply put, there is no room for fear in my life. When it arises, I just acknowledge it, smile, and try to move on.

Anyone who wants to see a 'true' Christian response to fear should watch "Mugabe and the White African" on Netflix.

ETA: It will be difficult to discuss this topic w/o first agreeing on the existence of different levels (and therefore definitions) of fear. For the sake of this thread, I believe that are two types: fear as in a healthy respect for power, and fear as in quaking, shaking terror.

[darkstar3]

16. And so you admit that your religion serves as liberator from fear?

"The more I explore my faith, the less fear I feel in my life."

We may never know where your fear came from, because most people aren't that introspective, but we do know what quells your fear, and that is your religion. Tell me this: Have you ever considered, just for a moment, the possibility that your religion/faith may just be a magic feather?

[AlecBGreen]

18. yes, absolutely

Have you ever considered, just for a moment, the possibility that your religion/faith may just be a magic feather?

So, you might ask, what makes you so sure it isnt just a psychological safety blanket? There are two answers, one of which would take all night and many cold beers between us. The short answer is, I choose not to believe that. I have experienced things which make me think that God is real and that is all I can offer you DS3.

[trotsky]

24. It's funny that you say you disagree "so much"...

and yet your post only serves to clarify just how true that quote is.

[pokerfan]

15. along a similar theme

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." (Attributed to Denis Diderot)

Enlightenment philosophers were such an unservile lot.

[struggle4progress]

4. Let My People Go - Paul Robeson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtLcELU1brA

[struggle4progress]

5. Marian Anderson: Go Down, Moses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY3pOa0lqCI

[AlecBGreen]

6. Christianity

What theistic religion does not attempt to curtail believers' freedom with nonsensical decrees about foods that may or may not be eaten, fibers that may or may not be worn, days on which they may or may not work, coverings that must or must not be worn on their heads, books that must or must not be read, images that may or may not be created, words that may or may not be spoken, ideas they may or may not explore, actions they may or may not perform, rituals - whether physical or symbolic - they must perform in order to cleanse themselves of impurities of religion's own invention...?

According to the way I was raised, according to my understanding of Scripture, according to my pastor, and in agreement with my brothers & sisters at my church, Christianity is that religion. We are free from dietary law, we may wear whatever fiber we choose, we may work or refrain from work on any day of the week. We are not required to cover our heads and we are free to read, think or discuss any topic. There are actions we are not to perform (sins such as murder & adultery) but that is not unique to religion. In short, her rhetorical question is aimed at a half-truth.

So who says you are right, Alec, and others are wrong? As I said, this is strictly my interpretation. If others feel constrained by OT law or other interpretations, they may worship and live as they see fit. Our area has many mennonites (similar to Amish) and I do not laugh or look down upon their decision to dress more modestly or abide by other restrictions. I think the Wiccan creed applies here: Harm None, Do Ye As Ye Will.

[darkstar3]

9. Not so much.

I was raised a Christian, and the following things were improper:

Working on Sunday (but only because you would miss church)
The uncovered legs or bust of a woman in church.
Blasphemy/swearing/and various books and movies about which the pastor had a bug up his ass.

Now most of those rules may not have been part of your church, but I guarantee you the blasphemy and speech limitations apply. What was that one unforgivable sin that every church seems to believe in?

[AlecBGreen]

13. Did you get the feeling that your pastor did it as the OP describes?

"Religion delights in petty rules and the exercise of power over its followers."

Do you feel that was their motivation, to flex their muscles, or because they thought it was right and proper to behave in such a way? There is a difference. I have rules in my classroom, not because I enjoy dominating students, but because certain rules are necessary to create an atmosphere conducive to learning. Likewise, some belief sets dictate what you can and cannot wear, not because they want to show you who's boss, but because they feel it is wrong to dress 'provocatively.'

[darkstar3]

14. 2 things:

1. You moved the goalposts.
2. You cannot deny that many religious rules, like modest dress, are petty, and serve to ensure the behavior modification and therefore obedience of the followers. The individual pastor may or may not have delighted in the interpretation and pontification of those rules, but then he is not the religion.

(side note: the personification of religion in some of these paragraphs is a little club-footed, but the words are somewhat garbled the gist of the writing is on point.)

[AlecBGreen]

22. I do not believe rules re: modest dress are petty

Now I am going to put on my asbestos flame-suit for this, but I think people SHOULD dress modestly. If I have children, I will not allow them to dress in ways that reveal too much. Why? Because when kids are teenagers they tend to focus on a few things, chief among those are fitting in and exploring their sexuality. I refuse to let my child dress in such a way that they begin to see their self-worth in terms of their appearance and their ability to attract others sexually. That mindset is destructive and I have seen what it can lead to. They may hate me for it at the time, but so be it. I realize this is an EXTREMELY slippery slope (making decisions for others in their supposed best-interest) but what else can parents do? Set NO boundaries and let children determine EVERY limit for themself? Most would agree of course not, kids need rules. So the question becomes, where do we (as parents) draw the line? Where do we make decisions, and what do we allow the kids to choose for themselves? At what age? To what extent? I have no kids but this question occupies my mind a great deal. I am trying my best to find that fine line between creating boundaries and allowing kids to explore on their own. Thongs on a middle-schooler are one of those things I will decide, regardless of how my kid feels.

Back to religion. I think pastors face the same dilemma. Where do they draw the line? As spiritual leaders accountable to God, how much is non-negotiable? Each pastor, like each parent, is different. Some are on the obedience-at-all-costs side of the spectrum and others are at the do-what-you-will end. Most are somewhere in the middle.

Ok, ramble off.

[darkstar3]

34. Unfortunately, the rules ARE petty, and one-sided,

and while your language is clearly chosen with care, your examples show a definitely one-sided view of the modest dress issue.

Why are the rules petty? Because they leave out the concept of male self-control.

[AlecBGreen]

37. we disagree on the 'petty-ness'

I do agree they are one sided in the vast majority of cases. Except for the Amish & Mennonites, I think most dress codes apply to women only. We recently had a Mennonite guest to our church and a friend said 'Did you see the hooks on his shirt?' I said what are you talking about? Apparently the old-order Mennonites (more conservative) think buttons are too flashy. That is a little overboard in my opinion, but to each their own.

Why are the rules petty? Because they leave out the concept of male self-control.

I think it takes both men and women. Men are not animals and should be expected to act like civilized creatures. Contain yourself. There is NOTHING a women can wear that justifies any sexual assault, ever. Period. On the same note, I think women should not intentionally wear provocative clothing in order to use their sexuality as a tool to get what they want.

[darkstar3]

38. We're gonna get this thread moved to GD

if we keep going on this track.

You assume that when I say "self-control" I'm talking about refraining from sexual assault. You also assume that women dress provocatively only in order to get what they want. Those are big assumptions.

[AlecBGreen]

28. perhaps

...I guarantee you the blasphemy and speech limitations apply.

If by speech limitations you mean swearing, I do not know for certain, but judging from what I know of my fellow congregants, they would frown upon cussing and pull me aside ("Hey, do you mind? My kids are here...") but I doubt they would condemn me to hell for it.

As for blasphemy, that is a very broad topic, in which I am engaged with my pastor. We are discussing the topic of homosexuality and I asked him, "I think being gay isnt a sin, I think gays engaging in a long-term sexual relationship isnt a sin, and I think both government and Christianity should recognize gay marriage. What do you think?" This provoked a long discussion about what we MUST believe in common to share a church and what we can disagree upon yet remain together. Homosexuality is one of those issues where, while he thinks I am wrong, it isnt 'blasphemous' in the sense that my beliefs are so counter to Christianity that I should be expelled from the church.

There are of course other churches where my beliefs would get me thrown out. I disagree with that mentality.

[trotsky]

25. And you can thank secularism for that.

Your religion didn't free itself from so many fickle rules (though you still follow plenty), it had no choice but to adapt and change as society changed around it. Even the supposedly never-changing Catholic Church has undergone incredible transformation over the last couple of hundred years.

[AlecBGreen]

29. I can thank many for it, including secularists

As a Lutheran, I give a big shout out to Martin too.

[struggle4progress]

7. Louis Armstrong-Go Down Moses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&NR=1

[Bad Thoughts]

8. History's Most Tyrannical Man

His most evil speech:

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.
And I don't mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
And so I'm happy, tonight.
I'm not worried about anything.
I'm not fearing any man!
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!

Pure, absolute tyranny!

[darkstar3]

10. Your supposed counter-example

does nothing to respond to the OP. That man is not the institution of religion, nor is it reflected the other way round.

[Bad Thoughts]

12. "Religion is the antithesis of freedom"! eom.

[darkstar3]

17. One can fight for civil liberties in government while still being a slave to religion. nt

[Bad Thoughts]

21. King delivered African-Americans back into slavery?

Argue away.

[darkstar3]

35. Specious,

and an absurd play on the word slavery. Of course, you already knew that. King never delivered anyone from or "back into" slavery.

Would you like to try again to answer the point that "One can fight for civil liberties in government while still being a slave to religion"?

[Bad Thoughts]

44. I need not answer your question

The article in the OP speaks of the necessary effects of religion on human freedom. It is to that I am responding. I don't need to confirm or deny that religion--people and institutions--can work against liberation. I has. Nonetheless, it has also has advocated for it

[darkstar3]

47. People have advocated for it.

Religion hasn't advocated for anything, because a non-sentient concept cannot be an advocate. Religion is a control structure, often a very strict one, and those in its control cannot be called liberated.

[Bad Thoughts]

19. You cannot divorce King from the AA Church

MLK was a product of the AA Church. He was a leader of the AA Church. You cannot somehow pretend that his convictions and occupations can be separated from on another. He was perhaps the best, but not the first, representative of a tradition that dealt with political inequalities as part of a promotion of Christianity. He was as concerned with his own morality as that of his congregation. As other leaders of the AA Church before him, he used the language and principles of Christianity to shape non-violent opposition and to remind larger American society of its obligations.

[darkstar3]

20. See #17.

[trotsky]

27. Do you recall, perhaps, what institution...

was one of the chief justifications for slavery in the first place?

[Bad Thoughts]

30. The fist?

The sword?
The hierarchy?
Privitization?
SOCIALIZATION OF PRODUCTION?

Religion was just a follower.

Besides, the article quote by the OP establishes a NECESSITY about religion and its effect on freedom. Not a proclivity or tendency. A necessity.

[trotsky]

31. Then religion was just a follower for MLK as well.

You aren't allowed a double standard.

[Bad Thoughts]

No double standard

When the man with the collar goes out to tell people the slave owner is right, he's following. He isn't establishing slavery, but nefariously representing it.


When the man with the collar tells the owner he's wrong, he's leading. He is positively pushing for change.

[trotsky]

39. No, of course not.

Because you say so.

I totally understand. :eyes:

[Bad Thoughts]

46. You must understand

With your moniker, you must be familiar with the subordinate role of religion in the construction of power relations.

[trotsky]

50. Maybe if my handle had anything to do with the historical Trotsky.

However either way, that's a big fat red herring.

[AlecBGreen]

33. wrong

I never met MLK Jr. but I will say this with full confidence: his faith was the cornerstone of his quest for racial equality.

For those who condoned slavery, a way was found to justify it but their belief did not cause them to seek it.

There is a difference between using your faith to justify something and your faith using you to accomplish something.

[darkstar3]

36. Does the hammer use the hand?

Does your computer use you?

Faith doesn't use you.

[AlecBGreen]

41. Not an accurate comparison

Obviously one must believe in God to make this assertion, but faith is more than a tool, it is a partnership, a two-way street.

[darkstar3]

42. The psychological benefits you derive

from, for lack of a better phrase, a positive outlook do not constitute a two-way street.

[AlecBGreen]

45. yes, you are right, I misspoke

I should have been using the term 'belief' in this context, not faith. While to me the word faith can be substituted for belief, it is not the most agreed upon usage of the word. To rephrase, I mean to say a belief in God is a two-way street, a partnership. It is more than world-view; it is a relationship.

[darkstar3]

48. The foundation of a good relationship is good communication.

How does this God practice good communication?

[cleanhippie]

53. If that is the case, then believers are getting the short end of that stick.

[trotsky]

56. How can it be a "two-way street" when your god...

obviously created us with the intention of keeping us inferior and ignorant?

[AlecBGreen]

57. is that rhetorical or would you truly like to hear my response?

n/t

[trotsky]

58. Oh I already know how most Christians evade that question.

If you think you have something new to say that I've never heard before, lay it on me.

[AlecBGreen]

59. now you've made me curious

Ill happily answer your question. but first, would you mind telling me how you think the majority of Christians respond? I promise not to change my response based on what you say, Id just like to get your first impression before I give you my answer.

[trotsky]

70. Naw, how about you give me your answer first.

And I'll see how different you can be.

Problem is, the relationship will always be creator-created. There will never be equality in that relationship, because your god, if it exists, deliberately created inferiors. Flawed inferiors. Almost as if it had some self-esteem issues and needed to have playthings that would fear and worship it in order to soothe its fragile ego.

[humblebum]

83. I know the "creator-created" thing is just wrong, and I don't like it,

and I don't believe in it. Therefore, I say that it does not exist. Sounds like sound reasoning to me. (SARCASM)

[darkstar3]

84. This charicature brought to you by "straws-R-us".

[humblebum]

86. I think you are conflating "strawsRus" with barb.

conflation conflation conflation, I tell you.

[trotsky]

88. If that bore even a passing resemblance to my point, I'd be devastated.

But like everything you write, it misses the mark completely.

[humblebum]

92. Sorry to see you are so devastated. nt

[AlecBGreen]

114. ok you asked for it :)

Just to recap, here is where we are in our conversation.

Alec: "a belief in God is a two-way street, a partnership. It is more than world-view; it is a relationship."

Trotsky: "How can it be a "two-way street" when your god... obviously created us with the intention of keeping us inferior and ignorant?"

I will overlook the notion that you cannot have a two-way relationship between 'inferiors' and 'superiors.' Just ask my boss.

I want to address the meat of your question, namely, 'how/why did God create us with the intention of keeping us inferior and ignorant?" I believe the creator made us for many reasons: to know it, love it, serve it and glorify it, in no particular order. We cannot say, "how arrogant! how conceited & selfish!" because that is not our place. Could you say that to your own mother or father for making you? Parenting is much more than just the biological need to reproduce; its creating something to love and to in turn love you back; its about shaping the world through the next generation by passing on what you heave learned and believe. Such might it be like with God.

So we have a relationship with God as creator-created. My job is to learn my role in that relationship by using the bible and my God-given brain, logic, and intuition. I can read what others say; I can pray/meditate; I can attend church; I can have discussions on internet forums. You get the point. So I am to inform myself of my role as best I can, then do it. I should seek to learn til my last day. Even then, I will never know the entire scope. To that extent, I believe we will remain ignorant. The human brain isnt hardwired to get the whole picture. I have no problem with that because I think there is nothing that can be understood fully. Then again I may be wrong, in which case, woohoo! Supreme knowledge IS attainable! So the question of ignorance is moot to me.

Inferiority is a problem of the ego, not a statement of fact. Which is greater: Van Gogh or Starry Night? The painter, the creator, is glorified by what he made. Because his works were magnificent, we praise their beauty and we give great honor he who made them. So both are glorified. So it is with God. But while both are worthy of attention, only one deserves the credit: the creator. It does not need the creation, quite the contrary. We are shown this relationship perfectly by the trinity. Three-in-one, coequal, yet two subordinate to one. Illogical? Yes perhaps. But here is the amazing part: not only are we called into a relationship with God, we are to be given a seat at the family table! Christ said many times and in many ways that when we invite him into our heart, the Father & Holy Spirit come in with him. If you have read the whole New Testament, you will find each of these declarations by Christ: "The father is in me," "I am in the Father", "the Father and I are one." Clear enough? Then he goes on to say "Remain in me and I will remain in you." So in this way, by accepting our role are creatED things, we can become one with the creator and share the glory. Being invited to become a member of the family doesnt sound 'inferior' to me.

[trotsky]

141. There is a distinction between a "two-way" relationship...

And what you said: "a two-way street, a partnership".

There can be no partnership when one of the partners is infinitely superior to the other, as you readily admit you believe. And I'm sorry, but your attempt to make an analogy to an artist creating a piece of work is disturbing. You're reducing humanity to a piece of art that god created that someone else would be impressed with. You've made my point even stronger - there is no two-way relationship going on here. We are a scribble on the refrigerator and we're supposed to be grateful for that, it seems.

[trotsky]

40. You say "wrong" but you admit you never met him.

Are we to believe that MLK wouldn't have been a decent man without religion? Is that what you're telling us?

"his faith was the cornerstone of his quest for racial equality"

Just as Fred Phelps' faith is the cornerstone of his hatred and bigotry against homosexuals.

Can't have it both ways.

[AlecBGreen]

43. this is my point:

what I wrote about MLK: "his faith was the cornerstone of his quest for racial equality"

what you wrote about Fred Phelps: "(his) faith is the cornerstone of his hatred and bigotry against homosexuals."

Both of these men's faith has been the cornerstone of their actions, for good or for evil.

Are we to believe that MLK wouldn't have been a decent man without religion? Is that what you're telling us?

No that is not what I am saying. Laying aside the notion that we can reduce a person to their parts (an impossibility) if it were somehow possible to remove MLK's faith, I believe he would have been a 'decent man.' Would he have been a moral crusader to the extent that he was? No, I do not believe he would have been.

[trotsky]

49. "No, I do not believe he would have been."

That borders on religious bigotry.

Disgusting.

[AlecBGreen]

51. wow Trotsky

sometimes your responses are so overboard I dont know whether to laugh or cry. You think its 'disgusting' I believe MLK's faith played a large role in his crusade for equal rights? Whatever it is that happened to you to make you hate belief in God THIS MUCH, Im sorry. I hope you have a good day tomorrow.

[trotsky]

52. No, what I find disgusting...

is that you don't think someone would have been as good a person if he hadn't been religious.

I don't hate belief in gods, I hate bigotry, and sadly, that's gone hand-in-hand with religion since it began.

[humblebum]

85. Never let it be said that atheists can be bigots.

(SARCASM)

[trotsky]

89. Please, for the love of Satan, take a logic class.

Oy.

[onager]

54. Religion was "just a follower?"

:rofl:

"(Slavery) was established by decree of Almighty God and is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments from Genesis to Revelation." - Jefferson Davis, first (and last) president, Confederate States of America.

So why would he think that, if religion was "just a follower?"

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years...If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2 -6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21: 7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

But how 'bout that liberal New Testament?

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

[Bad Thoughts]

55. What an anachronism!

Jefferson Davis was a witness to what happened in Ancient Times! No wonder that guy is rolling around laughing: he can't believe the very thing you are writing!

The Bible is not documentary evidence on the evolution of slavery. However, if we were to take it that way, you should note that every one of your quotations would be excluded. Mention of slavery occurs before any of the codifications that occurred in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. So, if we take the Bible as the story of slavery (it is not) we would have to conclude that, indeed, the laws regarding slavery were reflections of existing property relations.

[onager]

135. This makes no sense...

But I'll give it a whack.

Jefferson Davis was a witness to what happened in Ancient Times! No wonder that guy is rolling around laughing: he can't believe the very thing you are writing!

WTF? No, Davis was using the Bible to justify slavery. His Dixie descendants are slightly more liberal and still use it to justify segregation. I'm from South Carolina and grew up hearing it justified, often right from the pulpit.

The Bible is not documentary evidence on the evolution of slavery...

But it speaks very approvingly of the practice, and lays down rules for slave-owning, just exactly as it lays down rules against murder and the coveting of asses. The rest of your paragraph seems to be just the usual special pleading and obfuscation.

Except for this part:

...we would have to conclude that, indeed, the laws regarding slavery were reflections of existing property relations.

Biblical "property relations" included the ownership of other human beings. That was exactly my point. Thanks!

[Bad Thoughts]

139. You've changed your position

Now it's enough to say that religion reflected and justified property relations? That was my position. You're just being a jerk.

[onager]

132. Fun quiz for the King-slingers...

Q: Who were the principal organizers of King's 1963 March On Washington?

A: Bayard Rustin (atheist) and A. Philip Randolph (agnostic). Rustin was also an openly gay leftist. He knew he would never be accepted as a civil rights leader in One Nation Under Jebus But Not In The Biblical Sense, and stayed in the background.

Q: The principal founders of the NAACP were Roy Wilkins, Walter White, James Weldon Johnson and W.E.B. DuBois. What did they have in common?

A: They all self-identified as agnostics, according to the Black American Free Thought Association.

But OK, most black civil rights leaders/agitators/artists were Xian, just like Oprah Winfrey. If we leave out Frederick Douglass, H.H. Harrison, James Baldwin, Richard Wright, Gregory Gross, Zora Neale Hurston, Alice Walker, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, Lorraine Hansberry, Gwendolyn Brooks, Langston Hughes, Thelma "Butterfly" McQueen, etc. etc.

"I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs." - Frederick Douglass

Oh, and there's this...

MLK Proud to Walk with Humanists

By RUTH N. GELLER
HumanistNetworkNews.org
Jan. 23, 2008

Non-theists have always been present, but not usually visible, in the fight for black civil rights...

King knew he had the support of many secular humanists and thanked "the thousands of humanists who were involved in the civil rights movement" in his book, "Strength to Love," according to Norm Allen Jr., the executive director of the Buffalo-based African Americans for Humanism...

McKinley Jones, the president of the Albany-based Black American Free thought Association (BAFTA), has said that it is little known that many champions of civil rights were humanists and freethinkers...

Asa Philip Randolph...was instrumental in helping King organize the 1963 March on Washington, along with Bayard Rustin, a pacifist and gay man...

According to research done by Jones, Randolph was also an agnostic. At first open about his views, he later toned himself down after backlash from the black community.

Playwright Lorraine Hansberry, whose best known work is "A Raisin in the Sun," identified herself as a strong secular humanist...

The playwright said that we only revert back to mystical ideas, which, in her opinion, included contemporary religious views, because we are simply confronted with some things we don't yet understand...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=363172

[Sal316]

23. The rantings of a jilted spouse....

...someone who's faith was built on such a weak foundation, that when the first crack appeared, it leveled the entire thing.

There's absolutely nothing new in this article, which is simply a rehash of the same old arguments taken from a strictly literalist position, resulting in an atheism that is simply a mirror image of the cartoon-like theology it opposes.

[trotsky]

26. Surely you realize, Sal, that this allegedly "cartoon-like" theology...

...has tens, if not hundreds of millions more followers than YOUR particular interpretation does. You are in a tiny, tiny minority among believers. Sorry to have to break this to you.

[rug]

60. Sorry to break this to you.

One billion Catholics are not literalists.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_rb.html

Your views are colored by giving American fundamentalists more theological prominence than the evidence warrants.

[darkstar3]

61. One billion Catholics believe in servitude on pain of Hell.

Unless, of course, they disagree with the official Church position.

Furthermore, EVERYONE who bases their belief on the Bible treats it literally in some places and metaphorically in others. You do, after all, believe that Jesus was the son of God just like your Catholic brethren, correct?

[rug]

62. What Chick cartoon are you reading?

[darkstar3]

63. The Catechism, as we've argued over before.

[rug]

64. "Belief in servitude on pain of hell" is in the Catechism?

Learn something new every day.

[darkstar3]

65. Oh, yes, play the direct quote game,

and join the ranks of those incapable of understanding summarization. Did you stop studying the concepts of English and reading comprehension in primary school?

[rug]

66. It was unfair of me to quote you.

[darkstar3]

67. Oh! Whatever shall I do against such cow's-tongue wit?

(In case you're wondering, "slow, sloppy, and soft"...of course, you're probably used to those comparisons.)

[rug]

68. Whaever you usually do with a cow's tongue.

:shrug:

[trotsky]

69. Oh, is Sal a Catholic?

Perhaps you can let him speak for himself.

But maybe you could tell me, are Catholics not told what they can or cannot put on their penis during intercourse?

Are they not told what medication they may or may not take to prevent pregnancy?

Are they not told what foods they should or should not consume during certain times of the year?

Or are one billion Catholics free - with their church's official blessing - to do whatever they want with their one-eyed trouser snake, their hormones, and their diets?

[rug]

71. Don't know, but your cartoon theology isn't.

[trotsky]

72. Please check my edit - more questions for you! Thanks ruggy! n/t

[rug]

73. Answers!

Yes, yes, yes, no.

You do realize it is a voluntary decision to be Catholic.

Now, some questions for you.

Do you choose what you can or cannot put on your penis during intercourse?

Do you choose what medication you may or may not take?

Do you choose what foods you should or should not consume?

Do you choose to do whatever you want with your one-eyed trouser snake, your hormones, and your diet?

Do you make these choices in splendid monad-like isolation?

Do you resent others making these choices on whatever basis they wish?

[trotsky]

74. I get to choose on all of those!

But your church officially dictates to its TRUE members what they must do on all of those. Go ahead - get an audience with the pope and tell him you use condoms, that your daughter takes the pill. See what he thinks about that!

Your church is just as guilty of declaring arbitrary rules as the "cartoonish" theology the OP is accused of portraying. This must have struck pretty close to home, I guess.

[rug]

75. Do you actually believe that?

No wonder you're always pissed off.

Hell, no wonder I can't get an audience with the Pope. :cry:

[trotsky]

76. So now you're denying there is an official church position on all those items?

Seriously? rug, you redefine the phrase "cafeteria Catholic."

[rug]

77. An official position is hardly a "dictate" instilling consternation at risking the Pope's disfavor.

The nature of life is to strive to do what's right, occasionally succeeding.

Promulgating caricature is not.

[trotsky]

78. Bwah ha ha ha.

CLEARLY this is one of those items that really ruffles your feathers.

No, not following the church's dictates doesn't just piss your pope off. It can mean excommunication. So, no big deal. Follow your conscience. Heh heh.

The bottom line is, your church issues rules JUST LIKE the "cartoonish" theology in the OP. That's the point, and one that you are unable to deny. The best you can do is say that you don't "have" to follow them. But the rules are there. The official Catholic theology, then, is "cartoonish" according to you.

[rug]

79. Sure, it does, Pogo.

[darkstar3]

81. Well, now, if you're refusing to see the cartoonish nature of the theology,

and the possibility of excommunication for disobeying the hierarchy of your church, take some time to read about the St. Stanislaus controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stanislaus_Kostka_Church_%28St._Louis,_Missouri%29

If that action by the church hierarchy doesn't reek of petty attitudes, as well as a desperate attempt to maintain theological purity at the expense of the laypeople, I don't know what does.

[rug]

90. That has more to do with power than theology.

What's more interesting in the Polish National catholic Church, which began in response to ethnic hostility but has now raised some theological disputes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_National_Catholic_Church

[darkstar3]

93. In the Catholic Church, they are one and the same,

hence the fact that this dispute was over canonical law.

[rug]

94. If you believe that you understand neither.

[darkstar3]

112. If you think the Catholic hierarchy doesn't use theology to exert power, you're hopeless.

[rug]

124. Neverttheless, they remain different things.

[darkstar3]

127. There are none so blind...

[rug]

131. ...as those who cannot see differences.

[darkstar3]

134. So idiom isn't your strong suit, either...

[trotsky]

82. I'm glad you recognize the official Catholic Church theology is cartoonish.

There's hope for you yet.

[rug]

91. It wasn't the RCC I called Pogo.

[trotsky]

95. Yeah I know, you switch to pathetic one-liners when you've lost the argument.

You're wholly and sadly predictable.

[rug]

97. "You're wholly and sadly predictable."

Nice pathetic one-liner.

What next, I'm rubber you're glue?

[trotsky]

98. Hey when you've given up and can only toss the one-liners,

why should I still try?

At this point I just enjoy taking up your time. Because you just can't quit me.

[rug]

103. Is there something I should know?

That's more than once you've said that to me.

Not that your personality is anything but alluring.

[trotsky]

107. Oh I think you already know.

You little devil, you.

[darkstar3]

80. Aside from the obvious canard you have created here regarding choice, I have a nit to pick.

"You do realize it is a voluntary decision to be Catholic."

Is it? What of all the children who were raised Catholic from their infancy? Did they choose to be Catholic, or are they still a part of the faith thanks to the fear instilled in them at a young age by Catholic authority figures?

If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Muslim. Would that have been your choice? Undoubtedly you would think so, but I disagree. The religion you espouse is dictated far more by the religion of your family or chosen friends than it ever will be by your individual decision.

For a great many people, being Catholic is not a voluntary decision.

[humblebum]

87. "What of all the children who were raised Catholic from their infancy?"

What's even more revolting than that is radical atheists trying to dictate what families teach to their children, as if atheist parents aren't teaching their children some things that others do not find proper.

[cleanhippie]

99. Oh, please. Evidence of that? No, you made it up.

[humblebum]

105. Well, Let's see for starts,Comrade Dawkins signed a petition

with many other atheists to make it illegal to teach religion in the home to children under the age of 16.

"In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought." He later recanted saying that he didn't understand what he was signing. Right!!? What about all of the others though?

And then: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/67378,people,news,richard-dawkins-force-faith-schools-to-teach-all-religion-education-atheism

[cleanhippie]

108. The headline of your link states -Dawkins: faith schools should teach all religion

He ENCOURAGES religious instruction, just not indoctrination. And whats with "comrade dawkins"? No need for that, unless you are trying to conflate atheism and communism, again.

Where is the paragraph you quoted in your post? Its not in that article you linked to.

[humblebum]

109. Well for heaven's sake decide whether that is atheistic thought or

communistic thought.(SARCASM) When a Soviet leader says it, it's communistic, but when a non-communistic atheist says the same thing it's atheistic? I'm so confused.

And it is two separate references. The petition was about making teaching in the home illegal, back in 2006 - big news. Now, it's about forcing schools associated with a particular religion (parochial schools)to teach other religions besides their own.(2010) But of course you well know that these sentiments are expressed quite regularly in the media. The issue at hand is freedom of religion and for parents to be able to teach their children as they see fit.

[darkstar3]

113. Dawkins isn't a Communist, and has never said anything that a Communist has said,

so your defense of "says the same thing" is total bullshit. You simply wish to compare all current vocal atheists to Communist dictators, and your schtick is tired.

Now, about that petition and your idea that religious freedom requires fighting it: What about the religious freedom of those children you're so concerned about? Why can't we let those kids grow up while learning about ALL religious positions, and then let them make their own INFORMED decisions? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do if we were defending religious freedom?

[humblebum]

115. Religious freedom includes parents being able to teach and rear their

children as they see fit. That I believe in. Is that position absolute? No. Parents must still do their jobs as parents within the framework of the law.

And about it being illegal to teach religion to children at home. That indeed was one of the acts considered illegal in the Soviet Union and children were encouraged to turn their parents into the authorities as a patriotic duty.

[darkstar3]

116. So the child has no religious freedom?

[humblebum]

117. Up to a certain age, no. If parents aren't allowed to teach and influence their children,

someone else will. That someone else should not be BIG BROTHER.

[darkstar3]

119. And what age is that?

Who gets to define that age?

What about the fact that certain teachings, like you can kill anyone you disagree with, are abhorrent and completely incompatible with our society?

Total parental control over the minds and lives of their children is a mistake, and that's why we have the Department of Family Services. It's a difficult area to legislate in, to be certain, but I think that any attempt to allow children more religious freedom, and to ensure that well-educated, open-minded individuals are inheriting our society, is a great and progressive thing. In case you missed it, that's the idea behind some of these petitions. It's not about denying parents the right to teach their children, it's about preventing children from being completely indoctrinated while being denied their own freedom.

It's so far from Big Brother I'm not even sure you'd be able to grasp the concept.

[humblebum]

120. I said within the law. That is commonly understood. And NO,

that is definitely BIG BROTHER. And there is rarely such a thing as total parental control, at least here. we live in an open society.

[darkstar3]

121. You're advocating for total parental control.

You believe that you, as a religious parent, should be able to teach your child whatever you see fit about religion, and bar your child from receiving information about religion that you find distasteful. At least, you think you should be able to do this "up to a certain age", which you refuse now to define.

And Big Brother is all about control, which you would know if you had studied half as much as you claim. Liberating people by ensuring that they receive as much knowledge as humanly possible is the opposite of control.

[AlecBGreen]

126. IIRC we had this discussion too DS3

(I think it was you, might have been cleanhippie).

This is something I think about often. To what extent do we try to impose our beliefs on our children? Some go to one extreme and attempt to enforce ALL their beliefs on their children, others give almost no guidance at all. I think we can all agree we cant set our children adrift and give them no instruction in what we feel is 'right' and 'true.' So I suppose we parents must each draw our line where we see fit. I personally believe in God and so I will show this to my children. I will simultaneously urge them to exercise logic, reason and intuition. Beyond that, I dont know what Im gonna do when the first little BGreen shows up!

Im already a Godfather to my best friends little girl and its got me thinking. Here she is :)

[darkstar3]

128. Here's a good place to start:

Don't shelter them. Religious freedom means being allowed to make one's own choices, and allowing someone that freedom requires that you refrain from restricting the flow of information.

And BTW, I don't think we conversed on this topic. I generally stay away from parenthood discussions unless I am baited into them. But then, when you know you can fin-slap the fisher and get away clean, why not take the bait? ;)

[AlecBGreen]

129. I agree 100%

"Don't shelter them. Religious freedom means being allowed to make one's own choices, and allowing someone that freedom requires that you refrain from restricting the flow of information."

And dont feel bad about being drawn in... who can resist that cute face :7

[humblebum]

136. I favor letting parents decide for their children generally

what is right and wrong, and that includes religion. It is not a perfect system. There is no such thing, but if the parents' choice of religion is dictated, the line is definitely crossed. Voila Big Brother. And no,I do not consider Dawkins a communist.

[darkstar3]

137. And I've known too many incompetent, short-sighted parents to agree.

Children should be given as much unbiased information about the world, and about religion, as possible. Parents are very often not up to that task. The old hippie saying of "it takes a village to raise a child" has its roots in the fact that exposure to many points of view at a young age breeds uncommon wisdom.

[humblebum]

142. And so you feel that because some parents are, to you, "incompetent, short-sighted"

that you know what is best for them? What if I were to consider you incompetent and short-sighted? Then where do we go? The "system" as it is today is imperfect by any measure and parents are required by law to abide by certain standards that are set by their respective communities. The ultimate responsibility for the well-being of children lies both with the parents and the educational system. If the government begins to dictate religious training in the home, a clear violation of the separation of C&S will have occurred. Dawkins refers to the age of 16. That is the subject of this conversation and that is the age that I am referring to. Again, there is no perfect system, but what Dawkins has suggested crosses the line in my opinion and needs to be guarded against.

[darkstar3]

143. A few things for you to consider.

1. The link you posted above for confirmation of your claims regarding Dawkins and the petition doesn't have the paragraph you supposedly quoted.

2. The petition you have a bug up your ass about refers to "regular religious teaching" and also regards defining children as members of a religion. Regular religious teaching would be repeated and structured instruction in one particular faith. The petition, not legislation, if it had any effect at all, would serve only to force parents to include more information in the education of their children. Your narrow reading of the summary may tell you that parents will be barred from teaching their children anything about religion, but as I see it, parents would simply be required to teach their children more about religion, including all points of view. Preventing indoctrination and protecting the religious freedom of the children in question is not a bad thing. And I think we can both agree that referring to a 6-year-old as, say, a Presbyterian is a bit much.

3. It may have escaped your notice, but Dr. Dawkins happens to be British. Separation of Church and State is an American concept, and so for you to be upset about this particular petition and Dawkins' supposed momentary support for it is rather pointless.

4. To say that "Dawkins has suggested" this type of regulation is to claim that he is the source of it. That is blatantly incorrect. Dawkins, according to your earlier accusation, simply signed a petition, and so he didn't "suggest" anything. You need to stop thinking of famous vocal atheists as leaders of legions of bogeymen.

5. You're backtracking when you say that you're referring to age 16, because in our conversation I asked you whether or not a child should have religious freedom in YOUR view, and you said "up to a certain age, no." And that's where you and I hit an impasse, because you are advocating that a child surrender their religious freedom in order to give the parents the supposed freedom of indoctrination.

6. To expound on something I addressed to Alec before, and on #5, and to quote something I wrote months ago:

The First Amendment guarantees the right of people to practice their religion in THREE very important ways. Free speech (for what is religion if not a special form of speech?), free exercise, and lack of Establishment. Taken together with the spirit and some of the letter of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, I propose that the Constitution lays down as the law of the land the following simple rule:

You are free to openly practice your religion anywhere within the US insofar as this practice does not deny to ANY others ANY of the rights, including religious, enumerated within the Constitution.

Oppression is indefensible. Denial of rights, of education, of medical care, of free reign over the small bit of turf contained within your own skin is IN. DE. FENSIBLE. And it is criminal to allow it, and it is disgusting to stand up for it, in a land of the ostensibly FREE.

Denying a child information or education by engaging in targeted religious indoctrination denies that child his or her Constitutional rights. To be clear: Parents have every right to educate their children about their own faith, but they have no right to bar their children from learning about others, and that learning should come through education. Knowledge is never a bad thing, and those who fear it do so to their own detriment, as well as the detriment of their children.

[humblebum]

144. It is hard to even know where to respond to each of your points.

I think I have made myself quite clear in far fewer words. I referenced both the wording of the petition from 2006 and another of Dawkins statements in 2010. And concerning, "Dr. Dawkins happens to be British. Separation of Church and State is an American concept." Separation of church and state is not a solely American concept. It goes back about 1500 years and exists in many countries in one form or another. And the fact that he is British, does not stop him from expressing many of his views here, which he regularly does.

"The First Amendment guarantees the right of people to practice their religion in THREE very important ways. Free speech (for what is religion if not a special form of speech?), free exercise, and lack of Establishment." You are right that there are 3 ways in the 1st amendmend: free exercise, free speech, and free assembly. Government cannot have an established religion.

"Dawkins has suggested" this type of regulation is to claim that he is the source of it." Suggesting something hardly means that that person originated the idea. I can suggest that we follow someone elses recommendation.

I made myself pretty clear in #142, I think. I really have nothing more to say on the matter.

[rug]

96. Adults choose.

Otherwise you're espousing a rather dim view of human autonomy.

To claim that a great many people adhere to a religion because of fears instilled in them as children is as valid - or invalid - as claiming a great many people are atheists due to a religious trauma experienced at an early age.

[cleanhippie]

100. Who claims that?

claiming a great many people are atheists due to a religious trauma experienced at an early age. Who claims that?

[rug]

101. It's the flip side of the claim that people are religious due to childhood fears.

They're both bullshit.

[cleanhippie]

102. So no one claims that then. You just made it up or what?

[rug]

104. Nice edit.

And prudent.

[cleanhippie]

106. I will take that as a yes, you made it up and no one but you claims that.

You non-denial is telling.

And regarding the edit, I changed my mind about how I wanted to respond. Problem with that?

[rug]

110. Cosidering your original post suggested religious belief is based childhood fears,

yes.

[cleanhippie]

118. It did? I responded to YOUR post. WTF?

I made no such claim at all.

[rug]

123. Yes it did.

[cleanhippie]

145. What are you talking about?

Here is YOUR post. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=272306&mesg_id=272636

YOU made the claim, not me. Then I responded to YOU.

[rug]

146. And you proceeded to question why the first claim is invalid - before the edit.

[cleanhippie]

147. and?

Its irrelevant. YOU made the claim, not me.

[rug]

148. Read it again

I said they're both bullshit.

What I find amusing - and relevant to gauging the worth of your opinions - is your reflexive defense of the claim that religious beliefs are based on childhood fears, followed by a quick edit to your regular posture of defender of false, and unsaid, slurs against atheism.

The process would make fascinating PET scans.

[cleanhippie]

149. That is some denial you have there.

[darkstar3]

111. I DO have a rather dim view of human autonomy.

We are slaves to our psychologies, our biology, and to a certain extent, our social norms. I base my observation from above on the many people I have talked with in real life about these topics, who tell me that they have renounced their religions due to conflicts of conscience, but that they retain their belief in God. Every time I press them for more info on why they retain these views, Pascal's Wager and various other fear-based explanations are cited.

There's a reason the Jesuits claim to be able to make a man by the age of six: Indoctrination works, and has long-term effects that are sometimes impossible to reverse. More proof of that can be found in the fact that the vast majority of people on this planet retain the faith of their parents.

Therefore, since it has been proven since time immemorial that indoctrination does indeed work, and indoctrination is used by religious parents to ensure that their children grow up in the "right" faith, I do believe that my claim is valid. And now that I've supported my claim through simple logic, perhaps you could support your equivocation?

[rug]

122. My anecdotes contradict yours.

Logic is only as good as its data.

[darkstar3]

125. My anecdotes weren't the source of my logic.

You need to read closer. Care to try again to prove your equivocation?

[rug]

130. "I base my observation from above on the many people I have talked with in real life"

Nope, it's still there.

As to the logic:

1) Indoctrination works;

2) Religious parents indoctrinate;

3) Ergo, religious adults believe due to indoctrination. Q.E.D.

The scope and applicability of the data contained in the two premises aside, does the causation contained in the syllogism really require refutation?

Though apples grow from seeds, and apples contain seeds, not all seeds are apple seeds.

[darkstar3]

133. Yeah, try again.

1. Indoctrination works.
2. Religious parents VERY OFTEN indoctrinate.
3. Ergo, A GREAT MANY religious adults believe due to childhood indoctrination.

As to your apple example, not ALL seeds are apple seeds, but many are.

Now, why don't you show me any logical way to verify that many or most atheists became atheists due to religious trauma at an early age?

[rug]

138. I never claimed that.

It's as bogus as the claim that religious belief is the product of childhood inddoctrination.

[darkstar3]

140. Well, if you keep leaving out words, you can make that equivocation.

The problem is, no one claimed that ALL religious belief is the product of childhood indoctrination. I simply said that for a great many people, it does happen.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate