The Glade 4.0

I object to Bery's way of thinking too. I don't, however, object to the fact that Bery takes his faith serious. Contrary to the cherished illusions of some people, "devout" is not a synonym for "unthinking".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How about Zealotry?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Not exactly a synonym, since a zealot may have thought about all the alternatives, considered them, and become a zealot anyhow. For practical purposes, however, zealots may as well be unthinking since they generally either haven't done this or didn't do a good job of it. That would also be Bery's real problem - not that he sincerely believes what he believes but that he can't conceive that anyone might find a flaw in it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Aye, I think devout was a poor choice of word. What I object to isn't people taking their beliefs seriously; it's the all-encompassing nature of some Christian culture in this country today. For many, their faith isn't just about their relationship with God, it's about their relationship with the world at large - they listen only/largely to Christian music; they send their kids to Christian camps and Christian schools; they reject a lot of mainstream culture as corrupt and immoral; they become "values voters" and seek to regulate or at least shame personal decisions about sex, drugs, marriage, etc.; and their social circle is dominated by others within that same mindset. In short, they exist in an echo chamber that fosters a narrow and self-reinforcing view of the world.

That's why I think Vind's point is at least partially wrong:



The reason I would worry less about her being an anti-Christian Atheist (though I wouldn't be "okay" with it) is that Atheists don't have a huge culture of other Atheists, complete with its own rituals, movie industries, schools, etc., encouraging her to organize her entire life around her Atheism and/or any accompanying anti-Christian prejudices. Consequently, if she were espousing zealous Atheism, I would take some comfort in the knowledge that she'd be more likely to just grow out of it over time. I would, however, much more aggressively push back against outright declarations of snobbery toward people of faith.

However, the reason I say Vind's point is only partially wrong, is that I'm not sure there isn't an element of bigotry in my concerns. Not anti-Christian bigotry, but more of a class- and culture-based bigotry. To be honest with myself, I have to acknowledge that I'd be less worried if she were becoming more serious about Catholicism or mainline Protestantism, even to the point of pursuing a Masters of Divinity or considering becoming a minister down the road. Now, part of that is because, as I said, most Catholics and mainline Protestants in the US, even those pursuing their religions professionally (i.e. Divinity scholars and ministers) don't organize their entire lives around their faith in quite the same way that the "fundamentalist" Christian churchgoers do. However, as valid as that distinction may be, I'd be fooling myself if I didn't recognize that I'm biased in favor of the Catholic & mainline Protestant routes because they're just more familiar to me as a middle-class New Englander with an Episcopal upbringing.

Guess I have some soul-searching of my own to do on that point.

Fundamentalism in any religion can lead to bad things if that person doesn't reality check themselves from time to time.

That said, I'm with many others here in that the decision is ultimately hers.

I think perhaps a discourse with her to the effect of asking her if she really wants this and if this will make her happy is in order.

Be supportive of her choice, but also voice your concern and at least inform her of what your views are.

RD, I'm glad you saw my comment for what it was, rather than an attack on you personally. We all have elements in our system of beliefs that we would do well to examine more closely.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Ok, look at your third sentence, the one I underlined. Christianity, like pretty much every religion, teaches partly how you are relate to the world at large because it affects how you relate to God. Then look at all your examples. So what if people aren't being involved in "mainstream culture" (whatever that is) or not listening to a wide enough variety of musive, or just choosing not to socialize with people who engage in behavior they view as immoral? I don't really see the problem there, at least not from this persepctive. Most people choose not to associate with others they think are excessively immoral. If you think society in general suffers from a dearth of morality, why should you feel compelled to participate in it to the degree that others who disagree with you demand? Are you objecting simply to the fact that evangelicals often teach that much of what we consider normal is immoral, and you just don't like it that someone else thinks something you do is immoral?

Now, I would disagree with these sorts of teachings on theological grounds (I think that claims about the immorality of modern society are both overblown and based on extreme oversimplifications of Biblical teachings, and I think that modern society is no worse than any other era in terms of obediance to God, nor do I think societal obediance is really important anyhow), but I don't see any reason that evangelicals should go out of their way to explore other beliefs simply because I disagree with them. If I disagree with one of them; it's on the merits. Hence why Bery got his *** handed to him so frequently; he felt the merits of his position were so self-evident as to be beyond assailing with anythng so trivial as the facts.

That's why I think Vind's point is at least partially wrong:



I think that the distinction you're making (music, rituals, schools, movies, and I'd contend there are defintiely movies and schools with atheist agendas) are exceedingly trivial, to the point of being petty, and ignoring that the reason atheism doesn't have those things is because it's a different belief, not because it's less all-consuming.



I'd say that the basic problem here is that you're worrying about her organizing her whole life around her belief, rather than the way she organizes it around her belief. Nuns also organize their entire life around their faith. So do suicide bombers in Afghanistan. One of these types of people I hold the door open for and the other I have no compunctions about shooting. Your neice falls into the former category. Sure, sometimes Christians (or more frequently quasi-Christians) get pulled into situations where unhealthy, harmful, and even violent behavior results, but merely being a strong evangelical does not mean anything unhealthy is happening, nor is there cause for concern (aside from concern that she may become annoying to be around).

That's the sort of thing we used to see from Monty, siezing on a few fringe elements of evangelical Christianity and trying to claim they somehow represented the norm, or made evangelicals the same as the Taliban. Don't be that guy. If you disagree with what she thinks on the merits, disagree on the merits, not "you're believing it too much."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

RD -

It sounds like you recognize what the real problem is. And knowing is half the battle.

We've got a chart to prove it scientifically.

_________________

Part of the difficulty is that often people who believe in this manner attempt to curtail the freedoms of others. Blue laws are perfect examples of this. I for one would prefer a more live and let live approach.

So what? Part of the way our country works is that we allow people to hold the view that the freedoms of others should be curtailed. That doesn't mean that people who hold such views ought to go out of their way to broaden their horizons, while people who hold views you don't find objectionable don't need to.

As for blue laws, we've beaten that dead horse enough times before. There are lots of ways freedom is curtailed, and those few that have some religious backing (without being religious in nature, which blue laws aren't) are not specially problematical just because the religious views of their supporters aren't held by others. The laws themselves aren't religious, and the courts have ruled that as long as there is a valid secular reason for the law, they are Constitutional.

You may disagree with that ruling, but arguing that religiously-supported curtailing of freedom is somehow worse than nonreligious without regard to the nature and severity of the two curtailments is really absurd, and revealing of special pleading against religion.

So no, it isn't a difficulty unless you're seriously saying that it's a problem if certian Evangelicals (and RDs niece in particular) want to only associate with other Evangelicals because they might promote blue laws.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'd be very curious to find out what the valid secular reasoning is for not being able to buy beer on Sunday. Or hard alcohol in certain counties.

I'm actually of the opinion that everyone should seek to broaden their horizons. Frankly that's one of the reason why I come here, where my opinions are routinely **** on and ridiculed.

All I'm trying to relay with my comment is how wrongheaded I find the type of people that RD's niece is falling in with. As the saying goes, there is nothing more annoying than a well intentioned Christian.

To promote a public day of rest and relaxation. I've cited the case on this issue at least twice here. Yes, I think it is a stupid way to go about it.



You seem to ignore the possibility that these people have seen some of what's out there and see no good reason to explore it. While I generally disagree with the degree they take it to, I can't disagree with the sentiment. I don't, for example, see any good reason to broaden my horizons by giving NAMBLAs views serious consideration.



"Annoying" is really a pretty weak cricticism for the people she is associating (not "falling in" with). Ok, they might be annoying. Big deal. Quite frankly, if you find well-intentioned Christians more annoying than well-intentioned do-gooders of any other stripe, it really reflects a certain degree of anti-Christian predjudice.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Believe me, we think the same about know it all atheists.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I'm sure. The difference is I don't ring your doorbell and try to convert you.

So you have a problem with folks ringing your doorbell? I know there are ways to keep that from happening. Always makes me laugh when an atheist tells me to "broaden my horizon" or "be more open minded".

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Nitefox, hi I'm a Christian Conservative. Your comments are coming across harsher than I think you are intending.

_________________

Trust me I can relax just fine with a beer.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Not per se. I do however value my privacy, and really dislike people assuming that I need to be saved and bothering me. Interestingly, there are these big buildings, usually with signs that let me know both where to go, and what times to show up if I'm interested in finding Jesus.

And because you seemed to be confused about my comments I'll clarify, I'm not telling you (or anyone else) to either broaden your horizon or to be more open minded.

My privacy has never been invaded by someone coming to my door, as I understand what the private parts of my residence are. I include in that statement the Dawkinsians who spent about a month canvassing my neighborhood.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

No, atheists customarily do not ring your doorbell. They do, however, try to convert you. Moreover, your doorbell is there to be rung, and if ringing people's doorbells never worked, they wouldn't do it. The lack of doorbell ringing is a relatively trivial difference between atheists and evangelicals.

Atheists are generally not the least bit shy about loudly proclaiming how right their views are and how wrong everyone else is. They just exhibit the unique hypocrisy of claiming everyone but they is shoving their beliefs down someone else's throat. My personal theory is that this makes up for the lack of doorbell ringing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Interesting, this is the first I've heard about Athiests going door to door. I disapprove.

My experience has been the opposite from yours DE. Any time an atheist that I've seen has stated their views, it's been when specifically engaged by someone of faith into a religious conversation and are generally trying to defend their ability to have a viewpoint that is counter to the instigator. Obviously there are assholes of every type out there, so your mileage may vary. I should think that it would be obvious by my comments that I don't like people pushing their views on others, and basically should be left to live how they see fit.

And to stem the inevitable wailing that I've been "forcing" my opinion around here over the past however many years... These are discussion forums, specifically where we post our opinions and share our ideas. People specifically come here to have those kinds of discussions. I do not go around in the real world knocking on doors and espousing the benifits of atheism.

I find that rather hard to believe, since I get engaged in such discussions from both evangelicals AND atheists. I strongly suspect that you're simply not seeing the atheist's behavior in the same way since it isn't you he's prostelytizing to, and you would only see one doing this if there was a religious person around.



Clearly true. However we generally don't see those complaints here, until one side gets into gratuitous potshots, the other objects, and the original then claims they're having views "forced on them" by having their ******* behavior pointed out.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Certainly I'm as succeptable to bias as the next guy, and by definition you can't see your own blind spots. That said, I actually actively try and self examine myself regularly so I think I would have caught it, but who knows.

I suspect that one difference may be part of the country. Up here in the Midwest, religion is typically a more private affair than it is down South. At least that was my experience when I lived in Dallas. Up here, it's pretty rare for someone to bring up church or religion at work or in normal socializing conversation. Down in Dallas it was quite common for it to come up both at work and in social activites. In over 35 years of living in the Midwest, I have never had an athiest come up to me to prosthetize either in public or door to door.

I don't think I've ever seen an atheist go door to door trying to convince people of anything.

However, atheist are certainly overtly vocal about freedom from religion as a means to suppress any expression, rather than the constitutional freedom of religion.

Even to an agnostic like myself, its over the top and counter productive.

I'd much rather politely decline doorbell ringers than listen to more crap about how any expression of religion is offensive and needs to be stamped out.