Apparently, the Acton Institute doesn't think being a decent human being should count for anything. They don't even seem to think simply being a believer matters all that much either. You must belong to a specific faith and blindly follow that organized religion or else you are scum. That is main message in Elise Hilton's Power Blog post "'As Long As I’m A Good Person'"
She opens with:
“'It doesn’t matter what I believe…as long as I’m a good person.'
How many times have you heard that? As our society trends more and more to the secular, this type of thing becomes more common. We’ve gone from a society that, at the very least, paid lip-service to communal worship and having moral standards set by a higher authority, to 'I can worship God on my own; I don’t need a church to do that' to 'It doesn’t matter what I believe, as long as I’m a good person.'
Is that right? Can a person believe “whatever” and still be good."
Her answers end up being, big surprise, NO. You must be a blindly obedient ignorant sycophant to be a good person. It never crosses her mind that if a person ends up behaving decently then perhaps their beliefs are positive. It certainly never occurs to her that beliefs do not always translate into actions. Perhaps we should look at a balance between what a person believes and what they actually do with those beliefs?
Nope. Religious Right assholes cannot accept such a reasonable approach no matter how positive the outcome. They are as interested in controlling people as they are anything else. At least the blog's name is honest.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Quotation
"Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much; wisdom is humble that he knows no more."
William Cowper
William Cowper
More "Spiritual" not "Religious" BS
I have pointed out previously that "spiritual" and "religious" are not necessarily synonyms but that they are inter-related to the point that they can be used in very similar ways. In effect if you are one then you are the other as well. Usually what is actually meant by those who say they are "spiritual but not religious" is that they do not belong to and/or identify with a specific organized religion. Generally, I am in favor of theists going the "spiritual" route if they find religion necessary. I do not, however, accept it as an excuse to further promote myths and stereotypes.
A recent post by Linda Mercadante on CNN's Belief Blog repeats a number willfully ignorant views. Unfortunately, her ignorance around two terms in particular are rather common. She has no clue what she is talking about when she refers to "scientism" or "secularism." Scientism is a rather bogus term that is analogous to "social Darwinism." Like social social Darwinism, scientism has no real connection to the term it is supposedly predicated on. Scientism is a refutation of science not an off-shoot of it. Science is in essence a tool and a self-correcting process. Scientism is a rigid ideology held by those who lack even a basic understanding of science. Mercadante may be right in insisting that the "SBNRs" oppose "scientism." but that doesn't necessarily mean much since they have no clue what they are talking about. In many instances, scientism has been used by a sub-set of theists to attack science. It is the straw man fallacy writ large; convenient bullshit.
The author also seem to misunderstand/misrepresent secularism. For instance she states:
"They are tired of being confined by systems and structures. They are tired of having their unique identities reduced to bureaucratic codes. They are tired of having their spiritual natures squelched or denied."
What?! That's what secularism is designed to prevent. Secularism allows individuals and groups to freely believe whatever they want without others interfering with those beliefs. Secularism seeks to keep government and religion apart so that there is no coercion or infringement on people's beliefs. If the "SBNRs" are opposing secularism then they are defeating themselves. It is the absence of secularism that allows larger and/or more powerful religious groups to harass and coerce others. It is also the lack of secularism that allows government or other non-religious affiliated groups to dictate to theists what they can or cannot believe.
From start to finish "Good news about the ‘spiritual but not religious’" is laced with all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. Most of Mercadante's bullshit seem to stem from her complete lack of understanding. It is almost as if she took a slew of terms and their defintion along with various myths and stereotypes and threw them into a spin-art. Reading it was both amusing and painful.
A recent post by Linda Mercadante on CNN's Belief Blog repeats a number willfully ignorant views. Unfortunately, her ignorance around two terms in particular are rather common. She has no clue what she is talking about when she refers to "scientism" or "secularism." Scientism is a rather bogus term that is analogous to "social Darwinism." Like social social Darwinism, scientism has no real connection to the term it is supposedly predicated on. Scientism is a refutation of science not an off-shoot of it. Science is in essence a tool and a self-correcting process. Scientism is a rigid ideology held by those who lack even a basic understanding of science. Mercadante may be right in insisting that the "SBNRs" oppose "scientism." but that doesn't necessarily mean much since they have no clue what they are talking about. In many instances, scientism has been used by a sub-set of theists to attack science. It is the straw man fallacy writ large; convenient bullshit.
The author also seem to misunderstand/misrepresent secularism. For instance she states:
"They are tired of being confined by systems and structures. They are tired of having their unique identities reduced to bureaucratic codes. They are tired of having their spiritual natures squelched or denied."
What?! That's what secularism is designed to prevent. Secularism allows individuals and groups to freely believe whatever they want without others interfering with those beliefs. Secularism seeks to keep government and religion apart so that there is no coercion or infringement on people's beliefs. If the "SBNRs" are opposing secularism then they are defeating themselves. It is the absence of secularism that allows larger and/or more powerful religious groups to harass and coerce others. It is also the lack of secularism that allows government or other non-religious affiliated groups to dictate to theists what they can or cannot believe.
From start to finish "Good news about the ‘spiritual but not religious’" is laced with all sorts of ridiculous nonsense. Most of Mercadante's bullshit seem to stem from her complete lack of understanding. It is almost as if she took a slew of terms and their defintion along with various myths and stereotypes and threw them into a spin-art. Reading it was both amusing and painful.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
"Should Christians Take Medication for Mental Illness?"
I am happy that Mr. Noble has come to the right conclusion but the very question is fucking scary. Unfortunately, I do not get a sense from "Should Christians Take Medication for Mental Illness?" that Perry Noble is some fringe wack-a-doodle. He seems to be a fairly mainstream religious leader. Does that imply that this question is far more common than I or others realize? I hope not.
I do not want to promote any myths and stereotypes about mental illness. It is a serious and potentially devastating problem. The majority of people who deal with mental health issues are decent law-abiding citizens who do not deserve to stigmatized. Sadly, there is a small percentage who have and will turn violent. If medication could have helped but they chose not to take it that is a huge concern. If religious beliefs are interfering with the treatment of any mental illnesses that is inexcusable. It is an outrage not only because it may contribute to violent and potentially lethal incidences but also because it can contribute to needless suffering in general.
Again, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness of one type or another are not a threat to anyone. This does not mean there is not a considerable amount of personal suffering. I have seen individuals struggle with mental health. It can terrible. It can cause the individual a great deal of pain and take a huge emotional toll on those around them. If medication can help there is no ethical or moral reason not to go that route. Any religion that even casts the slightest doubt on such treatment should be seen as vile and petty.
This is yet another example of the "what's the harm" bullshit that many theists tend to fall back on when their faith is challenged in any way. Potentially, there is a lot of harm. I will state again that I am very pleased that Mr. Noble has come around to the right conclusion and hopefully the majority of theist will do the same, if they haven't already. The question is still heinous.
I do not want to promote any myths and stereotypes about mental illness. It is a serious and potentially devastating problem. The majority of people who deal with mental health issues are decent law-abiding citizens who do not deserve to stigmatized. Sadly, there is a small percentage who have and will turn violent. If medication could have helped but they chose not to take it that is a huge concern. If religious beliefs are interfering with the treatment of any mental illnesses that is inexcusable. It is an outrage not only because it may contribute to violent and potentially lethal incidences but also because it can contribute to needless suffering in general.
Again, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness of one type or another are not a threat to anyone. This does not mean there is not a considerable amount of personal suffering. I have seen individuals struggle with mental health. It can terrible. It can cause the individual a great deal of pain and take a huge emotional toll on those around them. If medication can help there is no ethical or moral reason not to go that route. Any religion that even casts the slightest doubt on such treatment should be seen as vile and petty.
This is yet another example of the "what's the harm" bullshit that many theists tend to fall back on when their faith is challenged in any way. Potentially, there is a lot of harm. I will state again that I am very pleased that Mr. Noble has come around to the right conclusion and hopefully the majority of theist will do the same, if they haven't already. The question is still heinous.
The Bible(NT) Says....Jesus is a thief
"And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them." (Matthew 21:1-3)
Basically, Jesus sends two of his followers into town to steal a donkey and a horse. I've heard apologists try to weasel their way out of this one by claiming they were freely given. That's the bullshit excuse Jesus tries but it does hold up to scrutiny. Notice that Jesus claims that if the followers are caught they should say the "Lord" needs them and everything will be fine. Really? Even if you blindly accept the divinity and validity of scripture this is still problematic. Already Jesus has an incredibly shitty track record at fulfilling promises and prophecies so there is no reason to assume he knows which donkey and colt the followers will come across. He also does not give any useful description of how to find these animals or any way to distinguish them from any others. Why? Maybe because he never sought permission to take them so it wouldn't matter which ones were taken or from whom? Also notice something that is implied with "the village over against you." This could (depending on version/translation) be a vague reference to directions. It may be simply saying the village you see opposite of where we are standing. It could also be Jesus saying that since that village is hostile to us we can justify taking whatever we want from them. Either interpretation is possible.
In any case, apologists excuses don't hold up. The Jesus figure felt he needed two animals so he sent his followers to take them.
Jesus is a thief.
Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them." (Matthew 21:1-3)
Basically, Jesus sends two of his followers into town to steal a donkey and a horse. I've heard apologists try to weasel their way out of this one by claiming they were freely given. That's the bullshit excuse Jesus tries but it does hold up to scrutiny. Notice that Jesus claims that if the followers are caught they should say the "Lord" needs them and everything will be fine. Really? Even if you blindly accept the divinity and validity of scripture this is still problematic. Already Jesus has an incredibly shitty track record at fulfilling promises and prophecies so there is no reason to assume he knows which donkey and colt the followers will come across. He also does not give any useful description of how to find these animals or any way to distinguish them from any others. Why? Maybe because he never sought permission to take them so it wouldn't matter which ones were taken or from whom? Also notice something that is implied with "the village over against you." This could (depending on version/translation) be a vague reference to directions. It may be simply saying the village you see opposite of where we are standing. It could also be Jesus saying that since that village is hostile to us we can justify taking whatever we want from them. Either interpretation is possible.
In any case, apologists excuses don't hold up. The Jesus figure felt he needed two animals so he sent his followers to take them.
Jesus is a thief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)