Update: I have more at the podcast.
PZ links to the terrible situation in West Texas where an FDLS compound is being dismantled by the authorities, because like all the other little empires Warren Jeffs has built, it’s a religious patriarchy taken to its logical conclusion, i.e. built around the practice of raping underage girls. For those who don’t know the story, a teenage girl that was handed over as a rape victim/wife to a 50-year-old man managed to get to a forbidden phone and called the authorities for help. So far, 416 children have been removed because they were being beaten, raped in “spiritual marriages”, or slated to be lifelong rape victims for crazy old fucks drunk on male privilege excused by their Sky Fairy. Considering that atheists supposedly have our own fundamentalists, I’m sure any day now we’ll find out that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are running rape farms where they swap daughters with their friends because Darwin told them they have a right.
But the question that PZ raises—why does it always come back to misogyny and pedophilia with religious nuts who push it too far?—gives me a good opportunity to link Sara Robinson’s excellent series from the summer and fall of 2006: Cracks in the Wall. Here’s the first part, about the psychological profiles of both those who lead fundamentalist sects (not just the ones that are blatant rape farms like the FDLS community, but also the Focus on Family squad, the Ted Haggard followers, etc.) and those who follow them. Basically, it describes a dance between power-loving, amoral authoritarian leaders who may (Dobson, probably) or may not (Haggard) believe their own religious phooey, but know that religion is the perfect vehicle for getting followers, because it permits unthinking, dogmatic tendencies to run wild and actively discourages people to think logically.
Now, of course, most fundie Christians don’t slide towards polygamy, because there are laws and rules and restrictions against it. As Sara writes, society does develop checks on rigid authoritarians, but there are times when those checks slide. I would argue, being from West Texas myself, that this extreme libertarianism of the West mixed in with a spread of Bible-thumping has made it the perfect breeding ground for shit like this to happen. The knee-jerk belief that “faith” deserves a special respect, a bubble that protects it from the same harsh criticism that any other idea or belief that people might own, makes it all too easy for people out West to whistle by and ignore the fact that breeding factories for rape victims are being developed under their noses and excused by some Jesus talk. Unfortunately, by the time a clash with the law becomes inevitable, things all too often turn into debacles like what happened in Waco. There’s just no magic bullet answer here for this problem.
But what this does show is that the fundies who whine about gay marriage leading inevitably towards polygamy are completely fucked in the head. It’s really their worldview, that posits that men rule over women and children, that is the path towards growing and swapping teenage girls for rape and child-bearing/housework purposes (and to show other men who the top dogs are). Whereas the path that legalizes gay marriage is one that’s born out of a moral centeredness, a true belief in fairness and equality. I get that this is confusing for a lot of fundies—as Sara demonstrated in her remarkable series, one of the most disturbing things about the dogmatic, hyper-religious, authoritarian worldview is it makes it hard for followers to develop internal moral compasses (of the sort that might make you object to raping 13-year-olds under the guise of “spiritual marriage”) because it’s believed that morality is just a series of rules imposed from the outside. Which isn’t to say that fundies don’t have internal moral compasses—I think people have them somewhat naturally, and they can exist even with pressure from the outside not to exist—but just that it’s a worldview that doesn’t have much room for conceptualizing that. But this whole incident shows why gay marriage is not the path to polygamy, but also hints at why fundies might be confused on that point.
105 Responses to “Sunday freethinker sermon: On the uber-religious patriarchy”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Are these girls/women wearing color-coded costumes, à la The Handmaid’s Tale? The picture sure makes it look that way.
Just asking.
Overall, great piece. But I somewhat disagree with one point.
The knee-jerk belief that “faith” deserves a special respect, a bubble that protects it from the same harsh criticism that any other idea or belief that people might own
Overall, I think faith and religion should be subject to criticism, insofar as the way the beliefs effect society/it’s followers/the world. But the internal tenets of a faith should be unassailable.
An example. It is totally ok to criticize a religion for its misogyny or unblinking obedience to authority. It is not ok to say that x group is inherently better than y group because of their belief system. Atheism is not better than monotheism is not better than polytheism.
I find it really offensive when people suggest that all polytheists are backwards hicks not deserving of any respect (In fact, a facebook group about Hinduism does say pretty much this). I don’t think it should be acceptable to say such a thing, but it is.
I’m afraid I’m not getting across what I’m trying to say, so to sum up briefly: Criticize a religion’s impact on society all you want, but mocking a group for their stories because you think its silly just makes you an asshole.
bekabot: A lot of “plain dressing” women will wear a solid color dress. Compare these with Amish attire. They aren’t much different.
There are 3 other compounds like this one, and many polygamist communities scattered all over. Boys are also victims, as the herd of young boys are culled around 16 and the extra ones labeled “sinners” and kicked out. They can’t visit their families, they have no money and very little education. It’s done because of course that way there will be more women to go around. The stories of the women who have made it out of polygamy make me sick at heart. BTW it seems that we, the taxpayers are funding their lifestyle. The “non-legal” wives go on welfare and food stamps (most of the money going back to the leaders).
Ughh. That picture just makes me think “Little Compound on the Prairie.”
At least the authorities are moving now that they have probable cause. From what I’ve heard, they’ve been waiting for it, with plans on shelves and everything.
Better late than never. {sigh} Not much better, but hey…
Ashley, you’re confusing criticizing people for existing with criticizing the ideas they hold. I can and will assail the idea that there’s a god. Sorry. Luckily, I fully support both the right of believers to talk up their belief and the idea that it’s acceptable public discourse to explain why you believe in god. There would be no believers if people didn’t argue for their beliefs.
No belief is unassailable. And yes, I firmly believe atheism is superior to belief, because if I didn’t, I would go with being religious. It’s ridiculous to argue that people can ascribe to belief A without thinking it superior to belief B.
But because I wave off belief doesn’t mean I wave off believers as human beings. After all, we all have false beliefs; people are complex creatures, and we can’t know everything. Any individual can be a good person worth knowing, and every good person has flaws. And obviously there’s arguments about what a flaw even is. A believer may not see their belief as a flaw. My stubbornness is, at times, a flaw and at times, the reason I survive serious bullshit, but I think it also is a reason I have a tendency to attract bullshit. A flaw, a good quality, and neither but just some sort of weird attractor for bullshit from assholes—all at once.
I can’t imagine what is in their heads or what their futures hold. How terrified they must be.
Bekabot,
OMG, Bekabot, I think you’re right! Will the horror never stop?
(I’d hoped before going back and looking that it was just a case of ‘buy 1000 yards of material and save’, but the age brackets are conspicuous.)
I think I want to throw up.
(dang UNDERLINE tag isn’t working again.)
Well…just raising a possibility. FWIW, I went to a college which was situated in/near Amish country, more or less, so I’ve seen lots of women in Amish garb. And I’ve noticed that Amish women do indeed favor dresses in plain, solid colors like dark brown and black. But from what I’ve seen, though older Amish women tend to wear darker, plainer clothes than do younger women of the same persuasion, the colors of their dresses don’t correspond strictly to the age of the wearer.
In the picture above, it looks as though the mature women are wearing teal-green dresses while the older (nubile?) girls are wearing dresses of a pale shade of lavender. The very youngest (prepubescent?) girls seem to be wearing dresses which are blue. I can’t help but wonder whether other people out there see what I see when I look at this picture. So I throw the question out there: am I imagining things? Or what?
P.S.: So far it’s a wash—one “aye” and one “nay”.
???I’m sorry, that sounds like trying to having it both ways.
If you’re going to judge a group, just go ahead and judge them. If there are standards of judgement, use them.
(I do think that some few religions, through sheer unfamiliarity, get a bit of a pass here in the West, but knowledge will rub the bloom off that rose. (Conversely, some religions are excoriated through ignorance– it comes down to PR. Buddhists get good PR, for example.))
I’m sure any day now we’ll find out that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are running rape farms where they swap daughters with their friends because Darwin told them they have a right.
Honestly I can totally see some of the evpsych crowd trying to get away with this. With some shit about how it’s their “biological imperative to monopolize females for the purpose of propagating their genetic” whatever the fuck ever those people get on about.
I’m inclined to agree with Ashley. There’s a lot more to criticize than the fairy tales, and it’s frankly a cheap shot, avoiding the really valid shit to complain about (rampant misogyny, etc.)
That said, I’m more and more inclined to think that anti-bigamy/polygamy laws are more of a hindrance than a help. it seems all they do is keep hideous child abuse under wraps (”What 15 year-old fourth wife?”). (And other problems, but those aren’t what I’m talking about right now.) I personally think making polygamy at least not criminal might add a bit more transparency in cases where it’s used to justify child abuse.
One problem w/ the media coverage of this event in TX is they keep using the terms “forced marriage” or underage marriage instead of rape. Rape. Rape. Rape. I wrote to the NYT about it. It makes me frakin’ crazy that they will not call these men out on what they are doing. Thanks for naming it truly Amanda. Sorry - back on topic.
Yeah, I’ve heard some Buddhist monks treat the new young boys to the same treatment some Catholic priests dished out and that mainstream LDS churches hide their pedophiles in the temple (from insiders, but I have no proof). Religion is an excuse for bad behavior.
Dan, they’re not organized enough. But fair enough, there’s a just-so-story bullshit aura about evo psych that makes it a sort of godless religion.
Some thoughts:
1) Prada pope in 2003 (pre pope days) wrote a memorandum ordering the Archdiocese of Boston to essentially obstruct justice in the pedophile priest cases. HE should be arrested too.
2) Excess teen boys do get cast out with no preparation for life in the outside world. There is a second group who are marginalized inthese groups - men who refuse to have more than one wife. The reasons are murky, but it seems that what is left in these sects are a bunch of pedophile patriarchs - people who would be considered sex offenders in the real world.
3) I really really wonder how inbred these people are getting to be, and if there are genetic disasters looming on the horizon for these cult groups
4)What is with the tube head braided look already? That rolled on the rat front and french braids in the back? Is that prescribed along with the wacky dresses? Built in sun bonnet perhaps?
1) Dawkins isn’t a member of the “evpsych crowd.” I can only think of one evolutionary psychologist that might be. Mostly it’s pre-formed misogynists looking for validation so they hook onto a single paragraph from a 400 page book that never bother to read the disclaimers or the actual studies or the criticisms or any other books or articles that offer alternative evolutionary theories.
2) Having met that evolutionary psychologist, I don’t think he’s interested in forming a society of assholes. He’s actually more interested in figuring out how we see 3D when our eyes actually receive 2D images.
3) Judging the fairy tales someone believes is judging the person. We are the stories we tell. That said, some people deserve judgment. When someone tells a story that implicitly or explicitly allows or promotes misogyny, hatred, or any other action that is unacceptable, they should be called out on it.
4) They sure look color-coded to me.
This kind of sexual pathology among church leaders goes way back. When my sister was in divinity school, one of the episodes in her Early Christianity class involved issues about priests of certain sects who convinced female parishioners to let the Holy Spirit (as personified by the priest) enter into them.
Nothip: if it weren’t just young religiously brainwashed women somewhere in Texas, the media would be calling it organized sexual abuse of minors. But no, it’s only the devil-worshippers who do things like that.
In the picture above, it looks as though the mature women are wearing teal-green dresses while the older (nubile?) girls are wearing dresses of a pale shade of lavender. The very youngest (prepubescent?) girls seem to be wearing dresses which are blue. I can’t help but wonder whether other people out there see what I see when I look at this picture. So I throw the question out there: am I imagining things? Or what?
except for lavender girl on the far left looks younger than light blue girl to the right of the sheriff. wonder if there are more pics, and if the interviews asked about it
… I feel kind of bad picking on the single sentence of this entire piece I disagree with, but this was kinda out of the blue:
Considering that atheists supposedly have our own fundamentalists, I’m sure any day now we’ll find out that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are running rape farms
Ahh, the NABA argument. Next, let’s find a Christian trying to excuse extremism within his faith by saying that there exists somewhere in the world Islamic extremism which is worse. Shouldn’t be hard to find. (In fact, I suspect if one looked, one might actually find a right-wing blogger writing on this specific “polygamist compound” case, desperately trying to spin away the misogyny within mainline Christianity using exactly the argument.) If you want to defend Dawkins Harris etc on their own merits that’s one thing, but if extremism becomes excused just because it’s not as bad as some other kind of extremism, then you’ve basically just made all extremism acceptable; there’s always someone worse.
Anyway, no comment on Richard Dawkins (who seems like a fairly nice old man who’s on occasion written stuff I like) but I would like to note for the record that Sam Harris and Chris Hitchens, at least, have (in part in the service of their views on religion and religions) indeed helped to create a situation something in the direction you describe. It’s called the modern state of Iraq.*
I generally agree with your religion posts, but sometimes I think that on the whole Atheism thing you have trouble telling the difference between “the enemy of my enemy” and “my friend”.
* Given the limitation that Harris cannot reasonably be blamed for helping the Iraq invasion itself specifically start, considering Harris doesn’t seem to have written anything to get national attention before 2004, therefore all his neocon boosterism has necessarily been post-invasion. With Hitchens things are less ambiguous.
Amanda, one doesn’t have to think their beliefs are superior in order to hold them. I think there’s a lot of validity in other belief systems. I don’t think all pagans are inherently better (smarter, saner, whatever) than any other group. In fact, I think believing that your (general you here) religion/belief system/worldview is inherently better and that everyone else is an idiot makes you an asshole.
There are a lot of things to attack a lot of religions on without going after the stories. There’s a huge difference between saying “using that story to justify misogyny and abuse is wrong and evil” and “Ha ha that story is so dumb aren’t you an idiot I’m better than you.” The first is a legitimate criticism that has bearing on the outer world. The second is just being an asshole.
And I firmly believe that religious belief (how many times can I use that word in one comment) is unassailable. It’s the actions that stem from that belief that are, and should be, fair game.
So you don’t believe in a god or anything outside of what can be proved by science. Fine, that’s your choice. But if you use that belief to say, justify fucking up the environment, or climate controlling the entire world to make it perennially 70 degrees, I’m going to attack that. I’ve actually had an atheist argue for this because, hey, why not? We can do it, therefore why shouldn’t we? The belief isn’t the problem, it’s causing problems and doing fucked up things because of the belief that’s the problem.
If it were the case that people were criticizing the belief in a deity but not criticizing the belief that this deity commanded the subordination of women, I’d agree with your complaints about criticism of religion.
But that is manifestly not the case. This very post criticizes both beliefs, and the pernicious commands the deity or deities supposedly lay down are among the most frequent bases for criticizing the fairy tale itself. I can’t see how this is a cheap shot, except insofar as the fairy tale is easy to criticize (in which case, why believe it?)
The only way to avoid criticism of fairy tales is to arrange a cease-fire: we don’t scrutinize your faith claims and you don’t scrutinize yours. But this is the very cease fire the atheists reject by being atheists, and, lacking the robust faith claims theists adhere to, they have no reason to enter into it.
If you’ve gotta nitpick, mcc, I have to nitpick back. That was more a snotty joke than an intense argument. Re: My belief that people have to be judged as complete people more than by any one overriding factor if you want a real argument. That said, I’m serious. The notion that we have to equate the rational and the irrational, because we feel kind of bad when people who have irrational beliefs get upset being called out on it, doesn’t sit right with me. I appreciate that it’s not fun to make people feel discomfort because they’re being irrational. But grown-ups should learn to accept discomfort. I read/think about a dozen uncomfortable things a day. I find the babyish insistence that believers need to be coddled so that they don’t suffer cognitive dissonance to be disrespectful of believers. Are they children? Then why should we treat them like children?
Amanda, one doesn’t have to think their beliefs are superior in order to hold them.
Then you don’t really hold your belief. To believe something is to believe it, i.e. to think it is righter or truer than alternatives. That’s the definition.
I think there’s a lot of validity in other belief systems.
But you think there’s more validity to yours, or you would have no beliefs or would switch to one you find more valid. Again, if you don’t believe in your beliefs, they aren’t beliefs. You’re arguing against tautology here.
I don’t think all pagans are inherently better (smarter, saner, whatever) than any other group.
But again, you’re conflating the people who hold beliefs with the belief. If you are a pagan, you may not think pagans are better than everyone else, but you think paganism is a superior belief to every other.
I don’t truck with the notion that people should not believe their beliefs, so we can all get along. I think it actually makes tensions worse, because people dither and are basically lying when we say that we just happened to fall into our beliefs. A foundational belief is not like saying, oh, sometimes I’m in the mood for pesto sometimes for marinara. If you belief in your beliefs is so shallow that you can’t even say you believe your beliefs more than other beliefs, then you don’t really hold a belief.
Again, this is tautological.
I don’t think a person with false beliefs is better or worse automatically than another person, because we all hold false beliefs. But rest assured, I will argue with you. Only in arguing do we have a hope of sharpening our beliefs and getting them closer to reality, which I believe, with very good reason, does not actually involve a big man or men in the sky that created everything.
Ashley, you seem to think that beliefs aren’t part of the “outer world.” Consider that many atheists regard the privileging of faith-claims as unassailable has real and wicked effects in the outer world. In fact, this post makes a criticism along these lines.
I appreciate that you don’t want people looking down on you or calling you stupid because of your religious belief, and agree that such people are assholes. That does not, however, make your religious belief true, supportable, or even immune from criticism. One could politely disagree with your empirical claims (i.e. God exists) and dismiss them as wholly without merit without calling you stupid or saying that atheists are categorically superior. Yes, zie is still saying you believe something wholly without merit, but other than pretending there is no evidence or that the evidence is other than it is–other than lying to you–I see no way around such disagreements.
the quote that made me the most pissed off about this was this-
…But authorities said their hands were tied until last week, when they finally obtained the legal grounds to move against the group.
The trigger for the raid was a hushed phone call from a terrified 16-year-old girl to a family-violence shelter to report that her 50- year-old husband had beaten and raped her. State troopers put into action the plan they had on the shelf to enter the 1,700-acre compound, and 416 children, most of them girls, were swept into state custody because of suspicions that they were being sexually and physically abused.
On Thursday, state and local law enforcement authorities defended their decision to leave the sect alone for four years after it moved in.
“We are aware that this group is capable of” sexually abusing girls, Sheriff David Doran said. “But there again, this is the United States. We are going to respect them. We’re not going to violate their civil rights until we get an outcry.”
Doran said it was not until after the raid began that he learned that the sect was, in fact, marrying off underage girls at the compound and had a bed in its soaring limestone temple where the girls were required to immediately
What it should really say is “Well it’s just girls/women making these claims and we know that women make claims of rape and abuse ALL the time so why should we listen to them? Especially when the “church” is pumping lots of money into the town? They have their rights to rape- I mean, practice their sky fairy worship in whatever way they want after all.
*sigh*
I found it here by the way- http://airamerica.com/full_story/116316514)
Amanda, at a very fundamental level, I do not believe that there is any one single right belief system. This world is too complex and diverse for their to be only one correct unifying reality. I further don’t believe that everything is knowable; meaning that there are things that can not simply be explained by science or logic or whatever. There is more to me than neurons firing and blood flowing. There is more to this world than dirt and air and germs.
Because of this, I believe that many religions are valid. I am not presumptuous enough to think that I know the absolute truth and that everyone who thinks differently is wrong.
I don’t think paganism is superior, in the sense that it is inherently better and that everyone else is wrong. It is best for me, it is what I believe. And that’s good enough for me.
Perhaps its my polytheistic background, but I have no problem accepting that there are other valid opinions of reality. I choose to worship Brigid and Lugh. I choose not worship Kali, Apollo, or Jesus. Doesn’t mean I don’t believe they’re there, just that I don’t want to have much to do with them. My Gods say “do this” and I’ll do that. Jesus says “do this” and his followers will do that. In my case it’s throw things in a fire and make artwork. In their case it’s eat bread and try to make other people believe their beliefs. There is nothing detrimental about my beliefs, and the practicing of my religion doesn’t have an adverse or annoying affect on most other people. Christians eating bread is has no detrimental affect, but proselytizing does. Thus criticizing communion is not cool, but criticizing proselytizing is fair game.
It is not ok to say that x group is inherently better than y group because of their belief system.
Well, one can argue that one belief system is better than another. If I didn’t think my belief system X was better than the other belief system Y, I would probably be a believer in Y, instead.
However, the first step towards maturity is realizing that people of all sorts have all sorts of different belief systems. There are going to be bad people in your chosen belief system and good — really good — people in the belief system you regard as false. Some of them might be better than many of the people who share your own belief system. But that’s the thing– it means that religious beliefs Aren’t unassailable: you can criticize someone’s belief system without necessarily criticizing them, personally, assuming they’re a good person, otherwise.
You mean other than *your* belief system, i.e. that there is no single one right belief system.
Or to put it in less self-contradictory terms, you do believe that there is a single right belief system, i.e. that “This world is too complex and diverse for their to be only one correct unifying reality.”
You’re just like the rest of them. And us.
Ashley, once again you’re conflating judgment of the people who hold certain beliefs with judgment of the beliefs themselves. I don’t have to think that believing Christians are all “idiots” in order to think that their metaphysics and moral systems are complete nonsense. One holds the beliefs one considers to be true; the beliefs of other groups are “valid” to the extent they coincide with your own.
Additionally, the beliefs that people hold and the atrocious acts that proceed from them are inseparable. Of course the FDLS patriarchs are going to set up rape compounds if they think God has told them it’s their right and duty to do so. It’s very simple: If God *had* actually told them such a thing, it would probably be right. But the belief is false, so what they’ve done is extremely wrong. Amanda is practicing what she preaches here: Judging whole individuals, based on their beliefs *and* their actions.
Which are, in this case, both very shitty.
I don’t know about other countries but there have been some scandals about the behavior of Buddhist monks in Thailand:
It should be noted that becoming a monk for a time in ones’ life isn’t unusual for Thai men.
I further don’t believe that everything is knowable; meaning that there are things that can not simply be explained by science or logic or whatever. There is more to me than neurons firing and blood flowing. There is more to this world than dirt and air and germs.
These are all beliefs. They are statements about the world. They may be very vague-sounding, and you may have chosen not to back them up with evidence, but they’re still beliefs. For conversation to have any meaning, we have to be able to take it for granted that people actually believe what they say they believe.
I don’t think paganism is superior, in the sense that it is inherently better and that everyone else is wrong. It is best for me, it is what I believe…I have no problem accepting that there are other valid opinions of reality.
Beliefs aren’t “better” or “worse” than other beliefs. They’re true or false, or have some degree or another of truth to them. Your gods either exist or they do not. They can’t exist for you and not for other people, except in your own mind. That makes them not an “opinion of reality,” but a story that exists in your mind.
“The belief isn’t the problem, it’s causing problems and doing fucked up things because of the belief that’s the problem”
On one hand that’s a fairly appealing standard, very Jeffersonian (”The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg“.) On the other, it can, in some circumstances, be a somewhat artificial one, disregarding the realities of human thought and behavior, in that there are (in general) beliefs that fairly predictably lead to problems and fucked up things. When we’re talking about not government or community persecution/censorship, but criticism, well . . .
(Of course, the same standard applies to those criticisms, then . . .).
(This belief/action distinction almost seems, oddly enough, to dismiss the important role esp. religious beliefs play for many people.)
It also gets a bit complicated - take creationism (please!), for example. Clearly when creationists are trying to wreck science education - (then it must be a day of the week ending in -y) - then action is necessary. Someone pushing creationism online or merely expressing it - obviously we shouldn’t be calling the cops on them or marching on their home at the head of a torch-and-pitchfork-wielding local mob. But while we’re certainly not obligated to preemptively and obsessively harangue some poor creationist neighbor or friend about their unsupported 20thC science-envy beliefs (and indeed, doing so almost always would be excessively rude), we’re really certainly not obligated to sit quietly with our hands neatly folded while Answers in Genesis or Expelled babbles on. And to say that the issue here is still just actions, and not - indeed, can’t be - the beliefs - . . . well, besides being somewhat artificially disconnected, it could almost be seen as unintentionally promoting an ethic of tolerance as long as you don’t give any evidence of having that belief.
I dunno. I tend to go for a ‘no punching, kicking, or biting; criticism is fine, if you think it necessary, and while your rights implicitly include the right to be an as about it, wouldn’t it be better if you weren’t? Unless there’s a good reason . . .’ unstable bit of incoherence.
Most of the national news broadcasts I’ve seen have been about whether authorities acted too hastily in raiding the compound. And how the parents have been separated from their children.
Only in America do we worry about whether “Christian” child abusers might not get to see their kids again while the President ordering torture of innocents is ignored.
You mean other than *your* belief system, i.e. that there is no single one right belief system.
No, she probably means that she believes there is no single one right belief system. As do I. As do many other people who believe there are multiple ways of comprehending the divine, and that for some people there is no divine.
To believe something is to believe it, i.e. to think it is righter or truer than alternatives. That’s the definition.
That it’s righter or truer than alternatives for you. Are you saying that it’s impossible to believe that something is right or makes sense for you without also believing that it’s right for everyone else?
Thom, it is all semantics when it comes to mass rape and forced pregnancy in children.
Oh, and the color coding thing seemed odd to me - then I remembered that these women make dresses for their families and they may just be sister-correlated (all girls of a mother or even a father may have had their clothing made from a single bolt of cloth).
Ms Kate: 3) I really really wonder how inbred these people are getting to be, and if there are genetic disasters looming on the horizon for these cult groups
The future is now! The rare genetic disorders are already here.
Danica: What it should really say is “Well it’s just girls/women making these claims and we know that women make claims of rape and abuse ALL the time so why should we listen to them? Especially when the “church” is pumping lots of money into the town? They have their rights to rape- I mean, practice their sky fairy worship in whatever way they want after all.
I think it is more complex than that. After reading “Under the banner of Heaven”, I got the sense that the authorities are desperate to nail these compounds, but they actually have rather limited ability to do so. In the past, when they’ve done raids, the polygamists were able to look very favorable in the press and to earn lots of sympathy; as a result, the district attorney that had pushed for the raids lost the next election. These groups aren’t stupid: they know about the law and they know how to structure their organization to avoid sanction. And because they’re entirely closed communities, it is extremely difficult to gather evidence or testimony against them.
I remember reading somewhere that the women in that FLDS sect prefer pastel shades for their dresses (or, more likely, the men who make all their decisions for them prefer it).
I have “Escape,” by former sect member Carolyn Jessop (who I think has been doing interviews in the wake of the raid), on my to-read shelf. Can’t wait to get to it.
That said, I’m serious. The notion that we have to equate the rational and the irrational, because we feel kind of bad when people who have irrational beliefs get upset being called out on it, doesn’t sit right with me…
I think I agree with this as you have stated it here.
And I think that though this is surely not a universal opinion, I think it is or should be a relatively uncontroversial one, such that I personally wouldn’t consider this sufficient to by itself consider someone “fundamentalist” or “extremist” on anything…
*shrug*
“There is more to me than neurons firing and blood flowing. There is more to this world than dirt and air and germs.”
I just have to say, this idea always bothers me. It’s sorta like hiking along with someone in some place of stunning natural beauty (what actually comes to mind is a certain low peak in the White Mountains, which not only has lovely views but is largely carpeted with wild blueberries), and going, look! look!, only to have them turn to you and say :: Is that all there is? I can’t believe it. There must be more than dirt and air and rock and weeds. Eww. Can we go home now? I’m going to miss my favorite reality show. ::
Ok, some of that was unnecessary. But it really does bother me.
(Of course, rape farms are far, far, far worse of a thing; I just don’t have anything to add in that regard beyond ‘rape farms BAD,’)
Richard Dawkins can be arrogant and snarky, but he’s a decent guy.
I’d fear the worst from Christopher Hitchens, though.
Your gods either exist or they do not.
That gets into theology and philosophy and all that crap. Have I seen enough evidence to convince me that there are many Gods? Yes. Can I convince others? Absolutely not.
And thus the very nature of belief. No Christian could convince me that they’re right, and no amount of blathering from atheists could convince me they’re right either. Neither could I convince them.
Does belief make a deity or does deity make a belief? I think there’s good arguments for each side, which then gets into what does existence really mean? Are we all deluding ourselves? Are these delusions worthwhile?
With religion/spirituality you ultimately need to find whatever system works best for you, and not use that system to oppress others.
And religion/spirituality is a fundamental part of a person. Could I criticizing Amanda’s lack of belief without criticizing her? If you say yes, then why couldn’t I criticize her fashion sense, physical attractiveness, behavior, etc. without criticizing her? Is it ok then to ridicule and mock another’s culture? Their family? Their gender expression?
How are these any different from belief?
The only problem I have with any religion is when it is used to control people. The stories, the rituals, the personal (vs the social) belief system are as unassailable as gender expression and cultural identity.
The notion that we have to equate the rational and the irrational
People have irrational reactions all the time, but they’re still valid.
Why should I be hurt if my husband were to have sex with another woman? It doesn’t necessarily change any aspect of our relationship. Yet, were he to do that, I would be very hurt. Rationally, he should be able to have sex with whomever I want. It’s my reaction that’s irrational. Yet, he would be wrong for hurting me.
If we were to only acknowledge the rational, he should boink whomever he wants, and my feelings be damned. Yet we don’t do that because we’re not assholes.
When functioning as human beings we have to take into account the rational and the irrational. We’re not computers, machines, automatons. There’s something more to us, and if it’s messy and irrational, so be it.
Re: the color-coding (or not) of the women. There may be a completely non-nefarious explanation, but even if it indicates their age and/or sexual availability, it would just be a more straight-forward version of the signifying we do with our own make-up and clothing.
This may be a bit off subject of the comments, but this scenario is reminding me of something I read from Physicist Steven Weinberg: “With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion.”
Before anyone mention Communists and that they caused evil. Under the leadership of Stalin and Mao it became a religion with the deity being the state and nationalism being the way of promoting the religion. Marx would have not considered Stalin or Mao to be Communists since they betrayed a lot of what the Communists considered parts of their party and ideal structure.
Free Elections for instance. It’s why we have Stalinism and Maoism since they are two different flavors of Communism that actually detest one another. The USSR often detested the Chinese who would have rated allied with the US.
Fear of Communism just shows how shallow the beliefs of most religious people are because they know deep in their minds and hearts that if they were born elsewhere they would never be Christian or accept a deity. It’s imparted by a structure and such a structure is an artifical construct.
Oh I see people not mentioning that the men who were married and kicked out lost all contact with their children and their wives were then handed to other members who were favored by the sect leader.
Well, you just did, so yeah, I’d say you could.
Two things: First and foremost, all of those things are capable of being respectfully critized. I can say that X color makes someone look sallow, or Y dress is cut wrong for a person, without saying anything insulting. But, secondly, (and most importantly), those things are SUBJECTIVE. The universe is not, in fact subjective: we can’t say that the sky is green to some people and blue to others (ignoring the times the sky is other colors, because I KNOW someone’ll be that pendantic). The sky is blue, whether or not you “believe” it to be green.
Well, ethically not generally. “Critisize” doesn’t mean “ridicule and mock”. Legally, you can do it all you want (in the US) and sometimes, a little bit of snark can be helpful (like when patriarchal asses rape little girls and call it “culture”).
Um, what? I don’t know how you can critisize a person’s family or gender expression. It is what it is- what is there to critisize?
The general problem here is that there is an objective universe, and there is eitehr God/Allah/Yaweh, whatever invisible omnipotent being in the sky, or there isn’t. Now, you are perfectly free to have what ever belief you want, rational or otherwise (hell, we’ve all held irrational beliefs- I hide horror novels in my lockbox when they get to scary), and NO one here is advocating that beliefs should be made illegal, or marginalized. But don’t act like the universe just gets to change because you think it so. The sky is still blue.
Ms. Kate, I hope I didn’t come off as defending any religions, much less those that advocate atrocities such as these. It is worthwhile, I think, to get clear about how we think about religion in order to prevent these sorts of things from happening, but I certainly didn’t intend to diminish the wickedness of the FLDS.
Storm at Sea:
I think you’re missing my criticism. Ashley (and you) claim that “there is no single one right belief system.” This is, itself, a single belief system that is notably incompatible with the competing belief system that there is a “single one right belief system.” It is self-contradictory, like “This is not a sentence.” You cannot believe what you claim to believe unless you mean something other than what you say.
You might affirm that certain knowledge of which, if any, belief system is correct, but you’d still have to grapple with the internal incoherency of some belief systems (such as the problem of evil, or carbon dating and scriptural literalism)–not knowing which one is correct doesn’t entail not knowing that some are not correct. But that doesn’t get you to the unassailability of belief systems. In fact, it puts you in the same position as those who hold they are not unassailable.
Could I criticizing Amanda’s lack of belief without criticizing her?
Well, you just did, so yeah, I’d say you could.
Actually, I didn’t. I’m criticizing the actions stemming from it. If Amanda chooses not to believe in anything, that’s fine and dandy. If that makes her want to mock others for their beliefs and say that all beliefs are poppycock, that’s not.
I do mean criticize in it’s more disparaging connotation. Certainly beliefs are able to be respectfully and analytically criticized, much as art is.
Antigone, people criticize/disparage gender expression and family all the time. How else would explain people’s freaking out about transexuals, or the opposition to gay adoption. Or, even more basic, the idea that a single parent family is inferior to a nuclear family.
One can, and often should, criticize the negative actions that result from a belief. But to say I’m an idiot because I think there are hundreds of gods and that I have a soul is inappropriate and wrong, much as it is inappropriate and wrong to disparage someone for their race, sexuality, etc.
(Also, I hate it when I blaspheme too soon)
The sky is blue, whether or not you “believe” it to be green.
I don’t know if biology can answer this, but how do you know that my blue and your blue are the same color? The sky has been labeled blue, so whatever color we see there we will call blue (again, ignoring pedantic exceptions). Yet, my blue could be your green. We could be experiencing different colors, but calling them the same thing and we’d never know.
Same thing with pain. I qualitatively experience pain differently from other people. Does that mean something’s wrong with me, or that I’m deluded? Or are my experiences just as valid as the next persons?
Similarly, some people experience the spiritual side of reality. Others don’t. Just because we don’t experience the exact same thing doesn’t mean that one is right and the other is wrong.
Heck, look at the neurologist who had a stroke. Pretty sure that video was here. If not, it’s made it’s way around the internets. She had a profound spiritual experience when the left side of her brain was shut off, suggesting that there is a testable, neurological element to spirituality (the idea that we are all one, aka pantheism, and a large element of Hinduism, and I think Buddhism).
Was her experience not valid, was that a delusion? Should we ignore what she experienced, what millions of people have experienced, because it hasn’t yet been quantified?
Or, perhaps, is the world just not that simple?
How much you wanna bet those kids have never seen a black person before?
Does belief make a deity or does deity make a belief? I think there’s good arguments for each side, which then gets into what does existence really mean? Are we all deluding ourselves? Are these delusions worthwhile?
I get that lots and lots of people prefer their delusions to reality, and enjoy muddling interesting discussions with pointless rhetorical questions. I just find it a little sad, and I would love to live long enough to see a world without religion. Too bad I’ll be long gone by the time it happens.
There must be more than dirt and air and rock and weeds. Eww. Can we go home now? I’m going to miss my favorite reality show. ::
That’s a great way of putting it, and it really sums up my frustration with the idea that there must be “more” to reality than plain old reality. What about reality isn’t enough for people?
The blue/green argument: what is this, sixth grade? Or Stoner-Land?
And your beliefs are part of you, and hence NO, you cannot criticize a belief w/o criticizing the person.
For instance, it is safe to say that those who embrace religion embrace the irrational. For those of us who prefer rationality, such persons are alarming and should be watched carefully, since history shows one never knows when they are going to do crazy shit.
No one is denying the possibility that your phenomenol experience of reality is, in some way, not communicable to another person. They are denying that your statements about that reality are similarly not communicable.
In other words, even an atheist will grant that you had the experience of seeing God. What they will not grant is that God was really there.
The two are conceptually and practically very different, and the distinction important. Consider how we talk of dreams and hallucinations: we may have the experience of committing a crime in a dream, but we would never put someone in jail for such an offense. We regularly acknowledge that we have experiences without acknowledging the reality of the corresponding objects that normally accompany them.
It is not, as you seem to think, a question of “real to me” but a confusion of the reality of subjective experience (what philosophers would call qualia) and the reality of the world that generates them. Everyone agrees about the former, but people disagree about how they relate to the latter. This is not surprising, as the former is accessible only subjectively while the latter, contrary to your claims, is accessible to people generally–or else we wouldn’t be able to talk to each other at all.
I actually don’t get why the word “belief” is being thrown arround with regards to atheism at all. The most concise sentence I ever read that summed up atheism for me was something to the effect of “The opposite of ‘I believe in God’ is not ‘I don’t believe in God’ it is ‘There is no God’.”
Atheism is not a belief and the only reason it’s defined as a lack of beliefs is because various religions have dominated the planet for centuries on end and have set “religious” as the default. I don’t disbelieve in a God - there IS NO God by any rational and scientific standard and there is no believing or disbelieving going on on my part.
Note (ugh, so sick of having to disclaim for fear of offending someone) that I don’t give a crap what people believe in until it has an effect on me, at which point I speak out. I come from a religious upbringing and have plenty of practice at being respectful and keeping my trap shut. Of course, with the way that religion leaks into most everything, that does unfortunately mean I have to pay it more attention than I’d like.
Simple household experiments demonstrate that the earth is flat, but other observations lead us to conclude that it is actually kinda spherical. Various sorts of spirituality give you a warm feeling, like pissing yourself in a dark suit, but is it actually outside the bounds of polite behavior for someone to notice the urine dripping into your socks?
If your religion prescribes fixed roles for different sexes, it is incumbent upon us to object. If you insist that God created the world just the other day, what do you expect us to do but point and laugh?
It’s a free country. You can believe what you want. By the same token, you can’t expect anyone else to take your beliefs seriously.
One problem w/ the media coverage of this event in TX is they keep using the terms “forced marriage” or underage marriage instead of rape. Rape. Rape. Rape. I wrote to the NYT about it. It makes me frakin’ crazy that they will not call these men out on what they are doing.
Nothip, one of the first broadcasts I saw about this case was Larry King discussing it with a group of about four women. While one of the women was speaking, she hesitated for a second before using the “forced marraige” term. Larry King immediately questioned her “So you’re saying it was rape?” She looked relieved and ammended herself “Yes, rape.”
I’ve liked Larry King ever since I heard about his “let the person you’re interviewing actually talk” principle, but that made me kind of deliriously happy.
Those dresses are nothing but Christian Burkas - and for the same purpose…
Remarkably - if you look at the middle of the road fundies they also wear similar attire - long dresses with the lace collar…
Atheism is the default position. As for calling someone an idiot because they believe in a God or Gods, well, some people are just not very nice. I cannot speak for all atheists, but I certainly do not believe that belief alone is enough to qualify someone as an idiot. However, I would suggest a strong correlation between the strength of one’s belief, and their capacity for doing or saying idiotic things.
With that said, polytheism is about as valid a belief as believing in not just Santa Claus, but also the tooth fairy. If you choose to believe in invisible Gods, or the supernatural, try not to be too offended when people who do not share your belief call it nonsense.
But what do I know, I am just a “blathering atheist”, right?
;)
To someone as liberal and as loosely attached to his religion as I am, I have a hard time imagining any amount of law, including the constitutional provision that the government can’t screw with religion, would provide even the thinnest veil of legality. What these selfish horny old Christian men have done is build and barricade a brothel/harem for themselves. Trying to hide such an enormous bloody crime behind a fig leaf of religious pretense does not seem to have fooled anyone but themselves.
I am not betting the bastards will be tried on prostitution charges but if I ran Texas, I’d charge them with that too.
But then I am naive and think the constitution also says religions shouldn’t screw with government.
——-
And Hitchens isn’t even funny!
Y’all are giving evolutionary Psych a not entirely deserved drubbing.
The worst problem with the study of how any of our tropisms, proclivities and generally our demonstrated mental baggage and tools might have been selected for through the usual mechanism of survival advantage is that too many people pounce on ostensible findings as justifications for actions rather than explanations. As justifications, some evpsych results sure look like convenient detours around normal ethical objections to simple self gratification. [and boy, don’t these Christian rapists fit THAT description!]. But as explanations, they may help us to understand why some of us misbehave or do unethical things to others…and that can help us both in the legal and the correctional aspects of building in preventions to violation and cleaning up after violations. Everyone here is getting exercised over bad justifications. The scientists are not trying to justify but to understand and explain.
The second worst thing about ev psych is how tentative its findings are compared to how firmly some will count those results as law of nature. The complexity of the brain and the million twists of influencing fate lost to us in the dust of a few million years of history mean most of the progress ev psych research must begin largely as speculation and proceed by many careful and redundant paths of experiment and observation before a sound conclusion can be announced. Its results will seldom have the unquestionable and unambiguous interpretation of the rules and patterns we derive in mathematics or physics. The quality of the answers comes from the rationality and the rigor of the study but popular usage seems to lack both.
Is it a “godless religion”? Only if it is used as justification for actions that would not pass ethical critique in the larger world…but that describes both the godful and the godless religions.
“The belief isn’t the problem, it’s causing problems and doing fucked up things because of the belief that’s the problem”
In this case, the belief is the problem. The FLDS don’t just believe that polygamy should be allowed. They believe it is mandatory, that men must have at least three wives.
Because of basic demographics (boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers) there is no way for this belief to not involve massive abuse.
Women have to have a lot of children, to ensure that there are a lot of girls being born. Men must marry women of a younger, larger generation, because there can’t be enough women in any one generation to allow for three wives for each men. Younger men have to be pushed out or marginalized, or otherwise kept from marrying women of their own generation, to ensure that those younger women can be the second and third wives of older men.
When a belief can only lead to abuse when practiced, the belief is the problem.
Saying one can believe such beliefs, provided that they never, ever act according to those beliefs, is just silly. A belief is something that you both think is true, and something that you think is important.
You know, I’ve been thinking that we need tighter rules on home schooling. We need rules about what is taught, and now long children should go to school. I think that officials should be examining the curriculum of children home schooled, and making sure that they touch base with the kids, so that they would more likely find/suspect child abuse. And I think it should be law that all children graduate high school. Even if their religion is against it. Was anyone checking on those kids and making sure they were getting an education? If these children had a good education they might figure out that there is a wilder world out there, or at least be able to survive if they escaped.
ashley: Criticize a religion’s impact on society all you want, but mocking a group for their stories because you think its silly just makes you an asshole.
So, basically use fandom rules: Just because someone’s Trekkie does not mean s/he’s an unwashed nerd living in their mother’s basement. Just because you love opera does not make you a better person than someone who loves boybands.
But is literary (or general, art) criticism allowed?
Thanks for derailing the topic early in the post, Ashely. After all, the mass rape of a bunch of little girls couldn’t possibly be more important than whether or not you feel sufficiently comfortable and coddled for your beliefs.
Vail,
I was home educated until I went to college, by parents who drew on the counter-cultural critique of industrialized education formulated by people in the free school movement of the 1960s and 70s, such as John Holt, Ivan Illich, John Gatto, etc. These activists asked (and continue to ask) challenging questions about how we share knowledge with our children, what we prioritize in public-school settings, and the underlying assumptions that are built into American schooling about the nature of children and childhood.
While I fully appreciate that child abuse happens in homeschooling families just as it does in all demographics, I resist the notion that the solution is to have more rigorous standards for testing the curriculum of home educators. It was precisely because my parents were suspicious of the dehumanizing nature of the public school practices and standards that they didn’t send us to school, and to be forced to replicate school-at-home in order to pass state tests defeats the purpose of some of the most innovative home education practices.
Our collective responsibility for children is an important thing to think about, and I believe the question of what all children should know as they grow to be part of the human family is an important one to ask–but I don’t think additional testing and oversight of that kind is necessarily the solution.
Thanks for derailing the topic early in the post, Ashely. After all, the mass rape of a bunch of little girls couldn’t possibly be more important than whether or not you feel sufficiently comfortable and coddled for your beliefs.
Keez, go check out PZ’s comment thread, which was minorly hijacked by a guy who -you know- knows this is a bad thing and all, but wants to make sure everyone’s on the same page about how it’s totally cool for a guy to be attracted to teenagers. Look, we can’t express any horror about this without first making it clear that we are not condemning men who find teens hawt hawt hawt.
His comments started making me queasy after awhile.
“No belief is unassailable.”
Absolutely–and those that confuse the right to articulate belief means that no one can counter that belief with their on or simply criticisms of the logical/faith processes by which that belief was developed, simply don’t get what it means to be religious or a-religious.
I spent the last three years in Divinity School–you know, where they make ministers and theologians–and we are always examining, arguing, deconstructing/reconstructing belief/faith/religion. So, ministers can’t argue with one another–according to Ashley? Or is it just atheists who aren’t allowed part of the conversation?
Another important distinction to to consider practice. You can believe whatever you want (and if we are to engage in dialogue, I can argue with you) but no one can engage in PRACTICES, religious, ritual, or otherwise, that infringe on the human rights or others. Raping a 13-year old girl and calling it spiritual marriage is child-abuse, rape, and imprisonment- perhaps they are articulated by “believers” as essential to their religion, but that doesn’t make these behaviors legal or protected under the Constitution.
Freedom of religious does not give “believers” either a pass on illegal practices or logical “un-assailability.” If you are trying to make your beliefs part of public policy, I can call you out on your beliefs and how mine are better. If you are keeping your beliefs to yourself and not engaging in illegal or immoral activity, I’ll leave you the fuck alone.
peace
RE: ashley -
I think we’re dealing with an epistemological skeptic here.
There are two main traditions in epistemological skepticism. One tradition makes the claim that nobody ever knows or can know anything. This claim is sometimes named Cartesian skepticism (although Descartes argued against it) or Academic skepticism (despite other interpretations of skeptics in the ancient Academy). For lack of a better description, we can call it dogmatic skepticism, because such skeptics dogmatically assert a universal claim.
In other words, I can say with great certainty that you can’t say that anything is true about the world.
I try stay far, far away from such people. You can’t argue with them because NO ONE IS EVER RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING.
Ashley: at a very fundamental level, I do not believe that there is any one single right belief system.
Is that a religious belief? (Not every belief is religious. I believe I need more coffe.)
It sounds more like what my philosophy prof called a meta-value: An element that makes different moral systems able to work out their differences peacefully. (Plurality, to be exact. His other meta value, IIRC, being reciprocity.)
paul: When my sister was in divinity school, one of the episodes in her Early Christianity class involved issues about priests of certain sects who convinced female parishioners to let the Holy Spirit (as personified by the priest) enter into them.
There are dirty folk songs about that.
Can we not be harshing these women’s hairstyles and clothing, please? I don’t find it aesthetically pleasing either, but seriously.
I second the opinion that the similarly-colored dresses are because they are home sewn, and when you have that many people to clothe you buy fabric by the bolt.
I do wonder what will happen to all the women and kids. I guess the kids will be easier, they can be put into foster homes. But as an adult coming out of a religion like that, are these women equiped to just be plunked out in some town, expected to get a job and get on with their lives. What sort of rehablitation do we have for them? I mean, I’m sure some of them are pissed about getting taken from their homes and kids… Should we as taxpayers provide each woman with a house and schooling? (Actually I quite like that idea). Sorry for the rambling…
Alot of the comments sound really condescending towards the women and I think that is a shame.
Bullshit. You are violating their civil rights by allowing those assholes to rape them and enslave them.
It’s no good saying we’re allowing the men the right of freedom of religion under the 1st while denying the rights of the girls to emancipation under the 13th (Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.)
So it was okay for the 13th Amendment violations until one girl broke free enough to get to a phone? Just fuck that.
Women are human beings, damn it. And these
womengirls were US Citizens in US territory.Ashley, you threadjacker, I’m glad you’re patriotic. Acknowledging that you are free to believe as you will and cannot force others to accept your beliefs plus others beliefs are as valid as yours is all 1st Amendment yumminess.
But the belief in a deity is not fact-based. It is not reality–at least not in the demonstrable, testable, provable sense that is generally meant by reality.
Atheism is demonstrably better from a rational logical point of view. Doesn’t really matter what flavor of belief you have, believing that events are caused or mandated by any Sky Fairy/ies is not a reality-based argument. You will have your ass handed to you by any atheist.
That is rather the definition of faith–believing in something despite the evidence. It’s the only counter-argument to atheism that has any bearing at all, but it also cedes to the atheist that general reality conforms to facts.
Being religious doesn’t make you stupid and doesn’t make you evil (unless you believe that your god demands you to
marryrape at least 3 little girls to get to heaven). There are plenty of good people who believe in a god, as any atheist will agree.What you cannot argue is that there is any reality-based reason for believing things are created/controlled/manipulated by the FSM. It’s your opinion, and it may be well-thought out and personally validated, but it’s not testable or repeatable and you can’t make reliable predictions from it.
And your opinions are always subject to criticism. Your feelings will be hurt if you keep trying to insist that your opinion has any bearing on general reality beyond your how it affects your actions.
We’re all happy you have opinions. We have ours as well. But when you claim we can’t criticize people for having opinions, especially unverifiable opinions, you’re being ridiculous.
annajcook I’m glad you had a very good experience with home schooling. But I have relatives that home school and believe me, I don’t think they’re getting the basics. And that’s what I’m worried about. Reading, writting and arithmetic. And basic living skills like opening a savings account, managing money etc. I’m not saying they have to use the same (really stupid and lame) school books as the public school, but that the things you need to know to get by. I don’t know if these women know that they can vote, or anything like that. Your parents weren’t abusing you, but unfortunately since most of these kids never see a doctor (or anyone outside of the cult really) someone coming to their home to check their education might be the only way to spot bruises etc. And it’s not just polygamists either, here in Wisconsin, a family let their daughter die of type one diabetes while they prayed over her. She had not been to a doctor since she was 3, and she was home schooled. A family member in Calif. finally had to call 911 but when they got there it was too late. It took her a month to die.
Theism is not per se irrational. I wouldn’t call Descartes or Newton, or their philosophical systems, irrational.
How do you know with dead certainly that nothing exists other than matter and energy? And how can you possibly be intellectually satisfied to answer the question, “what accounts for matter and energy in the first place?”, with the seeming non-answer, “they just exist, that’s all.”
None of this is to deny that the FDLS are hideous psychopaths whose leaders deserve all ridicule anyone can hurl at them, and whose women and children need rescue and deprogramming.
An atheist would argue that, though neither Descartes nor Newton were, as individuals, irrational, the theistic systems they bought into certainly were irrational.
Not being an atheist, I don’t make that argument; all the same, IMO, the substitution of an individual’s set of beliefs for that whole individual is, whadayacall, misleading. Since we don’t need to subscribe to either Descartes’ religion or Newton’s religion to access the rest of their intellectual work (Newtonian physics will work just as well for a Buddhist as for a Christian) we’re justified in claiming that no man’s mental achievements are dependant on his belief in God.
“I wouldn’t call Descartes or Newton, or their philosophical systems, irrational.”
I would. Theism is the positing of an unnecessary and unsupported element to the universe, which is per se irrational.
Besides, Newton believed he was chosen to interpret the Bible since no one else could, and predicted that the apocalypse would happen in 2060.
Descartes believed that the soul resided in the pineal gland, and that animals cannot feel pain. He also rejected the idea that the senses can react to things that don’t exist because God would not deceive him.
How do you know with dead certainly that nothing exists other than matter and energy?
We don’t. We’ve never seen evidence for anything other than matter and energy. If we do, we’ll want to know as much about it as we can, because it would be a fascinating subject.
And how can you possibly be intellectually satisfied to answer the question, “what accounts for matter and energy in the first place?”, with the seeming non-answer, “they just exist, that’s all.”
How about “let’s find out how they came to exist instead of just making up an answer”? It’s theists who are satisfied with “they just exist, that’s all” when talking about their gods. Don’t project.
Oops. The second paragraph is mine, not a quote.
There are plenty of good people who believe in a god, as any atheist will agree.
Maybe not any atheist:
For instance, it is safe to say that those who embrace religion embrace the irrational. For those of us who prefer rationality, such persons are alarming and should be watched carefully, since history shows one never knows when they are going to do crazy shit.
Thom, I see your point. It’s like the meta-value that inge brought up. I might not feel that everyone has to believe in the same God I do, but I do think that everyone should respect others’ beliefs as long as they aren’t infringing on their own lives (which is clearly a biiiiiiiiiiiig problem in the case under discussion). And just like everyone else, some atheists apparently feel it’s okay for other people to have religious beliefs, and some don’t.
To get back to the topic, what I got out of Amanda’s post was that these nutters are using religion as an excuse to carry out their hyper-patriarchical agenda, not that religion itself necessarily led to that agenda. The distinction between Dobson and Haggard was particularly useful in that respect.
There are two separate definitions of faith that I hear used by both atheists and believers and I’ve become convinced that is important to keep them separate, or at least keep in mind that they are different in terms of real-world consequences. I’ll define them as “type 1″ and “type 2″ for the sake of convenience.
“Type 1″ faith is believing in the existence of something in the absence of empirical evidence. This perspective most commonly shows up in liberal theology, such as the works of John Shelby Spong or the “non-overlapping magisteria” model of science and religion.
“Type 2″ faith is believing in the existence of something despite empirical evidence. This perspective is found in conservative and literalist theologies. People of “type 1″ faith don’t necessarily believe that their religion makes any sort of scientific claim about the physical world, whereas people of “type 2″ faith insist on literal beliefs in creationism, the flood, humans living alongside dinosaurs and so forth.
Neither position is supported by the scientific method, which for good reason treats absence of evidence as evidence of absence. However, in my experience “type 2″ is often dangerous whereas “type 1″ is generally not. This may simply be because of the kinds of people who embrace “type 2″ - it requires a pretty high level of self-righteousness to look all the evidence in the face (of, say, the age of the Earth) and insist that “the devil put it there to trick us.” Self-righteous people are usually much more likely to try and force others to conform to their beliefs.
Getting back to the original topic of the article, FLDS is a classic “type 2″ organization. There’s no way that at least some people in their community didn’t know from their own empirical experience that marrying off twelve-year-old girls to fifty-year-old men resulted in psychological and physiological harm to the girls, but most of them didn’t take any action to stop it because their “type 2″ faith told them that they needed to stick with it regardless of the consequences because it was what their god (or in this case, their “prophet”) wanted.
Just so the little whistle-blower gets some iteration of witness protection…and
far far away from the crazies.
I’m sure they’d kill her if they get her back.
There is that. Does anyone know what’s become of her? I’ve been trying to follow the coverage, and there’s been no mention. Of course, I can understand why they’d want to let as little information about her get out as possible, but does anyone know if she’s…alright is the wrong word I suppose…safe?
They haven’t identified her yet. She is either safe, or she’s been shipped out somewhere or most likely dead (though if she’s pregnant they might keep her locked up till the baby is born).
Keez, go check out PZ’s comment thread, which was minorly hijacked by a guy who -you know- knows this is a bad thing and all, but wants to make sure everyone’s on the same page about how it’s totally cool for a guy to be attracted to teenagers.
Not to mention the guy who kept ranting on and on about how much men suck as if he were trying to absolve himself of his maleness, and drawing the ire of feminists and “misandrist”-accusers alike. The treatises on public urination were my favorite part.
Yeah, I’m so relieved all those kids can go to foster homes. Really, there is no happy ending here. Or rather, the only happy ending is that it didn’t end like Waco. This is a terrible story, and the government had to act, but it’s not like the trauma is over now for these people.
Is it just me? Why are there even photos out there of what are undoubtedly minors? It really bothers me. I feel they’re being victimized again.
Eric,
I’m glad someone else mentioned that. “Duuuude!! Who knows what’s really real? Like, I could be a fuckin’ universe, man! There might be planets and shit floating around inside my blood cells. It’s like that Phillip K. Dick book, you know, where the…wait…what?”
outlier,
Another word for them is Unitarians. Everyone’s right! Now hug your neighbor and let’s all feel good about ourselves.
Seraph…
The status of the whistle-blower is unknown. They can’t find her and haven’t identified her.
Almost makes the Church of Scientology seem quaint. Sure, the CoS has its own prison camp, but at least they’re not systematically raping underaged girls.
Bitter Scribe:
I read Escape. The shit in there is horrifying. (I think it might have said in there that one of the men had a wife who wasn’t obedient enough so he tied her to a horse and had the horse run around. She was pregnant and being dragged on her stomach. She lived; the baby didn’t. Another man decided that he didn’t want his wife’s baby to be delivered in a hospital, so they did it at their house, with sewing scissors and dental floss).
Another interesting fact: it was generally a rule in FLDS communities not to have sex with pregnant women. Unless, of course, Warren Jeffs decided that you were high-status enough, and then you could. It’s….it’s just ridiculous.
(Sorry if this is a double post. I’m not 100% net-savvy.)
Bitter Scribe:
I read Escape. The shit in there is horrifying. (I think it might have said in there that one of the men had a wife who wasn’t obedient enough so he tied her to a horse and had the horse run around. She was pregnant and being dragged on her stomach. She lived; the baby didn’t. Another man decided that he didn’t want his wife’s baby to be delivered in a hospital, so they did it at their house, with sewing scissors and dental floss).
Another interesting fact: it was generally a rule in FLDS communities not to have sex with pregnant women. Unless, of course, Warren Jeffs decided that you were high-status enough, and then you could. It’s….it’s just ridiculous.
Ashley wrote:
Because beliefs are separate from the people who hold them.
No two people have exactly the same beliefs. Disagreement is a non-negotiable fact of life.
Given each person’s unique life history, each of us will be exposed to slightly (or dramatically) different evidence. Even people who are exposed to similar evidence may draw different conclusions.
If we know anything, it’s this: Every human being has a large number of false or poorly-supported beliefs. Nobody has all the evidence, and nobody has an all-powerful mind to sort through it all. Philosophers like to point out that virtually every belief that has been held by anyone in the history of believing is deficient in some way.
So, if someone criticizes a belief that you have, it’s not necessarily an attack on you personally. The critic isn’t necessarily implying that you are stupid, or ignorant, or ill-intentioned. They may not even think you’re wrong.
Some people learn best by questioning. In that case, criticizing beliefs can be the best kind of compliment. Critical engagement can be a way to show that you respect someone and care about what they think.
Christopher HItchens is certainly suspect because of his supporting the Iraq war. He has a past that is more positive. I haven’t read his current book on religion, but his book on Mother Teresa — THE MISSIONARY POSITION — is excellent.
I have read both of Sam Harris’s books. The first and most controversial is an embarrassment. He does get in a few moderately skillful digs at the belief in god, but, in general, his ignorance of the specifics of religion is quite woeful.
For example, in criticizing Catholicism, which is a large target, he makes the common mistake (many Catholics make it) of confusing the virgin birth and the immaculate conception. Both are essentially sexist, but then, of course, Harris isn’t interested in gender issues.
Harris also has nothing much to say about Judaism but he does expatiate on Islam. In fact it is his prime target, because the inspiration for his book was the attacks of 9/11. However, he knows so little about it that his primary evidence is a couple of pages from a book by somebody else, which are blood-thirsty quotations, completely out of context, from the Koran. He ignores the similar portions of the bible.
First of all, the only one who has been making definite pronouncements either way is Ashley, who somehow knows that there is more to her than matter and energy. And yet it’s her critics who get accused of “dead certainty”. Funny.
Did you know that the emergence of matter (’virtual particles’) in a vacuum is an observable effect? OK, where did the vacuum come from? We don’t know, but people are working on that! How is this curiosity “dead certainty” and the empty pronouncements about “something more” and “some things are unknowable” aren’t?
And how could anyone possibly be intellectually satisfied with the non-answer “God* accounts for matter and energy. But nothing accounts for God; he just exists.”
(*or substitute a spiritual force of your choice)
Hitchens strikes me as an out-and-out misogynist.
From his essay praising blowjobs–a praiseworthy thing IMO–yet Hitch evinces a nasty attitude towards the women who have (allegedly) blown him:
Vanity Fair has, wisely, removed the original essay off their website. See also, Hitch’s essay about how women are naturally unfunny.
On a related note… Practicing evolutionary psychologists have an undeserved reputation for being sexist. I did my undergraduate degree in biological psych in a department that was teaching ev psych before it was a household word. The people I knew who gravitated towards ev psych, including my closest academic mentor in college, tended to be more liberal and enlightened in their personal and political philosophies than your average academic/grad student.
Whatever the implications/sociopolitical context of their ev psych work, I got the sense that the practitioners were drawn to the field because they questioned the received wisdom about sex and gender. It’s probably an unfortunate historical accident that ev psych was one of the few “scientific” disciplines that allowed “serious” inquiry into these subjects at a time when the humanities were burgeoning with opportunities for researchers to explore every facet of human sexuality as a legitimate academic pursuit. In the nineties, eager students who went into psychology to better understand human behavior were being told that human sexuality was a soft, touchy feely discipline that wasn’t a worthy avenue for their scientific aspirations. (This gets into factional and generational arguments within psychology that aren’t really relevant here.)
I’m using the scare quotes because I’m not sure that ev psych was that much more, or less, scientific than a lot of other avenues of research in psychology, I’m just saying ev psych had a cachet that gave some people permission to investigate stuff they were interested in that would otherwise have been dismissed. (Chalk that disciplinary norm up to whatever -ism you like.)
My point is that it’s almost always the crude popularizers of ev psych who inject the nastiness and overt sexism. The worst offenders usually have the weakest backgrounds in the field. The real practitioners, whatever you think of their research, are well versed in the idea that is doesn’t imply ought.
ashley
April 14, 2008 at 12:34 am
…The sky is blue, whether or not you “believe” it to be green.
I don’t know if biology can answer this, but how do you know that my blue and your blue are the same color? The sky has been labeled blue, so whatever color we see there we will call blue (again, ignoring pedantic exceptions). Yet, my blue could be your green. We could be experiencing different colors, but calling them the same thing and we’d never know.
But we can both go to a spectrometer (?)and see that the sky one of us terms blue and the other terms green has a wavelength of x length.. That’s an objective raality, even if our subjective perceptions or labels vary.
I see a tree, someone else sees a work of god(s) - objective reality says, it has chlorophyll, requries water and nutrients to grow, etc. An artist sees it’s aesthetic potential, a carpenter it’s furniture making, a bees it’s food potential. But in it’s brute facticity, it is a tree x meters high, reducible to x elements, x amount of stored energy - all measurable, all unchangeable outside the laws of physics.
Will someone please tell Hitchens to stop representing atheists? Jebus Herbert Walker Christ…
the matthew show:So you agree that Christopher Hitchens represents atheists about as much as Valerie Solanas represents feminists?That’s what I think.
resident_alien,
Hitchens does represent one part of me, and I’m sitting on it right now. Or is that “resemble”?
I love home skoolers. They make the bestest cheap labor ever. It takes them years to realize how little they know and how far behind their parents put them. I know, there’s this kid from somewhere who was accepted to Harvard and they was home skooled. Oh, their parents were professors at a very prestigious college and they lived close enough to partake of all the offerings. Professors ususally are pretty smart to begin with and having peers ‘helping’ was a plus. Oh, I just described public schooling…with PhDs instead of MAs.
The crackers that do it here in PA pretty much relegate their offspring to dumb and dumber.
The PedoMormons have been doing this for years. It is more that the law enforcement now feels that with Bush soon gone and the next President being Democrat, the penalties will match the crimes. Sheriff Doofus won’t do jack so you to go around his cracker @ss. This means federal and state. In the last eight years, most of the appointees to the federal have been religio-crazies who might not want to put Gawd-fearin’ men in jail. So, when the rapists go to trial, they’ll face Obama or Clinton prosecutors and judges who dare not set the perps free.
I think that Ashley and Storm at Sea’s idea that all beliefs are equally valid has more, shall we say, validity than people are giving it credit for. To be fair, they haven’t exactly brought out the most compelling arguments for it. Part of the problem is that this view operates from different definitions of belief and truth than the common ones. It seems that most commenters on this thread are operating from the correspondence theory of truth, which is basically that a proposition is true when it accurately or adequately corresponds to what actually exists in some external reality. It seems that there is also a general belief that such truths must obey the rules of logic, and that logic is therefore a valid means of ascertaining truth.
Proceeding from these assumptions, let us examine this notion of truth. Firstly, as far as I can tell, I have no direct access to “external reality.” I have access only to my experience, which may or may not reflect external reality in a consistent way, or at all, assuming such a reality even exists. Secondly, a proposition must be articulated in language, which, in my experience, does a pretty mediocre job of accurately reflecting my experience. It can be argued that it’s reasonably successful at adequately reflecting experience, but then, adequately for what?
Here’s where the crux of the issue is for me. However dismal or bright the prospects of arriving at truths that correspond to external reality may be, I don’t happen to particularly care about such truths. It doesn’t matter to me whether the assumptions upon which I base my actions correspond to external reality. What matters to me is what sort of experiences they allow/encourage/cause me to have.
Similarly, when it comes to group stories, it doesn’t matter to me whether they are “true” in the correspondence sense, but what sort of existence they cause the communities that hold them to lead.
The definition of belief from which I operate, and from which it seems that Ashley and Storm at Sea may be operating, is, to articulate it extemporaneously, “a narrative or set of ideas that constitute the world in which I live and upon which I base my actions.” In this sense, all beliefs are indeed equally valid.
However, I don’t believe that beliefs should not be criticized. I think that by intelligently critiquing one another’s narratives we produce an increasing number of increasingly complex and nuanced narratives from which to choose, and i like this.
Eric,
I’m glad someone else mentioned that. “Duuuude!! Who knows what’s really real? Like, I could be a fuckin’ universe, man! There might be planets and shit floating around inside my blood cells. It’s like that Phillip K. Dick book, you know, where the…wait…what?”
outlier,
Another word for them is Unitarians. Everyone’s right! Now hug your neighbor and let’s all feel good about ourselves.
–the matthew show
This, on the other hand, is just being an asshole. Of course, I respect your right to be an asshole, but preferably somewhere where I’m not. Pity about the internet being everywhere.
But we can both go to a spectrometer (?)and see that the sky one of us terms blue and the other terms green has a wavelength of x length.. That’s an objective raality, even if our subjective perceptions or labels vary.
I see a tree, someone else sees a work of god(s) - objective reality says, it has chlorophyll, requries water and nutrients to grow, etc. An artist sees it’s aesthetic potential, a carpenter it’s furniture making, a bees it’s food potential. But in it’s brute facticity, it is a tree x meters high, reducible to x elements, x amount of stored energy - all measurable, all unchangeable outside the laws of physics.
–phylosopher
Meters, elements, energy, wavelengths: all of these are linguistic constructions, collective fictions like the gods. What’s real, if anything, is those immediate experiences that I communicate as “tree” or “sky.”
Or at least, from my perspective. It’s totally cool with me that you believe in truth and all, but I saw people talking past each other, and that always prompts me to jump in.
On the “real” topic, one of the worst things about this incident (besides the repeated institutionalized rape) is that it will be used as further evidence that relationships that are not monogamous and unigenerational are wrong, bad, unnatural, etc. In fact, it will be used as evidence that other kinds of nontraditional relationships and family structures are also wrong, even though we haven’t seen any homosexual rape cults (that I’m aware of.) And I’m sure the mainstream will ignore the fact that the hallowed institution of marriage itself was a real handy tool for this kind of exploitation. Not that that was what it was designed for or anything . . .
In case anyone was wondering when mockery is appropriate, Asa generously offers a case study.
You’re lying.
If you didn’t care about objective external reality, then you would
make-believeconstruct a narrative that lets you walk through brick walls, to reach yourphysical destinationsexperiences sooner and to coincide with your understanding of the world as afashionable lieset of ideas rather than a concrete reality.Hear that, everyone? Those of us seeking nuclear disarmament can just deploy Asa to the weapons facilities. One lecture on how plutonium is socially constructed, and those bombs will become duds by sheer force of imagination. It’ll be a triumph of the will.
The possibilities are endless. Houses bulldozed by Israeli settlers? No problem. Kinetic energy is a collective fiction; Hamas schools can teach pomo physics and the Palestinians will be safe from bullets, rockets, and second-hand American jets.
Get a bad sunburn at the beach? Wavelengths are imaginary! Ultraviolet light is a lie perpetrated by mean scientists on the payroll of the sunscreen-industrial complex. Forget skin cancer, I’m just going to stop encouraging myself to have the experience of radiation.