Satriale's P(rosciutto) & C(appicola) Thread for tasty religion debates!

a discussion in the Post a News Story thread got involved enough to take it over and justify a new thread.

Here's a rough guide to where the conversations start:

--discussion started here: LINK

--really gets going on the Christianity & Slavery topic here: LINK

--gets into the "What is Religion, anyway?" question here: LINK

--goes "wee wee wee" all the way home here: LINK

--and gets to invisible knapsacks & religion here: LINK

sometimesdee wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It is not privileged currently above all others. I would say that the current privileged institution would be the State, even in the US. American let their State get away with wars and killing civilians in foreign lands; promising freedom and prosperity but bringing an iron fist and death. I don't think any American would let a church get away with that.

Churches get tax-exempt status in the US; that's certainly a lucrative privilege.

From a technical perspective: If it were lucrative, churches shouldn't qualify as tax exempt anymore by law. The distressing thing in the US is that they still somehow do.

LouZiffer wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It is not privileged currently above all others. I would say that the current privileged institution would be the State, even in the US. American let their State get away with wars and killing civilians in foreign lands; promising freedom and prosperity but bringing an iron fist and death. I don't think any American would let a church get away with that.

Churches get tax-exempt status in the US; that's certainly a lucrative privilege.

From a technical perspective: If it were lucrative, churches shouldn't qualify as tax exempt anymore by law. The distressing thing in the US is that they still somehow do.

I think it was L Ron Hubbard who said if you want to make real money, you need to start a religion.

Paleocon wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It is not privileged currently above all others. I would say that the current privileged institution would be the State, even in the US. American let their State get away with wars and killing civilians in foreign lands; promising freedom and prosperity but bringing an iron fist and death. I don't think any American would let a church get away with that.

Churches get tax-exempt status in the US; that's certainly a lucrative privilege.

From a technical perspective: If it were lucrative, churches shouldn't qualify as tax exempt anymore by law. The distressing thing in the US is that they still somehow do.

I think it was L Ron Hubbard who said if you want to make real money, you need to start a religion.

Right, and in the US there are pastors who become mega-stars while the churches they work for are careful to take every opportunity to say that it's not about the money. Our laws are clear, but I don't think they're being followed.

(I don't have much of a problem with the system as it is written, but I have big problems with it as it exists.)

I read the various posts on privilege, and I think Larry is maybe missing my intent. Specifically, I was referring to religion as both highly influential on society and culture, and getting a free pass on the process of change that most institutions go through. While religions do change, that change is usually only to meet the demands of the internal power structure (which can also be a non-religious one), or to adapt to external knowledge that irrefutably contradicts teachings (but usually not foundational ones). That's very different from change in other institutions.

Take the Catholic Church. It's well known for fitting itself to cultural requirements. The Church in Asia looks like the Church in the US and Western Europe, and both are different from the Church in South America. However, it's foundational documents are not subject to change, at all. Re-interpretation? Yes. That falls into Larry's "justification" argument, certainly. But while the Catholic Church is pretty flexible, compare it to the US government.

The foundational documents are designed to change. Currently, they've been updated 27 times, each time changing completely earlier versions of the document, completely outlawing certain interpretations that were present before.

Compare to Leviticus. Hasn't changed in, what, 1700 years? And while Catholics cite Leviticus as a source for social policy in a limited way in some countries, and more politically in others, they are not the only ones who are using it as a source. The entire Protestant movement reserves the right to interpret the books any way they choose, and act on those interpretations in their own countries as if it were God's Truth.

Which is more privileged in society? The Constitution, or the Bible? There are many who believe the Bible demands allegiance before all else. To me, it's pretty clear that the Constitution loses that comparison, at least until the Bible starts to get Amendments.

In the past, we see thousands of years of examples of people acting on religious beliefs. We *also* see people using religion as an excuse. Either way, if the holy texts can't change, those that have outlived their usefulness will nonetheless be available to believers, in perpetuity. This is dangerous, and we're seeing some effects of that here in the US, with more to come, most likely.

Larry, you have more problems with abusive government than we do (even though we're doing worse than we were 30 years ago). But we have more problems with religion than you do. It is something that is viewed differently here, and it's the basis for action that you'd find perplexing at best, and frightening at worst.

Robear wrote:

Specifically, I was referring to religion as both highly influential on society and culture, and getting a free pass on the process of change that most institutions go through. While religions do change, that change is usually only to meet the demands of the internal power structure (which can also be a non-religious one), or to adapt to external knowledge that irrefutably contradicts teachings (but usually not foundational ones). That's very different from change in other institutions.

My post was back here, and I'll just add to it say that I think because all other institutions serve their purpose here on earth. Other institutions are a tool for achieving some goal which is the ultimate end, while in religions, the institution of the Church is (often and to more or less a degree) an end in itself. The institution itself is sacred. Other institutions swim in those same waters (like the previous news story about the flag and how the flag code holds the flag to be a living thing) but religion tends to be towards the deep end.

I'd also say that means other institutions are far more evidence-based depending on how much metaphysics is involved in that religion. I can see if other institutions are actually making the difference in the world that the claim is their goal. I can't do that if my religion says a rule will make sure good things happen to me after I'm dead.

I dig the obscurity and apropos-ness of this title.

Is this the new Hannibal thread for Season 3? Woohoo!

I think it's telling that religion in the US has sunk in prestige and clout to the point that many people are okay with seeing it as nothing more than a vehicle for making money and for getting away with some things. It's basically a really weird law practice with some exemptions at that point. I don't consider weird law practices with some exemptions (even tax and law ones) to be particularly privileged as an institution.

Robear:

I think our differences is most in that I'm okay with religion being mostly a stabilizing and conservative (in the not-US sense of the term) cultural force. It is the last things to change, but it's also one of the most enduring institutions and organizations. That goes hand in hand. It's both a pro and a con.

Take the Catholic Church. It's well known for fitting itself to cultural requirements. The Church in Asia looks like the Church in the US and Western Europe, and both are different from the Church in South America. However, it's foundational documents are not subject to change, at all. Re-interpretation? Yes. That falls into Larry's "justification" argument, certainly. But while the Catholic Church is pretty flexible, compare it to the US government.

The foundational documents are designed to change. Currently, they've been updated 27 times, each time changing completely earlier versions of the document, completely outlawing certain interpretations that were present before.

Compare to Leviticus. Hasn't changed in, what, 1700 years? And while Catholics cite Leviticus as a source for social policy in a limited way in some countries, and more politically in others, they are not the only ones who are using it as a source. The entire Protestant movement reserves the right to interpret the books any way they choose, and act on those interpretations in their own countries as if it were God's Truth.

Which is more privileged in society? The Constitution, or the Bible? There are many who believe the Bible demands allegiance before all else. To me, it's pretty clear that the Constitution loses that comparison, at least until the Bible starts to get Amendments.

I still think you're getting unnecessarily hung up on the written document. How many people even read the Bible? Not that many. How many read it without prejudice (not looking for something, non-biased, scientifically disciplined)? I'd say nearly none. Pretty much no one does that, and very few people listen to those guys.

Changing the interpretation of a written document essentially changes that document. The written word is the same, but the meaning can be profoundly different. Two religions founded on the same document can be profoundly different and completely antithetical to each other. What this suggests is that the written document is suggestive at best. They were trying to justify what they want to do and they did it; and that only has very superficial relationships to the actual written word (see: Protestant and Catholics. See: Bible being used to justify completely opposite things).

The document isn't the religion. The Bible isn't Christianity. One Christian religion isn't the same as another.

And Christianity isn't the only religion on the face of the planet.

People can profess allegiance to the Bible above that of the Constitution, but until I see a massive movement of people flagrantly committing crimes and treason in service of the Bible, I'll remain skeptical. The Constitution has been used to market gun sales and mark out the US as one of the most gun-friendly environments on the planet, with remarkable results. And it's hard to change it. That seems pretty radical and a lot more influential.

Case in point. The Bible explicitly forbids killing without exception in its 10 most strongly worded recommendations. New Testament believers can additional clarifications. Jesus says that the greatest strictures are to love your neighbor and to love God. Your neighbor invades your home. The Constitution says it's okay to kill him. And many Americans will. That's a practical and real demonstration of the primacy of the State over religion.

In the past, we see thousands of years of examples of people acting on religious beliefs. We *also* see people using religion as an excuse. Either way, if the holy texts can't change, those that have outlived their usefulness will nonetheless be available to believers, in perpetuity. This is dangerous, and we're seeing some effects of that here in the US, with more to come, most likely.

The words themselves cannot change (debatable - alternate translations do exist), but their interpretations change all the time. That's why you have a gazillion churches in your locality playing theological Mad Max with each other. Every document will be interpreted according to the nature of the people who read it. Even theoretically perfectly unchangeable ones. A rule that has outlived its usefulness and does not call to any latent need or desire will be completely ignored (see: shellfish see: t-shirts). How "available" that is is questionable, and I don't know if its meaning will be preserved, so while the technical word is preserved, the true nature of that word - its meaning - can easily be lost or changed.

I think you're overly assigning to religion what is inherent in your greater sociocultural reality. You're wrong about the Catholic or Protestant Churches being the same in the US and Asia. They're not the same. I haven't been preached to in 40 years. I've been politely approached a few times, but a polite "I'm kind of busy," was all it took for them to politely back the hell down. Some of my Protestant family members hand me books from time to time - books they assure me I'm not required to read at all. So I lost them out of not caring about their content.

In fact, one of the greatest ongoing challenges of the Catholic Church in the Philippines for decades now is that far too many people are completely apathetic about religion, often only going to church at important family events, and more for the family than anyone else. It's not a stretch to say that family is a stronger institution than the religion here, so the Church is careful about saying anything that will ask people to turn on their families. That would be very, very unpopular; and it won't take much for many Catholics to quietly stop going.

Larry, you have more problems with abusive government than we do (even though we're doing worse than we were 30 years ago). But we have more problems with religion than you do. It is something that is viewed differently here, and it's the basis for action that you'd find perplexing at best, and frightening at worst.

OG_Slinger has suggested that we have the same freedom of expression that you do now. Yes and no.

Your freedom of expression here is directly defended with guns and bullets. If you don't have the arms, you stay quiet or risk your life. This is not from some centralized authority or central organized party like it was with Marcos, but it can be just as brutal. Journalists continue to die here, and school teachers only whisper their truest views of the Power Families in small isolated cubicles. I, myself, directly witness corruption and abuse of power weekly. I want to speak out against it but I can't because I'll lose my job at the least, and possibly get killed at the worst. The only reason I can criticize Malacanang is because it's current small, weak, and beset with opponents.

There is a difference between power and privilege. The government in the US has more POWER than Religion does, because it taxes, has a military, etc, etc. However it has a lot of responsibility to go along with it, there are specific rules for how various branches operate, as well as different branches and organizations that work to enforce those rules. In the end, as imperfect as our democracy system is, the US government is at the end of the day an extension of the will of the US people, with their votes empowering it, and those votes can and are moved and withdrawn to different factions of the government in response to the will of the people.

Religion has more privilege that the US government, because when people like us say things like "geez it's weird that an all powerful, perfect, moral, and loving god has such a hard time keeping his sects from using his perfect words of perfect knowledge as an excuse to torture and enslave people", people like you respond "well yeah, that's just people, what is my omnipotent deity compared to the power of random humans looking to making a quick buck."

So religions have the power of speaking as the mouth pieces for immortal beings with perfect knowledge of right and wrong, but when those religions end up somehow misplacing those teachings it's never an indication that maybe some of the assumptions about that being (knowledgeable, love for humanity, morality... existence) are wrong, it's just "haha, yeah, us humans are going to screw things up, even humans working for perfect deities. Maybe especially humans working for perfect deities! Scummy humans right, good thing we have this perfect deity watching out for us--as long as you don't look at his track record super hard."

There is only one thing like that in government, and it's the really small government people, but when they turn around and say "hah! you can't trust people in the government to watch out for you!" it's because they are actively trying to dismantle those parts of the government. That's not happening with religion, unless you thing think that atheists are sneaking into religious institutions to preach hate and greed as part of the long con to dismantle religion.

Oh god I just invented a new conspiracy theory didn't I.

Yonder:

Yeah.

You know what? The part where people believe that their god is immortal and infallible? That shouldn't matter to you. Or to anyone, really. People can believe whatever they want. That's what freedom of religion ensures. The only point that matters is when people start doing and saying things that hit your face. Saying their god is infallible and immortal and all-good shouldn't do that. That's not religion being privileged. That's just a natural extension of free speech (and being able to think whatever you like).

I'm far more swayed and concerned when people who claim to be faith-workers start killing people they themselves know to be innocent, taking their lands, or subverting their governments and ways of life.

They are connected because their claims of having the favor of an infallible and immortal and wonderful being is what gives them the power and money to repeatedly hit people in the face. The organization that you are attached to matters. When a police officer mugs and beats some innocent person it is worse than when a gang member does it, and that association negatively impacts the police department. By that note, when a bunch of religious people condone slavery or racism or sexism or homophobia, etc, etc, that negatively impacts the religions that they are associated with.

Just like the police department should be carefully vetting their members and upholding them to a high standard, religions should be carefully vetting their members and upholding them to a high standard. Both the humans in that religion and the deities in that religion, with their access to supernatural intelligence and insight into the human mind and the human condition.

Sorry. In the context of this discussion, you cannot simultaneously criticize religion for not holding itself to a higher standard than other organizations or institutions, and also say that it's not very special. It either is or it is not.

Claims of whatever (infallible god, organic healthy secrets, "scientific truths,") give people and institutions credibility, power, and wealth. Does it matter that it's a god claim? It doesn't, to me. A police officer mugging and beating an innocent person violates an intrinsic social order and agreement. That's why it's wrong. A religious organization has no intrinsic social contract with others of its like or with other institutions. You may or may not view those organizations well. That's really up to you.

This suggests that you might be harboring some kind of unspoken assumption I'm not parsing. It appears that religions have to be good? Religions have to be moral to your standards, specifically? I'm not sure.

The only part that's wrong is when it starts hitting people in the face. That's the objectionable part. I don't see religions hitting people in the face with anything like the force of other institutions on your soil. No North American religion is armed with nuclear weapons. Arguably, Israel does, but that's more of a Church-State, nearly a literal theocracy.

LarryC wrote:

You're wrong about the Catholic or Protestant Churches being the same in the US and Asia.

Actually, what I said was that they were *not* the same in different parts of the world, as part of the argument that the interpretations, based on the text, are a big part of the problem.

I think you and I have similar understandings, but we function in vastly different environments. But I would note that you're shading to an experience of the Church that is different from that experienced in Western Europe and the Americas, one of state control and frequent religious warfare, as well as a vast well (tens of thousands of versions deep) of different interpretations of the Bible. In many ways, I think modern American/UK Protestants are moving *towards* a literalist interpretation of the Bible, rather than away from it. For the US, this is turning into practical social problems, and that's what's reflected in my posts. If the problem is literalism, then a move against it - changing the words - looks like something desirable. Difficult, but then again, we have had your view of religion several times in American history, and only had real issues with literalism perhaps... twice? three times?

But I think we're in a worse situation now because for the first time literalists are substantially influencing our laws, as well as society, and in a way that is intended to privilege Christians under the law, as opposed to other religions and certainly atheists. And that's scary, again, given the history of the Church in Europe and the early Americas.

The problem with moving towards a "literalist" interpretation of the Bible isn't that it's seeking accuracy. It's that it often isn't. Such reinterpretations are often done with a very specific agenda in mind, which usually manifests itself fairly dramatically and soon. The problem isn't that they're trying to stick to the literal word. The problem is the underlying agendas under that reinterpretation, which is justified with "literalism" but which could be almost anything, usually nothing very savory.

Once again, my view isn't that the Bible is the problem. It's just words that could mean almost anything. It's the people who are creating the religion. Religion is a human institution, of the people and by the people. Whatever is in it almost certainly more strongly reflects who they are and what they want than anything else.

So the problem is that you have a cadre of people who are working to change your laws to privilege themselves in specific ways more than all the other people they've deemed not to be of their tribe. That's not a new problem. That's not a problem that only exists with religious institutions. It is a problem, but it's not a particularly special problem, IMO.

LarryC wrote:

You know what? The part where people believe that their god is immortal and infallible? That shouldn't matter to you. Or to anyone, really. People can believe whatever they want. That's what freedom of religion ensures. The only point that matters is when people start doing and saying things that hit your face. Saying their god is infallible and immortal and all-good shouldn't do that. That's not religion being privileged. That's just a natural extension of free speech (and being able to think whatever you like).

Thing is, if your god is omnipotent and infallible, then you have a cast-iron Nuremberg Defense cued up to justify any and all actions you take that would, by any reasonable measure, make you a despicable human being.

Which would only work with members of your own religion. Clearly, people who don't worship your God won't take that as a defense of any kind. Even members of your religion might question whether or not you're really getting the Word of God or how you're interpreting it. It's not as cast-iron as all that, really.

LarryC wrote:

Which would only work with members of your own religion. Clearly, people who don't worship your God won't take that as a defense of any kind. Even members of your religion might question whether or not you're really getting the Word of God or how you're interpreting it. It's not as cast-iron as all that, really.

You're mistaken.

That's not an example of that.

That is an example of the "my god told me to do this" being enforced as a valid reason to violate law in a way that negatively affects other people, even other, people that don't practice that religion.

So yes, it is the most recent excellent example of that.

The other people who approved it belonged to the same belief, yes? You don't, so you don't take it as a defense if any kind. See?

LarryC wrote:

The other people who approved it belonged to the same belief, yes? You don't, so you don't take it as a defense if any kind. See?

... Some of the Supreme Court Justices may have been part of the same sect of Christianity, and some of them may not. But the point is, that even though I think that their actions are morally and logically indefensible, they are still legally defensible and upheld by the law of the land. Sounds pretty Cast-Iron to me.

LarryC wrote:

The other people who approved it belonged to the same belief, yes? You don't, so you don't take it as a defense if any kind. See?

But those people are still using religion to hit other people in the face, Larry.

They are literally saying that their personal religious beliefs gives them the right to impose their morals on everyone else. And, technically it's not just a right. It's an imperative. Their religion commands them to reshape the entire world around them.

No. They're using government (the power of the State) and co-opting it in order to spread their religion.

LarryC wrote:

No. They're using government (the power of the State) and co-opting it in order to spread their religion.

They're not using the government to spread their religion, Larry. They're using the power of government to forcibly impose the morality of their religion on everyone else.

Any way you look at it they are still using their religion to hit other people in the face, something you've previously said is a big no-no.

Former governor and former (and probably future) presidential candidate Mike Huckabee just said, "I respect the courts, but the Supreme Court is only that — the supreme of the courts. It is not the supreme being. It cannot overrule God."

Let's think on that for a while.

I don't think his invocation of the Almighty's wrath is particularly effective--here in the West, we'd love to get 40 days and 40 nights of rain.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I don't think his invocation of the Almighty's wrath is particularly effective--here in the West, we'd love to get 40 days and 40 nights of rain.

No such luck. He swore that he wouldn't kill us all with water again.

Next time he'll use fire.

But you're getting punished with drought because of gay marriage.

I wish I'd just made that up, but Big American News made it up first.

But of course, a quick Google search shows that some people really think that's the case.

OG wrote:

No such luck. He swore that he wouldn't kill us all with water again.

Next time he'll use fire.

So God is James Taylor?

He has long hair and is white so it checks out. No, wait. That's Jesus.

The only Holy Trinity I actually understand is onions, bell peppers, celery, and garlic.

OG_slinger wrote:
LarryC wrote:

No. They're using government (the power of the State) and co-opting it in order to spread their religion.

They're not using the government to spread their religion, Larry. They're using the power of government to forcibly impose the morality of their religion on everyone else.

Any way you look at it they are still using their religion to hit other people in the face, something you've previously said is a big no-no.

Let's get this out now. I've mentioned it numerous times previously, but sometimes you guys lump me in with weird groups for reasons not known to me. Yes. People pushing their religions on others with guns is not kosher with me. Good? Great.

The institution they're using to oppress other people isn't the Church. It's the State. They're using government to push religion-shaped stuff onto other people. Note that this is not acceptable whatever shape the object happens to be. In this case, it's religion, but it's not okay whatever it is. It's not the religion they're using. It's state mechanisms. Because the state is the more powerful and more privileged institution. If religion were more privileged than the state, the opposite would happen. Political figures would aspire to religious positions to gain power and subvert religious mechanisms for state purposes.

They're using religion to justify this behavior to themselves. Hence:

Which would only work with members of your own religion. Clearly, people who don't worship your God won't take that as a defense of any kind. Even members of your religion might question whether or not you're really getting the Word of God or how you're interpreting it. It's not as cast-iron as all that, really.

which goes on to Yonder's idea:

... Some of the Supreme Court Justices may have been part of the same sect of Christianity, and some of them may not. But the point is, that even though I think that their actions are morally and logically indefensible, they are still legally defensible and upheld by the law of the land. Sounds pretty Cast-Iron to me.

See how that is? They're using state mechanisms, not religious ones. You're compelled to obey because of state powers, not church ones. Because you don't see eye to eye on religion, they can't use that to compel you. They have to use the state because you do see eye to eye on that. You won't declare a rebellion and overthrow the state.

Going back, Jonman said this:

Thing is, if your god is omnipotent and infallible, then you have a cast-iron Nuremberg Defense cued up to justify any and all actions you take that would, by any reasonable measure, make you a despicable human being.

This is not a universal defense, so it's not cast-iron. You can only invoke the justification of your god ordering you to do things with other members of your own faith, and only if they believe that you're credible to stand as a direct link to your common god. You can certainly justify it to yourself, but you can't justify it to others who do not believe, which is what is invoked by the Nuremberg Defense. Is this still Greek?