Shooting at Jewish communty center & Jewish skilled nursing facility in Kansas -- three people dead

Hapax Legomenon said:

The idea that Christianity is a bastion of tolerance because it has a shiny New Testament that superseded the "barbaric" Old Testament is a sentiment I've heard expressed by many Christians... and something I've never really seen substantiated. It's also something that makes most Jews very uncomfortable. So maybe it's not a great thing to bring up in a thread about a very antisemitic man committing a hate crime.

Click to expand...

Yea, this post entirely.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Not fogging things up at all. There is one subtle element in atheism that can be hard to communicate. It is that, to many atheists, religion and its concerns are irrelevant. Barring the occasional argument with theists and prevalent cultural aspects (like holidays), and worry about government support, religious matters simply do not apply in their/our lives.

Even someone for someone like me who studies religions and religious history and uses practices from various religious sources. I do not regard religious questions as part of how I deal with life and other people or how I see the universe.

Atheism is a life lived without concern for or regard for the theistic. One can argue that this is agnosticism, because it is not a claim to know one way or the other, but agnosticism carries with it an implicit caring about the subject matter. I simply don't care. The closest I've come to caring is creating different fictional universes, some theistic, some atheistic, some fuzzy. Those universes matter to me as worlds for my stories and games.

I know that I can create theist and atheist universes that match this one in appearance and detail. But I don't regard that as a matter of concern, except from the perspective of a fiction writer.

This, as I said, is hard to communicate. To many theists, theism is a vital matter, breath and blood and life to them. To me, it's just more subject matter for fiction. It is not part of my real life thought and action.

Does that help?

Click to expand...

Yes, I see. Thank you. "Care" is a very nuanced thing, and it probably carries slightly different connotations in theory than the way I'm using it.

(Nuance. My agnostic friends would say "But I don't care." and my old priest would have said with cunning and triumph "Aha! But if you don't care, why are you talking about it? Gotcha!" )

In fact you mean care more in - oh, a slightly different sense that I've just tried three times to describe but I can't. Argh! This will bug me all over the Easter Weekend. (Appropriately or otherwise )

RichardGarfinkle said:

Shaba,
I appreciate the strength of your convictions. And I understand the value you place in your religion. I also don't dispute the core teachings of Christianity being tolerant.

But I have two problems with your recent post, and they directly relate to the OP. The first is that you talk about branches of Christianity that are not right. But it seems to me that human fallibility shows up side by side with human understanding in every aspect of humanity, religious and secular. There is no branch of anything that is free of error. Fundamentally, it strikes me as unwise to presume that error is ever absent. Therefore, I find it incautious to look at a man who would kill others for his beliefs and dismiss him as a product of an erroneous branch or erroneous heart. I look at him and I see a common mistake in all aspects of humanity. The willingness or desire to kill validated by convenient theory.


The second thing in your post that worries me is this:



This is the story that for two thousand years justified pogroms. This is the part of the passion of Christ that has been turned into the reason to regard Jews as Christ-killers. But even if you take away the story, there is still this one line of doctrine,

That line is itself intolerant. It declares Judaism to be an error. It asserts, nay demands that Jews convert to Christianity. It does not say, that for Christians The New Testament supersedes the Old. It says it for all humanity.

That idea, expressed in its absolute form, has been used to treat Jews as deliberate rebels against God. Can you honestly say its expression is an expression of tolerance?

Click to expand...

Again, I apologize for not proofreading.

I think you missed several pieces of what I said. I never said all branches are without error, just as no human is without error, especially those who commit vicious crimes and plead ignorance. I just said I find it hard to believe any branch is in line with the teachings of Jesus if they preach hate, intolerance, and oppression. I cannot dismiss someone's actions as an erroneous heart or because of an erroneous branch. There is more to our actions than just that. It isn't black and white, trust me, I know. My thesis in college was on trying to find ways to prevent Conduct Disorder from developing into Anti-Social Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder. My second thesis was on violence prevention and herd mentality and behavior, so I know how the dark the human mind can get, and no one is without blame. The problem is killers who use parts of the religious texts to wage war on innocent civilians. They aren't reading the full message of whichever holy book they read.

You also missed the part where I said in Christianity the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. I didn't say or even imply the Old Testament holds no value. I'm saying in Christianity our teachings tell us that the New Testament laws should be followed, not that one testament is superior to the other. As a Christian, you must read the Old Testament (and you must honor it), but one Testament is not better than the other, nor did I ever imply that or even consider Judaism an error. That line came from you.

I never preach intolerance. I grew up in Long Island. More than half my school district was Jewish. Most of my friends are Jewish. I've been to Passovers and Bat Mitzvahs and Bar Mitzvahs. I've celebrated Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah, Hanukah, and Purim with my Jewish friends, and they have celebrated many- a-holidays with me. I've never ever said or ever implied that my religion was better than theirs was (I think that's why they keep inviting me and keep coming to my functions lol) and never can I blame them for things that happened in the past just as I, as an Nigerian American, cannot blame present-day Caucasians or the descendants of Africans who sold other Africans for slavery. They weren't alive then, and I cannot attribute the actions of one's forefathers to those who are alive today (this is in regard to slavery). It would just be, quite frankly, silly, vicious, and childish, and Christianity doesn't teach us to hold grudges. It teaches us forgiveness, but I don't have to forgive my Jewish friends for anything because they weren't alive 2,000 years ago nor are they or their ancestors responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. The sins of all mankind are responsible for his death. Any Christian who uses the passion of the Christ to point fingers at the Jewish people as responsible for Jesus's death needs to go back and read the Bible, and at the end of that long paragraph, I talked about Jesus saying forgive them for they know not what they do. Also, just as a killer can use religion or something as crazy as Jodie Foster as a reason to kill people, those who used or use that story to massacre others or treat others as infidels or rebels will have their day with God.

Lastly, I also said God allows us to serve him or not to serve him. He doesn’t demand you to, he asks you to, that is the message in the New Testament. So yes, I can say it is an expression of tolerance as long as you realize that the message of the New Testament isn’t about hate, intolerance, and oppression, but helping and accepting your fellow man, no matter what walk of life they come from.

But if you want me to apologize for the actions that my fellow Christians (hijackers with and non-hijackers) have committed over thousands of years, then I'll bow my head and apologize and hope for a better future for all of us.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Let me drop in a risky metaphor. I don't care about religion in the same way I don't care about sports. I don't have teams I follow. I have no concern for who's winning or losing, who the up and coming players are in any sports. I don't play and I don't watch.

Click to expand...

Oh. Well now you've confused me, because what you're saying is that you don't care for sports - but you're not saying they don't exist. You know they exist. You just don't care about them. Which - extrapolated to my understanding of things, would make no statement at all about whether you were sports agnostic or sports atheist. It would say the opposite. You know sport exists, but you don't let it bother you.

So I think that's not a good analogy, because it's not your position on religion, is it? Because if it were, it would mean you were theistic to some degree, but areligious. (Oh, and see I do this sort of thing where people think I know what I'm talking about but I might have used those words completely wrongly. I might have to bow out of this one.)


ETA: Oh wait - I may have conflated God and religion again. Let me think about this.

Night Timer: I was not trying to garner sympathy for the shooter. I was pointing out that very often extreme racists breed more violence by poisoning their children's minds. If we really want to stop racial violence maybe we should start by removing children from a parent who makes more than say, 1,000 posts on an extremely biased site. It could turn out to be a more practical solution than gun control or prohibiting free speech. Foster care might be harsh but children growing up in a nest of haters has to be worse for society--s6

RichardGarfinkle said:

Proofreading is a good idea. Have a look back at your earlier post. If you meant the relative versions, they did not come across. Your statements there seemed absolute as regards the old and new testament.

I have not asked for apologies. I do, however, suggest caution in the usage of those parts of one religion that involve people who are not of that religion.

Click to expand...

I usually have time to proofread, but it's hard to proofread and catch every mistake when you have very little time (I had to run to the library and return books, cook dinner, take care of my pets, arranging the next chapter in my book, practice my Japanese, proofread and correct papers for friends all before bedtime). I think I tried my best to proceed with caution (I'll try better next time if you feel that I have not), and I've been very apologetic and accepting of everything you've said, and I've agreed with you on several fronts. My statements to you seemed as absolute, even though I stated in Christianity in the post you found worrying, but it's hard to gauge the tones of others over the computer, so let's attribute it to a misunderstanding in the reading of my intentions.

Lastly, I'm not asking anyone to agree with my beliefs or to conform to my beliefs. My beliefs are my beliefs. They are not better than anyone else's beliefs; they are different; that's all, so I love everyone regardless of whether they believe what I believe or don't. It's too much work to hate and I, personally, don't have time for it. If God loves all, why can't I? That's how I live my life.

RichardGarfinkle said:

To me religion is a part of human society. It's forms and history are interesting to me, because how people think is the thing that most fascinates me. Religion is part of how many people think. As a part of the psyche I wish to understand its place in people's minds.
.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see - and as regards God, you know that many people think he exists, and that fact and what they do with that is the only real extent to which God (any God) is important to you. Or personal to you. Yes, I get that, I understand that. Thank you.

Is there a word for that? Is that what atheistic really means? I learnt atheistic in relation to theism, and God. Theism good: atheism, bad (and the work of Satan) BTW it was the idea of this Satan thing rather than the God thing that turned me away from the whole church tidea. He's just so badly-written!

So I think you're saying atheism in its academic interpretation really
just covers the idea of - god not being relevant except as belief in him is relevant to other people? And agnosticism is - like that only with a bit of doubt. In case things go wrong.

Is that right?

More importantly, are we derailing? I won't be offended if this goes to TIO or somewhere. Sorry OP.

RichardGarfinkle said:

It is that, to many atheists, religion and its concerns are irrelevant.
...
I do not regard religious questions as part of how I deal with life and other people or how I see the universe.
...
To me, it's just more subject matter for fiction. It is not part of my real life thought and action.

Click to expand...

It's that last line — the comparison to fiction — that really throws me off.

Because to me fiction is fiercely relevant. To use your words, fiction is a part of my real life thought and action; fiction questions are part of how I deal with life and other people and how I see the universe.

As much so as my religion and my spirituality and my culture.

Our Native American student group was participating in a diversity fair on campus today, and an Indian student (from India) came to our booth, and we had a really great conversation. He was drawing some really cool parallels between the stories and spiritual beliefs from our different cultures.

At one point he asked me about my religion.

At first, I started answering him like I would answer a (literalist-minded) Christian who asked the same question. I told him that I tried to go back home for dances and tried to participate in our traditions, but whether I believed in the literal truth of our mythology, I was unsure.

He looked at me confused, because to him, my belief was irrelevant to his question. The answer to the question as he meant it was, yes, I had a religion and it is Zuni. The complex path from that to my personal spiritual beliefs (or possible lack thereof) was beside the point.

And I realized — for however much I've struggled against it in my head — my own idea of "religion" is also still infected by the way religion is characterized by the Christian majority in the Western world.

So I realized that religion is a bigger part of my life than I thought, and had remained so even for the period of time I considered myself as more of a non-theist.

So it's more than difficult for me to separate religion from my culture. I can't do it.

Even if I were atheist.

Though I can understand how if that's not the case with one's own culture, it may be simpler not to care about religion, where I really struggle is how one can be a writer of fiction and not "care" about fiction in a similar way.

mccardey said:

If it's natural for us to do that with most of the other things around us, why wouldn't it be natural to do that about god as well? And if it is, then doesn't that mean that our natural state is agnositicism, and doesn't that mean that it's likely that atheism is more likely to spring from contact or knowledge or study of religion than from a lack of awareness of it?

Click to expand...

mccardey said:

Ah, I see - and as regards God, you know that many people think he exists, and that fact and what they do with that is the only real extent to which God (any God) is important to you. Or personal to you. Yes, I get that, I understand that. Thank you.

Click to expand...

I would add that it's possible to have religion without god or gods.

And I think it's impossible to consider a "natural" theological or philosophical position of humankind without considering the culture and society of the time.

mccardey said:

Is there a word for that? Is that what atheistic really means? I learnt atheistic in relation to theism, and God. Theism good: atheism, bad (and the work of Satan) BTW it was the idea of this Satan thing rather than the God thing that turned me away from the whole church tidea. He's just so badly-written!

Click to expand...

There are even many religious people that Christians call atheist because their religion doesn't fit their pre-conceptions of what a religion is.

And try reading Milton's Paradise Lost sometime. Satan is pretty cool guy in that version, and is actually a far more compelling character than God.

RichardGarfinkle said:

I don't have to accept the reality of the Tao to practice Tai Chi.

Click to expand...

I think it depends how you define "reality". There are things that I accept as "real" as in "true" without "believing" them in the sense of "literal history" or "concrete and tangible".

Fiction, for example, is, in a sense, "true", and fiction often strives for reality.

Do you have to believe in a religion to be religious? Do you have to believe in a religion to find truth in it?

(And it also so happens a major criticism I have of Westernized versions of many martial arts is that they often reduce them to a set of tools and techniques and disciplines, and disregard their aspects as spiritual and philosophic pathways. I think one could argue that without that acceptance, one is not really practicing Tai Chi, but rather something that resembles it, and I think that there would be some validity to that claim.)

((And now I'm tempted to discuss how all of this relates to haiku and haiku in English, but I don't want to stray quite that far off-topic.))

kuwisdelu said:

And I think it's impossible to consider a "natural" theological or philosophical position of humankind without considering the culture and society of the time.

Click to expand...

I don't even know what that means

mccardey said:

I don't even know what that means

Click to expand...

You suggested the "natural" position should be agnosticism.

But even agnosticism requires the concept of religion or god to exist.

Your concept of "natural" is irrevocably influenced by the culture of the society you grew up in.

Is it natural to think of unicorns?

shakeysix said:

Night Timer: I was not trying to garner sympathy for the shooter. I was pointing out that very often extreme racists breed more violence by poisoning their children's minds. If we really want to stop racial violence maybe we should start by removing children from a parent who makes more than say, 1,000 posts on an extremely biased site. It could turn out to be a more practical solution than gun control or prohibiting free speech. Foster care might be harsh but children growing up in a nest of haters has to be worse for society--s6

Click to expand...

Racism is a hard thing to stop. Scientists are working on studies right now to see how early we as humans discriminate against others (the results so far have been interesting). I've experienced my fair share of racism ever since I was young and even up to today. My friends (they were in the car with me) were surprised how many times I was pulled over in college even though I had given up drinking. They couldn't believe how many breathalyzers, drunk tests, suspicious-smelling vehicle, and strange movements of the eye (I wear contacts and they dry out too easily) situations I went through all because my father lent me a nice car to drive at school. I didn't fuss or curse the officers. I respected them, called them sir, and was on my way after I passed all their tests. These incidents didn't bother me because I faced a hurtful youth peppered with racism. The worst was from people who share the same skin color as me. In middle school, I had a hard time fitting in because, the Caucasians called me the whitest black kid they've ever met, but they were more accepting of me than the African-Americans who I shared the same skin color with. The African-Americans (we didn't have a huge population in my school district) called me Oreo and several others name. They wouldn't even let me sit with them because I didn't speak like they spoke (no I don't have an accent) or act like them and I didn't use the N-word because I didn't think it was right, but the Caucasians and other races (the few that there were) accepted me and let me sit with them and treated me like I was one of them. I wasn't the only person of with dark skin color treated this way, but those experiences helped me when I arrived at college and heard you are the whitest black kid I've ever met or, again, when I faced being alienated by those who share my skin color.

I also accept now that people don't expect me to speak properly. When I was a TA (for the first time of my few times) and I gave my opening spiel, I saw the necks of several students snap back when I opened my mouth to speak. I even had two--one Caucasian, one African-American--come up to me and say I didn't expect you to speak like that. I wasn't offended. I even chuckled to myself. If I have to smash stereotypes, I don't mind to one event at a time. My best friend (he happens to be Jewish) and I have broken the stereotypes of people who never had the opportunity to grow up with a Jewish person or dark-skinned person. We're two little people in a giant universe, but it feels good when people have their preconceptions and misconceptions altered.

Unfortunately, the problem with racism is that even if you stop inter-racism, it's hard to stop intra-racism. As I said, the great pain of racism I suffered was from those within my race. I can't tell you how many times my parents had their accents ridiculed by African-Americans who dislike black who emigrate from Africa to America.

kuwisdelu said:

You suggested the "natural" position should be agnosticism.

But even agnosticism requires the concept of religion or god to exist.

Your concept of "natural" is irrevocably influenced by the culture of the society you grew up in.

Is it natural to think of unicorns?

Click to expand...

Oh. Yes - I see. I've thought of this but in different terms. I've wondered how sensible it is to argue (per Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris) for the dismantling of religion, since the human brain seems to be encoded for it.

I don't know if that's a Position as such, but I've taken it, anyway. Because what do we replace it with? We already have ethics and morality and all those other things - and hatred and war and bigotry as well. But we seem to be prone to have some natural desire (either for or against) religion anyway. In the sense that we don't about unicorns.


ETA: That's the only position I have regarding religion. I'm neither for nor against it. It just seems (rather like god) to be A Thing. And it doesn't matter whether I'm for or against it.

Hapax Legomenon said:

The idea that Christianity is a bastion of tolerance because it has a shiny New Testament that superseded the "barbaric" Old Testament is a sentiment I've heard expressed by many Christians... and something I've never really seen substantiated. It's also something that makes most Jews very uncomfortable. So maybe it's not a great thing to bring up in a thread about a very antisemitic man committing a hate crime.

Click to expand...

I did not attack the Old Testament or call it any names (I'm not saying you said I did). Christians who do, dishonor the entire the Bible because the Old Testament is just as important as the New Testament. As I've said before, Christians who are intolerant of others are not following the New Testament's message of love and tolerance. What this murderer did is highly offensive and sickening to me, and is not what Jesus preached at all. He hated African-Americans as well, and as a Nigerian-American, I fall in his views of people who shouldn't exist.

mccardey said:

Oh. Yes - I see. I've thought of this but in different terms. I've wondered how sensible it is to argue (per Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris) for the dismantling of religion, since the human brain seems to be encoded for it.

Click to expand...

I would say we are encoded for stories that give us meaning.

kuwisdelu said:

I would say we are encoded for stories that give us meaning.

Click to expand...

Yes - but also for religion. We have myths and folk stories and - I dunno, Dr Phil? - and we have religion. And it seems to predate myths and folk-stories, this idea that there was a Creation. And also, isn't there some neuroscience that shows there's a specific region in the brain that lights up for religion and nothing else? Imma go and google. I may be some time....

ETA: Oh - I might be wrong about the brain lighting up. First google link says yeah - no.

Religious belief may seem to be a unique psychological experience, but a growing body of research shows that thinking about religion is no different from thinking about secular things*—at least from the standpoint of the brain. In the first imaging study to compare religious and nonreligious thoughts, evaluating the truth of either type of statement was found to involve the same regions of the brain.

Click to expand...

That was quick.

mccardey said:

And it seems to predate myths and folk-stories, this idea that there was a Creation.

Click to expand...

How can it predate myth when it has been passed down to us through myth?

Religion is...

Myth. Sacred narratives that yield spiritual meaning.
Tradition. A system of rites that provide a pathway toward meaning and morality.
Community. An organizing societal structure.

When individual components are replaced by different things, the need for religion is lessened.

What makes religion compelling is the complete package.

For many people, the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Clearly, not everyone though.

When taken together, these things are defining aspects of culture.

kuwisdelu said:

How can it predate myth when it has been passed down to us through myth?
.

Click to expand...

Because pre-common-language art. Rock paintings. Carvings. That kind of thing.

mccardey said:

Because pre-common-language art. Rock paintings. Carvings. That kind of thing.

Click to expand...

How do you know those are not expressions of myth?

What rock paintings depict Creation in a way that cannot be viewed as a story?

Or perhaps rather than god, we are wired for art?