A religion-themed offshoot of Fuck Sexism

[tushantin]

It's not a weird story when taken in context. People don't seem to understand that the notion of a culture where females are treated under the law even as full human beings, let alone as equals to males, is rare in history. This is one example of many attesting why we should not entrust our ethical judgments to ancient books. You're being foolish by applying modern ethical principles to ancient societies.

If you say there's no evidence to what the Bible says is true (when taking it into historical accounts, not philosophical) then shouldn't it just BE a weird story? When taking sentience as whole then people who believed it to be true without much evidence, that's a completely different story to the Bible's mere existence. For instance, if a bunch of children believe in the existence of Harry Potter and Magic doesn't involve Harry Potter books under that kind of justification: it's the mere belief of the children itself because people KNOW the book is nothing but an amusing fiction.

If people choose to believe what they do, then blame it on the human mind. Because, if what I've read in Torah is really true, then it's the angles of perceptions that make people assume different "feelings and assumptions" than see the truth as whole (and yes, Torah is more useful in psychology than most people believe). The "ancient societies" ethics has long passed and new day arises every time you wake. If people take those contexts into reference, it's a good thing. But if people take those contexts blindly, it's for them tor realize. And if the people who defy something without knowing, shouldn't that "ignorance" be evil as well?

[Lord J Esq]

Whether or not that particular incident was a fiction or not, my point was that it was representative of cultural attitudes toward females which have predominated throughout much of the history of our civilization, and thus would not have been particularly shocking to the typical males reading it.

[ShoeMagus]

You're being foolish by applying modern ethical principles to ancient societies.

The point is that this is an ancient text written by a society with morals that don't apply to our society and it should not be taken as THE standard of ethics and morality.

The Bible is full of morals that might have been usual for ancient times, but which now are thoroughly outdated. Somebody above made the point that there were positive moral lessons to be learned from the Bible. I was showing that there are other morals that aren't so positive by today's standards. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't make sense for an ancient reader or that it should be rewritten or something certifiably insane like that. I'm well aware that ancient societies and modern ones will have different ideas about right and wrong.

I'm well aware of history and it's treatment of women and ethics and what would have been usual for a young scholar to read. I'm just commenting that it lack's relevance today and that there are better standards out there than the Judeo-Christian Bible.

[Thought]

This is one example of many attesting why we should not entrust our ethical judgments to ancient books.

Legal judgments, on the other hand, are fair game!

[Lord J Esq]

I'm well aware of history and it's treatment of women and ethics and what would have been usual for a young scholar to read. I'm just commenting that it lack's relevance today and that there are better standards out there than the Judeo-Christian Bible.

You lovable oaf! That's exactly my position. We have no disagreement at all!

Legal judgments, on the other hand, are fair game!

=P

[Lord J Esq]

(Note: I am recycling this thread rather than starting a new one.)

“Leave it to the churches.”

That’s the last word from most people who oppose the welfare system. Help for the needy, they say, should come not from mandatory taxation but from private individuals who willingly give money to the charities of their choice. And when that charity is inevitably not enough? When the goodwill runs out and need remains? Leave it to the churches.

My complaint with church-based charity has always been threefold. First, this kind of help often comes with strings attached. That’s not really charity. It’s ministry. Sometimes the religious requirements that a needy person must meet in exchange for food and shelter are very onerous; sometimes they are deceptively easy. Either way, Christianity routinely buys souls for a bowl of soup.

Second, Christianity entrenches itself in the fabric of a society by permitting no alternatives to its own charitable operations. Religion can maintain an iron grip on a nation when the only hospitals, schools, and homeless shelters have crosses on them. It isn’t a coincidence that opposition to the welfare system comes disproportionately from religious people. Many followers aren’t aware of it themselves, but Christian leaders are very keen on perpetuating the religion through classic monopolistic practices of driving out the competition.

Third, church-based charity is inefficient and unaccountable. I’m not even talking about economies of scale. Most churches have some kind of apparatus for collecting donations and distributing aid to the needy, and there certainly are inefficiency costs associated with so many small operations performing the same work. But though unideal, that is forgivable. What isn’t forgivable is the fact that many churches run their charitable operations like a for-profit business, and use the money primarily to enrich themselves. Sometimes very little of total donations actually gets distributed as aid. Exacerbating all of this immensely is the fact that, unique among all charities, religious charities are not answerable to the government. They are not required to disclose their charity finances, nor report these activities to the IRS. (Form 990, if you’re wondering.) The government certainly encourages this, but the vast majority of churches don’t do it. When you give money to a church, not only are you likely wasting some unknown number of cents, but that exact number usually turns out to be very hard to identify.

It turns out, however, that I have a fourth complaint to add. I had always assumed that, even if they were manipulative bastards who cooked their books, churches would be there for those who needed them. This seems to have been a mistake. I heard recently from somebody who was recounting his experiences during the Great Depression. He talked about how thin the new welfare net was. Only the big cities had soup kitchens, for instance. He also mentioned that the churches were largely invisible. Adults in his family went hungry to feed their children, and people in other families in his town died of hunger. He couldn’t remember having ever seen church relief anywhere.

One anecdote never proves a case, but it got me to questioning something I had never questioned before. Are churches so inefficient that despite massive operations they just don’t reach many of the people who need help? Are churches so cynical that their ministerial operations completely dissociate the winning of converts from the distribution of aid? Are churches so corrupt that they never give out the kinds of mass quantities of money in the first place that I thought they did?

I tried looking into it, and what I found was a whole bunch of brick walls. Because the government doesn’t require churches to be transparent about their charitable operations, watchdog organizations can only track the figures which churches voluntarily provide. Alternatively, they could try and measure aid distribution directly, but that would be expensive to do accurately, and susceptible to manipulation. I’m not aware of any attempts to measure church aid directly, but if you are then let me know.

What I can’t conclude from all of this is that church charity is more myth than reality. Instead, I hypothesize “only” that there are significant gaps in coverage and penetration when it comes to getting aid to people who need it. These gaps would have to be some combination of incompetence, inefficiency, indigence, and indifference on the part of churches. That third one, indigence, is the only excusable cause. For the most part, churches are culpable for their absences in the world of charity to which they so piously lay claim.

(A footnote: Most of the people who oppose the welfare system are literally brainwashed into doing so. Most of the rest are bigots who perceive that welfare goes to the groups of people they hate. A few are just greedy. Others are sociopaths. A handful have legitimate intellectual opposition originating in radical socioeconomic premises.)

[Kodokami]

I actually wrote a short essay on this for class, in response to a link you provided before. I can't say I have much else to add that you haven't gone over; however, relying on any charity is just silly, and to have our politicians recommend we do so is ridiculous. The "leave it to the churches" route is not going to cut it.

(A footnote: Most of the people who oppose the welfare system are literally brainwashed into doing so. Most of the rest are bigots who perceive that welfare goes to the groups of people they hate. A few are just greedy. Others are sociopaths. A handful have legitimate intellectual opposition originating in radical socioeconomic premises.)

I am interested in that last part. What are these legitimate premises and, in your opinion, do they have any merit? I know this isn't the topic to answer that, so if you'd care to answer in another thread, great.

[Lord J Esq]

(A footnote: Most of the people who oppose the welfare system are literally brainwashed into doing so. Most of the rest are bigots who perceive that welfare goes to the groups of people they hate. A few are just greedy. Others are sociopaths. A handful have legitimate intellectual opposition originating in radical socioeconomic premises.)

I am interested in that last part. What are these legitimate premises and, in your opinion, do they have any merit? I know this isn't the topic to answer that, so if you'd care to answer in another thread, great.

Mind you, by "legitimate" in that instance I meant "logically valid" (which is not always what I mean when I say "legitimate"), and I was referring to the arguments against welfare rather than the underlying socioeconomic premises. It's easy to come up with logically valid policies that are also outrageous, provided you start from a sufficiently wacky premise. The two premises I had in mind when I wrote the footnote are: 1) survival of the fittest (i.e., civilization does not benefit from mollycoddling the weak); and 2) welfare money is better-spent elsewhere (i.e., government revenues are finite and can do more to forward the country, including reducing need, than by giving benefits directly tot he needy).

Do I think those positions have any merit? Well, yes I do. But not sufficient to justify depriving people of aid for their immediate needs. It's more than cavalier to argue abstractly about what society should be doing when people are starving or sleeping in the streets right now. It's downright irresponsible. We as citizens have a civic obligation to support our society's support of the needy. Essentially, ethics compels us to run two simultaneous programs: taking steps to reduce need in the future, and meeting existing needs now.

I, personally, think that many people have not earned the right to live. But I also think that a just society must guarantee that right to everybody anyway (except capital offenders), because society must always be pragmatic whereas individuals have the luxury of sometimes being ideological. Society is concerned with the welfare of its denizens and must err on the side of providing for the basic needs of everybody, regardless of whether some people don't deserve it and regardless of whether that money would do better elsewhere. Society must always place the welfare of people above itself--in other words society exists to serve us and not the other way around. We individuals, as the agents of society, in exchange for the benefits of participating in a society, undertake certain obligations and responsibilities to uphold that society.

Thus, nobody should ever go hungry or be faced with the prospect of not having a warm bed to sleep in. In that sense, no, the intellectually legitimate opposition to the welfare system has no merit.

[Kodokami]

... because society must always be pragmatic whereas individuals have the luxury of sometimes being ideological. Society is concerned with the welfare of its denizens and must err on the side of providing for the basic needs of everybody, regardless of whether some people don't deserve it and regardless of whether that money would do better elsewhere. Society must always place the welfare of people above itself--in other words society exists to serve us and not the other way around. We individuals, as the agents of society, in exchange for the benefits of participating in a society, undertake certain obligations and responsibilities to uphold that society.

Damn. That's a fine statement there.

In that sense, no, the intellectually legitimate opposition to the welfare system has no merit.

I didn't think so. Still, it's nice to compare differing views. Thanks for the reply.

I wrote a paragraph here with another question, yet looking back over I think I answered it myself. Ha!

[Kodokami]

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/25/140761994/biblical-womanhood-a-year-of-living-by-the-book

I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks of this.

[Sajainta]

That is just beyond sad.  I grew up with that bullshit.  My high school had seminars for the girls on how we should submit to our future husbands.  How we should be good, quiet, supportive wives no matter what.

What the fuck makes the man so special?  What is it about having a penis that makes someone more deserving to choose a Netflix movie?  Oh yeah, the Bible was written by men in an era where women were treated like slaves.  There's your answer.  And people still follow this book today why...?

Also, I'm pretty damn sure that those "submission" passages refer to big decisions, not fucking "Oh well I want to eat at Chili's but you want Chinese food so of course we'll go there honey."

It makes me physically sick to my stomach that people follow a religion that all but blatantly screams that an entire group of people are inferior because of their genitalia.

I feel so sorry for that deluded woman and her sorry excuse for a husband who didn't step up and tell her that that she shouldn't have to give him preferential treatment.

[Bard_of_Time]

It seems like it would be a good experiment, but honestly it's pretty messed up. No one should be higher or lower based on what sits between their legs, or what they like to do with said stuff.

On a similar issue, I learned that today is banned book week. Several banned/burned books in America's (and the world's) history include The Bible and The Quran. Not sure on how to spell that last one.

Why can't we just leave those as fiction, and let it be?

[Lord J Esq]

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/25/140761994/biblical-womanhood-a-year-of-living-by-the-book

I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks of this.

I approve. I think all people who claim to venerate that despicable tome should try living by it, of their own will, for a year. Many will realize what a sham the whole thing is. Some, like the subject of the article, will be able to put a feather in their cap for completing a meaningful major life project. And most of the rest, one figures, were a lost cause anyway.

On the other hand, Sajainta is right. Even with the best intentions and highest success, it's a self-inflicted defeat to give that book and its worthless religion any credence, attention, or respect to begin with. We'd be a lot better off if our national discourse on the subject of ethics graduated from questions like "What does it mean when the Bible appears to say that females are inferior to males?" to ones like "How can we wipe out sexism as speedily as possible in our time?"

A point I can vouch for from the article, where the subject mentioned that Jewish tradition proclaims Proverbs 31 as a praise of "what women have already accomplished." Judaism, as best I can tell, is even better than Christianity at spinning misogynistic statements as pro-female. Then again, Judaism doesn't possess the same raw hatred for females that Christianity does, so in any comparison both religions lose.

[tushantin]

What is it about having a penis that makes someone more deserving to choose a Netflix movie?

Best. Quote. Ever!

Hmm, the article is enlightening. However, Saj's reaction seems to paint the situation more worse than it actually is. Let me clarify.

Firstly, both Josh and Saj are right on one thing. The way woman had been treated since ages are long gone: it was the result of tribal, social traits of evolutionary necessity and is thus understandable. However, we live in an struggling egalitarian society and we strive to keep equity between individuals regardless of their sex or social status (the latter is even more important... fuck capitalism). We are newer generations bringing newer insights and practicality, and shall never be limited by what we can or can't achieve. I also honor the woman's curiosity and search for validation; rarely do individuals bravely traverse beyond their bias, if only to find an answer.

But even so, I'm completely against people feeling pity for those who don't need it. Saj, no offense but you initially posted about people deluding themselves into thinking that other people are living a lie; so why do you delude yourself into thinking that the woman in the article, or her husband, is blind? (BTW, this also brings into mind Lord J's criticism towards people relying on second hand information and forming poisonous assumptions regardless of validity)

Oh yeah, the Bible was written by men in an era where women were treated like slaves. There's your answer.

Well, that's partially true (the Arabian lands, especially the religion-less lands, were worse, but Monogamy introduced by Judaism improved situations in several sectors... until Mohammed turned up). However, I would like to point:

Her perspective shifted, however, after talking to a friend about the Jewish culture's interpretation of the passage. Her friend said men were the ones who memorized the passage as a way of praising women — her friend's husband sings it to his wife at every Sabbath meal.

"That whole passage got turned around for me when I started looking at it from a more Jewish perspective and seeing it less as something that God expects all women to do and more as a way of praising what women have already accomplished," she says.

And people still follow this book today why...?

Based on the respectful view of Rachel Held Evans, I can say this: it all depends on how you interpret it and what you care about it. Like any other book, there's good and bad in the Torah, Bible and Quran (and more often than not, Satanic). A reader can take everything that's good (ZeaLitY LOVES the biblical quote "ignorance is evil") and disregard the bad stuff. I do the same.

I feel so sorry for that deluded woman and her sorry excuse for a husband who didn't step up and tell her that that she shouldn't have to give him preferential treatment.

Then in a way, as a fellow individual, you insult her decision and her thinking. Remember that she also claimed to have an egalitarian relationship with her husband, and what we "know" is simply that what she did was the result of sheer curiosity simply because she heard different interpretations for places and wanted to confirm by herself what something meant, just like Kino did in the last episode of Kino's Journey. Curiosity is a good thing, and traversing beyond the limits of your thought often give you insights to things you could never comprehend on your own. What we don't know is whether her husband was actually fine with the ordeal, so theorizing before sufficient data is a capital mistake (Sherlock Holmes); though assumptions are okay as mere assumptions alone, so taking into account of her equity in relationship, chances are her husband was not fine with it, but went along because he respected his wife's decisions (respect is an important factor in every relationship: remember that your spouse doesn't own you).

Why can't we just leave those as fiction, and let it be?

XD Because they aren't fiction, though they aren't non-fiction either. It's like a fictional retelling of a non-fiction, just like Hollywood does these days, and just like Newton's Apple story.

They're still timeless pieces of literature, and I admire them for that. You're right. Books should never be burned. This kind of act only enforces ignorance upon the masses.

LOL, ninja'd by Josh.

Then again, Judaism doesn't possess the same raw hatred for females that Christianity does, so in any comparison both religions lose.

Ah, please elaborate that statement.

[Lord J Esq]

I'm completely against people feeling pity for those who don't need it. Saj, no offense but you initially posted about people deluding themselves into thinking that other people are living a lie; so why do you delude yourself into thinking that the woman in the article, or her husband, is blind?

I felt pity for her, looking at that picture and reading the article. I feel pity for most people described as "evangelical Christians." Some are plain malicious; but the majority are ignorant in a painfully deep way. One of religion's evils is that, even if a follower begins to doubt it, the ramifications of losing belief are so immense that fear may drive them to cling to their belief and live with the cognitive dissonance of their doubt.

Cases like the person in this article are always the hardest. She seems happy, and sincere, and utterly oblivious to the hole she's dug herself into. She's genuinely trying to digest and accept the premise that females are inferior. I have disgust and pity for her, but the pity wins out.

(ZeaLitY LOVES the biblical quote "ignorance is evil")

That's from me, not the Bible. I don't usually mind faulty attributions, but that one is too glaring to ignore.