Black women are among country’s most religious groups

[rug]

By Theola Labbé-DeBose, Published: July 6

Georgetown law student Melanie Habwe Dickson stood nervously outside a District courtroom, waiting for the chance to argue for her client, a domestic-abuse survivor.

It was Dickson’s first time in front of a judge, and she needed something to help her relax. She pulled out her smartphone to find an inspirational verse and then remembered that she still carried an excerpt from a text she had read during her weekly Bible study group.

As soon as she looked at the page, her eyes fell on a quotation from “Counsels to Parents, Teachers and Students,” a 1913 book written by Ellen G. White, a co-founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

“For what purpose are you seeking an education? Is it not that you may relieve the suffering of humanity?”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/black-women-are-among-countrys-most-religious-groups/2012/07/06/gJQA0BksSW_story.html

The poll:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/black-women-in-america/

[mzteris]

1. What a coincidence!

They're also among the most oppressed group in the country!

[cbayer]

2. Not surprising, is it? I can't quote them, but I just heard some heartbreaking statistics about HIV

in this country. While there has been great strides made in the gay community, black citizens, and particularly black women, are dying in very high numbers.

Religion helped people endure slavery and will most likely help again when people are at the bottom of the totem pole.

[eqfan592]

3. Religion also helped people justify slavery.

It's something of a double edged sword to say the very least.

[cbayer]

5. Agree. It is, has and always will be a double edged sword, imo.

The key is to embrace the good it does for people and try to eliminate the bad.

The distinction seems clear to me, but not to everyone.

[eqfan592]

6. Which takes us back to my inability to understand why progressive Christians don't at least...

...do away with the bad portions of the Bible in the first place. But that is an old discussion.

[cbayer]

7. In a sense, they do.

The progressive church that I grew up in focused on the good and acknowledged that the book had been written by men, some of whom got it very wrong.

Some will ridicule that as cafeteria religion. I say, so what? Not being fundamentalists, they knew that the bible could not be taken literally.

Anyway, you are right. It's an old argument.

[spin]

8. Comparing our society today to those that existed in Biblical times is foolish. ...

Our civilization today is far different than it was 100 years ago let alone 2000 years ago.

William Shakespeare put pen to paper between 1589 and 1613 and while his writings are dated they contain great wisdom even today. Aesop's Fables were written by a slave who lived in ancient Greece between 620 and 560 BC and while quaint also contain valuable insights.

You have to realize that the Bible was written in a far different time and place for a tribe of people we would consider lacking in scientific knowledge. It is a collection of tales written by men that might describe their encounter with a supreme being. It's not a truly historical document as there does appear to be an obvious bias by the authors nor is it a science textbook. The stories within contain a lot of moral lessons and many can be applied to our life today. As with most all religions the basic message is a version of the Golden Rule which is a timeless message on how to live a good and productive life that can if practiced by the majority of people lead to a far better society.

To censure the Bible in order to remove the "bad portions" is a poor idea as doing so would remove much of the value that this collection of stories provides into forming a view of the life and times that happened thousands of years ago and the motivations of those who wrote this document.

It is also necessary to understand that the Bible itself is an accumulation of stories that has been selected from many documents written during those days. There is quite possibly a lot of knowledge and insight that can be gained by reading the documents that were rejected.

[eqfan592]

19. I agree, any such direct comparison would be foolish.

I'm questioning the devine nature of the scripture itself, as I find the "different time, different culture" reasoning to be counter to any possible devine nature of the book.

I also question the usefulness of these stories as part of a supposed holy text for modern, progressive Christians, especially when those Christians (or at least some of them) claim to generally discard these stories as antiquated and of minimal usefulness to begin with.

The stories need not be a part of the bible to still have whatever lessons that may be learned from them available.

Sorry if I come off as being short with you. I'm sending this with my cell phone, and that is not my intention.

[spin]

20. No problem. It's my opinion that the Bible was written by men ...

and might be an attempt to document their encounters with a supreme being.

Many far more knowledgeable scholars agree with me. (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible, http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/2/

I personally do not believe that God is an old man with a long beard who lives in the clouds.



If indeed a supreme being does exist we currently lack the intelligence to understand exactly what He/She/It is and may never acquire that intelligence. It would be like an ant understanding a human being.

[trotsky]

21. In order to eliminate the bad, religious beliefs MUST be open to criticism.

But far too often, non-believers are bashed in this very group for criticizing religious beliefs.

So what's the solution, cbayer? How do you propose we eliminate the bad parts of religion if we aren't allowed to criticize it - or WORSE, tell people their religious beliefs are wrong?

[2ndAmForComputers]

4. "...therefore, since minorities are always right, atheists are wrong. And also racist and sexist."

"WHERE DID I SAY THAT???///???///??" <== Saving you the trouble.

[rug]

12. Do not let me disrupt your interior dialogue.

[Odin2005]

9. Marx said Religion was the OPIATE of the masses for the reason.

"Opiate" as in "Painkiller". Oppressed and repressed populations find solace in religion, and then the PTB take control of that religion in order to legitimize the oppression.

[cbayer]

10. Let's say the PTB don't take over. Do you think there is anything wrong with oppressed

and repressed people taking solace in religion?

[Odin2005]

13. Where did I make a value judgment against...

...religious women of color in my post? I was making a factual observation.

[cbayer]

14. I didn't say you made a value judgement at all. I was asking a serious question.

[Odin2005]

15. You were insinuating I was disparaging religious people of color.

[cbayer]

16. No, I wasn't, Odin. And I am sorry that it read that way.

I have never known you to do anything like that and was not attempting to say you were.

I was genuinely interested in what you thought about people in need getting solace from religion.

[Odin2005]

17. As long as they do not impose their beliefs on others I don't care...

...what other people believe. I reserve the right to criticize beliefs that are illogical and nonsensical, but it is the person's right to believe what they want.

[cbayer]

18. OK, thanks. That is where I thought you stood on this.

[dimbear]

11. Perhaps this sometimes applies, but hardly for instance to Mormonism.

They've been in the news lately.

A free folk gathered of their own free will around a new 'revelation.'

There wasn't some later takeover by the PTB. The PTB were in from go.

Ditto Scientology.