MellowDem
MellowDem's JournalAtheism is not an ideology....
and I'm not sure where "Islamophobia" is part of atheism. There has already been numerous discussions about how many accusations of Islamophobia are similar to accusations by the Christian Right that they are victims under constant attack. People can't see the difference between harshly criticizing the tenets of religion and outright bigotry because religion is so privileged in the US and treated with kid gloves. People must step lightly when discussing it because of the power it has. What's sad is that the right does use real bigotry against all sorts of groups, and then when atheists harshly criticize a religion, which itself is inherently bigoted, some on the left resort to the right's tactics of using the privilege of religion in society as a bludgeon, because some on the left are still heavily invested in the idea of religion as a positive force.
I don't think atheists, as a group, are "elites", atheists are a more varied group than that. They may have more privilege generally, at least those that are out, but they are not unified by one ideology. Most lean left rather than right, and many who lean right are of the libertarian sort, the kind who rarely recognize that privilege exists, ironically. I remember asking one atheist who was conservative whether he felt slighted when Newt, in the 2012 primaries debate, said that he would never vote for an atheist because they couldn't be trusted. The guy could care less. Why? He was well off, and a white male. It's an annoyance rather than a real issue when you have enough privilege.
In the US....
Where religious privilege is so great, those with other privileges will be more likely to give up one privilege in exchange for intellectual honesty by being out about their atheism, or even having the time to think about philosophy.
Meanwhile, much of religion continues to prey successfully on the poor and ignorant, as it always has, and is used as a wonderful tool to get the poor and ignorant to vote against their interests, especially in the US. It's no wonder that churches are expanding rapidly in places with terrible governments and desparate poverty while fading in wealthy socialized countries. And it's no wonder the progressive movement has substantially more atheists than the conservative movement.
Basically, the fact that the privileged in the US are much more likely to be willing to part with religion belies the privilege religion still has, and the power it holds over the poor. When people rely so heavily on private religious charities, not to mention their religious communities, because the US has a terrible social safety net, then that's what you get.
In other countries, being an atheist is less tied to privilege, if at all, because religion has substantially less power and societal privilege itself. You won't find many of those who are already disadvantaged in the US rushing to join the most distrusted group in the US, where there are still laws against atheists holding office and where few politicians consider it safe to be open about their atheism, especially when it's easy to keep in the closet about it, go with the motions, and get what benefits you can from a society that is still under the thumb of religion in many ways.
Reconstruction 2.0 and the Neo-Confederate Backlash
Good article written by a moderate Republican, though honestly I don't know what keeps him in that party, looking at other stuff he writes. Anyways, enjoy!
http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/08/reconstruction-2-0-and-the-neo-confederate-backlash/
Or if enough people leave the church...
It will change. Actually, I have no doubt that is what is driving the latest, snail pace shift in the church, not the reformers. The church isn't a democracy, and the reformers don't have the tools to enact change. It is a hierarchal structure meant to preserve dogma. If enough people leave, either the church will be forced to change, or it will lose so much power as to be less relevant.
I know there are more atheists on DU per capita than in your average US town, I'm just saying, that by DU standards, religion is treated with kid gloves compared to secular ideologies. No way a post praising a misogynistic, homophobic leader of an organization would be allowed to stand, or would receive near as much support.
Is there any other organization you would remain in...
That had the same views on women and homosexuals as the official Church doctrine states? Personally, I don't think there is ever a good enough reason to give any such organization the time of day, much less be a member of it. There are so many alternatives as well.
The religions provide none of the good...
It's the people in the religions that do. If the religions went away, the people would still be there to do good, as you stated. Which is why people who don't agree with those religions should drop them and take up a new one, or none at all, and do good works through organizations they actually believe in.
Look, I think the new Pope is somewhat less bad than the previous Pope, but the fundamental beliefs are all still there, and it's still terrible. I know those that remain find something of value, it's just my opinion that there is nothing valuable enough to keep a person working for any organization with that sort of ideology and which actively hurts others with its power, especially given the numerous alternatives.
Even on DU...
It has privilege. Maybe not the religion forum specifically, but overall, it still has it.
Think of it this way. Any other leader of an organization who had a misogynist and homophobic official doctrine would probably be denounced unanimously across DU, no matter their liberal stances on other issues. Except, that is, for religious leaders of various stripes. There were posts praising the new Pope, for example, on DU, and denouncing harsh criticism of said Pope as bigotry. It's just religious privilege.
Really, the only place many American atheists can break through that religious privilege criticism is on the Internet. Mainstream media doesn't touch such topics with a ten foot pole even.
I don't doubt there are good people in the RCC, but they're supporting a bad organization by remaining, and they don't have to remain. There are many other religions and organizations that would allow them to continue on and that they actually believe in. There's no good enough reason to remain in an organization that toxic and harmful.
I never said the RCC was the KKK...
I said their rationale for discrimination is the same. That is one similarity. I know not everyone in the church agrees with it, but it's the official church doctrine! I'm sorry you had to go through that, that is terrible, and it's why I think people should leave any organization that STILL officially promotes that hate and bigotry.
The religious privilege I refer to is the kid gloves religion gets treated with compared to secular ideologies, and which is why comparisons between different types of bigotry by a church and a secular organization are always deemed somehow offensive.
But that's a poor rationale...
If a explicitly discriminatory institution does a lot of good works elsewhere, so what? How is that a good reason to join them? There are many institutions that do the same work without it, so go through those organizations.
Lots of discriminatory organizations, the KKK included, do good works. Does that make them more legitimate in our mind? It shouldn't.
Yes, people will join the church for different reasons...
But what reason is good enough to join ANY organization that treats women as inferior and homosexuals as "disordered" and actively tries to take away the rights of both? There is no good enough reason.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jul 24, 2008, 05:59 PMNumber of posts: 5,018
