Religion as community/surrogate family.

[ironbark]

I don’t belong to any community of faith but over the past thirty years have worked for several- Salvation Army, Rehab Centre, Anglican- Respite, psych disabled adolescents, Uniting Church and Catholic Church, homeless, street kids…etc…

Beyond this I have seen many of our client group go on to become involved in church
communities and I have had my concerns about vulnerable young people entering… well…clappy happy realms of Pentecostal excess. None the less, I have never seen or heard of any of these clients and former clients encountering anything more serious than a pushy godbotherer.

In conversation and counselling most of these young adults expressed little or no interest in religion…yet I would estimate that about a third ended up joining or associating with a religious group. My observation is that within these groups they found- community, support, sense of belonging/purpose, acceptance and, if they got lucky, a boyfriend/girlfriend who wasn’t on drugs.

The churches provide not only a second layer to the welfare net (with paid professionals, volunteers and services) but also an informal net of community and surrogate family.

Now…I’m all for keeping god out of the State school class room…and I’m dammed sure that I want religion kept private in the armed services.

What I’m wondering is, in the great leap forward to a bright Atheistic future, what religious institutions could or should go? I’m asking because there have been quite a few expressions of desire to see organised religion abandoned altogether and I’m wondering, socially, what you think that might look like?

If organised religion was progressively abandoned over the next 20? 50? 100? years (or blown out of the water overnight) who would fill the social service and community support gaps?
How and why would they do so?

[TZ]

1. There are you realize some communities while religiously/ethnically based

do some really good work without ANY religous preaching or proselytizing. B'nai Brith Organization, Anti-Defamation League, Unitarian Churchs...(I named Jewish groups because those are the ones I'm familiar with). I'm all for religious organizations helping out people. What I'm NOT for is for the strings attached that many of these groups have..That you must listen to their spiel or join their church or donate to their church in order to get their help. Lets not also forget about the Catholic Charities that have withdrawn their help from places like DC because DC has gay marriage. How very CHARITABLE of them..:sarcasm:.
I'm an atheist but I'm not for outlawing religion. What I am for is keeping it out of politics and keeping it from being shoved in the faces of those of us who have no interest.
Religion should be private. As I understand it, you are from Australia, where that is generally the case. Maybe if you lived in the US where its shoved in our faces ALL THE TIME, you would understand why so many atheists are angry around here.

[LiberalLoner]

2. Don't know if all Australians are like that, but...

the biggest in-your-face godpusher "the rapture is coming, the end times are here!" crazy lady I ever met, was from Queensland, Australia. Just totally bat guano crazy for religion. I met with her briefly because both of our husbands were serving together in the military but soon found the godpushing to be just unbearable. I could not take it. I hope not all Australians are like that but I don't know...

[TZ]

3. I've known a few.

And they were either Atheists or did not speak of religion at all. They told me that its considered not polite in to push religion in public or at least it used to be (the atheist actually came from a religious family and they got along well...)

[ironbark]

8. Yes indeed

There are a number of secular charitable and support agencies that do great work.
I have worked with and along side several such agencies.
One of my favourites is The Fred Hollows Foundation
http://www.hollows.org.au/

Fred was an irascible old atheist coot, dearly loved and much missed.
Upon giving sight to the blind many patients would cry “Thank God”!
Fred would inevitably respond “Don’t thank him, he didn’t do anything”.

“I'm an atheist but I'm not for outlawing religion.”

Ok, that’s refreshing to hear ;-)
What I’m trying to get an understanding of is how far atheist wish to see
religion diminish…and if, as religion shrinks there is an identified need to
replace some aspects?

“Maybe if you lived in the US where its shoved in our faces ALL THE TIME,
you would understand why so many atheists are angry around here”

“Angry atheists” !!!!!!!???????????????????????????
“around here” !!!!!!!!!! ??????????????????????????

Surely you jest…….I have never seen such a thing as an ‘angry atheist’.

Especially around here.

;-)

Thank you for responding.

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

4. It's a legitimate question, I think.

One of the reasons I'm a longtime and passionate Unitarian Universalist is that I see it as an attempt to "write the next chapter" in religious and ethical community. It's an admittedly imperfect experiment, and we're still trying to find the best ways to be socially engaged without being politically partisan, and to be ethically and spiritually united without being theologically dogmatic. How much liturgy can we all share, while being respectful of our differences? Do we develop "subgroups" to encourage personal development (Christian, Buddhist, pagan, etc.) with ritual and routines of study and (self)discipline that would be intimate and meaningful to some while still being a part of the larger, more inclusive, expansive spiritual community? It's a challenge, to say the least, but I think it's a worthwhile effort.

I do think that the world is moving, ever so slowly, away from a theological, belief-centered basis for religion, and toward a more ethically-driven one -- geared less toward the specifics of our "ultimate beliefs" and more toward how we treat one another (and the world we live in). I'm guessing that some faith-communities will inevitably lead the way into this new frontier of radical inclusion and abundant personal freedom --where "all souls"...all people of good will and humble heart are welcome -- while others will be (in effect)dragged into it, kicking and screaming.

[safeinOhio]

5. Welcome to DU, UUer

To make it simple, when asked about my UU church, I just say we believe in Deeds not Creeds.

[ironbark]

9. A UU! Thank you, and welcome

This will get me into trouble with the OP but can I drag the discussion straight off topic and ask about Unitarian Universalists?
The little bit I know of comes from ex Baha’is who joined UU and said that the basic beliefs are
similar….?
Slap me if that’s far from true.

“I do think that the world is moving, ever so slowly, away from a theological, belief-centered basis for religion, and toward a more ethically-driven one….”

I can only maintain complete agreement if I stay out of staff meetings at work and don’t turn on the TV when I get home ;-)

[iris27]

17. "Deeds not creeds".

There are no "basic beliefs", theologically speaking, among Unitarian Universalists, except I think they say if you believe in an afterlife, you can't believe anyone is going to hell.

Sorry, I know you weren't asking me, and obviously E_P_U will have more info. But I did a lot of reading on UU history and beliefs a few years back, and attended the local congregation a time or two before deciding it was still too theistic for my personal taste.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. When I spoke about community on another board, a non-religious person asked

if I couldn't get the same thing from a sports club or other hobby group.

The answer is no.

I actually have a basis for comparison. I regularly do water exercise and swimming with the same group of people and have for six years. We often talk more than we exercise and occasionally socialize outside of the Y, but it's not the same thing as a church community.

The church community is more multidimensional (intellectual, artistic, emotional, service-oriented) and more diverse, with everything from a local media celebrity to people who are just emerging from homelessness. I sing in the choir, work in a program (non-proselytizing, no preconditions) that provides meals for homeless and low-income youth, attend a four-year course in Bible, church history, and modern theology; attend social events to celebrate annual events and life's passages, used to participate in a support group for people who are experiencing depression (the supervising priest spotted and referred for medical attention a participant who was seriously depressed; the rest of us were at a mild stage), worked on Habitat for Humanity projects, participated in a group that studied ways to make the parish more environmentally responsible, and spent a week volunteering in Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina. I wanted to go on my parish's friendship and assistance mission to its sister parish in Cuba, but in the end, I couldn't afford it. I did manage to travel to England on a tour organized by a retired priest and centered on sacred music and religious sites.

In other parishes, I have also joined a women's spirituality group that experimented with different forms of worship and spiritual contemplation, taken part in a book discussion group with some wise, wonderful, and active elderly people, joined with other religious groups to oppose intervention in Central America, tutored Somali refugees in English (again, with no proselytizing), and served on the vestry (governing board) during a time of severe challenges with finances and personnel.

One of the great blessings of these experiences has been getting to know people I would not otherwise encounter and to learn not to be afraid of them and not to despise them.

I have to add that since I've always been involved in liberal churches, no one has cared a lot about what I actually believe. In most liberal Episcopal parishes, the attitude is, "Here are the knowledge resources; frame your beliefs and commitment in whatever way makes sense to you."

[Jim__]

10. I agree that only a religious community would give you the exact experiences that you've had.

And, I also agree that sports group or a hobby group (under the usual connotation of hobby) would not likely give you any similar experience. However, it is possible for a non-religious group to give you similar experiences, say, an active political group that is working hard for reform, or a book club that is specializing in a particular author or subject.

I agree that religion is a strong builder of community. I disagree that it's the only thing that can build strong communities.

[ironbark]

11. Perhaps its because I have a particular focus

and the ‘fringe dwellers’ in mind.

I can see the potential for anybody religious or secular providing services and activities- food, shelter, sports group, hobby group etc.

But it strikes me that there is another, far more informal, layer of support and community that the churches provide. Many of societies fringe dwellers find their social contact and sense of belonging within such faith communities…and I’m wondering to what degree secular society can replicate this kind of community.
In fact I’m wondering if it would have any desire/motivation to do so, dealing with the intellectually disabled, psych disabled and drug addicted is a difficult. Being payed to do so is one thing, but within the faith communities this becomes social as well.

Church ‘Missions’ are just that- on a mission- their ‘motivation’ is written into their faith.

Should those communities of faith dissipate or decline…who would pick up the fringe dwellers, how and why?
"Strong communities" implies to me a level of organisation and endurance...what secular pillars could this be built arround?

[darkstar3]

12. I think you missed something important.

Please read the list in #7 and recognize that this is just the beginning.

Humans are one of the very few animals on this planet capable of altruism and society-building, but we're not the only ones. Chimps and other forms of great apes possess the capacity and proclivity as well. Based on centuries of observation, great apes do not have religion or faith, but do build societies, thus proving the point that in a faithless or secular society the capacity and desire for community-building and altruism is still there.

Why are "pillars" necessary for the construction of society and altruism? Why are shared humanity, experience, location, and communication not enough?

[ironbark]

14. Like the thread title… perhaps?

“Please read the list in #7 and recognize that this is just the beginning.”

Please read the thread title and recognise that this isn’t primarily about organizations or agencies.
It is about ‘community’ and ‘surrogate family’.
The list provided in #7 relates to-“secular organizations out there doing good work today”
I have no problem or argument with that…but these organizations/agencies (just like the faith based ones) do not provide the informal community/surrogate families that communities of faith do.

One might ask why “this is just the beginning”, why would secular society be in many respects just stating out when religion has been in the welfare agency and community building game for so long.
And another still ask why ancient Islamic health/welfare practice and ‘community’ often outstripped ours (secular or religious) in its compassion and sophistication.

“…great apes do not have religion or faith,”

You have spoken to one/all to confirm this? ;-)

“…the capacity and desire for community-building and altruism is still there.”

Then lets look to the historical record to see how it plays out for humans when they gather together specifically to build a community- with or without a central/shared ideology/philosophy/belief. I am not talking here about the deliberate or organic establishment of villages, towns or nations but the coming together of people from different backgrounds to form communes…conscious deliberate community building. There have been thousands of examples- secular, religious and political throughout history.

Can you find me an example of a secular/political commune that has lasted beyond a hundred years?
There are dozens of religious communes/monasteries that go back hundreds of years…is there any secular equivalent?

“Why are "pillars" necessary for the construction of society and altruism?”

I didn’t say or suggest “… “pillars" necessary for the construction of society and altruism?”…”
(though they well might be)
I’m talking about the establishment of community and surrogate family >within society< and beyond individual or organizational acts of altruism.

I’m talking about the establishment of the kind of community that, among its central pillars, sees its very purpose as the taking in of the homeless, disabled, poor- whatever- and providing community/belonging……….love.

Can you point me towards the secular communities that fulfil a similar role?

"Why are shared humanity, experience, location, and communication not enough?"

It appears to me that without the pillars, the mission, the faith, people dont want the 'experience' of shared 'location' in 'communication' and breaking bread with the psych disabled, drug addicted, poor and homeless.
And I can't think of any secular community that deliberately sets out to do so with love in its charter.

(Despite prior encounter and in light of recent discussion on 'respect' I have attempted to answer each and every point and question raised......it's an act of faith ;-)

[darkstar3]

16. If point-by-point is what you prefer, then point-by-point shall it be,

though I fear that somewhere in the parry and thrust of that discussion model the overall concept of our posts may be lost.

Let's wade in...

First, I understand just fine that this OP is about community and surrogate family. I was trying to point out that many of the organizations in #7 DO serve a purpose in community building aside from their altruistic charity work, and also point out that I feel that community and surrogate family are two different names for the same thing.

Second, when I said "this is only the beginning," I did NOT mean that these organization or this secular movement are just getting started. (I really think you already knew that.) I meant instead that the organizations listed here are only the beginning of the list.

Third, we have observed the great apes for generations, and even found ways of communicating with them directly, and in all of that time, we have not once discovered a single behavior among them that would qualify as religious or worshipful. Your attempt at dismissal and your little winking smiley are unwarranted.

Fourth, in response to this:

Then lets look to the historical record to see how it plays out for humans when they gather together specifically to build a community- with or without a central/shared ideology/philosophy/belief.

I say you should study the history of Native Americans...As a descendant of a Native American, and a person raised with plenty of education on Native American culture, I can tell you that the supposed spirituality of Native American tribes has been grossly overstated. Many, if not most tribes, did in fact believe in a Great Spirit of some form, but their actions toward their fellow man were in no way motivated by this belief. (As an aside, the Great Spirit was left to each individual to understand, and for the most part the tribe had no religion at all.) The entire foundation of Native American tribal culture was based in group survival, and the fact that "the loss of one lessens and weakens us all."

This is also the closest example I can find to your loaded request of

Can you find me an example of a secular/political commune that has lasted beyond a hundred years?

Why, you might ask, can I not find a completely secular society to answer your challenge? Because no completely secular society has ever existed in written history. From time immemorial, humans have been a superstitious lot, and even in Communist Russia or China under their craziest dictators, there has been no such thing as a truly secular society. Maybe one day there will be such a thing as a purely secular society, and when that happens you can count on the fact that there will still be communities/surrogate families built, because that was my point about the great apes: With no religious motivation whatsoever, they still do what you're asking about.

Fifth:

It appears to me that without the pillars, the mission, the faith, people dont want the 'experience' of shared 'location' in 'communication' and breaking bread with the psych disabled, drug addicted, poor and homeless.

It may appear that way to you, but my experience is completely different, and I again suggest to you Native American culture for further reading.

Sixth:

And I can't think of any secular community that deliberately sets out to do so with love in its charter.

Tell me of ANY society or community, secular or otherwise, that DOES set out deliberately to do what you wish. Your search will come up empty. Societies and communities are not, and never have been, driven by the idea of taking care of the "least of these" (to borrow a term), but instead they are driven by the ideas of continued survival, progress, protection, and prosperity for the group.

(What do you want, a cookie?)

[ironbark]

21. Looking for the commune.

“I fear that somewhere in the parry and thrust of that discussion model the overall concept of our posts may be lost.”

Sadly it was lost from the outset for most of your post refers to broad societies and communities.

Here’s what I said and asked-
“I am not talking here about the deliberate or organic establishment of villages, towns or nations but the coming together of people from different backgrounds to form communes…conscious deliberate community building.
There have been thousands of examples- secular, religious and political throughout history.
Can you find me an example of a secular/political commune that has lasted beyond a hundred years?”

“… when I said "this is only the beginning," I did NOT mean that these organization or this secular movement are just getting started. (I really think you already knew that.)"

Nope, I took it to mean this is only the beginning of the development of secular charitable organizations. (Your psychic radar is still down)

“…and in all of that time, we have not once discovered a single behavior among them that would qualify as religious or worshipful.”

Ahhh, dear me, I never tire at the arrogance of certainty ;-)

Ever heard the name J Goodall in association with primate research?
Do a Google. Try keywords- Goodall, chimpanzee, waterfall, worship.

Then come back and tell me like an expert “we have not once discovered a single behavior among them that would qualify as religious or worshipful.”

“ Your attempt at dismissal and your little winking smiley are unwarranted.”

Google Goodall and see that my knowing wink was perfectly warranted.
Here’s a start-
http://www.brontaylor.com/environmental_books/dgr/green_religion_ch_2.html

(Do I believe it?...I don’t have to…it’s a “single behaviour discovered”)

To the core-
“This is also the closest example I can find to your loaded request of”-
Can you find me an example of a secular/political commune that has lasted beyond a hundred years?"

1/ I would be curious to know why you think the question is in any way loaded.
2/ Your “closest example” broadly describes whole indigenous tribes/nations/societies.
3/ This is not an example of a commune
4/ The societies you describe were far from secular.
(Even from this distance, I have read my ‘Burry My Heart at Wounded Knee’, ‘The Fetterman Massacre, and heard the song of Wakan Tanka)

Most importantly-
There have in fact been a significant number of specific deliberate attempts at establishing purely secular communes and communities going back over the last 3-4 hundred years . Some gathered on an atheist/political basis, some gathered on an atheist/philosophical basis…even atheist/lesbian. There is still the remnant of Australian atheist/socialists who went to Argentina to establish a commune.
Every single one of these efforts at establishing community, including the great Western flood of communes from the 60s, has failed.
While some religious communes have endured for hundreds of years.

“Why, you might ask, can I not find a completely secular society to answer your challenge?”

Your fudging and dodging the question, it did not relate to “secular society” but to “a secular/political commune”. A whole ‘society’ is a big thing to build and maintain. I deliberately made the objective easier. A commune/community is a different/easier fish. There has been the time, energy, will, recourses and a good number of attempts made at establishing secular communes.
Where are they?

From the micro to the macro-
“Because no completely secular society has ever existed in written history. From time immemorial, humans have been a superstitious lot, and even in Communist Russia or China under their craziest dictators, there has been no such thing as a truly secular society”.

Well the “superstitious lot” have not only managed to build enduring communes, but whole societies and great civilizations. I did not (though I could have and might) ask why there are no atheist societies/civilisations (bar Nth Korea;-)??I asked for the inkling of an embryo…a successful attempt at establishing an atheist/secular commune.

“Maybe one day there will be such a thing as a purely secular society, and when that happens you can count on the fact that there will still be communities/surrogate families built…”,

No I can’t, and you can’t project into a “Maybe one day” future and call anything a “fact”. Especially if the history of attempts- from Soviet collectives, to the Great Leap Forward, to every single secular communal effort in the West…has failed.


“It may appear that way to you, but my experience is completely different, and I again suggest to you Native American culture for further reading”.

First of all, in respect to the Elders of the traditional landowners, let me belatedly welcome your words to Gunditjamara and Kirrae Whurrong country.

If you are suggesting that indigenous communities within a broader dominant culture have a far deeper sense of community and extend family surrogacy then yes, clearly and definitely. I live in the midst of such community and understand the dynamics of ‘community from disaster’
(See M Scott Pecks work on True Community).

But I’ve done enough reading to know that Native American culture does not constitute a secular society…let alone an attempt at establishing a secular commune.

“Tell me of ANY society or community, secular or otherwise, that DOES set out deliberately to do what you wish.”

My “wish”/request remains- to see examples of people coming together (from within broader society/s) and, under the umbrella of their secular/atheistic or religious philosophy to create a commune or distinct community.
Thousand of attempts HAVE been made, many with the explicit intent of showing the world how it can be done, how to live together, without superstition/ personal property/ religion (whatever) getting in the way. This has been going on since before the French revolution. The time, resourses, secular philosophy and willing participants have all been available.

Can you show me a single successful/enduring secular commune?

“Your search will come up empty.”

I don’t know why you continue to attempt to predict or prompt the response…your strike rate thus far has been zero.
Narrowing my vast selection…Which of the thousands of Buddhist or Christian communes that have lasted hundreds of years would you care to discuss?

“Societies and communities are not, and never have been, driven by the idea of taking care of the "least of these but instead they are driven by the ideas of continued survival, progress, protection, and prosperity for the group.”

You keep referring back to broader “societies”…the question relates to deliberate attempts to create communes/communities…living examples of the governing philosophy- religious or secular.

There have indeed been communes and communities established on the principle of “taking care of the least of these” . That was the objective of tens of thousands of collective farms/communes in the Soviet and China and is clearly a central founding principle of Christian communes.
In all cases the “continued survival, progress, protection, and prosperity for the group” was dependent on the success/endurance of these communal endeavours.

“What do you want, a cookie?”

Nope, I want to know if, from all the attempts to establish secular/atheist/political/philosophical communes that showcase the governing belief (or absence of belief ;-) you can come up with a single successful example?

[darkstar3]

22. Way to move the goalposts

You started talking about a secular society (built for any number of reasons but lacking belief), and now you want me to find specific examples of communes that were founded on the simple idea of "lack of belief". How ridiculous.

This will be my final point to you: Atheism is not a motivator, as I have said to so many people lately. The lack of belief in any gods lacks the ability to do any damn thing at all. My point to you in this entire subthread is that a motivator, especially a religious one, is not necessary for the building of societies/communities/communes/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-them. Human beings, like the mammals we came from, are social creatures who will find a reason to build these types of communities even in the absence of religion. It is an evolutionary trait. You should consider the possibility that the combination of this evolutionary trait and the evolutionary side-effect of superstition might actually have given rise to religion, rather than religion giving rise to community-building.

As you continue to build your case against atheism, please remember this repeated point: Atheism is not, never has been, and never will be, a motivator.

Goodbye.

[ironbark]

24. A single round of point by point and your on the canvas

Here’s the count out as you lay there-
1/ The OP, the post you initially responded to and post 14 that raised the specific point and question re communes are ALL about communities and surrogate families.
>NOT< about Nations, whole tribes, cultures, societies or secular societies.

Your-
“You started talking about a secular society”

Is a lie and a blatant lie. A complete falsification born of desperation-

“…the building of societies/communities/communes/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-them.”

You cannot distinguish between a commune and a whole society?
Or are you cheating and falsifying again to suit your purpose?

Lets have a look-
My original statement and question from #14-

“Then lets look to the historical record to see how it plays out for humans when they gather together specifically to build a community- with or without a central/shared ideology/philosophy/belief. I am not talking here about the deliberate or organic establishment of villages, towns or nations but the coming together of people from different backgrounds to form communes…conscious deliberate community building. There have been thousands of examples- secular, religious and political throughout history.
Can you find me an example of a secular/political commune that has lasted beyond a hundred years?”

Now your hatchet job #15-
“Fourth, in response to this:
Then lets look to the historical record to see how it plays out for humans when they gather together specifically to build a community- with or without a central/shared ideology/philosophy/belief.


Golly Darkstar…what have you tried to make disappear?-
“I am not talking here about the deliberate or organic establishment of villages, towns or nations but the coming together of people from different backgrounds to form communes…”

And your response is to evoke the entire “history of Native Americans” , a whole culture a whole society.
If it was me….I doubt my ancestors would be proud of such falsification, goal post moving and ignorance.

When you eventually glance off the point/question specific-
“Can you find me an example of a secular/political commune that has lasted beyond a hundred years?”

You again dodge back to whole “societies”-

“Why, you might ask, can I not find a completely secular society to answer your challenge?


Is it a binary proposition Darkstar, you are either ignorant of the distinction between a commune and a whole society.….or your shifting the goal posts, falsifying and cheating? “societies/communities/communes/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-them”…looks like a play to ignorance…but then there’s your hatchet job falsification.
It Could well be both ignorance and cheating.

Down for the count of-
2/

“now you want me to find specific examples of communes…”

No, not “now”, but then in #14-
“Can you find me an example of a secular/political commune that has lasted beyond a hundred years?”

A simple “no” would have sufficed but in your wisdom you wanted to run the gamut of “mountain gorillas, the history of Native Americans and whole societies”


“communes that were founded on the simple idea of "lack of belief". How ridiculous.”

Well there’s the rub Darkstar- THE ATHEIST WHO SET OUT TO BUILD SUCH COMMUNES DIDN’T THINK SO.

French revolutionary Atheists, Political Communist/Socialist Atheists, Eco/green Atheists, Gay and Lesbian Atheists, Hedonist Atheists, Hippy Atheists attempted “communes that were founded on the simple idea of "lack of belief”. The whole point and purpose was to show the world a model example of how to live, how a ‘society’ could be built from such 'commune' example.

And they all failed, harder and faster than communes of faith.

“Atheism is not a motivator”

For those who attempted to establish the communes it was a central motivator. In fact many saw their efforts as living scientific experiments in how people could and should live without religion.

“My point to you in this entire subthread is that a motivator, especially a religious one, is not necessary for the building of societies/communities/communes….”

ROFL!
>THOUSANDS< of communes/small communities/convents and monasteries established across the world motivated by diverse religions! Many established by people of different ethnicity, culture and language. Some lasting for hundreds of years!

What dogged wilful ignorance you display…what motivates it other than your Atheism?


Down for the count-
3/
“…rather than religion giving rise to community-building.”

I never said >anything< about “religion giving rise to community-building” …that’s just one more slowest gun in Dodge City falsification of my pov and blatant evasion.

And >that< has been your consistent and persistent gambit and ploy in >every< exchange.
You cannot meet a single central point and question with honesty and the basic >RESPECT< of not falsifying what was said.

“As you continue to build your case against atheism…”

You are my case against atheist behaviour…my shining light and leading example of how atheism can and does motivate people to lie, falsify and fabricate…even towards the small end of evading a single point of evidence.

“Atheism is not, never has been, and never will be, a motivator”

Tell it to all those who, since the French revolution, have set out to demonstrate how people could and should live together without religion in model communes of godless rational enlightenment….
gorillas notwithstanding ;-)

I see your towel is thrown in…your trainers will be over to pick up your pov in a moment.

[darkstar3]

25. I'm sorry,

but between your grammatical errors, syntactical problems, and the fact that you quote yourself and then act like you've made a point about what I said, your post is unreadable. Not that it matters...I get the gist...you're cool, you're a badass, blah blah blah, and no matter how many times you move the goalposts you're always right...

You know, before I put you on ignore and save my sanity points for someone who a) gives a damn about discussion, and b) actually has communication skills, I'd like for you to note something: You have bitched on this board time and again about how awful atheists in general are, especially here on DU, and that it is due to that fact that you will never allow yourself to be called an atheist. And yet, every post I've seen from you has contained an incredible amount of disdain and sarcasm. As my mother would say, "you have an awfully long nose, ironbark." I strongly suggest you check that hypocrisy before the next time you hop up on your high horse.

[ironbark]

28. So you should be

Presenting an essay on ‘Respect’ then repeatedly get caught hacking and fabricating another’s pov.

Accusing another of “shifting the goalpost” because you can’t distinguish between a commune and a whole society.

Confronted with the clear evidence of your hatchet job fabrication to come back with lame “you quote yourself and then act like you've made a point”.

Of COURSE I’ve made a point, I’ve proved you hacked away the very goal posts you accuse me of shifting.

Some one who had any RESPECT for the integrity of what was actually said would acknowledge that they hacked and falsified the others point and pov-

Golly Darkstar…what have you tried to make disappear? Here it is again -
“I am not talking here about the deliberate or organic establishment of villages, towns or nations but the coming together of people from different backgrounds to form communes”

But there isn’t even enough self respect in evidence for the minor courtesy of telling the truth.

“You have bitched on this board time and again about how awful atheists in general are…”

That’s the third? Fourth? time you have repeated that lie.
How can you claim any RESPECT for another if you insist on fabricating their pov?
My objections have been and remain in referance to atheists doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING >NOW<.
Falsifying what was said, blaming me, ignoring the evidence and running away.

“…will never allow yourself to be called an atheist.”

Clearly I cannot stop you/anyone calling me an atheist.
Clearly your obsessive compulsive demand that I be identified as an atheist will not be curbed by even the most basic respect.

“And yet, every post I've seen from you has contained an incredible amount of disdain and sarcasm.”

“Distain and sarcasm” are all that lies, hatchet job fabrication, falsification and contemptuous disrespect deserve.

[iris27]

18. I also mentioned community centers and local humanist organizations in post 7.

I just didn't list their names since they're not the big "known" things like the Salvastion Army or MSF. But secular groups are out there today building community and providing surrogate family. Most of them are local to a small geographic area. But they're out there picking up those who fall through the cracks just as faith-based groups are. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on this sort of work.

[iris27]

7. Are we seeing a vast gap in community support and social service in nations

who are less religious than we? No - quite the contrary, actually. A combination of community centers, faith-esque humanist organizations, and a better governmental safety net work together to do the same job.

There are plenty of secular organizations out there doing good work today...here are just a few of the bigger names:
American Civil Liberties Union
Amnesty International
Doctors without Borders
Engineers Without Borders
Kiva.org
Oxfam International
Rotary International
UNICEF
Planned Parenthood
People for the American Way


A couple books on the subject:

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. What's different about Europe is that they still have real geographical communities

For example, a few years ago, there was a program (on PBS? Discovery? Some other channel?) about an 9,000-year-old skeleton that was found in a cave in England. DNA testing revealed that there were still relatives of the ancient man living in the area.

When you have that kind of stability and a society with self-contained villages and neighborhoods, it's easier to create public institutions that care for the vulnerable. Japan, for example, is experimenting with ways to allow its aging population to live out their lives in their communities without being institutionalized until absolutely necessary. One of the pilot programs hires people to check up on and visit their older neighbors and pays local businesses to act as social gathering places for the elderly.

Meanwhile, back in the States, a friend of mine who worked with social services in the western suburbs of Portland (which are a lot more non-driver friendly than their counterparts in other cities) said that one of the big problems there was isolated elderly people, especially in immigrant populations. A couple would bring Grandma or Grandpa from Mexico or Korea and then go off and work their two jobs each, leaving the older person home alone all day. In the old country, they would have been able to walk to the neighborhood shops and gossip with all their old friends, but here, they couldn't walk anywhere, and even if they could, there were no community gathering places. The churches that served these populations (a surprising number of Koreans are fundamentalist Christians), therefore, were setting up meal programs for the elderly, bringing them to the church in vans for lunch and socializing.

So the more secular societies of Europe have a totally different social context than we do.

But even in secular societies with good social safety nets, people fall through the cracks. The English-language church that I attend when I'm in Tokyo is part of a food distribution program for the poor and homeless. The two times I was in England, I read newspaper accounts of church groups doing charitable work, such as assisting Eastern European migrant workers with their needs or setting up programs for children and youth in the worst housing projects to keep them out of the default mode of petty crime. Some readers wrote in about the latter program, indignant that churches should be "indoctrinating" these youth (the church people were Anglicans, for goodness sakes, not fundamentalists). However, the author of the piece pointed out that it was better that the young people were under adult supervision doing constructive things rather than hanging around and getting into trouble, and besides, where were the secular groups willing to go into London's worst housing projects and work with the youth?

(It's not that secular groups COULDN'T be effective with impoverished youth, but in this case they weren't even present.)

So it's a complex issue.

[ironbark]

15. You raise exactly the kinds of community I’m talking about.

And thank you for raising the conditions of the elderly. A glaring omission from my prior list of fringe dwellers in need of community, my wife is an Aged Care Case Manager and she’d shoot me for that ;-)
(The Aged Care organisation is run by Baptists ;-)

There are so many distinct sub groups within society that, quite frankly, can be extremely difficult and unpleasant to deal with. Paid professionals from both secular and church organizations do so…but when it comes to the provision of community/surrogate family the communities of faith appear to be the only ones taking up the task.

“But even in secular societies with good social safety nets, people fall through the cracks.”

Yes, and from my perspective it’s a three tiered layer of “social safety nets”- The government provided services, the church provided services, and then beneath those are the communities of faith that often pick up those who have fallen through and feed them back or plug them in to the previous two layers of services. Illnesses, conditions and needs of the isolated elderly often cannot be identified until the individual is in a supportive community and starts talking about their issues/concerns.

The issue you raised regarding potential “indoctrination” is one I have often come up against in my work. In Australia it is illegal for any Health or Welfare professional to attempt to influence a clients politics, religion or sexuality. This has become problematic since the previous ‘Howard’ (Conservative) government determined that the churches could provide cheaper and more effective welfare programs than the state. This has proven effective in many respects, but, if you enrol in a state funded Rehab Unit run by The Salvation Army….you just know your going to get a sermon;-)

“It's not that secular groups COULDN'T be effective with impoverished youth, but in this case they weren't even present”

That seems starkly true across the Health, Welfare and Community sectors…and begs the question
“Why aren’t they even present”?

I’ve really appreciated your posts. It’s one of the first times in all the time I’ve been here that I’ve felt like it’s a real discussion about real people and issues conducted in a positive light.
(As opposed to obtuse and pointless theological speculation ;-)

[iris27]

19. So you believe that the secular community-building groups I see in my area

are some sort of local anomaly and not found elsewhere? I think these are becoming more numerous all the time.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. I don't think they're a local anomaly, but they were not present in that

particular case covered in the newspaper account.

For much of the time that I lived in Portland, there were three or four organizations helping homeless youth. Only one, the Salvation Army, was religious, although all the downtown churches cooperated to help the homeless population in general.

[iris27]

23. Well, yeah, and in the UK case you mentioned, the right

response is definitely "either stop bitching about the methods of the one organization doing the work, or start one yourself that doesn't do include a religious element."

I'm just trying to understand the motivation behind ironbark's original question, which seemed to suggest that there aren't any (or not enough) secular groups serving these sort of "surrogate family"/community needs.

[ironbark]

27. Motivation behind original question?

I prefer the concrete to the speculative.
When it comes to the god question I am not much interested in pointless ephemerals, theology, demands to see the skydady and the rest of the pap that usually passes for dialogue.

For me the ‘evidence’ (but not the proof;-) will be found in the pudding- How people live and how they live with each other.
Violence and war, greed and corruption have been prevalent in all societies and communities throughout history. On the Macro it is a purely subjective speculation as to wether religion has caused more war and strife or less through unifying large previously warring areas. Europe and the Middle East might look askance at each other through the recollection of the Crusades but each area was itself once a field of constant inter tribal and inter state conflict.

At the micro level it is a different matter.
We can look at, analyse, measure and compare specific groups/organizations within society.
We can look at belief specific communes and communities and see how they fare.

Epiphenom-
Covers the causes and effects of religion and non-belief, with a focus on psychology and social science. And presents as ‘The science of religion and non belief’

I don’t know about the ‘science’ claim but they do have some data on why religious communes succeed and secular ones fail.
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/09/why-religious-communes-succeed-and.html

“…ironbark's original question, which seemed to suggest that there aren't any (or not enough) secular groups serving these sort of "surrogate family"/community needs.”

Never suggested “there aren't any”, certainly there are not enough, nor enough religious agencies.

I did state my motivation clearly-

“What I’m wondering is, in the great leap forward to a bright Atheistic future, what religious institutions could or should go? I’m asking because there have been quite a few expressions of desire to see organised religion abandoned altogether and I’m wondering, socially, what you think that might look like?
If organised religion was progressively abandoned over the next 20? 50? 100? years (or blown out of the water overnight) who would fill the social service and community support gaps?
How and why would they do so? “

No one has even touched those two questions.

[iris27]

30. No one has touched those questions because they are obvious flamebait.

Almost no atheists, even those who have expressed "desire to see organized religion abandoned altogether" think it's even a remote possibility except in the extreme gradual long-term, as the "god of the gaps" becomes smaller with each scientific advance. (See this thread.) I personally don't think the disappearance of religion is very likely even over those centuries, but that's because my degree is in psychology.

But fine, I'll play. If we're talking about a fully atheistic future (no need for caps, by the way, it's not a proper noun like the name of a religion would be), then by definition all religious institutions would be gone. Socially, it would look basically like now, except without church signs on every corner asking "Smoking or nonsmoking? Where will YOU spend eternity?"

In their place would be the local community groups like those I've mentioned, which basically engage in all the functions of churches except the religious ones. There would be more of them than there are now, because the people who are currently religious and find fulfillment in churches & religiously-based charity work would swell their ranks instead of the religious organizations.

They would do so in the way they're already doing so, and because they're already doing so.

[ironbark]

32. And these “local community groups” will spring up because?

“…the people who are currently religious and find fulfillment in churches & religiously-based charity work would swell their ranks instead of the religious organizations.”

These “local community groups” will spring up based on the social need alone or the establishment of another psychological/philosophical/ideological motivator?

I ask because religion is clearly a motivator for many organizations, communities and surrogate families…and…I am informed “atheism is not a motivator”.

“There would be more of them than there are now,…”

So, in the absence of religion, there will be more “local community groups” arising (around an unspecified philosophy or motivation other than identified social need) and they will be more (?) inclined to take on the family surrogacy of the needy/fringe dweller/disabled?

Returning from the speculative to the concrete (and recognising and setting aside the organizations you have already listed) can you point towards any grass roots secular communities that are currently fulfilling such a surrogate family role?

[beam me up scottie]

26. How would religious people know who to persecute, I mean save?

The church-run veterans shelter in this town kicks out guys who don't attend bible class, they charge $300 a month for rent and buy their food stamps for pennies on the dollar.

Gee, thank you organized religion.

[ironbark]

29. Here’s a novel and new DU R&T idea-

Let’s ignore the OP and all points made and questions raised and play tit for tat snide shots that contribute nothing and lead nowhere?

Alternatively-
“What I’m wondering is, in the great leap forward to a bright Atheistic future, what religious institutions could or should go? I’m asking because there have been quite a few expressions of desire to see organised religion abandoned altogether and I’m wondering, socially, what you think that might look like?
If organised religion was progressively abandoned over the next 20? 50? 100? years (or blown out of the water overnight) who would fill the social service and community support gaps?
How and why would they do so?”

[beam me up scottie]

31. Just returning the favor.

;)