Theophobia

[wintler2]

*
For those of you embittered, angry people who cannot possibly separate out the planetfuckers from people noticing the planetfucking - have it your way.

I have tried to open the door to what I believe could be a helpful, illuminating discussion. There have been some great posts on this thread.

I see, however, that there are people incapable of putting down hostility. Simply incapable of letting go of defensiveness. Incapable of refraining from vitriol. Fuck those guys.

I have a feeling that the neoliberal growth delusion will keep you all in its grip - divided and unhappy - right vs left, atheist vs theist, science vs religion. It doesn't have to be that way, but like I said... fuck it.

have it your way. two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun.

Go ahead - correct me. I'm pretty sure that 'have it your way' is BK or Harvey's. I'm sure the Americans will know it by heart, such as they are poisoned by their culture, unable to grab the lifeline thrown to them.

*

(props to CW, slightly altered for enhanced empathy)

[The Consul]

"Enlightenment...just don't know" - Van Morrison

[seemslikeadream]

"Enlightenment...just don't know" - Van Morrison

I ain't good enough
I ain't clean enough



As the floods of God
Wash away sin city
They say it was written
In the page of the Lord
But I was looking
For that great jazz note
That destroyed
The walls of Jericho

The winds of fear
Whip away the sickness
The messages on the tablet
Was valium
As the planets form
That golden cross Lord
I'll see you on
The holy cross roads

After all this time
To believe in Jesus
After all those drugs
I thought I was Him
After all my lying
And a-crying
And my suffering
I ain't good enough
I ain't clean enough
To be Him

The tribal wars
Burning up the homeland
The fuel of evil
Is raining from the sky
The sea of lava
Flowing down the mountain
The time will sleep
Us sinners by

Holy rollers roll
Give generously now
Pass the hubcap please
Thank you Lord

[norton ash]

For the restaurant servers this Sunday, faced with large tables of well-dressed family folk going for post-church brunch, who for the most part tend to be picky, whiny and don't tip well, we pray to the Lord.

Lord, hear our prayer.

For those in deep, indefensible trenches who keep digging... ahhh, who cares, they can do what they like. It's their business unless the mud starts hitting others.

[Canadian_watcher]

For the restaurant servers this Sunday, faced with large tables of well-dressed family folk going for post-church brunch, who for the most part tend to be picky, whiny and don't tip well, we pray to the Lord.

here again, 'cuda woulda shoulda.

[Canadian_watcher]

Get it while it's hot!
there is only one of them alone in the changeroom at the moment... quick!

[norton ash]

Ssshh. Trying to pray here.

[Canadian_watcher]

How do people react when confronted by their prejudices:

Participants in two studies reported how they would feel, think, and behave after being confronted about either gender-biased or equivalent racial-biased responses. In Study 2, whether the confrontation was from a target group member (Black or female) or nontarget (White or male) group member was manipulated. Regardless of confronter status, allegations of racial bias elicited more guilt and apologetic-corrective responses and greater concern over having offended the confronter than similar confrontations of gender bias, which elicited more amusement. Target confrontations elicited less guilt but greater discomfort than nontarget confrontations and were associated with feelings of irritation and antagonism among more prejudiced participants. In addition, participants perceived a target’s confrontation as more of an overreaction than the same confrontation from a nontarget. The implications of these findings for prejudice-reduction efforts are discussed.

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/29/4/532

A better piece than the OP, but taking on the same theory:

Religious Bias in Academia
A review of George Yancey's Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education
by Thomas L. Trevethan


Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education (Baylor, 2011)

George Yancey, Professor of Sociology at the University of North Texas, has put us all in his debt by offering a methodologically rigorous study of political and religious bias in American colleges and universities in his book, Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education (Baylor Press, 2011). His conclusions are anything but flattering. About his own discipline of sociology he concludes:

...
Chapter five applies the quantitative research methodology to a much wider range of academic disciplines and leads to the disquieting conclusion of pervasive bias we noted above. Chapter six draws these findings together and assesses their impact on the scientific enterprise. Professor Yancey makes two points that seem to me particularly impressive:

The real power of bias comes from its hidden nature. (153)
Bias threatens the freedom and fruitfulness of scientific explorations. (161-164)

The problem here is not just that individuals will be burdened with unexpressed prejudice and harmed in the process of considering a job or a career in the academy. That would certainly be unjust and harmful to the reputation of the academy. But in limiting the acceptable range of questions that can be asked and explored, it arbitrarily shrinks the science.

...
Professor Yancey presents his research and conclusion with an admirable humility. This marks him as someone who is not an ideologue. He frequently notes the limits of his research. It cannot lead to conclusions about the intensity or degree of bias. It does not explain why academics hold this bias. It does not determine ways that bias works in pernicious way in areas other than hiring decisions. Yancey knows that objections can reasonably be made to his research and he seeks, persuasively to this reader, to reply to them with a lovely combination of respect and strength of conviction (see pp. 140-146). This is a work that not only seeks to make a statement; it also invites discussion and further research.
...


Interesting confirmation of Yancey’s thesis has been offered in a lecture by Jonathan Haidt, Professor of Psychology at University of Virginia, presented to the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Discrimination is a frequent topic in this professional society’s gatherings. Haidt makes a compelling case that political conservatives face considerable bias in his profession and that bias impoverishes research. At one point in his talk, Haidt asked the one thousand attendees how many were political liberals (about 800 hands were raised), libertarians (40 hands), and then conservatives (3 hands). “This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. Dr. Haidt noted that such a distribution of views would immediately cause a social psychologist or sociologist to assume the presence of bias, if it involved any other criterion. He argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals. The New York Times reported on this lecture and the response to it in this recent article. You can listen to Haidt’s talk online as well.

How Should We Respond to Bias?
For all the good work Professor Yancey has done, however, I find myself unable to follow him in his suggestions for how we ought to respond to this systemic bias. Let me offer two objections to his proposals.

In his quantitative chapter on bias among sociologists, he remarks that he advises his graduate students to avoid any discussion of religious or political views in job interviews (62).

...

[/quote]

Yes, the man who wrote the review is an Evangelical.

[brainpanhandler]

You really think that's a good idea?

I'll go out on a limb here and answer for cuda. Yes, it is a very good idea. In fact I'd say you have an obligation.

It wasn't when I did it before, in a post to sunny way back when she posted on this thread.

You mean this?

Again, C_W, I ask you, is this your faith? I'm just wondering so that I may adjust my phobias accordingly. Also: that seems pretty vague.

C-W's a theist, deist, pantheist adherent of the Church of What's Happenin' Now.

Or as the blind man closest to the ground in the big shadow said 'An elephant is soft and mushy.'

Anyone needing evidence that there's a predilection towards openly bashing the faithful, here's some (more) for you.

Context for Barracuda's quote:

I do though believe that there *is* some guiding force of the universe and that our ability to see past the ends of our noses and react as often as possible out of courage and love rather than fear.. That's pretty much much spirituality in a nutshell.

Again, C_W, I ask you, is this your faith? I'm just wondering so that I may adjust my phobias accordingly. Also: that seems pretty vague.

You don't have much of a sense of humor, do you?

You want me to name names and dredge up old posts from ages ago and make people feel defensive? I'm not up for it.

That's a rather cowardly dodge. It's your thread. Manup.

For those of you embittered, angry people who cannot possibly separate out the Christian Fundamentalists in the US from other people of faith - have it your way.

Are you addressing nonparticipating lurkers?

it is so easy to call someone else angry, isn't it?

Funny how "angry" has become some sort of neutralizing word.. some trump card in the hands of those who can tell you without emotion that you are shit, and deserve to be treated like it, and then want to get away with it.

I'm sorry my friend, but pointing out the obvious, even when it is ugly, does not qualify as 'anger' but even if it did, there is too much of a social charge on anger these days. Anger is powerful and useful when used correctly. I embrace it when it comes - however, it did not come yet today.

And you have the gall to to call others blind? Please.

I have tried to open the door to what I believe could be a helpful, illuminating discussion. There have been some great posts on this thread.

And it seems a nascent martyr complex is in the making.

I see, however, that there are people incapable of putting down hostility. Simply incapable of letting go of defensiveness. Incapable of refraining from vitriol. Fuck those guys.

Wait, I see you do have a sense of humor.



Honestly, cw, you're arguing with phantoms. You are attributing qualities to posters here for which you could not possibly have any evidence to substantiate. You've probably had these arguments irl many times and you are failing to listen carefully to the posters in this thread you consider antagonistic and realize that we are much more nuanced and open minded than you are apparently capable of seeing and acknowledging. And that really is a shame.

[IanEye]

rabbis & the friars
vishnus & the gurus



we got the beatles or the sun god

well, it really doesn't matter
what religion you choose

[Canadian_watcher]

BPH - ahh, excellent. You took me up on my invitation. Anyone else?

[American Dream]

Honestly, cw, you're arguing with phantoms. You are attributing qualities to posters here for which you could not possibly have any evidence to substantiate. You've probably had these arguments irl many times and you are failing to listen carefully to the posters in this thread you consider antagonistic and realize that we are much more nuanced and open minded than you are apparently capable of seeing and acknowledging. And that really is a shame.

Thank you.

[barracuda]

the bias is the shame. bias locks people away from pursuing certain paths - those paths of course are whichever are covered over by the forest of bias.

Your rejection of their point of view constitutes a bias as well.

I don't reject people who don't believe. I would not attempt to discredit a scientist or researcher with the following: "S/he's an evolutionist." I don't make up little name-calling slang against people who don't have faith.

But you have no problem saying things like...

"People who do not accept any sort of faith in their lives... will never be able to realize the truth as I and others see it."

I'm going to say this one more time. I think that it is unfortunate that there are people who are not able to take seriously those people who are of faith.

Yeah I get that. You find their lack of discernment "unfortunate". You're trying hard to separate their belief systems in action from what they actually believe, but it doesn't really work that way. It's denigrating and prejudicial.

I was careful in my above quote to say "embrace things that are out of the realms of perceived, mainstream possibility" because I want to amek it clear that I am not necessarily talking about religion.

I know. You want to introduce your concepts with as much wiggle room as possible when it suits you to, because you don't want to get pinned down by what you really are trying to say. Which is understandable, but then, in statements like that one - "embrace things that are out of the realms of perceived, mainstream possibility" - you wind up implying that the inspired work of diligent scientists is somehow in a continuum with your notion of "belief in things that cannot be proved", which I find to be somewhat disingenuous.

You, for one example, seem to have difficulty with that, usually based on keywords only: pseudo-science, quack, creationist, faith-based, etc.

I have no idea what you're talking about, which makes me wonder if you have any idea what you're talking about.

I said it is a shame that they are biased. It isn't the same thing.
If someone drops their keys down a volcano, that's a shame but it isn't shameful. See?
If someone's new puppy dies it's a shame, but not shameful.
If you get a bad haircut the day before your wedding that's a shame, not shameful.

So now the prejudice that you see on the board against people of faith is being equated with all the seriousness of losing one's keys or getting a bad haircut? If that's the extent of the damages (which I'm inclined to agree that it is, based on the scant evidence for the prejudice available here), then why all the fuss? Also, I wouldn't equate the death of a baby animal with key-loss, personally.

Have I made my point yet? Stop taking this as an attack. Do you not want to see past your prejudices? You are fighting really hard to deny that you have them, using every means at your disposal - twisting my words, asking for examples you have already been given, going on the offensive. Can you not just stop for a minute and examine yourself?

I've told you before I have no problem with people of faith, and you refuse to accept that, which makes me think that you mean something other than the commonly understood meanings of your words. What I am beginning to see is that you think I should either agree with your offensive premise that a widespread prejudice exists on the board, or face being lumped in as one of the abusers. What I'm saying to you is that I disagree with you. It has absolutely nothing to do with your faith. It seems as if you could care less about the faith of others - you are only concerned that your arguments remain untouchable due to the whiff of sanctimony that you think your faith should embue to them. You can't see that it does just the opposite, and that your insistence upon the higher nature of your personal beliefs, your persistent remarks that make it clear that you find your point of view somehow better, somehow "more whole", somehow beyond the realisation of those who don't share some ineffable quality you are unable to actually pin down for your self - you can't see that this type of privileging might be seen as highly insulting to others who don't share your particular faith, but might have faith of their own which doesn't conform to the needs of your arguments and definitions.

Unlike yourself, though, I never went through a period of atheism in my life. You're like a reformed alcoholic, for whom the tippling of social drinkers has now become unacceptable.

Perhaps I can give a shout out to a couple of others who might or might not be able to just confirm or deny for barracuda whether or not this OP has a place and a point at RI.

I don't have any problem with the discussion. It's your prejudice and painting of others on the board as hurtful that I find dangerous and offensive, when what is really happening is simply disagreement with your arguments. Disagreeing with your personal position does not constitute prejudice against people of faith, and to imply that it does is nonsense.

[MacCruiskeen]

Honestly, cw, you're arguing with phantoms. You are attributing qualities to posters here for which you could not possibly have any evidence to substantiate. You've probably had these arguments irl many times and you are failing to listen carefully to the posters in this thread you consider antagonistic and realize that we are much more nuanced and open minded than you are apparently capable of seeing and acknowledging. And that really is a shame.

Thank you.

Bullies ganging together, insisting on how nice they are, and whining about being stood up to is never a pretty sight.

Now show precisely where in the OP, or in the any of early pages of this thread, C_w "attribut[ed] qualities to posters here" of any kind whatsoever. (What she did do was to respond a little testily to some posters here, but only after page upon page upon page of smirking, cackling, patronising, thick-witted bullying. And she had a perfect right to do so.)

Meanwhile, what constitutes misogyny?

It's your thread. Manup.

[barracuda]

Now show precisely where in the OP, or in the any of early pages of this thread, C_w "attribut[ed] qualities to posters here" of any kind whatsoever.

You cannot tell me that there isn't a prejudice, especially noticeable here on this board...against people who are spiritual.

I would tend to call that an attribution of qualities to posters here. A wonderfully vague accusation which must be taken on faith.