The little victories of non belief

nozzferrahhtoo

Thinking about the other threads I just posted on about the definition of atheism as a beleif system and my answer to that, I realise that a beleif in god isnt actually that important. People beleiving really doesnt affect us in anyway, and its no wonder many say "Why do you bother arguing against it, its just faith". This is all well and good but I guess Im secular at heart. Its not faith, but what its used for that bothers me.

On this note I have to say I was heartened by this news from California about the legalisation of gay marriage. The predictable moves by the theistic community and ravings about morals are of course happening but its a step forward in society and a nervous step away from those nuts in the corner.

What has gay rights got to do with atheism? A lot actually. And I find that the timing is a little funny which is what connected the topics in my head. A week or so ago a woman died who was famous for being jailed for the crime of marrying a white person while she herself was black. Mildred Loving was jailed in the 60s for the crime of interracial marriage but then her victory before the Supreme Court led to the striking down of laws banning racially mixed marriages across the country. There is of course no good reason ever presented to me to suggest that someone shouldn’t marry into another race. The reason for her being jailed then? Religion of course!

The judge declared: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The overturning of this awful ruling lead the way to let more people marry for love, and not based on what some invisible man wants. Recognising in law that two people, harming no one, have decided to commit to a life together is more important socially and morally than anything based on something or someone that we have no evidence exists. Giving them all the benefits from tax status to inheritance rights is more important that I have the ability to articulate.

I think this ruling on gay rights is a perfect example of the same thing occurring. There is little or no reasons against homosexuals except those coming from divine authority. There is always some twisted statistics which have nothing to do with homosexuality that are trotted out, or a few sensationalist crazy claims like “If 100% of society turned gay we would die out” (A statement that not only would never come to be, but is also wrong because even in a 100% gay society there would still be reproduction). So instead the homophobic agendas turn to the one thing they have left, divine authority.

And without any evidence for such a being we have to assume that this authority was actually bronze age man made politics partially strengthened and backed up by a divine endorsement that no one can actually vouch for. I of course have no problem with them preventing gay marriage in their own churches. The church is their club and they can set their own rules and if they do not want gay people being part of their church or marrying in their church then so be it. But their god(s) should not be used to influence a civil union between two people in a country with a secular constitution. Their wish is NOT our command.

The ruling means that 1000s of people can live their life together in a social, financial and legal situation just like 100,000s of others around them. I am very happy for the people who will be directly and indirectly affected in this way. Congratulations to all and best of luck in the November ballot that the parties of god are using to try to get around this new ruling. My thoughts are with you.

And let this be a lesson to us all. Atheism isnt just about what the word means or other semantics. Its about realising that when there there is NO other reason to put something into practise, law, morality, education or society OTHER THAN a divine mandate, we need to seriously reconsider such topics.

Dades

Good post, nozzferrahhtoo.

Gives me an excuse to post one of my favourite image of recent years (from 'Generally Strange', I think).

Concerns a religious protest against a gay festival in Jerusalem.
Amazing what can unite different religious factions....



Full article here.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Amazing what can unite different religious factions

We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another -- Jonathan Swift.

That photo's still one of my favourites too -- has anybody ever run it in a caption competition?

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is of course no good reason ever presented to me to suggest that someone shouldn’t marry into another race. The reason for her being jailed then? Religion of course!

Few if any of us will be around to see it, but give religion a century or so, and you'd probably be hard put to find religious people ranting and raving in quantity against gay men and women. More disappointingly, you'll probably be equally hard put to find any religious people who would even be aware that religion inspired such discrimination, and the majority will no doubt deny that it ever did -- god's message of love is eternal, unchanging, and all that. This airbrushing happened with the anti-interracial-marriage mob, the pro-slavery lobby and so on, just as it will, no doubt, happen again with the homophobics.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

That photo's still one of my favourites too -- has anybody ever run it in a caption competition?

The sad looking guy, second from the left: I keep trying to grow one, but it is always patchy and silly looking.

Consoling looking guy on the left: It's not the end of the world....yet. Keep praying hard and maybe god will provide.

The sad looking guy, second from the left: Maybe I could try just a goatee.....

MrP

Ciaran500

Lets not forget this far, far more important victory

http://www.catholic.ie/

Dades

robindch wrote: »

That photo's still one of my favourites too -- has anybody ever run it in a caption competition?

They have now!

rockbeer

Great post - and this has always been my argument when accused of being militant and asked why I don't tolerate religion as benign and harmless. The fact is it is a malign influence on so many levels, and a completely unnecessary one. As you so well point out, it has been and still is used regularly to justify repression and intolerance based on no more than the peculiar social circumstances and prejudices of our primitive ancestors. Surely we've moved on a little as a species since the bronze age?

The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

He could have equally well said 'The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the white race to destroy the cultures and devastate the populations of all the others in his name'.

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

This airbrushing happened with the anti-interracial-marriage mob, the pro-slavery lobby and so on, just as it will, no doubt, happen again with the homophobics.

Yea I fully expect some day that not only will people be unaware that religion caused hatred for gays.... but just like with slavery.... they will be patting themselves on the back for being the leaders in the gay revolution and freedom fighting.

Húrin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The reason for her being jailed then? Religion of course!

The quote that you present here was never actually uttered. It is an urban legend.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea I fully expect some day that not only will people be unaware that religion caused hatred for gays.... but just like with slavery.... they will be patting themselves on the back for being the leaders in the gay revolution and freedom fighting.

Christianity certainly was abused to justify slavery, but the anti-slavery movement was in fact pioneered by British Christians.

You atheists are so smug to consider yourselves, even after all the lessons of the 20th century, to be the historical liberators of humankind.

nozzferrahhtoo

Húrin wrote: »

The quote that you present here was never actually uttered. It is an urban legend.

Of course if you say so it must be true? However this is from her OWN account. But I guess you today would know better than the person who was actually there herself?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the "crime" of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

Húrin wrote: »

Christianity certainly was abused to justify slavery, but the anti-slavery movement was in fact pioneered by British Christians. You atheists are so smug to consider yourselves, even after all the lessons of the 20th century, to be the historical liberators of humankind.

I wonder does it make you feel in some way big to quote me and then attack a position I never espoused? If you think yourself a decent person then have the decency to either quote where I claimed that atheists liberated anyone OR withdraw the comment.

Just like its a fallacy to talk about dicatators of the 20th century being motivated by atheism to do bad, its also impossible to be motivated solely by atheism to do good either. Where in the statement "I see no reason to beleive there is a god" is there a doctrine to do anything good or bad?

My point solely and simply is this so have the decency to attack what I DO say not what I DONT in future: yes you think that Christianity was abused to justify slavery. Those Christians would and did say it was abuse of Christianity to free their slaves which they found so precious. So point is simply this. If a god that you have ZERO evidence for is your sole reason for doing ANYTHING, good or bad, then you seriously need to reconsider the motion.

As with slavery, my original point is that theres been no reason to stand against homosexuals aside from claims of divine endorsement made by the pious. This is not enough. That is all I am saying here. If you have no answer for that then so be it, but do not reduce yourself to instead attacking words I never uttered or a position I never claimed to hold. It demeans only yourself.

Whispered

Hey,

Completly agree the church has been used for some of the most disgusting things humankind has done. (Just a quick note here, IMO it's the church and the people who twist religious teachings, not the religion itself which is at fault in most cases).

But in the case of interracial marraiges, it's culture and ignorance which drives the hatered. The sheirf may have used the name of god but we all know it had nothing to do with religion.

This might have been your point all along, but I thought I'd say it just in case.

BTW - Religion has done a lot of good for people too. I think we are at a time in society now where we don't need religion. Believe me, I know that the churches of the world have done some awful things in the name of "god" but it doesn't take away from the benefits religion gave in the past (and sadly, even now, belonging to a religion has its benefits). It's not ALL bad.

nozzferrahhtoo

You are semi right about this being my point all along. When religion is the sole reason for doing anything it can only be bad because its build on a premise that we have zero evidence for.

In the abscence of evidence to the contrary we have to assume that religions were created by people, so of course you are right they are then used and distorted by people too. This is why we have to be on gaurd against religion as the sole reason for anything.

You may be right that it was culture and ignorance that drove the above quote. This is a seperate issue and one Im not dealing with. The fact is when that person wanted to express his racism he had to find a way to do it. The ONLY way to express hatred of interracial marriage (or towards gays as I said) is from a prespective that uses god. There IS no other reason.

So my point isnt that god or religion made the racist think that way. Maybe it did we dont "know" as you claim. The fact that bothers me more is that religion was the only way he could get such awful beleifs to be considered by his peers.

You talk slightly off topic about the benefits of religion. I wouldnt like to push this thread off topic but if you are aware of any benefit of religion that there isnt also a secular or non religious substitute for then Id gladly hear it.

Dades

Reading last few posts reminds me of the US gun lobby slogan:

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Of course the question is would people kill people if they didn't have guns?

Whispered

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So my point isnt that god or religion made the racist think that way. Maybe it did we dont "know" as you claim. The fact that bothers me more is that religion was the only way he could get such awful beleifs to be considered by his peers.

This is one of my main objections to organised religion too, it gives people an excuse to do awful things - and punishes people for lesser things that aren't in accordance with the church.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You talk slightly off topic about the benefits of religion. I wouldnt like to push this thread off topic but if you are aware of any benefit of religion that there isnt also a secular or non religious substitute for then Id gladly hear it.

I think in this day and age there is a secular substitute for almost everything. I don't think this was so in the past. For one thing, weekly mass gave otherwise isolated people a feeling a community, actually, where I grew up this is still the case. Also, while the churches charities may have questionable motives, they still helped an awful lot of people. Obviously now a lot of charities are non denominational, which is better, but the main source of charity in the past was through the church.

Dades wrote: »

Reading last few posts reminds me of the US gun lobby slogan:

Of course the question is would people kill people if they didn't have guns?

Of course they would..................:)

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Of course the question is would people kill people if they didn't have guns?

Just not as efficiently.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Dades wrote: »

Reading last few posts reminds me of the US gun lobby slogan:

Of course the question is would people kill people if they didn't have guns?

i got about 3 hours sleep last night so I'm kinda running on empty atm so please, please tell me you were joking dades.

Dades

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

i got about 3 hours sleep last night so I'm kinda running on empty atm so please, please tell me you were joking dades.

You mean about the question?!

I wasn't really making a statement either way, just throwing out the idea that removing guns is like removing religion - people would have to find another method to follow through on their hatred.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I wasn't really making a statement either way, just throwing out the idea that removing guns is like removing religion - people would have to find another method to follow through on their hatred.

But what about the case where the hatred is caused by the religion to start with? If religion no longer exists, then the hatred it espouses cannot exist. Just as surely as international wars wouldn't happen if there are no nation states to fight them -- is it really reasonable to think that people would congregate together and attack each other in large groups in the absence of nation states?

Dades

Perhaps some things done in the name of religion might never happen without it. Other things - e.g. Northern Ireland - are linked with religion but in fact are too complex to reduce it to that.

It's not black & white - each case is different I suspect.

Whispered

robindch wrote: »

But what about the case where the hatred is caused by the religion to start with? If religion no longer exists, then the hatred it espouses cannot exist.

In most cases is it not human nature and ignorance which causes the hatred and religion which excuses it?

Zombrex

helena.ryan wrote: »

In most cases is it not human nature and ignorance which causes the hatred and religion which excuses it?

Not really

Religion is a powerful manipulator, and this can lead to hatred as people fear losing what they have been offered by their religion, or feel threatened by perceived threats to the religion.

There is a assertion, particular put forward by religious people themselves, that any hatred or animosity that manifests itself in a religious context must have an ulterior cause, such as land disputes, or money, or quest for power.

This feeds into the idea held by the religious that religion is ultimately a good thing and can't or shouldn't cause bad things, but it ignores the way religion works in offering things to people.

For a lot of people what is offered by religion is far more important to them than money or power or any other worldly material thing.

nozzferrahhtoo

helena.ryan wrote: »

I think in this day and age there is a secular substitute for almost everything.

I think we could debate that. There have always been non religious philosophies from buddism to kantism that have provided much the same things.

However its not a debate that interests me as a chasm yawns at the feet of anyone who goes down this route. I am more interested in its uses now and the damage it causes now. Nothing else worries me. It interests me of course, but its only religion today the worries me.

Whispered

Wicknight wrote: »

.......There is a assertion, particular put forward by religious people themselves, that any hatred or animosity that manifests itself in a religious context must have an ulterior cause, such as land disputes, or money, or quest for power. .............For a lot of people what is offered by religion is far more important to them than money or power or any other worldly material thing.

Yes this is very true, actually something I haven't thought about before. But at the same time, while the ordinary everyday religious person might be motivated by faith, the people who are the power behind the faith, have at some stage twisted things to suit their own needs. A belief in god, or the teachings of a particular prophet do not make people do horrible things. It's the way these teachings are manipulated. You say religion in manipulative - I think it's churches that are manipulative. Not a huge difference I suppose but in my niavety I like to think that religious teachings are not all bad.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think we could debate that. There have always been non religious philosophies from buddism to kantism that have provided much the same things.

However its not a debate that interests me as a chasm yawns at the feet of anyone who goes down this route. I am more interested in its uses now and the damage it causes now. Nothing else worries me. It interests me of course, but its only religion today the worries me.

Ok so we wont get into a debate, just one question - was buddism etc easily available to people up until recently? You may be interested in only religion today, but the post you questioned was me saying that it had it's uses in the past.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However its not a debate that interests me as a chasm yawns at the feet of anyone who goes down this route.

That sounds strangely like the ramblings of a religious nut................................

Dave!

Helena! Good to have you back! Where HAVE you been?!

Whispered

DaveMcG wrote: »

Helena! Good to have you back! Where HAVE you been?!

That just HAS to be sarcasm

nozzferrahhtoo

helena.ryan wrote: »

Ok so we wont get into a debate, just one question - was buddism etc easily available to people up until recently? You may be interested in only religion today, but the post you questioned was me saying that it had it's uses in the past.

Oh then I think I may have miscommunicated my intentions somewhat. I did not intend to question you saying that it had its uses in the past. What I inteded to question was the relevance of that point now. Calling religion useful is one of the main ways the theists will defend their faith in god. However when you really look closely at it, its only in the distant past that this might have been true (might have been) but certainly not to the extent that it can be argued that religion is remotely useful NOW.