The Problem with Protecting the "Sacred"

With respect Taoist, if I say something wrong, you will say "Starship you're wrong." That doesn't constitute a personal attack, nor does what I'm saying. I have every right to call out a troper who's clearly working in a different reality than the one I'm in.

That's exactly my point Taoist. You can't just pay Harper's paycheck, and all wishing won't make it so. Fact of the matter is....every organization of which we're a part will do something we'd prefer not to get behind. The same is true of the people in our lives.

You learn to deal with it and move on. You don't cut them loose in a fit of pique.

edited 15th Jun '12 2:49:37 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

And what facts am I ignoring?

Well Paul, I'll limit my answers to your activity in this discussion.

You accused Carc of being upset with the student because he's offended by his unacceptance of Carc's version of Communion. False. You stated the whole issue was about theological differences. False. You said I compared the Holocaust to desecration. Laughably false. In no way, shape, or form did I try to suggest the two were related in any way. I did draw the parallel that people can use pretext to hide their true goals, and that was clear.

And it seems to me that when you are clearly told that your strawmanning and responding to positions of your own making, you seem to become even more recalcitrant.

My issue with you Paul is that you seem to have a great deal to say about how narrow-minded and combative others are, and then I see you display those qualities.

This is the very thing we're talking about with Myers and others who resort to 'desecration' to prove points. It doesn't work for them, for you, for me, or for anyone else who employs such tactics.

Now wait, hang on a second. I'm all for ignoring trolls. But until Paul has actually, clearly, unequivocally demonstrated trollishness, then I don't agree with that.

Every person on this thread, on these forums, has ignored the obvious. We all do it. We don't ignore each other. We talk until either we agree to stop talking or the person clearly proves their beyond reason.

Paul is most certainly not a troll. An anti-theist, perhaps (I couldn't say), and probably anti-organized religion, but not a troll.

Remember, a "troll" is not someone who says things you disagree with. Even if you disagree very strongly. "The Host is not sacred in the slightest" is something I very much so disagree with. That doesn't mean that, say, Best Of or Karalora are trolling if they don't agree with me. They just have different opinions on the matter.

No offense, Starship, but that holocaust analogy also made me facepalm. Especially since it's a hard one to work with.

Anyway, troll-accusing is not for this topic. If you think somebody might be one, holler it.

Likewise, yeah, I agree that they severely overreacted to the eucharist thing. There is nothing wrong with wondering why the tradition exists or to question it. People need to get out of their safe zone and actually be questioned sometimes. This event doesn't bother me much. Likewise, I understand that the item is significant, but... this really isn't something worth getting up in arms.

I concur with this point. Albeit, I consider the ceremonies themselves sacred myself. Just not the objects specifically. For example, say somebody accidentally spills, or drops one of the cups. That sometimes happens. In reality, it would be considered desecrated. However... that's the object, not the purpose of it.

edited 15th Jun '12 3:16:31 PM by Hydronix

I don't believe in shunning/ignoring people because they upset the tone of the conversation. If someone is saying things that you believe don't make sense, point out where they are wrong. That's what a discussion is.

If someone comes in and posts things utterly unrelated to the topic at hand, that is the point where you ignore them, because responding would just bring everything off track. Simply ignoring people who upset your sensibilities only makes it seem like you have no argument to back yourself up with.

I honestly kind of agree with Paul in the sense that nobody has stated whether they think the students who made death threats should be expelled, which is troubling. If Myers should be expelled, they certainly should too. But unlike him, I don't think anyone here is actually advocating harm towards anyone who violates the code of another's religion. That just seems demonstrably false from what I've read.

However, it is a good idea to ignore someone who's purposely trying to annoy others, and not add to the conversation. But let's move on.

I agree here too. Those death threats are far more serious than the Wafer being stolen(YMMV if it was). Especially since their intention was solely to harm another. As for the Wafer, that's... a matter of opinion if it was meant to hurt or challenge, etc. I could question the intentions, but the death threats... seriously, I wouldn't give it a second thought to expel them.

My bad, I must have skimmed over that.

Thank you, Derelict.

Mura, you have never made a single argument against me except to call me a troll, and in response I asked you to elaborate. It's hardly fair for you to say I won't listen.

You think I'm pretending to take offense? When Starship dragged the holocaust into this discussion out of left field I typed up a page of profanity and deleted it. He went on to claim he would never disrespect that kind of tragedy and loss of human life, but that's what it looks like to me and I was furious.

You are perhaps, based on your hostility to me, offended that I have no respect for the rituals of your religion. That's something that's got to be learned, though. Offense at destruction of or harm to people, that's easy, intuitive to get mad at. Why is it hard to understand that I really am angry? Or is it just that you think my feelings are somehow less valid?

And Carciofus did say that the death threats were a step too far (and I acknowledged that at least once) but made sure to clarify the calls for expulsion were not.

School is difficult, time consuming, and expensive. Try having your academic achievements destroyed by someone else because you're the wrong religion, or gender, or race, or whatever, some time. It's pretty traumatic, and advocating inflicting that on someone is just... ignorant and dangerous, at the very least.

...

And before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy for getting offended at Starship, please be aware I have not engaged in a campaign to undermine his professional or academic life, have no intention of doing so, and would be horrified if something like that were to happen because of an insult offered over an internet forum.

edited 15th Jun '12 3:50:22 PM by Paul3

Paul 3, could you please just edit any extra posts? Double and Triple posts aren't necessary.

But yes, this brings up another point; It's true that someone not doing a tradition is a bit offensive. Atleast, if done purposely to annoy. However, them getting expelled over it is a serious Disproportionate Retribution. At best, a detention would be reasonable.

But as brought up a bit ago, an expulsion has serious consequences on someone's life. That Eucharist thing? That is very easy to write the person off as a troll and move on. They really don't match up. I don't agree with desecrating objects or anything(although context is needed for me to call vandalism), but I also don't agree with seeking any kind of emotional or physical harm to the vandal either. That's... just going a bit far.

edited 15th Jun '12 4:07:12 PM by Hydronix

Okay. OTC can be a small, cryptic community, and you've not been here long, so at the risk of hypocrisy I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.

Paul, I have not made a single argument against you because others have spoken for me more eloquently than I could for myself. I don't think that you listen because you make no response to those who criticize you, or brush them off without even considering modifying your behavior.

As an atheist, I am not offended by your positions; rather I object to the way you debate. To me, you seem all too willing to take offense and to say things that will probably offend others. That doesn't lead to constructive debate here.

edited 15th Jun '12 4:10:20 PM by Muramasan13

I love how people assume my professor isn't a Christian...

Look, let me break down how religious studies works in colleges. Religious Studies is a branch of the Humanities that deals with the social, cultural, historical, and philosophical implications, actions, and trends that are associated with religion. A scholar who works on the evolution of Chinese Buddhism, the linguistic impact of Koranic Arabic, or the 18th century Protestant revival movement falls under the umbella statement of Religious Studies.

When it comes to this field, your personal religious convictions need to be left at the door because they don't matter. If you can't seperate your personal religious feelings from your work, go into theology because those feelings don't belong in your objective, scholastic work.

This is why: Religion, like most other social tools such as nationalism and ethnic identification, has done some really great things for humans as well as some of the most disgusting things.

In order to study this, you have to see every side, which means you need to turn off your faith for the moment. I have seen work by others who swear they can have both and I am not the only one who can see through it. They don't get peer reviewed, they can't find jobs as well in secular institutions, they don't have credibility.

You should never be able to tell if your throat doctor doesn't believe in life support. You should never be able to tell if your divorce judge believes in the death penalty. You should never be able to tell if your drug counselor doesn't believe in sex before marriage.

It's the same concept. My professors may talk about their personal convictions at the department cookout at the end of the season. But that stuff stays out of the classroom.

This is how I feel as well. Your religious stuff should not be included in what you teach unless it's appropriate for the class. This has similarities during Work as well.

However, extending it to all jobs needs context before making a decision. Like if they tell you to get rid of a Spider. If it's a Restaurant, you're expected to kill it. If it's not, getting it outside. Refusal to do it because of a belief won't fly. Now, if you're scared, eh, fine. That's something you can't control necessarily.

Keep in mind I actually can't stand killing insects/arachnids, but I sometimes have to. It's part of the job in this case. Keeping things clean and sanitary.

Overall, just saying that your Religion and Job, and sometimes other things do not always need to work with eachother. Doesn't mean you always have to leave your beliefs at the door, but small parts may be necessary, however.

edited 15th Jun '12 4:40:43 PM by Hydronix

I'd sadly just bow down and kill the fly. While chanting off prayers mentally as I kill it. GO FLY. MAY YOU LIVE A GOOD LIFE IN YOUR NEXT. I AM SORRY. I need money type things to do that living thing so I can like learn and train as a layman before I join the Sangha...

At the least I no longer cry when doing so...that's good...

...

edited 15th Jun '12 4:40:44 PM by Aondeug

Honestly, the more I read threads like these, the more I'm convinced that religion is indeed harmful at a basic level.

It's lovely to see that being a vocal atheist is akin to trolling. I don't think I have a place in these discussions any more.

Same. Albeit I don't generally say a prayer.

It actually grosses me out to kill them. I mean, I saw a Spider with wings once! ...I was unable to get a picture, though.

Er-hem, anyway, there's a time when to put aside the stuff you believe in. Or your specific Religion. There is nothing wrong with looking at it from another angle, which is what Gabrael is overall saying.

edited 15th Jun '12 4:45:45 PM by Hydronix

I only put it aside because it is not considered appropriate for me not to do so. In all honesty I believe that my religion should be placed in everything I do whether or not I am openly displaying it in a fashion that people will recognize. Save perhaps in the realm of teaching in an academic setting in which case I would adopt a neutral view point as that would be the view point in accordance with the Dhamma. The Dhamma should be observed from a objective standpoint and put to the test. If it cannot hold to scrutiny it is not worthy. As such students should be taught in such a fashion, especially at a college. That is in accordance with the Dhamma.

Though the mental prayer is as well part of Dhamma.

So really I never set it aside. Nor do I believe I should.

edited 15th Jun '12 4:47:56 PM by Aondeug

I would argue that the idea of religious intolerance is real in terms of it being a specific form of prejudice, rather than a special form of it. In the sense that specifically attacking someone merely for their religious identity (or lack thereof) is similar to attacking them for being of a given gender or race, etc. One must then separate religious intolerance from religious criticism. That is to say, "all Muslims are terrorists who want to destroy America" is religious intolerance. "Many evangelical Christians want to oppress homosexuals in American society, as a generality, and that is bad because X, Y, and Z" is a valid criticism of religion, as it is both specific and grounded in reality (i.e. not a stereotype).

That isn't necessarily a bad argument. I personally rationalize paying taxes, in the US at least, with the idea that for every dollar of your taxes that is spent on killing people in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Second and Third World, another dollar is spent attempting to help poor or old people in the US, and thus it's worth paying taxes given that you at least get a 50/50 shot at helping someone versus helping to kill someone. That is highly simplified, but it works in terms of self-justification.

If you will indulge me, I object to the phrase "theological difference" on a semantic basis, because to have a theological difference implies to me intent that I don't think was present here.

As an example, Starship and I have a difference of theological opinion on the status of homosexuality as a sin. Whereas, what I think happened here with this college student is mere ignorance of proper etiquette. So, to use an analogy, if the Pope walked in my door right now, I would be ignorant as to what the proper etiquette is to greet him. I would probably fall back on conventional standards of my local area, but if there was any special thing I was supposed to do (say, bowing), I wouldn't know. Likewise, I don't think this person intended to harm the Host in any substantial way. He merely wanted to show it to his friend, for reasons I am not aware. That is not a theological difference because he had no intent to deviate from the Church's standards to begin with. He was simply not aware that what he was intending to do was a deviation.

Hence, I believe that what happened here is that he attempted to do what he did, and then was frightened or embarrassed when they (over)reacted to his actions. It then escalated from there, with the people angry at him taking it much, much too far. What should have happened is that someone should have politely explained to him that it is a sin to remove the Host from the Church building itself, and that instead of attempting to take it he should, perhaps, bring his friend in and ask the priest to show him the (perhaps unblessed) Host, or something similar. I believe it would have ended better for all involved if the response had been level-headed and assumed good faith on the part of the student. It didn't, and that's why this all fell apart.

If I were to do a full analogy, I would say that this is as if a college student entered a mosque without removing his shoes and not knowing that was proper, and then having it all escalate out of control due to overreaction on the part of the mosque goers. Then, some other, higher-profile person coming in to counter the mosque goers by doing something purposely spiteful, like, say, getting his shoes muddy and then running about in the mosque with glee like a five year old.

May I ask what or who this is referring to?

Besides the fact that this is a really terrible analogy and an obvious Godwin, it's also basically wrong in its assumption that the campaign against the Jews was not, at least in part, about German national pride. Because, you know, it actually was, at least in part, about Germany's national pride.

Is it? Whoops. My apologies. I shall try to remember that for future reference. I don't know how I missed that.

And I greatly respect that, in principle. I think the way he did it, however, was both childish and likely counterproductive to his goal.

Well, if I were being honest, I think that Carciofus and Starship are probably being too heated as well and that Carciofus is out of line for agreeing with the call for the student's expulsion. It's a hard topic—especially, I imagine, for atheists and anti-theists, being that they live in a world that basically privileges a handful of religions over every other one (predominantly Christianity and Judaism).

Well, to be honest, I don't think God is a petty being who would consider tripping and dropping the cup of wine to be some great sacrilege worthy of condemnation. Whereas, presumably God would be less than happy about PZ Myers' actions, as they were done with malicious intent.