Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

This is the quote that KHarvey said was naive and ignorant. So, let's break it down. You guys are arguing that it is naive and ignorant to believe that there was an "old way aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality." So, my responsive question to you is, if there were no old ways of "aspiring to truth", etc., what were the old ways of learning and philosophy about if not "aspiring to truth?" e.g., ancient Greek (pre-Christian) philosophy. Is it naive to think that the ancient Greeks aspired to knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality? If so, what were they doing it for?

The ignorant part is contrasting "the" old way of seeking knowledge vs. today's fallen world where knowledge is not valued. There are many distinct traditions of philosophy and knowledge-seeking in the world and throughout history, many of which are incompatible with the one he's advocating. The idea of Christian virtue descending into anarchy is historically baseless and entirely self-centered.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Not exactly. I don't know anything about this professor, but Rod uses the phrase too and he has some pretty definite ideas on the topic that he's not shy about sharing. He's pretty adamant about God's model for the family, if you don't perceive deviations from it as unwanted he thinks you're probably not "Christian", at least not in sense of belonging to the group that he thinks of as persecuted.

Yup, Dreher and his supporters in the comments are clear about what being a real Christian is about - it just so happens it only covers about 20% of Christians, at best.

 

[HK-47]

Wait

So this is about

ETHICS IN GAMING JOURNALISM?

 

[Zona]

Not exactly. I don't know anything about this professor, but Rod uses the phrase too and he has some pretty definite ideas on the topic that he's not shy about sharing. He's pretty adamant about God's model for the family, if you don't perceive deviations from it as unwanted he thinks you're probably not "Christian", at least not in sense of belonging to the group that he thinks of as persecuted.

It reads to me as an attempt to justify the persecution complex some segments* of Christianity have in this country. He's intelligent enough to realize that it's silly to have a persecution complex when your for all intents and purposes the governing majority but got around that by defining Real Christians(TM) as a much smaller subset.




*Yes I mean some, as in not all or even likely near a majority.

 

[block tower]

its scary to me that Christians actually believe they are this persecuted. its really laughable to read the hysteria this man is spewing like he's about to start the Christian underground railroad or something. wouldn't shock me at all if radical Christianity becomes a thing over the next decade because of people with this mans irrational mindset of secularism.

 

[HariKari]

its scary to me that Christians actually believe they are this persecuted. its really laughable to read the hysteria this man is spewing like he's about to start the Christian underground railroad or something.

Seriously. Other religions manage to exist happily in the United States just fine. It just reads like Christians are terribly worried about losing their right to trample over others. What we're seeing is a social correction of all the Christian norms (like opposing gay people) that this country had built into it for many years.

 

[Christine]

It reads to me as an attempt to justify the persecution complex some segments* of Christianity have in this country. He's intelligent enough to realize that it's silly to have a persecution complex when your for all intents and purposes the governing majority but got around that by defining Real Christians(TM) as a much smaller subset.




*Yes I mean some, as in not all or even likely near a majority.

More or less. He advances the argument (mostly from experience, but with some circumstantial corroboration) that whatever religious affiliation is self-reported by people who work in mainstream news media, there's no real diversity because they almost universally keep any sort of strongly held religious moral stances out of their internal discussions and published product. He says that this pro-secular or anti-religious bias allows elite, primarily corporate interests who hold the real power to more easily control the political narrative.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Seriously. Other religions manage to exist happily in the United States just fine. It just reads like Christians are terribly worried about losing their right to trample over others. What we're seeing is a social correction of all the Christian norms (like opposing gay people) that this country had built into it for many years.

The other religions (well Judaism and Islam, anyway) only exist happily because they're minority religions and they haven't had the luxury of being able to legislate their will onto the populace. If Islam or Orthodox Judaism were historically the majority religion in America we'd be in the exact same place with regard to LGBT rights or worse. Sharia countries (for lack of a better term) and Israel are direct examples. The classical stance of all of these faiths is the same on that subject across the board.

The religions will continue to liberalize to survive because they have to, but there will remain holdouts just like there are still people who believe the earth is flat or that we didn't land on the moon, which from an objective view is each just as baseless as a religious justification for discrimination. There was a time where the Vatican refused to condemn the Holocaust, for example, but that's an impossible scenario now only 70 years later. However, somewhere in this wide wide world, there's an angry anti-semitic Catholic who still wouldn't denounce it.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I'm not quite sure I agree. We sort of agree, but I'd say that we would like to protect all religious freedom of all kinds -- it just sometimes runs in to other values and clashes with them such that we have to make a choice.

I would love to allow everyone complete religious freedom, but sometimes that value clashes with something else I hold dear, such as the ability of every person in our society to live a life free of discrimination and prejudice.

Another example: I'd love to allow everyone complete freedom of speech, but sometimes people say things like "kill that person, over there, kill him," and my desire to allow complete freedom of speech conflicts with my desire to avoid murder. This is a really common problem in social governance, to me; two good things clash with each other, and we need to make nuanced choices.

No we definitely agree. I have the same view. it's the concept that people don't seem to understand, and my post was clarifying what the general concept/goal is

 

[Link]

Seriously. Other religions manage to exist happily in the United States just fine. It just reads like Christians are terribly worried about losing their right to trample over others. What we're seeing is a social correction of all the Christian norms (like opposing gay people) that this country had built into it for many years.

Won't someone think of the poor, persecuted Christians when they can no longer blur the lines between church and state?

 

[patapuf]

I don't understand how he can seriously define "being against homosexuality" as an essential part of being a christian. That he is elaborately worrying how to set up schools and stuff to protect the upbringing of children to keep holding that belief.

He even seems to recognise that it's not a nice thing to do.

 

[Corpekata]

I hope the people using terms like SJW reflect and realize the company they keep is getting fucking loonier by the day.

 

[Syriel]

Of course. The Native American in Employment Division v. Smith who wanted to take sacramental peyote got to argue his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court. After he lost, the Democratic House passed the federal RFRA 435-0, the Democratic Senate passed it 97-3, and Pres. Clinton signed it. They were all elevating Native American sacramental peyote over secular law, right?

That is a poor example, as the Federal law of which you speak didn't supersede non-discrimination law.

The Indiana law as passed, didn't have non-discrimination provisions.

Had the Indiana law matched other RFAs which didn't allow discrimination, it wouldn't have gotten the pushback it did.

Indiana conservatives knew what they were doing when the law was written and passed. And the fix that this now being proposed...is to add the non-discrimination bits that should have been there in the first place.

 

[Sickboy007]

Incestuous hicks had it right all along. What a load of ridiculous bullshit.

 

[Swordsman VII]

oh, go ahead and isolate your kids from the "outside heathen world". Go ahead and try and force your kids to only date/marry other kids who exist in your little pinprick of what is acceptable to you religiously. I've seen how well that works out.

4 of my friends were raised like that. Guess what? 3 of them don't even believe in god anymore or go to church and consider their parents and all religious people maniacs now. The fourth is so isolated from other people he barely has friends, and is unable to date because of his "own" strict standards for who he associates with. He won't be reproducing, and if he does, his kids will likely turn out to think he is insane too after being exposed to the outside world.

This self imposed isolation strategy will have the opposite effect of what it intends. That is fine by me, the sooner this line of thinking starves itself of air until it's reduced to cult status, the better.

 

[King Tubby]

It's not about religious freedom when you are using portions of your holy text to justify certain prejudices and bigotries while ignoring other parts that you find unpalatable or too difficult. The article in the OP is not much more than a thinly-veiled attack on secularism and nice rhetoric in defense of religion (and Christianity in particular) but it's just as hypocritical and shortsighted as the homophobes trying to subvert people's constitutional rights.

That line about "sexual autonomy" trumping the first Amendment is ludicrous. Sexual orientation is as much a choice as someone's skin color, does he want to argue that the Civil Rights Act is trampling over the First Amendment as well? Maybe he does.

 

[Kenai]

It's rare that an article is capable of filling me with such an enormous sense of both disgust and pity. I almost want to laugh but then i realize that there are quite a few people that think like this (ESPECIALLY around here in Indiana) and I just shake my head.

There are so many things that i actually like about religion, especially regarding inner peace and fulfillment. But so many people, so many, are selective with their beliefs or use it as a pretext for discrimination., paying close attention to certain aspects 9teh gay peoples) while conveniently ignoring so many thing that apply to them (working on Sunday comes to mind, but there's many, many more). Hypocrisy at best,

And they wonder why people get upset at them when they lash out and marginalize their fellow man, make his/her life miserable, try to impose their way of thinking into the lives of others and make them feel less than human? For how they were born, for things they had no choice over.

They really don't see the problem with that way of thinking? They really don't understand why people in general are so upset by that

And yea, that "closet Christian' term/angst they used is so unbelievably ironic I feel like I could physically trip over it.

 

[CrocMother]

I'll agree that most of what he said did not register with me at all, especially this idea that religious liberty is being infringed upon. One thing he talked about did stir some uncertainty in my mind though.

Do you guys think that an evangelical school should be protected from firing a teacher because they are having sex outside of marriage?

 

[tokkun]

I will never understand why so many Christians view intolerance towards gay people as central to their religious identity. Christ certainly didn't have much to say on the topic. Why dredge up this one thing from Leviticus and none of the other ancient legalistic stuff that Christianity purports to supersede? Why is this the fight that defines their faith? If anything is hurting Christianity today, it's this stubborn insistence that their faith be defined by exclusion and intolerance.

Most Christian religions (and religions in general) exist as a moral authority. That is one of its primary purposes in the lives of its followers: to tell them how they should lead their lives in order to reap eternal rewards rather than damnation (or achieve enlightenment, etc.). The big fear here is not homosexuality, but moral relativism.

If Church leaders could hop in a time machine, go back to one of the early doctrinal councils, and establish that they weren't going to treat being gay as a major sin, they would be in fine shape. The problem they have is that if they flip flop on the issue now, how do they explain away a couple thousand years of saying it was wrong (including all those Catholic popes who were supposed to be God's mouthpiece on the issue)?

Can they say "oops, we were wrong all along"? If they were telling people the wrong thing for 2000 years, their credibility is gone. Plus they have to answer the question of how they know they are wrong now and didn't know earlier. If they say "well, it was OK to call it a sin back then, but times change", that is moral relativism - the dagger in the chest of moral authority.

Despite Pope Francis making some noises about not judging gays, he is quick to take out the claws when it comes to moral relativism. In fact, he basically said that it is a danger to civilization (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301340.htm). His predecessor called it a dictatorship (http://www.lst.edu/academics/landas-archives/373-dictatorship-of-relativism). And here's a choice quote from the Archbishop of Miami:

When a democracy bases itself on moral relativism and when it considers every ethical principle or value to be negotiable (including every human being's fundamental right to life), it is already, and in spite of its formal rules, on its way to totalitarianism.

That was written in response to the Supreme Court striking down DOMA.

 

[Link]

I'll agree that most of what he said did not register with me at all, especially this idea that religious liberty is being infringed upon. One thing he talked about did stir some uncertainty in my mind though.

Do you guys think that an evangelical school should be protected from firing a teacher because they are having sex outside of marriage?

If they make them sign some sort of morality clause that includes that stipulation upon being hired, then I can understand it, even if I don't agree with it. Otherwise, no.

 

[Metroidvania]

I can still not grasp the concept that because one passage in the bible states 'stone the gays' or whatever, despite all of the other evidence to the contrary, people are confusing the Pizza Place issue with being religious, rather than being religious and discriminating on that basis.

Or stuff like this...

Kingsfield said we are going to have to watch closely the way the law breaks regarding gender identity and transgenderism. If the courts accept the theory that gender is a social construct — and there is a long line of legal theory and jurisprudence that says that it is — then the field of antidiscrimination law is bound to be expanded to cover, for example, people with penises who consider themselves women. The law, in other words, will compel citizens to live as if this were true — and religious liberty will, in general, be no fallback. This may well happen

...And?

That's not some inherently demonic thing to have to watch out for, lol.

That combined with the increasing incoherence didn't really help any sort of preposition/postulate they were trying to make.

 

[ibyea]

My eyes rolled so hard at that they made a 360 degrees turn.

 

[Liberty4all]

If they make them sign some sort of morality clause that includes that stipulation upon being hired, then I can understand it, even if I don't agree with it. Otherwise, no.

They almost all do (signing morality clause, statement of faith). Years ago I had to sign such a clause myself while working at a Christian charity that worked with street kids. These clauses are VERY common at most religious organizations.

Should religious schools/churches/charities be allowed to refuse to hire if a potential new hire refuses to sign such a contract?

Edit: This is one of the biggest fear in a lot of conservative Christian organizations today ... That such clauses/statements of faith that are not considered by secular society to be inclusive will eventually be illegal.

 

[not psycho]

From what I read of that, he is using bad examples. Prop 8 was a change to California's constitution prohibiting same sex marriage. That's a real attempt to take rights away. But even so, it wasn't the government that made the guy step down, so it has nothing to do with the government restricting freedom of religion. Memories Pizza also has nothing to do with the government restricting freedom of religion; the entire thing was a hypothetical.

The example he should have brought up was Elane Photography. They refused to do photography for a same sex wedding/celebration, got sued, and lost. If people had boycotted them over it, no problem; that's not the government. But I think making it illegal for them not to photograph same sex weddings leads to reasonable concerns.

1. Photography is a creative endeavor. It's not just mechanical, although partly it is. And it's not just decision making about lighting, although partly it is. It's also using your own personal perspective, deciding what is important to capture.

If a painter offers to paint subjects on request, should they be allowed to list certain subjects they will refuse to paint? I think so. Does photography rise to a creative level that allows that same discrimination?

2. Being able to get a specific wedding photographer is of really, really low importance imo.


What do people here think about the photography case? I'm honestly not 100% sure where I stand. I lean toward boycotting the photographers but not legally forcing them to photograph a same sex marriage... but there is a similar case involving a bakery, where I agree with the ruling that they illegally discriminated by not selling the cake. Should we go through every business one by one, deciding who can discriminate? Photographers: I guess I say yes. Painters: yes. Bakers: no. Cab drivers: no.

 

[Aureon]

So, even 'reasonable' right-wing people are insane?
That's the point of this?

Who thought it'd be a good idea to publish those ramblings by a persecution complexed anonymous professor?

 

[HiredN00bs]

It's only natural for Christians with shameful doctrines and wicked dogmas to hide from public scorn. Come back out when you're ready to grow up.

 

[gcubed]

From what I read of that, he is using bad examples. Prop 8 was a change to California's constitution prohibiting same sex marriage. That's a real attempt to take rights away. But even so, it wasn't the government that made the guy step down, so it has nothing to do with the government restricting freedom of religion. Memories Pizza also has nothing to do with the government restricting freedom of religion; the entire thing was a hypothetical.

The example he should have brought up was Elane Photography. They refused to do photography for a same sex wedding/celebration, got sued, and lost. If people had boycotted them over it, no problem; that's not the government. But I think making it illegal for them not to photograph same sex weddings leads to reasonable concerns.

1. Photography is a creative endeavor. It's not just mechanical, although partly it is. And it's not just decision making about lighting, although partly it is. It's also using your own personal perspective, deciding what is important to capture.

If a painter offers to paint subjects on request, should they be allowed to list certain subjects they will refuse to paint? I think so. Does photography rise to a creative level that allows that same discrimination?

2. Being able to get a specific wedding photographer is of really, really low importance imo.


What do people here think about the photography case? I'm honestly not 100% sure where I stand. I lean toward boycotting the photographers but not legally forcing them to photograph a same sex marriage... but there is a similar case involving a bakery, where I agree with the ruling that they illegally discriminated by not selling the cake. Should we go through every business one by one, deciding who can discriminate? Photographers: I guess I say yes. Painters: yes. Bakers: no. Cab drivers: no.

I would lean towards yes, but any way, I wouldn't want something creative/artistic done by someone who doesn't want to do it.

 

[Guileless]

The ignorant part is contrasting "the" old way of seeking knowledge vs. today's fallen world where knowledge is not valued.

I would have to be convinced that the nature of humanities education in the academy has not changed since postmodern deconstructionism took over and Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity was published. And, more broadly, since individualism became dominant. Imagine this Harvard Crimson editorial being published 100 years ago:

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Edit: don't forget the book bannings.

Edit 2: also, don't forget the book burnings.

 

[Evolved1]

I couldn't make it through all of that, and I honestly tried. Cringing way too hard even just a few paragraphs into it.

 

[Zoc]

Lots of people here saying this guy is stupid or crazy, but actually, he's not wrong at all. Almost everything he said was logical and accurate (from his twisted point of view). An antigay Christian who stands up, admits their bigotry, and says "yes, I believe that homosexuality is wrong" can probably expect blowback these days: hostility, threats, or even the loss of friends or jobs.

In fact, a lot of the weird stuff that he says after that isn't wrong, either: if you want to successfully raise kids to believe that they are going to hell if they are gay, you definitely can't let them ever get their hands on a computer or a TV. If you want to be free to shun gay people, you will be best off living in a tiny, isolated community of like-minded bigots.

So, basically: good news! The bigots are feeling a little hemmed in these days.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I look around and I'm not seeing a lot of societal pressure to not be Christian. Maybe to not be an asshole, but I guess some people see that as their God given right, even in the era of social media. I will enjoy my Easter dinner just fine this Sunday without fear of the gays.

Christians should put their families on a “media fast,” he says. “Throw out the TV. Limit Netflix. You cannot let in contemporary stuff. It’s garbage. It’s a sewage pipe into your home. So many parents think they’re holding the line, they let their kids have unfettered access to TV, the Internet, and smartphones. You can’t do that.

“And if you can’t trust that the families of the kids that your kids play with are on the same team with all this, then find another peer group among families that are,” he said. “It really is that important.”

David Miscavige would applaud. When the professor here says "don't allow your kids to have their faith attacked until they're strong enough", what he means is "suppress critical thinking and alternative viewpoints until sufficiently indoctrinated."

What the man is describing is classic loss of societal privilege. It'll get easier for the next generation, who don't have to prop up their self esteem by convincing themselves they're better than everyone else.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Great sacred fuck, it's like Projection: The Official Novelization. I struggled through, and the part that made me laugh instead of cringe was the bit about the media fast and trapping your children in a bubble to protect them from the evil outside world.

20 years ago, I heard this kind of talk from fringe, fully cult-like christian churches in rural areas. Groups of people who shuffled around in public fearful, afraid the Devil Rays coming from 99% of the population would strike them and erode their Jesus Hearts. I specifically remember meeting a family from such a fringe church in Texas. Every family in the church was encouraged to buy a windowless van (yes, really) as the family car. The purpose was to transport their kids everywhere in it, so they couldn't see out. They literally told the congregation to keep their kids from seeing as much of the outside world as possible. Even a chance image or sign, or seeing a sinful person's manner of dress, would plant the seed of complete moral disintegration.

I guess the fear of moral relativism and loss of authority is going to bring all the fringe kookiness out into the mainstream now.

 

[kamineko]

That article was a pretty rough ride. The anonymous professor is rightfully fearful. Not because of freedom, power structures, theology, Thomas Aquinas's misguided decision to throw Paul's letters to the young church in Rome in a blender with Aristotle's physics, or anything else...

...he is rightfully fearful because, deep down, in a place he can't acknowledge, he, too, knows that his beliefs are ridiculous. He can only stop feeling ridiculous when everyone else is exactly like him.

Sheesh

 

[KHarvey16]

I would have to be convinced that the nature of humanities education in the academy has not changed since postmodern deconstructionism took over and Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity was published. And, more broadly, since individualism became dominant. Imagine this Harvard Crimson editorial being published 100 years ago:



Edit: don't forget the book bannings.

Edit 2: also, don't forget the book burnings.

Who are you having a conversation with and what exactly are you responding to? It's like you had this whole narrative ready to go and are reciting it despite the responses people are offering.

 

[GG-Duo]

I'm a Christian and I live in Canada. I have not been following this Religious Freedom thing closely, but my impression is that Republicans' strong, abrasive stance in this has actually poisoned the public from having a sensible discussion about the line between different people's liberties. I feel like there can be a debate, but it's too late now, the American sphere of debate now has too much history of oppression and discrimination - too many past hurts like cakes and pizzerias, too much politics in the guise of faith.

(Oops, disclaimer, I'm not actually responding to the OP's article. Just a general point. )

 

[chaostrophy]

If a secular-run business ever says "we won't cater Christian weddings" or a gay-run business ever says "we won't cater straight weddings" and nobody is outraged, then he might have a point. But I don't see that happening.

 

[Syriel]

If a secular-run business ever says "we won't cater Christian weddings" or a gay-run business ever says "we won't cater straight weddings" and nobody is outraged, then he might have a point. But I don't see that happening.

It'll be a point to bring up the next time a Republican complains about Islam and Sharia law.

"But, I thought you believed in religious freedom?"