![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I went to a party last night. It was a nice party.... very interesting people, interesting conversations. I liked all the people I met. Overall, I had a good time. However, a topic came up in conversation that gave me pause.
There was some discussion of a site that sells Baby Jesus, Virgin Mary, and Buddha sex toys. People seemed to think that this was the height of hilarity. I don't. Not that I felt it was sacrilegious.... I doubt anyone in that room was a practicing Christian other than me, and I think to really be sacrilegious you have to believe in that which you are mocking.
But it strikes me that mocking people's core spiritual beliefs does not indicate that you are more intelligent, more enlightened, or more sophisticated than those you are mocking -- it is simply cruel, or at best disrespectful. And maybe it's having passed the midway point of my life (I think I was also the *oldest* person in the room) but gratuitous cruelty or rudeness really sets my teeth on edge. And, at its core, it is supremely (and in this case ironically) intolerant.
It is as intolerant for pagans to mock the beliefs of Christians as it is for fundamentalist Christians to tell pagans they are going to hell. (Note: I am talking about belief here, not actions: the fundamentalist agenda for forcing the rest of the world to live by their beliefs is ripe for mockery. But the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world should most definitely not be.)
To tell the truth, this also lies at the source of my discomfort with the Darwin fish. Yes, I believe in evolution. Yes, I think the footed fish are cute. And I certainly understand the urge to respond to the (often Fundamentalist) Christians who use the fish for purposes of being exclusive and holier-than-thou. (I often want to ask them, have you actually read the Gospels? All the way through?) But I also know the origin of the ancient symbol, and why early Christians used the fish to communicate their existence with each other. (It was an acronym: the Greek for fish stood for "Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior". It was a way to say "I am here" to other Christians without getting arrested.) It has history and meaning beyond "hey, you're going to hell and I'm not." (BTW, even though I understand and revere the symbol, I would never slap one on my car -- the fundamentalists have made it hard to be a liberal and be out as a Christian.) I would have as much discomfort with a Star-of-David with a smiley face in it.
And I know someone out there is muttering something about "subverting the dominant paradigm." As far as I am concerned, if the dominant paradigm in this country were truly Christian, rather than secular, capitalist, and power-driven, there would be no homelessness. There would be no children (or adults) living in poverty. We would not have children -- or anyone else -- sitting on death row. We would not have abortions, but that would be because children, whatever their parentage, would be cherished and carrying a child, even if for someone else, would be truly honored and supported. The traditional nuclear family would be just one acceptable relationship structure among many. It would be clearly understood that each of us is a child of God, and that sexual and gender orientation is only one aspect of who we are, and does not change our worth as human beings.
I am most certainly not immune from occasional intolerance and mocking myself -- I have told the occasional Unitarian joke (sorry,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rivka) and, quite frankly, Scientology gives me the creeps. But I usually feel ashamed at myself afterward. I am asking that people try to be respectful of other's spiritual journeys -- and not simply for myself, but for everyone who follows Christ, or Mohammad, or Odin, or no one and nothing at all.
I guess what I am asking for is tolerance from those who ask it from me. I respect that all of us have our paths to walk -- I can never presume to tell in what manner the Divine talks to someone else. All I can know is my own story, and my own path. I am not God. But similarly, as I let you walk your path with respect, I ask that you do likewise for me.
I worry that in writing this I risk alienating those of my friends who are pagan or Jewish or atheist or otherwise non-Christian (or even the very few friends who are fundamentalists). (I also worry about being seen as being terminally uncool or having no sense of humor -- but what the hell, I *am* terminally uncool. As far as my sense of humor goes....) I value all my friends and see in them sparks of the Divine. But this is a part of who I am, and for a friendship to have meaning, it has to be founded on authenticity.
There was some discussion of a site that sells Baby Jesus, Virgin Mary, and Buddha sex toys. People seemed to think that this was the height of hilarity. I don't. Not that I felt it was sacrilegious.... I doubt anyone in that room was a practicing Christian other than me, and I think to really be sacrilegious you have to believe in that which you are mocking.
But it strikes me that mocking people's core spiritual beliefs does not indicate that you are more intelligent, more enlightened, or more sophisticated than those you are mocking -- it is simply cruel, or at best disrespectful. And maybe it's having passed the midway point of my life (I think I was also the *oldest* person in the room) but gratuitous cruelty or rudeness really sets my teeth on edge. And, at its core, it is supremely (and in this case ironically) intolerant.
It is as intolerant for pagans to mock the beliefs of Christians as it is for fundamentalist Christians to tell pagans they are going to hell. (Note: I am talking about belief here, not actions: the fundamentalist agenda for forcing the rest of the world to live by their beliefs is ripe for mockery. But the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world should most definitely not be.)
To tell the truth, this also lies at the source of my discomfort with the Darwin fish. Yes, I believe in evolution. Yes, I think the footed fish are cute. And I certainly understand the urge to respond to the (often Fundamentalist) Christians who use the fish for purposes of being exclusive and holier-than-thou. (I often want to ask them, have you actually read the Gospels? All the way through?) But I also know the origin of the ancient symbol, and why early Christians used the fish to communicate their existence with each other. (It was an acronym: the Greek for fish stood for "Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior". It was a way to say "I am here" to other Christians without getting arrested.) It has history and meaning beyond "hey, you're going to hell and I'm not." (BTW, even though I understand and revere the symbol, I would never slap one on my car -- the fundamentalists have made it hard to be a liberal and be out as a Christian.) I would have as much discomfort with a Star-of-David with a smiley face in it.
And I know someone out there is muttering something about "subverting the dominant paradigm." As far as I am concerned, if the dominant paradigm in this country were truly Christian, rather than secular, capitalist, and power-driven, there would be no homelessness. There would be no children (or adults) living in poverty. We would not have children -- or anyone else -- sitting on death row. We would not have abortions, but that would be because children, whatever their parentage, would be cherished and carrying a child, even if for someone else, would be truly honored and supported. The traditional nuclear family would be just one acceptable relationship structure among many. It would be clearly understood that each of us is a child of God, and that sexual and gender orientation is only one aspect of who we are, and does not change our worth as human beings.
I am most certainly not immune from occasional intolerance and mocking myself -- I have told the occasional Unitarian joke (sorry,
rivka) and, quite frankly, Scientology gives me the creeps. But I usually feel ashamed at myself afterward. I am asking that people try to be respectful of other's spiritual journeys -- and not simply for myself, but for everyone who follows Christ, or Mohammad, or Odin, or no one and nothing at all.I guess what I am asking for is tolerance from those who ask it from me. I respect that all of us have our paths to walk -- I can never presume to tell in what manner the Divine talks to someone else. All I can know is my own story, and my own path. I am not God. But similarly, as I let you walk your path with respect, I ask that you do likewise for me.
I worry that in writing this I risk alienating those of my friends who are pagan or Jewish or atheist or otherwise non-Christian (or even the very few friends who are fundamentalists). (I also worry about being seen as being terminally uncool or having no sense of humor -- but what the hell, I *am* terminally uncool. As far as my sense of humor goes....) I value all my friends and see in them sparks of the Divine. But this is a part of who I am, and for a friendship to have meaning, it has to be founded on authenticity.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
And that is the core assumption that sets my teeth on edge.
You seem to be saying, in essence, that "I don't care what you believe, as long as you believe in something."
"The Divine" does not speak to me at all. There is no room in my psyche for faith. I don't even see a reason (for myself) to bother looking for any sort of divinity or spirituality - those words are descriptors for concepts that are, in my experience, null data.
Additionally, you statements about an idealized Christian culture are very hard to swallow; you seem to feel that human nature can be subverted by "sayin' it ain't so". The fact that there are numerous Christian cultures out there in the world (Italy; Spain; most of Scandinavia; many others) would tend to indicate that your conclusions are incorrect.
Your beliefs don't alienate me, though - I just know that there are numerous topics you & I should never discuss (and I'm not singling you out - I have the same issues with most of the hardcore Pagans I know, too). I don't feel that you have any stake in having my beliefs (or lack of same) match yours. I'm very glad that you are forthright enough to post this, as my knowing this stuff will help me avoid inadvertently offending you.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
My second reaction to this post is to say "Amen, sistah!"
[My first reaction was to tell
From:
no subject
Dance the darkness away....
From:
no subject
Now, different religions take themselves with different degrees of seriousness. Buddhists, in my experience, tend to be rather silly folks -- one of the things to which they avoid attachment is the religon as a religion. It's hard to offend a Buddhist. But it's not something I'd go around trying to do.
A Star of David with a smiley face wouldn’t bother me. After all, the Star of David isn’t a religious symbol to Jews. It was an externally imposed identifer, from 1200 Poland, I believe. On the other hand, the fact that Advanced Dungeons & Dragons has magic items called “Philactyries” of various sorts -- that bugs me.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Ooh, do you know some Unitarian jokes that I don't know? My favorites are:
Q. What do you call the corpse at a Unitarian funeral?
A. All dressed up with no place to go.
Q. What happens when a Unitarian gets really, really mad at you?
A. They come to your house and burn a question mark on your lawn.
Q. Did you hear about the new Unitarian missionaries?
A. They go door to door saying "Would you like to tell me about your religion?"
From:
no subject
That jumped out at me.
My only response is, it seems to me that you either believe Jesus didn't have a sense of humor, or that he's so very serious that he couldn't take having a little fun poked at him (I do not see the Darwin fish as mockery. I would see a reversed cross as mockery, or an inverted pentacle as mockery, but the Darwin fish definitely falls into the "poking fun" category for me). I also truly believe that the gods, whatever names we believe in them by, are, at Their cores, Divine Comedians. As Ray Bradbury said in one of his stories, God created the ostrich, the platypus, and mankind. That's proof enough for me that He (or She, or They) has a sense of humor a universe wide.
You didn't offend me with your post... but you did bewilder me. I hope I have not offended in my response.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
You see I'm an atheist, but also try to respect the religious attitudes of various of my friends. But I also think that Religion can have very negative effects, and trying to stitch all this together and not cause needless offence isn't easy.
I'm happy for anyone to believe what they want. I may well disagree with them, and argue points of reality and theology, but as long as they respect my position and are not dogmatic then we'll get along. Religious impulses can be helpful to people, and arguably can have a role in helping us cope with the grind of day to day life. However, religion can act as a 'trojan horse' that allows much more dangerous processes to occur.
This happens when people use religion as a reason not to think, and give responsibility for themselves and their society over to dogma and those who peddle it. This gives those in positions of religous authority too much power since they are not questioned nearly enough (they are, after all, chanelling the word of god). If these religious authorities are absolute saints, then maybe everything could turn out OK, but such people are so rare, and so rarely in positions of power, that this is a very unstable position. Also, since many religions have the spreading of their creed as a central tenet, those who dissent or don't believe might not do well even under saintly leadership.
Unless leaders of all kinds - political, religions, corporate - can be challenged on the basis of fact and opinion, then mistakes will go unnoticed and problems will not be solved. By allowing the possibility of absolute knowledge, absolute rightness, religion provides a flaw that is too easily exploited.
That is why religion and state must be kept separate, and why any politician who espouses religious doctrine as a justification for policy should be hounded from office.
And it is why I an very suspicious of organised religions. Personal religious impulses are fine, but it should stay personal and stay away from where it isn't wanted.
You can make some similar comparisons to some people's attitudes to science (usually attitudes of non-practicing scientists). This is why I have a Cthulhu Fish on my fridge, not a Darwin Fish :-)
From:
no subject
After saving for years, a fellow buys a new Lamborghini. He's so excited about it, that he decides to find a religious person to bless it, hoping thereby to make it safer for him to drive. He goes to a Catholic priest and asks for a blessing. The priest says, "Of course, my son! But what is a Lamborghini?" Disappointed, the man responds that perhaps the priest isn't the right man for this job. The fellow goes on to find a Rabbi, and asks the same question. The Rabbi responds, "I'd be happy to provide a blessing, but first I must know, what is a Lamborghini?" The man says he thinks maybe the Rabbi isn't the right man for the job either. Then he finds a UU minister, and asks him to perform the blessing. The minister responds, "Sure! I'd love to have one myself! But what is a blessing?"
Also, I found this site (http://www.notelrac.com/whuups.dir/humor.dir/uu_humor.html) with nothing but UU jokes!
From:
no subject
Q. How do you identify the corpse at an Episcopal funeral?
A. They're the only one lying down.
(Before anyone asks, I am a member of the Episcopal Church, known in some circles as the "frozen chosen.")
From: (Anonymous)
Religion and tolerance
From:
no subject
There are bits of this I'm not so sure I would agree with (I do think Christianity---or what people call that, anyway, which as you point out is not what its true ideals call for---is dominant as a religion in the US today), but I don't really think that's the important part. The important part is that it is as unfair to mock Christianity as any other religion.
That said, where does humor become mockery? I don't know. I don't think I'd put a Darwin Fish on my car, though, even though I appreciate the sentiment that inspired it.
A.
From:
no subject
Hmm. I've always believed that, unless one were omniscient, atheism was as much a faith statement as any other religion. That said, I probably should have said "how the Divine speaks to you -- or not, as the case may be".
Additionally, you statements about an idealized Christian culture are very hard to swallow; you seem to feel that human nature can be subverted by "sayin' it ain't so". The fact that there are numerous Christian cultures out there in the world (Italy; Spain; most of Scandinavia; many others) would tend to indicate that your conclusions are incorrect.
I think you misunderstand what it is I was trying to say in that paragraph, probably because I was not very clear. First of all, I was trying to make the point that simply because some Christians declare America to be a Christian culture doesn't mean it is so, that so many of the elements of this culture are antithetical to Christ's teachings.
Also you mention specific countries: at least two of those you mention are Roman Catholic countries, allied to a particular sect. My feeling is that the elements that are most distasteful about theocracy in those countries stems from purely human elements unique to the RC church. I know nothing about Scandinavia, so cannot address that. Furthermore, I always find the idea of a Christian state to be strange, as Jesus' teachings were non-statist and decidedly anti-nationalist. (I also believe that Constantine declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire to have been the worst thing to happen to Christian faith in history, because over time the alliance of spiritual and temporal authority created a taste for power and turned the oppressed into the oppressors.)
Lastly, I was not stating that a Christian culture existed in the world. I think the idealized Christian culture that I talk about is about as realizable as Marx's communist utopia: a great idea, but unlikely to ever occur fully because of human nature. Nonetheless, it is a useful exercise because it reminds me of what and how I need to be in the world: that I need to pursue ideals of tolerance, compassion, love of neighbor, and helping those around me. It provides a target, so to speak.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
What a lovely image. Dance is so spiritual, I think, because it makes you let go of self and turn yourself over to something "other".
From:
no subject
"Philactyries"? ooh, *cringe*.
From:
no subject
I agree. But I have a real problem seeing "Virgin Mary" d**dos and "Baby Jesus" b**t plugs as being anything other than mockingly offensive.
I also think levity is part of the Divine. According to my belief system, we are all made in God's image, therefore the supremely human gift of humor must be from God as well. I also think it is possible to make fun of a religious institution as opposed to the tenets of belief.
Probably my all-time favorite movie is "Dogma" by Kevin Smith. It has the wonderful combination of irreverence towards a human insitution -- the Roman Catholic Church -- while a serious reverence for faith itself. The scene where the angel Metatron tells Bethany about having to tell the child Jesus of his ultimate fate helps me wrap my head around the fully human nature of Christ. And I want to cheer every time I hear Serendipity say to Bethany, "I have a problem with anybody that treats God as a burden rather than a blessing... you people don't celebrate your faith, you mourn it." That and sex jokes and bathroom humor and Alan Rickman, what more could a girl want?
FWIW, I also believe that sex is part of the Divine, as well. This is not to say that there are not times and places, as with all of God's gifts, but I do not believe sex -- and sexual enjoyment -- is per se antithetical to Christianity.
Another irreverent/humorous Christianity recommendation: Lamb: The Gospel according to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal is wonderful. A friend gave it to me just before he left the Bay Area for the wilds of Texas to attend seminary.
From:
no subject
Agreed. Which is why I feel guilty telling Unitarian jokes, but get a kick out of
From:
no subject
But I'm not Jesus... he was a much better person than I am. I think he would have understood my discomfort as coming from sadness that a symbol which once stood for the downtrodden has become so identified with social and political oppression that it has become almost necessary to make fun of it, and a desire to remember and honor those for whom their faith meant risking everything rather than simply showing up at church on Sunday morning.
And no, you most certainly did not offend me. I love hearing other people's viewpoints. And I love the Bradbury reference.
From:
no subject
I'd like to point out that this is completely off base. It is a common misunderstanding due mostly to "point of view parallax".
The atheist says, "I do not believe in any god(s)". This is a negative statement - it requires no proof, nor any faith. Now, there are shadings - you will occassioanlly find an atheist who will say "no gods exist" - that's a much different proposition. I could go on about why & wherefore in my own case - but it's not really apropo to the discussion (just for reference - I am able to discuss this sort of stuff rationally and calmly with people who haven't an agenda - so feel free should you ever want to).
Thanks for clearing up how you meant the cultural references as well - I understand what you were getting at a lot betternow.
From:
no subject