Ernie: Yeah, I was impressed too. And for the same reason. But, this said, there are some questions worth asking, or observations to make. There is the morality of joining a religious group that requires an honest profession of faith while not believing a word of it. Makes me sick to think about it in these terms. No problem at all if she had simply been an attendee and never made that profession of faith. Why not ? But from the sound of it she went the whole nine yards. If that is so, then you get betrayal, gross personal dishonesty, and implicit confession of actual belief in the "virtue" of cynicism. This being the case, certainly how it seems, then how valid are her criticisms of Evangelical values ? I was also taken aback at her insistence that opposition to abortion is a matter of personal choice and nothing else, and that opposition to homosexuality is necessarily so much "homophobia," viz, irrational prejudice. In both cases, however, matters are very different and rest on utterly solid foundations. I'd still make the case that incest, rape, or danger to a mother's life trump other considerations, also whether an infant might be born in such bad shape that there is no hope, but otherwise pro-life people have a powerful case to make. In the case of homosexuality, while I certainly agree with Evangelical morality, you can see the weakness in relying exclusively on a moral argument. That argument could be strengthened ^2 if the comparative approach was taken. I do this all the time, in fact, pointing out that if multi-cultural values mean anything, then benefit of any doubt is due to an overwhelming consensus among believers of many faiths, indeed, nearly ALL, that homosexuality is a horrible evil. On what grounds can anyone who takes multi-culturalism seriously as a "good" ignore this ? Alas, Evangelicals, speaking generally, --I know that there are exceptions-- don't give a rat's ass, so to speak, what Buddhists believe, or Taoists, or anyone else except Jews. Which is worse than unfortunate. This approach by way of denial of value to other faiths, outright throws away , literally, a world of support for Evangelical morality on this issue. This also allows all sorts of falsehoods ( lies ) to persist in popular culture as if these fictions were based on truth. Take the case of Wendy Doniger of the U of Chicago religion faculty. Her interpretations of Hinduism portray a religion that is pro-homosexual in a fundamental way. Her evidence ? A minority quasi-sect that exists in one region of India, and some Procrustean interpretations of various Hindu texts. But , since I get Hindu stuff in my inbox daily I know very differently. There currently is an uproar in India about Doniger's latest book, widely seen as grossly insulting to Hinduism and utterly false in her views about homosexuality which, essentially, the vast majority of Hindus abhor. Suppose evangelicals were seriously ecumenical. What might they be saying, given the importance in India to Doniger's misrepresentations ( which receive worldwide favorable publicity on the part of a lot of academics ) ? Evangelicals might be the loudest voices defending Hindu critics of Doniger and, no reason not to, using the storm in India to make telling points about their own criticisms of homosexuality. You can say the same about Buddhism. My impression is that well in excess of 90% of Evangelicals are blissfully unaware that most Buddhists ( overwhelmingly, speaking of actual believing Buddhists ) are as opposed to abortion as are the vast majority of Evangelicals. The MSM, of course, while movie stars may champion Buddhist causes of various kinds, to the extent that Buddhism has become a sort of unofficial religion of Hollywood, ignores --completely-- the anti-abortion and pro-life values of just about all schools of the religion. Just as the MSM ignores Buddhist condemnation of homosexuality. Again, what if Evangelicals were seriously interested in Buddhism, maybe not to "become" Buddhists in any sense, but eager to learn from it and even more eager to make common cause around moral issues? Sure, some of this IS going on. Compared to 25 years ago, a heckova lot. But compared to an objective standard of what could be done, the picture remains bleak. And one result is continued success in the media and now public opinion, to the effect that de facto neo-Communist values on these issues are "correct" and good, while Evangelical values are antedeluvian and evil. And consequently the values Evangelicals espouse are in retreat almost everywhere. But don't get me started on the even worse effects of Evangelical opposition to the psychological sciences, as if the only thing that psychotherapists, etc., have to say about homosexuality are to excuse it. Actually the truth is approximately 180 degrees the opposite. Psychoanalysts, especially, have been the most insistent that homosexuality is, in fact, pathological, an illness or grievous disorder. Not that, if all someone does is to start to look, and is satisfied with the first books or articles that turn up, he or she will come across what I am talking about. Given where popular culture has gotten, this is not at all what anyone can expect. But there really is an abundance of hard evidence to the effect that homosexuality is literally sick. However, you've got to dig for it, and educate yourself to the literature and which publications are owned by homosexuals and which are not, among other things. Yet the evidence is there to be found, and a great many strong condemnations on the part of very respected professionals. You'd never know it from the Evangelical media, would you ? Basically, Evangelicals have such deep seated disdain for psychology and the behavioral sciences that they have almost totally conceded popular interpretation of the hard findings of those sciences to homosexuals --with predictable results. Like many other Atheists, though, the author is at least as simplistic in her views as the most simplistic among Evangelicals. The reviewer / interviewer didn't know enough to point this out. My view of the matter Billy ======================================================== In a message dated 4/14/2010 1:47:13 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Wow, very impressive. Thanks for sharing this, Billy! And kudos to her for having the guts to confront the reality behind her prejudice. E On Apr 14, 2010, at 1:30 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: It's very easy to roll your eyes at the whole culture if you don't have any stake in anyone participating in it. Once I developed friendships with people whom I cared about, it was easier for me to see the appeal. It's no accident that evangelical Christianity is as popular as it is. I even came to enjoy listening to sermons from Jerry Falwell, whose politics I was [initially] allergic to. The emotional, intoxicating experience of being at church and hearing that music, and the whole structure of a Sunday service, was moving to me. And I don't believe in God. = _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
