And no, mental illness should never ever be used as an accusation of some sort, or as a dismissal. It's a fucking tragedy, and I would very much appreciate it if we could all keep that in mind, even when making seemingly harmless jokes.While there were some people who were being disrespectful with the mental illness angle, I don't think I am the only one in the thread who sees the culture of snake handling as a response to untreated mental illness. And a tragedy. Maybe that didn't come across clearly and my first comment seemed too jokey.
Each Labor Day weekend, the church has hosted a well-documented “homecoming” for snake handlers, who believe that Mark 16:17-18 mandates that true Christians “take up serpents and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover.”Then this:
Wolford’s mission in life is to make sure that this custom, which he learned from his parents, survives for another generation.
“Anybody can do it that believes it,” he says. “Jesus said, ‘These signs shall follow them which believe.’ This is a sign to show people that God has the power.”
Mack Wolford cares. When asked, he’ll display four spots on his right hand where copperheads have sunk their fangs. Like other Pentecostal snake handlers, he doesn’t seek antivenin medication when bitten but relies on God to heal him. “There’s a lot of pain,” he says. “For the first couple of weeks, you swell up and break out in hives.”And then you said that looking at the wiki would disabuse them of that notion but the wikipedia article says the same thing as the above quotes so...I'm really just not seeing what you're getting at here unless you're splitting some fine theological hairs.
But Liz makes a critical mistake when, in her public statement on the matter, she calls Tracy an idiot. Tracy decides to fight back, claiming that, as an idiot, he’s the member of a marginalized group. He and his fellow idiots—including, but not limited, to Parrotheads, frat guys, anti-vaccine activists, people who won’t shut up about scuba diving, and Denise Richards—stage demonstrations outside 30 Rock.posted by Chekhovian at 10:47 PM on June 1, 2012 [2 favorites]
"Hell, I will openly ENCOURAGE a snake-handler to die for his faith. ..."It is no wonder that mefites of all sorts of religions feel unwelcome here, but particularly Christians, and it is because to a large extent we are. There is no meaningful equivalency and regardless of whatever discrimination Atheist mefites might experience in whatever jurisdiction they're in, that is no excuse for wishing death on religious folk, declaring religious folk to be mentally ill, or more generally being an asshole here.
posted by FatherDagon at 2:05 PM on June 1 [41 favorites +] [!] Other [1/5]: ·≡»
"Yup, yup it is. The sooner religious lunatics like this stop trying to destroy the country I live in and the lives of those around them, the better. If it requires the leaders of their cult groups committing public suicide in the stupidest fashion possible in order for some few sane folks on the periphery to blink and say "wait, maybe this is a bad idea", then so be it."
posted by FatherDagon at 2:14 PM on June 1 [25 favorites +] [!] Other [2/5]: «≡»
"At least it's a half step up from those that shun medicine for their children and try to use 'exorcisms' to get rid of things like 'pneumonia', in that the cretins are deliberately killing themselves instead of those that can't defend themselves. Either way, the faith is toxic and the sooner it is destroyed, the better for all humanity."
posted by FatherDagon at 2:25 PM on June 1 [5 favorites +] [Flagged] Other [3/5]: «≡»
"Sounds like they need more snakes. Way, way more snakes."
posted by c13 at 3:31 PM on June 1 [1 favorite +] [!] Other [1/23]: ·≡»
"Of course there is. Just think what would happen if this guy was fucking around with snakes and drinking poison because Elvis or JFK told him so. He'd be presumed incompetent and would be on a mental ward full of Haldol due to being a danger to himself. But since he calls himself a christian, he's not having a psychotic episode with delusions and hallucinations, but testing the strength of his faith."
posted by c13 at 5:14 PM on June 1 [11 favorites +] [Flagged] Other [5/23]: «≡»
Fantagonistic!Here an event intended to fight prejudice against atheists was labeled as antagonistic. This is the effect of religious privilege: a minority group expressing its views is tarred as being too aggressive. This privilege appears in Metafilter just as male privilege and heterosexual privilege at times appears in Metafilter discussions.
posted by stbalbach at 1:49 AM on March 24 [3 favorites +] [!]
All the angry atheists who attack religion don't really seem to realise that for many people religion provides social value rather than truth and they'd rather not be reminded about the possible or probable incorrectness of what they believe. (Atheist here BTW).Why this is unwelcoming: It oversimplifies atheist arguments and it uses the troubling “angry” term. Prominent atheists do acknowledge that religion serves a social function (though there's an argument as to its value). This is the same sort of oversimplification that Christians cite as unwelcoming behavior on Metafilter when the nuance of their positions is oversimplified. And, as IvoShandor notes later, the perception of atheists as angry speaks to a double standard in judging demeanor between the religious and atheists.
You guys might not have not started playing the game until the Cult of Reason, but you've racked up quite an impressive score in megadeaths with the advent of Marxism, and hey I wonder how many kills objectivist-libertarianism will make before civilization bowls over to ecological and economic collapse caused by extreme laissez-faire policies promoted by secular policymakers. There's plenty of atrocity and stupidity for human beings of all beliefs and unbeliefs to go around. Rest assured, organized irreligion will have as many depredations as organized religion by the end of humanity.Why this is unwelcoming: “You guys” i.e. atheists are members of a “Cult of Reason.” Religious commenters have found it unwelcoming when their religion is equated with a cult. This comment conflates lack of belief with certain totalitarian ideologies. Communism is not “organized irreligion,” though irreligion is one part of its ideology. Among the groups that comprise organized irreligion in the US none advocate the use of violence to suppress dissent. Religious commenters have found it unwelcoming for their faith to be equated with its totalitarian historical versions.
Just TRY running for public office ANYWHERE if you profess to be atheistI agree with the general point, but just a little note: There is, in fact, an actual openly atheistic member of Congress: Representative Pete Stark. He wasn't open when he was first elected, but he has won reelection after having come out (twice so far).
or for more fun, any flavor of Pagan.Does Aqua Buddhism count?
I've spoken out before on this site about calling people "OCD" or saying a behavior is "so OCD." It's stupidThis usage of "stupid" actually strikes me as similar to what you're advocating against. The fact that someone uses "OCD" in reference to some relatively minor quirk about neatness or whatever doesn't seem to me to be particularly indicative that the person is stupid. They're probably not intellectually incapable of grasping the difference between what they're talking about and real OCD.
Estraven: "Also, as a sidenote, I find it symbolic that the very last reply in the thread was addressed to me (an atheist) from a theist providing ~even more opinions~ in regard to my request for the source of a different theist's allegations of atheistic biblical illiteracy. I provided a study showing the opposite, but apparently asking where Jesus was born or what is the first book of the bible is "cherrypicking" facts that only atheists would know (!). If you want to give your opinion on whatever, that's ok, but I wasn't asking for an opinion from some random person, I was asking a previous poster for a source. Not a tl;dr from an onlooker.That was me, and I would caution you against essentialist thinking in discussing social constructs like religion and a lack thereof. For example, I wrote that reply from my laboratory late last night while waiting for an experiment to dry before opening my email to find that one of my papers was accepted to a major peer reviewed journal (Incidentally, WOOOOOO!!!!, *CV DANCE*). I do empirical thinking just fine, hell, I'm even tasked with teaching it to undergrads..
I think where a lot of the atheist vs. theist thing goes so "wrong" is that the atheist will generally try to approach a discussion with a theist very empirically, a tendency possibly heightened by the choice many of us make to go into the math and science fields. ("Well, what if we introduce A? No? *introduces B* Still....no? Well, what about...") As a famous fictional doctor once said, “Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people.” "
"As you know perfectly well, I'm saying that many atheists are mistaken about what Christians believe, and in their lack of knowledge, make criticisms that achieve absolutely no traction."Which it utterly failed to do.
"... but apparently asking where Jesus was born or what is the first book of the bible is "cherrypicking" facts that only atheists would know (!)."from
"The study that your1 referencing asks mostly politically, historically, and geographically focused questions, and a few seem awfully cherry picked towards subjects of particular interest to Atheist Americans like prayer in schools."but only twelve out of the twenty questions in the survey had anything to do with the bible or Christianity, while the others focused on world religions and religion in public life. Thus, it is no wonder that the survey found that education level was as powerful a predictor of total survey success as religion. However, if you read the survey carefully, you'll find that when the twelve questions related to biblical literacy and Christianity are considered separately, both Mormons and White Evangelicals trounce Atheists.
misha: "If, instead, you took a moment to reflect about what bothers you, I think you and I would be on the same page, ie: "The world would be a better place without extremists trying to force their beliefs on to everyone else." You could go for 'fanatics' instead of extremists, but I thnk that sentiment nails it for me. i don't even have to specify religion in there, because I think it applies just as well to my political stance.Not to be contrary, but I see the problem differently. I think it is more that most people, of all sorts of faiths and lacks thereof, do extremism poorly; that is in a way that is selfish, shortsighted, inherently harmful, ineffective, or immoral.
And most people would still support you, because no one really considers herself/himself an extremist."
"Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."posted by Blasdelb at 11:21 AM on June 3, 2012
-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Chekhovian: "The place where this conversation has gone is just totally shocking to me. Apparently no one is allowed to question anyone else's beliefs for any reason, after all it might hurt hurt their delicate feelings. Paternalizing much? And *jaw drops*, people might think that you're a dick. Ludicrous.I think the contention comes from the substantial difference between this,
But let's go back to the original FPP. What if the post had been about circus performer attempting a new trick, say freeform lion shaving that resulted in him being mauled to death, or running chain saw swallowing that resulted in him cutting his own head off. What would be the reaction?"
FatherDagon: "Hell, I will openly ENCOURAGE a snake-handler to die for his faith." ... "The sooner religious lunatics like this stop trying to destroy the country I live in and the lives of those around them, the better. If it requires the leaders of their cult groups committing public suicide in the stupidest fashion possible in order for some few sane folks on the periphery to blink and say "wait, maybe this is a bad idea", then so be it."Which is just fucking awful and this,
Chekhovian: "Mine would be: it saddens me that he died, as it does when I hear of the death of most any of my fellow creatures, but he was sort of asking for it...the Greeks invented the word hubris for a reason."which just might attract someone with a knowledge of snake handling culture who could enlighten us on how the practice intersects with the concept of hubris for them.
Most people have at least some beliefs that are so meaningful to them that "attacking" those beliefs (your choice of wording) feels pretty much exactly the same as attacking them.And there have been some others too. I don't mean to just single out Ivan. There's this constant refrain that we need to "respect" other people's ideas, not just other people. That's supreme bullshit.
And rightly so. Because, for example, it's implicit in many attacks of beliefs that there's something wrong with someone being so wrongheaded as to believe them. But, also, and more simply and unavoidably psychologically true, a great many beliefs form the cemeone's social persona, and when you attack their social persona, you're attacking the person in some very real sense.
I’m not sure where you’re getting "not allowed"posted by Chekhovian at 1:51 PM on June 3, 2012Most people have at least some beliefs that are so meaningful to them that "attacking" those beliefs (your choice of wording) feels pretty much exactly the same as attacking them.And there have been some others too. I don't mean to just single out Ivan. There's this constant refrain that we need to "respect" other people's ideas, not just other people. That's supreme bullshit.
And rightly so. Because, for example, it's implicit in many attacks of beliefs that there's something wrong with someone being so wrongheaded as to believe them. But, also, and more simply and unavoidably psychologically true, a great many beliefs form the cemeone's social persona, and when you attack their social persona, you're attacking the person in some very real sense.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinbergposted by Chekhovian at 3:45 PM on June 3, 2012
Some lifestyle factors that could slightly increase the risk of a miscarriage include:I've often thought that must be what Cleopatra was doing with those asps-- keeping pregnancy from interfering with politically expedient liaisons-- and it wouldn't surprise me if Eve's sin had more to do with controlling her own reproduction than the knowledge of good and evil in the earliest versions of the story.
* Use of NSAIDs (such as ibuprofen or naproxen) during conception or early pregnancy
* Use of alcohol, cigarettes, cocaine, or other drugs
* Heavy caffeine intake
* Certain snake bites
All the angry atheists who attack religion don't really seem to realise that for many people religion provides social value rather than truth and they'd rather not be reminded about the possible or probable incorrectness of what they believe. (Atheist here BTW)....Compared to things like "Religious people? Fuck 'em", that's downright polite.
Right, but I'm questioning whether it is indeed "unwelcoming" in the first place. I mean, there are a few in here who have said that theists should be able to withstand their faiths being questioned, as long as it is done with civility -- and the quote you're citing actually sounds like precisely the same kind of civil questioning we're talking about, only with atheists as the ones under scruitiny.I don't see a question there, much less a civil one. I see a stupid and obviously false accusation. If you don't know, ask a question. Don't throw bullshit against the wall and see if it sticks.
It seems that your frustration here is somewhat embedded in what you're trying to do. If you want to debate a point about the flaws of monotheism, say, with monotheists, that's one thing, and it would be frustrating and distracting for non-monotheist religious/spiritual people to jump in and say 'hey, but, I don't believe that!'. But if you want to debate a point about the flaws of monotheism with religious people in general, then the group you're addressing will include people who aren't monotheists, who will say so - and ditto any specific belief which is not held by all members of the group you're arguing with.To distill my original point, I suppose I was complaining more about the general nature of debates on this site. Say you debate person A and you make a particularly good point, one that they can't really defend. Frequently they just don't answer you about that point, or just don't answer at all. And frequently a third party with a different agenda jumps in and takes the conversation away from that point. From a debate point, frustrating.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:20 PM on June 1, 2012 [4 favorites]