Occupy Religion: Don’t Let Religion Occupy You

[SecularMotion]

Religion, and religious institutions, are not only granted undeserved credit for their role in social movements, but are also not afforded the responsibility they deserve for the damage they inflict to the movements they infect, and the communities represented by those movements. Christians are all too ready to yell about the involvement of Islamic organizations in the Arab Spring, yet, as Occupy Churches spring up in American tent cities, and Occupy Faith groups begin to flourish, they turn a blind eye to the history of hierarchy, misogyny, and homophobia that has plagued revolutionary communities from the early European protestants, to the nationalist Irish under British rule, and the African-American community civil rights movement.

Religions are, by their nature, hierarchical. They worship a godhead and follow the rules ordained purportedly by that godhead. They do not arrive at decisions through consensus. They cannot. They must obey the rules and dictates of the godhead, and, at most, allow that a select group of god experts interpret those rules and dictates. Believers, adherents, and followers, do not have a say in what the teachings of the godhead are. The Occupy Movement is not only leaderless, but, by extension of that, be ‘followerless’ as well.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/01/01/occupy-religion-dont-let-religion-occupy-you/

[trotsky]

1. A good article, with lots of points we have to keep in mind.

Thanks for posting.

[Sal316]

12. A good article?

...only if you buy into the author's bigoted bullshit.

[trotsky]

16. Yes, a very good one.

Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2012, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Too bad you lashed out with namecalling instead of reading it.

No, what's bigoted is the way non-believers and even non-Christians in general have been treated for the last two millennia, being told that we aren't as moral as you, or that goodness can only come from belief in the Christian god.

Why in this very forum someone claimed that "none of us" would want to live in a society whose ethical system wasn't based on religion. Religious bigotry against us heathens is alive and well.

[Thats my opinion]

30. The poster you quoted has also said--six different times

that neither would any of us want to live in a society without a sturdy group of non-religious people who would balance the religionists.
But you somehow just don't want to admit that part of his posts, which you always manage to misquote. Why?

In addition this poster you quote has never said or even indicated that the only goodness comes from belief in a Christian God---never!!

[trotsky]

37. Because while that poster has admitted they don't want non-belief removed,

they have not retracted their original statement.

And I've asked them many times what it would look like if a society DIDN'T have a religious ethical foundation (not one that forcibly shut down a religious viewpoint, just a society that developed without one), and they haven't answered. I can draw only one conclusion from that.

[Sal316]

41. Actually, I did read it.

...and it is bigoted, prejudicial, and intolerant.

That is undeniable.

The rest of your post is nothing but strawmen as not one of those arguments are ones I've ever made.

It's obvious that you see/define people of faith within the same narrow box as the author does, so any further discussion on this point would be unproductive.

Oh, and the "who are you to say..." argument a couple of posts down is simply moral relativism.

[trotsky]

42. "bigoted, prejudicial, and intolerant"

Kinda like declaring that atheism is..."a religion people join to appear smarter"?

Or calling someone an idiot because you don't think they are as learned as you on a particular subject?

Just want to get your opinion on someone who would say such things. Thanks!

[Sal316]

62. Unable to defend the piece...

..you resort to attacking me.

#notsurprised

[laconicsax]

63. To be fair, he's only treating you the way you've treated others. n/t

[trotsky]

64. Attacking who?

I'm just asking what you would think of someone who said those things. I mean, surely you call everyone out the same way, right? No double standards for anyone?

[Sal316]

66. Oh, I'm sorry....

...I thought the subject of discussion was the article in the OP.

Silly me.

[trotsky]

67. No problem at all, Sal.

Just wanted to get a feel for what you judge to be bigotry. It appears to depend on who's saying it, is what I gather from you. Thanks for the help!

[cbayer]

2. This guy has got it bad. Anyone that argues to exclude groups from the OWS

movement solely based on their affiliation to a religious organization is just a bigot. His sweeping generalizations about and contempt for religious organizations is in direct conflict to what this movement is about, imo.

This statement from his article alone is just outright hypocrisy:

"Religion should not be Occupying the Occupy Movement. Intolerance cannot be tolerated, regardless of how it is dressed up and justified."

Is that not hilarious?

[trotsky]

5. Are we supposed to tolerate the intolerant?

Should we not speak out against religious hate groups like the KKK?

[cbayer]

7. The author of the piece is apparently unable to make any distinction

between various groups or individuals who might call themselves religious.

The KKK and Southern Christian Leadership Conference both have their roots in religion, but what they stand for (or against) couldn't be more different.

We should speak out against hate groups of all stripes, imo. We should also speak out against intolerant bigots of all sorts, including those that are prejudiced against individuals because of what they do or do not believe.

I will acknowledge areas of intolerance in myself. I am intolerant of bigots.

[trotsky]

8. Ah, no true Klansmen.

Got it.

[cbayer]

9. Except that I have never made the claim that no true Christian would not be a klansman.

I have not done that because I can't define a "true Christian". I have merely pointed out that those defined as Christians by others (or themselves) come in all shapes or colors. With some, I share their viewpoints. With others, not so much.

[trotsky]

18. Then what is the distinction to be made?

Both groups have arrived at their respective conclusions based on their own religious experiences and interpretation of scripture. Both groups result from hierarchical structures around their religion. Sometimes the result is good; sometimes it is very bad. And you really can't have one group tell the other they are wrong because they have wedded their philosophy and their politics to their religion. Which is exactly what the author of the original piece is warning against.

[cbayer]

19. If you can only see what the KKK and SCLC have in common and are unable

to see how they are different, I can't really help you here.

I certainly have the right to deem one organization's goals and actions as wrong based on my own set of ethics, no matter what they may have in common with another distinct and dissimilar group.

To group them all together based on a limited set of criteria is just bigotry.

[trotsky]

20. Why do you keep returning to that bogus point?

Of course I can see they are different. But they both start from the same religious text and ideas about the structure of religious power. Who are you to tell the KKK they are wrong about god? How can you disparage their sincerely-held religious beliefs?

[cbayer]

21. Where did I tell them they were wrong about god?

Where would I ever get the right to do that?

What I do is disparage (I am not sure that's the word I really want, but it's the one you used) the goals or actions of groups of individuals who I think are being driven by hate and bigotry. Whether that comes from religious beliefs (like the KKK) or lack of religious beliefs (like the author of this article) makes no difference at all to me.

[trotsky]

22. Religious groups trying to co-opt, or muscle in to...

a distinctly non-religious movement are introducing division and conflict. And they introduce the problem that is the 700 pound gorilla in the room that you don't want to talk about, because my guess is that you don't have an answer. When you wrap your political goals in your religion, you draw battle lines and make compromise harder, if not impossible. The Republicans have done this and caused great damage to our political process. What should make us think that the answer is further polarization and injection of religion into our goals and platform?

[cbayer]

24. I guess you have to decide whether you want to continue to debate with me or not.

We were doing pretty well there, but when you begin to say that you know what I want to talk about and why I want to talk about it, or when you begin to make assumptions about my "religion" (which you really don't know much, if anything about) and when you start comparing me to a Republican, you, sir, have lost your debate partner.

Now you can, as you did yesterday, take this opportunity to declare victory and mock me. And make sure to impugn my character by bringing my father into it. I am sure that at least one, possibly two, others will chime in with toasts as they put another mark on their scoreboards.

When debate becomes a fight where it is more important to win than to discuss, it devolves rapidly.

Have a nice night.

[skepticscott]

34. Exactly where did I "declare victory" or "mock you"?

And exactly how does mentioning that you demonstrate a lot of the same posting traits as your father here impugn your character, in your mind?

You seem to think that the only purpose of a debate/discussion (or whatever word you choose) is to make everyone involved feel all warm and fuzzy about each other, and to find common ground. I maintain that the main purpose is to clarify issues, expose unreliable claims and invalid or unsupported arguments and to get closer to the truth. To the extent that a discussion does that, everyone wins. When it fails to, when it leaves falsehood and misinformation unchallenged for fear of dispelling the warm-fuzzies, everybody loses. Agreement on what is really true and what isn't is the most important common ground you can have with anyone. Without that, it's all sham and pretense.

[trotsky]

38. This plus a billion.

Very well stated.

[tama]

40. Dear scott

There are many kinds of truths, besides those that can be proven scientifically or "objectively", truths that can be most readily expressed in language; there is the most simple simple truth of being as you are, which is also the most profound truth; there are ethical and emotional truths of compassion and empathy and love, the "warm-fuzzie" truths ; and non of these levels or aspects of truth need to be mutually exclusive, but can and do exist in harmony.

in better touch with her-his feminine side,
tama

[skepticscott]

51. People are certainly free to discuss all of those things

and feel non-mutually exclusive about them (though it's always interesting that the rooms set aside for that here never seem to get nearly as much traffic as this one). But to say "I'm me" or "I like Coke better than Pepsi" are clearly not the types of truths that my characterization applies to, or was intended to apply to. And who ever said that just because something cannot be proven objectively, that it's not possible for a consensus to develop over time based on reason and evidence? It can't be "proven" that slavery is wrong, but far more people now would agree that it is than did two hundred or two thousand years ago.

[tama]

53. Traffic on Religion group

is easy to understand, there is lot of, let's say 'contrast' here which energizes discussion, which is not at all bad thing. This is after all a political discussion forum (and there are lots of other forums dedicated for various spiritual matters and approaches where political discussions are side issues, if they exist at all). As political forum, I like to think that this group with often very energetic discussion has great potential of being part of greater healing process of the inflamed situation in USA, finding some day perhaps similar consensus in matters of faith as for slavery that you mentioned.

And before you say so, let me add that IMHO the so called "religious right" is in the most dire need of getting healed... basically from fear and hate, I would say, that have lot to do with worship of "Mammon", and using religion as opium for masses, as Marx said.

[cbayer]

45. And therein lies an excellent description of our different discussion or

debate styles.

It is indeed my goal to find common ground. That doesn't mean that we have to agree, but it does mean that we walk away at least understanding, if not respecting, the others opinion. And if we can do that and feel warm and fuzzy, that's just lagniappe.

I don't think there are any absolute truths. I think everything should be questioned. I think there is a lot of room for diversity, experience and perspective.

We clearly see things differently in this regard and, therefore, will probably not be able to engage in constructive or satisfying discussion.

No biggie. There are people like you and people like me around, so I suspect it won't go silent.

[skepticscott]

50. It is certainly not the goal of any discussion

to come away respecting the other person's opinion or position. Respect has always to be earned, and in some cases, that bridge isn't crossed. Some positions on matters of fact are simply as wrong as anything can be, and deserve no respect. And even on things which are not matters of objective fact, not every opinion is worthy of respect, either. Perhaps you feel that the idea that slavery was an evil institution in America is not an absolute truth and that it should be questioned, and that there is room for diversity, experience and perspective on that subject. I'm not so open-minded. Even if there are no ultimate and absolute truths, a fundamental part of human thought and reason is to determine, as time goes on, that some things are closer to the truth than others, in some cases much closer. In some cases, one position is so much closer to the truth than anything else that other points of view no longer warrant respect or consideration simply by being expressed, even sincerely.

[cbayer]

52. As a scientist, I find your post more descriptive of scientific study

than of debate or discussion.

If we are discussing things that really can't be measured or quantified, the quest for "truth" becomes very subjective and multifaceted. And what may be very true for me may not be true for you at all. We could have a jousting match in which your skills are better than mine and you win, but it won't make anything more or less true.

Still, I can be interested in your opinion and even strenuously argue that I think you are wrong. But if I start making it personal and tell you that your perspective does not even merit consideration, let alone respect, the discussion is over. If I tell you that you are too stupid, deluded or crazy to really get it, the discussion is over.

As to the argument about slavery, there are things that I think most people will agree on. Holocaust bad, slavery bad, bigotry bad. With those that hold strong opinion opposed to mine on these critical points, I don't even want to begin the discussion.

But we are not discussing that here. We are discussing religion, belief systems, whether there are deities or not, etc. In these areas, I do not believe that you are any closer to the truth than I am. But we can discuss it.

[skepticscott]

59. You talk as if debate and discussion

are something completely divorced from rational inquiry, when the truth is just the opposite. They are integral parts of it. And as I posted below, things don't by any means have to be measurable or quantifiable to be debated using reason, argument and evidence, and for an accepted consensus to eventually be arrived at. If the debate goes on for long enough, the rhetorical skills of any one person at any one moment become unimportant when measured against the weight of argument.

But if someone tells me that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, I'm not going to say "I respect your opinion even though I disagree with it". I'm going to say that that's complete bullshit, and tell them why. Some perspectives simply DON'T merit consideration, especially after they been shown to be bogus more times than can be counted. Telling someone that their claim is ridiculous is not "making it personal". Don't forget too, that this is a public discussion board. Many times I post responses which I know have no hope of convincing the person I'm responding to, but which are intended for people who are reading but not posting

As far as deities, they either have an objective, physical existence, independent of the minds of their believers, or they don't. Either Jesus, existed, died and rose from the grave, or he didn't. Either the wine in Catholic communion turns into real blood or it doesn't. Those are truth claims about the real, physical universe and matters of objective fact. No matter how much it might make you feel better to think so, and to be conciliatory, there are no other options and there is no middle ground between. Regardless of who is right, one side of those disagreements has to be closer to the truth than the other.

[cbayer]

26. I need to apologize for one thing here.

When I mentioned the interaction from yesterday, I had you confused with another member with whom I had had a similar interaction (skepticscott). You clearly are not the same person, and I withdraw any comments I made referring to that situation.

Sorry about that. Other than that confusion, my comments remain.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Care to explain this?

"Religious groups trying to co-opt, or muscle in to...a distinctly non-religious movement are introducing division and conflict."
Is that where we've arrived? At a point where we don't allow religious groups to "muscle in" to OWS? Who else would you like to exclude from the 99%.
I'm sorry, but you do not represent atheists or OWS, both of which embrace all people except the 1%ers.

[trotsky]

35. *sigh*

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Yeah, I want all religious people to be excluded from OWS.

[Thats my opinion]

32. Could you please specify just how and when religion has introduced into Occupy

"division and conflict." Having been part of Occupy almost since its beginning, I've never seen if. If you have, just tell us the specifics.

[trotsky]

36. Of course you don't see it, you are part of the privileged religious majority.

The problem comes when the message of OWS is reinforced with "We need to do this because Jesus says we should."

That's what Republicans say to advance their agenda. It's divisive and destructive and unwelcoming. We shouldn't do it.

[Thats my opinion]

43. Well then,

please produce one sentence from someone in the movement who resents our involvement because it is disruptive and divisive or otherwise a hindrance.

[trotsky]

44. Or, in other words,

if it bothers those people whom even Democrats don't like, they should speak up and make themselves known.

Not divisive at all, no.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. And if they didn't participate, you would accuse them of tacitly supporting the banksters

As my grandmother's Old Country proverb has, it, "If you want to beat a dog, you can always find a stick."

[trotsky]

68. I welcome their participation!

I do not welcome any attempts to make it a religious movement!

Can I make this any clearer for you? Thanks!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. OK, that's not what it sounded like, though.

[demosincebirth]

29. +100

[Starboard Tack]

25. Wedding one's politics to one's religion is hardly the same as

wedding one's religion to one's politics. A racist organization cloaking itself in it's own perverse take on Christianity, is no different than an intolerant atheist bigot speaking on my behalf.

[trotsky]

39. And they think MLK had a perverse take on Christianity.

Do you understand the political paralysis that results?

[Starboard Tack]

46. I think you have a poor grasp on the reality of Liberal Christians

The OP is narrow minded hate mongering. Religions may be hierarchical by definition, but churches tend to operate on a local level, many by consensus. This makes them very important, if not essential, to social movements like OWS. Who thinks MLK had a perverse take on Christianity? I see paralysis occurring when Democrats engage in infighting over personal spiritual beliefs to the point where you and others would exclude Christians from the process. Or are you just trying to deprogram them?

[trotsky]

47. Look, let's make this perfectly clear.

I'm not trying to "exclude Christians from the process" which I thought was patently clear but evidently it's not. What I do not want is the religious to infuse OWS with their religion as the motivation and purpose behind the movement - this taints and corrupts what is a completely secular movement, and makes those who are not religious, or those who embrace a different religion feel unwelcome and unwanted.

We have to be on guard against this kind of thing - the right wing does it with their flavor of Christianity (and it's the KKK that would call MLK's version perverse, by the way) and we don't like it one bit, since it polarizes the political process. So why should we do it with OWS?

Now if you care to argue these points instead of with your poorly constructed straw man of them, I'd love to continue. But if you'd rather insinuate that I want to eliminate all Christians from the political process entirely, you'll be on your own.

[Starboard Tack]

48. Fair enough

I see no indication that Christians are trying to co-opt OWS. On the contrary, the progressive liberal Christians are playing an important part in supporting a common cause. I welcome them and any organizational skills they bring with them. They are a small but important contingent and no other group is better equipped at combating the RW fundies. These are good folk. Don't confuse them with the enemy. These folk support gay rights, abortion rights, healthcare reform, immigrant rights, social programs for the under privileged and every other liberal cause you can think of. To put them in the same context as a hate group like the KKK is obscene.

[trotsky]

49. That's fantastic they support all those things.

But I do not want them in the Democratic Party platform because Jesus wants us to think that way.

I don't give a shit if the idea is one I support or oppose, saying that we need to do it because "my god says we should" is a recipe for disaster.

Do you get it yet? Can you stop with the ridiculous exaggerations or misstatements of what I'm saying now?

[Starboard Tack]

54. Who in this forum said any of that?

Who claimed Jesus wants to be involved with any party?
Who claimed we need to do anything because "my god says we should"?
Please tell me where I have exaggerated or misstated anything you have said.

[trotsky]

55. I'll give you one last chance to address the subject.

Do you think that a political movement should have, as its primary or even significant motivation, the desire to please a god?

[Starboard Tack]

56. No. Who said it should?

And don't threaten me with you "one last chance" bullshit. One last chance or else what?

[trotsky]

60. Or bye.

Bye.

[Starboard Tack]

61. Oh no. Say it ain't so.

[Thats my opinion]

58. No, nt

[mr blur]

10. But you can?

Well done, I guess.

[cbayer]

11. You can't?

That's a shame.

[mr blur]

69. I was going to reply you you in more depth,

but, really, what's the point?

You make great claims for coming away from a "discussion" showing respect but in truth your posts demonstrate very little of it.

Welcome to Ignore.

[rug]

17. The KKK supports OWS?

Go figure.

[Thats my opinion]

3. Tell Martin Luther King Jr.

that his religious motivation got him "undeserved credit",and "damaged the movement."

I gather you want a litmus test for anyone participating in Occupy. It the paper turns religiously blue, cast them out. Since you raised the subject, here is a question for which we need an answer. How has the involvement in Occupy noted in the report on he rose parade elsewhere in "Religion" hurt the movement--and would you have had us driven from the parade because we happen to have a religious motivation?

By the way your 54 word sentence is unintelligible.

[cbayer]

4. To be fair, this article does not appear to have been written by the member

who posted it and has been presented without comment.

[laconicsax]

6. Why are you so full of anger?

[cbayer]

28. Because I keep him locked in the basement and only let him out for OWS events.

(note to self: do not post in Religion after Taco Tuesday and $5 margarita night at the bar)

[laconicsax]

31. You know, elder abuse is a serious crime.

[Thats my opinion]

57. Help!!

Let me out!! Let me out!!

[Goblinmonger]

15. I don't think that the article is saying

that religious people shouldn't be part of Occupy but that religion should not be an institution within the movement.

I asked you on an other thread to read through "I have a dream" and tell me where MLK says he is doing what he is doing based on religious motivation. Certainly MLK was religious, but his speeches that were given to a wide general audience were noticeably absent that motivation. Which I would posit was one of the reasons he was so successful.

[Thats my opinion]

23. Certainly religion as an institution should not be, and is not part of Occupy.

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:47 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't think that there are any institutions officially recognized as part of the Occupy. King's speeches are filled with Biblical quotes, religious references and church connections. If you want I'll provide some excerpts. The whole King speech making is bristling with religious language. King cut his teeth in the church, and he has always been religious by nature.

[Thats my opinion]

33. Everything King ever said is smothered in his faith--That is where it comes from.

[tama]

13. The writer

is right to point out the problems of hierarchies, but singling out only religious hierarchies does not do justice - all hierarchies share similar problems, states, political parties, unions, academic hierarchies, etc.

As for Occupy movement, the basic idea of decentralized self-organization, which does not exclude various hierarchies/centralized organizations from participation, is very much for the purpose that also various hierarchies/centralized organizations could participate proactively without Occupy movement turning into just another sectarian King of the Hill battle.

And of course Occupy movement is not without leaders and leadership, the situational kind of leadership instead of institutional leaders.

[Sal316]

14. What bigoted crap.

He bitches about the "evils of religion" and then when faith leaders step out of the shadow of the narrow-minded, bigoted strawman he's created he calls them hypocrites.

What garbage.