Beliefs, Religion and Faith.

[obfuscator]

Can you come up with a moral statement that could be said by a religious person but NOT by a non-religious person ? You can't. There's no significant mutual overlap between religion and morality.

If you want to define a specific moral statement, sure. It's just where the morals originate that's the issue; more so than the morals themselves.

[magekillr]

And on another area of that note (sexism), religion, for all its patriarchal [cabbage] and penchant for contempt for women, does not hold a monopoly. [cabbage], I attended a humanist conference in London while I was on vacation in England with PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, and I wanted to ask a question about how atheists and free-thinkers are to attract more women into our ranks. Not that I needed to know the answer to that, but I wanted to raise awareness to the rest of the community that by and large it's a community full of dudes and that women are not visible. I couldn't get to ask my question because of the annoying education protesters -- even though I agreed with their message, they were protesting the wrong people. However, it was kind of funny because not even 2 weeks later (the talk was on June 9th), Rebecca Watson made a video expressing her displeasure with creepy people asking her to their room for coffee at the early hours of the morning:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKHwduG1Frk&feature=channel_video_title

 

I admit it would have been cool for me to have been the one to jumpstart this conversation among atheists worldwide, but I'm glad that it did nonetheless. This sparked a lot of outrage from Richard Dawkins, the privileged [bleep]wit that he is, to mock her and then went on to rant about how bad women in developing countries have it. It started a conversation among the atheist community, and a lot of them have been just as sexist as their religious counterparts. Rather than LISTENING to the women -- hey, what a novel idea? -- they just berated them and told them to shut up.

 

For more info on this, just google Elevatorgate. I'm sure you'll find what you need to know.

 

PZ Myers has also been a riveting voice on the side of women, and just last week wrote a blogpost titled: Sexism is a problem we should address

 

Religion has a problem with sexism. Atheists have a problem with sexism. The workplace has a problem with sexism. The goddamn WH with Barack Obama has a problem with sexism. The problem isn't one specific set of beliefs or dogma -- although those sets of beliefs being entrenched are definitely in the way of social progress -- but our entire patriarchal structure.

[Nomrombom]

I do not know how to accurately state what I am thinking at present. There is something fallacious in those three sentences, but I don't know how to explain. Bleh. If I figure it out I'll let you know...

 

I think it is that any law based on religion is inherently an opinion of a deity that may or may not exist and that everyone governed by the laws is, through being made to follow those laws, being forced to accept a certain religion's views as correct or right. One of the basic human rights is freedom of religion (Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the UN, enacted and agreed upon by all countries except Kosovo, Taiwan, and the Vatican), and it seems to me (I am not certain) that this violates that right.

[Nomrombom]

Morals are universal, found in all people (save the psychologically disordered); so a truly basic moral statement is one that is believed by all people.

 

Catholicism simply believes morals come from God. That's where religion plays into it. Also, Catholicism helps us apply these morals to modern day situations. I hate to bring it up again, but for example, abortion: the Church reminds us that abortion is murder, which is morally wrong, and therefore so is abortion. Of course, you can rationalize that abortion is not murder, which has been done ten times over. :P

 

Morals are not universal. If someone is brought up with no exposure to anything except the view that women are subhuman life forms, they will come to accept this as a truth. Some, if not all Hutu believed they were morally justified in massacring the Tutsi. Who are you (collective you) to say what is an absolute moral? Who am I to say what is not?

[Duff]

Isn't that brainwashing? :s

 

I think if you brainwash someone for their whole life, telling them that killing is a good thing, they'll eventually think it's right. That doesn't mean they didn't feel mildly disturbed when they first started being told that, or when they first realized what they were actually doing (ending someone's life)...

[obfuscator]

I do not know how to accurately state what I am thinking at present. There is something fallacious in those three sentences, but I don't know how to explain. Bleh. If I figure it out I'll let you know...

 

I think it is that any law based on religion is inherently an opinion of a deity that may or may not exist and that everyone governed by the laws is, through being made to follow those laws, being forced to accept a certain religion's views as correct or right. One of the basic human rights is freedom of religion (Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the UN, enacted and agreed upon by all countries except Kosovo, Taiwan, and the Vatican), and it seems to me (I am not certain) that this violates that right.

So you're saying the laws are only unfair if the deity exists?

[Nomrombom]

Isn't that brainwashing? :s

 

I think if you brainwash someone for their whole life, telling them that killing is a good thing, they'll eventually think it's right. That doesn't mean they didn't feel mildly disturbed when they first started being told that, or when they first realized what they were actually doing (ending someone's life)...

 

It does not mean they did feel disturbed at all either.

[Duff]

I don't believe that your hypothetical situation actually happens...

 

And for some reason I cannot see a young child taking the life of another child, realizing that this other child isn't going to 'wake up' or open his/her eyes, and not feeling sad or disturbed or guilty.

[magekillr]

I don't believe that your hypothetical situation actually happens...

 

And for some reason I cannot see a young child taking the life of another child, realizing that this other child isn't going to 'wake up' or open his/her eyes, and not feeling sad or disturbed or guilty.

 

Not to get into a debate over abortion on a thread not about abortion -- which is why I haven't said anything about my originally posted link -- but what you've just said exactly shows why people who want to force women to bear children against their will are misogynists. There's a reason why the early feminists of the late 1800's and early 1900's were AGAINST abortion. It's not because they viewed it as killing, but because their fathers forced them to have abortions against their own wills. You should really read the history about abortion, why religion became against it (heh, bet you didn't know that abortion was quite popular in religious circles back in the day, did you?), the fact that it was only "illegal" for a short period in American history, and why the same religious movement is now against it. To give you a very short history lesson, the Protestants had a lot of abortions, while the Catholics did not. Catholics were having large families despite being a small percentage of the population. Protestants then came out AGAINST abortion after years of supporting it because of their racism (no, Catholicism isn't a race, but it did represent a certain monolithic group of people...usually the Irish). They thought that if Protestants kept having abortions, that Catholics would eventually overtake them as the majority. They then came out against the practice, as well as other family planning. The movement is now against it because it empowers women and gives them control over their own bodies. The cat was let out of the bag the other day by a Republican law-maker (as if the people paying attention didn't know the real reason):

 

When asked whether Texas’s anti-family planning efforts were “a war on birth control,” Christian replied, “Well of course this is a war on birth control and abortions and everything."

 

They're against birth control for the same exact reason. It's misogyny, and you cannot believe in equal rights if you don't even respect someone's right to control their own body. That is why forced birthers are sexist. Even if you think the practice is wrong -- and many pro-choice women do -- you cannot possibly support the criminalization of the practice. Would you support the government forcing people to donate blood at the threat of the gun? Why not?

[Duff]

That's Protestantism. I'm Catholic. :s The Catholic Church is against abortion because it kills a human child, not because they want to force the woman to bear a child against her will. It's a matter of not murdering vs murdering for the Church. Not forcing a woman to bear a child vs letting her off easy.

 

The Church is against birth control because it separates the pleasure of sex from the very purpose of sex. The Church sees sex as extremely sacred, since it involves creating a new being. When one decides to take this sacred act and prevent it from fulfilling its purpose (naming the creation of a life), of course the Church is going to be against that.

[Noxx]

Do you know the origin of the ban on women driving?

Sharia law, which is fairly sexist and controlling. (from what I've seen anyway, I won't claim to be an expert).

I think you need to go do some more reading then.

[obfuscator]

Do you know the origin of the ban on women driving?

Sharia law, which is fairly sexist and controlling. (from what I've seen anyway, I won't claim to be an expert).

I think you need to go do some more reading then.

Please, enlighten me :)

 

EDIT: Well, I did some more research, and found the following.

 

Women and minors (younger than 21 years old) require a male guardian's consent to have a passport and to travel abroad. A noncitizen wife needs permission from her husband to travel unless both partners sign a prenuptial agreement permitting the noncitizen wife to travel without the husband's permission. Government entities and male family members can "blacklist" women and minor children, prohibiting their travel.

 

In the 2005 elections, the first since 1963, only male, nonmilitary citizens at least 21 years old were eligible to vote.

 

Rape is a punishable criminal offense under Sharia with a wide range of penalties from flogging to execution. Generally the government enforced the law based on its interpretation of Sharia, and courts punished both the victim and the perpetrator. The government views marital relations between spouses as contractual and did not recognize spousal rape. By law a female rape victim is at fault for illegal "mixing of genders" and is punished along with the perpetrator.

 

There were no laws criminalizing violence against women. Officials stated that the government did not clearly define domestic violence and that procedures concerning cases, and accordingly enforcement, varied from one government body to another.

 

The government supported family protection shelters, although societal criticism for helping women "flee" without properly investigating cases reduced the shelters' effectiveness, according to a July 2009 Arab News report. For example, on October 25, 29-year-old divorced Samar al-Badawi was released from Jeddah's Briman Prison after being held for seven months, ostensibly for disobeying her father regarding her choice of marriage partner.

 

On August 12, HRW requested the HRC intervene on behalf of Aisha Ali, a divorced mother of three whose guardian brothers reportedly forcibly confined her, beat her, and forced her into five subsequent marriages to which she did not consent. Authorities placed her in a temporary shelter for three months but allegedly returned her to her brothers.

 

On January 25, a court in Rass sentenced Sawsan Salim to 300 lashes and one-and-one-half years in prison for filing "spurious" harassment complaints against government officials in court and for "visiting government offices without a male guardian," according to HRW. One of the two judges deciding the case was one of the officials against whom she complained of harassment.

 

Women continued to face discrimination under the law and remained uninformed about their rights. Although they may legally own property and are entitled to financial support from their guardian, women have few political or social rights, and society does not treat them as equal members. The law prohibits women from marrying non-Muslims, but men may marry Christians and Jews. Women may not marry noncitizens without government permission; men must obtain government permission only if they intend to marry noncitizens from outside Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

 

The guardianship system requires that every woman have a close male relative as her "guardian" with the authority to approve her travel (see section 1.d.). A guardian also has authority to approve some types of business licenses and study at a university or college. Women can make their own determinations concerning hospital care. A husband who "verbally" divorces his wife or refuses to sign final divorce papers continues to be her legal guardian.

 

Cultural norms restricted women in their use of public facilities. When unrelated men are present, women must sit in separate, specially designated family sections. They are not allowed to consume food in restaurants that do not have such sections. Women risk arrest for riding in a vehicle driven by a male who is not an employee or a close male relative.

 

Cultural norms require women to wear an abaya (a loose-fitting, full-length black cloak covering the entire body) in public and to conceal their hair. The CPVPV generally expected Muslim women to cover their faces and non-Muslim women from other Asian and African countries to comply more fully with local customs of dress than non-Muslim Western women. In rural areas and smaller cities, women adhered to the traditional dress code of covering the entire body, hands, feet, hair, and face.

 

Women also faced discrimination in courts, where the testimony of one man equals that of two women. Female parties in court proceedings such as divorce and family law cases normally deputized male relatives to speak on their behalf.

 

Women faced discrimination under family law and under Sharia inheritance law. Courts awarded custody of children when they attained a specified age (seven years old for boys and nine years old for girls) to the divorced husband or the deceased husband's family. In numerous cases former husbands prevented divorced noncitizen women from visiting their children. Under Sharia inheritance laws, daughters receive half the inheritance awarded to their brothers.

 

Employment opportunities for women were limited, confined mainly to the education and health-care sectors, although increases were occurring in business and finance, social services, and government ministries. Women cannot work as judges or prosecutors.

 

The law requires a woman to obtain the permission of a male guardian to work if the type of business is not "deemed appropriate for a woman." A woman cannot accept a job in a rural area unless she lodges with an adult male relative who agrees to act as her guardian. The cultural requirement to separate the genders led to discrimination in employment.

 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm

 

But perhaps I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

[Noxx]

Do you know the origin of the ban on women driving?

Sharia law, which is fairly sexist and controlling. (from what I've seen anyway, I won't claim to be an expert).

I think you need to go do some more reading then.

Please, enlighten me :)

 

EDIT: Well, I did some more research, and found the following.

 

Women and minors (younger than 21 years old) require a male guardian's consent to have a passport and to travel abroad. A noncitizen wife needs permission from her husband to travel unless both partners sign a prenuptial agreement permitting the noncitizen wife to travel without the husband's permission. Government entities and male family members can "blacklist" women and minor children, prohibiting their travel.

 

In the 2005 elections, the first since 1963, only male, nonmilitary citizens at least 21 years old were eligible to vote.

 

Rape is a punishable criminal offense under Sharia with a wide range of penalties from flogging to execution. Generally the government enforced the law based on its interpretation of Sharia, and courts punished both the victim and the perpetrator. The government views marital relations between spouses as contractual and did not recognize spousal rape. By law a female rape victim is at fault for illegal "mixing of genders" and is punished along with the perpetrator.

 

There were no laws criminalizing violence against women. Officials stated that the government did not clearly define domestic violence and that procedures concerning cases, and accordingly enforcement, varied from one government body to another.

 

The government supported family protection shelters, although societal criticism for helping women "flee" without properly investigating cases reduced the shelters' effectiveness, according to a July 2009 Arab News report. For example, on October 25, 29-year-old divorced Samar al-Badawi was released from Jeddah's Briman Prison after being held for seven months, ostensibly for disobeying her father regarding her choice of marriage partner.

 

On August 12, HRW requested the HRC intervene on behalf of Aisha Ali, a divorced mother of three whose guardian brothers reportedly forcibly confined her, beat her, and forced her into five subsequent marriages to which she did not consent. Authorities placed her in a temporary shelter for three months but allegedly returned her to her brothers.

 

On January 25, a court in Rass sentenced Sawsan Salim to 300 lashes and one-and-one-half years in prison for filing "spurious" harassment complaints against government officials in court and for "visiting government offices without a male guardian," according to HRW. One of the two judges deciding the case was one of the officials against whom she complained of harassment.

 

Women continued to face discrimination under the law and remained uninformed about their rights. Although they may legally own property and are entitled to financial support from their guardian, women have few political or social rights, and society does not treat them as equal members. The law prohibits women from marrying non-Muslims, but men may marry Christians and Jews. Women may not marry noncitizens without government permission; men must obtain government permission only if they intend to marry noncitizens from outside Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

 

The guardianship system requires that every woman have a close male relative as her "guardian" with the authority to approve her travel (see section 1.d.). A guardian also has authority to approve some types of business licenses and study at a university or college. Women can make their own determinations concerning hospital care. A husband who "verbally" divorces his wife or refuses to sign final divorce papers continues to be her legal guardian.

 

Cultural norms restricted women in their use of public facilities. When unrelated men are present, women must sit in separate, specially designated family sections. They are not allowed to consume food in restaurants that do not have such sections. Women risk arrest for riding in a vehicle driven by a male who is not an employee or a close male relative.

 

Cultural norms require women to wear an abaya (a loose-fitting, full-length black cloak covering the entire body) in public and to conceal their hair. The CPVPV generally expected Muslim women to cover their faces and non-Muslim women from other Asian and African countries to comply more fully with local customs of dress than non-Muslim Western women. In rural areas and smaller cities, women adhered to the traditional dress code of covering the entire body, hands, feet, hair, and face.

 

Women also faced discrimination in courts, where the testimony of one man equals that of two women. Female parties in court proceedings such as divorce and family law cases normally deputized male relatives to speak on their behalf.

 

Women faced discrimination under family law and under Sharia inheritance law. Courts awarded custody of children when they attained a specified age (seven years old for boys and nine years old for girls) to the divorced husband or the deceased husband's family. In numerous cases former husbands prevented divorced noncitizen women from visiting their children. Under Sharia inheritance laws, daughters receive half the inheritance awarded to their brothers.

 

Employment opportunities for women were limited, confined mainly to the education and health-care sectors, although increases were occurring in business and finance, social services, and government ministries. Women cannot work as judges or prosecutors.

 

The law requires a woman to obtain the permission of a male guardian to work if the type of business is not "deemed appropriate for a woman." A woman cannot accept a job in a rural area unless she lodges with an adult male relative who agrees to act as her guardian. The cultural requirement to separate the genders led to discrimination in employment.

 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm

 

But perhaps I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

You have to realise though, we see this as sexist and controlling. They see it as protective. Not only the men but most of the woman too.

I hate quoting wiki, but:

 

There is evidence that many women in Saudi Arabia do not want radical change. Even many advocates of reform reject Western critics, for "failing to understand the uniqueness of Saudi society." Journalist Maha Akeel is a frequent critic of her country's patriarchal customs. Nonetheless, she agrees that Westerners criticize what they do not understand. "Look, we are not asking for ... women's rights according to Western values or lifestyles ... We want things according to what Islam says. Look at our history, our role models."

 

Again it comes down to personal morals/opinions. What you see as sexism they see as tradition, and quite normal.

[obfuscator]

Of course there's a difference in opinion - and in my opinion those laws are sexist and controlling. Of course the women there are free to like those laws if they want; but there is significant dissent from women against those laws too.

 

I fail to see, as well, how prosecution of rape victims can be construed as "protection".

[Noxx]

Of course there's a difference in opinion - and in my opinion those laws are sexist and controlling. Of course the women there are free to like those laws if they want; but there is significant dissent from women against those laws too.

 

I fail to see, as well, how prosecution of rape victims can be construed as "protection".

Ugh, i lost the link to something i read earlier. It mentioned something about it being the opposite. Rape victims do not get prosecuted. Then one paragraph down it says that they do. Then one paragraph down again it says it's a grey area.

So what now...

[magekillr]

Look, their societies are extremely sexist, like beyond the pale, whereas ours are still very sexist. But the point he's trying to make is this: take the fastest growing surgery there is, which is breast implants. Why is that? It's because our society places emphasis on the importance of having large breasts; having them is what it means to be a woman. Someone in Saudi Arabia looks at this and sees it as a burden. They don't see women frolicking around in skimpy clothes as free, they view them as oppressed sexual objects who dress like that FOR MEN rather than for their God or their own well-being. In fact, many Islamic Feminists mock America's "secularism" because of its hypocrisy. Were secular in our government and laws, especially in the theory, but will America ever be able to elect an atheist president like Australia did recently with Julia Gillard? Or what of Nick Clegg, a major candidate in Britains elections, who was able to state freely, I dont believe in God. We still have many Judeo-Christian laws on the books even if theyre unconstitutional in practice and we dont even have a state-established religion. An entire major electoral party which panders to the extreme religious right continues to assert among its major presidential candidates that America is a Christian nation. Abortion rights are continuously scaled back in the name of religion, where the main target isnt legality but access; and if you cant legally access an abortion provider, what good does it do that you have the legal right to an abortion? In this sense I see many Americans who bash Muslims to be bigoted, oh-so concerned about their clothes but ignoring the tragedies that are taking place in their own backyard with the scaling back of womens rights. Many of those same women are on the front-lines, like Sarah Palin. It might feel good to lecture Muslims about womens rights, but in this sense, I do see it as a form of imperialism where the White Man is the blank slate. Theyre not concerned with women, but cultural genocide of who is a Real American.

 

I think both societies are wrong. The burqa for instance is more cultural than religious; its existed before Islam was even founded. I do not believe in cultural relativism. Sexism is a form of violence, and I do not think it should be tolerated; I see the burqa as a sexist "tradition" by putting the onus of men's sexual and power trips on women, just as has been done for centuries. When it comes to basic human rights, nothing pisses me off more than arguments based on "cultural acceptance". But what makes it any different than what nuns wear? Saris? It is the thought processes that should be combated, not whatever cultural norms that might continue a sexist tradition. Women in the West should not feel pressured to wear makeup before they go to the grocery store any more than a woman in Saudi Arabia should feel pressured to cover her body down to her ankles.

[Nomrombom]

Who pressures them to wear makeup? I've never heard anyone say anything other than that someone has too much. Maybe that's just because they all wear it all the time... :mellow:

[Noxx]

Who pressures them to wear makeup? I've never heard anyone say anything other than that someone has too much. Maybe that's just because they all wear it all the time... :mellow:

I think he means girl FEEL pressured to wear make up. Not that they ARE pressured.

[Nomrombom]

Who pressures them to wear makeup? I've never heard anyone say anything other than that someone has too much. Maybe that's just because they all wear it all the time... :mellow:

I think he means girl FEEL pressured to wear make up. Not that they ARE pressured.

 

Then what's with the feminist type movement against that kind of thing in media?

[obfuscator]

Who pressures them to wear makeup? I've never heard anyone say anything other than that someone has too much. Maybe that's just because they all wear it all the time... :mellow:

I think he means girl FEEL pressured to wear make up. Not that they ARE pressured.

 

Then what's with the feminist type movement against that kind of thing in media?

Nothing is "with it", it's just enormously under-shadowed by the amount of subtle pressure in the media at large, specifically in advertising.

[Blyaunte]

It was just a toy example - here's a better one. Today, a woman in Saudi Arabi was sentenced by law, to 10 lashes for driving a car. It is sanctioned by law, is it then moral to lash a woman 10 times for driving a vehicle?

 

For the sake of argument, you DO realize that the "law" in question is an edict, right? A RELIGIOUS rule?

 

There is no Saudi Law that prohibits women from driving -- it's a religious edict.

 

:rolleyes:

[Nomrombom]

It was just a toy example - here's a better one. Today, a woman in Saudi Arabi was sentenced by law, to 10 lashes for driving a car. It is sanctioned by law, is it then moral to lash a woman 10 times for driving a vehicle?

 

For the sake of argument, you DO realize that the "law" in question is an edict, right? A RELIGIOUS rule?

 

There is no Saudi Law that prohibits women from driving -- it's a religious edict.

 

:rolleyes:

 

So who meted out the punishment?

[Blyaunte]

It was just a toy example - here's a better one. Today, a woman in Saudi Arabi was sentenced by law, to 10 lashes for driving a car. It is sanctioned by law, is it then moral to lash a woman 10 times for driving a vehicle?

 

For the sake of argument, you DO realize that the "law" in question is an edict, right? A RELIGIOUS rule?

 

There is no Saudi Law that prohibits women from driving -- it's a religious edict.

 

:rolleyes:

 

So who meted out the punishment?

 

A Shariah Court -- the judge was a CLERIC.

 

As I already pointed out -- you folks are having issues understanding the scale of Saudi Law. Shariah are "laws" that are religious in origin not "social". Sharia law is such that is determined by interpretation of Qu'ranic tenet and Hadith by clerical authorities. The Shariah court is overlooked by clerics -- not secular authorities.

 

What you probably don't appreciate is that the Saudi King would never have achieved his own state if not for the help of the fundamentalist Islamists and, as such, he has always bowed to whatever religious edicts they issue as "law" and everyone's followed these laws albeit, whether it was more out of fear than belief one can never truly tell.

 

It's only recently in light of developments from the Arab Spring, in fact that King Abdullah's started to make those "social changes" and overturned religious edict with an actual "social contract".

 

... and he's doing so in order to avoid having a revolution of his own to deal with ...

 

To what extend this social contract will go, one cannot tell right now. All I know for sure is that, as long as the Saudi people keep pushing the envelope, and as long as King Abdullah is afraid for his own safety (i.e. revolution), social change will continue in Saudi for the next little while.

 

That is, until such time as someone in power, being monarchy or clergy, decides to put a stop to it.

[Blyaunte]

Also -- I'd like to throw my own two cents into the over-all argument of "the rationale behind theism" by asking the theists this question:

 

"Do gods (note the plural) exist?"

[obfuscator]

Even if there's no law in SA preventing women from driving, there's still a law prohibiting them from being given drivers licenses, and another law prohibiting anyone from driving without a drivers license.

 

So the Sharia law is effectively legislated anyway.