Tuesday, November 10, 2009 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Can We Talk About Religion, Please?

by Randy Cohen - New York Times

Thanks to Jim for the link.
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/can-we-talk-about-religion-please/

The Issue

Last week the Vatican invited Anglicans who are, as The New York Times put it, “uncomfortable with female priests and openly gay bishops” to reunite with the Roman Catholic Church. If a secular institution, Wal-Mart or Microsoft, for example, made a similar offer — Tired of leadership positions being open to women and gay employees? Join us! — it would be slammed for appealing to bigotry. Some criticism was directed at the church, but it was faint. Are we right to speak softly when discussing a subject as sensitive as religion?

The Argument

Etiquette holds that religion, especially another person’s religion, should be treated with deference or, better still, silence by nonbelievers. Hence the familiar dinner-party injunction: don’t discuss religion or politics. Even at a table full of co-religionists, feelings can run high, and there is a reluctance to combine digestion with discord (particularly where knives are nearby). To the observant, a nonbeliever’s comments on church doctrine can feel less like a discussion of theology than a personal attack.

Yet despite the risk of provoking the ire of believers, we should discuss the actions of religious institutions as we would those of all others — courteously and vigorously. This is a mark of respect, an indication that we take such ideas seriously. To slip on the kid gloves is condescending, akin to the way you would treat children or the frail or cats.
...
Continue reading
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/can-we-talk-about-religion-please/

Posted: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 48 of 48 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #430888 by Mitch Kahle on November 10, 2009 at 6:53 pm

All deference to religion should be abolished!

Other Comments by Mitch Kahle

2. Comment #430890 by Mr Blue Sky on November 10, 2009 at 7:00 pm

Or, Religion and any deference to it should be abolished!

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

3. Comment #430894 by George Lennan on November 10, 2009 at 7:28 pm

erm... isn't this the central point of the whole debate that Richard, Hitch and Harris kicked off?

It galls me a bit that someone who has access to a mainstream media column can say this as if it were a revelation, when the debate is already light years ahead.

Other Comments by George Lennan

4. Comment #430895 by dac74 on November 10, 2009 at 7:36 pm

"Get thee behind me Stryper"

Pretty good article

Other Comments by dac74

5. Comment #430897 by DNR on November 10, 2009 at 7:40 pm

I agree with the Roman Catholic Church not accepting female preists and openly gay bishops. If it's against their religion they shouldnt do it.

Other Comments by DNR

6. Comment #430903 by Colwyn Abernathy on November 10, 2009 at 8:07 pm

To slip on the kid gloves is condescending, akin to the way you would treat children or the frail or cats.

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Of your condescending tone.

EDIT:

DNR,

I agree with the Roman Catholic Church not accepting female preists and openly gay bishops. If it's against their religion they shouldnt do it.

So, would you allow any other organisation to discriminate against women and gays as well? If not, why does the Catholic Church get the exception? And would you consider such an exception fair and why?

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

7. Comment #430905 by Jack Rawlinson on November 10, 2009 at 8:13 pm

"The Ethicist" column in the NYT is a fun read and I agree with the guy maybe 80% of the time. He's pretty late to this issue, yes, but at least he's on the right side.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

8. Comment #430906 by John P on November 10, 2009 at 8:14 pm

If we don't point out the stupidity of religion, if everyone tiptoes around it's counter intuitiveness in the guise of respect, then the terrorists have won! Oh, wait. Wrong argument. \\

What I meant to say is that respecting the mainstream religions of the world, and deferring to their inanity, just leaves the extreme fringes free to use religion to justify anything they want, including terrorism. And all because we tend to "respect" religion.

Bullshit!

Other Comments by John P

9. Comment #430908 by Adrian Bartholomew on November 10, 2009 at 8:20 pm

It galls me a bit that someone who has access to a mainstream media column can say this as if it were a revelation, when the debate is already light years ahead.

The more people that say it the better.

Other Comments by Adrian Bartholomew

10. Comment #430909 by Stonyground on November 10, 2009 at 8:21 pm

Is it cowardice to avoid discussing religion when it so often causes conflict. My mother is a wonderful woman, strong, generous, intelligent and she shows an almost superhuman sense of duty toward my dad who is severely disabled and in need of constant care.

Having said all that, she is a Methodist and I am an atheist and any discussion of religion results in her turning into a bad tempered, bigoted, ignoramus. Am I really being a coward if I avoid the subject?

On the other hand, when dealing with people who are not close family members I think that we should be critical of their beliefs. Religion is poisonous drivel and adults should be ashamed of themselves for still believing such childish fairy stories and this should be pointed out to them constantly. This may not convert many of the deluded but the more fence sitters that jump down on our side the better the world will be.

Other Comments by Stonyground

11. Comment #430914 by TinyRobot on November 10, 2009 at 8:48 pm

This reminds me a lot of the essay by Simon Blackburn 'Religion and Respect' in Louise Antony's collection 'Philosophers Without Gods'.

Very late to the debate.

Other Comments by TinyRobot

12. Comment #430920 by Mr DArcy on November 10, 2009 at 9:07 pm

The sheer gall of the religious constantly amazes me. After all, from their pov, the Almighty is standing right behind them. What is a little bit of "offence" from an infidel compared with that lovely warm safety blanket of a wonderful after-life?

The fact that the religios get upset so easily, shows their basic insecurity, imo. They evidently don't really believe that crap either.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

13. Comment #430922 by Duff on November 10, 2009 at 9:12 pm

We are obliged to criticize religion! If it is, as Bertrand Russell called it, "Organized Ignorance", we have an obligation to not be accommodating. In their face, I say!

Other Comments by Duff

14. Comment #430923 by Mitch Kahle on November 10, 2009 at 9:13 pm

@Mr Blue Sky "Or, Religion and any deference to it should be abolished!"

Religion shouldn't be abolished and nor could it be. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right. Even if beliefs are illogical and absurd, people are free to think as they do.

But we can, however, abolish all official deference to religion.

We could solidly establish a true separation of government and religion, where religion receives no preference and no benefit from the state. We need to let religion stand on its own.

Churches can either sink or swim without public assistance.

Churches should be taxed on all income not directly used for charitable purposes.

Churches must also be held accountable to all government laws, without special exemptions.

Other Comments by Mitch Kahle

15. Comment #430925 by TIKI AL on November 10, 2009 at 9:15 pm

Stonyground @ 10: "any discussion of religion results in her turning into a bad tempered, bigoted, ignoramus."

In the heat of religious battle my Ma used to hold up the "Honor thy Father and Mother" embroidered pillow to slow me up just before she pummeled me with it.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

16. Comment #430928 by aquilacane on November 10, 2009 at 9:23 pm

Lennan,
true, this is a known argument. Unless it's the first time you read it, then it's new. It must be repeated to survive.

Other Comments by aquilacane

17. Comment #430931 by Stella on November 10, 2009 at 9:28 pm

This is very timely for me today, as I was just threatened with a wrist-rapping message from the mods on another forum I frequent, warning me of impending temporary or permanent BANNING (oh noes!) for being too "insulting," "rude," and "uncivil" in discussions there about religion. I hate to think how they'd react to Hitchens.

Thanks for the essay suggestion, TinyRobot. I just downloaded that here: http://www.humanism.org.uk/about/people/distinguished-supporters/Professor-Simon-Blackburn (scroll to bottom)

Can't wait to read it.

Other Comments by Stella

18. Comment #430933 by njwong on November 10, 2009 at 9:31 pm

9. Comment #430908 by Adrian Bartholomew on November 10, 2009 at 8:20 pm

The more people that say it the better.

Fully agree. Just because Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens can write about and criticise religion so much better than most people, it does not hurt to have lots and lots of other people repeating the same criticisms everywhere else. To quote Henry Van Dyke, the woods would be very quiet if only the best birds sang.

Other Comments by njwong

19. Comment #430952 by mordacious1 on November 10, 2009 at 11:04 pm

OT

Here is a picture of Dinesh d'Souza and his older brother, Jerry:

http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/dsouza.jpg

*runs from Mayan spear thrown by Prof. Coyne*

Other Comments by mordacious1

20. Comment #430959 by Sally Luxmoore on November 10, 2009 at 11:59 pm

Tired of leadership positions being open to women and gay employees? Join us!

I love it. The truth.
The more people who say it the better.
"The catholic church", "foot" and "shot".

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

21. Comment #430961 by phasmagigas on November 11, 2009 at 12:15 am

“uncomfortable with female priests and openly gay bishops”

makes me think they are afraid that the women and gay men might want sex with them or something.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

22. Comment #430962 by j.mills on November 11, 2009 at 12:16 am

The catholic church are glad to have the bigots, and the anglicans are sorry to lose 'em. How much more could both those religions be screwed up?

This Cohen guy's right, of course, but actually I could have done with him being a bit more "strident"!

Other Comments by j.mills

23. Comment #430977 by DocWebster on November 11, 2009 at 2:18 am

I am surrounded on all sides where I live by born-again fundies and my Landlord is a fundie from birth almost. Whenever I interact with these people helping the landlord with repairs(He holds a hammer by the claw, really) or just meeting at the mailbox I'm constantly assailed with their blather. The only thing that could possibly be worse is if I identify myself as a non-believer.
It would be the end of my privacy I am quite sure and while I hold no particular affection for their ramblings on religion I do appreciate the way they don't pry into my life more than is customary social interaction. I am quite sure that if they had a bone like my atheism to chew on it would definitely drive them to save my poor lost soul, by force if necessary.

Other Comments by DocWebster

24. Comment #431001 by alaskansee on November 11, 2009 at 5:44 am

@ #5 - DNR
"I agree with the Roman Catholic Church not accepting female priests and openly gay bishops. If it's against their religion they shouldn't do it."

Your right but they shouldn't get any tax breaks and of course, like cigarettes, we should have a bigotry warning printed on the side of any of their property, people or publications.

That way you'd know what perverse little self serving organisations they are from the very start and if that's your bag..........

Other Comments by alaskansee

25. Comment #431005 by Roland_F on November 11, 2009 at 6:14 am

To the observant, a nonbeliever’s comments on church doctrine can feel less like a discussion of theology than a personal attack.

Of course it is like that, because religious feelings and *knowledge* are processed in the same brain areas where 'the self center’ and emotional center is located. This is the main finding from Sam Harris fMRI scan comparison between strong believers and atheists. Secular knowledge is more like memory retrieval but religious faith is in the areas of the ‘self center’ of the brain, so any attack on faith and doctrines is like a personal attack.

PS: here the brain areas where religious feelings are processed:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007272
The contrast of religious stimuli minus nonreligious stimuli (see Fig. 2A, Table 3.) revealed greater signal in many regions, including the anterior insula and the ventral striatum. The anterior insula has been regularly linked to pain perception [34] and even to the perception of pain in others [35]. This region is also widely believed to mediate negatively valenced feelings like disgust [36], [37]. The ventral striatum is also regularly associated with emotional processing, especially with reward [38] and appears to play a role in cognitive planning [39]. We also found greater signal for religious stimuli in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC).

Other Comments by Roland_F

26. Comment #431025 by Reckless Monkey on November 11, 2009 at 9:58 am

It strikes me as odd that I should worry about whether or not I'm impolite to someone who seriously believes that I'm going to burn eternally in a lake of fire.

Other Comments by Reckless Monkey

27. Comment #431031 by rod-the-farmer on November 11, 2009 at 10:18 am

Noteworthy is his side story that an orthodox jew real estate agent refused to shake the hand of a woman whose house he had helped sell. "We are not allowed to touch women". The seller wondered if she should have torn up the contract. If it had been me, first I would have torn up the contract, then punched his lights out, and finally thrown him out of my house. My religion encourages me to strike down idiots.

Perhaps these people should make it clear when taking a case like this, that they will not shake the hands of any women involved. Make the idiocy clear up front.

I assume there is a proviso to this, that the no-touch business refers only to those women who are not related ? Even if you say "Only to/with his wife" that would omit any contact with female relatives, and specifically grandchildren and nieces. Surely not. That would make for a cold hard life indeed. On the flip side, would it not lead eventually to extinction ?

A final thought. Perhaps the proscription relates only to adult women, and that it is OK to touch female children, related or not. One hears a faint echo of rumoured paedophilia in some islamic historical figures.

If we ever invent a time machine, I think our first goal as the human race is to travel back in time so we can identify the Abrahamic individual or group who first came up with this idea that women are second class, unclean, etc. etc. Then we selectively thin the herd. Can anyone think of a better use of a time machine ? Even if the laws of time travel say we can only make one trip, ever.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

28. Comment #431042 by PERSON on November 11, 2009 at 12:08 pm

More on the religious abortion amendment to the US healthcare bill: This is so weird I'm not entirely sure I believe it. I'll need to do a bit more digging.

Other Comments by PERSON

29. Comment #431056 by ridelo on November 11, 2009 at 1:17 pm

@rod-the-farmer:
Then we selectively thin the herd.

And you think there were no other fools to come up with the same ideas? Keep your time machine running, Rod.

Other Comments by ridelo

30. Comment #431057 by God fearing Atheist on November 11, 2009 at 1:29 pm

28. Comment #431042 by PERSON

The USA is broken. Please fix.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

31. Comment #431061 by Peacebeuponme on November 11, 2009 at 1:42 pm

GFA

The USA is broken.

So is the UK.

16 year old boy rapes a 5 year old boy. Judge hands down lenient sentence because of his parents Christian beliefs.

5 year old gets fucked again.

I truly do not know what to say any more.

Could there be a more pertinent example of Richard's view that labelling children with their parent's religion is tantamount to abuse?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

32. Comment #431069 by Follow Peter Egan on November 11, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Good article by Randy Cohen, and an argument I keep finding myself having to have over and over again with the religionists and accommodationists.

Peacebeuponme - deeply disturbing story, made worse by a Judge's decision to allow an offender's parents' delusions to lessen his sentence. Just look at the consequences of that stupid, uninformed decision.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

33. Comment #431083 by Peacebeuponme on November 11, 2009 at 2:20 pm

Follow Peter Egan

Actually it was the delusions of the victim's parents. Given that the victim is too young to understand theology or principles of justice, the right thing to do would be to stick to normal sentencing guidelines.

This is a sad state of affairs for those who wish for a secular society.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

34. Comment #431096 by Border Collie on November 11, 2009 at 2:51 pm

Decent article. Cults, gangs, criminals/politicians, corporations, etc., almost always refuse scrutiny. Every time I see a preacher I know, I ask them how the church business is. For some reason they always seem to get pissed off.

Other Comments by Border Collie

35. Comment #431180 by kev_s on November 11, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Jesus and Mo did this story very well:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/10/23/homo/

Other Comments by kev_s

36. Comment #431185 by Kmita on November 11, 2009 at 8:37 pm

"an indication that we take such ideas seriously."

Just as seriously as I would take a grown man believing in santa. Yes, you could say that.

Other Comments by Kmita

37. Comment #431186 by God fearing Atheist on November 11, 2009 at 8:38 pm

35. Comment #431180 by kev_s

So you're saying that as long as there are questions there will be people who pretent to know the answers

Yes - and you must respect that

and not laugh at them

I want that cartoon on a T-shirt.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

38. Comment #431211 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 11, 2009 at 9:35 pm

condescending, akin to the way you would treat children or the frail or cats.

I can use this. Looking forward to it.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

39. Comment #431212 by kev_s on November 11, 2009 at 9:36 pm

@ God fearing ... The bit I loved was the headline of the Guardian that Mo's reading "Vatican to CofE: We want your bigots"
I even went to the Guardian site to see if they really wrote that. I am a bit naive .. but I was still disappointed it wasn't real.

Other Comments by kev_s

40. Comment #431264 by j.mills on November 12, 2009 at 1:36 am

Okay, just for clarity: Peacebeuponme (#31) summarised:

16 year old boy rapes a 5 year old boy. Judge hands down lenient sentence because of his parents Christian beliefs.

5 year old gets fucked again.

The second rape was against a different victim. The parents of the first victim said they forgave the boy. (I never know what that really means, which probably proves I'm a doomed heathen.)

I have a continuing unease with the UK Government's increasing tendency towards 'focussing on the victim' in dispensing justice. It's dangerous populism, as seen here. By all means we should support victims through difficult traumas, and for all I know we may not do enough of that; but allowing them to influence sentencing is misguided: a trial is about the accused, whether the outcome is 'satisfactory' to the 'victims' or not. Murdering a tramp with no loved ones to give a damn is not automatically a lesser crime than murdering someone with a family who can speak movingly of their grief in court.

rod-the-farmer suggested (#27):

If we ever invent a time machine, I think our first goal as the human race is to travel back in time so we can identify the Abrahamic individual or group who first came up with this idea that women are second class, unclean, etc.

I already have a suspicion as to who this group was. It was men.

Seriously, it wouldn't be hard to build a case for the possessiveness of men arising from genetic imperatives. (Men can be cuckolded if not watchful, whilst women have incentives to seek different things in a parenting partner than in a biological mate; etc.) Add the concept of possession, and there ya go, the horses are running.

Other Comments by j.mills

41. Comment #431288 by Bonzai on November 12, 2009 at 5:03 am

j.s.mill

Seriously, it wouldn't be hard to build a case for the possessiveness of men arising from genetic imperatives. (Men can be cuckolded if not watchful, whilst women have incentives to seek different things in a parenting partner than in a biological mate; etc.) Add the concept of possession, and there ya go, the horses are running.

Then why don't other primates have some systems for female chastity? (not that I know of) How do you explain matrilinearity in some societies?

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #431296 by Eric Blair on November 12, 2009 at 6:30 am

rod-the-farmer: Your comments, even (apparently) in jest, about "punching the lights out" of an Orthodox Jew and travelling back in time to "selectively thin the herd" don't help the argument that religious people should accept external comment on their practices.

Most religious sects have experienced bigotry and worse - some still do - and they may be forgiven for feeling a bit thin-skinned about pulling back the curtain on their beliefs and practices.

But I have to say the theme of the article and this thread is disingenuous. How many here truly want to help Catholic women and gays become priests? Most simply want them to stop being Catholics, and believing in God altogether. The sexism/homophobia criticism is just grist to that mill...

As for the canard - and the more it is repeated, the more it is a canard - that the mainstream media treat religion with kid gloves, you will notice no comments in the NY Times blog argued that the media should avoid talking about religion (though some defended the RC practices).

Just because The Times didn't do an editorial on the topic or the media in general hasn't put it as high on the current affairs agenda doesn't mean necessarily there's a polite conspiracy to avoid talking about it. Yes, there will be some "push-back" for criticizing the Catholic church, and many media types probably feel it ain't worth it - the issues are not new and the RC tactic is a long way from success.

More to the point, any one of us could write a letter to the editor castigating the RC's move and fully expect to see it published.

Maybe that would be a better use of our time...

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

43. Comment #431301 by Bonzai on November 12, 2009 at 6:46 am

Most religious sects have experienced bigotry and worse - some still do - and they may be forgiven for feeling a bit thin-skinned about pulling back the curtain on their beliefs and practices.

Yes, but the bigotry and persecutions often come from rival religious sects justified by dogmas and taboos very similar to their own. It is all the more reason to expose religious inspired bigotry and insanity.

Having one's stupid beliefs criticised, exposed and mocked is not a form of persecution. It trivializes suffering by making the equivalence. If religious people,--whether Jews, Christians or Muslims,-- are too thin skinned for that, tough.

EDITED I also want to make a point about how language alters perceptions. If you have written 'Most cults' instead of 'Most religious sects' in the opening sentence of the paragraph cited above, it would have conveyed a different, but perhaps more accurate impression. The second sentence, that cult members can be forgiven to be thin skinned, would then sound much less convincing.

But I have to say the theme of the article and this thread is disingenuous. How many here truly want to help Catholic women and gays become priests? Most simply want them to stop being Catholics, and believing in God altogether. The sexism/homophobia criticism is just grist to that mill...

The point, I think, is not that we want to support gays or women to become priests, but to underscore the archaic, sexist and homophobic nature of Catholic dogmas and the organization itself. This is a commentary on the Catholic Church rather than a petition for gays and women to join the priesthood.

Other Comments by Bonzai

44. Comment #431304 by Follow Peter Egan on November 12, 2009 at 6:59 am

33. Comment #431083 by Peacebeuponme

Follow Peter Egan

Actually it was the delusions of the victim's parents. Given that the victim is too young to understand theology or principles of justice, the right thing to do would be to stick to normal sentencing guidelines.

This is a sad state of affairs for those who wish for a secular society.

Wow. That's somehow even worse. Why on earth should the victim's parents be deciding legal matters£

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

45. Comment #431306 by MRA on November 12, 2009 at 7:08 am

@ George Lennan - "It galls me a bit that someone who has access to a mainstream media column can say this as if it were a revelation, when the debate is already light years ahead."

That is what journalists do!

Other Comments by MRA

46. Comment #431324 by Peacebeuponme on November 12, 2009 at 9:07 am

j.mills

I have a continuing unease with the UK Government's increasing tendency towards 'focussing on the victim' in dispensing justice. It's dangerous populism, as seen here.

I agree with this. One cannot expect a victim to be in a position to dispense rational, objective justice. The case I posted is worse than that though. The victim* has not had a say here, only the victim's parents.

*Thanks for clarifying that the lenient sentencing related to the first victim, a 7 year old, and not the second.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

47. Comment #431471 by j.mills on November 12, 2009 at 9:54 pm

why don't other primates have some systems for female chastity? (not that I know of) How do you explain matrilinearity in some societies?

Bonzai (#41), flattered as I am by your anagram, I don't have the braininess to defend my claim (#40) in detail. I know there are tactics employed by some animals to prevent female infidelity, but I can't recall if that applies in primates. And my hypothesis (which is only a vague rehash of other folks' ideas) needn't be universal to have merit. (That's the handy thing about just-so stories! :) ) But Matt Ridley's all over this in The Red Queen, greatly recommended if you haven't read it. The trouble is, people tell me one thing and out the other.

Other Comments by j.mills

48. Comment #431600 by Eric Blair on November 13, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Bonzai: I'm not equating reason-based criticism and mockery of religious beliefs with bigotry (though, as I argued in an earlier post, the former will be more effective if done with some purpose).

My comment was strictly in reference to rod-the-farmer's cavalier allusions to violence, lest I seem overly sensitive on behalf of religious people. I find it a bit counter productive to say, in effect, "Come on, guys, let's talk reasonably about some of these strange beliefs you have,' and then follow up saying, "And you gotta get over this thing about women or I'll pummel you."

I share rod's aversion to religious-based sexism and homophobia and would very likely blow my top, too, in the circumstances he refers to. But that response is nothing to be proud of.

Likewise, the RC Church is fair game for lampooning. But criticizing the media for not jumping in, as they would if a business were making the same plea to employees of a competitor, strikes me as deceptive, since the media would almost certainly treat it as a human rights or labour relations matter.

If, for example, the RCs ever back off on female or gay priests, many mainstream media would hail it as a sign of progress. For atheists and secularists generally, it would be of little consequence, and perhaps even a bad move if it brought many ex-RCs back to the church.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

Reload Comments | Back to Top