1. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181842 by chezzyd on May 18, 2008 at 11:13 am

I don't see why religion should not be subsumed into history, cultural studies, philosophy etc. The thing I truly object to is the forced worship in school assemblies. When I was at school I was not allowed to opt out of religious assembly (though the Muslims and JWs got to go to the library and read) and the only religion covered in RE was Christianity. I used to call it 'Fairy Story Time'. We basically spent each lesson 're-telling' a Bible story and drawing a nice picture. I used to get 100% in my RE exams! Utterly pointless.

2. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179533 by chezzyd on May 13, 2008 at 11:22 am

"Lord, give me cheap gas. POOF. A burrito appears"

3. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #176003 by chezzyd on May 6, 2008 at 10:41 am

Human beings crave certainty. A bad explanation is preferred over no explanation. It's all so sad...

the greatest irony is found in Jon Stewart's words, "Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion."

4. Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith

Comment #175987 by chezzyd on May 6, 2008 at 10:20 am

I have some personal experience of JW's as one of my best friends was one and another good friend and her husband are still in it. I am a lifelong atheist but we have all got on well for over 10 years now. I think when I met them they were perhaps 'rebelling' or simply kept it to themselves. Definitely far bigger partiers/drinkers than me.
Friend A, had started rebelling as a teen, she wanted to party and had felt very restricted by the church. I don't think she has ever left 'officially' but is now married to an atheist. She is still close to her parents who are in the church but who have accepted her choice and choose not to make a big issue about it. I am not worried about her at all. In fact her influence is being felt as her sister is now talking about leaving too (her husband slept with their 16 year old babysitter and got her pregnant - he was 'disfellowshipped' for a while but let back in - even though he was still cheating and owed money). She eventually divorced him. Life has been hard for her but easy for him, he makes little effort with his kids and has suffered no ill effects for his actions at all. She wonders how this could be if she has done what God wants and he hasn't. In fact of all the siblings, Friend A is the only one still married, the others are all divorced, having gotten married very much younger than my friend.

Friend B and her husband are lovely people too - but they seem to have gone the other way the last few years. We've always had to agree to disagree about their views on gay people 'choosing a sinful lifestyle', other than that and the birthdays/Xmas thing, not too much of an issue. However she has had 2 ectopic pregnancies, almost died because of 1 of them and now she is over 40, is unlikely to ever have children. Strangely, before her op to remove a fallopian tube she boned up on alternatives and had to insist strongly that she got those. Blood is not the only solution it appears. It was terrible having to watch her suffer from the sidelines, it must have been awful. I really believe that she saw it as some kind of punishment from God for past 'liberalisms'. She is now doing the door to door stuff and I see her much less than I used to. She has also qualified as a counsellor - I asked her how she would cope if someone came in and talked about being gay or having an abortion etc. She didn't really have a good answer for that which worried me. One evening we got into a discussion about evolution, something we'd never really done before. I was horrified when she and her husband said they believed in the literal truth of Genesis & Noah's Ark. They also said they 'knew all about Darwin and evolution' - yet betrayed the source of this 'knowledge' when they started spouting the 'we don't come from monkeys' line and 'I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog'. It didn't get nasty or too heated but we certainly reached an impass. It didn't matter what I said, they just didn't see it - and they couldn't see how I could believe in the 'religion' of Darwinism. It's weird, they are so normal and lovely people in most ways but they see the world through a particular filter. Against that, how can you really compete? It's not as if they are unintelligent, far from it, but they seem to have compartmentalised part of their brain. Telling them that sometimes shit just happens and what happened to them was just unlucky rather than divinely ordained I can see would offer no comfort to them as an alternative: maybe in such a situation I can even understand why a negative reason is better than someting happening for no reason at all. But it seems this bad experience has become a stick to beat themselves up with. I bet the church elders happily gave them the stick too.

Sorry for the long, rambling post but this is something very personal to me and I can really feel for what these ex-JW's have been through having seen some of it with my own eyes. It also has given me a real insight to the way the religious mind works - how otherwise intelligent people can be completely blinkered in this area of their lives. It is very scary.

5. Museums teach society lacking in science literacy

Comment #172807 by chezzyd on April 30, 2008 at 5:38 am

PJG

"Our little boy (having not been to the Creation Museum in many months) described details of the museum - the brachiosaurus in the lobby that moves his head 'like this' (as our son demonstrated with his hand), and the planetarium where our 'seats went back to look at the stars on the ceiling.'"

6. Science leads to killing people

Comment #172435 by chezzyd on April 29, 2008 at 2:54 pm

So Ben Stein doesn't like the idea we're all 'specks of mud struck by lightning'?? but isn't that what God did??

Moron...

7. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #167044 by chezzyd on April 23, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Bluff_King_hal is correct - I did a little studying of the Malleus Maleficarum at Uni. One story included a witch who stole men's penises and hid them in a bird's nest - which of course several 'eyewitnesses' confirmed, sending the poor woman to her doom.... I suspect this was just the perfect excuse to get rid of someone you didn't like, or who wouldn't sleep with you. Just make up some weird and wonderful story, tell the local mad monk or cleric, then sit back and watch the show. Ahhh you couldn't make this stuff up. This story is definite evidence that medieval is the right word to describe some parts of the world.

8. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165832 by chezzyd on April 22, 2008 at 12:43 pm

I am not surprised this issue keeps coming up. People whose lives have centred around belief, dogma and church etc cannot conceive of anything else. Quite simply they just don't get it. The only positive I can say about it is that if it pulls people away from Bronze-Age religious dogma in a safe fashion then I have no issue with it. Sure, have a Humanist 'Church', sing songs and eat scones with your pals. So long as the group isn't pushing creationism in science class, bamboozling little old ladies out of cash, indoctrinating children with visions of eternal torment, blocking condom use in Africa, blowing people up or praying to a sky fairy etc etc who cares? Maybe it is a stepping stone that some people need - not everyone finds change easy.

9. The Atheist Next Door

Comment #156967 by chezzyd on April 8, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Actually I think this is one of the kinder, more balanced reports I've seen on US news. Maybe the tide is turning? Maybe the consciousness raising that Richard, Sam et al have been doing is starting to filter through??

10. CEAI Action Alert for Science Teachers

Comment #154620 by chezzyd on April 3, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I love the way people like this can write such twaddle with a straight face and without irony. It's ALMOST funny... No-one this dumb should be allowed to teach science in a classroom. I notice how, yet again, the focus is on stating that evolution is a 'lie' without giving one shred of evidence to demonstrate this or offering evidence of a 'better' solution. This person should be SACKED for being the worst science teacher since... well... ever..

11. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153145 by chezzyd on April 1, 2008 at 5:49 am

When I read about things like this, I always think of the saying my Nan used to repeat when us kids were arguing.... "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me". I think of that even when I feel disgusted and offended by homophobes, neo-Nazis, Mullahs, politicians et al. As long as what they are saying is their opinion, people should be free to say what they like - and if they are telling lies then we already have laws about that: libel and slander. As soon as someone reacts to words with violence then they have lost the argument.
Muslims have the right to be offended at the things some people say - but they don't have the right to gag us or assault us. And vice versa. I am not saying it would be a good idea to go into Harlem and shout the 'N' word - but if that led to an attack that would still make the attacker the one guilty of a crime. You can ignore what people say, you can say something back and you can choose to NOT say something simply out of common courtesy and manners. To me it is a very simple concept. As humans we have to learn that we have to be able to take it as well as dish it out. I think freedom of speech is truly the definition of civilisation and the grandest idea ever to be dreamt up by human beings. And though it might sound hypocritical after what I've just said, it is the one thing I WOULD fight for. How do we make our voices heard (while we are still allowed to)??? Is it time to stop being cats that can't be herded, swallow our pride and actually align ourselves to some kind of ideology, like humanism???

12. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150211 by chezzyd on March 26, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Happy Birthday to you
Happy Birthday to you
Happy Biiirthdaaay dear Riiicchhaaard
Happy Birthday to you!

13. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102543 by chezzyd on December 23, 2007 at 7:28 am

I've said this before but I will say it again.. TB may be a religious man, but I did not see much, if any, evidence at all that his religion pushed him into making particular decisions as PM. The man was fervently pro-Civil partnerships and gay rights (and stood up to the Catholics' demands for 'exemptions'), he is pro-stem cell research and abortion rights, believes in evolution and managed to broker peace in Northern Ireland. So can we be certain he was really 'taking dictation' from Bush or God over Iraq?? A leader who dilly-dallies is seen as weak and we all know it. Whatever you think about that, none of us were in his position and he has certainly taken his share of flak ever since. What I DON'T understand is that a man as intelligent as he undoubtedly is, can be that religious at all. Same with Cherie - top Human Rights lawyer but part of a religion that condemns condom use in the fight against AIDS, which I am sure she does not condone. Is this compartmentalisation at work?? I find it truly bizarre. What worries me right now is how this will be seen in his role as Middle East peace envoy - might it be fuel on the fire - or give him the ability to talk as a fellow 'man of the book'? I just don't know.

14. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92331 by chezzyd on November 30, 2007 at 9:56 am

I have to say that for once I don't agree with Dawkins on this. I can see what he's getting at and I agree with most in principle.. But I thought the way he described Ingrid Tarrant was disgraceful. Chris Tarrant showed her a great deal of disrespect by doing what he did, he lied, he broke vows that he made, humiliated her in public with his glib comments and potentially exposed her to STD's. It is that aspect that I object to, not the principle of non-monogamy. If Tarrant wanted to screw around then he could have been honest and given her the choice whether to accept or not. But he didn't. And I wonder how he'd have reacted if it had been the other way around? For better or worse, the human animal is complex and we make emotional and physical committments to other people. Whether those committments last or what form they take is one thing, how you treat people is something else.

15. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89297 by chezzyd on November 20, 2007 at 8:24 am

Personally I am wondering who in the West Midlands police has a blindly pro-Islamist agenda.... The way they have gone about this is unprecedented - I want to know who made the decision to go after Channel 4 this way, what their 'justification' was and why they have kept quiet since the ruling.....

16. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78373 by chezzyd on October 12, 2007 at 2:50 pm

So science can tell us what will happen if we give someone poisoned tea but not whether it is morally wrong? Oh really? Well I don't remember reading anything in The Bible that was vaguely moral - in fact the Bible would likely be supportive of poisoning Granny - especially if she was a filthy infidel or didn't sacrifice enough goats.

17. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #76606 by chezzyd on October 6, 2007 at 12:26 pm

'If God's balls banged together he would become Thor'...... Oh that's brilliant - made me choke on my custard cream.... It may be repetitive but repetition is necessary to start generating new memes... and nice for Richard to get a sympathetic interviewer for a change rather than some dumb Christian apologist. Hooray!!

18. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75628 by chezzyd on October 3, 2007 at 6:54 am

I agree with Sam that the term 'atheist' is problematic - we don't say non-astrologer etc etc. It doesn't negate belief in God, it sets up belief or non-belief in God as its central precept. I think this gives theism rather too much credence. The fact is that as 'atheists' religion and God are irrelevant in our lives not the centre of it. I much prefer the more positive and less specific term of humanist - which puts us in the here and now at the centre and puts the onus on us, not a god, to make life better for all. If I describe myself as a humanist, people generally ask what I mean by that. If I say 'atheist' immediate assumptions are made, or I get accused of having 'just another religion'. That kind of ignorance follows the term atheist around. I do think a label of some kind makes it easier to identify common goals and communicate ideas but I hope for the day when this is not necessary. I admire Sam for choosing to say something challenging - I thought that was what 'we' as a community were all about. The fact that there appears to have been a strong reaction to this idea suggests to me, worryingly, that dogmatism might be starting to creep in to the atheist 'movement' - which opens up a whole new area of concern for me. Hitchens and Dawkins disagree about the term 'Brights' but that doesn't make them the heads of different 'splinter' groups, we should remember that.

19. San Diego Diocese Settles Lawsuit for $200 Million

Comment #68793 by chezzyd on September 8, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I'm curious as to whether the victims of the abuse still believe in God/attend church.....

20. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67609 by chezzyd on September 4, 2007 at 2:23 am

Dr Benway on September 3, 2007 at 7:39 pm

"I ask a person, what's your support system? Who do you call when you're feeling down? If a religious group is part of that, and if it's not driving the patient crazy, I'm glad it's there. It sucks to be depressed. Any source of human kindness is welcome"

Though personally I think that religious groups often prey on vulnerable people and have them blaming all kinds of things for their illness except the fact that it's an illness and needs treatment. If anything using religion as a crutch is more likely to drive you crazy. Human kindness from any source is one thing, convincing someone that believing in a Sky Fairy will solve all their problems is something else..

21. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67608 by chezzyd on September 4, 2007 at 2:15 am

Prime Numbers : "I think the very existance of Muslims is offensive"

Islam the belief system is open to ridicule, but individual Muslims are another proposition altogether. Remember, the more ignorant ones have either been brainwashed since birth and many others are too scared to say what they really think. There are many good Muslim people, despite the teachings of their religion. So instead of the apologies or resounding silences we are getting from our governments on this issue, we should be strongly defending secularism and freedom of expression so that dissenters can speak. Our freedom IS something worth fighting for!! Just ask the brave people who fought Hitler.

22. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67380 by chezzyd on September 3, 2007 at 7:04 am

Oh - and I noticed a poster comment that there seems to be no way to post a riposte to this article...

So if anyone else was wondering how to contact Yasmin, her email address is:

y.alibhai-brown@independent.co.uk


;-)

23. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67366 by chezzyd on September 3, 2007 at 6:14 am

I don't know why these people feel so threatened by what is no more than a dissenting opinion expressing scepticism at a belief about the way the world works. What's the problem?

RD has expressed many times he has no beef with nice, kindly, peaceful religious types who don't try to push creationism in schools, block stem cell research, deny equal rights to gays or blow themselves up. He has also made it clear that he has some affinity with the Einsteinian, pantheistic view of religion. So where do religious people get off telling us that WE are dogmatic and fundamentalist? Where do they get off putting words in Dawkins mouth? Or thinking that they have a monopoly on 'spirituality' and feelings of awe and wonder?

The arrogance and stupidity of this article is beyond me - she obviously has not read Dawkins' book yet feels qualified to not only misrepresent it but to put words in all our mouths. Astonishing. And this is a so-called religious MODERATE!!!!

24. Rational Atheism

Comment #65027 by chezzyd on August 22, 2007 at 5:01 pm

I do not understand some of the more overtly negative responses to Shermer's article. I don't like the use of the word 'militant' but I do agree that if the world is to make any progress at all the carrot rather than the stick approach is going to work better for the majority. Remember, theists have been raised that way, brainwashed. Imagine how you might feel if someone was telling you that your most cherished beliefs were all bullshit and that you were dumb for thinking it. Some will simply get defensive - it is human nature not to want to appear a fool and to want to defend your beliefs and your family. Yes, atheists should stand up for their rights, respond to theist attempts to erode our rights or our education - but we do not have to lower ourselves to name-calling and playground tactics - we are better than that! And we are trying to show that atheism is a real and preferable alternative to theism. The trickle effect of consciousness raising that people like Dawkins have started, is starting to work. Look how much atheists are being mentioned in the news, how many kids are doing the Blasphemy Challenge on YouTube, how many ex-theists are in Converts Corner? We might know that theists are deluded, dumb, brainwashed etc - but they are still human beings and we want them to WANT to let go of religion not drag them kicking and screaming. Carrot, not stick....

25. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57145 by chezzyd on July 18, 2007 at 11:47 am

A long article - but wonderfully engaging and really made me think. I can see why Professor Dawkins admires and misses him so much..

26. LA Church 'agrees abuse pay deal'

Comment #56495 by chezzyd on July 16, 2007 at 3:25 am

As an alternative point: I would be interested to know how many of the survivors of this abuse still believe in God and the Church.

27. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56344 by chezzyd on July 15, 2007 at 6:54 am

16. Comment #56247 by NormanDoering on July 14, 2007 at 3:44 pm

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

NormanDoering - I checked out the blogger you mentioned and you are right, it is sick and twisted - sorry, I don't think I could better it... I was especially concerned at the entry that talked about obsessive stalking and harrassment of a non-religious German family who commit the crime of not mowing their lawn and showing affection in public. The way the blogger talks about them is very scary - almost deranged. The worst thing is, they don't even sound like a lone oddball, sounds like systematic, community-led bullying. Brrrrr..... creepy...

28. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #55577 by chezzyd on July 11, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Contrary to some others here, I actually like this video and the guy's delivery! It's like the Sesame Street version of logic - even faith heads should be able to understand it!!!!

29. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53954 by chezzyd on July 4, 2007 at 11:06 am

The US Govt has perpetrated some pretty bad things to protect its own interests - like all major powers do.. But I have to say, if it came down to it - I'd rather they were in power than the Mullahs.

30. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51325 by chezzyd on June 22, 2007 at 11:00 am

I actually agree with school uniform as it removes differences between pupils and encourages treating others as equals first instead of being judged always by what you are wearing, how much it costs etc. Also it prepares you for the outside world where wearing whatever you want to a job interview, for example, would not send out the right signal. I agree with the French system that bans ALL outwardly religious symbols. Religion and culture is becoming ever more integrated, i.e. where you are born dictates what you have to think/believe. At least the French system allows some space between the two. The ring can be put back on again outside the school gates - plus if you really believe something do you need to make such a public show of it, or is it, in the case of this girl, something that pleases Daddy in making sure his little girl remains 'chaste'? And as some others have noted, why aren't the boys wearing them?

31. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #51320 by chezzyd on June 22, 2007 at 10:47 am

Robert Maynard

Your post is sublime...... Maybe Professor Dawkins could make use of it in order to shut up people like O'Reilly.

32. Call for 'post-9/11' RE teaching

Comment #50466 by chezzyd on June 18, 2007 at 10:14 am

I think Religious Education should be scrapped and included instead in something like 'Philosophy & Ethics' where *all* religions and philosophies can be examined and discussed.

33. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49364 by chezzyd on June 11, 2007 at 4:08 pm

"Dunno. In many animals, competitive violence is largely symbolic. Male strength is like the peacock's tail: more pretty than necessary. The difference between the sexes isn't so much due to Brutus' ability to overpower females. It's the females who are selecting strong male mates."

->Oh Dr Benway, surely you don't mean that? As far as I understand it, the threat of violence is at least as powerful as actual violence. And besides is it not implicit that whomever wins the posturing/fighting amongst the males their automatic 'prize' is access to females? Doesn't sound much like of a choice to me. Of course there are species where this is not the case, I'm thinking of birds etc but in the larger mammals I'd definitely say pretty peacock feathers don't have much of a say in matters!

"Vive la difference, non?"

-> I'd happily agree with you if difference did not bring prejudice or disadvantage with it. I've always liked to think of women and men as yin and yang, that one needs/complements the other. Shame this is not actually practiced in real life.

"Brutus is easily murdered in his sleep, by the way."

-> If you want to be a murderer of course. Again in reality this just leads to accusations of cold, premeditated murder, rather than a sudden uncontrollable fit of passion or rage which gets you manslaughter or temporary insanity. Killing with your bare hands is one thing, reaching for a weapon is something else!!!

34. A Quote Against Theocracy

Comment #49269 by chezzyd on June 11, 2007 at 8:40 am

It's funny but I adored the Narnia books as a kid and like another poster above did not get the Christian allegory either. I do remember thinking how lovely Aslan sounded though and that he came far closer to what I imagined God/Jesus might be than anything in the Bible, which was being pushed down my throat at that time. I could happily enjoy Aslan, alongside Aesop, Homer and Jonah's Whale but when someone told me the Bible stories were true, I laughed, even at age 8. I didn't get all the punishment, the asses and sacrifices, all the thees, thys and begats. Let alone trying to work out how Adam and Eve populated the earth with just them and one remaining son... eeeuuuwwww.... Who can believe this stuff?? I read somewhere that Aslan was meant as a 'gateway' to pave the way to Christianity. But this was not the case for me as I never took any of these stories literally. The only distinction I made was between fantasy and reality! Poor Christians, I do not comprehend the way your minds work! It must be like being stuck in childhood.

35. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49267 by chezzyd on June 11, 2007 at 8:16 am

Dr Benway

'Mother Nature plays her tricks on us'

LOL - yes she does... And immediately I am tempted to ask why we naturally (and I include myself in this) assign an anthropmorphic identity to something like nature. Sigh..

I agree completely, that some people have their 'thing' and there doesn't seem to be much you can do about it and that to try to ascribe a 'moral' or 'immoral' or 'natural' or 'unnatural' status to these games is somewhat pointless. We all have fun in our own ways - and I have no problem with that at all.

But back to the point - to be honest I was really talking less about fetishes and more about the general condition that seems to prevail under what could be considered biological 'norms' that men are stronger and therefore must be dominant/superior and can enforce such a position through violence and that this is echoed in societies throughout time - including today. I sometimes wonder if, as human animals, we will ever be able to escape this. Not unless we can create artificial wombs or something. It seems to me that the female role of childbearer is the single thing that keeps her subjugated and compels to men to control her to protect their own biological inheritance. Everything else: resource grabbing, territorial pissing (with nuclear weapons instead of clubs) is simply an extension of that. Basically, I am asking - are we kidding ourselves? And even if we get rid of the need for a sky-fairy, will we simply need to find another 'opiate of the masses' (or have we found one already - called television?)?

Hmm.. maybe a big question for a Monday afternoon - but that's just the way my mind works I'm afraid!!!

36. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #49256 by chezzyd on June 11, 2007 at 7:24 am

I don't think Dawkins' tone is at all like fingernails on a chalkboard. In fact I find him very reasonable, polite, forthright and witty. If I ever hear Dawkins screaming about religious types burning in some Atheist hell I will change my opinion. Maybe the writer simply doesn't understand Dawkins' humour or style. Maybe it's a Brit thing.

37. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #49255 by chezzyd on June 11, 2007 at 7:17 am

I don't agree with this teacher's views at all, and I hope the case got thrown out. However I do object to the rather nasty anti-woman comments on this page that serve no purpose whatsoever, such as 'Stupid bitch' and quoting 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Think before you write please or be accused of the same kind of breathtaking prejudice and inanity you despise in religious folk.

38. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #49252 by chezzyd on June 11, 2007 at 7:03 am

A truly horrifying story. I would also recommend 'Princess' by Jean Sasson. What disturbs me most is not just the psychological impact that such repression has on women there but the complicity of Western govts in supporting such a regime. 17 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and Saudi has an even worse human rights record than Iraq - yet who got bombed? The sooner the oil runs out the better. Funnily enough it was women's rights groups in the US that stalled the original attempt to build the Afghan pipeline and objected to talks in Texas with the Taliban. Voila now there is a pipeline. It seems that the West places little more value on female life than the Taliban.

39. Dobson and John MacArthur fantasize about the downfall of America

Comment #49250 by chezzyd on June 11, 2007 at 6:45 am

Yawn yawn - mention lesbian sex and look at all the infantile comments.

Why is lesbian sex 'ok'? Because men get off on it. Why is gay male sex not ok? Because men feel threatened by it. So here we are back to the same old same old. Mention sex and it's always a man-centred world. Now take a look at the article called 'manliness next to godliness'. It's nothing to do with religion. Religion is simply the stick used to beat people with. Always has been. What we are seeing right now is the stick used by patriarchy. Which has never been good news for women: lesbian or otherwise.

Personally, I don't give a flying monkey who sleeps with whom.

40. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49246 by chezzyd on June 11, 2007 at 6:22 am

I agree with Haakon, my first reaction was Tom Cruise in Magnolia aswell! And with Jesus 'on their side' who knows what kind of acts they could justify to themselves? Are we seeing the start of an American Taliban? Isn't it strange how ideas about 'masculinity' often involve violence ('hey Jesus trashed a temple, so can we!') which is only one step away from 'do as you're told bitch - Jesus says so!'?
I do not think this is a purely Christian/religious problem though - this issue is out there already, religion or not. Being a man should mean more than simply 'blowing crap up', disliking the colour pink and leaving the toilet seat up. Maybe it is time for men to reimagine what it means to be a man? Men have envisioned most of the great advances our species has ever made. But is being that kind of man seen as a bad strategy for 'getting' women much in the same way that women torture themselves over the size of their breasts or act girlie so as not to appear too threatening? Men have a lot of power in this world, unfortunately often in the arms of religious clerics and at the expense of women. But did this come about simply as an expression of the 'natural order' of things? When I read the story about the lady working in Saudi Arabia it reconfirmed to me how ingrained gender biases are, even in the West. I cannot fathom how Saudi Arabian men can be happy being how they are, seeing such misery around them - but they seem to be! Why? Are we just slaves to old habits? Is biology really destiny? Can men and women ever be truly equal? Surely on a forum like this, where advancing the human condition through science, reason and respect instead of Bronze Age prejudices is a main topic, this could and should include consciously discussing and advocating a masculinity that does not base itself around violence, dominance or perpetual infantilism. Or even ask ourselves if this is truly possible (I am thinking Lord Of The Flies now). I'd like to know what everyone thinks about this.