Fighting religion's sexism with religious feminisn- Reza Aslan

[Dr_Liszt]

So I've been hearing a lot of his interviews lately and he seems a very rational and extremely smart guy. And he said that religion's numbers are getting higher, mainly because religion is a tool that helps you understand your place in the world and your relation/connection with the universe, it will never go away and it shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. So instead of fighting the prejudices within the religion by focusing on eliminating religion, we should use that same religion as a tool to fight those prejudices.

I have never thought of it before. What do you think??


ALSO, I POST ON MY OWN TERMS! SUCK IT UP!

[Anakin McFly]

Yes.

[Derived Absurdity]

From what I know of Reza Aslan he seems to be a bullshit artist.

Also that idea seems to be rougly simlar to Alain de Bottom's "religion for atheists" idea. Just keep and enhance all the positive qualities of religion while eliminating all the negatives. Use it to enhance community and personal well-being and whatnot.

[Dr_Liszt]

Bullshit artist? I don't get it.

[Derived Absurdity]

He's dishonest. There was a video of him talking about female genital mutilation and oppression in Islamic countries and virtually every single thing he said was provably false. Which is too bad, because he was rebuffing Bill Maher's racism and Islamophobia, but he was lying about everything he was talking about. There are lots of other instances of people catching him on lies.

I haven't read his books though. He might have good intentions but I don't have much patience for people who choose to lie and trivialize problems in order to push an agenda.

[Dr_Liszt]

Well that is... disappointing.

I guess he was trying to point out that the islamic problem is a cultural problem, which I agree. Muslims take their religion waaaay too seriously and that's mostly because of their culture.

[Derived Absurdity]

It is disappointing. I thought he was a good guy for a while. He might still be, I don't know. I just know he lies a lot. But you know, lots of people lie sometimes and they're still worth listening to. Even Noam Chomsky sometimes spins and manipulates things, yet he's still one of my heroes.

I didn't get the impression that was what he was trying to do. Mostly what I remember is him simply making a factual statement like "X is that" and then a bunch of other people saying "No, actually, X is not that at all" and them turning out to be completely right. It happened a lot. I could give some examples but I don't remember anything specific right now, and it's all over the Internet anyway.

But back to OP, did he give any specific ideas on how to use religion to fight religious prejudices? 'Cause that still might be a good idea. Like I said, Alaine de Bottom has an idea on that - he's written a whole book about it, which I thought was really good.

[Dr_Liszt]

Yeah I guess. I confess I have exaggerated certain events or news when I make my points. I think it comes across as wanting to push your worldview and it's a lesson that if I can do it, anyone and anything can be manipulated to push an agenda.

But no, he was mostly smacking the New Atheists and just made that point. But didn't get through the hows or why's. I've never heard of Alaine de Bottom, that books sounds interesting. Might get it and read it. (illegally! Wait, I never do that! )

[Derived Absurdity]

This is a really good article on it.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2012 ... evers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ptolemy_Banana]

Well that is... disappointing.

I guess he was trying to point out that the islamic problem is a cultural problem, which I agree. Muslims take their religion waaaay too seriously and that's mostly because of their culture.

If taking the religion seriously makes it a problem, then surely the religion is the problem, no?

[Dr_Liszt]

Well that is... disappointing.

I guess he was trying to point out that the islamic problem is a cultural problem, which I agree. Muslims take their religion waaaay too seriously and that's mostly because of their culture.

If taking the religion seriously makes it a problem, then surely the religion is the problem, no?

Not really.

If you look at the highly religious countries, you'll see something interesting, and that is what they all share in common is that they are wealthy in resources controlled by foreign interests, like Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Brunei, Iran, etc, etc. even Latin America where Christianity is very dominant.

So what happens is that religion becomes a form of population control. That's what theocracies are in essence, population control. It's not a religious or spiritual problem, is a power control problem. Muslim countries have been a target of foreign powers for centuries and centuries and centuries so it's no surprise that their leaders will want to keep their population in check. Sure you can blame the tenets of a religion, but remove the religion and the powers will only find another way to control or manipulate their population. Derived's thread on SNL skit just shows how the west manipulates their population, instead of using religion they use the whole "saviors of the world! we protect free speech! we want world peace!" bullshit.

[Ptolemy_Banana]

Not really.

If you look at the highly religious countries, you'll see something interesting, and that is what they all share in common is that they are wealthy in resources controlled by foreign interests, like Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Brunei, Iran, etc, etc. even Latin America where Christianity is very dominant.

What resources is Latin America wealthy in?

So what happens is that religion becomes a form of population control. That's what theocracies are in essence, population control. It's not a religious or spiritual problem, is a power control problem. Muslim countries have been a target of foreign powers for centuries and centuries and centuries so it's no surprise that their leaders will want to keep their population in check. Sure you can blame the tenets of a religion, but remove the religion and the powers will only find another way to control or manipulate their population. Derived's thread on SNL skit just shows how the west manipulates their population, instead of using religion they use the whole "saviors of the world! we protect free speech! we want world peace!" bullshit.

I'm finding it difficult to follow the point you're making here. Is religious fundamentalism seen as a good thing or bad thing by the leaders in Muslim countries? Are they using it in opposition to or in support of the west? And what does it mean when the powers that be in that part of the world are overthrown by fundamentalist factions?

[Dr_Liszt]

What resources is Latin America wealthy in?

Ummm... gold, niquel, titanium, uranium, fruit, energy (hidro plants, biodiesel, oil... etc). Those resources get exploited and sold by foreign transnational enterprises. It's very likely that the raw materials used to make your cellphone came from here. Really, it's like you don't know how globalization works!

Our internal fruit market is dead. But that's a different story. I don't blame transnationals for this, that much anyway.

m finding it difficult to follow the point you're making here. Is religious fundamentalism seen as a good thing or bad thing by the leaders in Muslim countries?

Good thing. Anything that restricts freedom will always be good for those who hold the power.

Are they using it in opposition to or in support of the west?

In support. The west needs population control as much as the leaders of those countries.

And what does it mean when the powers that be in that part of the world are overthrown by fundamentalist factions?

Depends on the scenario. Syria, Libya and possibly Egypt was a move that the U.S and E.U did to destroy the gold dinar.
Iran was a similar story.
Also all of Latin America.

And note that religion became powerful AFTER those interventions. In my country who was sailing on a progressive path succumbed to the Opus Dei and fundamentalist evangelism after the intervention.

[sikax]

I like that guy. Read a couple of his books. I agree with the sentiment of, um, compassion over cynicism. Like, duh.

[Ptolemy_Banana]

What resources is Latin America wealthy in?

Ummm... gold, niquel, titanium, uranium, fruit, energy (hidro plants, biodiesel, oil... etc). Those resources get exploited and sold by foreign transnational enterprises. It's very likely that the raw materials used to make your cellphone came from here. Really, it's like you don't know how globalization works!

Our internal fruit market is dead. But that's a different story. I don't blame transnationals for this, that much anyway.

I don't think Latin American countries are major producers of any of the things you list, except fruit, and oil in the case of Venezuela. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that your resources are being exploited by multi-national companies and I'm well aware of how globalization works. I just don't see direct parallels with the oil-producing countries of the middle-east, which are genuinely resource-wealthy and use that resource to maintain power, other than that in both cases the majority of people are poor, and to focus strictly on that seems extremely simplistic to me.

Good thing. Anything that restricts freedom will always be good for those who hold the power.

And religion restricts freedom?

In support. The west needs population control as much as the leaders of those countries.

So the West benefits from fomenting anti-western sentiment?

Depends on the scenario. Syria, Libya and possibly Egypt was a move that the U.S and E.U did to destroy the gold dinar.
Iran was a similar story.
Also all of Latin America.

And note that religion became powerful AFTER those interventions. In my country who was sailing on a progressive path succumbed to the Opus Dei and fundamentalist evangelism after the intervention.

Now we've wandered into the realm of conspiracy theory.

[Dr_Liszt]

I don't think Latin American countries are major producers of any of the things you list, except fruit, and oil in the case of Venezuela. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that your resources are being exploited by multi-national companies and I'm well aware of how globalization works. I just don't see direct parallels with the oil-producing countries of the middle-east, which are genuinely resource-wealthy and use that resource to maintain power, other than that in both cases the majority of people are poor, and to focus strictly on that seems extremely simplistic to me.

Because we don't produce it, our resources get extracted so other countries can produce it. It'd be a different story if we were to actually keep it and actually produce it. I can't remember how much Montana makes on Guatemalan soil, but it's something like 2.2 billion a year. That's 2.2 billion euros we give away to Canada, and that's only ONE corporation. Africa shares the same problems we do. Basically it's the consequences that were set since colonization.

Also, think of me next time you drink Starbucks. Think of all the people who live with 1 dollar a day while you sit there with your ridiculous overpriced coffee.

And religion restricts freedom?

No. Power does. Didn't you read my point?

So the West benefits from fomenting anti-western sentiment?

Yes.

Now you're just spouting conspiracy theories.

Surely you don't think that the CIA declassified documents and cables made public in wikileaks are conspiracies written by them? Or how does that work according to you?

[Dr_Liszt]

This is a really good article on it.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2012 ... evers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok, I read it. Yeah, I can agree with the book. Did you read it?

[Derived Absurdity]

Yes. It's good.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

If you look at the highly religious countries, you'll see something interesting, and that is what they all share in common is that they are wealthy in resources controlled by foreign interests, like Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Brunei, Iran, etc, etc. even Latin America where Christianity is very dominant.

Yeah - I'm not sure I agree with this from a cause and effect perspective.. The one thing I notice most highly religious countries have in common is high levels of poverty - poor social nets and an inefficient education system. I don't doubt that the controls that come into play by enforcing a more fundamentalist view of religion is convenience and probably protected - but this also happens in first world countries with poor social security nets like America which is far more religious (particularly fundamentalist religions) than just about any other first world country I can think of with more robust social security provisions.

So _ I find this to be a more compelling reason why people turn to more narrow, less liberal versions of their religion and this is where the actual quality of the religion comes into play (poverty and a lack of education/prospects translates into fear and ignorance and that's the field were religions bloom). I don't think Islam is intrinsically progressive, I do think its intrinsically misogynistic, homophobic etc . I also think this is true of all Abrahamic faiths so that a fundamentalist Muslim looks much like a fundamentalist Christian - the difference in how it all manifests is directly related to their respective power position on a global scale.

Globalization effects rich and poor countries in much the same way. Manufacturing goes to the cheapest bidder and more often than not, this works against first world countries that have stricter EPA or OHS standards than developing nations. We are about as first world as a nation can get and as a result, to we have high standards of Pay, work conditions and pollution controls that price us out of the manufacturing game .. but we have resources - loads of them, probably one of the wealthiest nations in the world resource wise.. So our iron, copper, uranium, gold .. tin, zinc, aluminium, coal gets dug out of the ground here, manufactured into cars - electronics - other goods in China and sold back to us with all the margins being made by global concerns.. and we're not even a little bit religious.

[Dr_Liszt]

Yeah poverty because any source of wealth, including professionals, get extracted from the country. It all goes hand in hand.

You can't really compare the deal of your resources with the deals that are done over here! From all Latin America I think Chile is the only one with a decent deal in Globalization. Sorry if I don't make sense, I've had migraines all day. I'll be going to bed soon. English sucks!

Thing is white country australia, people like it more than countries filled with mayans, there's no comparison. What was this thread about again? Oh religion! Yeah, religion is dominant in poverty so I agree with Reza that changing the philosophy of said religion is a better way to go than the complete elimination some atheists vouch for, because like he said, humans will tend to go for spirituality, whether we like it or not.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

You can't really compare the deal of your resources with the deals that are done over here! From all Latin America I think Chile is the only one with a decent deal in Globalization

No doubt, but getting into the specifics would be reasonably complicated. My real point was Globalization without strict global agreements in place to level the playing field is not doing anyone any real favours.. even if we make decent money off the initial deal.

But the specific point I wanted to make was with regards to this

If taking the religion seriously makes it a problem, then surely the religion is the problem, no?

Which leads to this

so I agree with Reza that changing the philosophy of said religion is a better way to go than the complete elimination some atheists vouch for, because like he said, humans will tend to go for spirituality, whether we like it or not.

Which is where I disagree with Reza. The problem is related to poverty and why people turn to religion and apply them in a strict sense rather than a liberal one .. but its also with the religions themselves and what happens when you take them seriously as opposed to a more watered down version of the same. Abrahamic religions are inherently misogynistic in a great many ways which Reza kinda glosses over by pointing to say - Muslim countries with female leaders, he almost never actually addresses more specific, harder to find great examples of Muslim countries that treat homosexuality well and even in well heeled countries with good solid even distributions of wealth, poor treatment of certain groups can most likely be traced back to what the prevailing religions have to say about those groups.

So, while I don't identify as a "New Atheist" demanding the eradication of all religion, I also don't believe that what specific religions have to say on specific social issues is irrelevant and I do believe they work greatly to influence the prevailing culture. Islamic beliefs along with Jewish and Christian are all damaging to different degrees in different ways in different contexts and while people believe these things are God breathed - they will always resist external or internal change. Having said that - I do agree that if you remove religion - something else will take its place given people seem to need some sort of structure or greater meaning in their lives. Maybe we should attempt to replace these Abrahamic faiths with something less prescriptive like Buddhism ? .. Who knows.

The book DA was referring to here

Alaine de Bottom has an idea on that - he's written a whole book about it, which I thought was really good.

**edit** just clicked on the link and .. guess I was right. Haven't read thru the whole blurb but I seem to remember the book reasonably well from what I can see. essentially - its not about changing religions from the inside but rather - co-opt what works and make that work for people who don't believe.. anyways ..carry on

If I am guessing right, was called "Religion for Atheists" or something - I read it a couple of years ago.
It's very good and sort of speaks to your last statement. Essentially, religion provides certain things that people crave, like social inclusion (being a part of a community) supports this with things like attending mass and sharing idea's .. Churches are built to humble us and these communities encourage people to talk about bigger issues than who's got the biggest tellie etc .. and that as atheists, we do not benefit from these things that we are programmed to benefit from as social beings .. so, why not take from religion all these things that people seem to need but remove the actual belief from it so it becomes a more human, inclusive activity.

Its interesting but - it doesn't speak exactly to this issue without first moving people away from actual religious thought I think.

[Ptolemy_Banana]

I don't think Latin American countries are major producers of any of the things you list, except fruit, and oil in the case of Venezuela. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that your resources are being exploited by multi-national companies and I'm well aware of how globalization works. I just don't see direct parallels with the oil-producing countries of the middle-east, which are genuinely resource-wealthy and use that resource to maintain power, other than that in both cases the majority of people are poor, and to focus strictly on that seems extremely simplistic to me.

Because we don't produce it, our resources get extracted so other countries can produce it. It'd be a different story if we were to actually keep it and actually produce it. I can't remember how much Montana makes on Guatemalan soil, but it's something like 2.2 billion a year. That's 2.2 billion euros we give away to Canada, and that's only ONE corporation. Africa shares the same problems we do. Basically it's the consequences that were set since colonization.

What you're describing is production. If uranium, for example, is extracted from Guatemala and used somewhere else, Guatemala would be considered the uranium producing country. But a simple google search shows that Brazil is the only Latin-American country producing uranium, and it is a tiny amount compared to the largest producers. You don't have the resources you describe, you have fruit and coffee, and unfortunately fruit and coffee are not oil - they're cheap to produce, they're endlessly renewable, and there are alternative sources for them all over the planet. So the comparison with oil-producing countries is completely wrong.

Also, think of me next time you drink Starbucks. Think of all the people who live with 1 dollar a day while you sit there with your ridiculous overpriced coffee.

Sorry, I never drink coffee. I'll think of you next time I'm having my teeth drilled into instead.

And religion restricts freedom?

No. Power does. Didn't you read my point?

I read your points, but they rarely make sense to me, and the goalposts have a tendency to move which is confusing.

So the West benefits from fomenting anti-western sentiment?

Yes.

Would it not benefit more from pro-western sentiment?

Now you're just spouting conspiracy theories.

Surely you don't think that the CIA declassified documents and cables made public in wikileaks are conspiracies written by them? Or how does that work according to you?

I think there are probably thousands of conspiracy theories based around wikileaks. Perhaps you could enlighten me$?

[CashRules]

Top 4 gold producing countries in 2013: China, Australia, U.S. Russia. Latin American countries in the top 14: Peru at 5 and Mexico at 8, Brazil at 11, Chile at 14. Only Peru comes anywhere close to the production of Russia.

The only Latin American country in the top ten for nickel production is Colombia at 7, far behind the top 5 of China, Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia. Wiki only lists the top 5 titanium producing countries: China, Russia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine; none from Latin America.

The only Latin American country in the top 19 for uranium production is Brazil at 14 with less than half a percent of the world's total.

Few would doubt exploitation exists, but you can't exploit something that isn't there. Mining is production, taking the raw materials and turning them into a product is manufacturing.

[Dr_Liszt]

Would it not benefit more from pro-western sentiment?

THEY WOULD, WOULDN'T THEY?!

Anyway, here is an university report on the mining industry:
https://jamesrock66.wordpress.com/mineria-en-guatemala/
A report on the transnationals:
http://www.aieti.es/wp-content/uploads/ ... temala.pdf
And another from the mining industry:
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_ni/n ... mining.pdf

There's not much to it, just to learn how much money we are going to keep from all this nonsense and how much goes out.

BUT OMG IT'S IN SPANISH! Was going to translate the important parts but... pay me and I might. Just look at the numbers, man.

[sikax]

I appreciate Guatemala. If it weren't for facilities there that sterilize Mediterranean fruit flies, California would be FUCKED. I do hope we keep those people happy because God knows we need them.

Edit: Oh, and if California is fucked, you're all fucked. So everyone start appreciating Guatemala.

[Dr_Liszt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Backyard

[sikax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceratitis_capitata

[Dr_Liszt]

http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... ent-terror

[sikax]

I can't say with certainty that I know what your point is. Are you saying that sterilizing flies is a form of oppression? To the flies, perhaps, yes.

[Dr_Liszt]

I was just playing with you, man.

But yes. Sterilizing flies is oppression against flies! I can't believe you support such a violation of Capitata's Rights.

[sikax]

Capitatas are dirty, sub-human little insects.

[Dr_Liszt]

You little racist!

[sikax]

Think they can come over HERE and take all our jobs...I mean, er, ....eat all the fruit! Without being sterilized! Little bastards got another thing comin'.

[sikax]

It was fun when you and gogo used to draw things. This has the makings of a good scene. Racist bugs.