Oh good, they're going to investigate themselves. Where have I see this before?

They also contacted a former student shortly after his mother's death. They had "permanently suspended" him upon learning that he had decided to accept his sexuality. Instead of consoling him in his grief they reached out to tell him that his homosexuality had killed his mother (actually, it was cancer, and he had gone home to take care of her). There is nothing even remotely "Christian" about BJU. Nothing.

about BJU.

anti-theist bigotry, okasha. Or at least they would, if they were being intellectually honest and consistent. Or is it not "bigotry" to condemn bigotry that's worse than the bigotry involved in condemning bigotry? Or is it only bigotry when it's a non-religionist doing the condemning?

Perhaps some day a Real Serious Theologian will make sense out of all of that.

"From the birth of the Church, out of the womb of Fear and the fatherhood of Ignorance, it has taught the inferiority of woman. In one form or another through the various mythical legends of the various mythical creeds, runs the undercurrent of the behef in the fall of man through the persuasion of woman, her subjective condition as punishment, her natural vileness, total depravity, etc.; and from the days of Adam until now the Christian Church, with which we live specially to deal, has made Woman the excuse, the scapegoat for the evil deeds of man."

I guess she was mistaken.

But it is still Christianity. Bad Christians are still Christians.

They were the most uptight pain-in-the-ass people. They were clearly the walking brainwashed. I don't remember the specifics but they had these weird rules like they couldn't have coed debate teams (men had male partners, women had female) because working together might lead to hand holding or some dumb ass repressed thing.

And thanks for stating the opposite of the NTS. It's appreciated.

Were they good debaters? Did you ever debate religious topics, and if so, what was that like?

I'm imagining them as being like those creationists who "play the game" in order to get a degree in biology from a secular university, then use it as advertising for their creationism. But I guess that's a bit more acceptable in debate because the point is to be able to argue well regardless of agreement/disagreement with the side you are arguing, right?

I don't remember the specifics, but to be a good debater, you need to argue both sides regardless of the content. They clearly couldn't do that. And they were all smug about how morally superior they were because of it.

I can't imagine them being able to argue for topics that they didn't morally uphold.

While this doesn't surprise me, it does sicken me. What they said to this woman is abhorrent.

Their religion had nothing to do with it.

If it hadn't been for religion, they would have found some other excuse to behave this way.

You see this exact same behavior from both religious and non-religious schools.

I'm sure that there are good and bad people at Bob Jones, and it's wrong to broad-brush and smear the whole school because of a few bad apples.

It's wrong to criticize and denigrate people who are acting they way they are because of sincere and deeply held beliefs.

No?

Nice of you to try to score points off of this though.

What was said and done to that woman is awful. There is no excuse for it.

No.

The whole incident, and the response of certain people here to it, are simply very useful illustrations of how flawed, vapid and despicable their regular talking points are.

It was the decision of the rapist to rape someone.

There.

However, I tracked down a previous thread to flesh out my response, and wanted to post it somewhere, because it was a lot of work to find. So I post here.


I have recently suggested that those that find their church promulgates things like misogyny (and other regressive doctrine around sexuality, etc.) maybe go looking for other, more amenable churches/faiths that more closely fit their values. Vote with your feet, your time, and your wallet. Seems simple enough. Plenty of churches/faiths do treat women as equals. Not hard to find one, there's a smorgasbord of varying blends of faiths/positions on every issue.

I got "You really have no business encouraging anyone to leave anything unless you think they are too stupid or somehow otherwise too impaired to make their own decisions." thrown in my face.

Also

"I again question why you think it is within your purview to suggest to anyone that they find a path in keeping with their beliefs."

Etc.


Very frustrating.

I realized that it was more important to address the statement about them not being Christian, than it was to defend my personal corner of religion.

But I think that when conservatives turned a lot of churches into auxiliaries of the Republican party, they opened themselves to exactly the response you suggest: walking out based on political disagreement. If politics is just as important or more important or even the only form of spirituality at a church, people can easily decide that the political trumps the spiritual, and go looking for a more nourishing kind of spirituality elsewhere.

And the responses you got are overly defensive, in my opinion. Perhaps they just didn't want to/weren't ready to discuss the conflicted feelings they were having, but they could have just said that instead of discounting your perspective.

My take on the exchange: I think that you and atheistcrusader are in basic agreement that changing church is a difficult and deeply personal decision. The basic problem is: what about someone who up until now has decided to stay? Are they morally culpable for the decisions of the organization, even if they don't agree with them, because they've stayed?

I think you would say no, partially because they could be staying for spiritual or cultural or social reasons that don't require endorsing the offending decisions, and partially because they can work to change the offending decisions in ways that they couldn't if they left. With the RCC in particular, there are lots of cultural, liturgical, and social things that draw people to stay even when they strongly disagree with the hierarchy, so it is in the RCC where this problem is highly likely to crop up. It's a very distinctive institution, and the only other one truly like it (Eastern Orthodox) has the same offending beliefs, so going there isn't really an option.

But then atheistcrusader points out that with regard to the second thing, that only works for certain organizations. For example, the democratic party has mechanisms for the grassroots to push it towards stronger stances on things like inequality. But in Crusader's point of view, the RCC is not like that. It is top-down, so the laity have three options: agree with everything, leave, or unofficially ignore the offending teachings in practice. Just speaking out doesn't work because there is no mechanism that requires the hierarchy to listen.

So let me ask you this: would atheistcrusader been in the clear if he/she respectfully asked a person what their thoughts are on the possibility of leaving their church, without implying moral judgment on them for not leaving?

There are, in the case of the RCC example, mechanisms for throwing such a person out of the church entirely.

There's been some pretty horrible attacks on Nancy Pelosi just this week over abortion and marriage.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/17/catholic-head-rips-nancy-pelosi-rabid-foe-churchs-/
(Apologies for the moonie times link, I didn't see a better one in the news search this morning. CNN didn't touch this aside from reporting on her call for the archbishop to drop the 'pro marriage' demonstration.)

And a couple years back, the pope actually rebuked her, and opened the door to possible excommunication. (and other Democratic Party members.)
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/090220



Your interpretation of my position is correct. I am referring to top-down hierarchical authoritarian orgs, again, specifically the RCC as an example. There has been considerable success in some other large US based churches on bottom-up grassroots doctrinal changes. Others are fracturing under the strain (Methodist church) as a large portion of the church members AND leadership want to go one way, and the rest, the other.

Religion can be so multi-faceted and before someone is "encouraged" to leave their chosen organization because of some of it's policies, one should understand the depth and breadth of what it means to them as an individual.

Does it provide their community? Their child care? Their refuge? Their counselor? And any other number of things.

In no way do I think they are morally culpable for the decisions of the larger organization, particularly if they have absolutely no say in those decisions.

The RCC is top down and so is the DNC, but both have ways of pushing change from the inside. There are groups of catholics who have formed to fight for particular changes. They support larger groups like the nuns. I do not in any way believe that they only have the three choices that you note.

While there is no mechanism to make them change, change can indeed happen when the population pushes. It's happened before and we shall see if it happens again after the big conference on family issues this fall.

I have no issue with anyone asking someone why they make the decisions they make and suggesting that there may be alternatives, if they are interested. But I would expect the person asking to be open to the idea that leaving is not the right alternative for a particular individual and to respect their decision to stay.

But crusaders generally don't do that.

"In no way do I think they are morally culpable for the decisions of the larger organization, particularly if they have absolutely no say in those decisions."

The RCC lobbies with dollars given to the church by the members. Pays lawyers with dollars given to the church by members.
The RCC uses the 'weight' of it's membership when lobbying legislators to move one way or another on a particular issue.

Membership is not zero-cost and has an impact on issues the individual member may either not care about, or explicitly disapprove of.



"There are groups of catholics who have formed to fight for particular changes."

Yes, and we've discussed pastors/individual churches taking a stand on these issues, getting chucked wholesale out of the RCC.

"and before someone is "encouraged""

I said, specifically in the case of a top-down authoritarian org, they are under no obligation to stay if they find a church that reflects their values. Authoritarian entities like the RCC are by-design resistant to change 'from within'.

I never said they had to leave. I never said I demanded they do so. I said

"The only way for the religious left to change a 'faith' that includes doctrine of the sort I mentioned, really, is to leave it and find greener pastures in keeping with their faith."

That's a statement about effectiveness, not a demand or a decree.

I disagree with you on this issue.

They are under no obligation to stay or leave. It's a personal issue.

I suggested it as a viable/effective means of change, for specific circumstances such as the authoritarian top-down model of the RCC.

That is not an obligation.


I do maintain there is a moral cost to remaining a member in the 'hope of change from within', but that's not the same thing as demanding they leave. I just don't accept your handwaving of

"In no way do I think they are morally culpable for the decisions of the larger organization, particularly if they have absolutely no say in those decisions."

They have a say. Leaving is one way of having a say in how their money and their membership/credibility in the entity is spent politically. Remaining a member, and refusing to give them money is another way of partially accomplishing that. A local church splintering away, as in the case of the Australian pastor that married a same sex couple in defiance of church doctrine is yet another way. There are more ways.

are heinous to their bones.

Those that are a mixed bag, I give a lot more leeway to.

But in either case, unless someone told me they were considering that or being hurt in some direct way, I do not feel any need to evangelize to them or tell them there is a better way.

Because for them, there may not be.

That's where I take umbrage. Sometimes just telling people they can, could or ought to leave something without really understanding why they, as individuals, are there is a really, really bad idea.

"I am much more interested in seeing people leave groups that are heinous to their bones."


You and I have a different starting place from which to approach the bulk of the RCC's social doctrine, and the accompanying lobbying and judicial challenges that come with it.

I see it, as being in the marrow itself. It appears you do not.


That said, the number of valid relief valves I can see for members who disagree with doctrine, is colored by that starting place, and historical relief available to members of that church on just the specific issue of contraception. Which is to say, leave or ignore the doctrine and do what they need to do according to their values.


I don't think it's shocking to suggest to someone of faith that there are other faith based orgs, VERY similar in nature, that reflect the values they wish to live. It's not like I said they should just give up the whole thing, or that they are bad people for staying.

The problem is that your are basing your approach on the number of valid relief valves that you can see.

It's not shocking to suggest to someone that they might want to consider other organizations. It may be intrusive, overstepping or not in their best interest to do so, but hardly shocking. Evangelists of all stripes have been doing it forever.

What organizations would be acceptable to you, btw?

Episcopalians are evolutionarily next door to Catholicism and evolutionarily more progressive than the RCC.

They still have issues on LGBT topics, but they are actually hashing them out right now, as opposed to taking surveys and thinking about maybe talking about something related to it possibly sometime later this year hopefully.

The Methodist church is also splintering as we speak, so there might be a really good, again, evolutionarily close in faith structure-option there in the near term.


Most of the 'near-spectrum' RCC-like orgs are still actively hashing out these issues, but they are actually tackling the problem, and there IS dynamic and active ground-up feedback driving it, whereas the RCC is just not budging at all. (Not yet, anyway)

(An aside, but I do personally know at least some catholics that are politically left of center, and bailing out for these reasons. Catholics I know that are politically right-of-center do not appear to be discomfited in the slightest.)

I ask because I am in the process of quitting.

I have made the decision and I am open to just about anything. I even have found a source that I feel very optimistic about and I believe that I will be successful… finally.

But, before I made this decision, I absolutely loathed anyone who felt they had the need to tell me that I should quit and gave me all their reasons. Loathed them, at least while they were doing that. Not a single person who ever did this was able to sway me in the least, including those who love me the most. In fact, they made me more entrenched in my position about smoking.

And this is where we pretty clearly part ways.

I do over-eat though, so in that vein I sort of understand what you mean, though, I didn't resent people suggesting I should lose some weight, or trying to get me into physical activities.

Last week I knocked out my fifth marathon, with a co-worker that got me started losing weight in the first place.

Well, maybe you see this differently because you haven't had some of the experiences others have had.

It is a gazillion times easier to make the case against smoking than it is against choosing a particular religion. The only exception I can think of is that of a child or impaired individual who is being held captive against their will and being actively harmed.

Give people credit. They know what is and isn't right for them. If they want to make a major life change and want your input, let them ask for it.

And I doubt that you had no negative feelings when people told you were fat when you were fat. Maybe you are truly different than others, but that would be a very unusual response.

But I'm less fat.

I have other co-workers who reacted to his wheedling and nagging differently than I did. He practically dragged me out there/guilt tripped me into it over all sorts of protests like 'my knees won't take it', etc.

He got me going though, and the improvement is dramatic. I still have a long way to go, but already the difference is night and day. I can tie my shoes without holding my breath, for instance.

His motivational effect on some others was not... super stellar. I think that's what you're getting at, if I understand.



I did have feelings when others pointed it out, but honestly, I couldn't hear them over the sound of my own self-loathing. Nothing spoke louder than the picture of me at my best friend's wedding, stuffed into that tux. Easily two of any of the other wedding party members. I still kind of hate myself for it.

I identify a great deal with a lot of the self-loathing illustrated herein:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/running

Probably not NSFW but maybe, dunno:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/what_you_see

smokers as well. It is nearly impossible to find a single valid reason to continue to smoke or to overeat or to continue to do anything that you are just simply addicted to doing.

The comics are funny and can apply to all kinds of conditions, but they are probably not going to speak to people not ready to make a change.

Different perspective. I don't like marathons. I think they are unhealthy and harmful to those that do them. I think there are much better alternatives and I can make the case fairly easily.

But that is not your take. Despite evidence to the contrary, you find the benefits far outweigh the negatives. If you didn't, you wouldn't do it.

That's ok with me.

Smoking is a rough one, that's for sure. My wife has had multiple bouts of it. Gave it up for more than a year, then lost her job and fell back into it. Right now, she's on about 3 years without it, the longest I've ever known her not to smoke, since we met as kids.

It's incredible to be able to walk away from it. (If I understood you correctly, awesome job doing so, doesn't get much harder than that)



I actually don't disagree that marathons are harmful. I break myself every time. Hobbling for days.. One, I started crying 6 miles from the finish line. Trust me, nobody wants to see a fat man weep.. Definitely not a normal form of entertainment. I view it as a challenge. It's not even fun, really. It's a test, to see if I've built myself up enough to smash through a barrier, without shattering to pieces. To get to the end without giving up. (I did fail to complete a sixth, and that sucked soooo much.)

There is of course, a chance I could end up in a hospital or worse, doing one. But I can quit anytime.

But, as I said, I have discovered something that I think will work for me and I'm pretty excited about it. Basically instead of being afraid of quitting, I am thrilled by the idea. I think I will actually get my courage back.

From people I know who have run marathons, the feelings can be quite similar and the rewards equally large.

So do whatever it is that gives you what you want and what you need - the ability to live your life to the fullest.

And you can quit anytime, but you don't have to.

is pretty awesome. I'm impressed. It's taken me years to feel comfortable running 5K! (Running is not my forte, though! I loved boxing, instead!)

and while I've had some relapses (vacations with friends who were smoking, but they were all one nighter affairs and short lived), I'm very thankful that I did. It's a fantastic decision and I wish you all the best luck.

The point about being lectured to leave? I get. People look out for you and want you to do what they believe is right for you. I also managed to lose 90 lbs years ago. Having people tell me to lose weight before I made the decision only served to make me angry and eat more out of spite. Not in my best interest. But it took time to explore my desires and reasons for doing so.

I'm feeling pretty optimistic at this point. Those one-night exceptions have always led to my complete relapse, so I don't anticipate they will be an option.

Congratulations on the weight loss. I think it's harder than quitting smoking because you still have to eat. But we are intelligent, informed people and we know what is and isn't good for us, and being lectured by others is just alienating. But the door is wide open once we make the decision to make a move - a least it is for me.

if you do it you'll feel great. If not, don't beat yourself up. That's the worst part. Beating ourselves up about these things. You are only human. Failure doesn't mean you are a terrible person. You can just pick right back up again and start.

I smoked my last cigarette this morning.

Filled the rest of the pack with water and threw it out.

I am fully committed. I will never be a slave again and failure is not a choice.

No excuses. Game on.

I suggested that if people find they are part of a church that doesn't share their values, it is easy to find any one of a number of churches that do share their values. To which, you did not approve.

that the person reading it could see them in their entirety and what they responded to.

You gave them completely out of context and called me out to boot.

We disagree on this issue, that is clear, and that is not a problem.

We continue to disagree.

I did not direct link because I wanted to share the content, I did not desire to call you out by name. If you feel that is backwards, ok, but I view a link to a person's post, in that manner, a direct callout.

That's not context.

The evidence is there for all to see.

Clearly it is pointless trying to discuss this with you further. I stand by my post in this thread, and the context from which I derived those quotes, and Htom Sirveaux's dead-accurate paraphrase of my position.

Exactly.

that's what it all boils down to.

Even if BJU insists of talking about "root sins," then they SHOULD expostulate that the "root sin" that caused this rape was the "disordered" and "evil" nature of the rapist who wants to subjugate and rape.

(Quotes used bc this is loaded religious language that I would never use when discussing rape.)

This Berg guy has a wife and 3 daughters. Would he say that to them if they were raped? You know what, he probably will.Pig.