Why do some progressive Democrats ignore bigotry and intolerance in religions?

[MineralMan]

I think this is a worthwhile question in the Religion Group. As progressives, we are quick to condemn homophobia, misogyny, racism, and other forms of intolerance and bigotry. At least we are when it comes to politicians, businesses and other organizations. We jump to our feet and protest such things. We often boycott and avoid any contact with secular organizations that hold such views.

And yet, some people who attach the progressive label to their beliefs will excuse such institutional behavior when it occurs in religious organizations. Rather than condemn such bigotry and intolerance, they give it a pass, as long as religion is involved. Either that, or they shrug it off and talk about the "good" such faith-based organizations do.

Does "Faith" trump principles? Does "Belief" excuse what we will not tolerate from any other organization in some way? Does "Religion" get a pass on intolerable positions on issues we hold dear? Can we excuse entire nations, governments and other groups from social justice requirements, simply because a religious group supports them or they support a religious group?

Does mere religious belief warrant wearing ethical blinders? Does "Faith" even matter if it supports bigotry and intolerance? I think they do not.

[FreepFryer]

1. Your question is so general as to be infinitely malleable, but here's my take...

For example, one can oppose racism and stereotyping of a faith and its members while still condemning the acts committed by that faith.

Doing so is not 'ignoring' those objectionable acts - that's a pat conflation.

For example, one needn't be anti-Semitic to oppose Orthodox Jewish procedures of circumcision. To oppose such practices, racist attacks against Orthodox Judaism (or Jews, or Judaism in general) are not likely to be effective.

This also applies to {head and body coverings|food|sexual values and practices|polygamy|religious observances|gender inequality|etc}.

[MineralMan]

2. Thanks for your reply.

As for your circumcision question, it is no longer simply a religious practice. While most observant Jews do circumcise their sons, circumcised people who are not Jewish far outnumber those who have a religion-based circumcision. I am a good example of that. I'm not Jewish, nor are any of my ancestors. Yet, I am circumcised. It was not a religious decision at all, when it happened 73 years ago. It was a hygiene decision. A mistaken decision? I don't know. Yet, I am circumcised. I have never been aware of any harmed caused by it.

My question is not about any specific practice of any specific religion. It is a general question. Examples are easy enough to find that match my description, and those examples involve many types of intolerance and bigotry. My question remains.

[thucythucy]

5. If "examples are easy to find"

you should have no problem citing them here.

[MineralMan]

10. See my reply to you below.

[thucythucy]

12. And see my reply

to your reply.

[MineralMan]

14. And so on and so on.

I did. I replied further. I will continue to read and reply in this thread. Thanks.

[thucythucy]

17. Okay, no problem.

I always enjoy my discussions with you.

[FreepFryer]

7. I didn't want to go into too much detail...

...but Orthodox circumcision involves more controversial procedures.

Google 'brit milah'.

But this exchange seems like a perfect example of my overarching point.

You took my comment to mean a hypothetical objection to the general practice of circumcision, rather than to the specifics of this particular religious practice (again, it's just an example, we could choose many others from my bracketed set). I don't object to circumcision, but I find that practice objectionable. What I do next about it is a matter of personal conviction, respect for others, and respect for the law.

When educated about the particular practices, whether one is an adherent of the faith or not, one can hold a judgment - there is no 'get out of jail free' card given by this Progressive to inhumane acts because they are ostensibly based in religious doctrine. What I do with the friction that objection creates in me is my own decision.

[snowybirdie]

3. Perhaps

many of us believe that they have a right to their beliefs, no matter what others think. You can't go around rejecting anyone that doesn't think as you do. We can fight to change national rules and regulations, not personal

[MineralMan]

16. Beliefs are one thing. Actions are another.

Yes, people absolutely have a right to their own beliefs. Nobody can stop anyone from believing anything. It is when those beliefs are imposed on others that there is a problem. It is when a large and powerful organization foists its beliefs onto an entire society that there is a problem. To wit, reproductive choice.

I can reject that imposition, and will always do so if one set of beliefs interferes with the rights of those who do not hold those beliefs.

That is what this thread is about.

[thucythucy]

4. Could you be more specific?

The religious progressives I know are members of the United Church of Christ and the Metropolitan Community Church.

The Massachusetts UCC came out early for marriage equality, and I think performed the first same sex marriages in the nation. It was a leader in the anti-apartheid struggle, and a supporter of Rev. King. It routinely condemns homophobia, racism, sexism and classicism, including among conservative Christians. Just an aside: it also invited then Senator Barak Obama to address its annual meeting, giving him I think his first ever national platform. President Obama, BTW, is a member of the UCC.

The MCC was founded as an LGBTQ friendly Christian denomination in the 1960s. It obviously condemns homophobia, and also all the isms listed above. Since a good portion of its members are LGBTQ people chased out of more conservative denominations the members I know are quite vocal in their denunciation of, for instance, Southern Baptists.

Perhaps if you cited some specific examples of progressive Christians giving religious intolerance a pass, I might be able to comment with some specificity.

Edited to add: I notice the OP talks about "progressive Democrats" rather than progressive people of faith.

My reply remains relevant though, in that the progressive Democrats I know, religious or otherwise, seem to have no problem denouncing what needs denouncing. Which progressive Democrats are you talking about? Elected leaders? Rank and file?

[MineralMan]

8. That denomination is notable for its tolerance.

On the other hand, we have the Roman Catholic Church, which has vastly more members, and remains a misogynistic and homophobic organization. It is also pretty well-tolerated by most people, despite that. Even many progressive Democrats are members of that church and refrain from criticizing its institutional tolerance issues.

That's the most obvious example. Another would be the Russian Orthodox Church, which is in full support of the Putin control of Russia. It, too, is homophobic, misogynistic and antisemitic. That's another example, which can be seen in a post in this very group. It is forgiven by many people, since it also provides a religious or "faith" connection to people in Russia. Faith trumps tolerance in that church as well.

[thucythucy]

11. So in part you're answering your own question,

although I'm not sure your answer is correct.

You're saying progressive Democrats who are Catholics don't criticize that church's more regressive aspects. You seem to be implying that institutional loyalty accounts for some of this alleged silence.

You're giving me examples of what needs denouncing, but nothing specific about, for instance, progressive Democratic Catholics who have outright refused to condemn the Church for any of the reasons you cite. Which Catholic Democrats? Do you know people who fit this description? If so, wouldn't it be more productive to ask them?

I think I know the post you're talking about concerning the Russian Orthodox Church. If it's the one I'm thinking of, my take on it was that it was offering a history of that church's support for the oligarchy of the Tsars, its repression by the Soviets, and its resurgence under Putin. I didn't see it "refusing to criticize" but perhaps I missed something.

Again, if you could provide a link I would be better equipped to attempt, if I can, a more cogent answer. Then again, wouldn't it make more sense to ask that person herself, if you haven't already?

[MineralMan]

13. In this thread, I am raising a more general issue.

And yes, I do know individuals who do as I suggested people do. I do address them directly. However, this thread is an expansion on the question. I'm not accusing any particular individuals of any particular things.

As a society, we tend to offer excuses for intolerance that is generated by religious groups. We hesitate to criticize religious organizations. My question has to do with why that is the case. I have no doubt you can think of examples from your own experience. You're welcome to bring them up in the thread.

[thucythucy]

19. Well, again, that's a different question, even if it's only "an expansion."

So, across the board:

some people don't criticize religious reactionarism (I'll use that term, instead of listing each time all the various isms we want to see confronted, except here I want to add "ableism" to the list) because they too share these various bigotries, and are members of these denominations at least in part BECAUSE they're beliefs and policies are so regressive. To quote a phrase, for them "it's a feature, not a bug";

some people may be hesitant because it jeopardizes some aspect of their life or livelihood. A Democratic city councilor, for instance, in a heavily Catholic district, may be reluctant to alienate potential voters;

for many people religious affiliation is more a social than political or even religious function. They go to church because their parents went, or because they're alone in a big city (or small town) and want to meet people and socialize in a space they perceive to be safe and friendly. They may pass on stuff they see because they don't want to jeopardize their relationships. In this regard one might also ask: why are so many progressive Democrats unwilling to confront their own families about their racism, sexism, etc. Maybe in part it boils down to "some people just don't like to argue";

some people, and here I mean progressive Democrats, might be loathe to condemn, for instance, Islamic extremism because the Muslims they know are gentle, kind people who have been shat on enough by mainstream America, and see piling on as a betrayal of their American Muslim brothers and sisters. Although, again, I wonder if that's really the case, since all the folks I know, including the Muslims I know, aren't at all reluctant to condemn Islamic reactionaries. But there does seem to be this dynamic where American Muslims and their friends are continually goaded to condemn "Islamic extremism" -- which seems a form of racial dog whistling or concern trolling. "Why don't union members and leaders condemn union corruption?" "Why don't Black leaders address Black on Black crime?" Because a) they do, and b) the question itself feels more like a dog whistle than genuinely motivated by curiosity.

That's all off the top of my head.

In the individuals you've addressed directly, what were the answers you heard?

[MineralMan]

21. I'm happy to have people explain their own reactions to

intolerance from religious groups. As you might expect, I have heard all sorts of answers from people in my own circles outside of this forum. It's not an infrequent topic of conversation, actually.

I'm not actually interested that much in individual members of religious groups. What interests me is the overall doctrine or social positions the organizations, themselves, hold.

For example, in many smaller communities, the only hospital that is available is owned by the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church, through its dioceses, invests in hospitals as a source of income. That has been true for a very long time. In major cities, patients have choices, but there are many smaller communities where the only hospital that is nearby has the word Saint in its name.

So, here's the problem: In most of those hospitals, when it comes to reproductive health matters, only those treatments that meet the requirements of official Roman Catholic doctrine are available. Anyone seeking the treatments not available will have to travel outside of their community to obtain them. These days, the hospital that used to be called "County Hospital" now may be a Catholic hospital. The county funds treatments for people who cannot afford treatment in many cases, and is a source of income for the hospital.

Why is this sort of restriction on reproductive health care tolerated? There is a specific example of the question I'm asking in a general sense. Why are the rules of the Roman Catholic Church imposed on all local residents, regardless of their beliefs? Why is such a thing tolerable to many?

[thucythucy]

27. I'm still not sure I understand then what your question is.

If you're asking why "is this sort of restriction on reproductive health care" tolerated in the specific instance you describe, the legal answer is the first amendment of the Constitution has been interpreted over the course of several centuries to mean that government in general can't--in general--make rules or pass laws that seek to compel members of religious groups to violate their beliefs, assuming those beliefs don't violate other criminal laws. And so, for instance, people who for religious reasons oppose all war are granted (sometimes) conscientious objector status exempting them from military service. Even in some cases where religious practice violates the law--for instance certain groups that use peyote as a sacrament--there is carved out a religious exemption. I suppose this is why society -- we -- tolerate the instance you cite--because that's been a part of our constitutional system, and people, progressives especially, may be loathe to change that.

As for restricting choice, I agree, it's a terrible thing, obviously. The argument I've heard from left wing Catholics in a case such as you cite--where the Catholic hospital is the only service available--is that the reason this is so is because no other health care provider chooses to operate in that community. Historically, religious groups founded hospitals to provide services in communities that our for-profit health care system refused to serve. So the "choice" for residents in that situation isn't between pro or anti-choice as regards reproductive health care, but health care with such restrictions versus no health care at all. Which is why, if we want to effectively end such injustice, we need universal health care in which religious based services are always redundant. If you want to go to a Catholic hospital, fine. But if you don't, then you can go to the secular option with no added expense or difficulties (such as distance to such care). That's the way it should work.

I'm not aware of county hospitals becoming Catholic hospitals--from what I've seen it's the other way around--the Catholic church has been shrinking over all, shutting down both churches and community services, sometimes leaving communities with no accessible health care at all. But I'll take your word for it that in this instance it might have happened. How, I wonder, did that happen? Did local residents decide to sell off the public hospital in order to lower taxes? Is the local government so strapped for funds that it had to go to the Church to continue serving people at all? But then I notice you say "may" be a Catholic Hospital, does this mean then that your example is a hypothetical?

Whatever the case, my understanding of the law around these issues is foggy. On the one hand, I know that federal civil rights law generally includes provisions that say if any entity receives federal funding, it has to abide my federal nondiscrimination policies. On the other hand, I take it the courts have ruled generally that these provisions don't apply to religious based institutions. It's a constant struggle between those two sides. If you want an answer as to how to change this, my answer would be the difficult boring one: vote for progressive Democrats who will appoint and confirm progressive judges who may be able to justifiably change that interpretation of the balance between secular state and religious concerns.

We see the same struggle in pharmacies, where some pharmacists refuse to fill certain prescriptions because of their professed beliefs. The instances I've seen usually result in the pharmacist in that case being fired or otherwise reprimanded. But I don't know if this is a result of federal or general law, or simply the various pharmacies taking action on their own.

So that's the best answer I have to the question in your last paragraph. Under the law, as it currently exists, religious groups are granted certain exemptions not available to secular groups. It's a part of our Constitution, and rooted in our history. Which doesn't make it right or unchangeable. Just the reality as it exists today.

I hope this is helpful.

[MineralMan]

28. See this link for information on the increasing number of Catholic hospitals

https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/14/catholic-hospitals-reproductive-health-care/

From that link:

"Those impacts are being magnified by rapid consolidation among hospitals nationwide, a trend that resulted in a 22 percent increase in Catholic-sponsored or Catholic-affiliated hospitals between 2001 and 2016. The study found that the restrictions on reproductive health services at those facilities translates to more than 9,500 fewer tubal ligations per year."

and

"By 2016, the study found, 14.5 percent of all U.S. acute care hospitals were Catholic, including 10 of the 25 largest health care systems in the country. In some states with fewer hospitals, Catholic providers are a dominant presence in the market. In five states (Alaska, Iowa, Washington, Wisconsin, and South Dakota), more than 40 percent of acute care beds were Catholic-owned or -affiliated in 2016."

[MineralMan]

29. Here's another link about Catholic Hospitals taking over:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/how-catholic-hospitals-can-restrict-healthcare-access-for-rural-americans.html

From the link:

Catholic hospitals' right to refuse healthcare services based on religious or moral grounds can threaten access to high-quality, comprehensive reproductive care for Americans living in rural communities with limited hospital options, according to a report from FiveThirtyEight.

"In a growing number of communities around the country, especially in rural areas, patients and physicians have access to just one [Catholic] hospital," the report's authors wrote. "Catholic hospitals are bound by a range of restrictions on care that are determined by religious authorities, with very little input from medical staff. Increasingly, where a patient lives can determine whether Catholic doctrine and how the local bishop interprets that doctrine, will decide what kind of care she can get."

[thucythucy]

34. At first glance this seems to be less about Catholic hospitals "taking over"

and more about the failure of our for-profit health care system to serve rural and poor areas.

"While many independent rural hospitals are closing amid greater financial pressures, Catholic health systems have managed to weather the tough financial climate, in part due to their nonprofit status, the authors noted."

For "greater financial pressures" read the push by stockholders of for-profit health care organizations to cut losses and maximize profits. But there's no immutable law of physics that says health care has to be for-profit. That for-profit services somehow can't survive in an environment in which non-profits can just demonstrates the inefficiency--and inhumanity--of for-profit health care.

In general poorer and rural communities are seeing a retrenchment in a wide variety of social services, including medicine. Supermarket chains for example are closing down, creating "food deserts" in rural poor communities and in many inner cities. The gap often gets filled--if it gets filled at all--by non-profits and/or religious organizations. Food pantries, collectives, organizations whose mission is not the bottom line. So as I said, in many communities it isn't a choice anymore between pro-choice and anti-choice health care, but between restricted care and no care at all.

This has happened in other fields as well. I recently found myself advocating for an asylum seeker currently in ICE custody, and found the only attorneys willing to even consider the case worked at a center funded by Catholic Charities. Legal Services was gutted under Reagan and Bush, with the trend continuing under Trump, so finding "for-profit" attorneys to handle such cases is nearly impossible, especially in red states, if you don't have the do re mi. The same is true for disability rights law. As I also said in an earlier post, the most effective way to fight all of this is to GOTV and elect progressive Democrats. A Catholic hospital--or any other religion based social service--should NEVER be the only option available to people in need.

Thanks for the links though. I'll give them all a more thorough reading when I have time. I sincerely appreciate the effort you've made in providing this kind of material.

Best wishes.

[MineralMan]

30. Finally, here's another link:

https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/18111-ffrf-warns-washington-about-catholic-hospital-takeover

FFRF warns Washington about Catholic hospital takeover

Soon almost half of Washington's hospital beds will be under the control of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' directives. Catholic medical care is obligated to abide by the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services." Over a quarter of the counties in the state will have no remaining secular hospitals. This means it will be much harder or impossible for patients to find local hospitals willing to provide a full range of health care.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national state/church watchdog based in Madison, Wis., with 19,000 members including over 1,000 members in Washington state, sent a letter on June 24 warning government officials and Washington medical and hospital associations about the health care crisis. FFRF also contacted eight secular medical institutions that are in the process of considering or have recently affiliated with Catholic organizations.

Swedish Medical Center, Seattle's largest nonprofit health care provider, recently affiliated with the Catholic organization Providence Health and Services. Three major hospitals in the state's northwest corner (Skagit Valley Hospital in Mount Vernon, Island Hospital in Anacortes, and Cascade Valley Hospital in Arlington) are also considering affiliating with Providence, or PeaceHealth, another Catholic organization.

Citizens in Washington are swiftly losing access to constitutionally protected forms of medical care as Catholic organizations restrict "morally bankrupt" procedures, placing dogma and church doctrine above patient care. This takeover is resulting in inadequate access and treatment for conception, contraception, abortion, miscarriage, voluntary sterilization and end-of-life care. It may also lead to discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation.

[thucythucy]

37. On first reading I don't see an explanation as to why

this sort of consolidation is happening. Why is the Swedish Medical Center, for instance, trying to consolidate with Providence Health and Services? I suspect it has to do with economies of scale, and economics in general, which to me is yet another argument for universal publicly funded health care access.

Difficult as that struggle is, it would seem to be easier to accomplish than to try to get the Catholic Church to change its policies in time to make a difference to people who need services today.

But I stand corrected on my thinking that Catholic health services are shrinking in the way Catholic parishes are across the country. I wonder--in part is this because there's always a need--a market if you will--for health care, while the need for more churches is actually declining?

[Jake Stern]

6. I'd agree if the outrage from progressives wasn't selective

As in progressives who loudly rail against Christians for bigotry, misogyny and intolerance but are strangely quiet when it comes to Muslims.

Or some who bend themselves into intellectual pretzels to defend Islamic practices while spanking others for the same thing: the hijab and niqab are a "choice" and should be tolerated while the pioneer dresses of fundie Christian woman are treated as a "uniform of subjugation" and must be banished.

[MineralMan]

9. Islam, in general, is intolerant of many things.

Like some Christian denominations, it is misogynistic, homophobic, and antisemitic. You will not see me supporting that religion, but then, I don't support any religions. I separate religious belief from social justice issues. I consider those issues far more important than matters of "faith." I can offer no support whatsoever to any organization that embraces bigotry or intolerance.

So, your question is a good one. Yes, why do people support religious organizations, despite their intolerance and bigotry? That's the very same question I asked in my OP. I meant it to be an "across the board" question, and include any religion that puts forward intolerant positions.

[thucythucy]

15. Your question here seems different from the one in your OP:

"Why do people support religious organizations, despite their intolerance and bigotry?" is quite different from "Why do some Progressive Democrats refuse to denounce religious bigotry" or whatever the exact phrase was.

That question can be answered in a multitude of ways, since it's much more general and includes all people of faith, as opposed to just progressive Democrats. It also involve a good deal of speculation on my part, although informed by what I've experienced first hand.

You might consider redoing your OP to reflect more closely that you meant.

[MineralMan]

18. You're welcome to take the thread in any direction you wish.

My original post says what I wanted to say. It was designed to open a discussion.

I did not say, nor imply that all religious organizations are intolerant or bigoted. Many are not. You gave a good example of one that is not. I address "progressive Democrats" because this is Democratic Underground, and we are all more or less progressive Democrats here. I can't ask other groups that question here.

Yes, my question has many answers, which people like you will supply in the thread. That's the reason for the thread.

Thank you for participating.

[thucythucy]

20. See my post 19

[qazplm135]

41. I think both should be "tolerated"

and also that both are symbols of male superiority that I find at the very least backwards and distasteful and are in my open misogynistic and oppressive to women.

But so long as the women are not forced by the government to wear these things, I see no reason to impose a choice upon them.

Is there an argument that their choice to wear them isn't truly voluntary because they have been subject to mental and psychological pressure to conform (often at the price of their eternal souls from their POV)? Absolutely.

But if it's not literal government force or physical force, then the line drawing is too hard to not allow it.

[thucythucy]

22. Here I'm going to post a much more general reply

for what it's worth.

I think atheists make a big mistake when they assume that religious affiliation in this country is primarily motivated by theology or belief. I think the largest role played by religion in this society is social. People go to church, temple or mosque to feel a part of a community, in a way for which there is, for them at least, no secular counterpart. They go to a particular congregation because their parents went, or a friend invited them, or they just stopped by and liked the vibe. For very many people this has little to do with politics or any particular religious sensibility. The right has been able to better coopt churches precisely because it seems to have understood this reality in ways that progressives--in my experience--have not. This all may now be mitigated at least in part by social media--which may be one reason why church attendance is declining so among younger people. But church "coffee hours" and such are primarily social gatherings, as are women's group meetings, meetings for young fathers, employment workshops, etc. Just as an example, I know religious people who visit congregants in prison. They do this because yes, the Bible tells them to, but more so because they actually know the prisoner. Indeed, it's almost a substitute for family.

In part this may be why atheists and atheism have made so little progress in the States. If atheists really wanted to strike a blow against organized religion in all its forms, they would, instead of arguing theology, think about ways of providing in secular society the sort of community and support provided by religious organizations. In part this means, of course, supporting a progressive Democratic agenda, which supports a social safety net that insures people in all parts of the country an alternative to religious charity. But further than that, I think it means building an atheist community that goes beyond simply announcing there is no god and expecting Americans en masse to therefore abandon their religion. What that would look like I have no idea, but it might be worth while to at least consider the possibilities.

Finally, to get back to the OP, I think one attraction religious communities offer is that they often include a diversity of people you won't find in many other places. Where else do college professors and high school drop outs gather for a single purpose? Or renters and home owners? Or single parents and long time married couples? Or, more to the point, people with divergent political views? Of course, American congregations usually represent all the usual class and racial divisions--sometimes even more so--but religious services in my experience generally offer a more widespread variety of participants than most secular gatherings. For instance--where else in our culture do teenagers and grandparents socialize on a weekly basis? As an aside: this is why working with religious groups is so effective politically. Whether it was the abolition movement of the 1850s, the civil rights movement a hundred years later, or right wing politics of the 1980s and beyond, involving congregations has always been a highly effective tool for political activists. I can't offhand think of an equivalent secular counterpart.

Anyway, I have to scoot now for a while. I'll check back later. And please excuse my long windedness.

[MineralMan]

24. Really, there is no "atheist community."

After being an atheist for more than 50 years, I still know only a few atheists personally. Why is that? Probably because there is no central idea or principle that would bind atheists together. There's no doctrine or belief system or anything else that would lead atheists to gather in groups, really.

I associate with and have associated with many groups. Each has a central focus. Music, technology, career, hobby, common interests, etc. None are "atheist" groups. Instead, all are made up of a wide range of people, but who have some single thing in common. All are social in nature, but with a focus on some interest.

Religion is also social, and it also has a common focus, and that focus is a shared belief system. Whatever the religion or denomination, the tenets and principles are shared by the group that socializes in it.

Atheism is non-belief in the things religion believes. That is not anything that has enough common interest to form social groups of atheists. The only thing atheists have in common, really, is non-belief, and there's not much to socialize about in that. When I do encounter another atheist, we talk about some topic we have in common, but almost never about our non-belief. What's to talk about.

So, you're right. Religion is a social thing, but it has a focus. It has shared beliefs. They are what bring the people together. They are also why there are so many different variations on the theme of religion. When it comes to beliefs, people are most comfortable with people who believe pretty much as they do. Religious gathering are centered around beliefs. While there are social events by religious groups that may not seem religious, religion always plays a role.

Atheism has no such common ground. So, there aren't many atheist organizations. There are even fewer that have regular meetings of large groups of people. Atheism just doesn't have enough stuff to talk about, really. We just don't believe in religious stuff. But, we have many other interests, so we socialize based on those interests.

[thucythucy]

35. All of which supports the point I've been making.

Atheism and atheist organizations don't come close to filling the role that congregations often fill--that of the extended family. Most everyone has some reactionary aunt or uncle or sibling or parent they're willing to tolerate as the cost of staying within the family. And while people tend to seek out and stay with religious groups with which they're comfortable, very often a main motivation, sometimes THE main motivation--is social. As I said, folks on the right seem to have understood this--and used it--to far greater advantage than folks on the left.

Add to this is the fact that congregations often provide support and services no other segment of our society--at present anyway--are willing to provide. If you're disabled and/or elderly, and need a ride to a medical appointment, a member of a congregation might be able to call another congregant for help. This is especially true for denominations and congregations that stress the "help the poor, comfort the sick, visit the prisoner, welcome the stranger/refugee" part of whatever text they're using for guidance. In many parts if the country there is NO public transportation, NO options for folks who can't drive or don't own a car. And as you point out in your links, Catholic health groups are now filling the gap--growing wider and wider--left by our insistence on retaining a for-profit health care delivery system. (And it isn't just Catholic hospitals--there are Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Jewish hospitals as well). Obama-care was supposed to fill some of that gap--and it has to some extent--but even these efforts are now being sabotaged by Trump.

You asked why people are willing to tolerate the more repressive aspects of religion--particularly Roman Catholic--even if they themselves don't personally subscribe to those beliefs. I've been trying to lay out why this might be so. Then again, considering there are hundreds of millions of Catholics in the world, and more than a billion self-described Christians, I also imagine there are a multitude of personal reasons that all feed into the mix. Theology is only one of them, and very often not the most significant.

[MineralMan]

38. Atheism has no intention to do any of that.

It is simply individual disbelief in deities and the like. The vast majority of atheists don't belong to any organizations having to do with atheism. It is not a social thing in any way.

[thucythucy]

39. I understand that.

I'm simply trying to answer your questions, beginning with the one in the OP. I'm not suggesting atheists can do anything to fill the needs that religion currently fills.

[marylandblue]

26. I agree with that, but I'd also add that religious experience is important

People believe because they have religious experiences or feelings that seem beyond explanation. Nonetheless, our rational mind tries to explain them, usually drawing on the explanations given to us as children. If they find these explanations adequate, they stay with the religion they were born with. If they don't, they look for other religions or for natural explanations. If the natural explanations make more sense, or they never have religious experiences, they become atheists.

[thucythucy]

36. Excellent point.

I keep meaning to re-read "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by James. A lot of it has slipped my mind, but I recall he discusses this dynamic at some length.

For many people divinity isn't abstract, it's something they believe they've personally experienced.

Thanks for articulating it so well.

[Mariana]

40. Early childhood indoctrination is a huge factor.

There's a reason religious "education" begins long before children have any ability to understand or question what it is they're being taught.

[Cartoonist]

23. I have no problem calling out religion.

I never miss an opportunity. I see a lot of posts in GD that are critical of religion.

Outside of DU, I think it's a case of "one of us" meaning that even though there are differences between religions, the basic principle is that they all believe in magical beings.

You can't question another's belief in myth without questioning your own.

[MineralMan]

25. Yes. That's why the word "some" is in the title.

I've been known to call out religion, myself.

[guillaumeb]

31. Looking at your title,

Last edited Sat Oct 20, 2018, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)

the implications are that there are enough of these progressive Democrats that you should be able to cite numerous examples of the behavior that is the focus of this post.

So I will wait for these numerous examples to be cited.

In my reading here, I have been unable to find any such proof of what you claimed to see.

[Iggo]

32. You mean some as in thousands and thousands and thousands?

Or am I just deaf to their cries?

[guillaumeb]

33. 4 hours later, we are still waiting for some names of these people.

Or even 1 name.

[qazplm135]

42. I'll concur with others who have said

that without better examples, this is such a general and vague criticism that I don't know how to respond or what you are really asking.

Why do some people who consider themselves moral in one area do things that are immoral in another area is really what you are asking from what I can tell, and it applies to all humans.

We are profess to having a general morality, and many of us also have a really significant moral area that we draw the line more than most.

"I really hate dishonesty!" or "I can't stand a thief!"

Yet, usually, those folks will violate even that moral area and then argue why their violation is different or why it's not really a violation.

Generally speaking, the things that religions might do that anger a progressive end up being the very things you listed as ordinarily being called out: racism, sexism, and homophobia...or generally bigotry.

I don't know of a ton of examples of progressives saying that it's ok to be any of those things if you have a religious basis for it. I see anti-abortion/anti-contraception/no female priests called out for the Catholics. Evangelicals get called out on the regular. And even Islam gets called out. Perhaps less than the others but there's a couple of reasons for that. Lack of familiarity, and a sense that Muslims in this country are already being beaten metaphorically by the far right so adding on to it might not be the right move right now.

[Jake Stern]

43. Just because they're being "metaphorically beaten" by the right

doesn't mean they somehow deserve any less derision for their religiously based jackassery.

Misogyny is misogyny and homophobia is homophobia whether it comes from Pastor Steve or Imam Ahmed.

But to some on here it's far worse coming from Pastor Steve than Imam Ahmed.

[qazplm135]

44. I have no idea what deserves means

vis-a-vis the appropriate volume of "derision."

What I do know is that it's pretty basic human nature to not kick someone who is already being actively beaten by someone else, even if you have a beef with them as well.

To some you say. Who?

"Some" people can be used for any cohort and any criticism of said cohort ever.