27-Jul-2011, 09:54 AM
Okai, from the replies I got, I am sure I did a horrible job of explaining the hypothetical situation I prodded on.
This post is only the history, i.e. the comments that went back-n-forth. My reply comes in the next post.
So if you already know what happened, pass on to the next post.
Response 1
A comment in between which I believe is directed to Ajita
Response to my 2nd comment:
And a follow up response, directed at me.
Now this is what transpired on facebook.
Lesson learnt: need to add more clarity to comments. My reply follows. (will take a short while)
Cheers,
Suraj
This post is only the history, i.e. the comments that went back-n-forth. My reply comes in the next post.
So if you already know what happened, pass on to the next post.
Suraj Wrote:Just to play devil's advocate (regarding that blog link / dog-gecko story) because I am curious as to how this could play out: "I am a religious person, you making making fun (read: criticize) of my beliefs is not fair", do we listen and stop? No matter how poorly argued a stance it is, it is a *real* concern for the religious.
Just curious. As for the admin issue, I have a slightly different opinion; will post it on the forum.
Response 1
Sunil Wrote:That analogy isn't a good one, in fact it's the reverse of what it should be - religiosity confers privilege, not atheism. Atheists are the marginalised group. So the analogy should instead be -
[Atheist] "I'm an atheist, you're excluding me by talking about how spirituality makes one a moral
person. I'm moral but I don't believe in god".
[Religious person, dismissing concern] "It doesn't matter. God believes in you."
PS please be wary of playing devil's advocate. It's the last of the derailing tactics in the DfD link above. The reason it's often a derail is that it takes what is a serious matter that harms people and turns it into an academic discussion - and of course it is the person with privilege who gets to do this.
Suraj Wrote:Okai, now we have a discussion rolling.![]()
Before I address your point of view, ha, yes, I did say up front why I did mention the "Devil's advocate" clause. I am not, in the least, worried about criticizing religion and do so in a fairly open manner. I am not discomfitted by putting the religious in an uneasy position at least when I am on a topic/debate with them. Nor is the case that I put forth meant to be anything more than an "academic" discussion. All I want to do is explore the level to which this "privilege" can be pushed or if indeed it is a matter of big concern in many cases (it definitely is an important issue in particular case as Elevatorgate showed us, I agree).
Okai, now you say that as atheists, we are the marginalised group. Not entirely important to what I wanted to put across. Here is the thing, as a student of science and one who applies reason rather than emotion, I _know_ I think better, more rationally than someone who is high on religion and in a general a better person (yes, privilege?).
Now knowing that and a lot about religion, when I criticize the religious, the most common response I get isn't that "god still loves you" but rather a desperate demand that I don't criticize or tone it down a bit. Of course this is coated in words like "don't make fun of my beliefs, you don't believe in them so you wouldn't understand". This scenarios is an extension of what the author of the blog has written. That their beliefs are being questioned *is* a real concern for them. and the author is calling for protection on almost any such opinion (that might have some consensus, at least).
While I am all for equal rights for women - not just on paper, but in practice. And I do understand that the author really wants to put that across. It does work in clarifying the case of women having a hard time walking on the streets (simplified, for brevity's sake) but it remains an unnecessary or rather over-burdening requirement to _understand_ each and every other person's opinion AND act accordingly. In a certain way, it also demands political correctness which isn't acceptable because not everyone's opinion is correct. It is correct for "male privilege" to a certain degree.
A comment in between which I believe is directed to Ajita
Arjun Ishwar Wrote:Good job, talk about making an impact!
Response to my 2nd comment:
Ajita Wrote:Are you really comparing criticizing religious ideology with sexism?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt in this comment because you've been around on this group for a while, but your arguments make it clear that you are REFUSING to get it, and the "devil's advocate" and claim of "academic" discussion are diversionary tactics.
The story that you are referring to is not trying to convey that the powerful should respect the beliefs of those not in power. It is to point out that the powerful can be unaware of their privilege and therefore affect the RIGHTS of those not in power. That said, it is an analogy, and like all analogies it has its limitations.
One problem with your argument is this misunderstanding of yours:
"Here is the thing, as a student of science and one who applies reason rather than emotion.."
No, you apply emotion as well. We all do. You cannot help yourself, because emotions are an integral part of how the brain works. I don't want to go into this too deep because we have debated this point multiple times, here and elsewhere. This point goes to what I said in my previous comment about values premises. There are always values premises involved in any human action. When you claim that you do not have any, you are only REFUSING to acknowledge them. Read what Geetha wrote above.
The idea of criticizing religious belief being equivalent to not recognizing privilege doesn't hold up when look at it for what it really is. The former is about freedom of expression. The latter is about denying rights to someone else. Do you support the persecution of the religious in the name of criticizing religion? Do you support preventing them from worshiping? If you do, then you would be right in using the comparison. But as most of us recognize (because of our values premises), those actions would be fascistic.
Let me get more specific. You said that the religious argument often is:
""don't make fun of my beliefs, you don't believe in them so you wouldn't understand"
Of course this is a silly argument, but only as long as you are not forcing them to listen to your criticism of their beliefs. The people whose beliefs you criticize have a choice to not listen to your criticism of their beliefs. If you forced your beliefs on someone, most atheists would say you have no right to do that.
I will revert back to an analogy I used in my previous comment. A White slave owner has the right to express his belief that slavery is good. He can express it all he wanted, in "academic" settings, playing "devil's advocate". But he has no right to create and perpetuate the conditions where the slave's beliefs in freedom and equality cannot be realized.
Finally, enough with this here. Further discussion will be on the forums (link is in the opening statement to this thread). Please refrain from commenting further here, another more appropriate forum has been provided. This discussion has served its purpose in the group, and the air needs to be cleared here so that we can discuss other subjects relating to our cause.
And a follow up response, directed at me.
Rakshi Wrote:// I _know_ I think better, more rationally than someone who is high on religion and in a general a better person (yes, privilege?).//
No. Privilege is not about personal self-esteem. It is about the rights and privileges society/ societal conditioning confers on you to such an extent that it becomes the prism through which not only do you see the world, but the world sees you too. Privilege is about a power that is invisible.
Let me try and contextualise this to a situation in India. Men do not *HAVE* to think twice before getting on a crowded bus. That is the privilege of gender. And *not having to think twice* about it, is the invisibility of such privilege. It comes with the territory.
Women, by virtue of their gender, among other things MUST go through a process of putting oneself on guard, for something as 'normal' as getting on a crowded bus.
Now this is what transpired on facebook.
Lesson learnt: need to add more clarity to comments. My reply follows. (will take a short while)
Cheers,
Suraj
'The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.' - Carl Sagan