Humility is not humiliation.

Normal is only a word. How it is defined often reflects the power structure in a particular society. The poor, for instance, are more likely to be labelled "abnormal" than the wealthy. Commonly, those in power to make and assign the labels exclude people like themselves.

Oppressive ideologies (ableism/neurotypicalism, racism, sexism, ageism, classism, heterosexism, etc.) are, from a sociological standpoint, social constructions, not personality traits. They are used by people, often without being aware of what they are doing, to oppress minorities. Oppressive ideologies enable discriminatory behavior.

Quote:

I now recall that I thought about this before. I noticed how people can identify subtle deviations from "normal" behavior and as a result of the perceived atypical behavior, a strong instinct of disgust/hate emerges. I recall a TV documentary on the subject of -isms, they said discrimination, racism, fascisms, are due to the basic human emotion of disgust - example, the Indian caste system has the Brahman and Dalits.

To me, that is too speculative. I have no idea whether there is a "basic human emotion of disgust." As a nominalist (i.e., my user name), I reject universals as being more than useful categories.

Quote:

I know as a sociologist that you may tend to subscribe to the idea that isms- are caused by culture.

I would not say that they are "caused by culture." Culture, in my view, is simply a name for our social constructions.

Quote:

Whereas, I tend to speculate that -isms maybe related to evolutionary-biological influences - that evolution has developed a set of cognitive tools designed to identify genetically different members of the human gene pool, and when they are identified...instinctual processes are evoked that act to prevent the reproduction, out-breeding etc.

I would not dismiss the possibility that evolution might have something to do with it. However, I am skeptical about the utility of applying biological processes to human behavior (sociobiology, human ethology, etc.).

As a sociologist, I do not label people with ideologies. I attach those labels to societies in general.

If I say that the United States is a racist, sexist, ableist, ageist, heterosexist, and classic society, I do not mean that each and every American reflects bigoted attitudes. Ideologies permit certain behaviors, such as bullying, to continue without sufficient consequence. There is no assumption, however, that all members of a society will express discriminatory traits.

Benson started out doing research on TM. He then discovered that the benefits experienced by TMers could also be effected using any mantra. (For anyone who does not know, TM initiators simply assign mantras by age. I used to have a list of them, but I misplaced it.)

I thought that TM was okay until they started getting into all the TM-Sidhi stuff (supposed flying that is really jumping, etc.).

I just found this page:

http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/bogardus02.htm

It provides a really good example of a Bogardus Social Distance Scale.

In terms of whether the Bogardus Social Distance Scale is on the Internet, I don't know. However, here are the specs on the book:

Emory Stephen Bogardus. A Forty Year Racial Distance Study. University of Southern California. 1967.

I don't have the book myself. I once did a search online, and no one seemed to have it. Basically, I use the notes I took in an advanced Social Methods class when I was a Ph.D. student. However, the information in that link I posted before really contains all the information needed. Since it is a cumulative scale (not an ordinal measurement, like the more commonly used Likert scale), judgments about degrees of social distance do not need to be made. One simply notes degrees of social distance based on average respondant responses.

To my knowledge, there are no restrictions on it.

IMO, the problem is that "right wing nuts" commonly say that the war against what they term islamofascism is World War IV (for those of them who make the Cold War World War III) or World War III (for those of them who do not). They focus on the dangers posed by these supposed terrorists and ignore the state terrorism of nations like the U.S.

Many of the same people who use the term "islamofascism" would be deeply offended if one pointed out that there is such a construct as christofascism. IMO, both terms are more provocative than edifying and should be replaced with more cogent labels and descriptions.

The problem is that many of the same people who use the term "islamofascism" would be deeply offended if one pointed out that there is such a construct as christofascism. IMO, both terms are more provocative than edifying and should be replaced with more cogent labels and descriptions.

Herbert Benson did some interesting research on TM. The results are published, in popular form, in his book, The Relaxation Response and its sequels. What he found is that the same results claimed for TM can also be effected by silently repeating any mantra (or equivalent), especially one that is personally meaningful. At the same time, one observes one's thoughts without dwelling on them. When the mind begins to become distracted, one gently brings it back to the mantra.

Well, I may have just saved some people on the cost of purchasing his books (or on the TM courses).

I am not a lawyer, but insanity, in most part of the United States (not sure about other countries), is basically a legal term for incompetence or not being aware of the guilt of one's actions. Insanity can be argued as general, in which case, if a person is found guilty by reason of insanity, a judge may send the person to a psychiatric facility or prison hospital. It can also be argued as a temporary state (temporary insanity).

As I understand it, insanity ended into the legal system back at a time when psychiatrists diagnosed people as insane and sent them to "insane asylums," i.e., psychiatric hospitals. Obviously, psychiatrists and other health professionals do not generally use that term any longer. It can, therefore, be a difficult balancing act for expert witnesses (like psychiatrists and clinical psychologists) to apply modern theories of the mind to artifacts like insanity.

I don't deny the experiences of others. However, I accept them as just personal stories. I do not assume they can be related to anything else. I accept that others have their experiences, and I don't dismiss them. I just don't universalize them. Although I try to be very positive, I don't believe that I am necessarily going to get something by being positive, if that makes sense.

Someone wrote:

Well, what do you ~think~ they'll be saying? Of course they'll be yanking their own chains, doesn't mean it fits the scope of reality.

That information is based on widely available statistics. As a sociologist of religion, I refer to those statistics on a regular basis. However, here is a more neutral source:

"Of America's 6 million Jews, approximately 6% identified themselves as Orthodox in 1990 ... Today North American Jewry is about 42% Reform, making Reform Judaism the largest & fastest-growing Jewish movement."

http://adherents.com/Na/Na_565.html#3348

Quote:

I beg to differ and this is because it's a verified fact that in every city, in every state in every country and on virtually ever island (!) there's a Chabad simply to answer the needs of every Jew no matter they may be on earth. It's the fastest growing movement

Well, I am not sure what you are differing with me on. I never said that Chabad was not the fastest-growing Jewish movement. I merely said that I was a bit skeptical about it. Do you have empirical evidence? The evidence I have seen would suggest that Reform Judaism is the fastest-growing Jewish movement.

Quote:

Did you personally take part in a census? I didn't - I don't know anyone who did - so where are they getting this ranking from. Hilarious. Anyway - it so doesn't matter. Those who know - know and those who don't guess.

The data I posted is from statistics reported by Jewish organizations and from national surveys.

Someone wrote:

Where can I find substantiation for this claim you've made? I see around me more and more Jews embracing their roots and shunning the watered down, xtianified *reformism* .

Well, most Jews do not belong to a temple, synagogue, community center, or shul at all. However, of those Jews who do affiliate with a congregation, most choose a liberal one.

For instance, in the U.S.:

"Reform Judaism is now the largest Jewish movement in North America, with more than 900 congregations and 1.5 million people."
http://rj.org/

I also disagree that Reform Judaism is "Christianized." The same secular Western processes whch influenced liberal Protestantism and the 19th-century Social Gospel movement also influenced the growth of Reform Judaism.

Quote:

Eh. Hardly. More likely the majority are now joining Chabad's ranks.

I think you may be conflating two separate issues. Chabad may be the fastest-growing Jewish movement in the U.S. (though I am a bit skeptical), but it is far from being the largest one.

All of Orthodoxy, including Chabad, is ranked third in terms of membership in the U.S.:

1. Reform
2. Conservative
3. Orthodox
4. Reconstructionist

I come from a Jewish background, but I was raised in a non-practicing home. (We even ate bacon.) However, Jewish dietary law, which is strictly followed by most Orthodox Jews (and by some Conservative Jews), is not just based on biblical exegesis. It includes what traditional Jews believe is the Oral Law of Moses and is recorded in the Talmud.

Since the interpretations contained in the Talmud mandate that dairy and meat cannot be mixed, religious Jews do not mix them. Individual interpretations of "the Bible" (which are emphasized by Christian Protestants) do not matter.

However, that said, most Western Jews are not religious or traditional. The largest Jewish body in the U.S. is Reform Judaism which is basically liberal and secular (though monotheistic).

Found on a message board

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian:

1. You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
2. You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
3. You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
4. Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
5. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
6. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
7. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
8. While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
9. You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
10. You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

From my far leftist perspective, not exactly unbiased, the Nobel Prize committee is made of a number of people who enjoy sticking it in the face of the rabid right. They did it once again in awarding former Vice-President Al Gore. I cannot think of a better use of Nobel Prize resources.

Treating "the Bible" as a thing (talking about what "it" says) is absurd. First, the Bible is not a text. It is a name given to at least four compilations (canons) of texts. Second, pretending to understand a collections of texts written by ancient peoples, without even having a knowledge of the languages they used, is nonsensical.

Someone wrote:

What is humanity's biggest problem ??
and
What is the root cause of humanity's worst problems today ??

IMO, the answer to both those questions is linguistic realism - the dangerous belief that the words we use and the categories with which we construct what we call "reality" are real things. It is, however, the words used by the people in power which have the greatest influence and are, potentially, the most dangerous.

Bush, for example, has referred to a "war on terror." Not only does he get to define the terrorists, but he has the bully pulpit to condemn those who disagree with him as unpatriotic, anti-American, etc.

Once we recognize that the words and categories used by people are not real, we are free - free to work with others to linguistically construct social realities which better suit our views and objectives.

Let's nominate Rush Limbaugh (Nobel Prize for physics) for demonstrating, in the wake of his prescription drug scandal, that, indeed, objects of great mass can float.

Someone wrote:

Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the entire world, yet it is the largest. That testifies to its inherent power. Wherever perseuction begins, membership explodes. Unlike in Islam, where people martyr themselves in a painless death so they can go to heaven and fornicate all day long.

Well, the Falun Gong and Tibetan Buddhism are the most persecuted religions in China. Does that testify to their "inherent power," too?

Originally, codependence was not connected with abuse (except maybe indirectly). It related to the wife of an alcoholic making excuses for her husband's alcoholism and, therefore, enabling him to continue drinking without it having direct consequences to his family.

Codependence is interesting, but, IMO, it needs to be more operationally, or at least clinically, defined. Of course, the idea itself developed in the context of alcoholism. The alcoholic's spouse (generally assumed to always be woman at the time) was regarded as someone who just looked the other way at, or made repeated excuses for, the alcoholic's bad behavior. As a result, the alcoholic was supposedly "enabled" to continue drinking without feeling that the spouse would leave.

More recently, however, writers like John Bradshaw expanded the concept of codependence to move beyond enabling an alcoholic to enabling anyone whose behavior might be seen as "dysfunctional" (addicts, abusers, etc.). I remember watching Bradshaw on PBS (back in the 1980s). He made some really outragous claims - like saying that 95% of the population was codependent.

As a result, the idea of codependence became a normative part of the popular culture of self-help books (along with inner child, etc. imported from the literature of transactional psychology). However, one consequence of this popularization has been that the term "codependence" lacks scientific rigor and is unlikely to be taken seriously by most researchers.

Someone wrote:

Perhaps their age old avoidance of marrying with non-jewish gives that impression?

That is not as true anymore. Anecdotally, I would say that about half of the folks I know who have been born into Jewish families have married people who are not Jewish.

Quote:

Perhaps the christian church was very canny in continuing to include these old writings to paint a picture of the jewish as believing themselves to be superior.

In Eastern and Central Europe, Jews were ghettoized for decades. (The term"ghetto" originated with Jewish apartheid and segregation). The ghettoization was, of course, forced upon these people - just as apartheid was forced on Black South Africans; and when people have been driven into separation, they tend to see themselves as different or unique. It is a part of the history of the Jewish people, and it came with many of them when they migrated to North America.

Nihilism is really a term of derision. I am not aware of anyone who calls herself or himself a nihilist. The term is sometimes ascribed to Nietzsche, but I think it reflects a misunderstanding of his views.

Existentialism is often connected with Sartre (and with Kierkegaard, though he never used the term). Basically, existentialists would claim that angst (anxiety, fear, dread, etc.) can lead one to a search for meaning.

Aburdism is frequently attributed to Camus (though perhaps unfairly) and others. In some ways, it can be considered a more pessimistic version of existentialism. Some absurdists might say, "Well, you can search for meaning if you like, but you should never forget that life is completely absurd."

Someone wrote:

But we're talking about establishing the inerrancy of PAULS WORDS, not the entire bible. What PAUL CLAIMED was that his words were NOT HIS, and that he got them from christ and God. If pauls claims his words are from god/christ, and it IS a teaching that god does not lie (is inerrant), then it follows that if Paul claims his words are from god, and you claim paul is in ERROR, that YOU ARE IN ERROR.

If I say that Paul was like the rest of us - right sometimes and wrong other times - I do not have to prove it. That merely tells us he is a human being.

However, if you say that Paul is inerrant, you are logically required to prove it. You have not done so.

Quote:

If you are claiming the text is in error because the people who wrote it made errors, then there is NO POINT to believing "in" christianity because the works are written by men, and there is no standard for what is true versus what is not. Thereby making any claim to be "Christian" or believe in the "Christian god" unintelligible and logically incoherent. (untrustworthy).

Expressing your desire for a standard of truth does not establish that there is one (or that you have discovered it).

Quote:

True, but then why are you even participating in this thread?? WHAT f***ing POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE? IF you're not a Christian or have any scholarly biblical background TAKE A HIKE... because god damn, I'm getting pissed off that you are not well read enough to even be discussing the issues I have presented here. So DO NOT PARTICIPATE because you are obviously too ignorant of Christianity and biblical texts and related beliefs to add anything to the discussion..

You do not own the thread. If you do not like my comments, you can certainly ignore them.

Quote:

No sh** but look -- it's in the forum titled - Politics, Philosophy, and Religion.

Yes, and I am a sociologist of religion, a college professor, which is why I participate in this section.

Someone wrote:

Man you are the most biblically ignorant person I have ever met, no wonder you are 'not a christian'
Hebrews 6:18, which says that it is impossible for God to lie, or Titus 1:2, which says that [b]God can not lie.
Number 23:19 says, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"

You still have not shown me where verbal inerrancy is taught. You are assuming a direct relationship between statements in a written text and God's own words. Therefore, to you, if a statement in what you regard as an inerrant document is in some way flawed, it means, from your perspective, that God himself is lying. I make no such assumption. God does not write books. People do.

Quote wrote:

Then you're accusing god (as according to the bible) and christ of lying

You are obviously entitled to your point of view. However, since I do not assume that Paul reliably spoke for God (at least no more than others), and since I do not believe that the Bible exists as a unitary document, I would have to disagree with you. I am not accusing Christ of lying. I am disagreeing with Paul. As you must know, Christ and Paul never met (excluding Paul's visionary claim).

Quote:

Jesus Christ said,  the Scripture cannot be broken  (John 10:35).

If indeed he did say that, he was referring to the Tanakh (and possibly to various Apocryphal texts). He could not have been addressing the New Testament, since it had not yet been compiled.

Quote:

Which means NOTHING, if you're accusing paul of having his teaching WRONG then their is NO POINT in believing or following christianity. Paul according to the gospels was invested with the power of god, he claimed HIS WORDS WERE NOT HIS OWN BUT GODS... so if paul is "fallible" yet every word he spoke he claims was from god... you're accusing god of being fallible.

As I said, you are entitled to your point of view. Anyway, the modern Protestant idea of verbal inerrancy is nowhere taught in any of the books compiled into the various biblical canons. I can believe that someone is inspired without assuming that everything that person says is perfect.

Quote:

A logically untenable position.

My position is completely logical given my assumptions. For one thing, I am not a Christian.

I reject the 12-step model of addiction as insufficiently nuanced and essentialistic. It ignores differences between people with respect to impluse control (life-long or only temporary), and it assumes that the alcoholism model can be lifted from AA and applied to other areas without significant modification, i.e., the view that all addiction is the same (essentialism).

: Conservatism is the lie. Liberalism is the lie with a mask.

There is no such book as "The Bible." What people refer to as "The Bible," in its various canons (four major ones), is a compilation of manuscripts which were written over hundreds of years.

Also, texts do not have intention, so it would not make sense to say that a text was "meant" to be interpreted in a certain fashion. Intention lies solely in the minds of the writer and reader of those texts.

I would not say that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, but the evidence is certainly very limited (and easily contestable). However, there is clearly no historical evidence for Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses.

When it comes down to it, people accept the historicity of these persons on the basis of faith, not history.

I would not say that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, but the evidence is certainly very limited (and easily contested). However, there is clearly no historical evidence for Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses.

When it comes down to it, people accept the historicity of these persons on the basis of faith, not history.

The Islamic world in the Middle East and Persian Gulf is going through a similar process to that experienced by the West during the Enlightenment. There is a struggle between those who advocate liberal republicanism (or some reasonable facsimile) and those entrenched in religious tradition.

I would rather construct my own narratives than to let someone else do it for me. IMO, we can learn from the thoughts of others, but I personally try to keep them in perspective.

Someone wrote:

Liberal / non-literal intepretation of bible impossible... for a real christian.

Well, I am not a Christian, "real" or otherwise, so perhaps I should not be commenting on this subject. Nonetheless, I will do so.

I am uncertain what you mean by a "non-literal interpretation of the bible." A literal interpretation is simply a reference to reading the text (as opposed to reading one's own views into it). If a text is symbolic or poetic, then reading it as historical would be "non-literal." (The reverse would be true as well.)

Copyright © 2002- Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. All rights reserved.