ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But where are you seeing that? Did you read any of those articles?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why I Left ---
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Er, I would say that not a single one of those statements constitute a "socially liberal value".
I'm confused. In the story about the young man who left ultra-orthodox Judism, one of the reasons he cited for leaving was his childhood issues.
Again, I'm confused. In the story of the ultra-orthodox jew, it was the leaders of the community who said that he was the one who was dangerous to the ultra-orthodox community, not vice-versa.
Yeah, probably. I wouldn't argue that doesn't happen, as probably a lot of modern journalists are coming from a place of Modernist, or Postmodernist value systems. Those can tend to view traditionalist beliefs and practices in less than favorable light. And so the author's thoughts come through in how it is presented. Myself being more post-postmodernist and progressive in my views, can see that in them as well. Everyone does that, such as reporting within conservative traditionalist lens tends to look unfavorably on modernity and postmodernity, and that comes though in there too.
Yeah, it is for anyone looking to truly understand that true nature of things. Both good and bad have to be looked at honestly, and not just dismissed on ideological grounds, be those traditionalist, modernist, or postmodernist. When I look to understand something, I seek out different points of view and consider them in their contexts to form my own opinion on things.
I think I know what you mean. For instance there is a view in the West that modernist ideals are the highest truth, and that traditionalist cultures are behind the times, oppressing their women, and so forth. (We still do here too!). I think the issue is complex. Let me form a couple quick thoughts.
Because we live in an age of instant mass-communications, this has the effect of what has happened throughout the ages when a conquering nation spreads to create an empire which engulfs thousands of smaller ethnic groups, each with their own beliefs and traditions well-established within them. What happens because of commerce is that these groups which normally lived primarily in isolation from each other in their own self-sustaining systems, are exposed to these other groups and their gods and beliefs and traditions on a daily basis through the flow of commerce through them. Roads and travelers from other lands are walking through the centers of their towns, complete with a different god and all.
This interaction becomes part of Cosmopolitanism. Whereas they were separate communities, now they are one. The result of this is conflict of beliefs and ideas and values. In time, after living like this, within a few generations the differences begin to soften and even merge, creating a new thing. When the rate at which this naturally happens is too rapid or too forced, there are negative responses to this, which gives rise to "fundamentalism" as a reaction against this change.
So on a grand scale in modern times with the Internet and cellphones with news and information within in instantaneous reach (unheard of in any age before the last decade), this evolutionary force of Cosmopolitanism reaches into cultures, say in Saudi Arabia. The rise of Wahhabism is itself exactly a fundamentalist reaction to Modernity entering into its ancient tribal value-spheres with a different reality. Women within that culture begin to realize that the freedoms and liberties of women in the West are a better thing that the life prescribed for them at home. They, like the children of any tribal member in any age learning about and seeing life for children in other cultures begin to seek those out for themselves.
When the condition is repression of change back home, where they get locked up in prison, beaten, shamed, or killed, then when someone escapes such a condition, those in the West will "applaud" such a feat, as repression, persecution, and oppression are antithetical to modernist values. But of course, there is more to that story than just "bad at home and get away everyone," type reporting. To truly understand takes understanding it from multiple depths and multiple perspectives. This is something people have to write books about, which is far different than journalistic reporting.
I don't think that fact disqualifies that distinction I made. For a point of common reference, as I know the term "fundamentalism" is used all over the place, like the term spirituality is. But I'm going with how it was first used as a modern term beginning in the late 1800's in America. It can be applied to other religions than just Christianity, but its origin of use was American Protestant religions of a particular anti-modernity bent. It is precisely why they are called funamentalists.
Here's a quick synopsis of what I'm looking at. From Wiki article on Fundamentalism:
Christian fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines, in reaction against Modernist theology.[12] The term was originally coined by its supporters to describe what they claimed were five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, and that developed into a Christian fundamentalist movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century.[13] Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910 to 1920. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism.[14]
The term "fundamentalism" has roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897), which defined those tenets it considered fundamental to Christian belief. The term was prefigured by The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart, but coined by Curtis Lee Lawes, editor of The Watchman-Examiner, who proposed in the wake of the 1920 pre-convention meeting of the Northern Baptist Convention (now the American Baptist Churches USA) that those fighting for the fundamentals of the faith be called "fundamentalists."[15] The Fundamentals came to represent a Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy that appeared late in the 19th century within some Protestant denominations in the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs traces to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the five fundamentals:[16]
By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the five fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists". They reject the existence of commonalities with theologically related religious traditions, such as the grouping of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism into one Abrahamic family of religions.[3] In contrast, Evangelical groups (such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association), while they typically agree on the theology "fundamentals" as expressed in The Fundamentals, are often willing to participate in events with religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines.[17]
As such can be seen in the above, it is clear that fundamentalism is not the same as traditionalism. It is based upon a negative reaction to something. It's born out of "not-this". The definition of reactionary is "(of a person or a set of views) opposing political or social liberalization or reform." Traditionalism is not a reactionary thing at all. So it's quite distinctly different, even if it claims traditionalism as it's home. In reality, they are kind of its own thing as an offshoot of it.The term "fundamentalism" has roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897), which defined those tenets it considered fundamental to Christian belief. The term was prefigured by The Fundamentals, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart, but coined by Curtis Lee Lawes, editor of The Watchman-Examiner, who proposed in the wake of the 1920 pre-convention meeting of the Northern Baptist Convention (now the American Baptist Churches USA) that those fighting for the fundamentals of the faith be called "fundamentalists."[15] The Fundamentals came to represent a Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy that appeared late in the 19th century within some Protestant denominations in the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs traces to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the five fundamentals:[16]
- Biblical inspiration and the infallibility of scripture as a result of this
- Virgin birth of Jesus
- Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin
- Bodily resurrection of Jesus
- Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus
By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the five fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists". They reject the existence of commonalities with theologically related religious traditions, such as the grouping of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism into one Abrahamic family of religions.[3] In contrast, Evangelical groups (such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association), while they typically agree on the theology "fundamentals" as expressed in The Fundamentals, are often willing to participate in events with religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines.[17]
I've not heard that one.I'm confused. In the story about the young man who left ultra-orthodox Judism, one of the reasons he cited for leaving was his childhood issues.
Again, I'm confused. In the story of the ultra-orthodox jew, it was the leaders of the community who said that he was the one who was dangerous to the ultra-orthodox community, not vice-versa.
One of the lessons that came to me when doing the Bardic grade for the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids a couple years back was the power of story. It's not something explicitly taught through the program, but it is a thread that weaves through the course. The stories we listen to, the stories we tell ourselves, and the ones we tell to others shape reality as we perceive it. For better or worse, it seems that most in my culture trivialize the power of story and do not give it due attention. That you notice this trend, @Rival, does you credit. Many would not (or dismiss it).
The stories we pay attention to and those we tell are a reflection of our values. And it is known to be the major driver of how people think about the world and behave within it, in spite of claims that humans use "reason" or are "rational" animals (we are not). We are value-driven, emotion-grounded animals, and this is not a bad thing. The core of religion is to articulate the values of a person or a culture, through narratives (aka, mythology), engagement with those narratives (aka, ritual), and building connections (aka, community).
Stories about rejecting a particular set of values are often part of that, even if they should not be the focus of healthy religion. When finding ourselves in the religious landscape, we often start off by figuring out who we are not. The stories of "why I left such and such" serve an important role in that. But then, there comes a time where it is necessary to move past them. If a person never moves past why they aren't something, they don't figure out what their values are and what their religion should be for them. Those who focus more on the building identity phase pay less attention to the "why I left such and such" stories. They aren't that interesting compared to "how to trust your religious experiences" or "building your own theology" and the like.
The stories we pay attention to and those we tell are a reflection of our values. And it is known to be the major driver of how people think about the world and behave within it, in spite of claims that humans use "reason" or are "rational" animals (we are not). We are value-driven, emotion-grounded animals, and this is not a bad thing. The core of religion is to articulate the values of a person or a culture, through narratives (aka, mythology), engagement with those narratives (aka, ritual), and building connections (aka, community).
Stories about rejecting a particular set of values are often part of that, even if they should not be the focus of healthy religion. When finding ourselves in the religious landscape, we often start off by figuring out who we are not. The stories of "why I left such and such" serve an important role in that. But then, there comes a time where it is necessary to move past them. If a person never moves past why they aren't something, they don't figure out what their values are and what their religion should be for them. Those who focus more on the building identity phase pay less attention to the "why I left such and such" stories. They aren't that interesting compared to "how to trust your religious experiences" or "building your own theology" and the like.
8 percent of journalists at national publications and 14 percent of those at local publications reported attending worship services weekly, ...
...Reached by phone, he said he hadn’t seen any data about Christian representation in newsrooms but said encountering a politically conservative and “theologically Christian” employee at a major newspaper is akin to “spotting a unicorn.”
There’s no good data on how many Christians are in newsrooms
I imagine that journalists have their interests, concern for viewership/ratings even political agenda. Lots of religious bloggers on the internet. Not so many religious folks at national publications in the US at least.
Maybe the rest, in order to seem unbiased, they avoid supporting any particular religion.
It was right there in this story you posted as an example of these kinds of stories in post #14
Here's the link to the story you posted again so you can find where he said that it was his own childhood issues that started his leaving, and that the rabbis said that he was dangerous to the ultra-orthodox community:
'Why I had to leave my ultra-Orthodox life'
This is what I get for trying to read articles and listen to videos at the same time!
A few people have made the point better than me, I think. Is it so difficult for some people to write about a perspective different than their own and see the value in a different kind of life, without letting their disdain for it come in? I realise that many humans are drawn to write about and read things that reflect their own view, and perhaps by definition such communities are outside of their reading/writing margin, but I would like to see a change in how such communities are viewed and reported on without such words as 'escape', 'free' and other such slanted terms.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
Start reading Weekly World News, you can contribute news and opinion stories if you choose, not sure if it pays but it can be therapeutic I'd imagine.
Weekly World News | The World's Only Reliable News
Komori
Member
These kinds of apostasy tales cater perfectly to our modern outrage culture. Modernity is a fundamentally unipolar ideology. Everything must conform to its great project of "civilization," or else it is a threat that must be destroyed, and the media serves to reinforce this narrative.
A site I used to read for balance is run by relatively conservative religious folk who question typical media coverage GetReligion
Their basic thesis is that most reporters don't know much about religion, for one thing, and tend to follow fairly anti-religion trends.
It's a useful site to hone one's ability to see missing stories and missing perspectives but after a while, I got tired of how narrow their focus was.
But I do think they're worth a look.
I cannot help but point something out here.
That's what secularism is all about!
Not that secularists are perfect by any means. They also, individually, have their biases and weaknesses. But disdain, even hatred, of other people with a different kind of life is the defining feature of religious fundamentalist society.
That's why we secularists treat them and their world views differently from most people.
Tom
Maybe I’m dead wrong here but I’ll give it a go.
I believe mass media is all about consumerism & is in direct competition with religion. It’s driving force is greed and profits. It tries to dethrone religion subtlety by telling us in various ways that that car or new phone will bring you happiness or that if you drink this or that alcohol beverage you will have so many friends and much joy. It highlights religion when a terrorist attack or child sexual abuse occurs to condition society to abandon religion.
There is nothing good about religion but you will get immense joy and happiness from ‘our wonderful amazing new product’. The mass media doesn’t want people content with religion but to buy their new product so they bombard the media with negative stories about religion and wonderful stories about all their great products which promise paradise.
One doesn’t make a profit from promoting virtuous conduct but from promoting things like games of chance like casinos, poker machines and so on. There’s massive profits from promoting anti religious habits but no profits from telling stories about people happy with their religion so why would they waste the space? They dedicate all their space to promoting consumerism because it fills their coffers. What they promote ends up destroying lives through alcoholism, gambling addiction and so on but all their aim is is to make money and plenty of it.
The more people abandon a spiritual life and turn to material pleasures the more profits. The money one doesn’t give to the church might go to buying a new product or gambling and drinking so there’s competition for the $$ and Religion gets a lot of money too.
Telling good stories about religion might only make more people religious and have them spend their money giving donations.
So to many who control media I believe they are saying, YOU’RE number one not any God. Spend your life not worshipping an invisible God but in materialistic pursuits buying our product. Religion tells us to love our parents but big business commercialized Mothers Day not out of love but love for profit. How many billions does Christmas shopping take in yet how many stores really care about Christ or God?
Religion is only used when there’s money to be made like Christmas, Easter but other times the front pages is all about child sexual abuse and terrorism.
So wonderful stories about happy religious people doesn’t serve big business’s interests so they don’t waste the time or space in their media except on things which increase profits.
I would disagree. I have spoken to many fundamentalists who do not have hatred, but only wish to be left alone. In my experience it's the secularists who see modernity as the beacon of enlightenment every society should strive for.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
All Depends I suppose. I kind of think the door swings both ways.
I mean you can't prostylize standing on top of a soap box dressed as Elvis in one's quest to save the universe and expect no push-back from any of it.
To be honest it sounds a bit like role reversal here poetically getting a taste of one's own medicine.
I tend to think people wake up to the fact that reality and religion don't always mesh and consequently leave.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It kind of reminds me of some of these reality shows.
Breaking Amish
Escaping Scientology
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Anytime a view outside the majority norm gains sufficient strength it still sees itself in terms of the struggle it has long had. So after centuries of persecution anti-religious or alt-religious views are still of interest rather than those who find comfort in the centuries-long norm.
What's news is what is changing, not what is staying the same. Cant you look to your own life for those familiar comforts?
sealchan
Well-Known Member
To say that the centuries long norm, which is not news, is news and that to focus on changes (what is "new") is an attack on the old norm is a peculiar way to twist things IMO.