Safe
Sunday, May 24th, 2009
I have pondered for the last several months the reasons why I feel so much safer as part of the atheist group than I did in any Christian groups. I feel like I have people (both online and in real life) I can count on, and I can be myself more than I ever have. Beyond the emotional support, however, I also just feel physically safer, and I have yet to figure out why.
Then tonight, I was browsing another blog when I was reminded of an incident that occurred about seven or eight years ago. When I was in high school, I worked at a Christian camp one summer, and it got dark while a male co-worker, my male boss, and I were still working. My boss had a 4-wheeler, but only room for two. Sounds like a no-brainer (to a religious culture that emphasizes chivalry and gender roles), and my male coworker, Joel, apparently thought so, too. Joel told me to ride back with Corey, as it was quite a distance, dark, we didn’t have any flashlights, it was in the middle of the woods, and we had a group there full of people we didn’t know. My boss (Corey) said, “Uh, actually, Laura, it would be inappropriate for me to take you back since I am married and you are a female, so I am going to have to take Joel instead.” I stared at him. “You understand, right? I can’t have anything compromising my marriage.” I nodded dumbly, so amazed and shocked that I couldn’t even form a reply. So the two of them rode off and deserted me in the middle of the woods in the dark with no flashlight! Heroic. I am *sure* that’s exactly what Jesus would have done! Now, it is important to note that only one of the two conservatives thought I should not get a ride, but if Joel had truly been concerned for my safety, he could have walked back with me. Housing for the women was right next door to housing for the men, while the boss had to travel out of his way to take either of us back. Really, Joel and I walking back together would have made the most sense, regardless of our gender, just so nobody had to be deserted in the dark. If one person fell or was injured, the other could have gotten help. We didn’t have cell phones. Or, Corey could have even given the 4-wheeler to me, or to Joel and me. I think what Corey said, though, made Joel think that if it was compromising for Corey to be alone with me, then it was compromising for Joel to be alone with me, even though he wasn’t married and neither one of us had any romantic interest in the other. Really, the entire incident was selfish, thoughtless, and made no sense.
I don’t think that would ever happen in a non-religious crowd. It hasn’t so far. Heck, I don’t think that would even happen in a moderately religious crowd. The extent some people go to enforce their own legalistic, Pharisaical rules is completely ridiculous–and dangerous. That was the most extreme example I can recall, but it’s not the only time I was left in a less than ideal situation from conservatives. Most of the time, it was because they weren’t paying attention, not because of any silly standards. It’s strange because one of the attractions of Christian fundamentalism is supposed to be the way men are thoughtful toward women because they don’t have to be tied down by the feminist movement. It’s so strange how the opposite seems to be true: the nonreligious men I have met seem to simply use common sense. Women are capable, but you don’t strand them in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night, either.
I wonder if something had happened and I had been hurt or killed if that would have changed any minds? I wonder, too, if Corey had been “struggling” with homosexual urges if he would have still taken Joel?
Tags: atheism, Christianity, courtship, feminism, fundamentalism, Ozark Conference Center
Loading ...
May 24th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Something of this nature once happened to my wife. She was at church and I was delayed in being able to pick her up. She was waiting and waiting until it became obvious I wasn’t going to make it. The only one left who could give her a ride home was the pastor. He refused because he had to protect his marriage, he couldn’t be seen alone with another woman. So he left her sitting there alone. When I got there I was furious with the bastard but my wife had forgiven him because she had been trained to think that way.
May 24th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
What a horrible thing to have to experience… and I agree, as an atheist I would never want to put anyone in this situation.
I’m glad you came out of it ok, though.
Kris
May 24th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Reading this makes me very angry.
No one should have been left by themselves in that situation.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:09 am
My mentor in college told me a similar story from his life – that took place in India. He offered a childhood friend a ride on his scooter and she looked at him like he was an idiot. “I’m married. You know that.”
What I find ironic and pathetic about American fundamentalist Christians is that they are often the most outspoken about how their own culture is somehow superior to the rest of the world, in particular decrying the “third world,” alternately talking about how nasty it is on the one hand, and how desperately in need of our help on the other.
Yet at the same time, they don’t realize that they themselves live in the “third world.” They literally have the same values, awareness, and code of ethics of an Indian villager. It’s wrong of me to say that traditional values (Indian values actually are traditional, whereas American fundamentalists are in reality a newfangled addition to the ethical universe) are wrong, but I find it pathetic and ironic tha these Christians act the exact same way as the people they truly think that they are better than.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“if Corey had been “struggling” with homosexual urges”
What makes you think he didn’t?
May 25th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Oh, I don’t think it matters if he actually was. My point with that line was to show how it is quite possibly more about appearances than what is actually in someone’s heart.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I worked at a Christian camp for many years (as head of their horsemanship program and because I lived down the road from the camp, not because I was a Christian) and learned that Christians can always find any justification/rationalization/excuse for anything they want to do, generally based on some twisted (to my mind) interpretation of their religious beliefs. Gossiping, back-stabbing, laziness, mis-treatment of anyone (co-worker, camper, etc) who didn’t share their beliefs and even abuse of the animals were rife at the camp, all carried out under the Christian banner. The way these people’s minds work to justify these actions were incredible to behold and yes, scary as well. If you had been hurt or killed that night, they probably would have chalked it up to God’s will or judgment from God for some sin you had committed (like trying to lure your boss into a compromising situation), not anything they had done.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Wow. I think the trouble with being a Christian is that there are all sorts of people with varying levels of commitment to it (as well as varying levels of intelligence) all delclaring themselves as “Christian”. I’m not going to make some lame argument like, “oh, that guy obviously wasn’t really a Christian because invented reason XYZ.” However, I will say, that as a Christian and as someone who has been staff at various camps over the years I can’t imagine making the same decision he did. There are obviously countless alternatives – everyone cram on it anyway and go slowly, all three of you walk back and then the guys go back for it, etc.
I’m just here to say that I hope you realize that the inability to be rational or pragmatic about something isn’t a hallmark of Christianity. Who knows, his reasoning may have been sound; maybe his wife really *is* insanely jealous and something like that would have made her crazy. That’s fine, everyone’s different, but leaving someone in the middle of the woods is obviously idiotic regardless of your religious viewpoint. I’m glad you made it back safely!
May 25th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Maybe the dude just didn’t like you, I get a conceited vibe from reading this. Pehaps he thought it would bug him having you around. The excuse sounds invalid sure, but this kind of crap happens all the time, everywhere. Religion or no, some guys would rather just shoot the shit with the boys than be nagged by the girls. You give atheists too much credit and religous nutbars too little.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Everyone justifies their actions. It’s just that when you have a well defined code that’s preventing you from doing what you want and you’re surrounded by others that know this code, you have to work harder at it. You would think that would be a clue to them that they shouldn’t be doing it, but sadly that’s usually not the case. I’m sorry it was a bad experience…
May 25th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
That sounds pretty far-fetched. Where exactly are you finding this “conceited vibe” or even the slightest shadow of evidence of her having such a bad personality that people would prefer to abandon her alone in the woods?
Occam’s razor favors her explanation far more than it does yours.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I can’t count the number of times that Christian groups I was in piled people into vehicles. It would have been easy to just crowd all three of you in the vehicle. Sure it’s a squeeze but it would avoid hanky-panky if that’s anyone’s worry. Stupidity reigns.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
You do understand that, “dude disliking someone,” and, “dude having psycho girl,” are in no way different in levels of complexity, right? As neither are more complex, the razor cannot be applied to this.
The situation was not thoughtless, dude gave other dude a ride. The situation just wasn’t giving better treatment to a woman, just because she’s a woman. The expectation that people should bend over backwards for women just because they can carry protoform humans is rediculous and archaic, women are just as capable as men in almost all respects, better in some and worse in others, but it’s relatively balanced. Corey had no obligation to give either a ride, he was nice to Joel, Joel had no obligation to Redhead he went for a free ride.
If I don’t like someone, I am not going to give them a ride, I don’t give a crap if they’re suckling two with a third on the way, they’re on their own.
The posting seems to convey Redhead’s assumption that men will just give the better treatment to the woman, because she’s a woman. I disagree, I am an atheist and if I don’t like someone, they’re on their own, I don’t care if Jason is chasing them.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Oh, I would agree with you that I wouldn’t feel entitled to a ride based on gender now that I am no longer a Christian fundamentalist. I don’t think I would go as far as you do–I would try to work out an egalitarian solution that leaves nobody stranded, but I wouldn’t assume that I should get to go first or have someone constantly take care of me, either.
In conservative Christendom, the better treatment men give women is pretty much the only draw it has for women. Women submit, men protect and treat women well. Only, it doesn’t often happen that way. Once you take away the benefit, there is not much left to like for fundamentalist women. That is all I am trying to say with this post. It’s perfectly fine if you still think I am just a prideful nag, but I did want to explain a little further lest I sound like a selfish psycho.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
The problem with text is the lack of vocal and visual cues with which to otherwise convey mood and situational data, so it becomes difficult to properly read a person’s disposition and intent, the words stand alone. It causes a sort of straight interpretation in the way one reads another’s thoughts, and unfortunately throws in more of the reader than what one gets in a face-to-face communication. Perhaps some of me muddied your thoughts while I was picking through them, who knows?
You don’t seem psychotic by any means, but the post conveyed a expectation of care that one should only hold of a close friend or family member, not a stranger. It also implied that jerks in christian groups are more prominent than jerks in atheist groups, this is false, patently so, I am a jerk and I have never been accused of being a christian.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Actually, the right answer would be for both men to have walked and given the ride to the young lady.
At least that’s what I would have done.
As a married christian myself, I make every effort to avoid being alone with members of the opposite sex. It is, basically, an acknowledgement of the fact that I am as flawed and succeptible to temptation as any other person.
Further, by doing this I avoid any appearance of impopropiety. By doing this I demonstrate the great respect I have for my wife, and for all women. If nothing else I avoid giving those inclined to start rumours nothing to work with.
Although it sounds like this guy’s head was, in part, in the right place, it seems that his attention to one detail distracted him from the need to act in a way that would preserve the safety of a young woman. An error to be sure. Of course, being a christian doesn’t make you perfect!
May 25th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Wait, you actually fear you will rape some random woman? You think everyone you know will start talking about your libido? You have a more serious issue than imaginary friends, your sex drive must be huge and your friends horrid.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
A woman walking alone in the dark has a higher probability of being attacked by a man than would a man walking alone in the dark.
It’s not about preferential treatment; it’s about minimizing risk, and this guy fails on all counts, as would you if you left someone alone in the dark just because you don’t like them. There is such a thing as civility.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
There was a very reasonable expectation that the three would work something out so that nobody had to walk back alone. That SHOULD be the expectation of any civilized human.
Instead, both chose the thoughtless, contemptible action: leaving someone alone in the dark who doesn’t want to be left alone in the dark.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Have you considered that he was afraid to be left alone with a teenage girl? We live in a culture in which men are assumed to be always at fault. If you had accused him of sexual harassment, his career, and his marriage are over – regardless if anything actually happened.
Give him a break.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
…also..
If you’re married and especially if you have kids, you don’t put yourself in potentially compromising situations that could embarrass you and your spouse. It’s just common decency. Your situation, could reasonably fall into that category. I’m an atheist, and I don’t know if I would drive you alone at night as well. I know, sad..but that’s the reality. Too much for me to lose.
Again: Give him a break. It’s the mainstream culture not the individual that’s at fault.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Wolter, you use thoughtless repeatedly, I think you need to look into the meaning of the world. The two men both thought about their action before taking it.
If these people were truly in a location where a risk of attack was present, yes, it surely would have been preferential to leave the dude instead of the chick, just as it would have been to take the dude instead of the chick. The man with the wheels preferred to have the other guy with him.
I also fear you do not know what civil means, your arguments fail due to their facetious nature.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I disagree, it is the individual. If you care that much about your image and those around you are so untrustworthy that you are unwilling to aid another person for fear of some intangible consequence which may potentially occur, it’s all you. It’s paranoia, and one who fears to take any risks when given the chance to be a good person is stepping into the grounds of being a bad person.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
The point is that they should not have left ANYBODY to walk alone. That’s just plain stupid. Had they an ounce of compassion (you know, the stuff that Jesus talked about and practiced a lot), they would not have left her behind.
The fact that they justified their actions as protecting their marriages makes this a gender issue.
Argue semantics all you want. I won’t join that game.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
And a declared justification somehow covers the real reason, just because they said so? Do you truly believe that Wolter?
If I declared I was eating babies because I was starving to death, would that be the truth? Can it be confirmed that such a statement is entirely correct, based soley on the words I have used? Or must my actions be taken into account as well as my behaviour outside the situation? Maybe I have been staring just a little too intently at that baby’s hindquarters.
We don’t know these men, maybe they were actually homosexual and wanted to leave Redhead behind so they could have some time to themselves?
The thing they did was not nice, but it was not bad. Had she had company on the walk back she would have been less bored, but no less tired and she would have still walked the same distance. One person had an easier time, the other did not. This was not being bad to Redhead, this was being good to Joel.
The nice thing for Joel to have done could have been to reiterate his original position of, “ladies first,” less nice would be to keep her company, but it was not a bad thing to have him accept the kindness of another.
If I had a single unit of life-saving medication and Redhead and Joel were both sick, and I gave it to Joel and he took it, would I be a bad person for having not given Redhead medication? Would Joel be a bad person for taking it, instead of giving it up, or refusing it since Rehead would go without?
You are attaching a justification to the actions that demonizes them both, when they may simply have been attempting to use the least offensive excuse they could arrive at. Perhaps Corey actually finds gingers to be unsettling and he feels uncomfortable around them? Not wanting to hurt her feelings or feel like a jerk for telling her that, he used the wife card.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
You’re using conjecture and “what if” scenarios to avoid the issue: leaving someone alone in the woods at night with no light.
To harp on “ladies first” is to miss the point entirely. Their actions were reprehensible, and would have been regardless of the gender of the one they left behind. Hell, even letting the 3rd person stand on the rear bumper would have been a damn sight better than what they did.
What makes it worse is they justified it by arguing for cowardice, and yet they claim to be better men because of their god.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Nat:
Nat, again in a later comment:
Nat thinks Redhead is ‘conceited’, but Nat himself is clearly so cool he’s above ordinary sensible precautions. Comedy gold.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
As an atheist, I have, about eight or nine times, shared a hotel room with a good-looking member of the appropriate sex, whom I didn’t plan on having sex with, and, shock of all shocks, I didn’t have sex with them!. Well, actually it wasn’t a shock. What’s a shock is that so many other men seem to have such a hard time controlling themselves.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Nat’s the kind of person you’d be embarrassed to call a friend.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
And you are calling these men reprehensible for leaving someone alone in the woods, an area that she surely was not unfamiliar with, instead of just accepting that it was a neutral action, neither good not bad. They gave a justification true, and it may very well be that Corey feared his wife would react poorly to even the mention of him with another woman, late at night, alone, in the middle of the woods, where noone else was watching, maybe for a half hour or so.
Can you say that you would pick up a hitchhiker, if your car was full, and just let them hang off the back of the damned car because you wouldn’t want them walking in the dark alone at night? What if it was a little girl? In a short skirt? What it if was ripped? And then, what if it was a grubby old man covered in his own feces? You wouldn’t want to leave anyone alone, would you?
Who knows all the details of the situation? You are really jumping on the, “those guys are evil, ” bandwagon pretty gung-ho, that much I can say. For all we know, Corey really disliked having Redhead’s tits pressed against his back, because it made him feel uncomfortable, thinking sexual thoughts about a woman other than his wife, and could not stand having that kind of situation pressed upon him, so rather than spend time mulling it over, he simply avoided it.
Having the third person stand on the back of the vechicle puts him in the position of responsibility should anything go wrong, lawsuits ensue as both Joel and Redhead end up paralized after having the ATV does a barrel roll.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
The media (both new and traditional) has a fetish for false accusation stories. They love to play them up for all they’re worth, and milk as much ad revenue out of them as possible.
But think: why are such stories news in the first place? Well, because they are rare! Car accidents ruin people’s lives all the time – 36,000 Americans every year (that’s a 9/11 every month) die in them each year. But car accidents are not news because they happen all the time.
Contrary to popular delusion, false accusations, even from panicky teens, are rare. In fact – at least in most of the wild areas near where I live – it’s far more likely he’d hit a deer or a tree hard enough to end his career, then to get falsely accused. If the man was afraid of a false accusation – he suffered from an irrational fear, and I encourage everyone who has such fears to learn to overcome them.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Maybe Nat’s *real* name is Corey.
Hehe, just kidding.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
I think what he’s saying is that he chooses not to subject himself to temptation whenever possible. I got offered a job doing web work on a porn site. I needed the money, and it was easy work. However, I decided that it would be bad to surround myself with sexual overstimulation.
He saw a very reasonable alternative to some chick riding on an ATV with her tits pressed up against his back. I don’t think he should be chastised for that.
I’m mostly an atheist, btw. But I certainly know some dogmatic atheists, and when I did customer service, I met some pretty unreasonable people who were functioning out of their own messed up desires. I’m sure they weren’t thinking about God at the time.
Just because you’re right doesn’t mean you’re smart.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Nat’s the kind of guy that gives hitchhikers a Quaker bar from his glove compartment, he’s the kind of guy that gives blood and bone marrow, he’s the kind of guy that donates to the Green Party… He doesn’t give two shits about any of those people he’s helping, he just does it because it is the proper thing to do, he is not obligated to do so, he is not forced to do so, he does not feel compelled to do so in any manner, social, moral, or legal… He does it because it is a nice thing to do. He understands on an intellectual level, that these people are in a less pleasent situation than he is, and assists according to his whims.
He’s the kind of guy that at three in the morning will help a friend bail out his flooding basement.
He’s the kind of guy that has broken a man’s hand for bothering him in a bar.
Nat’s not a good person, just a person. He chooses to do things he wants to, including hurt people and help people, depending on who he likes and who he doesn’t.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:01 am
And by “he” I’m referring to Right Thinker. Not the guy that was actually on the ATV. That guy was a douche and a dweeb.
Oh, and I think high-minded Christians actually follow the word of Christ, which is that if you lust after someone, it’s a mistake. If you hate someone, it’s a mistake. If you judge other people, it’s a mistake.
Even if you disagree with most of Christianity, there are quite a few bits that, if heeded, discourage one from becoming a self-indulgent, egotistical, impulse-driven idiot.
However, people fail to be high-minded about it, unfortunately.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Owned
May 26th, 2009 at 12:17 am
What are these ordinary precautions you speak of? Is this supposed to somehow speak of my unwillingness to help someone I dislike? I don’t see any contravening elements to my statements highlighted. Where is this gold you have unearthed? Elaborate on this statement please.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:32 am
He’s the kind of guy with no sense of social responsibility.
He gladly takes the things that society has to offer, yet believes that nobody should criticize his decision to refuse help simply by virtue of it being his choice.
He contributes to some things in order to balance out his karma points for when he decides to act without compassion.
In short, he’s not the kind of guy you’d want to be with in a pinch.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:44 am
[...] Safe I have pondered for the last several months the reasons why I feel so much safer as part of the atheist group than I [...] [...]
May 26th, 2009 at 12:50 am
I’m just passing through this blog. This might be very premature, but I get the sense that you think your only options are a) be a Christian or b) be an atheist. Did you lose faith in God or the Christian religion? There are other religions out there that make a lot more sense…
May 26th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Wow, karma, there’s a can of nonsense. No, there is no connection between my actions negative and positive Wolter, it’s called, “choice.” If I don’t like something, I don’t choose it. If we’re both running from a bear, pretty soon I will be the only one running from the bear, that’s my choice. I could try and keep running with you, I could stop and try and protect you, but I don’t care about you, so I don’t like you, so I don’t mind you being hurt, it’s not my concern. As I said, it’s not about being good for me, because I am not, “good.” I also never claimed I was.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:53 am
More like be religious or be atheist, she’s just from a christian background, so things tend to focus on her own experiences, which she can draw from, instead of yours, which she’d have a hell of a time accessing. Salam.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:55 am
No, I didn’t feel that those were my only options, that is just how it progressed. When I began to stop believing in the Christian faith, I stopped believing in God in general. After all the research and all, I would not consider myself “spiritual” anymore, so other religions just never really clicked with me. Even some of the UU stuff drives me a little mad. I don’t mean that offensively or negatively toward anyone else who is more spiritual, it is just who I am. Atheism fits. If something else came along, I would consider it, but at this point in my life, I find it highly unlikely that I could be anything else.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Then why are you arguing morality?
May 26th, 2009 at 1:08 am
You’re asking me, a person who identifies with both good and bad, who indicates that he is not good, why he is arguing about morals?
So, your opinion is that a person who is not perfect cannot argue about the morality of issues?
Peace, I am finished with this discussion if all you have is indignance without substance. May you one day find yourself in a position of higher learning and greater understanding of the human condition Wolter.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Ok. Goodbye then.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:57 am
>But think: why are such stories news in the first place? Well, because they are rare!
Then surely you will agree Laura’s fear of being left alone is irrational as the amount of murders is low. So what are we arguing here? Minor inconveniance?
May 26th, 2009 at 2:18 am
I don’t think I said I was afraid of murderers. I just said that it defies common sense to leave anyone, male or female, out in the woods in the dark without a flashlight. It was more about the safety in the woods. It is very easy to stumble even with a flashlight. In woodsy places, there tends to be uneven ground with roots, rocks sticking up, potholes, etc. As I had only been working there a couple of weeks, I knew the area, but not enough to remember where there were holes and roots when I couldn’t see. And we didn’t take flashlights because it was one of those jobs that was only supposed to last an hour, we started around 3 or 4, but we ended up having to stay much later.
I didn’t advocate leaving Joel there, either. Read the whole post: I said the smartest thing would have been for Joel and I to walk back together. Though I didn’t say it in the post, it would have been even smarter would have been for one or both of us to wait while Corey drove off to get us some flashlights. I would have grabbed a flashlight and gone back for Joel if Corey had chosen me. Not because I would have worried about Joel being murdered, but just because it is so much easier to stumble and sprain/break a bone in the dark. Just in case you didn’t know that.
I hope that answers some of the questions that have been floating around here.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:18 am
The story from this post is horrible, and I am ashamed that the camp director acted towards one of his staff in that manner. Any number of hypothetical scenarios can be offered about how the situation could have been avoided or better remedied. But the issue at stake in the post is really why a person, specifically a woman, would feel safer in a group of atheists than a group of Christians. Furthermore, the overall message of the post seems to be: one reason atheism is true is because I feel safer as an atheist than I did as a Christian and here is one example why. But there is problem here. For one example of Christian failure on this front does no more to topple the claims Christianity than one example of an atheist acting in a similar fashion would help to topple the claims of atheism. Again, I am sorry for your experience, and angered at the actions of those two men, but question if the story supports the claim.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I’m a passer by – instead of being Atheist, Why would you not even consider Islam or Buddhism??????????
These are 2 of the peace loving religions (ignoring the extremists).
May 26th, 2009 at 2:20 am
I grew up in a Southern Baptist home. I now refer to it as Southern Hypocrite. The more I reflect on the religion and things I’ve encountered, the more I feel like it’s a cult. I don’t currently identify with any religion, but my upbringing has left me seriously jaded and questioning everything I was taught.
Scenarios like the one you described earlier are probably rife throughout many people’s experiences when it comes to so-called “Christianity.” I find that a lot of people, not all, only portray the behavior and characteristics of a “Christian” when certain people are watching, and by no means live by the standards they preach.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:24 am
I think that any and all religious extremist be it Christian, Muslim (we saw what happened there), or even athiest is dangerous and could be unsafe.
For all of you who say being an athiest is not religious, consult your dictionary:
“a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects”
The belief that there is no god is as much a religion and as dangerous as the belief that there is God when taken to extremes.
Sure, the guys you mention in your story did a pretty stupid thing, but they did not fly airplanes into buildings killing thousands of people or blow themselves up. They also did not shoot up Virginia Tech or Columbine in the belief that there is no God and no consequence for their horrific action.
Just the fact that you can write this blog indicates that nothing was hurt except your emotions or feelings. No physical harm came to you. Yep, it was stupid, but unsafe? Even Dangerous? I would have to beg to differ.
Unsafe is trying to go to market in Isreal where Palestinians and Hammas will shoot missles at you in the name of Allah. Dangerous is trying to cross the border in North Korea where Kim Jung Ill shares your belief that there is no God.
Being left in the woods? C’mon? Give me a break. Go read what the rest of the world is dealing with in countries who share your atheistic beliefs.
Spend a year in Romania where babies are abandoned by their parents at birth by the thousands or go to Rowanda where genicide is taking place over tribal differences.
It seems that getting left in the woods pales in comparison.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Nat I don’t really want to offend but you’ve got this whole “I’m better than everyone and know everything” attitude going on. You’re arguing with people over words they’ve used such as “thoughtless” and “civil”when there’s no point because overall the person was still right.
The bottom line is, Lauradee24 should not have been left stranded even if he didn’t like her. He was the boss. It’s his job to make sure his employees are safe regardless if he likes them or not. The point of the story was not meant to be gender roles but rather the excuse used for Lauradee24 being left behind.
The boss took rationality to the point of irrationality by following religion. “Rational” in his mind was not riding with a woman other than his wife. It became irrational when not riding with a woman other than his wife meant leaving a person to fend for themselves in the middle of the woods at night.
As for not helping someone simply because you do not like them, that too has its rational/irrational tipping point. If the person is not going to be in danger then fine, don’t help them. But if the person is in a possibly dangerous situation, aka alone in the woods at night, then its irrational not to help them. You’re just a monster. Also, since you like to argue details, what situation would cause you and a total stranger whom you don’t care for to be running from a bear?
May 26th, 2009 at 2:44 am
So in your opinion, things are only dangerous when hundreds or thousands of people die? One person being harmed in whatever way is fine then?
Danger is danger. Yes, there are different levels and odds but the boss increased the odds of her being harmed by leaving her behind. The same would be said for Joel. There could have been a cougar in the woods or something. What if she stepped in a hole she couldn’t see because of the dark and broke her leg? It’s not deadly but for one thing she’d have to hobble back and then there’s that matter that she was hurt when it could have been prevented.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:44 am
[...] I was just reading this post and the comments that followed. I hear about this sort of thing pretty often…someone has a bad [...]
May 26th, 2009 at 2:51 am
>Why would you not even consider Islam or Buddhism?
If you came to my house, point at a blank wall and say “Look at the awesome portrait”, no matter how much I’ll want to, I just won’t be able to see anything but a blank wall.
Similarly, even if I wanted to (and I don’t), I can’t make myself believe in your fairy-tales.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:15 am
It is obvious that you don’t get it.
Religious extremists are dangerous. What they do in the name of religion or non-religion, belief or unbelief, intends to harm others. They mean to do damage to people. They mean to maim, destroy, kill, hurt or otherwise do injury to others in the name of ______________ (fill in the blank).
What these did was stupid, but I don’t believe that they intended to harm her. They did not intend to have her step in a hole or get eaten by a cougar (and she did not). They did something stupid in the name of a religion, but they did not do something with an intent to harm. The whole idea that anyone could even come close to comparing what they did to what others do in the names of their religions is completely off the wall.
Your post shows you lack a common sense, a legal sense and the sense to understand the world. You live in a bubble and either did not read my post, or did not understand it. You dribble stuff out of your mouth without consideration of logic.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Thanks for responding. A few last pieces of unsolicited advice (I really hope you don’t mind). As weary as you should be of blindly following a faith, you should be just as weary with bilndly not following one. Which isn’t to say that I think you’re a blind atheist, but I’ve noticed that many atheist are. This is the most important question that a person has to answer. Although you can’t rationally come to the conclusion that a God exists, if you ever do come to that question again, may I suggest following what you feel deep down is right? You can believe in God (i.e. one supreme all-powerful and omnipotent deity) while comfortably knowing that your belief is not irrational (since there is no logical way to prove or disprove God). From there everything you follow should make sense logically. I think you’ll find, like me, that the ONLY religion that makes sense logically is Islam. Forget everything you’ve heard about it and pickup a good translation of the Quran (the one by Ahmed Ali is pretty good IMHO) and I think you’ll see what I’m talking about.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:40 am
[...] Posts SafeAboutTwistedWhy I Stopped Believing In GodThe Most Harm, Part OnePeople and TerminologyThe Most [...]
May 26th, 2009 at 3:46 am
Extremists don’t “intend to harm others.” They don’t wake up and decide “I’m going to hurt someone today”.
Extremists believe that the cause trumps all, and so if at any time they perceive the need to cause harm in order to protect the cause, they will do it without a second thought and without remorse (for the cause justifies the action). THAT’S what makes them dangerous.
In this case, we are not really dealing with extremism. They simply believed that helping her would compromise their standing in their community (gossip, basically). As such, they decided that their reputation was more important then her safety.
There is a parable that Jesus is purported to have told:
From Luke 10:
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
There is some explanation that must go with this:
Priests and Levites were forbidden by law from coming into contact with the dead. They worried that were the man to die while they tended to him, they would be defiled.
Basically, their reputation took precedence over their compassion; they wrongly believed themselves excused from helping someone in need. This is why Jesus tells this parable to an expert in the law.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:11 am
No I read your post just fine. Your post questioned whether or not the situation she was in was unsafe or not. I didn’t say they were extremists or that extremists are or aren’t dangerous. I’m arguing that the situation she was put in had some level of unnecessary risk to it due to a religious belief.
Of course there is no comparison between extremists intentionally killing thousands and a couple of idiots stranding a person in the woods all in the name of religion. The blog was merely posting one small example from her life of how religious groups made her feel unsafe. Also, the fact that she wasn’t harmed doesn’t make the situation any better; it still wasn’t safe.
I’m not arguing one religion over another or about extremists. I’m just saying that I disagree with you on what you said about the situation not being unsafe or dangerous .
May 26th, 2009 at 4:29 am
How many of you have been walking out in the wilderness, at night, without any light source?
As somebody has spent weeks and months at a time in wilderness areas I can tell you walking at night without a light is a dangerous prospect–even if it is in an area you are incredibly familiar with–because you cannot see. Just a few months ago my sister broke her ankle in her own backyard at night where she has been living for over five years because the porch light had burnt out and she didn’t grab a flashlight thinking it’s her backyard and she knows every inch of it. The poster could have tripped and broken bones, been knocked unconscious, or sustained even worse injuries and bled out all alone so some guy can pretend he’s righteously chaste by not appearing in proximity to a woman in his truck. (And I have to ask, why didn’t he say just ride in the bed of the truck in the back completely separated by metal and glass?) Once again appearances are far more important than common sense: you don’t leave a person stranded in the dark in the wilderness without a light and without any means to contact somebody if they get hurt. You should not go walking into the woods at night alone or without a light, it’s just common sense, which was trumped by some need to maintain appearances at the potential expense of another person’s safety. There’s nothing enlightened, spiritual, or humane about that.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:08 am
The problem with this is that it’s the same kind of testimony you will hear from people of all manner of religious faiths.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:18 am
Once, when I was much younger and newish in the business world, I visited a client in a city I’d never been to before. I was there on business, seeing a client. We were visiting clients of his who had purchased goods my company manufactured.
As we headed back to the office, he asked ‘Do you want to get some lunch before you head back to the airport?’. I agreed, it had been a long day. We pulled up, and he said “Well, there are some good cafes along here, and the bus station is just down there. I’ll see you later”. Then he drove off, back to his office. The bus station was a twenty minute walk away, and turned out to be a tour bus station, which didn’t do airport runs.
No religious points here, the guy was a complete dick, but his responsibility, like the responsibility of the car owner in the story, was to assist me. I can’t imagine leaving anyone in the woods without illumination, whether they knew their way back or not. I’ve tripped on tracks in broad daylight, at night it’s incredibly dangerous.
I’d get one person to sit in another’s lap, or I’d sit in someone’s lap, or curl up in the back, or drive very slowly while the others walked along, or leave and come back with illumination, or send another car back to retrieve people. Leaving someone there? Ridiculous.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am
You didn’t notice the base situation? The whole deal about being in the woods? I wasn’t talking about being in Miami and runnning from a bear… Perhaps I would be in the woods when I encounter one. Besides, it’s a situation example used to illustrate my character, not an essay. Joel and Redhead managed to get into the woods and not care for eachother.
I would not agree with the ostentatiousness of my behaviour, I am simply pointing out flaws and telling people they’re not giving sufficient thought to their arguments. If people stopped saying things like, “thoughtless,” when thought is being demonstrated and the like, I would not be going out of my way to point out they’re not making sense. The English language isn’t really something you can rewrite on the fly, you do have to follow the argeed upon definitions of words for your statements to make sense.
Don’t get me wrong, I am arrogantly tearing into other people’s statements, but these statements tend to be foolish and fail to hold real strength, so I don’t truly understand the label of being unduly harsh and self righteous, hell, I’ve admitted to my own faults. I hold no illusions of piety.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
>As weary as you should be of blindly following a faith, you should be just as weary with bilndly not following one.
Who says I’m ‘blindly’ not believing in (any) God. I have very good reasons for not believing in a God, and specifically in YOUR God. You on the other, believe in something for which I know there is no evidence for. So what are you arguing here? You’re the irrational one.
> while comfortably knowing that your belief is not irrational (since there is no logical way to prove or disprove God)
You cannot logically prove and disprove the existence of Santa Clause either. Do you believe in Santa Clause? Logically you cannot disprove the existence of anything. So you’re going about it backwards. It is YOUR job to provide some evidence. There are an infinite amount of things to believe in, what is your evidence for your particular irrational beliefs?
>Forget everything you’ve heard about it and pickup a good translation of the Quran
I read the Quran already. I’m assuming it was a good translation as it was the one that was given out by the Muslim Student Association at my University. The book has nice parts, interesting parts, poetic parts and scary, despicable parts. It reads like a book that came out of the middle ages.
Why don’t you read a good book? Maybe a Richard Dawkins book like “Selfish Gene”, or a Daniel Dennett book like “Breaking the spell”?
May 26th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Hang on… I thought you were done trolling this blog?
May 26th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
(Comment removed by moderator. Please refrain from personal attacks/name calling. See “Posting Guidelines” at the top of the page.)
May 26th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
My god… It’s full of trolls!
May 26th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I’m a Christian and married to a Christian wife. I’ve been in that situation many times & I always fetch any stranded female back. A life is much more worth than reputation (of being accuse unfaithful). My wife trust me to be faithful to her. If I fall, I have only myself to blame.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
ITALY: political, institutional repression, abuse of power, racism, discrimination… for the aliens!
May 26th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Bah! This gives away their fear of judgement – They know that others will jump to a conclusion without thinking, followed by the rumor mill.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Christianity can be upsetting. I grew up going to Christian schools and church. Being well educated in Christianity I often questioned the ways that so many Christians act. A church is not a building it’s a group of people who can rely on each other, yet after 10 years at one church when I moved away (due family problems) not one person called or tried to keep in contact. So much for relying on the church. What so many Christians “live” by is WWJD. According to the bible Jesus was not afraid to be seen with whores, yet your Christian camp counselor co-workers refused to be alone with you in a vehicle. He probably had faith issues both in God and with his wife.
I’m posting a new blog on the hour, every hour, for a year!!! Check it out
http://24blogsaday.wordpress.com
May 27th, 2009 at 1:20 am
You start with asking why you feel safer with the people you’ve met at atheist groups and I’m not sure that this incident entirely answers the question. I’ve definitely had atheists do similar things to me, although they would never have given that sort of explanation. The fact that he was more interested in appearances than reality is an interesting note.
It’s also interesting that you report that chivalrous behaviour is part of the attraction of conservative Christian sects for women. I never noticed any difference in their behavior towards me.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Further, by doing this I avoid any appearance of impopropiety. By doing this I demonstrate the great respect I have for my wife, and for all women.
As a woman, a married man avoiding being alone with me would not signal to me that he respects me. It would actually do the opposite. It would make me think that he thinks I am such a brazen hussy that I can’t be alone with a man without hitting on him.
If you truly want to respect women, or anyone for that matter, demonstrate that you trust them to behave decently.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I think the core of this issue is civility towards women not so much the difference between Christians and atheists. As I was reading this blog and the posts afterwards I noticed a lot of similarities to a book I’m currently reading called “The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide” by Frank Miniter. There is a section that talks about how men in general have become less civil to women in part because of feminist movements. I don’t believe that any really civil man would leave a woman alone in the woods or man for that matter. There is nothing wrong or indecent about civility.