Cherished beliefs

[catsittingstill]

There is a belief in Africa (possibly in other parts of the world too) that children can cause harm to their parents and neighbors using supernatural powers.  People who suspect a child of causing harm with supernatural powers punish the child.  Machetes sometimes feature.  So does acid, drowning, beatings, starvation and burnings.

Some people offer exorcism services to drive the evil spirits out of the children.  Which, it turns out, in addition to being very expensive, also feature machetes, acid, beatings and starvation.

The Independent has an article.
So does the New York Times.
So does CNN
And MSNBC

Of course, suggesting that the supernatural doesn't exist, or that the idea that anyone, much less a child, could cause harm by supernatural means is bollocks, would be mockery.  And some believers resent that rudeness and attack skeptics physically.

Part of the problem here is that well-respected individuals often share these evidence-free beliefs.  Even senior police officers may genuinely believe in witchcraft, leaving the children, and the skeptics who would like to protect them, with nowhere to turn.

So when you're mad at skeptics, because the evidence for a cherished belief some people hold isn't strong enough to convince them yet, remember that a little skepticism can prevent a lot of harm, and that having someone say something that makes you think they think you are dumb when you're not is pretty small potatoes in the larger scheme of things.

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Caught me red-handed. So to speak.

The tracks of my reactions

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

1. ???
2. Follow link in your last para.
3. !!!

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

That link...more disturbing than maybe smallville intended. I have no idea who smallville is, although I figure s/he can't be all bad, being a friend of Cat and all. But...*shudder*

Several police being fellow UFO enthusiasts? No wonder they needed quirky but lovable detectives to solve all the hard crimes that they attribute to space aliens. I keep wondering how that scenario really ends. Does the mob burn the quirky detective as a witch, or as a sacrifice to the UFO? Or does the respectable banker merely arrange to have the detective's mortgage foreclosed and the detective run out of town for "terracentric intolerance". Does Parliament pass laws allowing special discrimination against arrogant snoots who don't believe in UFOs?

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Do you mean smallville or smallship1? smallship1 is who seems to think this is directed specifically at him, and may be right; certainly he and catsittingstill have been arguing for some time about the roles of religion/spirituality and atheism/skepticism in the world. Which I find ironic, since as far as I know, smallship1's an atheist too, just one who would prefer to be a believer if he could. (That's what I'm picking up from what he posts; he is certainly free to correct me.)

That said, I think that American Republicans are doing a hell of a lot of damage by their beliefs and attempts to enforce them, but I don't get into fights with my Republican friends over it, because hurting each other's feelings is not going to convince anyone of what they didn't start out believing, and it will only hurt someone I care about. I treat theism the same way, and it concerns me that things have gotten to the point between smallship1 and catsittingstill that at least one of them feels hurt enough to withdraw from net contact for an indefinite time, even from those of us who love him and honestly try not to hurt him. If a discussion between friends has reached that point, then it's time to either end the friendship (if one absolutely can't bear being friends with someone who thinks the way that person does) or the conversation.

I usually opt for ending the conversation. There are things a friend of mine could believe about the world which would make them no longer my friend, but they are rare, and it hasn't come up even when I worried, for a while, that it might with one of my closest friends (who's a politically conservative Christian, and was the maid of honor at my wedding, and I at hers). She and I do talk religion and politics at times, but in a recent conversation, she said abruptly, "All right -- we disagree on the law, we disagree on the facts, and I'm starting to take this personally. It's time to change the subject." And she was right, and we did. And she's still just as close a friend and I still love her. We've gotten through twenty years by being able to do that.

catsittingstill, if you want to stay friends with smallship1, either make some effort to avoid hurting him or, if you don't know how to achieve that, stop talking to him about this subject. (What you post in your own journal to other people is, of course, your business, but you might want to put it on a filter he's not on, so he doesn't have to choose between ceasing to read you altogether and coping with things that hurt him.) If you don't want to stay friends with him, say so. But I think this is going too far for a discussion between friends. Even when I think you're right on the facts, I care for smallship1 and I don't want to see him hurt when I don't see how it is likely to change his mind or do anyone any good.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Right, smallship1; I didn't remember the name right. I'd edit and fix the error, except that it won't let me.

Also, I normally tend to live and let live, as far as religions go. I'm less inclined to let things slide these days because the Christian Right is actively seeking to force Biblical law on all Americans, and there may be enough of them that there's a real danger it could happen.

Already, more people admit to being bigoted against atheists than against gays, women, minority racial groups, and are less likely to vote for an out atheist than any other subculture that is commonly targeted for discrimination.

This may simply mean that the other groups have made progress in overcoming prejudice through long, hard struggle over the decades, in which case it's time for atheists and agnostics to make the case in the public idea forum that they too are real people just like everyone else.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that it's an issue for many Americans who have to face the religious right here. But smallship1 is neither American nor right-wing, nor even religious himself as far as I can tell. He defends religion because he thinks it can do good as well as evil, and he is just as disgusted with the evil done in its name as you are. So I don't think he's the right target for such a fight.

One of the things I see American progressives having the most difficult time realizing is that you don't tear your own base apart by fighting with your friends about things which you don't absolutely need to agree about. There's a reason the term "politically correct" came originally out of the lesbian feminist community as a snide comment on those of us (since I count myself as both a lesbian and a feminist) who didn't always want to have sex in a way which was approved as sufficiently anti-patriarchal by the rest. Yes, I think that atheists in this world, especially in America, have to do a certain amount of fighting against those who already persecute us to some extent and would do so more if they could. But smallship1 isn't one of those people, and I don't think we need to fight him. And since he is not only a genuinely nice human being and a good friend of mine, but also someone who is passionate about doing political good in the world, including trying to see to it that nobody persecutes anybody, I'd rather see him treated as an ally with whom we have some differences, rather than an enemy who is thrown into that category needlessly.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[tig-b.livejournal.com]

thank you

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I appreciate your input and respect your opinion.

Right now I just don't have sufficient distance to read his posts and refrain from responding, but I think I have figured out filters enough to employ some artificial willpower, so I'll just do that for a while.

I can certainly cut-tag my posts--is there a way to keep a particular individual from seeing one short of friendslocking it?

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

No, which means that cut-tag is probably your best bet. That gives him and others who find the subject triggering (and you've just acknowledged that you find it triggering yourself, so I'm sure you can understand) some warning and lets them decide whether they want to dive into it at that time or stay clear.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Okay I will bear that in mind.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Errr... I seem to have given entirely the wrong impression; sorry.

I haven't seen the TV show that Smallship_1 is reacting to, since I don't have a TV and live on the wrong side of the Atlantic to boot.

I don't think he is picturing, in his proposed rewrite of the offending scene (in which the skeptic originally apparently urged the ufo enthusiasts to, ah, broaden their interests) the ufo-believers doing anything more than chiding the skeptics for being, as smallship sees it, rude. Smallship is just not the kind of person who would advocate making dark-but-deniable threats; trust me on this.

I am so sorry I gave you this impression; that wasn't what I intended to be getting at at all.

Eeep!

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[keristor.livejournal.com]

The impression was given in that you chose to link to his post, which was not about being "mad at skeptics[1]" but about being annoyed with media portrayal of 'believers', especially those who are confused with SF fans and told to "get a life" (I have one, thanks, and I don't play anyone on TV). If you had linked to one of his earlier posts where he was indeed getting annoyed with sceptics in general, it may have been a valid point (although it would still look as though you were equating him with people who burn non-believers). Or, indeed, if you hadn't linked at all to a specific person (there are plenty of examples of people who dispute with sceptics after all).

[1] Aside: is the version with 'k' a US variant? I think I always write it with 'c' and it looks odd with 'k'; definitions I've seen don't have any indication.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Yes, "skeptic" is the US spelling of the word. I've seen it spelled "sceptic" and it looks odd to me; I have to reread it a couple times to make sure tht it isn't "septic," which is, of course, something else altogether.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Indeed, and I've had to read multiple times as well. But 'skeptic' made me think of the big bird-type creatures in Dark Crystal (Skepsis? something like that).

Thanks for your comments here, I agree with you about Z's position.

Re: The tracks of my reactions

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I guess I misinterpreted his intent. I am sorry.

In any case I am sorry that I wrote something that gave other people the wrong idea about him. That was an accident, but sloppy and careless on my part.