(blank look)
We…we…we…CAN’T?
(looks at books on nightstand)
I guess you’re not a Gemini. 
r
gobear, I am a devout agnostic, but you can bet your bottom dollar that I try to have some knowledge about religion. To ignore or purposefully avoid knowledge about such a critical element of human life experience is to dim one’s own light and spirit. Good OP.
Aww dammit. Sorry. Don’t know how that happened. I had about half a page typed out to Shayna but it can be roughly summaried as ‘I agree with gobear’, so there you go.
Ignorance is one thing, but flaunting your ignorance like a badge of honour is Pitworthy.
It’s not nice to piss off the sun disc.
I agree with the OP. I’ve always thought that studying human history requires a good working knowledge of the major religions. Western–or any–history without the religious subtext throughout would not make much sense. In my studies, focusing on medieval history, religion was the organizing principle and key institution in society. For good or not, medieval history is nothing without the religious history.
I agree dropzone. Cover your bases and study as many religions, things, and ideologies as possible. Spiritual insurance, if you will. – Beagle, also a Gemini. Happy birthday to us.
Shayna, gobear, jinwicked,
I think you three are talking a bit past each other. I shall summarize this thread thusly (give me some slack here while I paraphrase):
gobear: Deliberate ignorance is wicked. I have no patience with anyone who deliberately chooses not to learn.
jinwicked: I’m not interested in religion.
gobear: Choosing to be ignorant about a topic makes you backward.
Shayna: Not everyone shares your interests gobear. You’re being high handed about this.
gobear: You didn’t understand my OP. My problem is with people who decide to avoid learning, not because of lack of time/interest, but because it is a point of pride for them to not know.
jinwicked: I think I’m well informed about issues that matter to me. I’m still not interested in religion.
gobear: Again. it’s not that you don’t have an interest or that you don’t care, because I can’t really argue with that. It’s that you are glad and proud that you don’t know and you don’t care that makes you truly ignorant, IMO.
Shayna: I have little interest in religious history/symbolism. As another example, I avoid physics as I feel the subject is too difficult for me. Again, I think you’re being elitist by looking down on those with different interests.
gobear: You’re being hysterical. I think you are attempting to defend ignorance and I find that position untenable.
Shayna: I am not defending ignorance. However, the OP did not attack people who held uninformed opinions. The OP attacked people for deciding not to learn things that you regarded as interesting.
gobear: That having opinions on something you know nothing about should have been inferred from the OP, but you’re right, it was not directly stated. My bad. But you are still defending “deliberately having a lack of knowledge on the subject.” You are still proud of not knowing.
Shayna: I am, nor have I ever in this thread, defended ignorance. I have defended people’s right not to find interesting the same subjects you do. I am not proud of my lack of knowledge in certain areas. I have not declared myself superior to anyone.
gobear: If you decide not to learn something because you have no interest in it or because it’s too tough then my statements do not apply to your situation. You’re still defending ignorance if you make a point not to learn something as a point of pride which you seemed to do.
gobear: Additionally, I find some of your comments regarding your knowledge of religion to be contradictory.
Whew.
In essence, gobear is attacking people who refuse to learn about something as a point of pride. He isn’t attacking people who have no interest in a subject (i.e. jinwicked’s lack of interest re: religion) nor people who feel that a particular subject is too difficult (Shayna’s struggle to understand physics), but people who decide, indeed refuse, to learn about a particular field as some kind of fanciful point of pride. They know they’re ignorant of a certain subject and they’re proud of that ignorance. Shayna has declared repeatedly that she isn’t defending ignorance and that gobear is being arrogant by presuming which fields should be of interest to everyone. The OP was a little ambiguous on this point, however, gobear has clarified his OP in further posts. He emphatically isn’t referring to a lack of interest.
[Inigo]
Let me s’plain… no, there is too much. Let me summup.
[/Inigo]
gobear, Shayna isn’t defending ignorance. Even though she did say “I make a point of not learning physics” it is pretty clear that the reason she avoids the field is because she feels it’s difficult, NOT as a point of pride (which is your main beef I believe).
Shayna and jinwicked, gobear is emphatically not trying to dictate what people should find interesting. Rather, he’s condemning people who are knowingly ignorant of certain topics and treat it as a point of pride. Presumably these people, if presented a perfect opportunity to learn about the “forbidden subject”, would rather plug their ears and yell “Na na na na na! I can’t hear you!”, than absorb the knowledge. He is not referring to people who have a lack of knowledge in a subject due to a reasonable position (i.e. lack of interest, too difficult, not enough time, etc.)
Are we all square here? Can we now get some real ignorant people in here so we can kick their asses?
e - l - i - g - i - o - n, what’s it spell? 
I agree with gobear, for the most part, though I can’t see why he went after Shayna and jinwicked in this thread… I’d imagine they’re largely in agreement, other than a couple semantic points.
Speaking for myself, one of the things I hate the most is deliberate ignorance on a subject (religious or not), particularly when someone is trying to talk about something that they haven’t taken the time or effort to learn about. I even started a similar thread myself on the subject earlier this year. I’m going to quote a bit of what I said there…
Willful ignorance frustrates me, because I can’t understand why anyone would choose it, and I have an even harder time with those who expostulate on topics which they are willfully ignorant of. If you’re going to talk about something, or especially criticize something, fucking well make the effort to learn about it first.
That applies to religion, atheism, cars, and… well, just about everything, really.
I do also agree that religion is an incredibly powerful force in shaping culture and history, and knowledge about religion can’t hurt even the most ardent atheist. Douglas Adams, rather famous for his atheist views, could nevertheless discuss and learn about religion. The two do not cancel one another out.
That said, I do see a difference between a lack of interest in a topic (and thus relegating to an extremely low priority on the “Stuff to Learn More About”) list, and willful ignorance. The former doesn’t imply pride in ignorance to me… just lack of interest. Willful, deliberate ignorance carries with it a measure of arrogance, to me, and it is indeed vile.
JustPlainBryan, I’ll amend my previous statement about making the above my last post in this thread, to say that that was my last post in this thread in response to gobear and I will reply to you since you have addressed me.
I disagree with your interpretation of the OP and here’s why…
We have no evidence that either of the examples quoted in the OP exhibit any sense of “superiority” based on their lack of knowledge regarding the Pentecost, let alone religion in general. In fact, neither of them said they didn’t have a basic understanding of religion, be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any other religion. Both of those posters said they had no knowledge of, and no interest in The Pentecost (and attributed that lack of interest to their atheism). For all we know, they studied the basics of religion thoroughly enough to have come to what they felt was an informed and educated decision, yet still managed to not learn about the Pentecost, nor have any interest in further investigation into it.
That alone doesn’t make them vile, wicked or stupid. Yet this is what he calls them. Or rather, people like them, since he’s only making a post about generalities, not specific people. Or so he says.
However, we know that what inspired his wrath was, in fact, those quotes, so I have to try to interpret his anger based on those quotes and not based on random other things that remain a mystery.
With regard to those posts, I’ve already acknowledged that one of them used a disparaging term to refer to G-d, which makes them rude. I could even get behind the argument that it makes them vile or stupid. But again, the fact that they used that terminology, even if you wish to interpret its use to imply a sense of superiority (which it very well may, I don’t know) is not what the OP was about, even by his own admission.
You see, that’s the point…
Even the OPer acknowledges that he meant to rail against “[people] having opinions on something [they] know nothing about,” but that it “was not directly stated.” So if the OPer admits that he didn’t say what he meant to say, and what he later claims he meant to say was that people shouldn’t state opinions on subjects they aren’t educated in, I’m not so sure we can correctly infer your interpretation, either.
The only part of the OP that actually says what he’s railing about in the OP (as opposed to what he later amended it to) is the first sentence following the quoted passages, which states (emphasis mine), “Deliberately militant ignorance of a subject, especially one as important as religion, is inexcusable.” The entire rest of the OP goes on to express his opinion as to precisely why religion is so damned important (to him).
Well La Ti Da! So religion is important to him. Perhaps it’s important to the people whose quotes he pulled out of context, too. Perhaps they simply aren’t interested in The Pentecost, which is what they said. But he didn’t ask, so he’ll never know. Instead, he assumed, made false accusations, name-called and then belittled people who express disinterest in subjects he deems of great import.
You see, that’s the bottom line – it’s all about his interest in the great import of religion. There were other people in that thread who expressed equally deliberate ignorance on other subjects, but you’ll note that he didn’t berate them. He only thinks that people who choose not to learn about religion to the extent that he has are wicked, vile and stupid.
Therefore, I have no freaking clue what the hell he’s really all bent out of shape about. Is he upset about people’s deliberate choice not to learn about any subject? Or is it their deliberate ineducation on The Pentecost? Their lack of interest in religion in general? Is it “anti-religious bigotry”? Is it a superiority complex based on people’s atheism? Is it people who express opinions on subjects they know little or nothing about? I DON’T KNOW, because his rant is about as clear as mud. If you think you’ve figured it out, would you mind if I consult you about next week’s lottery numbers?
Some of those above interpretations and arguments I could actually get fully behind. I cannot, however, support the notion that just because one person deems a subject critically important, that anyone who chooses alternately is willfully wicked, vile or stupid.
And on the topic of flaunting ignorance like a badge of honor or pride, no one has done that. Especially not me. And I completely and utterly resent the implication. I admit to not knowing certain things and not having an interest in learning certain subjects – and I do so ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT TO EVERYONE. There’s no PRIDE in that.
Jesus, looking up at all these high horses has my neck so strained I’ll need a heating pad for a month!
That’s it. I’m really and truly done. I’ve expressed my opinion as thoroughly and as clearly as I believe I can possibly articulate. I won’t be back to address accusations of lying or stupidity. I am what I am – a woman who loves art and appreciates it for its beauty without feeling I must possess a full education on hagiography to “understand” it fully and who couldn’t give a rat’s ass about physics.
Ignoramus checking out…
Someone who is proud to be ignorant-think of Wildest Bill, who didn’t care about other religions, and seemed proud of the fact, because they were “Satanic”.
shudder
Guin, great call, but let’s all be glad that WB can’t check in right now.
Well, without getting too deep into this mess, I just want to point out that there are plenty of folks who think history isn’t worth studying (I’m not one of them, I like some aspects of history).
So that could tie into the whole “religion isn’t important” thing.
I don’t consider myself an expert in religion. And I will say, since I’m not a big history buff, religion in and of itself is not important enough for me to study. I couldn’t care less about the religious impact on the world, or why people are eating each other in Africa. My general impression is religion = bad. Sorry, there are too many examples of religion = bad in the world right now that I doubt it’ll change anytime soon.
I know it’s bad to say ignorance = good, but at the same time, we’re all ignorant about something. I’m ignorant on the many methods of torture, and I think I can say I’m happy that I don’t know.
That was my impression, too. And I also agree with gobear’s OP.
History…not…not…worth…studying…
Burn badmana! It’s blasphemy! Burn…
Anyway, I respectfully disagree with, ah, those other people.
Torture? Funny you mention that. Medieval torture was pretty barbaric. I know, I know…
This is why I worded my original post the way I did – I honestly did (and do) not see the offense (with exception of possibly the term MSP) that was supposedly present in the quotes. gobear is attributing “pride of ignorance” where I only see disinterest and apathy. The quotes in the OP didn’t sound like someone flaunting ignorance. They just sound like a guy that doesn’t give a shit one way or the other.
And I don’t see how not giving a shit either way makes one wicked. What’s the charge, apathy with malicious intent?
Being pretty much agnostic with respect to established religion, my main beef with some atheists–and more commonly with some fundamentalists–is their never missing a chance to make their point. This type of behavior is usually associated with fundamentalists, but atheists often do it to. I’m talking about the sort of person who, on seeing a Christmas tree, says, “It’s all a crock, there is no God”. Or declaring how sad it is that someone wasted their life believing in God, or being a devout Christian or Jew, or whatever. I don’t know what it is. I may not share the belief but I respect the belief, if that makes any sense.
Well, I dunno about some of you folks, but it matters to me that those Pentecostals want to lock up gobear for 20 years or so, if they catch him and his partner cohabiting in one of 19 states (some of them, anyway – vanilla is, as in so many other things, an exception to the rule!). And they really, really want to see America “restored to its Christian heritage” and folks with a different POV kept from corrupting those pristine values.
And I suppose you can appreciate Eliot’s work without a clue what he’s referring to – though for me that takes away half the fun of reading him – or appreciate the painting linked to in the OP without knowing what it represents. (Who did that, anyway, gobear? Giotto? Cimabue?) But for me it’s enhanced by knowing that it’s a historical event depicted in classic medieval style, getting a handle on the “guy in the robe being shot by rayguns” and what he stood for (he’s been quoted on this board quite often), even if it’s for the birds.
But something very significant occurred to me as I read Shayna’s posts – and I sincerely hope she won’t see me as targeting her. But I recall the eletricity crisis California went through a year or so ago – and you’ll be shortly electing a governor and legislature out there, and I would be very surprised if that weren’t a hot issue. How do you expect to evaluate the feasibility of what the candidates propose, without at least a smattering of knowledge of possible energy sources, their economic feasibility at this point, and the drawbacks of each. Should we be sending Anthracite out to retrofit and upgrade your fossil-fuel plants? Do you need funding to put in new nuclear plants? Can you fix the problem with solar power from the desert? Wind power off the Sierras? Why are these good or bad ideas?
And what’s the danger with Sen. Santorum, with Tom DeLay, with Gary Bauer? Why is A.G. Pryor a good or bad candidate for the court seat? Your representatives are preparing to decide on the last; which way should they vote, and why?
These are questions you’ll need to answer someday – and I gather you’re going to look for the information at that point. But having the background to evaluate the answers you receive then would, I think, help.
I want to stress that I’m not criticizing your choices – there are a world of things that I’m not particularly interested in, and avoid whenever possible. (If someone would be so kind as to deposit J.K. Rowling on Bouvet Oya without means of communication, I’d be grateful – I’ve seen one too many “Harry Potter” comment in the last few days to have any patience for the subject.)
But as a practical matter, there are a lot of things that I’d just as soon ignore that I find to be influencing things that I do care about. And I’ve tried to give examples of them. I hope you won’t see that as condemnatory of your own choices.
Sorry, Shayna, but you continue to be wrong. Without a knowledge of religon, you can look at the pretty pictures in the Renaissance wing, bu tryou won;t have aclue what they mean. You won’t get the Biblical allusions in books, you wuill miss out on a great deal of cultural and historical knowledge.
No skin off my nose, because I know and you do not.
And since you have no knowledge of physics, would you like to invest in my perpetual motion device?
Now that is condescending. What if Shayna doesn’t give a fuck about renaissance paintings?
Good call, Poly. It’s Giotto, St. Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata.
If she genuinely doesn’t care, fine. But if she doesn’t care because “only superstitious fools care about a bunch of drawings of fairy tales” (NOT that she ever said this and I am NOT attributing it to her), then that’s an ignorant attitude.