Of course not. He’s in jail.
I just want to make sure because maybe I’m not interpreting what you say generously enough. Are you saying “haha, of course a black father wouldn’t be in Heaven, he’d be in jail!”?
If that isn’t what you meant, forgive me for my misunderstanding.
That doesn’t sound any different than it is for *non-*blacks in America who are atheists.
Statistically, it’s much more likely.
Rigamarole, if you want to talk about Black families in the U.S., start a new thread, probably in GD. You’re awfully damn close to trolling with this.
That said, this topic as a whole is better suited to Great Debates than MPSIMS, so I’m going to move it thither.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
That could be true in the Bible Belt (from what I’ve heard) but in my experience in the Unchurched Belt, shunning atheists is quite a bit more common with black people. To my knowledge, I don’t actually know any black atheists, but I know a lot of black people who think there is something very wrong with being atheist. I know white people who feel that way too, but I also know a lot who are atheists themselves or don’t really care if someone else is.
I don’t see what the problem is, at least with this part:
That’s a GOOD thing! Guy is gay: So what? He’s still her son. Guy is atheist: From her point of view, he’s making a terrible mistake and has abandoned the entire way she brought him up.
Unless the mom has some sort of ridiculous problem with gay people, she should be more upset about atheism than homosexuality. It’s progress.
I can’t link from here but Google ‘Steve Harvey on atheists’ or look it up on YouTube. I have a feeling that’s a pretty typical sentiment.
How the hell did this not merit a warning?
Warning for what? It’s a joke. Is there now a policy about what subjects are OK and not OK to joke about?
Why “should” someone be upset about atheism?
It depends on how you subdivide your affinity group. A black atheist who is a scientist is not going to have a lot of problems with it in the workplace.
I haven’t had any problems, but then my being white is less important than me being an engineer, and in Silicon Valley (at my place at least) Christians are a distinct minority. I’ve heard fewer “God loves you” in 15 years hear than I heard in one week in Charlotte, NC. And people who are religious here aren’t obnoxious about it.
This.
I don’t think I follow your logic, here. You seem to be claiming that atheism is objectively more of a “betrayal” than homosexuality. Presumably she brought him up to like girls and want to settle down with a nice one and make grandchildren, too.
As far as I can tell, that’s very much a social construct. Our society is rapidly becoming more tolerant of homosexuality, the the point where most people no longer consider it a moral failing or deviant behavior, but many people still consider atheists to be forces of evil. But there’s nothing fundamental about that. You could easily have a society that cared less about your underlying beliefs and more about who you had sex with. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but that which one is more important is culturally defined.
Note that this mother isn’t disturbed that her son is doing bad things or hurting people. She’s disturbed that he doesn’t hold her underlying philosophy.
They shouldn’t, but don’t you see why they would be? If you had raised your son to believe something that was very important to you, be it religion, that giving charity is good, that universal healthcare is good, that high taxes are bad, and he turned around and told you that he believed the opposite, wouldn’t you be upset?
Being upset that her son stopped believing in the underlying philosophy she holds, and that she raised him to old, is much more reasonable than being upset that he doesn’t think boobs are hot.
Well, there is a philosophy of sorts underlying heteronormativity. Though I can understand thinking that someone may repent or be forgiven for homosexuality, yet be damned for rejecting God outright. I can also see how being homosexual would turn someone against conventional religion, since it teaches that an inherent aspect of their personality is a sin and doesn’t respect the principle of “first do no harm”.
…or that homosexuality is wrong? You do realize that that belief is very often based on religious beliefs?
Sure, all else being equal it’s better to be bigoted about one thing versus two things, but one thing versus one other thing, I’m not really seeing the distinction.
Does he still donate to charity? Is he still helpful and kind to strangers and children? Does he actually depart from how she raised him in any tangible way?
I get that you think that homosexuality doesn’t change the sort of person you are. I agree. In the scheme of things, whether or not you think boobs are hot is actually immaterial. My point is that you can frame religious belief in the same way. What I believe or claim to believe about the supernatural has little impact on the person that I am. You seem to think there’s a fundamental difference here, but I think it’s entirely cultural. You (and this guy’s mom) assign a higher value to matters of religious belief than that of sexual attraction. Which is fine. But it’s by no means a given.
One of the things that fascinates me about people who act differently toward me because I’m an atheist is that they can’t even tell until I let them know. Again, it’s not like his mom is upset with him because he’s burning down churches and taking up with sinners. She’s upset because of something that has so little impact on how he acts that she wouldn’t even know about it except that he told her.
A hypothetical religious parent may assume atheism will lead their hypothetical child to be damned to hell for all eternity. Disregarding completely the legitimacy of that view, the paternal or maternal instinct is to protect one’s child. There are numerous strategies for achieving this: refusing to accept a child’s atheism (can take the form of wilful ignorance or desire that they’re undergoing a phase) attempting to convert them back or disowning them (so the hypothetical child is no longer weighing on their conscience).
Edit: Their comfort on Earth is inconsequential compared to the stark costs or benefits of a proffered afterlife.
There is a selection pressure against religions that do not have codes discriminating against atheists or converts. In a vacuum, if religion A teaches that religion B or no religion are equally likely to end up with eternal bliss, people will convert from religion A to B or deconvert at a higher rate than from B to A or deconversion from B if B teaches that it is the only valid path to eternal bliss.