(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . The problem with the term 'faith shaming' [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2023-02-19 In the past week, a diary hit the list and caused a lot of Sturm und Drang regarding religion. I’d stayed away from the discussion, having made a splash on a similar topic back in May, where many people spent a month going back and forth. I probably would have stayed away altogether were it not for a diary that immediately followed it up, written by someone I’d just the day before had had a friendly chat. It was a widely read diary where the author entreated people to refrain from “faith shaming.” She even went so far as to name it as the worst shaming of all. I immediately rankled at the phrasing, though it took me a while to put my finger on why. When it came to me, it was clear: the framing comes directly from the phrase “slut shaming.” What struck me, what clarified why I felt offense, was the plain fact that the power dynamics are completely reversed in the two phrases. At least by context. The author specifically spoke of nonbelievers speaking stridently against those faith holders. The two could not be more different, those of the majority (or even simply a recognized) faith community being scrutinized by nonbelievers, and those of “the lesser sex” being excoriated on one axis of their being, their inherent sexuality, in order to denigrate and possess them. The power differentials could not be more stark. The word “slut” is thrown about to keep women in their place. The Madonna/whore dichotomy serves to keep women in a box, forever given the same false choice to be virtuous or sexual, never both. No such dichotomy exists regarding “the faithful.” Religious majorities certainly are not shamed on the axis of an inherent trait in order to deny them full expression. They have the right and the ability to keep on believing. No level of volume from the handful of conscientious objectors and/or logisticians will be in itself enough to dislodge the belief held so tightly in the hands of the believer. Volume has not that power. However, doubt does. And it seems to me that this reach for “[X] shaming” (fill in the blank), with its ghost-association with ‘slut shaming’ trailing in its wake, is a way of shutting out that doubt with just as much finality, with as much emotional closure, as someone looking with a traditional eye at a modern woman, muttering or yelling “Slut!” It is a driving away, a restoring of a moral center. (In slut shaming, this comes at the cost of the woman’s esteem, either as she extends it to herself or as given to her by others, by passersby. To call a woman a slut is to attempt to remove something precious but intangible from her: her reputation in the public square.) In contrast, none of these dynamics are at work when nonbelievers criticize the belief systems of any religion but especially those beliefs of the dominant religion(s) in a culture. In American culture, there are very few admitted atheists (though many people have in recent decades become “unchurched,” which may presage further evolution along those lines as time goes on). They really are a tiny point in the grand electorate. No atheists sit in any elected office nationwide, and I’d be hard-pressed to think of one in all of American history. Atheists are not in a majority, by definition not even under the umbrella of the whole belief tradition. In that way, while atheism may be in the same “small” category such as Wiccans, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mennonites, etc., atheists can still be further isolated for that very lack of a community-based belief system. And in this sense, atheists are an absolute minority. They do not have power in this situation; in fact, often they are singled out by the majority to stand for everything that religion is against: devils, demons, the world, Babylon, heathens, chaos, etc. The list goes on and on. Same with women, sexual women, who represent nature uncontrolled. That is why I took offense. I agree that basic reasonableness should be a sought-after ground rule and value. But sometimes even that has to be contextualized: often in polemics a person takes an adversarial approach to material—we cross-examine the information, sometimes even hostilely—in pursuit of the truth. Examining religious tenets against what we in the 21st century know of science, of culture, of logic, that must remain in bounds, as that is legitimate inquiry. Intellectual freedom means being able to challenge even the most popular, tightly held ideas. As for the “shaming”? Is that more a plea for a more respectful tone? If so, that conversation can be had–in fact, many of the diaries in response to the first have done just that, and I hope that this diary can be included in that category. But to couch such a request in the frame as would befit a disadvantaged group molested in mind and stature, in response to being held up to examination? I think that is a method of disposing of one’s opponent by disdain. By pushing off the criticism as a personal insult or just dangerous altogether, the framing—faith shaming—recenters the religious person as a nucleus that must defend against an outside attack: as someone persecuted, as women are similarly persecuted. But this is an inversion, an intentional putting on the mantle of victim where victimhood is not warranted. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/2/19/2153844/-The-problem-with-the-term-faith-shaming Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/