I’ve created !episcopalian@lemmy.ml for discussion around The Episcopal Church, Anglicanism, liturgy, and parish life.
Whether you pray the Daily Office, have questions about the Book of Common Prayer and Episcopal theology, or are just looking for an affirming religious community on Lemmy, you’re welcome to join us there.
- Universal Link: lemmyverse.link/c/episcopalian@lemmy.ml
- Direct Link: https://lemmy.ml/c/episcopalian
- Handle:
!episcopalian@lemmy.ml
This community is not directly affiliated with The Episcopal Church or any Diocese or Parish
church
.ml
hmm
Hail Satan of course, but welcome I guess.
Dear religion: No. Sincerely, consensus reality.
Not very inclusive. Do episcopals have some sort of stigma I’m unaware of?
Do episcopals make claims of a supernatural sort in opposition to confirmed facts and consensus reality? Yes? Then they’re part of the problem.
Have you ever actually been to an Episcopal Church? It’s laughably obvious you haven’t. Episcopalians believe in science, I believe in science, also having a relationship with spirituality isn’t a sin.
Good of you to show up and talk shit about… one of the many things I mentioned. Well done. Religion is still cancer on society.
At least from my instance this is the only direct claim you’ve made?
My first comment contains 4 criteria. You have addressed one, and just going “nuh uh” doesn’t really count.
Unless something is fucked with my instance (and my alt that I checked to make sure on Lemmy.zip) I don’t see 4 distinct criteria? Your initial comment was “fuck religion” with no criterion. The comment this chain is off of asks if the Episcopal church makes supernatural claims that go against facts and reality, which is one claim that was responded to.
I can’t find the other 3 criteria unless there’s some form of pedantics I’m not catching.
In terms of the one claim that was addressed with a simple “episcopals follow science” is an adequate answer in my eyes from alders razor. You claimed without any evidence that the church doesn’t believe in fact, then OP responded saying that members of the church tend to follow science and that spirituality on its own isn’t wrong as anecdotal evidence. Its basically nuh uh because no further evidence is needed to refute no evidence, similar to saying no if you claimed democrats ate babies.
I think this is a strange version of inclusiveness, tbh.
I’ve always believed you shouldn’t judge or exclude somebody for their intrinsic qualities - their race, ethnicity, height, sexuality, physical ableness, etc. And that you should judge people based on their character - the words the say, the principles they stand by, where they take action in the world.
Somewhere down the line we started acting like religious choice was somehow part of the former, but let me be clear, it is very much part of the latter.
To my knowledge religious status is protected by law from discrimination in the US to the same extent all those others are? Laws are a poor measure of morality but it’s saving the jobs of women who need to wear religious garments in professional settings so it seems moral.
But looking at that church’s Wikipedia page it looks like they’re one of the only denominations to be institutionally changing to include LGBTQ. Seems a little curmudgeonly to say they’re outside the scope of inclusion, especially given the resounding victories progressivism is having in the united states lately
I think you’re conflating a few related but importantly distinct things.
First off, as you said, legality is not morality, and this is important. In regards to discrimination laws, yes religious observation should be covered, but this is because the evils of religion, not despite them. Observation is effectively non-optional for certain groups, and this only increases as the relative power of the individuals in question reduces. If there was no coercion being done to dress women in hijab and it was always entirely a personal choice, maybe the situation would be different, but it isn’t and we must deal with and legislate towards our reality, not a sterile ideal. So, imo, the need for religious protections here is about respecting victims and the disempowered, not about respecting religion.
As for the Episcopal stance on LGBTQ+ rights and causes, that’s cool, but entirely non-sequitur. Whether they believe gay people deserve rights and whether they believe human life is dictated by some kind of Magic Sky Fairy are two separate topics. That they get one right does not suggest that they don’t get the other wrong, or that there are no consequences of those beliefs. They are not absolved their intellectual responsibility just because they got some of the earlier questions on the test right. Frankly I see this as a bit of whataboutism kind of akin to saying “look I know he still drives drunk but he’s wearing his seatbelt unlike those other drunk drivers!”
But I feel the need at this point to clarify: I am not trying to express that Episcopals or any kind of religious people are or should be unwelcome here on Lemmy or anywhere else. My point is only that while yes there are some specifics reasons for their inclusion in legal inclusivity, religion is still ultimately a choice and sign of character rather than an intrinsic quality that we should avoid stepping on.
Maybe this is on me for engaging to the extent I did, then. I definitely had set out to have a conversation about how religious groups should be more welcome on Lemmy.
I’ll consider what you’re saying about it being a choice that shouldn’t be given the same graces as statuses given through birth. There’s something developing there, but I’m going to have to reflect on that for a while.
But you should consider how on one part of your argument you’re saying women are being compelled to wear their garb and then concluding that belonging to religious frameworks is strictly a choice. This is walking right past their autonomy in a very selectively invalidating kind of way. Though I’m going to try to just take the merits of what you’re saying and leave the rest.
Yes, unfortunately this isn’t a simply clear binary. Religion is a powerful, coercive force so religious will is heavily pushed on people, especially people from certain communities. We shouldn’t be blind to that, and should extend some sympathy and understanding for that reason. But observation is ultimately still a choice, albeit a heavily coerced one. In the same way we consider such conditions when looking at criminal-victims (criminals who are themselves a victim of their systems) we need to maintain similar consideration for these religious people.
This is a difficult issue, but difficulty is not excuse for sloppy intellectualism. We must strive to hold the complex, nuanced take for our complex, nuanced reality. Which I feel my stance has reflected, although I certainly concede I am fallible and my opinion is always open to further consideration, if that’s important to you to hear.
