Young man survives forced Conversion Therapy

[LoveMyPeppermill]

I would suggest that it is possible to have cultural achievements without religion...in many cases they come at a staggering cost to the general welfare of humans and are often much more about exercising and demonstrating superiority, authority and temporal power than any sense of spirituality or goodness.

I'd add to @NotHardUp1's many good points that -- as one good example of religion's cultural achievements -- grand religious buildings have historically been among the very few places where ordinary people have been allowed to enjoy genuine architectural splendor.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Poor people are awestruck when they see old men in the Catholic church carrying gold and silver chalices while wearing expensive gowns.

No wonder the Catholic Church near me had its altar vessels stolen at least twice.

 

[rareboy]

I'd add to @NotHardUp1's many good points that -- as one good example of religion's cultural achievements -- grand religious buildings have historically been among the very few places where ordinary people have been allowed to enjoy genuine architectural splendor.

hmmmm.

I would posit that you don't need religion for this. And there are lots of examples.

And of course what was one religion's grandest cathedrals became another branch of the same religion's anathema.

 

[LoveMyPeppermill]

I would posit that you don't need religion for this. And there are lots of examples.

I'd be interested to know of examples, especially from before the 19th century, of grand, or even merely splendid, buildings which weren't religious in purpose but which common folks were permitted to enter more or less at will.

And no, I don't believe that anyone here is claiming that you need religion for great architectural or cultural achievements, especially in the 21st century. But, over the course of human history, it seems to me that there have been considerably more of them inspired by religion than by anything else.

This is the sort of evidence that @NotHardUp1 and I are using to argue that religion has, and has always had, enough redeeming characteristics that it doesn't deserve to be obliterated from the face of the Earth, as several of you here appear to be arguing. We aren't saying that religion has no flaws and doesn't have massive room for improvement -- God, no. (pun intended)

And of course what was one religion's grandest cathedrals became another branch of the same religion's anathema.

I had been about to say something about deeply ingrained human tendencies toward disagreement, but no -- a great propensity for schism, over and over again through the generations, seems to be a particular weakness of Christianity. There are eight different denominations just among the Syrian Christians in one state of India, for Christ's sake.

 

[Latimer]

Great movie. Worth finding and watching.

 

[rareboy]

Some examples:

The Greek Gymnasium.

The first public library in Rome was conceived of by Julius Caesar in 44 BCE. Caesar died before construction on his library could begin, but a number of subsequent emperors included the establishment of public libraries as part of their building programs, existing both in Rome proper and throughout the empire.


And from whence actually came the intellectual and in some instances, literally the architectural foundations of Christian basilicas. And these public spaces have earlier roots than Caracalla.

Everything after, including the gothic cathedrals are arguably repetitions on a theme.

If Godliness had continued to take second place to cleanliness...who knows how society might have developed in the west?

And of course:

The polytheism of the Roman Republic and some portions of the age of empire probably was an advantage.


You don't need a religious cult to achieve great spaces or buildings.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Great movie. Worth finding and watching.

I'll consider it, but it looks like it cuts too close.

And then there is the depiction of Fundamentalism that is skewed by Hollywood creating tropes instead of people.

But, your recommendations are usually good ones, so I'll look. Nicole Kidman doesn't look very convincing even in the trailer, but I'll wait and see in the plot.

Thanks for listing it.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Well, it was a slow night at Hardup Manor, so I rented the movie as recommended. Have to admit Kidman did a fine job and so did Russell Crowe. I think my dominant impression of the film is how low-key it is. It didn't really have a great deal of drama, as it was being internalized by an undramatic character. The boy who played the lead kept it to a stoic persona, and that's credible.

On the whole, I have to admit the screenplay stuck to realism, at least a 90% rating in my estimate. Of course, the alluded suicide (won't say who or when) was a foregone conclusion for dramatic purposes, much like Ordinary People.

I'm not sure I learned anything from the film, but having been gay and from Arkansas, I am not surprised by that. Most of all, I champion the protagonist's form of rebuttal. A lot of good happens when you stand up and simply say, "that's not true." Sometimes, you even have to explain why, if they don't already know.

Am glad I watched so I can be conversant should anyone else mention it or want to discuss it.

 

[LoveMyPeppermill]

Some examples:

The Greek Gymnasium.

The first public library in Rome was conceived of by Julius Caesar in 44 BCE. Caesar died before construction on his library could begin, but a number of subsequent emperors included the establishment of public libraries as part of their building programs, existing both in Rome proper and throughout the empire.


And from whence actually came the intellectual and in some instances, literally the architectural foundations of Christian basilicas. And these public spaces have earlier roots than Caracalla.

Everything after, including the gothic cathedrals are arguably repetitions on a theme.

If Godliness had continued to take second place to cleanliness...who knows how society might have developed in the west?

And of course:

The polytheism of the Roman Republic and some portions of the age of empire probably was an advantage.


You don't need a religious cult to achieve great spaces or buildings.

Okay, that's four ...

No, three: only adult male citizens (a minority of the population, as you know ) could use the gymnasium. And the remaining three are all from one place and era (a long era, granted).

And one could make an argument (I'm not sure I would agree with it, but it could be made) that no great public gathering place built by the Roman Imperial regime was entirely areligious, since Emperors themselves were considered divine. I'd love to see Mary Beard weigh in on that.

You don't need a religious cult to achieve great spaces or buildings.

Gladly agreed, as I've already said:

And no, I don't believe that anyone here is claiming that you need religion for great architectural or cultural achievements, especially in the 21st century.

I'm arguing that, as I said above, religion has, and has always had, enough redeeming characteristics that it doesn't deserve to be obliterated from the face of the Earth, as several of you here appear to be arguing.

That, and, as @NotHardUp1 has pointed out, we have very few examples of human societies that have developed without religion, so a propensity for religion seems to be endemic to Homo sapiens as a species, even if not to all individuals within that species.

And, as I've said, violence and oppression by the powerful also appear to be endemic to our species, and without religion, the powerful come up with other excuses to be violent and oppress.

 

[LoveMyPeppermill]

Have to admit Kidman did a fine job and so did Russell Crowe.

Kidman has always been a fine actress as long as she's kept away from the Botox so that her facial features remain mobile.

 

[pat grimshaw]

That woman has been using Botox for 30 years.

 

[Latimer]

@NotHardUp1 I'm glad you liked it. As it was based on an autobiographical memoir, and the author was both involved with the making of the film and appears in the coda, I assumed it was relatively true to life. I read Russell Crowe and my reaction was "Russell Crowe???" I then realized he really was in the movie, but he so disappeared into the role I forgot he played the father. Joel Edgerton had the flashier part and was also excellent. So, three Aussies above the title--perhaps the Australian film board partially financed it. Another movie in which actors from Commonwealth countries convincingly play Americans.

I read today that Quentin Tarantino questioned why there weren't more Americans playing Americans in these roles. Did you see the second season of White Lotus? Your favorite Theo James and Will Sharpe, both Brits, played, respectively, a hot shot investment banker and a Silicon Valley techie, both American, and they had the accents and body language down perfectly. I know these types and I was awestruck that these actors could have become so completely indistinguishable from the characters.

@pat grimshaw Botox is the least of it. Fillers, huge amounts of them. At least she still looks like herself. I have an architecture client who was a plastic surgeon to the stars. He's now retired, and--he tells me--he's finally relaxing for the first time in his life, now no longer having the responsibility of operating on big stars whose faces are their fortune, keeping them looking good while not altering what's distinctive about their faces.

 

[Latimer]

@rareboy

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”​

― G.K. Chesterton

Worth considering. Certainly, true of communism in the Soviet Union and China for a brief period...

 

[pat grimshaw]

Certainly, true of communism in the Soviet Union and China for a brief period...

And now in the Western World where people have abandoned science and biology and believe their own "truths' and worship the religion of Woke.

"I am female but pretend otherwise/ I am a male but feel I'm a female"

 

[rareboy]

Well that is a complete load of bullshit.

It is precisely because of science and rejection of bronze age religious dogma that the idea of humans being purely binary creatures defined by having a cunt or a cock is being challenged.

Once again, someone with zero education in the science of the subject weighs in with a point of view based only on their own 'feelings' to reject the possibility that humans are more complex than they can grasp.

All the while, apparently having no problem with the fact that they are a male who loves sucking cock.

 

[NotHardUp1]

@NotHardUp1 I'm glad you liked it. As it was based on an autobiographical memoir, and the author was both involved with the making of the film and appears in the coda, I assumed it was relatively true to life. I read Russell Crowe and my reaction was "Russell Crowe???" I then realized he really was in the movie, but he so disappeared into the role I forgot he played the father. Joel Edgerton had the flashier part and was also excellent. So, three Aussies above the title--perhaps the Australian film board partially financed it. Another movie in which actors from Commonwealth countries convincingly play Americans.

I read today that Quentin Tarantino questioned why there weren't more Americans playing Americans in these roles. Did you see the second season of White Lotus? Your favorite Theo James and Will Sharpe, both Brits, played, respectively, a hot shot investment banker and a Silicon Valley techie, both American, and they had the accents and body language down perfectly. I know these types and I was awestruck that these actors could have become so completely indistinguishable from the characters.

Over the years, I've seen absurd comedies, thrillers, and other genres from Australia and have been consistently impressed by the quality of the writing and the acting.

Crowe's and Kidman's subtle portrayals, absent of grand scenes and high drama, was what I meant by "low-key." Even Flea, who is almost unrecognizable in the role, did a great job of not breaking character and being himself. In an interview I found on YouTube, he said he was asked to fill the role without even reading for it.

The director, and must believe at the input of the author, obviously put a great deal of effort in to prevent the depiction of a region and a family as tropes, even hillbillies, which is not what our own cinema values in too many cases when the setting is the heart of the nation or the South. The people were three-dimensional, not two.

With some poignancy, a university classmate of mine has three sons. She is the daughter of a Southern Baptist pastor, and grew up in the Ozarks. She went on to get her doctorate in English, but never taught, and tried her hand at writing. Her husband owned multiple car dealerships and was also conservative relisiously. Their three sons are all grown now, and I didn't notice until three years ago, in a conversation with her by phone, that none had married. By now, they must all be in their 30's to 40. The youngest is a psychologist now, and married about two years ago. The middle son was a lot of trouble and angry from a young age. The oldest was more like our protagonist, and now lives in Montana. There is no family connection to the West. I have to believe he is gay, but either celibate or in self-imposed exile in his cabin up there.

She is a dear friend, but I don't believe her family and her own theology allow her to accept gay people. My guess is that it came home to roost and that they have failed the test. Just opining. She's never raised it, and it isn't my place to ask. further. Doubt they would support conversion therapy. Only a very small percentage of Arkansans would.

 

[rareboy]

Some examples:

The Greek Gymnasium.

The first public library in Rome was conceived of by Julius Caesar in 44 BCE. Caesar died before construction on his library could begin, but a number of subsequent emperors included the establishment of public libraries as part of their building programs, existing both in Rome proper and throughout the empire.


And from whence actually came the intellectual and in some instances, literally the architectural foundations of Christian basilicas. And these public spaces have earlier roots than Caracalla.

Everything after, including the gothic cathedrals are arguably repetitions on a theme.

If Godliness had continued to take second place to cleanliness...who knows how society might have developed in the west?

And of course:

The polytheism of the Roman Republic and some portions of the age of empire probably was an advantage.


You don't need a religious cult to achieve great spaces or buildings.

Okay, that's four ...

No, three: only adult male citizens (a minority of the population, as you know ) could use the gymnasium. And the remaining three are all from one place and era (a long era, granted).

And one could make an argument (I'm not sure I would agree with it, but it could be made) that no great public gathering place built by the Roman Imperial regime was entirely areligious, since Emperors themselves were considered divine. I'd love to see Mary Beard weigh in on that.





Gladly agreed, as I've already said:


I'm arguing that, as I said above, religion has, and has always had, enough redeeming characteristics that it doesn't deserve to be obliterated from the face of the Earth, as several of you here appear to be arguing.

That, and, as @NotHardUp1 has pointed out, we have very few examples of human societies that have developed without religion, so a propensity for religion seems to be endemic to Homo sapiens as a species, even if not to all individuals within that species.

And, as I've said, violence and oppression by the powerful also appear to be endemic to our species, and without religion, the powerful come up with other excuses to be violent and oppress.

Another incredibly important example in western development related to the above. The Greek and later Roman theatre., which also set the stage, as it were, for the performance quality of roman catholicism.

But I am not sure why it is important necessarily that ordinary people needed or need to be wowed by stage settings for either the repressive and apparently hateful God of an old testament or that of the new.

Although as major civil works projects, the cathedrals helped restore the concept and economics of a middle class in medieval society, that is more of an outcome and less of a justification for western religion.

Aqueducts and viaducts pretty much could have served the same purpose.

In and of itself, the architecture and art is pretty meaningless in religion. The mammoth black box meeting halls and theatres of modern right wing adherents are pretty indicative of that.

You can have faith and belief without needing the trappings of religion. Or falling into the trap of mass worship focused on bad translations of bronze age texts that are really a prescription or survival guide for tribal civil behaviour, and the imperative of a male dominated hierarchical society.

The sooner that we move on once and for all from the fallacies of Mosaic religion, or any other religion that is based on war, conflict and the idea of one superior personified deity, the better off the planet and mankind will be.

.

 

[Dominus]

So, you agree with the Chinese Communist Party on that point. They ban any party member from being a member of any faith. How virtuous they do seem, leading the way in all their policies, freed from that nasty old Puddy Tat, religion.

And people think the religious are delusional.

Suggesting that religion WILL be stamped out more than implies it can be, much less that humanity would want it to be.

In the Russian sphere, religion was persecuted for decades, and it has come roaring back, and not only in Russia, appropriated and controlled by the state.

Religions span so many social dimensions, that cultures are nigh inextricable from their attendant religions.

The nature of humanity will mean religion will always exist, in every people, in some form or another. It is as endemic as love, murder, or commerce.

Perhaps stamp is too strong of a word. I'm suggesting we as a society move away from religious tendencies. In regard to human rights, religions have always staggered behind the humanist movements. Just saying.

 

[Latimer]

"humans [are] binary creatures defined by having a cunt or a cock is being challenged"

Challenged it may be, but it has never been shown to be otherwise. A person may change his or her physical appearance either through dress or hormones or surgery, or a combination of all of these, but a male who chooses to look like a female will never be able to conceive a child, nor will a female who chooses to lool like a male be able to produce sperm. A person who points this out is not a "hater", nor does he or she wish to oppress transsexuals. He is simply acknowledging the fact that there are two sexes, not four, not fourteen. Hermaphrodites are infinitesimally rare, and no one is arguing that they are transsexual. This has nothing to do with transcending Bronze Age religion, or having greater powers of imagination--as have you posted in other threads."The science of the subject" that you refer to is not biology. It is wishful thinking.

 

[pat grimshaw]

A person may change his … physical appearance…but…

Yes indeed. Look up Phalloplasty on Google Images.