this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
593 points (100.0% liked)

Atheism

4584 readers
3 users here now

Community Guide


Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.


Statement of Purpose

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Inadvisable


Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.


If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!


Connect with Atheists

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 203 points 1 year ago (7 children)

“I do not believe you can be born gay, and I do not believe homosexuality is right, though the law of this land has made it legal doesn’t mean it’s right,” Omooba wrote in the post. “I do believe that everyone sins and falls into temptation but it’s by the asking of forgiveness, repentance and the grace of God that we overcome and live how God ordained us to, which is that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh.”

Hmm, being homophobic and trying to have a career in theater. Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.

After hearing testimony in 2021 that Omooba had previously told her agents that she refused to play gay roles and had not bothered to read the script for the musical version of The Color Purple before accepting the role, an employment tribunal dismissed the actor’s religious discrimination claim, The Telegraph reported.

How can you not even read the script, the book its based on, or even at the least watch the Hollywood movie for a part you're trying to land in an acting performance?

“I have long forgiven all those who have sought to ruin my theatre career,” Omooba said in a statement following the ruling, “but the theatre world needs to be told, loud and clear, that canceling people for their Christian beliefs is illegal and wrong.”

Doesn't look like it turned out well for her.

[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As someone of color, I wonder if she would agree with the KKK discriminating against her, as they also consider themselves "Christians" spreading hate against people over things they do not control.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs. Plantation owners believed that black people were cursed by the mark of ham, and thus were entitled by an act of God to enslave people.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Also, the Bible literally says: "but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" 1 Timothy 2:12

So according to Christian dogma, SHE wouldn't be allowed to speak up against men, even if they are breaking some other rules, or try to teach the theatre world anything.

But it's a fair bet saying she's never opened a bible in her life, seeing she can't be bothered to even check out what the story is about when applying for roles.

Edit I realised this might read quite neutral, so I'm adding a fuck monotheism here just to make my view on the matter clear

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Eh, fuck all religions, not just monotheism. Religions are the worst, the amount of gods doesn't matter much. They're abusive and a detriment to society and progress.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Religion" is a every wide term though.

Dogma makes religions bad, but not all religions have dogma. Also when does faith become religion?

I get your point and I don't mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism#Violence_in_monotheism

The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

get your point and I don't mind saying fuck all religions, but historically, polytheistic societies were more tolerant and usually pretty progressive. Much less (if any) dogma.

Idk, I think that's a pretty hard claim to make. One that's mainly dependent on the fact that the majority of written history happened after the advent of monotheism, especially in the west.

If we examine the body of evidence of polytheistic cultures outside western influence, things get a bit more complicated. Especially considering that terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.

In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god. How do you weigh that with the modern understanding of concepts like progressiveness or tolerance?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're literally making my point for me.

In ancient Mesopotamia, people were more able to accept the concept of dualism and polytheism, however they were also much more likely to participate in the destruction of entire cultures to capture the idol of a rival god

"RIVAL" god.

a person or thing competing with another for the same objective or for superiority in the same field of activity.

That's the proto-version of dogmatic monotheism. That's the origin of the first commandment. That's THE reason monotheism is so unaccepting and violent.

I'm not going to write a several page essay detailing why this is so. Do you know why Jesus was accepted as a deity to the Roman and Greek pantheons at the time, instead of being seen as a rival god? How the same thing happened later in the North of Europe as well with norse polytheism?

Polytheism by its very nature has more explanatory power, as not every explanation is "God works in mysterious ways" as one god is considered omnipotent and infallible, whereasin polytheism gods are often more humane, fickle, and fallible, despite being very powerful.

terms like progressive and tolerant are subjective concepts entrenched in the eurocentric cross-examination of cultures.

Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you're not too tolerant. "Progressive" is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, "Viking" rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called "civilized" European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime -- there was no "victim," but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.

That's not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of "women are people" is more progressive than "women are things"?

Or do you consider that a subjective thing..?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

You're literally making my point for me.

I beg to differ. I think you're making some assumptions about the innate qualities of polytheistic societies.

Just because deities within certain polytheistic religions were rivals, doesn't imply the advent of monotheism. Most polytheistic religions had sects or cults that conflicted with other sects within the same pantheon.

Not really. Do you kill everything different from you? Then you're not too tolerant.

Okay, then explain the Mongol empire? They were polytheistic, and more liberal with religious freedoms than nearly any other empire in history..... Does their use of violence negate their tolerance?

We can look at branches of the Mongolian empire 200 years later that would transition from polytheism to monotheistic islamist. Did they become more violent after the transition? Nope, they assimilated into the culture and became the local government for generations.

"Progressive" is also not too subjective. Before the Christianisation of the Nordics, for instance, "Viking" rape laws were far more progressive than their so-called "civilized" European counterparts. On the continent, women were considered property and so rape was a property crime -- there was no "victim," but the father or husband, whose property had been damaged.

We have no written record of any laws of the Viking. We have second hand information from the perspective of Christian priest, but I'd hardly claim that gives us any information about the actual practice and context of "Viking rape laws".

For all we know these laws could have been based on the same proprietary motivation of monotheistic societies who recorded it. And if you are interpreting secondary sources as your primary sources, then we must assume their other observations of the same culture to be true. That the Viking culture was based on the rape and pillage of Christianity, not exactly a progressive perspective.....

That's not really subjective of a take, is it? To think that an attitude of "women are people" is more progressive than "women are things"?

First of all, that argument is entirely dependent on assuming that Viking in Viking culture women were thought of as equals.....which is doubtful. Just because they aren't labeled as property, doesn't mean they weren't second class citizens. More than likely Viking cultures just didn't have the same cultural understanding of property as their monotheistic counterparts.

Secondly, yes with added context that statement is entirely subjective. If a society treats their own women as people, but is perfectly fine with raping and enslaving women in other cultures, are they truly progressive? Or do they just understand that what's good for the cow is good for the farmer?

I do find it funny that one of my primary complaints with this historical interpretation is that it is too dependent on a eurocentric representation of history, and your rebuttals have only been composed of European examples.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Whenever there is a belief in something supernatural, it will be abused, it will end badly, because we're already talking about people believing things without any proof. Sooner or later, a leader will pop up and it's it's rather easy to make these people do your bidding by inventing new wonders or dogma or whatever works for said leader(s)

People need to grow up. Yeah, maybe there is a mighty system operator that manages our simulation, or maybe I'm a Boltzmann brain or whatever. Thinking about it, these two ideas are more plausible than any religion out there, yet we don't have the great Boltzmann church.

Science is finding out reality, maybe we should focus more on that

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Religions are the worst

Religious philosophy is fine. Not everything needs to be crammed into the framework of hard sciences. And the social aspects of religious organizing are no more good or bad than the individuals who take part in it.

You can just as easily find religiously motivated abolitionists as slavers. You can just as easily find religiously motivated homeless shelters as pedophile priests. The spiritualist language used to describe our social bonds is no less legitimate than some Evo-Devo prattle about brain chemicals, at least from the perspective of setting useful policy.

They’re abusive and a detriment to society and progress.

You can just as easily find abusive and detrimental habits in business economics and the hard sciences. Rationalization of a perverse or destructive behavior often follows the decision to embark on it. And you don't need religious beliefs to rationalize bad behaviors.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So just keep the philosophy and ignore any supernatural stories.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You'll never sell any comic books with that attitude

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed. I have faith in science, I have faith in people, I have faith in real things.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeap, a lot of slavery in America was perpetuated and validated by religious beliefs

Goes even beyond that. Christianity - specifically, the New Testament verses that extolled the virtue of earthly toil on behalf of a secular lord in exchange for heavenly reward - was leveraged to convince the slaves themselves that their lot in life was justified. And for a great long period of time, it was successful. Even after the Confederacy's back was broken, mobilizing a population that had been wiped into submission for centuries was legitimately difficult. The Freedman's Bureau had a herculean effort put at its feet - to engage, re-educate, and empower millions of newly emancipated black men and women after a lifetime of debasement and degradation.

When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

When you get into why Reconstruction failed, a big part of it was like looking at a spouse in an abusive relationship trying to get out from under a hyper-domineering partner and scaling that sociological problem up to the scale of whole cities and states.

I mean that, but also Andrew Johnson was a horrible person and even a worse president

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's simple. They're the wrong kind of Christian, and she's the right kind.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

No True Christian would fail to hate the exact same groups of people I hate.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Not just theater but musical theater the absolute stronghold of the LGBTQIA+... Yeah let's just talk openly about how I believe the vast majority of my coworkers and peers (who probably have backgrounds of religious trauma) are morally defunct and how their ability to feel loved and supported shouldn't be considered protected by society!

I want to grab her by the shoulders and say : For fuck sake honey. No one in your field wanting to touch you with a 9 ft pole isn't their fault. Having someone openly homophobic in a role where getting the gold star of casting has been for the past several years meant actually choosing someone who has actual experience in a similar identity to what they are potraying... It would be suicide for a production. People are going to look to a queer character to project themselves in those situations. Knowing you're just a bigot doing it for self agrandizement, accolades and cash is going to cause fucking boycotts from the very target audience of the show!

Spilling your theocratic dirty laundry on twatter because you can't hold it in can be a "career limiting move" and that's just normal in a pluralistic society.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Concrete proof that these people simply don't live in reality.

She thinks this is oppression.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Concrete proof that these people simply don't live in reality.

Religion should have been your first clue.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I'm not sure that I agree that a queer character can only be played by a queer actor. That is called acting, the entire idea is to be someone you're not. If wr put that rule, then you can also say that straight characters cannot be played by queer or gay actors, not something we want, I'd say.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I think its more a push toward making space for people who have marginalized identites to act. For a long time being openly queer was career suicide. So now that those stories are finally being told, people also want actors writers and producers of those identities involved in the process.

I think its less that straight actors cant play queer characters and more so that there are already plenty of roles for them. Maybe in a more equal future that pressure wont be there but right now it is.

I also think it depends on the role. A side character that happens to be gay? Yeah a straight actor can definetly play that. A lead role in a comming of age tale about discovering your gender identity? Probably best played by someone who has lived experience.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Imo it's the same idea as having black people play black characters instead of white people with black makeup. If everyone was treated as equal then it wouldn't be an issue. However, that's not reality. People are treated differently based on gender, sex, race, age and so forth. Wanting queer characters to be played by queer actors is a way of making sure they have a space to demonstrate their skill, talent, and potentially make a living off it. Same thing with black people playing black characters, or women playing female characters.

There's another element, however, in which good acting can't fully replace personal experience. A queer actor playing a queer character will likely be able to identify with said character much better than a straight actor could, and as such, they would be able to harness their personal experiences and channel them through the character they're playing.

While my latter point doesn't refute your point about straight characters being played by queer actors, the former hopefully explains why it isn't universally applied. I do believe though, that in a just and equal world, things like sex, race, gender and so forth shouldn't be (dis)qualifiers for any given character, it's just that we don't live in that kind of world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair I never said "can only be played by" just that the gold standard has become preferred casting of actors who can apply their personal experiences to the role be it people who come from a specific place or culture (like a queer culture) , have a specific racial background or a disability those roles particularly are earmarked with a growing cultural preference for people because there's some wider cultural issues of stereotyping, typecasting or framing out people who can tell you is something the playwright put in is full of shit. More people are becoming wise to media literacy and can spot things off with an uninformed take on a performance.

There is a silver and bronze standard that are still acceptable. Sometimes you cast someone outside the gold standard for a bunch of reasons. Availability, overwhelming directorial notions that it was an audition above and beyond... but in leftist spaces particularly - like audio drama podcasts as an example the gold standard of preferred applicants is explicitly listed on audition sides.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

gold standard has become

No, the entire thing about acting is that people can play people other than themselves. If you can't play outside your own experiences, you're not the "gold standard", as you randomly claim, you're a bad actor.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That’s what I have trouble understanding - not even reading the script. Apparently she counted on her agents to “filter” things for her. Sounds highly unprofessional.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Definitely failed at basic adulting: "read carefully before signing".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not supporting this dumb bigot at all but isn't that kind of an agent's job?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In the case of a good, reputable agent who makes you their top priority, it can be. In other cases, if the agent sees a role for a black woman in her 30s(?) who can sing, that’s good enough. Unusual, specific demands/requirements could slip through the cracks. They pass the script along, expecting her to at least skim the damn thing, and leave the final decision up to her.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago

Hmm, being homophobic and trying to have a career in theater. Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.

I laughed so loudly as this comment, my kids came to check in on me.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I've gotten too used to people intentionally misspelling a certain person's name. 'Omooba' threw me for a loop.

“I have long forgiven all those who have sought to ruin my theatre career,”

It would be beneficial for her to realise long and deep self-reflection is a virtue.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thats a bold move, lets see how it pays off.

The Daily Caller is always hiring.

How can you not even read the script, the book its based on, or even at the least watch the Hollywood movie for a part you’re trying to land in an acting performance?

More curious how she got hired on those terms. It seems like a simple line reading might have clued everyone involved in on what this story was about.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you cant cancel people for their christian believe. But apparently you can cancel people for well everything else? Woman is mad.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

TBF, the supreme Court has mostly agreed with her in multiple cases.