this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
581 points (97.1% liked)

Atheism

4046 readers
8 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a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 202 points 8 months 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.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 79 points 8 months 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.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 41 points 8 months 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.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 12 points 8 months 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.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months 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.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (2 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?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months 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

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (2 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.

[–] msage@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So just keep the philosophy and ignore any supernatural stories.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You'll never sell any comic books with that attitude

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, no. How many wars were fought over atheism? None. How many over religions? Too many to count.

The average Catholic is a fine person, I'm sure, but the Catholic church is a horror show. How many people have suffered because of that organization? More than I could count. How many wars has it started? More than I'd like to know.

Want to try a different religion? Any religion? Any cult? Scientology, maybe? No? How about Jim Jones temple of what was it called again?

Individual spiritualism then? In on itself harmless, maybe, but it's still pure nonsense in the level of believing in unicorns and Santa Claus, and it still will end in either groups starting to form, that makes cults that either die out or become organised religion. And in its entire trajectory, it WILL cause suffering and abuse.

Yes, abuse is possible in any organization, but no organization will allow and tolerate abuse as religious organizations do. Give us your money, old grandpa with cancer, god will cure your cancer and return you your money double, I swear! Climate change isn't real, god would not allow it! All our thousands, millions of followers should just continue to pollute the hell out of this world because God will fix it, people! Hurricanes are caused by gay wickedness and women won't get pregnant from rape, god will stop that unless they like it.

I see no positive point in any religion or spirituality that could not be made without it.

So yes, fuck all religions, they're a detriment to the growth of humanity.

But what about the charities then? Charities don't require religion, you can do one perfectly fine without the other, and that ignores that charities only exist due to governments not fixing issues.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

How many wars were fought over atheism? None.

The entire Cold War was a protracted struggle between hard right Christian fascists and Communist Rationalists.

Look up the history of the John Birch Society. The entire movement is based on the Chinese Maoist treatment of Western Evangelicals.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months 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.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months 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)
[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

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

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 54 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago (13 children)

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

She thinks this is oppression.

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 8 months ago

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

Religion should have been your first clue.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago (4 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.

[–] hazeebabee@slrpnk.net 8 points 8 months 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.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 4 points 8 months 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.

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure that I agree that a queer character can only be played by a queer actor.

Maybe not, but having it played by a queer-hating religious zealot won't do.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago
[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 39 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

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

[–] frostysauce@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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.

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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.

[–] Kindness@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months 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.

[–] SteefLem@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months 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.

[–] TurtleJoe@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

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