What happens when religion and ideology conflict?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A great point in the article:

Our culture wars will inevitably require a lively debate on the meaning and purpose of religion. Having to give a definition of a term can often spark lively debate on what the term means to us.

If one side is not willing to debate the issue...that's no different than Trump refusing to debate (although now apparently he has).

There is no debate to be had because either you’re intentionally ignoring what “religion” means. Not in good faith.

Please go back and read the entire article. It's about pros and cons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have "a place parallel to that filled by the God."

+1

Is science a religion?

The poor education in this country is a travesty.

Science is quite literally based on empirical evidence, things that are observable or determine cause and effect. Religion is the opposite by definition, and involves the metaphysical or supernatural.

Biology is science, not religion. Gender is based on gender identity which is a metaphysical concept that some people have unobservable feelings where they want to have different body characteristics.

Hope that helps.

There are no metaphysical or supernatural forces.

It’s not a religion no matter how much times you try to push this absurd concept.

Well - that's my personal belief and opinion. So we will just have to agree to disagree. If you can't agree to disagree that's a you problem.

It's also the belief and opinion of many others including board certified doctors and world-renowned scientists. I am not alone.

Which “board-certified doctors” think that transgenderism is “supernatural/metaphysical”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A great point in the article:

Our culture wars will inevitably require a lively debate on the meaning and purpose of religion. Having to give a definition of a term can often spark lively debate on what the term means to us.

If one side is not willing to debate the issue...that's no different than Trump refusing to debate (although now apparently he has).

There is no debate to be had because either you’re intentionally ignoring what “religion” means. Not in good faith.

Please go back and read the entire article. It's about pros and cons.

Pros/cons are irrelevant because it’s not a religion. There are no supernatural/metaphysical forces at play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have "a place parallel to that filled by the God."

+1

Is science a religion?

The poor education in this country is a travesty.

Science is quite literally based on empirical evidence, things that are observable or determine cause and effect. Religion is the opposite by definition, and involves the metaphysical or supernatural.

Biology is science, not religion. Gender is based on gender identity which is a metaphysical concept that some people have unobservable feelings where they want to have different body characteristics.

Hope that helps.

There are no metaphysical or supernatural forces.

It’s not a religion no matter how much times you try to push this absurd concept.

Of course it is. There is zero empirical evidence that gender identity exists in material reality. Charitable analogies compare the concept of “gender identity” to a feeling or soul, while less charitable analogies compare it to body dysmorphia or worse. Either way, it is unobservable, unverifiable, and only specific to an individual’s emotions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A great point in the article:

Our culture wars will inevitably require a lively debate on the meaning and purpose of religion. Having to give a definition of a term can often spark lively debate on what the term means to us.

If one side is not willing to debate the issue...that's no different than Trump refusing to debate (although now apparently he has).

There is no debate to be had because either you’re intentionally ignoring what “religion” means. Not in good faith.

Please go back and read the entire article. It's about pros and cons.

Pros/cons are irrelevant because it’s not a religion. There are no supernatural/metaphysical forces at play.

If there are no metaphysical forces at play please explain why there are scholarly articles and books to the contrary:

NIH Article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7273633/
https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Gender-Studies-Feminist-Philosophy/dp/0199740402
...many others....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A great point in the article:

Our culture wars will inevitably require a lively debate on the meaning and purpose of religion. Having to give a definition of a term can often spark lively debate on what the term means to us.

If one side is not willing to debate the issue...that's no different than Trump refusing to debate (although now apparently he has).

There is no debate to be had because either you’re intentionally ignoring what “religion” means. Not in good faith.

Please go back and read the entire article. It's about pros and cons.

Pros/cons are irrelevant because it’s not a religion. There are no supernatural/metaphysical forces at play.

If there are no metaphysical forces at play please explain why there are scholarly articles and books to the contrary:

NIH Article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7273633/
https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Gender-Studies-Feminist-Philosophy/dp/0199740402
...many others....

There are “scholarly articles” that use the Gospel of Luke as an “source” and talk about supernatural forces.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8689499/

That doesn’t mean it’s true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have "a place parallel to that filled by the God."

+1

Is science a religion?

The poor education in this country is a travesty.

Science is quite literally based on empirical evidence, things that are observable or determine cause and effect. Religion is the opposite by definition, and involves the metaphysical or supernatural.

Biology is science, not religion. Gender is based on gender identity which is a metaphysical concept that some people have unobservable feelings where they want to have different body characteristics.

Hope that helps.

There are no metaphysical or supernatural forces.

It’s not a religion no matter how much times you try to push this absurd concept.

Of course it is. There is zero empirical evidence that gender identity exists in material reality. Charitable analogies compare the concept of “gender identity” to a feeling or soul, while less charitable analogies compare it to body dysmorphia or worse. Either way, it is unobservable, unverifiable, and only specific to an individual’s emotions.

Yes, there is evidence that gender is a social construct, not an immutable trait.

We can observe:
“Gender socialization begins at birth and occurs through major agents of socialization like family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Some examples of gender socialization include:
Learning cultural norms for what is considered masculine and feminine
Being given traditional male or female names
Nurseries decorated either in pink or blue”

We can also see how gender is fluid, dynamic, and changes according to historical and geographical context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have "a place parallel to that filled by the God."

+1

Is science a religion?

The poor education in this country is a travesty.

Science is quite literally based on empirical evidence, things that are observable or determine cause and effect. Religion is the opposite by definition, and involves the metaphysical or supernatural.

Biology is science, not religion. Gender is based on gender identity which is a metaphysical concept that some people have unobservable feelings where they want to have different body characteristics.

Hope that helps.

There are no metaphysical or supernatural forces.

It’s not a religion no matter how much times you try to push this absurd concept.

Of course it is. There is zero empirical evidence that gender identity exists in material reality. Charitable analogies compare the concept of “gender identity” to a feeling or soul, while less charitable analogies compare it to body dysmorphia or worse. Either way, it is unobservable, unverifiable, and only specific to an individual’s emotions.

Yes, there is evidence that gender is a social construct, not an immutable trait.

We can observe:
“Gender socialization begins at birth and occurs through major agents of socialization like family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Some examples of gender socialization include:
Learning cultural norms for what is considered masculine and feminine
Being given traditional male or female names
Nurseries decorated either in pink or blue”

We can also see how gender is fluid, dynamic, and changes according to historical and geographical context.

Yes, precisely. Gender is a made up social construct based on sex stereotypes, as you describe. Gender identity is an unobservable personal emotion or feeling that some people have about the social construct of gender.

Unfortunately, many people confuse and conflate gender (cultural attitudes about sex stereotypes), gender identity (a persons feelings or supernatural belief about gender) and sex (biology).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have "a place parallel to that filled by the God."

+1

Is science a religion?

The poor education in this country is a travesty.

Science is quite literally based on empirical evidence, things that are observable or determine cause and effect. Religion is the opposite by definition, and involves the metaphysical or supernatural.

Biology is science, not religion. Gender is based on gender identity which is a metaphysical concept that some people have unobservable feelings where they want to have different body characteristics.

Hope that helps.

There are no metaphysical or supernatural forces.

It’s not a religion no matter how much times you try to push this absurd concept.

Of course it is. There is zero empirical evidence that gender identity exists in material reality. Charitable analogies compare the concept of “gender identity” to a feeling or soul, while less charitable analogies compare it to body dysmorphia or worse. Either way, it is unobservable, unverifiable, and only specific to an individual’s emotions.

Yes, there is evidence that gender is a social construct, not an immutable trait.

We can observe:
“Gender socialization begins at birth and occurs through major agents of socialization like family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Some examples of gender socialization include:
Learning cultural norms for what is considered masculine and feminine
Being given traditional male or female names
Nurseries decorated either in pink or blue”

We can also see how gender is fluid, dynamic, and changes according to historical and geographical context.

Yes, precisely. Gender is a made up social construct based on sex stereotypes, as you describe. Gender identity is an unobservable personal emotion or feeling that some people have about the social construct of gender.

Unfortunately, many people confuse and conflate gender (cultural attitudes about sex stereotypes), gender identity (a persons feelings or supernatural belief about gender) and sex (biology).

OP here. For the most part, this has been a great discussion thread. To be clear, when I originally questioned whether "ideology" should be considered a religious belief, as an example, I was referring to gender identity ideology. And the discussion is merely to state the pros and cons of establishing it as a religious belief. Because there are specific religious rights that parents (whether trans or not) could use to protect choices made for their children (i.e., puberty blockers, gender affirmation surgery, etc.) that would fall under parental sovereign rights over children - parents have a constitutional right to raise their children in the religion they choose without interference. The only exception being if it is to the detriment of the child's physical and/or mental health and well being.

This is simply a different point of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have "a place parallel to that filled by the God."

+1

Is science a religion?

The poor education in this country is a travesty.

Science is quite literally based on empirical evidence, things that are observable or determine cause and effect. Religion is the opposite by definition, and involves the metaphysical or supernatural.

Biology is science, not religion. Gender is based on gender identity which is a metaphysical concept that some people have unobservable feelings where they want to have different body characteristics.

Hope that helps.

There are no metaphysical or supernatural forces.

It’s not a religion no matter how much times you try to push this absurd concept.

Of course it is. There is zero empirical evidence that gender identity exists in material reality. Charitable analogies compare the concept of “gender identity” to a feeling or soul, while less charitable analogies compare it to body dysmorphia or worse. Either way, it is unobservable, unverifiable, and only specific to an individual’s emotions.

Yes, there is evidence that gender is a social construct, not an immutable trait.

We can observe:
“Gender socialization begins at birth and occurs through major agents of socialization like family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Some examples of gender socialization include:
Learning cultural norms for what is considered masculine and feminine
Being given traditional male or female names
Nurseries decorated either in pink or blue”

We can also see how gender is fluid, dynamic, and changes according to historical and geographical context.

Yes, precisely. Gender is a made up social construct based on sex stereotypes, as you describe. Gender identity is an unobservable personal emotion or feeling that some people have about the social construct of gender.

Unfortunately, many people confuse and conflate gender (cultural attitudes about sex stereotypes), gender identity (a persons feelings or supernatural belief about gender) and sex (biology).

I have an unobservable personal feeling that the Eagles are the best football team. Does that make football fanaticism a “religion”. No, of course not.

Nothing supernatural about having feelings.

Troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have "a place parallel to that filled by the God."

+1

Is science a religion?

The poor education in this country is a travesty.

Science is quite literally based on empirical evidence, things that are observable or determine cause and effect. Religion is the opposite by definition, and involves the metaphysical or supernatural.

Biology is science, not religion. Gender is based on gender identity which is a metaphysical concept that some people have unobservable feelings where they want to have different body characteristics.

Hope that helps.

There are no metaphysical or supernatural forces.

It’s not a religion no matter how much times you try to push this absurd concept.

Of course it is. There is zero empirical evidence that gender identity exists in material reality. Charitable analogies compare the concept of “gender identity” to a feeling or soul, while less charitable analogies compare it to body dysmorphia or worse. Either way, it is unobservable, unverifiable, and only specific to an individual’s emotions.

Yes, there is evidence that gender is a social construct, not an immutable trait.

We can observe:
“Gender socialization begins at birth and occurs through major agents of socialization like family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Some examples of gender socialization include:
Learning cultural norms for what is considered masculine and feminine
Being given traditional male or female names
Nurseries decorated either in pink or blue”

We can also see how gender is fluid, dynamic, and changes according to historical and geographical context.

Yes, precisely. Gender is a made up social construct based on sex stereotypes, as you describe. Gender identity is an unobservable personal emotion or feeling that some people have about the social construct of gender.

Unfortunately, many people confuse and conflate gender (cultural attitudes about sex stereotypes), gender identity (a persons feelings or supernatural belief about gender) and sex (biology).

OP here. For the most part, this has been a great discussion thread. To be clear, when I originally questioned whether "ideology" should be considered a religious belief, as an example, I was referring to gender identity ideology. And the discussion is merely to state the pros and cons of establishing it as a religious belief. Because there are specific religious rights that parents (whether trans or not) could use to protect choices made for their children (i.e., puberty blockers, gender affirmation surgery, etc.) that would fall under parental sovereign rights over children - parents have a constitutional right to raise their children in the religion they choose without interference. The only exception being if it is to the detriment of the child's physical and/or mental health and well being.

This is simply a different point of view.

Except that transgenderism is not a religion. There are no supernatural forces involved.

So the entire discussion is moot. Just a way for bigots to stir the pot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have "a place parallel to that filled by the God."

+1

Is science a religion?

The poor education in this country is a travesty.

Science is quite literally based on empirical evidence, things that are observable or determine cause and effect. Religion is the opposite by definition, and involves the metaphysical or supernatural.

Biology is science, not religion. Gender is based on gender identity which is a metaphysical concept that some people have unobservable feelings where they want to have different body characteristics.

Hope that helps.

There are no metaphysical or supernatural forces.

It’s not a religion no matter how much times you try to push this absurd concept.

Of course it is. There is zero empirical evidence that gender identity exists in material reality. Charitable analogies compare the concept of “gender identity” to a feeling or soul, while less charitable analogies compare it to body dysmorphia or worse. Either way, it is unobservable, unverifiable, and only specific to an individual’s emotions.

Yes, there is evidence that gender is a social construct, not an immutable trait.

We can observe:
“Gender socialization begins at birth and occurs through major agents of socialization like family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Some examples of gender socialization include:
Learning cultural norms for what is considered masculine and feminine
Being given traditional male or female names
Nurseries decorated either in pink or blue”

We can also see how gender is fluid, dynamic, and changes according to historical and geographical context.

Yes, precisely. Gender is a made up social construct based on sex stereotypes, as you describe. Gender identity is an unobservable personal emotion or feeling that some people have about the social construct of gender.

Unfortunately, many people confuse and conflate gender (cultural attitudes about sex stereotypes), gender identity (a persons feelings or supernatural belief about gender) and sex (biology).

I have an unobservable personal feeling that the Eagles are the best football team. Does that make football fanaticism a “religion”. No, of course not.

Nothing supernatural about having feelings.

Troll.

No, a feeling of affinity to the Eagles is simply a personal preference.

A gender identity is the belief of an innate feeling outside of the physical body that identifies mismatch between the soul and physical sexed body. Of course there are other explanations or interpretations of this mismatch but they much less charitable than a gender soul, notably: mental illness, body dysmorphia, or worse which is impermissible to say here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have "a place parallel to that filled by the God."

+1

Is science a religion?

The poor education in this country is a travesty.

Science is quite literally based on empirical evidence, things that are observable or determine cause and effect. Religion is the opposite by definition, and involves the metaphysical or supernatural.

Biology is science, not religion. Gender is based on gender identity which is a metaphysical concept that some people have unobservable feelings where they want to have different body characteristics.

Hope that helps.

There are no metaphysical or supernatural forces.

It’s not a religion no matter how much times you try to push this absurd concept.

Of course it is. There is zero empirical evidence that gender identity exists in material reality. Charitable analogies compare the concept of “gender identity” to a feeling or soul, while less charitable analogies compare it to body dysmorphia or worse. Either way, it is unobservable, unverifiable, and only specific to an individual’s emotions.

Yes, there is evidence that gender is a social construct, not an immutable trait.

We can observe:
“Gender socialization begins at birth and occurs through major agents of socialization like family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Some examples of gender socialization include:
Learning cultural norms for what is considered masculine and feminine
Being given traditional male or female names
Nurseries decorated either in pink or blue”

We can also see how gender is fluid, dynamic, and changes according to historical and geographical context.

Yes, precisely. Gender is a made up social construct based on sex stereotypes, as you describe. Gender identity is an unobservable personal emotion or feeling that some people have about the social construct of gender.

Unfortunately, many people confuse and conflate gender (cultural attitudes about sex stereotypes), gender identity (a persons feelings or supernatural belief about gender) and sex (biology).

OP here. For the most part, this has been a great discussion thread. To be clear, when I originally questioned whether "ideology" should be considered a religious belief, as an example, I was referring to gender identity ideology. And the discussion is merely to state the pros and cons of establishing it as a religious belief. Because there are specific religious rights that parents (whether trans or not) could use to protect choices made for their children (i.e., puberty blockers, gender affirmation surgery, etc.) that would fall under parental sovereign rights over children - parents have a constitutional right to raise their children in the religion they choose without interference. The only exception being if it is to the detriment of the child's physical and/or mental health and well being.

This is simply a different point of view.

Well yes, I think we all agree that parents have the right to indoctrinate their children to whatever metaphysical ethos they want, be it transubstantiation, eternal paradise for true martyrdom, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

How the controversy over gender ideology specific to children really is the question of “detriment to child’s mental or physical well-being”.

Unfortunately there is not much research on this topic because of the controversial nature. Much research is contradictory. However I have found that the Europeans typically have the most evidence based research on these questions.

Do gender affirming care treatments (therapy, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones) lead to improved long term outcomes for youths who are diagnosed as gender dysphoric?
Do minors see better or worse long term outcomes when they believe that sex-reassignment surgery will help them to change gender or alleviate dysphoria?
What are the long term physical and mental health impacts for minors who undergo gender affirming care treatment (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones).

Hopefully soon there will be more research and data from non-biased organizations on these questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gender is not a belief system or ideology, it's biology + psychology + sociology. It doesn't have "a place parallel to that filled by the God."

+1

Is science a religion?

The poor education in this country is a travesty.

Science is quite literally based on empirical evidence, things that are observable or determine cause and effect. Religion is the opposite by definition, and involves the metaphysical or supernatural.

Biology is science, not religion. Gender is based on gender identity which is a metaphysical concept that some people have unobservable feelings where they want to have different body characteristics.

Hope that helps.

There are no metaphysical or supernatural forces.

It’s not a religion no matter how much times you try to push this absurd concept.

Of course it is. There is zero empirical evidence that gender identity exists in material reality. Charitable analogies compare the concept of “gender identity” to a feeling or soul, while less charitable analogies compare it to body dysmorphia or worse. Either way, it is unobservable, unverifiable, and only specific to an individual’s emotions.

Yes, there is evidence that gender is a social construct, not an immutable trait.

We can observe:
“Gender socialization begins at birth and occurs through major agents of socialization like family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Some examples of gender socialization include:
Learning cultural norms for what is considered masculine and feminine
Being given traditional male or female names
Nurseries decorated either in pink or blue”

We can also see how gender is fluid, dynamic, and changes according to historical and geographical context.

Yes, precisely. Gender is a made up social construct based on sex stereotypes, as you describe. Gender identity is an unobservable personal emotion or feeling that some people have about the social construct of gender.

Unfortunately, many people confuse and conflate gender (cultural attitudes about sex stereotypes), gender identity (a persons feelings or supernatural belief about gender) and sex (biology).

OP here. For the most part, this has been a great discussion thread. To be clear, when I originally questioned whether "ideology" should be considered a religious belief, as an example, I was referring to gender identity ideology. And the discussion is merely to state the pros and cons of establishing it as a religious belief. Because there are specific religious rights that parents (whether trans or not) could use to protect choices made for their children (i.e., puberty blockers, gender affirmation surgery, etc.) that would fall under parental sovereign rights over children - parents have a constitutional right to raise their children in the religion they choose without interference. The only exception being if it is to the detriment of the child's physical and/or mental health and well being.

This is simply a different point of view.

Except that transgenderism is not a religion. There are no supernatural forces involved.

So the entire discussion is moot. Just a way for bigots to stir the pot.

Well...I am not talking about transgenderism which is a subset of gender identity. The point of the discussion is that gender identity is a "sense of self" ideology or belief.

So back to the original question of this thread...what happens when religion and ideology conflict?

How do you resolve this conflict? Because you cannot resolve a conflict by simply telling one side they are wrong and that the other side is right. There is no right or wrong gender identity ideology.

Christians like myself (and other religions for that matter) believe in cisgenderism - that someone's gender corresponds with the sex the person is identified with at birth. Period. That is a religious and ideological belief.

Telling people that they must denounce their religious beliefs to follow someone else's "sense of self" ideology or belief is wrong. Everyone must respect everyone else's religious and ideological beliefs. It's a two-way street.

I respect all transgenders...they have the right to believe what they believe. However, no one should be asked to renounce their religious beliefs to follow someone else's just because they want them to. Parents have the constitutional and fundamental right to make decisions concerning the upbringing, education (especially religious education), and care of their children.

I'll close with this final note...

There has to be an "agree to disagree" kumbaya moment (to get opposing interests to reconcile in the name of harmony) -- by having all parties tolerating but not accepting the opposing positions. Everyone is blind if they do not recognize that this will be the only way to resolve this conflict....to unify our divided country.

[Anonymous]

Religion should be ethical, egalitarian, spiritual, peaceful, respectful, open-minded, moral and humanitarian.