I'm being persecuted for my beliefs!

[pmckean]

The day has finally come, as I suppose I knew it would.

My girlfriend has noticed that a copy of 'The God Delusion' has a space on my bookshelf. :(

She asked me to remove it this morning, as she considers it offensive to her religious beliefs. I tried a few half-hearted arguments; that I don't remember the book being banned by any religious groups, that it's not really aimed at firm believers, that her faith in God should be strong enough that the existence of this tome won't dent it, that I don't object to her numerous gilded bibles, etc, but she's implacable. It goes immediately.

So, to keep the peace, I've binned it. I refuse to hide it in the car or the garage like a piece of pornography. I can just see the refuse collection truck backing down my cul-de-sac, so it looks like the end is nigh.

She's wants my copy of the 'Da Vinci Code' gone, too. :(

[RandFan]

I was lucky enough that my wife was always willing to accept me for me. A number of my ideas were offensive to her but in the end she loved me. Today she is an atheist.

I can't give you advise. We all have to find our own way in this world. Love isn't always easy to come by so perhaps your girlfriend is worth it.

I couldn't do it though. I would rather find another girlfriend than to give up that which is important to me. But that's just me.

Good luck.

P.S. If she isn't hot and or the sex isn't great then perhaps you should dump her. ;)

[SezMe]

Methinks you threw the wrong item in the bin.

[MRC_Hans]

Methinks you threw the wrong item in the bin.I agree. This is the thin end of the wedge. Make it clear that you are allowed to think and read what you want, just as she is. Or clear out.

This hurts now, but it will hurt more in the future, if you don't do something about it.

Hans

[Mojo]

My girlfriend has noticed that a copy of 'The God Delusion' has a space on my bookshelf. :(

She asked me to remove it this morning, as she considers it offensive to her religious beliefs. I tried a few half-hearted arguments; that I don't remember the book being banned by any religious groups, that it's not really aimed at firm believers, that her faith in God should be strong enough that the existence of this tome won't dent it, that I don't object to her numerous gilded bibles, etc, but she's implacable. It goes immediately.


If you haven't so far objected to her Bibles, you need to start doing so: not necessarily to make her get rid of them, but to get her to understand what she's doing here.

Hans is right. This is the thin end of the wedge.

[Mojo]

Methinks you threw the wrong item in the bin.


Yeah, should have binned the DVC.

[Rasmus]

I can only agree.

There is just *so much* that's wrong with banning books. You should get a new copy of the book and then, if needed, a new girlfriend.

How good is the sex that you shopuld be willing to put up with a partner - and I am stretching the term here, I know - that gets offended that you might dare to dissagree with her? (Somewhat secretely, too. You only have the book after all. You weren't loudly reciting it, forcing here to read it or torturing her voodoo doll with it or anything.)

[Normal Dude]

The day has finally come, as I suppose I knew it would.

My girlfriend has noticed that a copy of 'The God Delusion' has a space on my bookshelf. :(

She asked me to remove it this morning, as she considers it offensive to her religious beliefs. I tried a few half-hearted arguments; that I don't remember the book being banned by any religious groups, that it's not really aimed at firm believers, that her faith in God should be strong enough that the existence of this tome won't dent it, that I don't object to her numerous gilded bibles, etc, but she's implacable. It goes immediately.

So, to keep the peace, I've binned it. I refuse to hide it in the car or the garage like a piece of pornography. I can just see the refuse collection truck backing down my cul-de-sac, so it looks like the end is nigh.

She's wants my copy of the 'Da Vinci Code' gone, too. :(

I'm not a relationship master but I can recognize someone who is unreasonable when I see it. Good luck.

[Brian Pears]

So, to keep the peace, I've binned it. I refuse to hide it in the car or the garage like a piece of pornography. I can just see the refuse collection truck backing down my cul-de-sac, so it looks like the end is nigh.(

Oh dear! What a bad move.

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

" I'm being persecuted for my beliefs! "

Funny you should say that, I have basically been persecuted for telling nothing but truths.

I had a battle with those on the other side, those who claimed to be holy and Divine, who in truth were, and are, the most despicable lying deceitful low down heartless evil pieces of absolute garbage that could ever possibly exist.

Suddenly I discovered why throughout my entire life I have been up against nothing but never ending opposition.

When I wrote my web site, specifically the Bible Code pages, I thought for sure people would begin to respond.

I mean the code that I revealed went completely against the odds of being coincidental, and so much so that in my opinion they could practically be used to verify whether or not someone is brain dead.

But instead, the code info just went in one eye, and out the other, even though the odds in favor of such information being within the bible just by chance is virtually zero, there have been no intelligent responses to either of the web pages.

Some people think that I just somehow made it all up. Well that would very clever since that would mean that I would also have to have made up the entire bible as well.

That was when I discovered that TRUTH is not allowed to enter your minds.

Problem discovered, but not solved.

[pmckean]

She has her good points, too!

I'm a little disappointed that she's taken such a hard line towards this book, but hey, you know how it is between men and women; sometimes it's just easier to go along with something you don't necessarily want to do in order to keep the peace.

Let me try and understand her perspective; she feels that the book is sacrilegious, which it most assuredly is. Keeping such an item in a house which she co-owns, therefore, is an affront to her deeply-held beliefs.

As an atheist, however, I hold no particular religious belief and therefore the presence of a Bible in this house does not offend me, and does not require removal.

Therefore, 'The God Delusion' goes and the Bible stays.

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

I agree with the others.

I tried very, very hard to be agreeable with my ex, but found it incredibly difficult to behave out of character. And you need to keep remembering which comprimises you've made, too! :)

In the long run if she can't accept you for what you are, then it's never going to work anyway.

That's why she's my ex :)

YBW

[Zep]

Why did you BIN the book? You should have given it away to a friend who WAS allowed to keep it. Then you could have "visited" your book just about any time you wanted, while keeping domestic peace.

I do hate to see ANY books dumped in a bin. Even Sylvia Browne's bilge is worth keeping, as an example of what absolute RUBBISH! some people can write.

[yairhol]

I'm not a relationship master but I can recognize someone who is unreasonable when I see it. Good luck.

I AM a relationship master but that's aside the point.

Let's face it, throwing the book away will not solve the problem between you two because the book is just the symptom. Your beliefs are the real problem to her and eventually she will want you to shut up whenever people around you will be talking about god and afterwards she would want you to come to church/synagog/wherever with her so you can convert. Do you know what will happen if you won't cave down to what she wants? She'll throw you a way like last night's opened beer can.
You should make it crystal clear that your hobbies (reading skeptical sources are part of our hobbies) are as important to you as her beliefs to her. She does not decide what your hobbies will and will not include.

Oh, and make sure you dump her before she dumps you. It'll be easier on you that way.

Regards and good luck,
Yair - Relationship Master

[Rasmus]

She has her good points, too!

I'm a little disappointed that she's taken such a hard line towards this book, but hey, you know how it is between men and women; sometimes it's just easier to go along with something you don't necessarily want to do in order to keep the peace.

It depends, I guess, on how much you are willing to sacrifice for your peace. Personally, I wouldn't want to live a life where I'd need someone else's permission anytime I wanted to buy a book.

Let me try and understand her perspective; she feels that the book is sacrilegious, which it most assuredly is. Keeping such an item in a house which she co-owns, therefore, is an affront to her deeply-held beliefs.

The second doesn't necessarily follow, though. And it doesn't follow that just because she doesn't like the book - however strongly the dislike may be - you would somehow be obligated to act on that.

Again: You want to live with someone who is offended when you dissagree with her and demands (!) that you should censor your thoughts, opionions and personal choice of literature because of it?

Personally, I'd see only one problem: That she co-owns the house and that I therefore might not be able to kick her out straight away.

As an atheist, however, I hold no particular religious belief and therefore the presence of a Bible in this house does not offend me, and does not require removal.

Therefore, 'The God Delusion' goes and the Bible stays.


No, as an atheist you shouldn't require that the bible goes. But you shouldn't meet her selfish and inhuman demands, either.

[Jekyll]

Let me try and understand her perspective; she feels that the book is sacrilegious, which it most assuredly is. Keeping such an item in a house which she co-owns, therefore, is an affront to her deeply-held beliefs.

As an atheist,...

As an atheist aren't your thoughts also sacrilegious and an affront to her deeply held beliefs?

Personally, if there was a book that I thought was so poisonous that I wanted it out my house (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, maybe?), I'd be more worried/angered by someone that agreed with the book than the book itself.

[pmckean]

Why did you BIN the book? You should have given it away to a friend who WAS allowed to keep it. Then you could have "visited" your book just about any time you wanted, while keeping domestic peace.

I do hate to see ANY books dumped in a bin. Even Sylvia Browne's bilge is worth keeping, as an example of what absolute RUBBISH! some people can write.

Yes, I'm ashamed that I binned it, but I was feeling a little more angry about the whole thing at the time, and complied with her request to remove it from the house in the most direct and obvious way I could.

Now I've cooled down, I completely agree that I shouldn't have done that. I was making a point in a rather petty way. Too late now; the council's gone and got all efficient, for once.

[Mobyseven]

I would have dumped her, quite frankly. Either she allows you freedom of thought or you move out.

It would be worth pointing out that the New Testament is 'sacreligious' to Hindus and Scientologists, and therefore all her bibles should go. You know, so that she isn't being sacreligious.

If she doesn't want the bibles to go, she just has to justify why her religion is correct and other religions are all wrong. That should be simple for her, right?

[Jackalgirl]

She has her good points, too!

I'm a little disappointed that she's taken such a hard line towards this book, but hey, you know how it is between men and women; sometimes it's just easier to go along with something you don't necessarily want to do in order to keep the peace.

Let me try and understand her perspective; she feels that the book is sacrilegious, which it most assuredly is. Keeping such an item in a house which she co-owns, therefore, is an affront to her deeply-held beliefs.

As an atheist, however, I hold no particular religious belief and therefore the presence of a Bible in this house does not offend me, and does not require removal.

Therefore, 'The God Delusion' goes and the Bible stays.

The problem with this situation is that, IMO, it isn't a case of "good vs bad points". Instead, it's an issue about tolerance. This is only going to lead in the wrong direction.

It's your bookshelf. Put what you want on it. The relationship is not worthwhile if you can't think the way you want (within reason, which is something you are doing, and she is not).

Of course, it's just IMO.

Oh, here's something very, very, very important: ask her, straight up, whether there is any hope of a permanent relationship with you remaining an atheist. Does she, at any point, expect that you will convert to Christianity -- is it an implicit assumption on her part? If you were to have a permanent relationship and had children, would she respect their decision to be atheist, if they should choose to go that way?

If the relationship has no hope of being permanent, can it now. Find someone who respects your mind.

If the relationship DOES have a hope of being permanent, it's very important to find out her expectations about your beliefs, and the children's beliefs, NOW, before it becomes permanent. Good luck!

[pmckean]

As an atheist aren't your thoughts also sacrilegious and an affront to her deeply held beliefs?

Yes, they are. We've long ago agreed to refrain from discussing religion. I just vent on this forum, instead - it's the only real outlet that I have for skeptical discourse.

That said, we're all unreasonable from time to time. I know I am, and this is not an issue which should be considered important enough to end a relationship.

[brodski]

Let me try and understand her perspective; she feels that the book is sacrilegious, which it most assuredly is. Keeping such an item in a house which she co-owns, therefore, is an affront to her deeply-held beliefs.

But living with a partner she is not married to isn’t an affront to her deeply held religious beliefs?

Um wait, maybe you don’t want to try that line of argument. :D

[Seismosaurus]

Yes, I'm ashamed that I binned it, but I was feeling a little more angry about the whole thing at the time, and complied with her request to remove it from the house in the most direct and obvious way I could.

Now I've cooled down, I completely agree that I shouldn't have done that. I was making a point in a rather petty way. Too late now; the council's gone and got all efficient, for once.

Get another one. When she asks you to remove it, simply say "no. I won't." Be prepared to accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

Frankly, this is indeed the thin end of the wedge. If you allow her the attitude that her beliefs over-ride yours, there will be no end to it. And it will destroy your relationship in the end. Make a stand, now, and show her that you are not going to change who you are no matter what she says.

[yairhol]

What would have happened if you didn't can the book?
Would she stay or break up with you?
If she would break up with you then her beliefs are more important to her than you and frankly I don't see any reason for you to stay with her (even if the sex is great and she brings over friends to join in and ....oh wait, am I speaking out loud?).
If she would stay with you then leave the book where it was and reason with her telling her that it's part of your hobby and she doesn't have to read it if she doesn't want to.

Regards,
Yair - Relationship Master

[pmckean]

On the plus side, no one's touched my dog-eared old copy of 'The Selfish Gene'. :)

[JoeEllison]

But living with a partner she is not married to isn’t an affront to her deeply held religious beliefs?

Um wait, maybe you don’t want to try that line of argument. :D

That's where it is probably headed... or she's already found a nice religious boy who she'd rather be with? :eek:

[pmckean]

" I'm being persecuted for my beliefs! "

Funny you should say that, I have basically been persecuted for telling nothing but truths.

I had a battle with those on the other side, those who claimed to be holy and Divine, who in truth were, and are, the most despicable lying deceitful low down heartless evil pieces of absolute garbage that could ever possibly exist.

Suddenly I discovered why throughout my entire life I have been up against nothing but never ending opposition.

When I wrote my web site, specifically the Bible Code pages, I thought for sure people would begin to respond.

I mean the code that I revealed went completely against the odds of being coincidental, and so much so that in my opinion they could practically be used to verify whether or not someone is brain dead.

But instead, the code info just went in one eye, and out the other, even though the odds in favor of such information being within the bible just by chance is virtually zero, there have been no intelligent responses to either of the web pages.

Some people think that I just somehow made it all up. Well that would very clever since that would mean that I would also have to have made up the entire bible as well.

That was when I discovered that TRUTH is not allowed to enter your minds.

Problem discovered, but not solved.

What on earth are you going on about? Can't eerie prognostications be found in any text if you look hard enough?

[this charming man]

Your relationship needs to become extinct.

All joking aside, think about this for a moment. Leave the religion aspect out. Suppose you wore a shirt she didn't like, so you get rid of it. Next, she makes you cut your hair a certain way. Next she does not like your friends. she tells you you must not associate with them anymore. Later, she thinks your mom is too involved in your life. Later, you arrive 5 minutes late home from work. "Why?" "You were reading one of those demonic books again weren't you?!"

and so on and so on... When does it become unacceptable that she tells you what you may and may not do?

Those scenarios may be silly and unlikely; I do not know your girlfriend; however, there is something fundamentally wrong with a relationship if beliefs are polar opposites, and one person is not accepting of the other.

[Safe-Keeper]

Let's just put it this way: Does the God Delusion ever command you to stone anyone? Does it command you, as the Bible does, that if you see someone with other theological beliefs than you, you need to stone them and everyone else in the city, for then to burn the city to the ground?

When I wrote my web site, specifically the Bible Code pages, I thought for sure people would begin to respond.

I mean the code that I revealed went completely against the odds of being coincidental, and so much so that in my opinion they could practically be used to verify whether or not someone is brain dead.I remember FSTDT (http://www.fstdt.com)'s Bible Code Generator. It was a fun little toy when it actually worked. You fed it any text, such as a speech by Bush, and told it to search for one or more phrases, such as 'SATAN' or 'BAAL' and it arranged the letters of the text into a block and told you how many times the words appeared. The theory behind it is that any text of sufficient length (and the Bible certainly is of significant length) contains, by chance, certain phrases such as 'Satan' or 'Rebirth' or 'End' without it meaning anything. Arrange this post in a block and you'll probably find one or more 'hidden meanings'.

[danielk]

Perhaps the talk about the book being sacrilegious is just a proxy. She might have taken the book title personally and now feels insulted, since the book essentially calls her "deluded" for believing in god. If I believed in god I'd probably be up in arms about it, too. The mental image of the book being binned makes me cringe, though.

And to preempt any derail: I don't think it would be terribly constructive to discuss whether she is in fact deluded or not. :D

[kmortis]

I would have just tossed out the shiney silver cover so it didn't stand out so much.

But that's just me.

I'm a rebel. I run with scissors.


Actually, I have to agree with the others. No matter how much you love her, this is the nose of the camel (I find that a better metaphore for a religious discussion). Luckily, Mama Mortis, while not an atheist, is practically agnostic, so we don't have any serious religious disagreements. She has other ways that she tries to control me.

[MRC_Hans]

What on earth are you going on about? Can't eerie prognostications be found in any text if you look hard enough?Pssst! Perhaps you will want to look up some other posts of MoT, before you attempt to discuss things with him/her ;) .

Then again, it may be your girlfriend :eek: .

Hans

[baron]

A woman who's offended by logic and rational argument? Surely not!

And pmckean, you sound like a nice guy, and I really don't mean to offend you, but grow some balls ;)

[pmckean]

A woman who's offended by logic and rational argument? Surely not!

And pmckean, you sound like a nice guy, and I really don't mean to offend you, but grow some balls ;)

You know, I nearly did. I was pretty close to reciting some 'V for Vendetta';

Creedy: Die! Die! Why won't you die?... Why won't you die?

V: Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof!

...and then I thought, what the hey - I can't really be bothered. I'll just capitulate and take the moral high ground. ;)

[JC Fla]

Pm, do not, I repeat do not attempt to open dialog with this individual. (MoT)

I do not want to hear about yet another persons head exploding with trying to keep up with the drivel.

On another note, take the book, leave the girlfriend. Been down this path, it will more than likely end up in pain.

[Rasmus]

...and then I thought, what the hey - I can't really be bothered. I'll just capitulate and take the moral high ground. ;)

You couldn't be bothered?

Do you still take that stance now, after reading what others think it was you couldn't be bothered to do (i.e. no more than to allow yourself to think independently)?

[JoeEllison]

I'll just capitulate and take the moral high ground. ;)
Problem is, you surrendered any claim to the moral high ground. The high ground is holding your beliefs and standing up for them. Hiding your beliefs, and accepting demands from someone else that you hide those beliefs, and throw away personal belongings? That's the low ground. She'd better be hot... and you'd better get what you can out of this while you can, because it is going to end badly.

[pmckean]

You couldn't be bothered?

Do you still take that stance now, after reading what others think it was you couldn't be bothered to do (i.e. no more than to allow yourself to think independently)?

Well, you can ban books but not ideas. You can't stop people thinking and there's no threat of that.

I've approached this thread in a lighthearted way but the serious point is that I'm prepared to concede ownership of this book, an overt expression of my independence from religious dogma and my inherently skeptical worldview, in order to respect her beliefs.

She knows, and I know, that it doesn't really matter whether I own a book by Richard Dawkins or not. It doesn't change the way I think.

[Orangutan]

There has been a lot of suggestion that you dump your girlfriend. But this is wrong. If you dump her she will only find some other poor schmuck to vent her high strung twitchery on. So be a man and take one for the team, stay with this woman and let her crush your sense of self worth slowly. That way the pool of eligible, intelligent, women, who you can have a conversation with as well as having all her other good points remains unpolluted for the rest of us guys.

Thanks in advance.
O.

[Flo]

Yes, I'm ashamed that I binned it, but I was feeling a little more angry about the whole thing at the time, and complied with her request to remove it from the house in the most direct and obvious way I could.

Now I've cooled down, I completely agree that I shouldn't have done that. I was making a point in a rather petty way. Too late now; the council's gone and got all efficient, for once.


Now that you've cooled down, go get "Breaking the Spell (Religion as a natural phenomenon)" by Daniel Dennet, and suggest she reads it. Dennet is very good at challenging beliefs without straight out insulting believers.

BTW, I tend to take a dim view of people who pretends to dictate what their
partners should or shouldn't read into the house (outside of clearly illegal/immoral litterature like kiddie porn) under the guise of feeling their beliefs threatened/insulted. The real issue goes generally much deeper than that and doesn't augure of a really sound relationship ...

[kbm99]

My girlfriend has noticed that a copy of 'The God Delusion' has a space on my bookshelf. :(

She asked me to remove it this morning, as she considers it offensive to her religious beliefs. (

The irony here is painful.

[pmckean]

There has been a lot of suggestion that you dump your girlfriend. But this is wrong. If you dump her she will only find some other poor schmuck to vent her high strung twitchery on. So be a man and take one for the team, stay with this woman and let her crush your sense of self worth slowly. That way the pool of eligible, intelligent, women, who you can have a conversation with as well as having all her other good points remains unpolluted for the rest of us guys.

Thanks in advance.
O.


Hey, we get on OK when not discussing the 'G' word, which is most of the time. I suspect she'll come to regret her decision, and may well back down.

I think I'll end the thread here, unless anyone objects! I'm a little uncomfortable with discussing relationships this publicly. My fault, I know - I should have thought of that before posting. Thanks, all.

[brodski]

Problem is, you surrendered any claim to the moral high ground. The high ground is holding your beliefs and standing up for them. Hiding your beliefs, and accepting demands from someone else that you hide those beliefs, and throw away personal belongings? That's the low ground. She'd better be hot... and you'd better get what you can out of this while you can, because it is going to end badly.

I think it would behove many here, and in the “skeptical world” in general to realise that “compromise” is not a dirty word.

Would keeping this book by Dawkins knowing how much it offended and hurt his girlfriend really have given Pmckean the “moral high ground”?

Or is proving that not all atheists are obnoxious jerks who are totally insensitive to the beliefs of others a bad thing?

I think that Pmckeans girlfriend was wrong to demand that he get rid of this book, and irrational to be so offended by it (I suspect the reaction w s to the title rather than the contents), but showing sensitivity to that offence, and preparing to back down on this issue at this time speaks well of Pcmkean.
Would sticking to his guns have achieved anything other than a strain on the relationship? Is the possession of a Dawkins book really worth causing major domestic disharmony over?

[JoeEllison]

Last word from me, and this is just general words to live by: when you have to make excuses for the situations you are in, and the people you are with, then it is time to reconsider the value of remaining in those situations and relationships.

[yairhol]

Another one bites the dust.

[Hindmost]

You can fairly expect your girlfriend to pitch her bible or whatever "holy" book she adheres to now. If she doesn't, then the relationship is not very balanced...could be a slippery slope.

glenn

[Rasmus]

Well, you can ban books but not ideas. You can't stop people thinking and there's no threat of that.

Great. You would be allowed to "think", just not to talk about what you think or ever display that you are thinking to the outside world.

You earlier said that you agreed to not discuss religion - she broke that agreement, if you want to apply the term "discussion" to what she did. So, you are allowed to think, but not to discuss - yet she can bring the issue up whenever she feels like it?

I've approached this thread in a lighthearted way but the serious point is that I'm prepared to concede ownership of this book, an overt expression of my independence from religious dogma and my inherently skeptical worldview, in order to respect her beliefs.

You actually have respect for those beliefs - her reliefs that she should be allowed to tell you what to own, what to read, what to say? Or do you respect the insane notion that she should be personally offended because you are reading a book?

She knows, and I know, that it doesn't really matter whether I own a book by Richard Dawkins or not. It doesn't change the way I think.

Does she now? Then why would she have insisted you throw the book out? That would be pretty silly of her, considering she knows that that it doesn't really matter. Of course, it just goes back to the previous point of the book being a mere symptom of things that she cannot controll as easily and that won't just go away - but that she appears to be unable to tolerate.

I think I'll end the thread here, unless anyone objects! I'm a little uncomfortable with discussing relationships this publicly. My fault, I know - I should have thought of that before posting. Thanks, all.

No problem, but I'll keep bickering ...

[JoeEllison]

I think it would behove many here, and in the “skeptical world” in general to realise that “compromise” is not a dirty word.

Would keeping this book by Dawkins knowing how much it offended and hurt his girlfriend really have given Pmckean the “moral high ground”?

Or is proving that not all atheists are obnoxious jerks who are totally insensitive to the beliefs of others a bad thing?

I think that Pmckeans girlfriend was wrong to demand that he get rid of this book, and irrational to be so offended by it (I suspect the reaction w s to the title rather than the contents), but showing sensitivity to that offence, and preparing to back down on this issue at this time speaks well of Pcmkean.
Would sticking to his guns have achieved anything other than a strain on the relationship? Is the possession of a Dawkins book really worth causing major domestic disharmony over?
Your post is so wrong from start to finish I hardly know where to begin. Daring to own a copy of a Dawkins book makes someone an obnoxious jerk? Or should atheists hide the books they read? Rolling over for ridiculous demands isn't being sensitive, it is being a push-over.

[colin]

You have to “respect” her beliefs but she won’t even tolerate yours?

Fascinating.

[Mercutio]

pm, I am glad you started this thread, but frankly relieved that you have bowed out of it. I understand why you feel uncomfortable. But the topic, in more general terms, is a very good one, and I implore any others discussing it to keep it in general terms rather than about this one particular relationship.

Flo mentioned "Breaking the Spell"; I have read it, and have seen a couple of my students (very religious ones) reading it as well, and we have discussed it. My thought is that while it may be considerably less confrontative than TGD, my students thought (and I could see why) that Dennett had a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and his attempts to entreat believers to keep reading smacked of condescention.

On the other hand, I cannot think of a better book for the purpose. I would not, say, switch to Shermer's "why we believe". (if I got the title right).

[Jeff Corey]

I'm curious about other atheists here who have been seriously involved with highly religious people. I never was, since it was such a turn off as to overwhelm any sexual attraction.
I do know one guy whose wife transformed into a born-agin loony and he eventually divorced her.

[brodski]

Your post is so wrong from start to finish I hardly know where to begin. Daring to own a copy of a Dawkins book makes someone an obnoxious jerk? Or should atheists hide the books they read? Rolling over for ridiculous demands isn't being sensitive, it is being a push-over.

I never said that owning a copy of one of his books makes one an obnoxious jerk. I own a copy of TGD and I enjoyed it immensely, you may hold whatever opinion you care to on my obnoxiousness or jerkitued.

Demanding that the book is kept in a home you share with your partner home despite the fact that it hurts their feelings, the feelings of someone you presumably care about is being an obnoxious jerk.
It is saying “I care more about owning this book than I do for your feelings”.

Now those feeling may, and probably are, irrational, but they are still very real. Respect for them is not a bad thing, forcing the issue in this way and having a blazing domestic over the “right to keep and bare Dawkins” will change noting about those feelings.
Deciding that maybe domestic bliss is better than owning a book by Dawkins is not necessarily being “a pushover”.

[Rasmus]

Would sticking to his guns have achieved anything other than a strain on the relationship? Is the possession of a Dawkins book really worth causing major domestic disharmony over?

It is not about the possession of the book. At least, not as far as I am concerned and it's not what I have been reading in the replies of other posters.

Mind you, reading to me is important, so I would fight over a book. But what I view as far more important is the general problem of having one partner tell the other what they are and aren't allowed to do. To me, that is a serious problem in a relationship, and fighting over a mere book would only make it more obvious, whilst ignoring it won't make it go away.

[JoeEllison]

I'm curious about other atheists here who have been seriously involved with highly religious people. I never was, since it was such a turn off as to overwhelm any sexual attraction.
I do know one guy whose wife transformed into a born-agin loony and he eventually divorced her.

Been there, done that. She was a fundie before we met, had "lapsed", and then because of a series of bad things morphed back into a nutjob. I'm talking more extremist than Pentecostals... somehow it didn't stop her from cheating on and stealing from me, of course.:jaw-dropp

[JoeEllison]

Demanding that the book is kept in a home you share with your partner home despite the fact that it hurts their feelings, the feelings of someone you presumably care about is being an obnoxious jerk.
It is saying “I care more about owning this book than I do for your feelings”.

Demanding that someone throw away a book is just as obnoxious. It is saying “I care more about you not owning this book than I do for your feelings”.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ouch. I've said it before and I'll say it again, she believes you will burn in hell forever for not believing in Jesus (I'm guessing, but I imagine I'm not far off) whereas you have a book in your possession that suggests that her beliefs are silly, but you are the one being "rude?" Ridiculous.

[brodski]

Demanding that someone throw away a book is just as obnoxious. It is saying “I care more about you not owning this book than I do for your feelings”.

I agree that it is obnoxious, but not quite as obnoxious as the refusal. As irrational as religious beliefs may be, they tend to be more deeply held than the desire to own a particular book.

To see where I am coming from lets try a non religious analogy. Supposing that someone’s girlfriend had a phobia of the colour red, seeing the red, hardback edition of the God Delusion on a bookshelf in her home upset her deeply.
Her reaction to the colour red was irrational, but caused her very real hurt.
Would refusing to remove the book under those circumstances be standing up for ones beliefs, or would it be being an obnoxious jerk?

[kbm99]

I'm curious about other atheists here who have been seriously involved with highly religious people. I never was, since it was such a turn off as to overwhelm any sexual attraction.
I do know one guy whose wife transformed into a born-agin loony and he eventually divorced her.

I had a short fling with a devout Christian who also bought into all sort of other folderol - homeopathy, energy healing, you name it. If we'd tried to make a serious go of it I have no doubt that her beliefs would have been a problem. I am not about to let someone stick a burning candle in my ear, no matter how good they are in bed.

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree that it is obnoxious, but not quite as obnoxious as the refusal. As irrational as religious beliefs may be, they tend to be more deeply held than the desire to own a particular book.

To see where I am coming from lets try a non religious analogy. Supposing that someone’s girlfriend had a phobia of the colour red, seeing the red, hardback edition of the God Delusion on a bookshelf in her home upset her deeply.
Her reaction to the colour red was irrational, but caused her very real hurt.
Would refusing to remove the book under those circumstances be standing up for ones beliefs, or would it be being an obnoxious jerk?

In comparing the knee-jerk censorship of a theist girlfriend to a phobia, you paint her reaction as irrational and groundless, which is appropriate.

[brodski]

In comparing the knee-jerk censorship of a theist girlfriend to a phobia, you paint her reaction as irrational and groundless, which is appropriate.

Irrational? IMHO yes. Groundless? No, it could cause very real distress and pain to them. So would you ditch the book in either case? Would you ditch the book in one and not the other? What would be your reasons?

[JoeEllison]

I agree that it is obnoxious, but not quite as obnoxious as the refusal. As irrational as religious beliefs may be, they tend to be more deeply held than the desire to own a particular book.

To see where I am coming from lets try a non religious analogy. Supposing that someone’s girlfriend had a phobia of the colour red, seeing the red, hardback edition of the God Delusion on a bookshelf in her home upset her deeply.
Her reaction to the colour red was irrational, but caused her very real hurt.
Would refusing to remove the book under those circumstances be standing up for ones beliefs, or would it be being an obnoxious jerk?I'd suggest she get therapy... is your point that religious belief required aid from a mental health professional? :cool:

[brodski]

It is not about the possession of the book. At least, not as far as I am concerned and it's not what I have been reading in the replies of other posters.

Mind you, reading to me is important, so I would fight over a book. But what I view as far more important is the general problem of having one partner tell the other what they are and aren't allowed to do. To me, that is a serious problem in a relationship, and fighting over a mere book would only make it more obvious, whilst ignoring it won't make it go away.

On the flip side, I can’t imagine a working relationship where one partner can’t reasonably say to another, “you doing that makes me uncomfortable, I would prefer that you stop it”.

[brodski]

I'd suggest she get therapy... is your point that religious belief required aid from a mental health professional? :cool:

Isn’t that Dawkins’ position?

[Ryan O'Dine]

The problem with this situation is that, IMO, it isn't a case of "good vs bad points". Instead, it's an issue about tolerance. This is only going to lead in the wrong direction.

It's your bookshelf. Put what you want on it. The relationship is not worthwhile if you can't think the way you want (within reason, which is something you are doing, and she is not).

Of course, it's just IMO.

Oh, here's something very, very, very important: ask her, straight up, whether there is any hope of a permanent relationship with you remaining an atheist. Does she, at any point, expect that you will convert to Christianity -- is it an implicit assumption on her part? If you were to have a permanent relationship and had children, would she respect their decision to be atheist, if they should choose to go that way?

If the relationship has no hope of being permanent, can it now. Find someone who respects your mind.

If the relationship DOES have a hope of being permanent, it's very important to find out her expectations about your beliefs, and the children's beliefs, NOW, before it becomes permanent. Good luck!


I agree with Jackalgirl, especially the part I bolded. If the relationship may lead to marriage and kids down the road, how would you feel if she insisted your children be raised to her religious standards?

If you're okay with that, then losing a book is chump change. If not, then you ain’t seen nothin' yet. :(

[ImaginalDisc]

Irrational? IMHO yes. Groundless? No, it could cause very real distress and pain to them. So would you ditch the book in either case? Would you ditch the book in one and not the other? What would be your reasons?

No, I would ditch neither book, if they were important to me. I would never ask a lover or spouse to ditch something important to them merely because I don't like it.

The "hurt" is imaginary. She's "hurt" that her boyfriend reads a book she doesn't like. He isn't broaching the subject of religion to her, he isn't directly criticizing her beliefs, he's just reading, privately, a book. The cover alone caused her to react. Her demand is utterly groundless. She is incapable of tolerating deviation from her ideas.

[ponderingturtle]

Methinks you threw the wrong item in the bin.

No no no, now he gets to make her throw out her books he finds offensive. There is an established cause to censor the others library in their relationship now.

[ponderingturtle]

Well, you can ban books but not ideas. You can't stop people thinking and there's no threat of that.


I don't know about that. Certain herresies where effectively elliminated by the inquisition. So you can ban ideas and stop people from believing in them. Ask the Cathars.

[Rasmus]

On the flip side, I can’t imagine a working relationship where one partner can’t reasonably say to another, “you doing that makes me uncomfortable, I would prefer that you stop it”.

Fair enough.

And then you look at what it is that makes the other side feel uncomfortable.

I would not dump a girlfriend who was troubled by the red cover of any of my books. I would happily change the cover, or rip it off, even.

If she was, however, personally offended because I'd dare to read a particular book, I would let her know what I'd think of that. And she could either accept that I may occasionally read books she doesn't like as much as I do or bloody well take a hike.

[ponderingturtle]

I never said that owning a copy of one of his books makes one an obnoxious jerk. I own a copy of TGD and I enjoyed it immensely, you may hold whatever opinion you care to on my obnoxiousness or jerkitued.

Demanding that the book is kept in a home you share with your partner home despite the fact that it hurts their feelings, the feelings of someone you presumably care about is being an obnoxious jerk.
It is saying “I care more about owning this book than I do for your feelings”.

Now those feeling may, and probably are, irrational, but they are still very real. Respect for them is not a bad thing, forcing the issue in this way and having a blazing domestic over the “right to keep and bare Dawkins” will change noting about those feelings.
Deciding that maybe domestic bliss is better than owning a book by Dawkins is not necessarily being “a pushover”.

So how much should someone give up their interests and stop advocating their beliefs for the sake of domestic bliss? Should she start vetting all his book purchases making sure they are appropriate? How much control over his life should he give her to not disrupt domestic bliss?

This boarders on a situation that I find quite interesting in a "How on earth can you do that?" way. Specifically believers and those who believe differently where one partner believes that they are saved but their partner is damned for all eternity. That whole situation seems creepy to me and fundamentally uncaring.

[SomeGuy]

I disagree with the decision to bin the book though not a vehemently as most here.

I would probably ask her why she thought the book was offensive, given that she knows my position on religion. Most likely I would then ask her to at least _start_ reading the book to see if it really is as offensive as she thought it was. If after that she couldn't stand having the book in the house, I'd give it away.

People saying that this means that she should bin her bibles, that's not quite the same thing. The God Delusion is in no way the skeptics holy book. What the OP shouldn't accept in his house anymore though is literature insulting/ridiculing non-believers.

Be absolutely firm in this, let her know you respect how she feels, let her know you realize the bible is more important to her than Dawkins is to you, but don't let her do unto you, what she doesn't want you to do unto her.

[Rasmus]

What the OP shouldn't accept in his house anymore though is literature insulting/ridiculing non-believers.

No problem there, seeing how the bible qualifies in that regard as few other books ever could.

[kbm99]

On the flip side, I can’t imagine a working relationship where one partner can’t reasonably say to another, “you doing that makes me uncomfortable, I would prefer that you stop it”.

I don't think anyone would disagree. The issue is, what is reasonable? That's something for the people in the relationship to work out - for my part, asking me to remove from display a copy of a Dawkin's book (or any other book, for that matter) does not meet the test of reasonableness.

But maybe that's just me.

[Complexity]

Don't give anyone this kind of control over your life.

Buy two copies of the book, one for the bedroom.

When she objects, tell her that her actions are an insult to human dignity and are not to be repeated.

Whenever she gets particulary annoying about this, buy another copy of the book.

Unentangle your financial situation with her. End the relationship.

[Lanzy]

So your actions are under her control, I suspect she is after your thoughts as well. Dragging you to her church is just a few more compromises away.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

What is more important, your girlfriend or your self identity?

That SHOULD be an easy choice, but knowing many, many married men, it apparently is not.

I'm so glad I'm addicted to cars.

[ImaginalDisc]

People saying that this means that she should bin her bibles, that's not quite the same thing. The God Delusion is in no way the skeptics holy book. What the OP shouldn't accept in his house anymore though is literature insulting/ridiculing non-believers.


There are no holy books, just books. Her bible is no better than any other book.

[grayman]

pmckean, has your girlfriend even read the book? I am curious as to which part offended her. Or is she offended that the book exists?

Good luck with your situation.

[Broes]

Hell, I would NOT risk a GOOD relation over a book which you can buy again for $15... however..

- Where do you draw the line eventually? What if the next thing she would ask of you is to stop seeing certain movies, cancel your Playboy subscribtion, stop listening to thet hardrock alblum you like, etc.
- Would she give up something simular for you? Would she stop smoking because you hate the smell, would she stop buying fur/pelt because you love bunnies, would she quit playing gospel music when your palls are over?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

How good a relationship can it be where your partner censors your beliefs?

[Dunstan]

Flo mentioned "Breaking the Spell"; I have read it, and have seen a couple of my students (very religious ones) reading it as well, and we have discussed it. My thought is that while it may be considerably less confrontative than TGD, my students thought (and I could see why) that Dennett had a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and his attempts to entreat believers to keep reading smacked of condescention.

(emphasis mine) At the risk of derailing this thread: I agree. I just finished Breaking the Spell, and kept thinking, especially during the first hundred pages or so, how annoying Dennett's constant tiptoeing and apologizing and "please don't be offended, just hear me out" throat-clearing was. It was annoying to me as an atheist, because frankly the book could have been either shorter or more substantive without all that, but I also thought that religious readers would find it annoying and condescending. Chances are, if a believer has actually bought (or borrowed) the book and gotten past the introduction and the first chapter, that he's willing to have his beliefs challenged and scientifically examined. The fragile, easily-offended types that Dennett seems to be trying to soothe probably put the book down after reading the back cover or the introduction.

Once you get past that, there's some interesting stuff in the book.

[Miss Anthrope]

Oh, this is sad.

When you are partners, you do not suddenly own the mind of a person. What is love if it does not embrace the opinions, thoughts, and exploration of another?

What is it with people who wish to stifle another with their own demands?

I don't care if it's porn, books to disagree with it, the love of particularly large and weathered boxer shorts worn around the house. No human being should impose this kind of right to ownership on another.

Men do it, but I see this kind of demand more often in women. I rarely hear men saying that romance novels and chick flicks are outright offensive to them. They should be, given that they involve the notion that if a man loves a woman, he'll never look at another, and he'll always change his ways to suit her.

Relationships that place such heavy demands on simple thought and imagination are a puzzle to me.

[HarryKeogh]

So, to keep the peace, I've binned it.

Why didn't you just hide it under your skirt?

[Skeptic Ginger]

She has her good points, too!

I'm a little disappointed that she's taken such a hard line towards this book, but hey, you know how it is between men and women; sometimes it's just easier to go along with something you don't necessarily want to do in order to keep the peace.

Let me try and understand her perspective; she feels that the book is sacrilegious, which it most assuredly is. Keeping such an item in a house which she co-owns, therefore, is an affront to her deeply-held beliefs.

As an atheist, however, I hold no particular religious belief and therefore the presence of a Bible in this house does not offend me, and does not require removal.

Therefore, 'The God Delusion' goes and the Bible stays.This is one of those situations where on the one hand you are in love (or something like that) but the writing's on the wall, it isn't going to work.

I think any relationship counselor would tell you that you have an untenable situation unless you were more agnostic and didn't pay much attention to god beliefs one way or another. "My partner believes, and I don't bother with it one way or the other."

However, that clearly is not the way you feel. You at a minimum feel here that your beliefs are not respected, not valued. How can that possibly be the basis for a long term relationship?

There is one other remote and unlikely possibility. She accepts your beliefs but feels a book like "The God Delusion" ridicules hers. Maybe it is you who really deep down does not respect her beliefs. I don't think I could have a partner that was so involved in god beliefs as to care about such a book on a shelf. Lots of people never really think about their religious beliefs. They may say they believe if asked but that's the extent of it. I could have a partner with that position.

You need a serious discussion and if you can't reach an agreement about respecting each other's beliefs, then your days as a couple are numbered no matter how things go in the short term. Right now, from how it appears, deep down you don't really respect her beliefs and she doesn't respect yours. You both may be tolerating each other's but neither really understands how the other could believe what they do.

[Moochie]

The day has finally come, as I suppose I knew it would.

My girlfriend has noticed that a copy of 'The God Delusion' has a space on my bookshelf. :(

She asked me to remove it this morning, as she considers it offensive to her religious beliefs. I tried a few half-hearted arguments; that I don't remember the book being banned by any religious groups, that it's not really aimed at firm believers, that her faith in God should be strong enough that the existence of this tome won't dent it, that I don't object to her numerous gilded bibles, etc, but she's implacable. It goes immediately.

So, to keep the peace, I've binned it. I refuse to hide it in the car or the garage like a piece of pornography. I can just see the refuse collection truck backing down my cul-de-sac, so it looks like the end is nigh.

She's wants my copy of the 'Da Vinci Code' gone, too. :(


A couple of women came to my door the other day, one a young woman, perhaps in her late 20s, the other a grandmotherly type with silver hair and a worn, though not unpleasant face.

I asked them what they wanted. Grandmother proffered a magazine from the batch being carried by the younger woman.

I didn't hear the the accompanying spiel; I saw the word "Watchtower" and told them to **** off.

Too blunt?

M.

[Fizzer]

If she was really as religious as she thinks she is and actually read any of her Bibles, she would not have dated you in the first place (becoming "unevenly yoked" with an unbeliever and all that). It would certainly have spared you both the hardship and pain that is yet to come.

[fuelair]

" I'm being persecuted for my beliefs! "

Funny you should say that, I have basically been persecuted for telling nothing but truths.

I had a battle with those on the other side, those who claimed to be holy and Divine, who in truth were, and are, the most despicable lying deceitful low down heartless evil pieces of absolute garbage that could ever possibly exist.

Suddenly I discovered why throughout my entire life I have been up against nothing but never ending opposition.

When I wrote my web site, specifically the Bible Code pages, I thought for sure people would begin to respond.

I mean the code that I revealed went completely against the odds of being coincidental, and so much so that in my opinion they could practically be used to verify whether or not someone is brain dead.

But instead, the code info just went in one eye, and out the other, even though the odds in favor of such information being within the bible just by chance is virtually zero, there have been no intelligent responses to either of the web pages.

Some people think that I just somehow made it all up. Well that would very clever since that would mean that I would also have to have made up the entire bible as well.

That was when I discovered that TRUTH is not allowed to enter your minds.

Problem discovered, but not solved.You left out the smilies.:D

[NobbyNobbs]

Let me try and understand her perspective; she feels that the book is sacrilegious, which it most assuredly is. Keeping such an item in a house which she co-owns, therefore, is an affront to her deeply-held beliefs.




How does she know it's sacrilegious? Did she actually read it?

Maybe she should, before making such a decision whether to toss it....

[Rasmus]

How does she know it's sacrilegious? Did she actually read it?

Maybe she should, before making such a decision whether to toss it....

Even after reading it - it is simply not her descision to make.

[Dumbledore]

As a point I have never understood this, why do religious people find atheism insulting or dangerous? Personally I believe in God and yet I feel no need to persecute people for being atheists, that is their choice. I don't think God needs defense, we are talking about the ultimate creator here.:cool:

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I rarely hear men saying that romance novels and chick flicks are outright offensive to them.

I say that, all the time, to anyone that will listen.

Also skeptigirl seems to have the best advice.

[Dogdoctor]

I don't know pmckean or his wife but it seems to me he loves her. He obviously is willing to compromise his position in order to keep peace with the object of his affection. He comes here to vent a little and is given a lot of advice to dump his wife which he obviously loves and has no intention of dumping. She didn't make him throw the books away he did it himself. If he is still around I just want to say if your relationship is more important than showing your books then you are fine and no doom or gloom from me. One other bit of advice is that you should consider telling your wife you have porn in the car and garage if you haven't already unless your wife has made it known she doesn't want to know about it.

[SezMe]

My girlfriend ....

I don't know pmckean or his wife but it seems to me he loves her.

Not wife.

[Dogdoctor]

Not wife.

Thanks for catching that but it doesn't change anything as far as my advice goes.

[ponderingturtle]

Not wife.

Hey given how she is trying to break him down and force him to do and believe what she wants, she might be acting like a wife.;)

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know pmckean or his wife but it seems to me he loves her. He obviously is willing to compromise his position in order to keep peace with the object of his affection. He comes here to vent a little and is given a lot of advice to dump his wife which he obviously loves and has no intention of dumping. She didn't make him throw the books away he did it himself. If he is still around I just want to say if your relationship is more important than showing your books then you are fine and no doom or gloom from me. One other bit of advice is that you should consider telling your wife you have porn in the car and garage if you haven't already unless your wife has made it known she doesn't want to know about it.

So sublimating yourself for your partner is a good thing now?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think you should toss your heterosexuality in the bin.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hey, we get on OK when not discussing the 'G' word, which is most of the time. I suspect she'll come to regret her decision, and may well back down.

I think I'll end the thread here, unless anyone objects! I'm a little uncomfortable with discussing relationships this publicly. My fault, I know - I should have thought of that before posting. Thanks, all.No problem. Sometimes we just want to vent something and no discussion needed. Not to mention thread posts can come back to haunt you if people ever read what you were discussing about them.

Good luck figuring things out.

[Sun Jester]

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I am in an 'unequally yoked' marriage and have been for 16 years. But my wife is really only nominally Christian and I have waffled over the years as to whether I feel more comfortable calling myself an atheist or an agnostic. She has only once objected to a book that I had and I did get rid of it. She has never objected to atheistic writings, or the Book of Mormon, or Koran that I have, but she didn't like Crowley's Magick in the house for some reason. (Btw, I don't believe any of the stuff, but I find it interesting.)

When I say my wife is nominally Christian, she is on the opposite end of the spectrum from what you might think. She likes to attend church every week, but her beliefs are quite 'liberal'; no literal interpretation, not really even any belief that 'Christ is the only way', but sort of a sense of something bigger than her, something that gives her hope that she seems to want in her life.

We are raising our kids in the Methodist church and I don't directly challenge my kids beliefs, but I do encourage them to be skeptical in general. My eldest has already had his first crisis and I had to talk him through reconciliation of his understanding of science and evolution and how he interpreted the Bible (at age 10). I attend church and Sunday school with my family. I am basically passing. But understand that I live in a small town in the U.S. in the south (BIBLE BELT). I don't say anything about my beliefs directly but take part in Sunday school discussions and religious discussions in the workplace typically by couching things in statements like, "My understanding of Christian scholarship on that point is ....." and "I have read ....." or "Most Christian's seem to believe ......." I have actually been asked to teach my Sunday school class before. I thought about it, but my wife said that would be a BAD IDEA and so I declined.

All this to say, it is possible to have a long term, IMO healthy relationship between a believer and and a non-believer. It works for me. But compromises do have to be reached.

[articulett]

Have you ever asked her to get rid of a book because the title of it offended you? Would you? If faith is good and god is true, why would the book bother her? If she has book with religious titles or expresses religious beliefs in front of you, I think she should respect your lack of belief with the same degree of tolerance that she expects from you while expressing her beliefs.

Theists seem to want special protection of their feelings, opinions, and beliefs--without offering the same in kind for those who have different views.

I think it's time for the girlfriend to grow up and extend to you the tolerance that she expects for her own views. It's a book title, not an epithet.

[Dogdoctor]

So sublimating yourself for your partner is a good thing now?

Sublimating is another description of compromising? Who are you to say what is good for him and her?

[articulett]

I think it would behove many here, and in the “skeptical world” in general to realise that “compromise” is not a dirty word.

Would keeping this book by Dawkins knowing how much it offended and hurt his girlfriend really have given Pmckean the “moral high ground”?

Or is proving that not all atheists are obnoxious jerks who are totally insensitive to the beliefs of others a bad thing?

I think that Pmckeans girlfriend was wrong to demand that he get rid of this book, and irrational to be so offended by it (I suspect the reaction w s to the title rather than the contents), but showing sensitivity to that offence, and preparing to back down on this issue at this time speaks well of Pcmkean.
Would sticking to his guns have achieved anything other than a strain on the relationship? Is the possession of a Dawkins book really worth causing major domestic disharmony over?

Would your advice to her have been the same if the situation was reversed, and he was demanding that she get rid of books like the bible or theist books because it was offending his sensibilities? I don't think people should expect favors, consideration, and respect of one's opinions from people who do not give the same in return. If someone wants to share their opinions about my literature with me-- I consider it an invitation for me to share my opinions about their literature with them.

[SezMe]

...and then I thought, what the hey - I can't really be bothered. I'll just capitulate and take the moral high ground. ;)

Sublimating is another description of compromising? Who are you to say what is good for him and her?
You used the word compromise, Dogdoctor, not pmckean. He actually used the word "capitulate". Do you still stand your ground?

Also, nobody has commented on this:
She's wants my copy of the 'Da Vinci Code' gone, too. :(
The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, for criss sake. FICTION. So it's not just a matter of offending her religious sensibilities.

But also note that she has "numerous gilded copies of the bible, etc." (both emphasis mine). One wonders what the "etc" covers.

So she demands his books go while she is quite happy be ostentatious with her religion. All the while violating the tenets of the very religion she professes by fornicating with an unmarried man.

So she is not standing her ground on principles. Nor on compromise. Nor on fair play. Do you still stand your ground?

PS: I don't mean to be picking on you, DD. For some reason, this situation really rankles me. It does me no harm so I should just ignore it but I don't seem to be able to do that....yet.

[kurious_kathy]

The day has finally come, as I suppose I knew it would.

My girlfriend has noticed that a copy of 'The God Delusion' has a space on my bookshelf. :(

She asked me to remove it this morning, as she considers it offensive to her religious beliefs. I tried a few half-hearted arguments; that I don't remember the book being banned by any religious groups, that it's not really aimed at firm believers, that her faith in God should be strong enough that the existence of this tome won't dent it, that I don't object to her numerous gilded bibles, etc, but she's implacable. It goes immediately.

So, to keep the peace, I've binned it. I refuse to hide it in the car or the garage like a piece of pornography. I can just see the refuse collection truck backing down my cul-de-sac, so it looks like the end is nigh.

She's wants my copy of the 'Da Vinci Code' gone, too. :(

Sounds like a smart woman to me, I would take her advise if I were you.

I hope she realizes that being unequally yoked with a non believer in Christ will only hurt you both. Scripture teaches followers of Christ to not go there because it is too destructive. Are you prepared to try to change to stay with her?

[brodski]

Would your advice to her have been the same if the situation was reversed, and he was demanding that she get rid of books like the bible or theist books because it was offending his sensibilities? I don't think people should expect favors, consideration, and respect of one's opinions from people who do not give the same in return. If someone wants to share their opinions about my literature with me-- I consider it an invitation for me to share my opinions about their literature with them.

Pretty much yes, if they made him feel uncomfortable i don't see why he should not request them to be removed from his house.

And certainly if he was also demanding that she got rid of the Da Vinci Code, I think we can all agree that that should be binned. ;)

[Roboramma]

This is interesting. I wonder if this sort of situation happens the other way around? Do many atheists demand that their religious partners not show signs of religion in their house? Getting rid of religious texts, etc.? Anyone here done so?

I wouldn't, but there are some things that I would make similar demands of. If my girlfriend had a bunch of neo-nazi literature, I probably wouldn't demand that she get rid of it, but I'd force her to engage me in a conversation about it. And likely if she didn't give it up, I'd dump her. How's that for being arrogant? But there are certain beliefs that, if someone holds them, I just wouldn't be able to respect them. Similarly if I had a partner who was involved in something I found morally reprehensible - say illegally importing products from endangered species. Again, if I like you I'll ask you to change and spell out why. If you don't - dumped.

But regarding pmckean - she clearly has no right to ask him to throw out the book. Clearly she's not comfortable with his beliefs and quite possibly like me (in different and I don't think analogous cases) is not happy to be involved with someone who thinks that way. She's just going about getting him to change his beliefs in a different way than I would.

You might say, "No, she's not, she's just offended by the book."
Okay, but the effect is the same regardless. Now that he's thrown it out, the next time he wants to buy an atheist book of similar type (maybe he checks out christopher hitchen's "God is Not Great" in a book store) he'll think twice. The next time the topic comes up in conversation, he'll avoid it.
It may seem like a small thing, but it has a tangible effect. Does she have a right to make this demand? Only if she's not willing to be involved with an atheist. But if that's the case, she should make it clear.

[Damien Evans]

Sounds like a smart woman to me, I would take her advise if I were you.

I hope she realizes that being unequally yoked with a non believer in Christ will only hurt you both. Scripture teaches followers of Christ to not go there because it is too destructive. Are you prepared to try to change to stay with her?

go away:mad:

[Dogdoctor]

You used the word compromise, Dogdoctor, not pmckean. He actually used the word "capitulate". Do you still stand your ground?
I am not so good at picking the details out of this but my take on this is that his use of that word is part of his venting and not what he is really thinking since he said
As an atheist, however, I hold no particular religious belief and therefore the presence of a Bible in this house does not offend me, and does not require removal.
It sounds like he is bummed he has to give on this issue but this is just one little issue in a big relationship. It's not really that big of a deal and he just want to blow off some steam but unfortunatley picked the wrong palce to do it.

Also, nobody has commented on this:

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, for criss sake. FICTION. So it's not just a matter of offending her religious sensibilities.

But also note that she has "numerous gilded copies of the bible, etc." (both emphasis mine). One wonders what the "etc" covers.

So she demands his books go while she is quite happy be ostentatious with her religion. All the while violating the tenets of the very religion she professes by fornicating with an unmarried man.

So she is not standing her ground on principles. Nor on compromise. Nor on fair play. Do you still stand your ground?

PS: I don't mean to be picking on you, DD. For some reason, this situation really rankles me. It does me no harm so I should just ignore it but I don't seem to be able to do that....yet.

As you can see above this is just one issue. He doesn't really care about religion one way or the other but she does so he gives on this issue. If their relationship is like others she will have to give on other issues Unfortunately we have scared him away so we will have no answer to these questions.

[articulett]

go away:mad:

She can't-- she gets a bonus halo if she converts a skeptic for Jesus.

Kurious Kathy is an impenetrable proselytizing machine. Kurious Kathy is what happens when we let nutters inflict their belief upon the kiddies willy nilly. Kurious Kathy isn't curious about anything. She already knows all she needs to know. (Don't you wish you had the gift of faith?!?)

[articulett]

A couple of women came to my door the other day, one a young woman, perhaps in her late 20s, the other a grandmotherly type with silver hair and a worn, though not unpleasant face.

I asked them what they wanted. Grandmother proffered a magazine from the batch being carried by the younger woman.

I didn't hear the the accompanying spiel; I saw the word "Watchtower" and told them to **** off.

Too blunt?

M.

I suppose it depends upon which 4 letters lie behind the asterisk. Try this next time:

[articulett]

Pretty much yes, if they made him feel uncomfortable i don't see why he should not request them to be removed from his house.

And certainly if he was also demanding that she got rid of the Da Vinci Code, I think we can all agree that that should be binned. ;)

I see your point.

What about guys who have football mags and girlie mags?

[ponderingturtle]

Sublimating is another description of compromising? Who are you to say what is good for him and her?

So compromise is he does what she says now? That sounds more like submission, and not the potentially fun kind with the chains and such.

I have to wonder do you really think sublimating, compromise and submission are all synonyms now?

[Rasmus]

Sublimating is another description of compromising? Who are you to say what is good for him and her?

Where is the compromise in him getting rid of the book? Where is the part where she gives in a little bit and lets him reach some of his objectives?

Putting the book off the shelve and into a drawer might have been a compromise, or maybe even her reading it and then demanding it be removed - even though I would probably dissagree even there.

But his removing the book on her say-so hardly appears to fit any reasonable defintion of "compromise", or does it?

[brodski]

Where is the compromise in him getting rid of the book? Where is the part where she gives in a little bit and lets him reach some of his objectives?

Putting the book off the shelve and into a drawer might have been a compromise, or maybe even her reading it and then demanding it be removed - even though I would probably dissagree even there.

But his removing the book on her say-so hardly appears to fit any reasonable defintion of "compromise", or does it?

Because you don’t look at this one incident in isolation. Backing down on an issue where one partner doesn’t feel strongly, and the other partner does is an indicator of compromise in the relationship.

[Moochie]

I suppose it depends upon which 4 letters lie behind the asterisk. Try this next time:


Thanks. :D

M.

[ponderingturtle]

Because you don’t look at this one incident in isolation. Backing down on an issue where one partner doesn’t feel strongly, and the other partner does is an indicator of compromise in the relationship.

So all you need to do is feel everything more strongly than your partner, and you WIN! They will always be the one compramising and you will never be.

[thaiboxerken]

The day has finally come, as I suppose I knew it would.

My girlfriend has noticed that a copy of 'The God Delusion' has a space on my bookshelf. :(

She asked me to remove it this morning, as she considers it offensive to her religious beliefs

I'd dump her. Seriously. If she's offended by the mere sight of a book, then something is wrong with her. She wants to control your life and, ultimately, your beliefs.

[baron]

It amuses me, to a degree, when people ask why all the fuss over a single incident, as though such an extreme reaction is simply an aberration in the reasoning of an otherwise well-balanced individual.

I've made that mistake. I was a pussy once. (Am I allowed to say "pussy"? I hope so, because I've said it twice now.) An ex-fiance started making ever more selfish and unreasonable demands to which I always capitulated. I thought, "Hey, it's only a little thing; not worth arguing about." She quickly realised I was a push-over and of course the situation deteriorated.

One memorable New Year's Eve she announced that she wasn't going to visit my family over the holidays and, because I was to accompany her as she toured the houses of her family and friends, neither would I. Subsequently she was quite surprised when I informed her that she had misjudged the situation and, with thoughts of camels and straw going through my mind, threw her out of the house with only the clothes she was wearing. I cancelled the wedding the next week and she never set foot over my thresshold again.

What a learning experience that was.

[Dogdoctor]

So compromise is he does what she says now? That sounds more like submission, and not the potentially fun kind with the chains and such.

I have to wonder do you really think sublimating, compromise and submission are all synonyms now?

We just have a small part of the big picture. We know he isn't happy that he agreed to remove his books. He did not need to remove his books but he did it. The reason why he did is unknown but it sounds like love to me. In a serious relationship there will be lots of one side giving in to the other. We only know of this one little insignificant instance but if it is typical of others then she will give in to him on other issues. You can use whatever words you want to use I use compromise since this is just a little part of normal relationship.

[Rasmus]

We just have a small part of the big picture. We know he isn't happy that he agreed to remove his books. He did not need to remove his books but he did it.

I understood that he had to remove it (unless he wanted to pick a fight with her) and that his "choice" was in the binning of the book - rather than disposing of it otherwise.

The reason why he did is unknown but it sounds like love to me.

The reason is known to us: "So, to keep the peace, I've binned it."

That, to me, sounds a fair bit removed from "I love her, and so as to not her percious feelings I removed the book."

It sounds like his choice were to a) get rid of the book, or b) get into a fight with her. Not a discussion or even a reasoned conversation, but something very much the opposite of peace.

In a serious relationship there will be lots of one side giving in to the other.

In what I would describve as a serious relationship there should be preciuously little "giving in". At least not of the sort described in the OP where one sides gives in for the sake of keaping peace.

We only know of this one little insignificant instance but if it is typical of others then she will give in to him on other issues.

What ever is there to make you think that if we picked an other random insignificant event it would be equally likely that she would give in? Even if this should be the case, you lack the information to make such a stipulation.

You can use whatever words you want to use I use compromise since this is just a little part of normal relationship.

Yes, but what has been described to us does not neccearily have to be a normal relationship. It might be - but we don't know.

And what we do know is one instance where one partner has been highly irrational and out of line. He shouldn't have given in to her, regardless of what the relationship may otherwise look like.

That you compromise and give in in some instances and that you may win in others doesn't prevent you from simply being a push over in a third set of cases.

[ponderingturtle]

We just have a small part of the big picture. We know he isn't happy that he agreed to remove his books. He did not need to remove his books but he did it. The reason why he did is unknown but it sounds like love to me. In a serious relationship there will be lots of one side giving in to the other. We only know of this one little insignificant instance but if it is typical of others then she will give in to him on other issues. You can use whatever words you want to use I use compromise since this is just a little part of normal relationship.

So the problem with Baron post was that he did not love her enough?

It amuses me, to a degree, when people ask why all the fuss over a single incident, as though such an extreme reaction is simply an aberration in the reasoning of an otherwise well-balanced individual.

I've made that mistake. I was a pussy once. (Am I allowed to say "pussy"? I hope so, because I've said it twice now.) An ex-fiance started making ever more selfish and unreasonable demands to which I always capitulated. I thought, "Hey, it's only a little thing; not worth arguing about." She quickly realised I was a push-over and of course the situation deteriorated.

One memorable New Year's Eve she announced that she wasn't going to visit my family over the holidays and, because I was to accompany her as she toured the houses of her family and friends, neither would I. Subsequently she was quite surprised when I informed her that she had misjudged the situation and, with thoughts of camels and straw going through my mind, threw her out of the house with only the clothes she was wearing. I cancelled the wedding the next week and she never set foot over my thresshold again.

What a learning experience that was.

If he had viewed each time he submitted to her will as an expression of love and compromise it would have saved their relationship?

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, but what has been described to us does not neccearily have to be a normal relationship. It might be - but we don't know.


How normal can a relationship be where one side forces the other to throw out specific books?

"Do something your books are taking over the livingroom" fine

"I am really embarrased by some of the books you have in the livingroom" OK

"I find the title of that book so offensive I will not let you own it" that seems to be by itself a mark that something is wrong. This is censorship, and I like others am bothered by the idea of one partner censoring the reading choices of the other.

[Cactus Wren]

Why didn't you just hide it under your skirt?

Surely you must be able to come up with some more vicious and mean-spirited insult than "female".

Oh, maybe you can't. Maybe in your lexicon, "female" is the worst possible thing to call someone.

[Rasmus]

How normal can a relationship be where one side forces the other to throw out specific books?

Not very. But it could have been the only or first instance - not that I would expect it to be.

"I am really embarrased by some of the books you have in the livingroom" OK

... and even then I would expect there to be problems down the road.

"I find the title of that book so offensive I will not let you own it" that seems to be by itself a mark that something is wrong. This is censorship, and I like others am bothered by the idea of one partner censoring the reading choices of the other.

Absolutely no argument from me. It is an utterly unacceptable demand.


I think by now some derailment would be in order: What if it had been porn?

[Irony]

It sounds like the compromise here is that you must respect her beliefs, but she is under no obligation to respect yours. This sort of relationship will not last.

If you want to have a good, long-term relationship with this woman, then you need to demand (not ask, demand) that she respect your beliefs as you respect hers. Otherwise, you're just setting yourself up for a nasty separation down the road.

[Dogdoctor]

I understood that he had to remove it (unless he wanted to pick a fight with her) and that his "choice" was in the binning of the book - rather than disposing of it otherwise.



The reason is known to us: "So, to keep the peace, I've binned it."

That, to me, sounds a fair bit removed from "I love her, and so as to not her percious feelings I removed the book."

It sounds like his choice were to a) get rid of the book, or b) get into a fight with her. Not a discussion or even a reasoned conversation, but something very much the opposite of peace.

He could have left her. He is not here to answer the motivation behind his decision to not leave her. Maybe it was just sex, maybe he is just afraid of being lonely. There could be numerous reasons for his staying with her but my impression is that he had a good relationship with her. I could be wrong.





In what I would describve as a serious relationship there should be preciuously little "giving in". At least not of the sort described in the OP where one sides gives in for the sake of keaping peace.

Hmmm... maybe you are right but to me it really depends on how affected by giving in the individuals are since there is no way to not compromise some and live with a person. He did not indicate that this was big deal and only that he felt a need for (light hearted) venting.

What ever is there to make you think that if we picked an other random insignificant event it would be equally likely that she would give in? Even if this should be the case, you lack the information to make such a stipulation.

He is not here to answer questions but in a typical relationship that goes on all the time.

Yes, but what has been described to us does not neccearily have to be a normal relationship. It might be - but we don't know.

True

And what we do know is one instance where one partner has been highly irrational and out of line. He shouldn't have given in to her, regardless of what the relationship may otherwise look like.

It is your opinion that she is highly irrational. She has a reason for her behavior and she is not here to defend her position.


That you compromise and give in in some instances and that you may win in others doesn't prevent you from simply being a push over in a third set of cases.

true

[ponderingturtle]

I think by now some derailment would be in order: What if it had been porn?

That is what I was thinking about in the "Not in the Livingroom" demand. Why should one partner control the others fantasies with regard to porn(well legal porn).

It seems to be about controling the partner in ways that do not specificaly impact them dirrectly.

[ponderingturtle]

It sounds like the compromise here is that you must respect her beliefs, but she is under no obligation to respect yours. This sort of relationship will not last.

Well sure it could, as long as he is properly subservient to her. It sounds like something my grandparents might have done and they where married for over 50 years. She made all the decisions and he in almost never stood up to her. The perfect compromise.

[ponderingturtle]

He could have left her. He is not here to answer the motivation behind his decision to not leave her. Maybe it was just sex, maybe he is just afraid of being lonely. There could be numerous reasons for his staying with her but my impression is that he had a good relationship with her. I could be wrong.


I would question that, as it would seem that they can't discuss religious beliefs with out having a fight(or emotional arguement), that is why they don't discuss such things.

Now these are pretty central beliefs, so how good can a relationship be when you don't talk about such central beliefs?

[Rasmus]

He could have left her. He is not here to answer the motivation behind his decision to not leave her. Maybe it was just sex, maybe he is just afraid of being lonely. There could be numerous reasons for his staying with her but my impression is that he had a good relationship with her. I could be wrong.

I would agree in so far as I think they both would have described their relationship as good up that point.

We could probably argue if it was if they couldnt talk about teligion, e.g., but that would be besides the point, I guess.

Oh, and I wouldn't call this a "choice". But I do agree, he could have decided to keep the book and ditch her. But either way it would have hardly been a free choice for him to make wether to get rid of the book. She tied his descision to otherwise unrelated consequences. (Fighting with him, rather than ending the relationship, though!)

Hmmm... maybe you are right but to me it really depends on how affected by giving in the individuals are since there is no way to not compromise some and live with a person. He did not indicate that this was big deal and only that he felt a need for (light hearted) venting.I don't think anyone here views the "having the book" as a terribly important issue. The important issue is "being allowed to have stuff without the partner's explicit permission or required tolerance thereof".

He is not here to answer questions but in a typical relationship that goes on all the time.Compromise? Why, yes. Certainly.

The demand made here, however, just leaves no room for compromise. She established censorship in the relationship! Nothing less.

It is your opinion that she is highly irrational. She has a reason for her behavior and she is not here to defend her position.Humor me: What acceptable reasons could she have possibly given?

I do not need to listen to the "reasons" that someone gives me for censoring a particular book to know that censorship is wrong.

And I would assume the OP would have let us in on the finer details in the unlikely event that there truly had been a reason.

Yes, her mom might have died a horrible and painful death after being run over by a "god delusion"-delivery-truck. But I think its unlikely, and even more unlikely that it should have gone unmentioned.

[Dogdoctor]

I would question that, as it would seem that they can't discuss religious beliefs with out having a fight(or emotional arguement), that is why they don't discuss such things.

Now these are pretty central beliefs, so how good can a relationship be when you don't talk about such central beliefs?

I think I missed the part where he said they couldn't discuss religon.

[Dogdoctor]

I would agree in so far as I think they both would have described their relationship as good up that point.

We could probably argue if it was if they couldnt talk about teligion, e.g., but that would be besides the point, I guess.

Oh, and I wouldn't call this a "choice". But I do agree, he could have decided to keep the book and ditch her. But either way it would have hardly been a free choice for him to make wether to get rid of the book. She tied his descision to otherwise unrelated consequences. (Fighting with him, rather than ending the relationship, though!)

I don't think anyone here views the "having the book" as a terribly important issue. The important issue is "being allowed to have stuff without the partner's explicit permission or required tolerance thereof".

Compromise? Why, yes. Certainly.

The demand made here, however, just leaves no room for compromise. She established censorship in the relationship! Nothing less.

Humor me: What acceptable reasons could she have possibly given?

I do not need to listen to the "reasons" that someone gives me for censoring a particular book to know that censorship is wrong.

And I would assume the OP would have let us in on the finer details in the unlikely event that there truly had been a reason.

Yes, her mom might have died a horrible and painful death after being run over by a "god delusion"-delivery-truck. But I think its unlikely, and even more unlikely that it should have gone unmentioned.

You may think religion is highly illogical. I don't and probably pmcklean doesn't since he co-owns a house with a religious woman who he is not married to.

[Baron Samedi]

I know Pmckean asked this topic to die, so I won't be commenting in any way, shape, or form on his relationship or offering advice. Something that he said, though, really hit home for me.

She has her good points, too!

I'm a little disappointed that she's taken such a hard line towards this book, but hey, you know how it is between men and women; sometimes it's just easier to go along with something you don't necessarily want to do in order to keep the peace.

Let me try and understand her perspective; she feels that the book is sacrilegious, which it most assuredly is. Keeping such an item in a house which she co-owns, therefore, is an affront to her deeply-held beliefs.

As an atheist, however, I hold no particular religious belief and therefore the presence of a Bible in this house does not offend me, and does not require removal.

Therefore, 'The God Delusion' goes and the Bible stays.

Bold mine. I'm not too sure if these were his exact words, or if these were words from his gf, but these are words that I've heard many times in my life. I've been in discussions about philosophy, world politics, or morality, and when I've made a touchy point or simply tried to speak up, I've had this statement thrown into my face. "But you're an atheist. You don't care about religion. What do you know?" People treat me being an atheist as having no belief, or no strong belief in their Lord and Savior and therefor no strong opinion worth considering. It can't be further from the truth. I do indeed have very strong beliefs and morals. I am an atheist, and I believe strongly that we should be kind to others, that we should try and leave this world a better place than the one we came into. I believe very strongly in some of Hobbes' thoughts on the roles of religion and power. Atheism, to me, does not mean lack of belief.

It's the hardest for me around cultural events. If others are attending religious events, they assume that by me being atheist, I should have no problems joining in. As a small example, I remember in school we used to have ball hockey on Friday nights run at the high school, where half way through during the break, the organizers would preach to us the Bible. When I complained to my friends, they simply told me that I'm atheist, so I shouldn't care. I've had the same discussions with people about weddings (supposed I do have to get married in a church, since as an atheist it shouldn't bother me one way or another where or how I get married) or about raising children (they should be sent to Catholic schools and I shouldn't have a say in the matter since as an atheist, I have right to any opinion).

Office Christmas parties as also bad. Supposedly, if I were Muslim, it's okay for me not to attend, but since I'm only Atheist, if I didn't go to the Christmas party, I'm not a "team player". So I capitulated, and I went. I'm not an idiot who's trying career suicide. However, I also nominated that same person for a Quarterly Achiever's Award for "Organizing the Christmas party and teaching me the True Meaning Of Christmas." They won the award, and no one got the sarcasm or irony in my nominating them.

Sorry everyone for the rant. This is something that has always bothered me, and being treated like a second class citizen, or patronized as being childish and immature for having my beliefs. I'm still a little touchy about it.

On another note, to lighten this up a bat...

Oh, this is sad.

When you are partners, you do not suddenly own the mind of a person. What is love if it does not embrace the opinions, thoughts, and exploration of another?

What is it with people who wish to stifle another with their own demands?

I don't care if it's porn, books to disagree with it, the love of particularly large and weathered boxer shorts worn around the house. No human being should impose this kind of right to ownership on another.

Men do it, but I see this kind of demand more often in women. I rarely hear men saying that romance novels and chick flicks are outright offensive to them. They should be, given that they involve the notion that if a man loves a woman, he'll never look at another, and he'll always change his ways to suit her.

Relationships that place such heavy demands on simple thought and imagination are a puzzle to me.

I've banned The Bridges Of Madison County in my household. Does that make me a bad person?

[Miss Anthrope]

I've banned The Bridges Of Madison County in my household. Does that make me a bad person?

To me, it would seem doing so might prevent you and others from suddenly want to do grave harm to themselves. :)

[ponderingturtle]

I think I missed the part where he said they couldn't discuss religon.

Yes, they are. We've long ago agreed to refrain from discussing religion. I just vent on this forum, instead - it's the only real outlet that I have for skeptical discourse.

Link (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2836373&postcount=20)

[Dogdoctor]

Link (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2836373&postcount=20)

Thanks Hmmm... Ok I admit I see what everyone else is worried about. This does have the apperance of a dysfuntional relationship. I prefer to have hope for them but you have swayed my opinion a bit.

[Stitch]

I don't think anyone would disagree. The issue is, what is reasonable? That's something for the people in the relationship to work out - for my part, asking me to remove from display a copy of a Dawkin's book (or any other book, for that matter) does not meet the test of reasonableness.

But maybe that's just me.

Remove from view, no problem.
Thow away, problem.

[quixotecoyote]

My nominally catholic fiancee asked me today if I'd still love her if she suddenly became deeply spiritual. I told her I would, but there's only so much I'd put with. Full-bore catholicism isn't within that boundary.

[Jimbo07]

Just an actual note of support for pmckean...

I've been in a situation where I've thrown out something of mine in anger. I wasn't even that broken up about it when I calmed down, either...

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks Hmmm... Ok I admit I see what everyone else is worried about. This does have the apperance of a dysfuntional relationship. I prefer to have hope for them but you have swayed my opinion a bit.

The thing is that I am not sure how much you need the second piece of information to know that she does not respect his beliefs all that much. The requirement to throw out certain books is very different from say modifying activities or the ammount of stuff in a given location.

[Dogdoctor]

The thing is that I am not sure how much you need the second piece of information to know that she does not respect his beliefs all that much. The requirement to throw out certain books is very different from say modifying activities or the ammount of stuff in a given location.

You interpret this as not respecting his beliefs. That is your opinion. They are not here to defend their positions. You can discuss it with them if they post here again.

[Rasmus]

You interpret this as not respecting his beliefs. That is your opinion. They are not here to defend their positions. You can discuss it with them if they post here again.

You keep saying that - I don't buy it.

If she thinks that she is entitled to decide what kinds of books he is allowed to possess, then there simply is no room for respect.

What argument could she possibly make that would explain how she did have respect for him, his rights and beliefes and should still be entitled to rule what he reads, owes and thinks?

It's not simply an opinion, there is some damn good evidence showing that she has no respect of his beliefs!

[Dogdoctor]

You keep saying that - I don't buy it.

If she thinks that she is entitled to decide what kinds of books he is allowed to possess, then there simply is no room for respect.

What argument could she possibly make that would explain how she did have respect for him, his rights and beliefes and should still be entitled to rule what he reads, owes and thinks?

It's not simply an opinion, there is some damn good evidence showing that she has no respect of his beliefs!

You can discuss it with them should they ever post here again. I don't presume to know the motivations of others. You can go on and discuss it if you like but I am not going to form an opinion about that till I have more data. It seems to me like they are in a dysfunctional relationship but other than that I don't think there is enough data to say anything. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If he gives us more then there is more to discuss otherwise I have nothing to say about this.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...It's the hardest for me around cultural events. If others are attending religious events, they assume that by me being atheist, I should have no problems joining in....Office Christmas parties as also bad. Supposedly, if I were Muslim, it's okay for me not to attend, but since I'm only Atheist, if I didn't go to the Christmas party, I'm not a "team player". So I capitulated, and I went. I'm not an idiot who's trying career suicide. However, I also nominated that same person for a Quarterly Achiever's Award for "Organizing the Christmas party and teaching me the True Meaning Of Christmas." They won the award, and no one got the sarcasm or irony in my nominating them....Another way to look at Christmas is to consider the fact the Christians in a sense stole the holiday from the Pagans. The supposed birth of Jesus was during some kind of census taking which required Joseph and Mary to travel. That wouldn't have been in winter. And shepherds weren't in their fields in December.

Christmas today for most people really has almost nothing to do with the Christian religion. Christmas is only religious in thought with some remnants of religion remaining. Bill O'Reilly's claim there is a war on Christmas is laughable for that reason alone. Actual Christmas is quite different from the claims of what Christmas should be.

So I celebrate Christmas for what is has become today. It's the biggest holiday of the year celebrating capitalism and consumerism. Seems pretty atheistic to me. I say we steal Christmas as our holiday the way the Christians stole it from the Pagans.

Calculation of real date of Jesus's birth from Biblical accounts. (http://www.ucg.org/booklets/JC/prophecy_jesusborn.htm)First, we know that shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at night at the time of Jesus' birth (Luke 2:7-8). However, shepherds did not remain in the fields of Judea at night during December due to lack of forage and the bad weather....

Jesus' parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Luke 2:1-4). The Romans would have known better than to have taken such a census in the dead of winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition for traveling....

Since Elizabeth (John's mother) was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Jesus was conceived (Luke 1:24-36), we can determine the approximate time of year Jesus was born if we know when John was born. John's father, Zacharias, was a priest serving in the Jerusalem temple during the course of Abijah (Luke 1:5). Historical calculations indicate this course of service corresponded to June 13-19 in that year...

It was during this time of temple service that Zacharias learned that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would have a child (Luke 1:8-13). After he completed his service and traveled home, Elizabeth conceived (verses 23-24). Assuming John's conception took place near the end of June, adding nine months brings us to the end of March as the most likely time for John's birth. Adding another six months (the difference in ages between John and Jesus) brings us to the end of September as the likely time of Jesus' birth.

Although it is difficult to determine the first time anyone celebrated Dec. 25 as Christmas, historians are in general agreement that it was sometime during the fourth century.

This is an amazingly late date. Christmas was not observed in Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, until about 300 years after Christ's death. Its origins cannot be traced back to either the teachings or practices of the earliest Christians.

This also happens to be one of the reasons the Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas. (http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1998/12/15/article_02.htm)

How Did Christmas Come to Be Celebrated on December 25? (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm)

A. Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

B. The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).

C. In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]

D. The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.

E. Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia. As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.” The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc.

F. The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.”[3] Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681.[4] However, Christmas was and still is celebrated by most Christians.

G. Some of the most depraved customs of the Saturnalia carnival were intentionally revived by the Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city. An eyewitness account reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators. They ran… amid Rome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.”[5]

H. As part of the Saturnalia carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition in1836 to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.”[6] On December 25, 1881, Christian leaders whipped the Polish masses into Antisemitic frenzies that led to riots across the country. In Warsaw 12 Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed, and many Jewish women were raped. Two million rubles worth of property was destroyed.


I think I'll copy this post into the thread on Constructive things for atheists to do. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89307) Sorry for the hijack.

[Jon.]

Sounds like a smart woman to me, I would take her advise if I were you.

I hope she realizes that being unequally yoked with a non believer in Christ will only hurt you both. Scripture teaches followers of Christ to not go there because it is too destructive. Are you prepared to try to change to stay with her?

Strange to say, but I think KK may have hit the nail on the head with her second paragraph. Religion is a pretty big topic to not talk about in a serious, committed, relationship. Personally, I think pmckean should have a serious chat with his girlfriend around the topic of whether she can see herself staying with someone who is, and is likely to remain, an atheist. Similarly, pmckean should ask himself some pretty hard questions about whether he can see himself staying with someone who is, and is likely to remain, a devout and judgmental Christian.

[Baron Samedi]

So I celebrate Christmas for what is has become today. It's the biggest holiday of the year celebrating capitalism and consumerism.

That's reason #2 why I don't celebrate Christmas. :D

[Rasmus]

Religion is a pretty big topic to not talk about in a serious, committed, relationship.

"There is no god."
"Fine."

That is, ideally, all the conversation a relationship I'm in should ever require on the subject.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I could just about tolerate someone who in a bad mood / fit of anger / whatever made a thoroughly unreasonable demand like getting rid of a book they didn't like.

However, that tolerance has limits. If, in the cold light of day, they do not realise that what they did was wrong and take some action (like replacing the book) to rectify the situation, then there is a real problem.

This is unlikely to be the last time that you disagree on something. Why do you think she will respect your views in future if she does not do so now?

[ponderingturtle]

Another way to look at Christmas is to consider the fact the Christians in a sense stole the holiday from the Pagans. The supposed birth of Jesus was during some kind of census taking which required Joseph and Mary to travel. That wouldn't have been in winter. And shepherds weren't in their fields in December.

Christmas today for most people really has almost nothing to do with the Christian religion. Christmas is only religious in thought with some remnants of religion remaining. Bill O'Reilly's claim there is a war on Christmas is laughable for that reason alone. Actual Christmas is quite different from the claims of what Christmas should be.

Yes we need to return to the true meaning of christmas before it was hijacked by Washington Irving and Charles Dickens. That is of course drunken revelry.

Hell read A Christmas Carol and you see that the butcher was open on christmas,

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not advocating giving Christmas back to the Pagans, pt. I'm saying we atheists should keep it for ourselves. ;)

[Elind]

The day has finally come, as I suppose I knew it would.

My girlfriend has noticed that a copy of 'The God Delusion' has a space on my bookshelf. :(

She asked me to remove it this morning, as she considers it offensive to her religious beliefs. I tried a few half-hearted arguments; that I don't remember the book being banned by any religious groups, that it's not really aimed at firm believers, that her faith in God should be strong enough that the existence of this tome won't dent it, that I don't object to her numerous gilded bibles, etc, but she's implacable. It goes immediately.

So, to keep the peace, I've binned it. I refuse to hide it in the car or the garage like a piece of pornography. I can just see the refuse collection truck backing down my cul-de-sac, so it looks like the end is nigh.

She's wants my copy of the 'Da Vinci Code' gone, too. :(

When is the wedding?:boxedin: