I'm just not sure if one's ideology, useful or harmful, politics or rational / irrational, can be compared to such a basic personality trait as one's sexuality. There are many, many ideologies, especially through the ages, and they are arrived at by choice. They're human institutions, or extensions of them. I don't see that as being like or comparable to sexuality, although I'm certainly open to the argument. But I'm also a social-constructivist in about as limited a way as one can be. I don't think gender is socially constructed, e.g. Many of the roles that come with it are, but not a biological, hormonal, chemical function in a male or female body (yes, I'm aware that there is androgyny).
The other thing is that I think it's a human trait to be irrational and certainly intuitive - that kind of comes with social and emotional knowledge. We're all irrational and intuitive. Now some folks are more adept in tapping into it than others, but the real issue it how that intuition and irrationality are
used.
If they are used to construct textbook knowledge, then we have a big, big,
obvious problem. We need a better, wiser standard. That's where intuition and irrationality lose their validity - on their own. I mean, scientists intuit things constantly, but the validity comes in whether or not that intuition can be confirmed. Some folks don't bother with the confirmation / testing process, or model process, which means you can just make up any old thing, and therein is where it's not valid. It's just another whim.
And of course I am always amazed at how quickly people are willing to divorce religion from its awful, inhumane, bloody history in order to make a terrible argument that extols its virtues. I don't think we do that with literally anything else - religion gets another free pass.
Actually, we do it with many things: money, governments, sex, science, speech - the list goes on and on. Each of these are "good" things that have been exploited in various fashions to serve the selfish interests of individuals. That doesn't mean we simply dismiss them as inherently bad. Doing so would be impractical. There is value in everything, but its virtues can only be embraced if the potential for exploitation is suppressed.
Well, religion is more overtly ideological, though, and was once used to order knowledge. I'm kind of just complaining that people often take the view that religion should be immune to criticism or immune to contempt because of a bunch of illogical reasons.
You are very right, Scott, though, that the conversation around it needs to change, and if there is anyone here who can appeal to any benevolence that religion / faith may possess, someone like you could. I would encourage you to try.
Too many folks grant themselves the authority to judge and determine others' behavior because of it, and that needs to change too.
