So, I was rewatching the video of Obama speaking to the gathering of House Republicans. They have a pretty blatant Christian prayer at the beginning of it. I missed that when I watched live. Aside from the fact that the prayer's content is pretty laughably political - in exactly the way the Republican's like it - why is there a Christian prayer being given at the beginning of a meeting of our government? What denomination was it? What about all the other religions? I mean, I know it's a meeting of House Republicans - and the Republicans have pretty much given themselves over to the Christian religious right. But... really? What happened to the separation of Church and State?
Yes, I do remember the prayer at the inauguration. I wasn't thrilled with that either. But I recognized it as a tradition at a big event. This... feels somehow different to me. This is a working meeting of our government. I don't think religion belongs here.
quote:why is there a Christian prayer being given at the beginning of a meeting of our government?
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: because you cannot go wrong pandering to the idiot masses.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My understanding (from an elementary school field trip) is that they rotate through Jewish, Muslim and Christian prayers. I have no idea how accurate that is and whether it applies specifically to the State of the Union.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Apparantly they use different denominations regularly.
As someone who no longer believes, it doesn't bother me as much as it did when I believed in a single religion. As long as no one is forced to say it, or they are starting a state religion, I'm fine. Its also their constituents. If they are seen as not being religious, they won't get re-elected. A gay hispanic muslim has a better chance at being president then an admitted atheist.
I had a principal my first year that started staff meetings with a prayer, ending with a "in the name of Jesus" remark. I never really liked it, but kept silent.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
When did 'praying Christians' become 'idiot masses'?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I used to have a job where we started staff meetings with a prayer. It was, IMO, perfectly appropriate. I worked for a church.
ETA: to DSH - When we decide that everyone, regardless of their beliefs, must be subjected to our specific religious rituals.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by DSH: When did 'praying Christians' become 'idiot masses'?
Maybe Tom is referring not to "praying christians" but the large segment of our population that thinks we live in a christian nation and that christianity SHOULD be integrated with government.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
Perhaps Strider, but the implication is that Christians are the idiots, and not the panderers
Tom?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Not Christians, just the people that think that it's important that their political leaders be conspicuous about their religiosity. In the US that happens to mostly be Christians just because that's the dominant religion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that Tom was refering to the particular Chrisians who needed to be pandered to.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Maybe Tom is referring not to "praying christians" but the large segment of our population that thinks we live in a christian nation and that christianity SHOULD be integrated with government. [/QB]
Let me point out that there is a huge swath of middle ground between the positions that religion should be integrated with government, and that it has no place in the government.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Hey, I'm just deciphering Tom's comment! not making any of my own. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the PROCEDURE is the result of pandering.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
And I would argue that the procedure IS the pandering.
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
I am in the Army and I find it absolutely appalling that before every single gathering of troops larger than a company there is a christian prayer. I have always found it a little disconcerting that people see these conflicts we are in as some sort of holy war, but this practice just reenforces that belief which is just irresponsible. Also, it makes me feel like I am part of a religious fighting force which just makes my skin crawl.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sam, DSH, there's no reason you can't both be right.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I'll come right out and say that religion has no place in government. There should be no official prayers at inaugurations or meetings, and there should be no military chaplains. The point of living in a secular republic is that the government gives no sanction to any faith. Religion should be a private matter, not a matter for the state to involve itself in.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Why do you swear on a bible in court? The founders realized that one's self interest alone wont keep them honest. Unfortunately, they couldn't imagine a day of a godless people. A selfish atheist will lie his ass off for his own self interest. I think our nation needs to strap legal witnesses into lie detectors....our founders believed swearing on the Bible would suffice....today we need lie detectors in a court room. The antiquated Bible and religious traditions are ineffective in our separation of church and state society.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:A selfish person will lie his ass off for his own self interest.
There, fixed that for you.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Swearing on the Bible carried a weight beyond this life....to a believer. What assured their honesty? We still have these antiquated religious traditions within our government. Since we are no longer a Christian nation...we need to be a Lie Detector nation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoberTillNoon: Also, it makes me feel like I am part of a religious fighting force which just makes my skin crawl.
Bravo. It should and you are to be commended for this.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike:
quote:A selfish person will lie his ass off for his own self interest.
There, fixed that for you.
It wasn't broken.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Swearing on the Bible carried a weight beyond this life....to a believer. What assured their honesty?
Yet somehow atheists are less likely to lie when they begin by solemnly swearing or affirming that they will speak the truth. True story. At the same time, there are many who believe (or claim to believe) who even after swearing on a Bible would lie given the right circumstances, for good or for ill.
Does swearing have different degrees of effect for believers and non-believers? Possible, but I suspect not. It'd be interesting to see a study done on this, but it would be extremely difficult to control adequately for priming effects.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why you keep talking about lie detectors. They are notoriously unreliable and most definitely do not belong in courtrooms, certainly at their current level of effectiveness.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DSH: And I would argue that the procedure IS the pandering.
I don't see the contradiction between yours and mine!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Swearing on the Bible doesn't carry much interest for me. But the idea of removing army chaplains to me is too extreme. Soldiers have physical, mental, and in many instances spiritual needs. Some soldiers may gather in order to petition God to bless their "holy war," but just as many gather into smaller groups and simply pray that they will perform admirably, and that God will preserve their lives, and the lives of their family back home.
Though I myself pray in the name of Jesus Christ, I have no problem offering a prayer with a Muslim, or a Sikh, where I pray for things we would all mutually agree on, and simply end with Amen, invoking Jesus' name only in my mind afterward.
Soldiers routinely stare death in the face for a prolonged period of time over and over, and then come home. Chaplains, while certainly human and prone to making mistakes, can also do so much towards helping a soldier face those terrible realities he/she has witnessed and surmount them. The facilities available to soldiers dealing with post traumatic stress syndrome are already underdeveloped and underused. Chaplains have a long history with the armed forces, and hence are less of a stigma for soldiers copping with mental and spiritual anguish.
Prayers at the beginning of major governmental functions annoy or offend some, but so long as they are concise or prompt do they really just ruin anyone's day? Prayer is a tradition thousands of years old, for many people praying is like meditating, a way to focus on the task at hand, while flushing out all the distractions that might impeded performance.
If major functions were commenced with a moment of meditative silence I don't see how that would much different, beyond being alittle less noisy. Prayer is even more useful as a means to draw those who can at least agree on the existence of God together, it isn't designed to alienate atheists, I've never uttered a prayer in public and thought, "I sure hope those non-believers feel isolated." No offense is intended for those who do not believe in the efficacy of prayer, so why take any?
I could understand it if say the religious were cursing atheists or those of other religions and thus creating a rift, or if prayer was in some way so encumbering to the job at hand that it was a serious obstacle. But so long as it isn't, I say that if you don't believe in God, that's fine, do something else that is not disruptive while others briefly attempt to address their creator, hoping they will do right by him/her.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Since we are no longer a Christian nation...
You think we ever were? Lol. Mal, the things you don't know constantly surprise me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Prayers at the beginning of major governmental functions annoy or offend some, but so long as they are concise or prompt do they really just ruin anyone's day?
They certainly CAN, insofar as they serve as a reminder of vocal contingencies who'll be evaluating your public policy through the lens of their mythology.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Soldiers have physical, mental, and in many instances spiritual needs. Some soldiers may gather in order to petition God to bless their "holy war," but just as many gather into smaller groups and simply pray that they will perform admirably, and that God will preserve their lives, and the lives of their family back home.
And they're more than welcome to do it privately. There's no reason it needs to be institutionalized.
quote:The facilities available to soldiers dealing with post traumatic stress syndrome are already underdeveloped and underused.
And is an area that needs to be heavily focused on. That has nothing to do with religion.
quote:Prayers at the beginning of major governmental functions annoy or offend some, but so long as they are concise or prompt do they really just ruin anyone's day?
It's not about ruining anyone's day. It's about the government giving official support to an institution of religion, which it is not supposed to do.
quote:Prayer is a tradition thousands of years old
So what? Two points on this. First, human sacrifice is also a tradition thousands of years old, one every bit as indelibly linked to religion as is prayer, and yet I doubt you would endorse beginning official government functions with it for that reason. Secondly, no one is arguing for the abolition of prayer itself. People who have the wish to pray are more than welcome to do so on their own time. I don't care that their tradition is thousands of years old. That does not mean it has any place in the official government functions of a secular republic.
quote:Prayer is even more useful as a means to draw those who can at least agree on the existence of God together
Unless they disagree on when God wants them to pray, and in what way, and in what contexts, which inevitably they will, since, even though every faith claims to know God's mind, no two can precisely agree on what it is he wants. And even for the denominations whose praying methods are compatible, what the hell does that have to do with government functions? I say again, religious people can pray on their own time. The government is not supposed to give any support or any hindrance to any faith whatsoever.
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
it is my position that they should outlaw any mention of religion by a candidate or their supporters on the candidate's behalf during a campaign as well in any official gov't function.
To Marcus: Sadly, I will never be commended for this and in reality if it were made common knowledge that I was an atheist I probably would never be promoted beyond the rank of MAJ if I got that far.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoberTillNoon: it is my position that they should outlaw any mention of religion by a candidate or their supporters on the candidate's behalf during a campaign as well in any official gov't function.
I wouldn't go that far. A candidate has the right to talk about their religion if they honestly feel it's important to them. But it's asinine that they should feel it obligatory to do so, or to pay lip service to being religious if they actually aren't. But that will have to change through social means, not legislation.
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
I would go that far because it has gotten to the point that candidates are being elected on their religious beliefs and that is exactly what the constitution wanted to prohibit.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoberTillNoon: ... I probably would never be promoted beyond the rank of MAJ if I got that far.
Thats fairly disappointing. Especially when the enemy is already taking advantage of describing the US as being on a religious crusade (as a recruiting tool), the last thing that should happen is to go ahead and actually validate it.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Mal, the fact that you would discount my solemn word just because I do not believe in any deity breaks my heart. I have tried my entire life to support truth and honesty above all other values. I never purposefully lie. Even in situations where it would save feelings, I have difficulty even with-holding the truth or much less telling the white lie. And bigger lies - forget it. I can't do it. I don't do it.
I am an atheist.
If you think that mere fact means I'm more likely to lie... then I know a whole host of people you need to be introduced to.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Since we are no longer a Christian nation...we need to be a Lie Detector nation.
We were a christian nation? When? I think I need to talk with all of my history teachers! Thought they could pull a fast one on T:man did they?!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'll come right out and say that religion has no place in government. There should be no official prayers at inaugurations or meetings, and there should be no military chaplains. The point of living in a secular republic is that the government gives no sanction to any faith.
One can't exactly remove religion from government. Questions of right and wrong lie behind many issues the government faces. Should we help the poor or not? Should we care about the wellbeing of people in Haiti or not? If the true answers to those questions stem from religious values, or if the people we have elected to represent us (or the people we've drafted to defend us) believe the true answers to those questions stem from religious values, then we can't remove religion from government anymore than we can remove the laws of physics from government. It would just be a sham to pretend otherwise.
What we can remove from government is the direct influence of religious organizations on lawmaking, laws the restrict believing or nonbelief, or any official sanction of a given religion above other religions. Saying a prayer before a government meeting would not entail any of those - particularly if different religious denominations conduct the prayer at different meetings.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Tres, you are completely missing the point. Helping the poor is not a question that needs to have any relevance to religious values whatsoever. Atheists donate all the time because of basic human empathy and because it makes the world a better place and for a bunch of other possible reasons. Claiming that right and wrong hinge on religious beliefs (you try to back away from this point halfway through your post, but it's still clearly there) is genuinely offensive in addition to being wrong.
There may be some people whose religious values tell them they should help the poor. There may be other people with religious values that tell them they shouldn't, or that they should or shouldn't help minorities or women or whatever.
It is not the government's job to decide which religious groups' definition of right will be enforced. It is also not the government's job to promote any particular religion and thus make people who are not part of that religion feel underrepresented.
It is the government's job to make logical, justifiable decisions about the welfare of the nation.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:if the people we have elected to represent us (or the people we've drafted to defend us) believe the true answers to those questions stem from religious values
In other words, if our elected officials are religious and their values stem from their religion then religion cannot be removed from government. True that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: There should be no official prayers at inaugurations or meetings, and there should be no military chaplains.
Bull. I was in the Army, and while I am not overly religious, the chaplain was a crucial part of being in the field. I soldier gives up a lot of freedoms, but his religion is not one of them.
You don't like it, YOU go in the field and risk your life for us.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoberTillNoon: I would go that far because it has gotten to the point that candidates are being elected on their religious beliefs and that is exactly what the constitution wanted to prohibit.
No, it isn't. Show me where it says that.
Religious freedom was meant to protect people's right to believe in whatever religion they chose, and to prevent an official religion of the USA from being chosen. The founders most certainly did not have any idea of what WE consider separation of Church and State in this day and age.
Your beliefs are as valid as mine regarding religion, but do not supersede my right to believe as I choose, and my right to free speech means I am allowed to discuss my views on it. Any law preventing that would be struck down as unconstitutional.
Alcon, don't let it break your heart, it's only Mal. He thinks everyone who doesn't agree with him is lying about why, and has claimed on multiple occasions that his in the only right path.
I'd be more worried if he approved of you, quite frankly.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Having had more time to think I would like to acknowledge that Tres DID have a point (that you can't divorce the religious beliefs from individual candidates, and those beliefs are going to impact their decisions one way or another). But I was busy being mad at the attempt to sneak in a "and morals hinge on religious beliefs" remark while simultaneously trying to say "Not that I necessarily think this, but other people do!"
And for the record, I'm fine with candidates acknowledging their beliefs. The fact that admitting to atheism would be political suicide is bad, but something that has to be fixed over time with society as a whole. Getting rid of religion's ubiquitous place in government (in the form of "In god we trust," and "Under God," etc) wouldn't fix it overnight but it would help put atheism on an even footing.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: There should be no official prayers at inaugurations or meetings, and there should be no military chaplains.
Bull. I was in the Army, and while I am not overly religious, the chaplain was a crucial part of being in the field. I soldier gives up a lot of freedoms, but his religion is not one of them.
I don't have a problem with military "chaplains" as long as they exist from a wide range of religions and are there to support soldiers at their option. There is no need for a single prayer before a large gathering (especially a mandatory one)... let the chaplains hold smaller prayer sessions prior to the event for those that wish to attend.
quote: You don't like it, YOU go in the field and risk your life for us.
I really hate this kind of attitude. I understand the knee-jerk reaction to an "armchair quarterback" but our military is supposed to be fighting for the things our country is supposed to stand for... Our free speech and freedom of religion - as well as our protection from a state religion - are things our country is supposed to stand for. For anyone in our military to have the attitude of "enlist or shut up" is against the very reason we supposedly have a military, not to mention against the oath you swore when you joined - you know, the one that says you swear to uphold our Constitution.
So go ahead and make your case as to why the chaplain is important but please avoid the "I wore a uniform so I'm better than you" crap.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Perhaps someone can point out to me where in the US Constitution or any amendments it talks about Church and State?
As far as I know the only time it was even mentioned was Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist church. In the letter he expressed the importance of not have a state church such as the Church of England. Nowhere in the letter does it talk about excluding God or religion from the government.
I'm interested in researching the history of how it has evolved to what it is now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me: I don't have a problem with military "chaplains" as long as they exist from a wide range of religions and are there to support soldiers at their option. There is no need for a single prayer before a large gathering (especially a mandatory one)... let the chaplains hold smaller prayer sessions prior to the event for those that wish to attend.
It isn't "just you" in this case. Chaplains are there to support soldiers and their families along with many other services - medical, psychological, financial, emotional, and so forth. They can be made available without being imposed.
For some people, their moral system is based on religion. For others, it is based on personal philosophy or moral reasoning or expediency or any number of things or combinations of those things.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Perhaps someone can point out to me where in the US Constitution or any amendments it talks about Church and State?
As far as I know the only time it was even mentioned was Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist church. In the letter he expressed the importance of not have a state church such as the Church of England. Nowhere in the letter does it talk about excluding God or religion from the government.
I'm interested in researching the history of how it has evolved to what it is now.
The establishment clause of the first amendment was not intended to keep God out of government per se, however; when you have government-sanctioned prayers at official events you do tread dangerously close to giving tacit approval to one religion over another, which may be seen as a government endorsement of religion. There is a lot of gray area here, but while "separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson that has been adopted by the general public, despite it not appearing in the constitution, if you read further into the letter you will find that he clearly states the purpose of that amendment. I can't recall exactly, but when he spoke of the wall of separation between church and state he specifically said that church could influence government, but not the other way around.
So the question is whether or not a government-sanctioned prayer at a meeting of congress is government influencing religion or religion influencing government?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: There should be no official prayers at inaugurations or meetings, and there should be no military chaplains.
Bull. I was in the Army, and while I am not overly religious, the chaplain was a crucial part of being in the field. I soldier gives up a lot of freedoms, but his religion is not one of them.
I don't have a problem with military "chaplains" as long as they exist from a wide range of religions and are there to support soldiers at their option. There is no need for a single prayer before a large gathering (especially a mandatory one)... let the chaplains hold smaller prayer sessions prior to the event for those that wish to attend.
quote: You don't like it, YOU go in the field and risk your life for us.
I really hate this kind of attitude. I understand the knee-jerk reaction to an "armchair quarterback" but our military is supposed to be fighting for the things our country is supposed to stand for... Our free speech and freedom of religion - as well as our protection from a state religion - are things our country is supposed to stand for. For anyone in our military to have the attitude of "enlist or shut up" is against the very reason we supposedly have a military, not to mention against the oath you swore when you joined - you know, the one that says you swear to uphold our Constitution.
So go ahead and make your case as to why the chaplain is important but please avoid the "I wore a uniform so I'm better than you" crap.
I never said anything about better than you, that's your own beliefs speaking. I DO believe that before you take away actual Constitutional rights away from the people who actually serve in combat you would have a better understanding of what they go though, and I don't believe that it is possible for someone comfortably typing at a computer do know what that is like unless they did it themselves.
You advocated removing one of the most time honored and important military jobs, one that is constantly and consistently rated critical to morale and performance, with no experience, no personal stake at risk, and no actual idea of what they do for soldiers. The fact of the matter is that there are chaplains of many different denominations, and 99% of their duties DO involve small prayer groups and individual meetings.
You aren't stupid (nor would I ever claim you were), but you are woefully ignorant of what they do, how they do it, and why it is important. I was in the Army for 3 years, and I probably heard 3 prayers at large meetings total, if even that many. One person's experience doesn't mean every post is like that. Hell, it may not even mean THAT post is actually like that.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:I never said anything about better than you, that's your own beliefs speaking.
OK... sorry if I read too much into your words or misinterpreted you. I was speaking from my past experience (with others saying similar things, not with you specifically) and should not have automatically lumped you in. I apologize.
quote:I DO believe that before you take away actual Constitutional rights away from the people who actually serve in combat you would have a better understanding of what they go though, and I don't believe that it is possible for someone comfortably typing at a computer do know what that is like unless they did it themselves.
What actual Constitutional right? Where in the constitution is the right of access to clergy? I don't think anyone is saying that we should be taking away anyones right to worship as they choose, but there is some question as to whether is is appropriate that the government provide religious leaders.
quote:You advocated removing one of the most time honored and important military jobs
I think if you go back and read my post you will see I never advocated anything. In fact my exact words were I don't have a problem with military "chaplains"a s long as they exist from a wide range of religions and are there to support soldiers at their option.
I never claimed to know anything about exactly the role a chaplain plays in the Army. I merely laid out the parameters of when I would/wouldn't be OK with something. If you're telling me the current operation of the Army meets those parameters then obviously I'm fine with it. That was the whole point of using the conditional to begin with.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote: So the question is whether or not a government-sanctioned prayer at a meeting of congress is government influencing religion or religion influencing government? [/QB]
How about neither? Is the prayer's purpose to convert? Not likely. Is the purpose to form a state church? Nope. I think it is safe to say that a government sanctioned prayer is not being used to further either establishments ends.
It is a tradition. As someone mentioned earlier, they rotate the types of prayers that are said each time.
I believe there is an annual breakfast each year at the White House that brings religious leaders from all across the US together. I don't see anything wrong with this.
Thomas Jefferson said his statement in a letter. As far as I know, he never implemented or brought these concerns up in an official capacity. This means it was a belief of his. If he made an official statement to Congress or as President of the United States, I'd love to read it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As someone mentioned earlier, they rotate the types of prayers that are said each time.
They should also rotate in not saying any prayers. Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote: So the question is whether or not a government-sanctioned prayer at a meeting of congress is government influencing religion or religion influencing government?
How about neither? Is the prayer's purpose to convert? Not likely. Is the purpose to form a state church? Nope. I think it is safe to say that a government sanctioned prayer is not being used to further either establishments ends.
Why all this talk about intentions?
How about, rather than putting yourself in the shoes of the believer in the religious majority, and trying to figure out what the person in the majority would feel, put yourself in the shoes of the religious minority, and imagine how they would feel. The one who contantly hears from the media, and even politicians, that s/he's not a "real American", because they don't believe the same things that "real America" is based on.
Would you really feel that you as a citizen were being respected fully if every day, you were reminded that everyone held religious beliefs that were deemed worthy of public acknowledgement and celebration except for you?
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As someone mentioned earlier, they rotate the types of prayers that are said each time.
They should also rotate in not saying any prayers.
They spend almost all of their time not saying any prayers.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Is it possible for the government, simply through its own actions, to make religious minorities feel respected by American culture? Is that the goal, and is it a feasible goal?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:put yourself in the shoes of the religious minority, and imagine how they would feel. The one who contantly hears from the media, and even politicians, that s/he's not a "real American", because they don't believe the same things that "real America" is based on.
I'm struggling to think of anytime I've heard 'main-stream-media' or a politician say anything like this. At least not in respect to religious belief. Any specific instances you're thinking of here?
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm struggling to think of anytime I've heard 'main-stream-media' or a politician say anything like this.
You've never heard anyone assert that ours is a Christian nation -- just as an example?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:put yourself in the shoes of the religious minority, and imagine how they would feel. The one who contantly hears from the media, and even politicians, that s/he's not a "real American", because they don't believe the same things that "real America" is based on.
I'm struggling to think of anytime I've heard 'main-stream-media' or a politician say anything like this. At least not in respect to religious belief. Any specific instances you're thinking of here?
quote:Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists? Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
More to the point, the fact that the president is sworn in on a Bible, the fact that several state constitutions still require a "religious test" for office (even if it's rarely enforced), the fact that our currency (I'd certainly consider a form of mainstream media), and the pledge of allegiance to our country all remind us that being religious is still the official sanctioned norm.
(Edit: Oh, an Tom's example is EXTREMELY common)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
These two people sum up my opinion on the subject quite well
quote: (government) sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.
Justice John Paul Stevens
quote:The most important point for believers is that when we confuse biblical faith with civil religion, we dilute the former and use the latter to create an idol of our nation or our community. In short, we wind up praying nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayers. In short, we are praying to the god of civil religion, which is our own nation or community--in short, ourselves. With no biblical mandate for public prayer and with the risk of idolatry that accompanies acts of civil religion, serious Christians should hardly need the Supreme Court to tell us to stop engaging in prayer before football games.
Barry Hankins, assistant professor of history and church state studies at the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church State Studies at Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
Both quotes were made in the context of a Supreme court ruling on prayers at a Texas High School football game but in my opinion they apply equally well to prayers in Congress.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
[EDIT: I posted this after seeing Tom's post and apparently right before a deluge of posting] I guess I see the linkage; perhaps it's interpretation as I've always found that to mean "Ours is a nation with a majority of Christians" if only because the few times I can remember politicians actually saying that it was followed with some stat on percentage of Christians. Still I was thinking more along the exclusionary lines but I suppose that could fit the bill of 'anything like this'.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Still I was thinking more along the exclusionary lines but I suppose that could fit the bill of 'anything like this'.
Ours is a non-Mormon nation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: [QB]
quote:Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists? Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
You should be aware that there is no evidence that this interview ever took place. Sherman has changed the story numerous times and his honesty about such things is highly suspect. Several noted atheist organization have declared this story to be a myth and requested that people stop reporting it as fact.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The "Christian Nation" thing is often specified to mean "our founding fathers INTENDED this to be a Christian Nation."
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ray, I agree that's horrendous so I'll say my question is answered. I guess I'd put 1987 before my political horizon but what they hey, right?
The examples are important, I think, but not quite on the question I was asking. I think this thread is a discussion of 'reminders', as you say, of one religion's dominance and how that can (or should) be dealt with. The comment I quoted was a declaration not that there are constant reminders, but outright declarations of 'un-American' (ala the Bush quote you cited) for minority religions. I suppose unused religious tests count though not being familiar with any I probably shouldn't comment.
Hobbes Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ours is a Caucasian nation (Edit to add: Too slow, was aimed at being after Tom's post)
These two are more recent, but perhaps not mainstream enough:
quote:"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
quote:"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.
I believe that the "real American" reference refers to Sarah Palin, but she wasn't denouncing just non-Christians. She was denouncing whole cities at a go.
[ February 01, 2010, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Another recent one I remember (although I'm having a hard time finding the original source) was a statement made in the vicinity of 9/11 that "no atheists died in the trade towers," (they apparently all converted just before death). I think this one was actually censored by the newspaper in question before printing, but the sentiment was still there.
More common (and recent) is the "no atheists in foxholes" thing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The comment I quoted was a declaration not that there are constant reminders, but outright declarations of 'un-American' (ala the Bush quote you cited) for minority religions. I suppose unused religious tests count though not being familiar with any I probably shouldn't comment.
It is important to recognize that the validity of this quote is highly suspect. This was not a recorded or broadcast interview or even one reported at the time. It is a story told by Sherman which even many atheist organization believe to be highly embellished.
A Bush apologist is the last thing I am, but there is no credible evidence that he actually said this. Its a legend.
Atheists will lose their skeptic credentials if they keep swallowing this kind of story hook, liner and sinker.
[ February 01, 2010, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote: So the question is whether or not a government-sanctioned prayer at a meeting of congress is government influencing religion or religion influencing government?
How about neither? Is the prayer's purpose to convert? Not likely. Is the purpose to form a state church? Nope. I think it is safe to say that a government sanctioned prayer is not being used to further either establishments ends.
Why all this talk about intentions?
How about, rather than putting yourself in the shoes of the believer in the religious majority, and trying to figure out what the person in the majority would feel, put yourself in the shoes of the religious minority, and imagine how they would feel. The one who contantly hears from the media, and even politicians, that s/he's not a "real American", because they don't believe the same things that "real America" is based on.
Would you really feel that you as a citizen were being respected fully if every day, you were reminded that everyone held religious beliefs that were deemed worthy of public acknowledgement and celebration except for you?
Is there an established Atheist religion? Do they pray? I would be fine with having no prayer one year as part of the rotation to please the atheists.
What does "Real America" believe? What do you mean by this? I don't think "Real America" (if by this you mean religious people) is telling people what they can and can't do in government. I believe the majority comes from people telling what religious actions can and can't do.
That doesn't mean that either side is right or wrong. I think there is a line that has to be made by both sides. If equal time and consideration is given to groups on both sides of the debate, I'm fine with it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
[quote[Is there an established Atheist religion? Do they pray? I would be fine with having no prayer one year as part of the rotation to please the atheists.[/quote]
But why do it at all? What purpose is served by opening a government meeting of people of diverse religious backgrounds with a prayer?
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by SoberTillNoon: I would go that far because it has gotten to the point that candidates are being elected on their religious beliefs and that is exactly what the constitution wanted to prohibit.
No, it isn't. Show me where it says that.
I know, it is wikipedia, but this one is accurate The constitution states that no person should be held to a test of religion as a requirement for political office. That is in there. that is the only thing in there regarding govt and religion. And we the people of this united states have pretty much invalidated that sentiment of the constitution by imposing our own religious tests for office. This is in effect apposing the intent of the constitution.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This is in effect apposing the intent of the constitution.
By itself this is an incredibly weak argument because the US Constitution also has parts that deal with how our representatives will be elected, and its intentions to protect that process, too. There's certainly a case to be made that de facto religious tests go against the intent of portions of the constitution, but to say it as though the entire constitution is against it and leave it at that is, at best, incomplete.
Also, boy, no military chaplains is about the dumbest idea I've heard all week. But it is only Monday night.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm as dismayed as anyone at the de facto religious test that is currently required to serve in high public office, but it's not contrary to the Constitution which is a document describing the powers and limitations of government. It has nothing to say about what criteria individual citizens may choose to base their votes on.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoberTillNoon: The constitution states that no person should be held to a test of religion as a requirement for political office.
So consequently, you want to outlaw any mention of religion by a candidate?
Personally, if a candidate running in my jurisdiction is a member of Scientology, or the Moonies, or the Creativity Movement, I want to know about it.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
"Creativity Movement"? I'd be all over a client who believed in a "creativity movement". Creationist, however, well lets say finding out about Govenor Palin's interesting church helped me right her off as a fringe candidate worth defeating.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm as dismayed as anyone at the de facto religious test that is currently required to serve in high public office, but it's not contrary to the Constitution which is a document describing the powers and limitations of government. It has nothing to say about what criteria individual citizens may choose to base their votes on.
Exactly. Man, the Constitution gets blamed and credited for all sorts of things.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I'd be all over a client who believed in a "creativity movement"
ooops, I figured it was a movement for being creative.
No creativity in that movement other than creative use of logic to kill...logic.
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The "Christian Nation" thing is often specified to mean "our founding fathers INTENDED this to be a Christian Nation."
You see, though, many of our founding fathers were not religious let alone christians. So that argument is kind of moot.
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: So consequently, you want to outlaw any mention of religion by a candidate?
Personally, if a candidate running in my jurisdiction is a member of Scientology, or the Moonies, or the Creativity Movement, I want to know about it.
Why should it matter if your local candidate believes in Zenu or Christ? How much of a difference is there really?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Something akin to the difference between a crazy person that believes he can hear Napoleon in his head and a crazy person that can hear both Napoleon *and* the entire cast of Friends in his head.
That they're both deluded isn't an excuse to throw up our hands and treat them as equal. One should at least try to measure and minimize the amount of delusion that one has to deal with.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
If someone told you that they really could hear Napoleon in my head, would you automatically assume that I was crazy.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Something akin to the difference between a crazy person that believes he can hear Napoleon in his head and a crazy person that can hear both Napoleon *and* the entire cast of Friends in his head.
That they're both deluded isn't an excuse to throw up our hands and treat them as equal. One should at least try to measure and minimize the amount of delusion that one has to deal with.
Including the delusion that you know anything about what other people believe, or how that effects their choices and actions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not sure why it would be delusional to take people's word on what they believe and how it *affects* their choices and actions.
I appreciate that you're making things personal though.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoberTillNoon: Why should it matter if your local candidate believes in Zenu or Christ? How much of a difference is there really?
The responses of others notwithstanding, why it matters has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal for him to say it, or for me to know it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Constantly calling other people's religious beliefs delusions is insulting, belittling, and narrow-minded.
I'm not the one who made it personal.
Believe what you want, it doesn't matter to me. But continue this here, and it may not go well. I'm pretty sure it's against the TOC of this site.
I can quote it if you want, but I doubt it is necessary. You already know it, it's been brought up before.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Bah. Thats absurd.
First, a categorization of religious beliefs as a delusion is no more inherently insulting than if I related them to a broken leg or a virus. Unless you label or stigmatize mental illness as a moral failing (which is in itself a problem), that just doesn't fly.
Second, I was answering SoberTillNoon's question, which is essentially about two hypothetical candidates that are roughly equal except for their religious beliefs. Unless you also happen to be that hypothetical candidate, then I am not remotely making it personal. In fact, AFAIK, I have not addressed you in this conversation at all until you addressed me.
Lastly, it is a convention that while you cannot attack others for their beliefs, it is certainly within bounds to attack the beliefs themselves.
Thus, I think it would probably be more useful for you to simply 'chill out.'
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:First, a categorization of religious beliefs as a delusion is no more inherently insulting than if I related them to a broken leg or a virus.
I think most religious people would find comparison of their beliefs to a broken leg insulting too. Actually people in general would probably consider comparing personal belief in anything to physical illness insulting.
quote:it is certainly within bounds to attack the beliefs themselves
What bounds? There's a big difference between attack and discuss.
Hobbes Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I find it offensive, and have reported it. And I am hardly the only one, I am sure.
I am not a particularly religious person. I don't regularly attend a church, nor do I really care what other people think of my views most of the time.
Yet I credit my religion, particularly as a youth, for helping me become the person I am today. My Christian upbringing made me aware of how fortunate I was, and how I should behave towards other people. How I should respect myself, and how that respect carried over to other people.
You can talk about how irrational it is to you all you want, but there is something pathetic about only believing what you see and touch to me. I can't touch love, but I know it exists. I can't touch anger, greed, or hope, but they exist as well.
I don't challenge science's effectiveness in the physical world. I support it highly, and believe it is a wonderful tool to help us understand and manipulate the physical world we live in.
But I don't believe it will ever have ALL the answers. It is ONE tool, not the only one.
Religion, to me and many other people, is the reason WHY we want to be able to do these things. It gives us a moral standard, particularly when we are young, to help us develop as people. We are not machines.
I believe we are more than the sum of our parts. I also believe that religion helps us address the unseen, and makes us happier, live longer, and become better people.
If you fail to see how relating this to a virus, or a broken leg, is not insulting, you aren't half as intelligent as you seem to think you are.
Consider this conversation reported.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: ... Actually people in general would probably consider comparing personal belief in anything to physical illness insulting.
Actually, I don't define what I consider insulting based on what people who disagree with me think. For example, while it seems a majority of Muslims would consider a depiction of Muhammad insulting, I refuse to simply agree based on popularity.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
As I said....not as smart as you think you are, for sure. Not because of refusing to bow to popular ideas.......but because you fail to see why something like that would be insulting.
Thinking science is the answer to everything is as much a failing as thinking religion is as well.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think using the word "delusion" hurts/offends in a particular way, but I'm not sure why. Anyone who holds a religious belief that contradicts a religious belief held by someone else would seem to believe that the other person is deluded. They might refrain from saying it that way, but "I believe that what you believe is false" is pretty much an equivalent statement to "You are deluded". One of the definitions of delusion is "a false belief or opinion".
Are people offended by the mental illness connotations of the word? I suppose I can understand that, but the cause of a delusion needn't be inferred by calling something a delusion. Someone who believes the earth is flat and the center of the universe is deluded, but in some cases they might simply need a little education - it doesn't necessarily mean they are mentally defective.
Now obviously it's far more polite to refrain from bluntly saying that other people are wrong. Polite conversation doesn't really permit certain sorts of discussions at all, though.
ETA: "you aren't as smart as you think you are" is equally insulting and impolite, IMO. "You are deluded about your intelligence."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Kwea: I find it ironic that while you claim to be insulted by a fairly dry comparison of religion to a delusion or a virus, you go ahead and throw out numerous statements about how religion is required for a moral standard, to not be machines, to be "better" people, and so forth (the implication that those without religion don't have a moral standard, are machines, are "worse" people, etc.).
However, I'm not going to pretend to be particularly upset. I will point out that you can easily look into why one might want to model beliefs as a virus, or a meme. In the spirit of the TED thread, here's one http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes.html Just try not to hyperventilate.
quote:If you fail to see how relating this to a virus, or a broken leg, is not insulting, you aren't half as intelligent as you seem to think you are.
There's a difference between seeing why someone might believe a thing and actually agreeing with it. For example, I can see why, say, that aforementioned Creativity Movement religion might feel insulted by the notion that people are equal. That doesn't mean I agree that they should feel insulted.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Funny, I don't see the word required anywhere in my post. Could you show me where I said that?
I also never said people who aren't religious were bad people, but don't let that fact stop you from claiming I said it.
Unless you MEANT to misstate my actual arguments, of course.
If you claim to be basing your belief system on your rational beliefs and observations of the world around you, perhaps you should start with a remedial reading class. I never said that religion should be required, nor that it was the only path to developing morals. Any assumptions of that lie in YOUR mind, not mine.
Religion is a major way a large amount of people learn to share beliefs and morals though. I hear a lot of people bitching about all the injustice in religions, but I never hear about the good it does. Religious people help other people a lot, both with money and goods donations, but in other less tangible ways as well.
I fail to see a broken leg doing the same. And you were hardly equating religious beliefs to a virus because of the way they spread.....unless broken limbs also travel that way.
[ February 08, 2010, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I went to a fundraising dinner at my daughter's school friday evening and they started off with a prayer.
Yes, public school. Yes, school-run fundraiser. (for eighth-grade trip to Washington)
[ February 08, 2010, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
The word "delusion" is a rather loaded term, but from the point of view of an atheist its use is not in and of itself an insult (though it may and often does accompany one). For people who've read Xenocide, think Valentine's use of the term "interfere" when talking to Miro. I don't think Mucus has crossed a line -- I think he's stepping into the gray area inherent in general TOS (and don't think I'm not still wrestling with those).
I've noticed a semi-regular pattern where a given statement isn't necessarily over the line, but the defense of the statement can be. Offense is not intended, but offense is perceived, and the discussion moves from the topic to the offense itself and goes downhill quickly. Happens in almost every category of topic. I haven't seen everything over the past month, because my schedule has been rather uncontrollable over the past month, but fewer people seem to be rising to the bait they're given -- I appreciate it.
Criticism (or attack) of closely-held beliefs can be difficult to distinguish from personal attack. My sense is to try to find a reading of the statement (and its context, because non-attack statements can be combined to form an attack, and because statements which would be attacks when they stand alone may not be intended as such*) that isn't a personal attack. It's not very often I can't find one, though there are times.
*For example, every analogy fails at some point, and in almost any case one can find an objectionable characteristic in the analogy that wasn't part of its intent. Gets worse when you combine or interweave them, which I think happened above with the broken leg/virus thing, where the point of the analogy seemed (to me) to be the clinical nature of the term (delusion), and specifically not the qualitative nature of the object. I could be wrong. If offense was intended, Mucus, please stop it.
Um... proceed, I guess. Just keep it measured.
--PJ
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:You should be aware that there is no evidence that this interview ever took place.
quote: Several noted atheist organization have declared this story to be a myth and requested that people stop reporting it as fact.
Rabbit, do you have a cite for that? Because in addition to the fact that American Atheists wrote to the White House and got a response that indicated that Bush's beliefs are compatible with those that Sherman recorded, I also wrote to the Bush Library several years ago, and was told that although they will not offer additional comment, they did have information regarding the incident that they were not willing to make public.
On reviewing Sherman's current website, he says that two documents corroborating his story are now available from the Bush Library, and provides explicit instructions on how to obtain them. I haven't requested them yet, but given your reaction to Raymond's post, I probably will, in short order.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ... I fail to see a broken leg doing the same. And you were hardly equating religious beliefs to a virus because of the way they spread.....unless broken limbs also travel that way.
Actually, as PJ pointed out, I should make the analogies more clear. Different atheists compare religion to different things in order to underscore different behaviours or characteristics.
Dawkins compares religion to a delusion to emphasize the fact that people insist on things like a Creator god or communication with deities against all the available evidence. From our POV, theists are often literally talking to voices in their head. Dennett compares religion to a meme, a mental virus, in order to model how religion spreads from person to person and hijacks their behaviour. I can't remember who used the disability analogy, but the pattern should be clear.
And I would re-emphasize, that things like a delusion or a viral disease. These are not supposed to be things that are inherently shameful. If I catch a cold or suffer a mental breakdown, these are not moral judgments.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I also never said people who aren't religious were bad people, but don't let that fact stop you from claiming I said it.
Kwea, I think it's at least as legitimate to interpret
quote:[Religion] gives us a moral standard, particularly when we are young, to help us develop as people. We are not machines.
as an insult against the moral fiber of non-religious people as it is to interpet "Religious people are delusional" as an insult against the intellectual integrity of religious people. Honestly I don't even know how you'd interpret it to mean something other than "being religious makes you more moral and less machinelike," and both of those are conditions translate pretty directly to "bad" in most people's minds.
And as noted, "being delusional" doesn't even necessarily carry negative conotations, whereas being "less moral" almost always does.
You really do not have the high ground here.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Bump, because I'm waiting for an answer from Rabbit.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:[Religion] gives us a moral standard...
A new study says "nuh-uh." Essentially it concludes that people respond similarly to novel moral dilemmas regardless of their religious background or lack thereof.
quote:The study draws on tests of moral judgements using versions of the web-based Moral Sense Test that Hauser and others have developed at Harvard. These tests present dilemmas ranging from how to handle freeloaders at 'bring a dish' dinner parties to the justification of killing someone to save others. Few, if any, of the answers can be looked up in holy books.
quote:Thousands of people — varying widely in social background, age, education, religious affiliation and ethnicity — have taken the tests. Pyysiäinen and Hauser say the results (mainly still in the publication pipeline) indicate that "moral intuitions operate independently of religious background", although religion may influence responses in a few highly specific cases.
I think at this point it's been made pretty clear that the reference to 'giving us morality' was specifically that religious people do derive a moral standard from religion, not that those without religion have no moral standard. I'm pretty convinced that this is true, but even if it isn't that's clearly not what seems to be repeatedly argued against here.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What's fundamentally broken about religious people, then, that they need to do so?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think at this point it's been made pretty clear that the reference to 'giving us morality' was specifically that religious people do derive a moral standard from religion
Or, as the research indicates, everyone has the same basic moral standard and religious people just assume that because their religion claims to provide a moral standard that it must have done so.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ok, so I requested the documents from the Bush Library. I don't expect them to shed much more light, because I've read quotes from them, and all they do is show that Bush was made aware of Sherman's accusation, and that he refused to apologize for his comment. If it didn't happen, then he could have denied the allegations, but he didn't do so.
As to Rabbit:
First: This isn't a myth or legend. In a myth, the source is unknown, and the roots of the story have been obscured by retelling and antiquity. This event occurred at a specific place, at a specific time, and is described by a first hand participant in the event, who was credentialed journalist, and who took notes. Bush has been made aware of the accusation, and has never disputed that the event occurred. The use of the term "Myth" is intellectually dishonest.
Second: Your attempt to discredit the source is similar to the attempts to discredit global warming experts, in that without any evidence to the contrary, you are casting vague aspersions in an attempt to discredit an eyewitness account. Granted, there is a difference in the evidence, but neither you nor anyone else that I am aware of has provided any evidence that the event didn't happen as described.
Third: The sound bite rings true. There is a prevailing attitude that since atheists are just wrong, they can be safely marginalized. The whole "America is a Christian Nation" and "There are no atheists in foxholes" perception revolves around the assumption that atheists are immoral and unpatriotic. Regardless what Bush did or didn't say, a quick look around the internet and you can find a huge number of similar quotes, many of them much worse. Given how often politicians use the flag and the cross to gain public support, it makes sense that a politician would have made such a comment.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:The..."There are no atheists in foxholes" perception revolves around the assumption that atheists are immoral and unpatriotic.
Actually, I don't think that's true at all. Rather, that expression means that atheists will suddenly see the appeal of belief in God once they're under imminent threat of death.
Either way, it is false, but I don't think it's any comment on the patriotism or morality of atheists.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I think you're right with respect to the reason why the phrase was coined, but it is very definitely used since then to indicate that atheists are unpatriotic.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:What's fundamentally broken about religious people, then, that they need to do so?
quote:Or, as the research indicates, everyone has the same basic moral standard and religious people just assume that because their religion claims to provide a moral standard that it must have done so.
When I was on my mission we were supposed to wake up at 6:30am; the first place I stayed I did it every morning without fail because I thought it was right and it was important to me. When I went to the next place I lived in the basement of a couple's house; we wanted to make a good impression so I started doing several things to do just that, including waking up early. The behavior was exactly the same but the reason was different. And the way I know it was different is that when I knew I could wake up later and they wouldn't notice (to my shame) I did.
Hobbes Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think you're just proving the point, Hobbes. There's no real moral reason to get up at 6:30 AM. That's a very specific and arbitrary requirement of an assigned role within the religion, not a moral standard. The underlying principle - obedience - is not one that is itself moral; e.g. you shouldn't be obedient to an evil authority.
Now, most people who make a promise to get up at 6:30 AM every day will agree that it's right for them to keep the promise - but most people wouldn't make that promise without a good reason. What your story tends to demonstrate is that arbitrary standards inculcated by the religion are difficult to uphold.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Now, most people who make a promise to get up at 6:30 AM every day will agree that it's right for them to keep the promise - but most people wouldn't make that promise without a good reason. What your story tends to demonstrate is that arbitrary standards inculcated by the religion are difficult to uphold.
I think you missed the point, people (or in this case: even the same person) can do the same things for different reasons. It doesn't matter that I would've gotten up at 6:30am without someone watching over me, at the second location I got up for that reason specifically. It doesn't matter if everyone would have exactly the same moral standard with or without religion, for those of us who are religious that is our reason.
As a side not, my story had nothing to do with the fact that I failed later on, just that my reasoning had changed, the fact that I did was merely proof of the change.
quote:I think you're just proving the point, Hobbes. There's no real moral reason to get up at 6:30 AM. That's a very specific and arbitrary requirement of an assigned role within the religion, not a moral standard. The underlying principle - obedience - is not one that is itself moral; e.g. you shouldn't be obedient to an evil authority.
This is the other problem, whose deciding what's moral or not? I think you're aware that to LDS obedience is a moral issue (though it's true you'd have to be specific about obedience to what) and not the same across all people. If your definition of arbitrary is that it isn't universal then of course all non-arbitrary moral positions are universally shared. But even if all moral positions are universal and are equally adhered to by everyone that doesn't mean the reasons are the same.
Hobbes Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:I also never said people who aren't religious were bad people, but don't let that fact stop you from claiming I said it.
Kwea, I think it's at least as legitimate to interpret
quote:[Religion] gives us a moral standard, particularly when we are young, to help us develop as people. We are not machines.
as an insult against the moral fiber of non-religious people as it is to interpet "Religious people are delusional" as an insult against the intellectual integrity of religious people. Honestly I don't even know how you'd interpret it to mean something other than "being religious makes you more moral and less machinelike," and both of those are conditions translate pretty directly to "bad" in most people's minds.
And as noted, "being delusional" doesn't even necessarily carry negative conotations, whereas being "less moral" almost always does.
You really do not have the high ground here.
Bull.
I was talking about a subsection of people.....the religious one.....who use those teachings as a guide to their behavior. I never said, or implied, that atheists weren't moral, or didn't have their own ways of teaching morality to their children. If YOU read that into my statement, it shows me a couple of things.
First, it shows me you have no idea of who I am, or what I believe. That is't shocking, as we basically interact though an online forum.
The second thing it shows me is some of YOUR assumptions regarding other people. You assumed that's what I meant because that is how you read it, or you expected that to be what I meant.
We are NOT machines. We can't just have input directly entered into our brains as a command line. Religion helped ME learn about how to be a better person when I grew up, and the stories I was told helped me develop a moral sense of right and wrong that has served ME well. OTHER PEOPLE have different religions, beliefs, and ways of raising their children.....NONE of which invalidates MY upbringing.
I still find the comparison to a broken leg or a virus to be belittling and insulting, regardless of the excuses why it was said. Funny how people can ignore actual statements, yet read unintended meanings into my actual statements and get offended. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
(@Hobbes) OK, I may have missed your point. Still, I'd like to see you look at something at a lower level (not a rule justified by a behavioral system justified by a goal justified by...(etc)...a moral principle), to demonstrate that morality is derived from religion, rather than rationalized by it.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't think I understand what you're asking for, can you clarify?
Though even then I thought this discussion was about if religious people act out a specific morality because of their religion, which is what I was trying to prove, so maybe my confusion comes from not knowing exactly what you’re arguing here?
Hobbes Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:The second thing it shows me is some of YOUR assumptions regarding other people. You assumed that's what I meant because that is how you read it, or you expected that to be what I meant.
I don't know how to take this seriously given that you were the one who started by taking offense at something that wasn't intended to be offensive. I realize that it is common for jerk-atheists to deride religious people as stupid and backward. It is just as common (probably moreso when you're talking about sheer numbers, about the same when you account for demographic ratios) for religious people to deride atheists as immoral and machinelike.
Your statement is EXACTLY the kind that is made by religious people to disparage atheists all the time. And maybe you didn't intend it that way, but to sit there and say "You are obviously being deliberately offensive whereas I am merely making valid points that you are refusing to understand" is hypocritical, undermining the point you are trying to make.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I don't think I understand what you're asking for, can you clarify?
Though even then I thought this discussion was about if religious people act out a specific morality because of their religion, which is what I was trying to prove, so maybe my confusion comes from not knowing exactly what you’re arguing here?
Hobbes
What you've demonstrated is that the immediate reasons for following a rule can vary. Following that rule may be considered moral, but it's a bit too removed from the moral principles involved to make the example useful for a demonstration of how the religion imparted the morality.
If you could examine why people don't steal, or why they don't kill people, it might be a better case for whether the morality is really received from the religious teaching, or the religion merely puts some packaging around practically universal morals. (In other words, what I suspect is that the reasons why we don't kill or steal might be universal, unlike reasons for higher order extrapolations from moral principles.)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What you've demonstrated is that the immediate reasons for following a rule can vary.
Put another way, the proximate moral principal in the two waking up early examples wasn't "wake up early." In one case it was "be obedient" and in the other it was "impress hosts/neighbors" and each of those may be further removed from the core moral inclinations at their root.
So it's not a case of one moral behavior driven by two different justifications, but the expression of two different moral inclinations that happen to result in the same behavior.
Church teaches obedience but is it church that made you value obedience in the first place, or is an inclination towards obedience something that religion merely co-opted?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Your statement is EXACTLY the kind that is made by religious people to disparage atheists all the time. And maybe you didn't intend it that way, but to sit there and say "You are obviously being deliberately offensive whereas I am merely making valid points that you are refusing to understand" is hypocritical, undermining the point you are trying to make.
You are skipping over the critical distinction: there is a difference between me talking about me and me talking about you. To say *YOU* are immoral is a lot more offensive than to say *I* require religion to be moral. To say theists are delusional is a lot more offensive to theists than to say I see no evidence for theism. The two may infer the same thing, but if you say it in a way that directly passes judgement on the character or intelligence of the other person, it's going to cause more offense. That's mostly because attacking the other person directly seems to imply you think you are in a position to judge them, rather than an equal co-participant in the conversation who could just as easily be mistaken.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
While I realize, having went back to read it fourth time, what Kwea meant when he said
quote:Religion, to me and many other people, is the reason WHY we want to be able to do these things. It gives us a moral standard, particularly when we are young, to help us develop as people. We are not machines."
It honestly took me several read throughs to look past the common implication of "people who don't do what we do are less moral and more machinelike." It's the machinelike that particularly throws me - it's meaning is not clarified at all, it feels tacked on at the end and the only purpose I could see for it is to help reinforce the implication. Even now, I'm not really sure how it helps his point. When did anyone ever imply he was machinelike and why was it necessary to clarify that he was not?
Given how I was interpreting it, the distinction I was talking about doesn't exist.
On the flipside, the thing that atheists often leave out of the "virus" metaphor (sometimes deliberately, sometimes out of ignorance of what meme theory actually says, sometimes maliciously, but sometimes simply because they are lazy or honestly thought it was implied) is that atheism is ALSO a virus. All ideas are.
And as far as delusions go, as noted before, it is inherently implied by stating "my religion is true" that all other religions are not. You can avoid saying the word "delusional" if you consider it impolite, but the implication is there anyway. From my perspective, I'm not saying anything that religious people haven't already implied.
There are plenty of rude, obnoxious atheists out there, who go out of their way to ridicule religion at the slightest provocation. I have been guilty of that from time to time. But once a serious discussion about it is taking place, saying "So far religious people have presented no compelling evidence that there is an Abrahamic God out there, so the most likely conclusion for me to draw is that people believing such a God are delusional" is a perfectly legitimate statement.
I believe that religion has often been used as a tool for good, and that there are some people who genuinely need it. But I believe most people people who think they *need* religion to be moral and happy are mistaken - without religion they would have found a different way to be moral and happy. I believe that making moral decisions naturally lead to greater happiness - that we associate things with "goodness" because they are genuinely good both for the world as a whole and for us in particular. Even if at specific times they may seem inconvenient, humans are intelligent enough to learn to do them anyway for greater, longterm gain.
At the same time, I believe that the political infrastructure that comes with organized religion is dangerous. It's not inherently bad, but the lack of a check for objective analysis opens the doors for a few bad people to take advantage of a lot of good people, or for a few well-meaning but misguided people to take advantage of each other.
I don't think it is necessary or practical to go out of my way to try and stamp out religion as I know it, but I do think the world would be a better place without it. And in the context of a conversation where we are already talking about the value of religion, I do not feel the need to apologize for that.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'll correct myself from earlier. We weren't founded as a "Christian" nation but our founders sought a nation of religious freedom. When they spoke of religious freedom, I doubt they conceptualized the possibility of an atheist nation. Our nation was founded on the belief of God. Hindu, Budhist, Christian, Jewish or Muslim god. Our founders failed to perceive a future where people would not at a minimum, believe in god. The old arguments weren't about God, they were about the interpretation of God. Our founders wanted to prevent one interpretation from oppressing another.
They realized there were different beliefs and wanted to protect the right to believe differently. This protection has been twisted. We have freedom "of" religion not "from" religion. Their principles protect the atheist, Christian and Jew.
In my opinion, Atheism is a "theism". An atheist who takes legal action to remove a christian symbol is no different than a Christian who would sue to remove a Jewish symbol. An atheist can be the instigator of religious persecution. Religious freedom is a freedom of the individual, not the society. There can be no societal dictates,...ie no prayer in public. Laws stating their shall be no prayer are no different than laws that say their must be prayer.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Laws stating their shall be no prayer are no different than laws that say their must be prayer.
Is that the same way that laws saying I can't punch you are no different from laws that say I must punch you?
Because they seem really different to me.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: We are NOT machines. We can't just have input directly entered into our brains as a command line.
What if I say that we ARE machines, we just have a sloppy GUI that doesn't always work the way we want it to, and we don't (yet) have access to the command line?
Religion is one way to input information that one hopes will produce good results, but religion is really bloated code. Instead of just saying, "Hey, treat others nicely" it adds a bunch of other stuff into the message that confuses it and can lead to undesired or at least unintended behaviors.
If we can't get to the command line, at least we should try to minimize the messy inputs.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Laws stating their shall be no prayer are no different than laws that say their must be prayer.
Is that the same way that laws saying I can't punch you are no different from laws that say I must punch you?
Because they seem really different to me.
You're neglecting the "individual" freedom part. I have a right not to be punched but you have a right to self defense. Do atheist feel assaulted by a religious symbol or optional group prayer in a public place? I know Muslim's take Jewish and Christian symbols as offense in the middle east. There, religious persecution of Muslim over Infidel is normal. There, Islam forbids other symbols. Of course we will all accept this as persecution since it is one religion over another. In America we have movements to remove all religious symbols from the public arena. Is this any different?
If school student's want to pray together, they have that right. No student should be forced to participate. Lawsuits have been waged to prevent prayer of athletes prior to football games...why? The muslim could pray in his own way and the atheist wasn't forced to participate? Even the atheist will accept a moment of silence and reflection.
Our nation has moved away from the rights of the individual to the rights of society. I believe in individual freedom. The arguments of "Mother Russia" have proven tyrannical. We are not a nation of what is best for society, we are a nation of individual rights. You have a right to worship an oak tree and I can't demand all oak trees be cut down as offensive to my beliefs. As a Christian, could I bring suit to have all oak trees removed from public land? Let any and all religions, or lack there of, be freely expressed.....especially on public land. Public property symbolizes our individual freedom. As an individual, on public property is the only place we all have a right to tread. (public = government)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
malanthrop: I believe in individual freedom too. Individuals can pray quietly to themselves, they can't organize group prayers or hang their religious symbols in public buildings.
You have the right not to be punched in the face, I have the right not to have to sit through a prayer session at the beginning of a city meeting, or a public school graduation.
I never see Christians defending the right of Muslims or Scientologists or Church of Odin practitioners to lead a public school prayer before the basketball game.
I'd be happy to lead some prayers that are offensive to Christians. Let's see how the "individual" freedoms hold up to that.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I believe in individual freedom too. Individuals can pray quietly to themselves, they can't organize group prayers or hang their religious symbols in public buildings.
But atheists can congregate in groups, hang their signs of protest and congregate in opposition of religion.....in PUBLIC PLACES.
Perhaps the atheist should meditate quietly to themselves in opposition to the christian, then we'll all be on equal ground.
Atheism is a theism under the law.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Atheism is a theism under the law.
Now you're just being silly.
Christians can protest under the law just as equally as atheists.
Atheists can't post a sign in a classroom that says "Rule 1. Christians are Wrong. Rule 2. Atheists RULE!"
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The supreme court of the United States still has the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall.
I'm not saying atheists are wrong. I'm saying public spaces are open to the Koran, the Star of David, the Bible, and you can look at an empty wall to see atheism.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: and you can look at an empty wall to see atheism.
Again, you're not really arguing anything here. You can look at an empty wall and see anti-Americanism, because there isn't a flag there.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
An empty wall should be agnosticism, maybe a transparent wall would be atheism Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: An empty wall should be agnosticism, maybe a transparent wall would be atheism
Atheism would be an open door that everyone else in the room refuses to walk through because they insist that it's closed. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You can't argue my acceptance of all religions represented on the wall of a public space....which I completely support. Public spaces should represent the people and their individual rights. If a Christian came out and demanded the removal of the Star of David, you would call it persecution. A type of religious persecution that occurs all over the world. Calling for the removal of all religion is the same - even worse type of persecution.
I'm an extreme, right wing, conservative, born again christian, Iraq war vet defending the rights of American Muslims to represent their beliefs in a public place. I'm suppose to be the intolerant, racist, right wing nut-job. In reality I judge the individual and believe in individual freedom.
The supposed "intolerant" christian such as myself is far more tolerant of other religions sharing the public space on the basis of "individual freedom" than you. You would prefer the expulsion of all religions. I accept your right to believe as you do with equal access to public spaces.
The "state" is us and we are from very diverse backgrounds. Your atheist separation of church and state mentality is just as intolerant as Sharia Law. American Christians, Jews and Muslims aren't offended by each others symbols in a public place. In many ways, we have achieved the dreams of our founders. Religions in America have learned to coexist. Unfortunately our founders didn't foresee the intolerance of the atheist.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: American Christians, Jews and Muslims aren't offended by each others symbols in a public place.
Whew, pull the other one!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Who is upset at this and suing for that in a public place?
Muslims suing Jews over the star? Christians over the Koran? Jews over the Bible?
Always the atheists who don't want to be offended by religion.
For thousands of years the different believers were at war. A nation was founded where they could peacefully coexist on the basis of individual freedom, but non-believers arose to oppose them all.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A nation was founded where they could peacefully coexist on the basis of individual freedom, but non-believers arose to oppose them all.
Yep, there's the other one. Thanks! Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Always the atheists who don't want to be offended by religion.
Actually, I'd prefer that my tax money doesn't go to pay for symbols and monuments. Particularly ones that represent groups that think I deserve bad treatment. (If not bad treatment from the members, from the deity they believe in.)
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The supreme court of the United States still has the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall.
Of course you say this like it's a good thing, but I disagree. Even as a christian I disagree.
The 10 commandments have no place in a building that is supposed to judge by the laws of the nation. The implication of placing the commandments in this building are that they are somehow relevant to the function of the building. They're not. It would be downright scary if the US courts decided to try to enforce some of them... my son talked back to me today so maybe I should call and have him arrested...?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The supreme court of the United States still has the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall.
I would argue, by the way, to those people who sometimes wonder why atheists make a stink about this sort of thing, or why atheists are so "unreasonable" about getting "under God" out of the Pledge and off our money, that Mal's quote above is actually an excellent example: because those quotes are not there to represent the virtue of a given idea (especially in the case of something like "under God"), but rather to legitimize the claim that ours is a Christian nation. As long as someone like Mal can point to the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall as justification for the idea that atheists are simply non grata, I will argue that the Ten Commandments should come off that wall.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Atheism would be an open door that everyone else in the room refuses to walk through because they insist that it's closed.
Bazinga Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, it isn't just atheists who make a stink about such things.
*proudly flourishes ACLU card*
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Mal,
A blank wall is not atheism just as not praying isn't atheism. What you are describing is secularism - the absence of religious commentary either way.
A statement that religion is false would be an atheistic equivalent to a prayer and such statements are illegal in all of the same circumstances in which a prayer is illegal.
The mere absence of promotion is not opposition, it's neutrality.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The supreme court of the United States still has the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall.
I would argue, by the way, to those people who sometimes wonder why atheists make a stink about this sort of thing, or why atheists are so "unreasonable" about getting "under God" out of the Pledge and off our money, that Mal's quote above is actually an excellent example: because those quotes are not there to represent the virtue of a given idea (especially in the case of something like "under God"), but rather to legitimize the claim that ours is a Christian nation. As long as someone like Mal can point to the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall as justification for the idea that atheists are simply non grata, I will argue that the Ten Commandments should come off that wall.
I gotta agree wholeheartedly.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Scifi: What you've demonstrated is that the immediate reasons for following a rule can vary. Following that rule may be considered moral, but it's a bit too removed from the moral principles involved to make the example useful for a demonstration of how the religion imparted the morality.
quote:MattP: So it's not a case of one moral behavior driven by two different justifications, but the expression of two different moral inclinations that happen to result in the same behavior.
Church teaches obedience but is it church that made you value obedience in the first place, or is an inclination towards obedience something that religion merely co-opted?
I feel like you're trying to get me to argue my side of the straw man I got into this to tear down. Even if I had some proof (i.e. studies) that religion actually created a moral structure without on existing independent of it, then that would be the big opportunity to pull out the argument that non-religious people are moral (or accuse me of saying they aren't, depending on whose responding). This is even more off the mark since many religions, including mine, believe that people do have an inherent moral compass and religion adds definition as opposed to creating it in a vacuum.
What was said originally (clarity aside, I think it became clear later even if the first post wasn't) was that religious people (can/try to) act morally because of their religion. It doesn't matter if there was a tendency to do so already, if I'm faced with the choice of taking a wallet left out in the open and I don't because I think about the consequences in my religion, then I acted morally because of my religion. The fact that others would also act morally without that reason, or even that I would absent religion doesn't change my reasoning path having gone through religion.
Hobbes Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Mal,
A blank wall is not atheism just as not praying isn't atheism. What you are describing is secularism - the absence of religious commentary either way.
A statement that religion is false would be an atheistic equivalent to a prayer and such statements are illegal in all of the same circumstances in which a prayer is illegal.
The mere absence of promotion is not opposition, it's neutrality.
I guess the difficulty for many believers is that a purely neutral government on the surface appears exactly as a government that was atheist appears, in other words no mention of religion at all. In fact, out right hostility towards anyone mentioning religion would be the order of the day.
It would be like having a door, one group believes the door can be opened, so it should be opened, and people permitted to walk through it. The other says it can be closed, and so it should remain closed as people get too excited and irrational trying to figure out the nature of the door that apparently does nothing.
A secular government would say we aren't going to discuss the door, which is very much akin to what would happen if the door was simply boarded up and ignored.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure that a secular government must necessarily take the form of not ever talking about religion. I can see one where it is done and isn't that big a deal.
In America, I think the drive towards secularism is one towards removing all references to religion has taken the form is has in large part because of the actions of a large number of religious, specifically Christian, people who want to push their religion on other people. In the face of this, I don't really see a way to achieve secularism without insisting on the absence of religion in official contexts.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I guess the difficulty for many believers is that a purely neutral government on the surface appears exactly as a government that was atheist appears, in other words no mention of religion at all. In fact, out right hostility towards anyone mentioning religion would be the order of the day.
It really depends on the nature of the religious mentions. If I had my way, group prayer as a part of official meetings would be out. Religious officials meeting together privately to pray prior to the official meeting would be OK with me. Biblical quotations installed in public buildings would be out. A Senator quoting the Bible would not be prohibited.
In short, individuals would be able to express and follow their religious beliefs. My goal would be to secularize the institutions of government. (I personally would also like a constitutional amendment that requires a secular basis for legislation, so that laws with a purely religious basis - such as prohibiting certain activities only on the Sabbath - could be ruled unconstitutional if challenged. But that's going beyond my view that there are some Establishment problems with institutional prayer and religious quotations in our government.)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I guess the difficulty for many believers is that a purely neutral government on the surface appears exactly as a government that was atheist appears, in other words no mention of religion at all. In fact, out right hostility towards anyone mentioning religion would be the order of the day.
It really depends on the nature of the religious mentions. If I had my way, group prayer as a part of official meetings would be out. Religious officials meeting together privately to pray prior to the official meeting would be OK with me. Biblical quotations installed in public buildings would be out. A Senator quoting the Bible would not be prohibited.
In short, individuals would be able to express and follow their religious beliefs. My goal would be to secularize the institutions of government. (I personally would also like a constitutional amendment that requires a secular basis for legislation, so that laws with a purely religious basis - such as prohibiting certain activities only on the Sabbath - could be ruled unconstitutional if challenged. But that's going beyond my view that there are some Establishment problems with institutional prayer and religious quotations in our government.)
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Or more accurately, that there are dozens of doors, and that preference ought not to be given to one or two of them.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I guess the difficulty for many believers is that a purely neutral government on the surface appears exactly as a government that was atheist appears
That fact that atheists are generally better behaved in refraining from proactively making religious statements where they may not be appropriate shouldn't result in an equivalence between no statement and an atheistic one.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not sure that a secular government must necessarily take the form of not ever talking about religion. I can see one where it is done and isn't that big a deal.
Here's one, secular, although it's still a bit of a "deal":
quote:The parents, whose children attend schools in the des Draveurs school board, wanted their kids exempted after Quebec expanded the Grade 1 to Grade 11 curriculum to include religions other than Catholicism, as well as ethics and social justice, starting this fall.
...
Marc-André Richard said the school board has just started a war with parents like himself.
He said he is worried that if his kids learn about other religions on top of Catholicism, they will become confused by too many choices.
Teach the controversy! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: If I had my way, group prayer as a part of official meetings would be out. Religious officials meeting together privately to pray prior to the official meeting would be OK with me.
That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Or more accurately, that there are dozens of doors, and that preference ought not to be given to one or two of them.
Not really the point of my analogy, and as you probably know, no analogy is perfect.
scifibum: I could live with that society. I just think alot of believers (sorry to use the F word) fear that that is what taking down public displays of religion on government institutions leads to. Of course they don't spend alot of time thinking about what it means to atheists when they call America a "Christian Nation" but there it is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: Of course they don't spend alot of time thinking about what it means to atheists when they call America a "Christian Nation" but there it is.
I don't think that is true. I think that calling America a "Christian Nation" is often aimed very much at making non-Christians feel unwelcome or second-class.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:The second thing it shows me is some of YOUR assumptions regarding other people. You assumed that's what I meant because that is how you read it, or you expected that to be what I meant.
I don't know how to take this seriously given that you were the one who started by taking offense at something that wasn't intended to be offensive. I realize that it is common for jerk-atheists to deride religious people as stupid and backward. It is just as common (probably moreso when you're talking about sheer numbers, about the same when you account for demographic ratios) for religious people to deride atheists as immoral and machinelike.
Your statement is EXACTLY the kind that is made by religious people to disparage atheists all the time. And maybe you didn't intend it that way, but to sit there and say "You are obviously being deliberately offensive whereas I am merely making valid points that you are refusing to understand" is hypocritical, undermining the point you are trying to make.
So there is no difference between taking offense as being called delusional and adding statements to someone else's posts that they didn't make and then taking offense at the "new and improved" argument? I never said a single thing about people who didn't believe the same as I do. I never made any sort of claim about people who don't believe in God at all.
I didn't assume someone called my beliefs delusions. They did. And it is offensive, regardless of how it was intended......or how people now claim it was intended.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: So there is no difference between taking offense as being called delusional and adding statements to someone else's posts that they didn't make and then taking offense at the "new and improved" argument?
While you didn't make the exact statements, you made the implication, intentionally or not.
The fact that you don't realize how your statements can be offensive to others is no different from how you can take offense at someone else saying that religion is a delusion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote: Of course they don't spend alot of time thinking about what it means to atheists when they call America a "Christian Nation" but there it is.
I don't think that is true. I think that calling America a "Christian Nation" is often aimed very much at making non-Christians feel unwelcome or second-class.
It is when it is used within the context of somebody asserting that America needs to be more secular.
I should think that just as often it's used as a means of shoring up confidence amongst the religious when they discuss patriotism.
I think it's a poor practice when used the way you describe, but I'm not going to attempt to denigrate it enough that you feel satisfied.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:So there is no difference between taking offense as being called delusional and adding statements to someone else's posts that they didn't make and then taking offense at the "new and improved" argument?
MightyCow pretty much covered this, but your statements really were not as clear as you thought they were and loaded with terminology that has traditionally be used to marginalize atheists. If you don't care about the (sometimes) implied context surrounding the world delusional or virus, I don't see why I should care that you didn't mean to include the baggage your statement carried.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The supreme court of the United States still has the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall.
I would argue, by the way, to those people who sometimes wonder why atheists make a stink about this sort of thing, or why atheists are so "unreasonable" about getting "under God" out of the Pledge and off our money, that Mal's quote above is actually an excellent example: because those quotes are not there to represent the virtue of a given idea (especially in the case of something like "under God"), but rather to legitimize the claim that ours is a Christian nation. As long as someone like Mal can point to the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall as justification for the idea that atheists are simply non grata, I will argue that the Ten Commandments should come off that wall.
I would like to see the Code of Hammurabi hanging up there as well. Western society was founded upon those principles. The principles of the commandments and Hammurabi are our heritage. We also draw our senate from the political structure of the Greeks,...no one complains about the Greek columns in DC. Nations were ruled by religion for thousands of years. We now have a nation of religious freedom but it was a bunch of protestant Christians that formed this tolerant nation. The Anglicans, Catholics and Muslims have a long history of intermingling politics and religion. Your freedom of religion is the result of persecuted Christians. These Christians didn't create a Christian nation...they created a fair nation. They gave all what they wanted....religious freedom. What you are proposing is the revision of history.
Maybe we should ban the Declaration of Independence on that same wall since it mentions creation..."All men are created equal". School books and public libraries need to be purged of the speeches of Washington, Lincoln, etc if their words included "God". We should purge our history of any mention of God and it should be against the law for a political figure to utter the word..."god".
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Mal: are you just getting tired of coming up with complete nonsense to argue? Your strawmen in this post can't stand up on their own even with the giant poles up their backsides.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I would like to see the Code of Hammurabi hanging up there as well. Western society was founded upon those principles. The principles of the commandments and Hammurabi are our heritage.
... not any more so than any other culture, if you want to assume that the principles we have in our 'heritage' originated somehow with Hammurabi just by being a markedly well recovered system of early law. Unless you're arguing that there's something uniquely heritable to the western world over a guy who made such fantastic rules as "If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser." or "If a man strikes a pregnant woman, thereby causing her to miscarry and die, the assailant's daughter shall be put to death."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote: Of course they don't spend alot of time thinking about what it means to atheists when they call America a "Christian Nation" but there it is.
I don't think that is true. I think that calling America a "Christian Nation" is often aimed very much at making non-Christians feel unwelcome or second-class.
It is when it is used within the context of somebody asserting that America needs to be more secular.
I should think that just as often it's used as a means of shoring up confidence amongst the religious when they discuss patriotism.
I think it's a poor practice when used the way you describe, but I'm not going to attempt to denigrate it enough that you feel satisfied.
BB, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your second part. Are you talking about when Christians are talking internally amongst themselves?
Obviously, I'm not privy to those conversations anymore, but I was talking about when the phrase is used in a more public context.
I'm not looking for some sort of condemnation of this. I was responding to a statement that implied that it didn't really happen all that much, whereas I see it as one of the primary motivations for the statement in nearly all of the cases that I see it. If I were looking for anything, it would be an acknowledgment that it does in fact happen, a lot.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Western society was founded upon those principles. The principles of the commandments
Let's look at a breakdown: * You shall have no other gods before me
Unconstitutional to enforce
* You shall not make for yourself an idol
Unconstitutional to enforce
* You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
Unconstitutional to enforce
* Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Unconstitutional to enforce
* Honor your father and mother
Unconstitutional to enforce
* You shall not murder * You shall not commit adultery * You shall not steal * You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
Pretty much present in every civilized society, regardless of exposure to Christianity.
* You shall not covet your neighbor's wife * You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
Unconstitutional to enforce
So... a few "golden rule" sort of things that are universally observed, and most of it not only ignored but actually illegal for the government to recognize.
Now, where in the Bible are these important principles enumerated?:
* Free speech * Freedom of press * Right of due process * Right to bear arms * Separation of powers/checks and balances * Freedom of religion
Some of these are the means by which US citizens are permitted to legally break several of the commandments which you identify as founding principles of the nation.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Now, where in the Bible are these important principles enumerated?:
* Separation of powers
Luke 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm struggling to see how you get an executive, legislative, and judicial branch out of that.
All I see is an admonition to pay taxes (ok) to a king (oops!).
[ February 13, 2010, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Maybe he was confusing separation of powers with separation of church and state.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
You said "separation of powers" not "executive, legislative, and judicial branch". And Caesar wasn't a king, he was an emperor.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Dob--separation of powers does mean the separation of the government into three equal branches. It does not mean separation of the power of the state and of the church. Easy misunderstanding considering where this discussion began.
Mal--I continually wonder how people argue that listing the 10 commandments does not promote 1 state religion since the exact commandments listed as the "10" vary depending on whether you are Jewish, Catholic, or a couple varieties of Protestant. Check out the Wiki article on the 10 commandments. Where one stops and the next begins is debatable. If you choose one group of 10 you are there by showing a preference--saying one faith is right and the other is wrong.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Separation of powers means allocation of powers between more than one governmental body, in this case the theocratic monarchy in Judea and the Roman imperial government.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Now, where in the Bible are these important principles enumerated?:
* Free speech
Acts 25:15-21. Paul upon being arrested and accused by certain Jews, was arraigned before Festus. "There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix: About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him. To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have license to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him. Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth. Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed: But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters. But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Caesar."
Festus was hesitant to judge Paul, as it appeared his accusers and him had a religious dispute, in the next chapter we have Paul giving his defense before Agrippa, Acts 26:22-32, "Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds. And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them: And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds. Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar." Clearly as far as Agrippa was concerned, Paul merely stating his beliefs did not make him worthy of death. Festus' only contention was that perhaps Paul was insane, but not that he should be punished for speaking things that were making others angry.
quote: * Freedom of press
Obviously there were no presses during Biblical times, and paper was a rare commodity indeed.
quote: * Right of due process
John 7:31, Nicodemus made this inquiry of the Sanhedrin, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" The implication being, no it does not.
quote: * Right to bear arms
Luke 22:35-36, Jesus in instructing his disciples soon before his death, "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
quote: * Separation of powers/checks and balances
I take issue with this principle as The Bible is designed to instruct God's kingdom, and as such the affairs of churches claiming to belong to Him ought to be good or near perfect reflections of His will. They should not need checks or balances within their hierarchies.
In The Acts we read that though Peter was the chief apostle, on the issue of circumcision, he wrongfully supported the continuation of the practice. Paul, rightly corrected him on the point, and after prayer and consideration it was revoked as a requirement of converts. We also read God specifically instructing Peter to stop requiring the church to eat only foods permitted in the Law of Moses. There are also numerous epistles from Paul, Peter, John, James, etc regulating the affairs of the church when disputes arose. The apostles were a check against deep rooted doctrinal errors in the church as well as amongst each other, and God was a check against Apostolic error. Beyond that, anybody can speak directly to God, and as far as God's will concerns the individual, no person comes between God and that person.
quote: * Freedom of religion
Mark 9:38-40. In response to a man invoking God's name and casting out devils, "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Maybe the presidential swearing in should remove the last line...."So help me God".
"god" is a very politically neutral term. Once it was "creator" since it was assumed that all people believed in a creating deity. Of course this insn't the case anymore. Still, "god" should apply. "god" is anything. "god" doesn't mean the father of Christ, Zeus, etc. "god" is what leads your life and what you worship. Even the old testament of the Jews and Christians sais, "though shall not have any other gods before me". "god" doesn't implicate religion. It implies whatever it is that is most important to you. Your god could be money, sex, power, Ala, Muhammed, self, children, etc,...etc. Even the atheist has a god. Swear upon what is most precious to you. Swear an oath to god. Even if that god is all your worldly possessions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
god is love!
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:* Free speech
Acts 25:15-21. Paul upon being arrested and accused by certain Jews, was arraigned before Festus.
I have no idea why you think that a brief narration of one of Paul's encounters with the Roman legal system should be taken as scriptural endorsement for an idea of free speech, never mind robust legal protections for it.
quote:* Freedom of press
Obviously there were no presses during Biblical times, and paper was a rare commodity indeed.
So you wouldn't claim this is a god given right?
quote:* Right of due process
John 7:31, Nicodemus made this inquiry of the Sanhedrin, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" The implication being, no it does not.
Again, narration, not moral command.
quote:* Right to bear arms
Luke 22:35-36, Jesus in instructing his disciples soon before his death, "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
So this is one of those times when "literal interpretation" falls through? 'Cause Jesus is telling his inner circle to buy a sword and sell their clothes if they have to. There is nothing here about some kind of universal right to own a weapon - unless you want it to be written into law that people have to sell their clothes to buy a sword (not a gun, that wouldn't be literal).
quote:* Freedom of religion
Mark 9:38-40. In response to a man invoking God's name and casting out devils, "And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part."
Ok, so freedom of religion for people that do not actively speak against Jesus. A lot of evangelicals would think that excludes Mormons!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Once it was "creator" since it was assumed that all people believed in a creating deity. Of course this insn't the case anymore.
I think you perhaps do not understand why the term "Creator" was used so often in the 18th and 19th century instead of the word "god." This information is easily available; I suggest you do some research. You may find that it challenges your preconceptions, here.
quote:"god" is what leads your life and what you worship....Swear upon what is most precious to you.
I submit that this particular definition of "god" is not likely to catch on, except among people who simply want to come up with some excuse to keep using the word "god."
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think you perhaps do not understand why the term "Creator" was used so often in the 18th and 19th century instead of the word "god." This information is easily available; I suggest you do some research. You may find that it challenges your preconceptions, here.
Ok, apparently my google-fu is weak. Can you help me out here?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I submit that this particular definition of "god" is not likely to catch on, except among people who simply want to come up with some excuse to keep using the word "god."
Yup.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
BlackBlade,
Even if I accepted your interpretations (see Foust's comments), can you show any indication that these scriptures were referenced by the founding fathers. A lot was written about the justification for contents of the Constitution (see the Federalist Papers, for instance), including reference to other legal codes and schools of philosophy so presumably if these aren't post-hoc justifications then you can provide some period documentation that they were used as a an inspiration or basis for our Constitutionally protected rights.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think you perhaps do not understand why the term "Creator" was used so often in the 18th and 19th century instead of the word "god." This information is easily available; I suggest you do some research. You may find that it challenges your preconceptions, here.
Ok, apparently my google-fu is weak. Can you help me out here?
Google Deism. Also, its probably relevant to note that Tom has frequently argued that most Deists of the 18th and early 19th century were actually atheists (or at least proto-atheists).
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Since "god" isn't an all encompassing word for what rules a mans life. We ought to replace "so help me god" with a flexible oath of "so help me...(fill in the blank). We could do a profile of the person to figure out what is supreme in their life. I don't have a problem with an atheist being president but an oath should carry some weight. Maybe they could wager their testicles, bank account...ideas anyone? I suppose the next step in this trend is to eliminate oaths all together.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Since god doesn't seem to intervene when people break their oaths in his name, I'm not sure why you'd want a substitute.
Eliminating oaths is fine. Just make sure the requirements of the office (or situation) are clear, and set clear consequences for malfeasance or dereliction of duty.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"So help my testicles..."
I'm for it. Let's do this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I see no downside to making oaths actually binding, instead of hoping an imaginary God punishes somebody in some way after death for breaching them in life.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Maybe the presidential swearing in should remove the last line...."So help me God".
This is not part of the presidential Oath (or affirmation). Presidents do this of their own choice, they are not required to. No one knows exactly when this began, but apparently the legend that George Washington added the words can be traced to a Washington Irving story. The earliest reliable example of a president adding this to the oath was Chester A. Arthur.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: "So help my testicles..."
I'm for it. Let's do this.
I agree. All men will abide by that oath.
Correction,...some men want the state to pay to have their testicles removed. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Maybe the presidential swearing in should remove the last line...."So help me God".
This is not part of the presidential Oath (or affirmation). Presidents do this of their own choice, they are not required to. No one knows exactly when this began, but apparently the legend that George Washington added the words can be traced to a Washington Irving story. The earliest reliable example of a president adding this to the oath was Chester A. Arthur.
We do know when "so help me God" was added. George Washington. Perhaps it was a personal statement thrown on after the reading the official oath. No president has had the nerve to break from his tradition. Truth be told, "so help me God" wasn't part of the original oath of office. The first president who decides to omit that last line is assured to be a one term president. We may not be a "Christian Nation" but we are a nation that is majority Christian. The rest other faiths that believe in God and an extreme minority of true atheists.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not only is it pretty clear Washington wasn't the first to say "so help me God" (there's not a single contemporary account that he did so, plus it seems the custom then was not to repeat the oath, but to be asked it as a question and respond in the affirmative), but numerous Presidents have not added "so help me God" (and that's on the record).
As for any President not using it being one term, you may be familiar with Teddy Roosevelt, who did not add the phrase, and his two-term presidency.
Lincoln used it at least in his second inauguration . . . but given the second inaugural address, his meaning may well not have been as God-affirming as some would like.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Foust:
quote: I have no idea why you think that a brief narration of one of Paul's encounters with the Roman legal system should be taken as scriptural endorsement for an idea of free speech, never mind robust legal protections for it.
Do you think the New Testament is packed full of narratives where morally neutral lessons are taught? One of the clear lessons of the incident is that the law protected Christianity when it was in its' infancy to an extent. If we wouldn't have wanted Paul executed simply for believing what he did, we shouldn't kill or molest others for doing the same thing.
quote:So you wouldn't claim this is a god given right?
I was simply indicating that in the absence of a press, you can't really create commandments that deal with them. Now that the press exists, one should observe what it is and what it does and believe accordingly. I think since writing is simply words on paper it might as well be treated in a similar fashion to free speeech.
quote:Again, narration, not moral command.
No it isn't. Nicodemus is appealing to the Law of Moses, (and legal precedent) which was designed explicitly to provide for due process. One of the more legitimate criticisms of Jesus' execution was that this due process was not followed properly. I don't think you can seriously argue that Jesus would have opposed due process, having himself not had it available to him.
quote:So this is one of those times when "literal interpretation" falls through? 'Cause Jesus is telling his inner circle to buy a sword and sell their clothes if they have to. There is nothing here about some kind of universal right to own a weapon - unless you want it to be written into law that people have to sell their clothes to buy a sword (not a gun, that wouldn't be literal).
Play around with the passage all you want, at its most basic, Jesus is indicating that there are times when people ought to arm themselves with weapons.
Further, not all that Jesus said was recorded, in fact according to John a tiny percentage was, that leaves plenty of room for his endorsement of principles that you can defend through common sense. (disclaimer: I didn't necessarily mean that owning a gun is a common sense issue.)
quote:Ok, so freedom of religion for people that do not actively speak against Jesus. A lot of evangelicals would think that excludes Mormons!
But who cares!? I can't prevent everyone from misunderstanding others' beliefs. Further the text does not make it absolutely clear he was invoking "Jesus." For all we know he might have simply said "God" and the apostles said, "Hey Jesus is God, so he better be talking about Jesus."
----
Matt:
quote:Even if I accepted your interpretations (see Foust's comments), can you show any indication that these scriptures were referenced by the founding fathers. A lot was written about the justification for contents of the Constitution (see the Federalist Papers, for instance), including reference to other legal codes and schools of philosophy so presumably if these aren't post-hoc justifications then you can provide some period documentation that they were used as a an inspiration or basis for our Constitutionally protected rights.
Your original contention is that the Bible does not support certain key rights found in our constitution. We aren't discussing whether the founding fathers pulled more from the bible or from John Locke.
Were we to discuss that, we'd still have to accept that the founding fathers, as well as many of the philosophers they read so enthusiastically from, would have been very well versed in the Bible. When you are exposed deeply to something you are often influenced by it to a degree.
Having said that, I don't think it would have necessarily been wise to quote direct verses from the Bible as a means to make an affirmative statement in a legal document, or to support it. Sectarianism was as alive and well then as it is now, and it would have allowed conversation on the constitution to degenerate into just another argument about the Bible and who reads it correctly. Better to take any good ideas one has gleaned from the book, and to simply reword them and present it on its own terms. Good ideas, presented well, stand on their own.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:We do know when "so help me God" was added. George Washington.
I guess you didn't actually READ my post then.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
I know when "God help us," was added to the audience participation portion of the oath.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
MattP, are you aware you listed 11 Commandments? There are only ten. (This is explicitly stated in Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4.)
The confusion comes because Catholics break up the tenth commandment into two commandments, as if "Do not Covet your neighbor's Wife" is different from "Do not covet anything that is thy neighbor's." Protestants observe that Catholics do this because in their catechisms they lump the second and third commandments together, so they can skip over reading the prohibition against making graven images in the official "summary" of the commandments--which might raise embarassing questions in the minds of anyone who sees all the statues of saints in Catholic churches. Since the Bible states there are ten commandments, they had to divide up the last commandment into two in order to preserve the number.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The confusion comes because Catholics break up the tenth commandment into two commandments, as if "Do not Covet your neighbor's Wife" is different from "Do not covet anything that is thy neighbor's."
So a man's wife is in the same category as his other possessions?
By the way, Jews enumerate the commandments differently than the Protestants or the Catholics.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I heard that from Lisa. They take verse 2 of Exodus 20 as the start of the first commandment: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." (NASB) But that is not a command, it is a declaration. And to my reason, it is not just a preamble to the first commandment (which properly begins with verse 3--"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.") it is a preamble to all ten commandments.
This is actually a very significant point. What God said here is that BECAUSE the people ARE ALREADY delivered, THEREFORE they will keep the Ten Commandments. The problem arose when many of the people supposed that the Decalogue was the type of covenant that implied that IF they would keep the Commandments, THEN they would be delivered. That is the essense of legalism, and what some people call "the old covenant."
But God has only ever had one covenant to save man. God's Commandments are to be kept because He has delivered us from sin (which Egypt is a type of). There is no point in keeping the Commandments if you are not already saved and restored to a right relationship with God. Just as there is no point in keeping the laws of the land (the divine Kingdom) unless you are already a citizen.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ron, if you read the link, the term "commandment" is not used to describe the statements that were inscribed on Moses' tablets.
I'm pretty sure the first commandment is "be fruitful and multiply."
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I heard that from Lisa.
Well, this time she's right.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron, you describe three versions of the Ten Commandments. You give a very interesting interpretation on why your 10 are the correct ones. Still, there are millions of people who list them differently, some of whom have interesting interpretations of why there's is the correct ones. If the government were to post the Ten Commandments, any of the three versions you have described, would it not then be favoring one faith over that of others. Would it not be saying "The Protestants are Right." if they chose yours? Would you feel as if your faith was under attack if they chose the Catholic version?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The one true commandment is 'God needs booze'
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:
quote: I have no idea why you think that a brief narration of one of Paul's encounters with the Roman legal system should be taken as scriptural endorsement for an idea of free speech, never mind robust legal protections for it.
Do you think the New Testament is packed full of narratives where morally neutral lessons are taught? One of the clear lessons of the incident is that the law protected Christianity when it was in its' infancy to an extent. If we wouldn't have wanted Paul executed simply for believing what he did, we shouldn't kill or molest others for doing the same thing.
Obviously there is a distinction between narrative and teaching. The book of Judges says that "every man did what was right in his own eyes," and guess what? There is no consistent condemnation of that fact; it is just narration, just justification for full blown moral relativism. Yes, the NT is packed full of morally neutral narrative, and of course it is also packed full of moral teachings. There is no reason why it can't be both and.
Your last sentence would still be true even if Paul had been executed at that point, and you can draw that conclusion with or without divine commands.
There is a world of difference between saying "scripture says X happened" and "scripture commands, suggests or recommends X."
By the way, you own example is actually evidence that our system has more to do with Roman law than anything the Bible could lay claim to.
quote:
quote:So you wouldn't claim this is a god given right?
I was simply indicating that in the absence of a press, you can't really create commandments that deal with them. Now that the press exists, one should observe what it is and what it does and believe accordingly. I think since writing is simply words on paper it might as well be treated in a similar fashion to free speeech.
And yet, the idea neither appears in nor is solely supported by the Bible. You can't make an argument that a free press is a "God-given" right.
quote:
quote:Again, narration, not moral command.
No it isn't. Nicodemus is appealing to the Law of Moses, (and legal precedent) which was designed explicitly to provide for due process. One of the more legitimate criticisms of Jesus' execution was that this due process was not followed properly. I don't think you can seriously argue that Jesus would have opposed due process, having himself not had it available to him.
I'm not saying Jesus would have criticized due process. You are saying that legal rights are founded in the Bible - that is not the same claim as "Jesus would have liked it."
If you want to expand the concept of due process so ridiculously as to include the Torah, then you're stuck admitting that every culture that has ever had anything like laws has also had due process. Again, no need of the Bible, and there isn't even a close appearance between our system and anything in the OT.
quote:
quote:'Cause Jesus is telling his inner circle to buy a sword and sell their clothes if they have to.
Play around with the passage all you want, at its most basic, Jesus is indicating that there are times when people ought to arm themselves with weapons.
Further, not all that Jesus said was recorded, in fact according to John a tiny percentage was, that leaves plenty of room for his endorsement of principles that you can defend through common sense. (disclaimer: I didn't necessarily mean that owning a gun is a common sense issue.)
I'm getting tired of following your moving goal posts, you're pushing my lazy buttons. Now you're appealing to what Jesus might have said?
quote:
quote:Ok, so freedom of religion for people that do not actively speak against Jesus. A lot of evangelicals would think that excludes Mormons!
But who cares!? I can't prevent everyone from misunderstanding others' beliefs. Further the text does not make it absolutely clear he was invoking "Jesus." For all we know he might have simply said "God" and the apostles said, "Hey Jesus is God, so he better be talking about Jesus."
Then people who do speak against God/The Force/Whatever are excluded from your religious freedom.
quote:Your original contention is that the Bible does not support certain key rights found in our constitution.
Well, you are refusing to make the obvious distinction between "appears in" and "supports."
quote:Were we to discuss that, we'd still have to accept that the founding fathers, as well as many of the philosophers they read so enthusiastically from, would have been very well versed in the Bible. When you are exposed deeply to something you are often influenced by it to a degree.
Having said that, I don't think it would have necessarily been wise to quote direct verses from the Bible as a means to make an affirmative statement in a legal document, or to support it.
And this is what alllllll the "Christian nation" defenders eventually come down to. Faith statements about the minds of the framers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Were we to discuss that, we'd still have to accept that the founding fathers, as well as many of the philosophers they read so enthusiastically from, would have been very well versed in the Bible.
Mm. looking at, say, Jefferson's interpretation of the bible ...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Having said that, I don't think it would have necessarily been wise to quote direct verses from the Bible as a means to make an affirmative statement in a legal document, or to support it.
But there isn't even incidental mention of the Bible in *any* of the documents that mention the development the Constitution or supporting its ratification (though some ratification opposition was Biblically based). It's not in personal letters, journals, nothing. If it was a source, it was an incidental or indirect one.
The primary law of the Bible, the Ten Commandments, would largely be not only incongruent with our legal system but actually in direct violation of its governing principles. It seems odd that a claim could be made that our government was founded on Biblical principles, but only the lesser principles that appear in scattered parables and anecdotes.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Darth, Catholics quote the same Scripture that Protestants and Jews do. The only difference comes in the way that Catholics SUMMARIZE the Ten Commandments in their catechisms. Maybe someday the Ark of the Covenant will be found, and the original tablets of stone on which the Ten Commandements are inscribed can be witnessed by the world. Then we will know how the commandments are listed. Hopefully they will be grouped in separate paragraphs.
Glenn, the Bible does explicitly refer to them as the Ten Commandments. Ex. 34:28: "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."
Also as definite is Deut. 4:13: "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."
Likewise Deut. 10:4: "And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me."
"Be fruitful and multiply" may have been the first command the Bible records that God gave to mankind, but is a "command" the same thing as "commandments," especially when specified as "the ten commandments"?
Actually, the Hebrew for "commandments in the texts I quoted is dabar, which according to Thayer's Bible Dictionary means "words." So the original literally calls them "the ten words." But context, refering to them as the ones written by God on tables of stone and spoken by God from Mt. Sinai amid the smoke and fire, leaves no doubt which writing this is.
Gen. 1:28 says: "God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply...." The Hebrew for "said" here is amar. So this does not say "command" either.
The first time the actual word for "command" is used, tsavah, is in Gen. 2:16, 17: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it...."
So the first explicitly stated command by God to man was the one that our first parents disobeyed, and brought the inheritance of sinful rebellion upon all their progeny.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron I understand the difference is only in the way that they enumerate them, but I've yet to see a copy of the 10 commandments outside the Bible that isn't enumerated for the reader. In fact they are usually dressed up to look like ancient stone tablets with Roman Numerals before each one (which is strange as they predate Rome and Roman Numerals).
So wouldn't having such a display in a Governmental building be sanctioning the religions that enumerate them that way over those that do not?
Further, if you insist that such displays are only reflections of where our law originated, shouldn't we use the Jewish numeration? After all it is the most historical.
Or if you insist that since our law is based on English law we should then use the Catholic numeration. After all there are 17 centuries of Catholic influence on European and English law, while at the time of the writing of the constitution, less than 2 centuries of Protestant influence.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Foust:
quote:And yet, the idea neither appears in nor is solely supported by the Bible. You can't make an argument that a free press is a "God-given" right.
You're right, I don't think I was trying to contend that it was. I took issue with Matt asking for Biblical support of a device that did not exist.
quote:Your last sentence would still be true even if Paul had been executed at that point, and you can draw that conclusion with or without divine commands.
We are not discussing about whether these principles can be independently reached without the Bible's assistance. We are discussing whether the Bible supports those principles either in commandment, or discussion, and if the founding fathers were influenced by the Bible when they wrote up the constitution.
The Bible allows for the existance of good outside of what it discusses. Look at Paul's statement in the new testament,
Phillipians 4:8, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
If something leads you to believe that it increases any of those things, it becomes a commandment from God that you endorse it and learn to apply it properly.
I admit, the Bible does not do much of a job in discussing how to create a secular republic, but that is because the people who it discusses were attempting to live in theocracies. So in that sense the Bible is handicapped in how much use it could be to the founding fathers. Having said that, Biblical studies were still required in many of their schools, if you quoted a passage from the Bible you would expect your average founding father to at least know the passage, if not the reference.
quote:Then people who do speak against God/The Force/Whatever are excluded from your religious freedom.
Well, yes. If they act on their beliefs then I certainly can't be expected to sit there while they molest me. I wouldn't expect an atheist to just sit there while I invoke God's name and declare that I am comitted to opposing them as much as I can.
quote:If you want to expand the concept of due process so ridiculously as to include the Torah, then you're stuck admitting that every culture that has ever had anything like laws has also had due process. Again, no need of the Bible, and there isn't even a close appearance between our system and anything in the OT.
I think you are wrong. The law provided for the accused to face their accusers, limitations on penalties for certain crimes, a requirement of witnesses, in many cases a jury, a requirement that a trial not be completed in haste, etc.
Not every place with laws also had a tradition of due process. China for example has as long a history as any country, along with laws, but they did not provide for much of a due process if you were not an aristocrat. Even then if enough people believed specific charges were true, you were expected to save everybody the trouble by killing yourself.
quote:I'm getting tired of following your moving goal posts, you're pushing my lazy buttons. Now you're appealing to what Jesus might have said?
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I'm either shifting my goal posts or too lazy to take you or what I am saying seriously. I assure you I'm trying hard to be an interesting conversant. I tend to forget sometimes what our focus is as thread drift does tend to catch me off guard.
Plainly put, I believe that at the very least the Bible would have been a major source of the founding father's moral framework by virtue of it being such an integral part of the society they lived in. I don't necessarily believe that had the Bible not existed that they could not have come up with many of the ideas that they did, there are many philosophers who are arguably bigger influences than the Bible.
quote:Yes, the NT is packed full of morally neutral narrative, and of course it is also packed full of moral teachings. There is no reason why it can't be both
The Bible is not packed with neutral narrative as it exists to setup the moral lesson. When we read about all the places Paul went to we are meant to draw lessons from it like, "Paul was tireless in promoting his new faith." or "Paul relied on God to preserve him while he was working as his emmissary, rather than the resources he had saved."
The descriptions of Jesus' conduct are just as instructive as the dialogue when learning about how his actions. For example when it says Jesus could do no miracle in Capernaum because of unbelief, the indictment on Capernaum is as loud as if the text had said, "These people are not to be emulated."
----------
MattP: If your statement that there are absolutely no references to biblical verses or ideas in any of the correspondence or debates are true that certainly leads me to believe that you are more likely right than I. I can't say reliably if your claim is false or true, I'd need to do research.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I took issue with Matt asking for Biblical support of a device that did not exist.
The claim was that western society was Biblically based. I was asking for support of that claim by iterating a list of core elements of western society. Freedom of the press (the institution, not the device) is one of those elements. If the answer is that "the press didn't exist in Biblical times" then that is a simple enough admission that the principal is not Biblically based rather than something to "[take] issue with".
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I would think that Freedom of the Press is an extension of the notion that a common man can see the Truth themselves and that official experts do not need to tell them what to think - which in turn is a theme in the Protestant interpretation of the New Testament.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I took issue with Matt asking for Biblical support of a device that did not exist.
The claim was that western society was Biblically based. I was asking for support of that claim by iterating a list of core elements of western society. Freedom of the press (the institution, not the device) is one of those elements. If the answer is that "the press didn't exist in Biblical times" then that is a simple enough admission that the principal is not Biblically based rather than something to "[take] issue with".
You are of course right, I think I disagreed amiss with that part of your list.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Darth, I had not considered before that having Roman Numerals on modern depictions of the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings, besides being anachronistic, might constitite official endorsement of the Roman-Christian tradition. If God numbered the commandments, He would have used Hebrew numbers (i.e. the Hebrew letters used as numbers, such as aleph, beth, gimel, etc.). But probably they were not numbered.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:But probably they were not numbered.
Maybe they were bullet-pointed?
quote:Plainly put, I believe that at the very least the Bible would have been a major source of the founding father's moral framework by virtue of it being such an integral part of the society they lived in. I don't necessarily believe that had the Bible not existed that they could not have come up with many of the ideas that they did, there are many philosophers who are arguably bigger influences than the Bible.
If this is your claim, everyone from Nietzsche to Dawkins could agree with you. So I take it you're not on the side of those who want the US to be run on "Christian principles" because its origins were "Christian"?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron, perhaps I used the word enumerate incorrectly.
The point I was getting at is this, if you list the 10 Commandments you have to choose who's list to use. When the government chooses one version as the "correct" version it condemns the others as incorrect.
Now, if you weren't numbering them, but just taking a slice out of the old testament and posting it as the 10 Commandments, you still have to make a decision where to begin? Is it the modern Protestant version or the original Torah version? Since we are all talking historic relevance and in no way trying to advertise Protestant Christianity in our governmental space, we should use the historic Jewish version.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Foust: If Christians ever decide exactly what constitutes "Christian Principles" I could give you an answer. As it stands, I don't believe the US belongs to Christianity.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I really don't see why we are arguing that freedom of the press has any root in Christianity. It really doesn't.
As a whole, these ten amendments were passed to get other straggling states to ratify the Constitution. They were put there because the former colonists were understandably concerned that the new American government could be just as bad as the one they deposed.
The Bill of Rights is essentially a laundry list of things that the British did that made the colonists angry (quartering troops, imprisonment without trial) and protections against anyone preventing an uprising by the ways the colonists organized themselves in the past (assembling meetings and printing pamphlets) just in case the new government did stink.
Christian principles? Not really.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Foust: If Christians ever decide exactly what constitutes "Christian Principles" I could give you an answer. As it stands, I don't believe the US belongs to Christianity.
As a Christian, I'll tell you the principles I've been taught.
Turn the other cheek. Love thy enemy. Forgiveness. Care fore the needy. Those without sin throw the first stone...remove the beam in your eye, etc.
Not a shock that the most religiously free nation on the face of the earth was founded by Christians. Christians know that they are not without sin and accept the sins of others. Today morality has been twisted to political correctness. Even a Christian alcoholic will admit his own sin. Christians do not believe they do no wrong and they forgive those who do wrong against them. Have you ever heard an atheist tell a murderer in court that they have already forgiven them? A society free of christians is a society based upon an "eye for an eye" and "our way or the highway". I admit my own sin so don't tell me I can't identify the sin of others. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Christians understand that no man is perfect but at least have the nerve to point out what is wrong, even within themselves.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Not a shock that the most religiously free nation on the face of the earth was founded by Christians.
Actually, the most religiously free country in terms of government restrictions out of the world's 50 most populous nations would be Japan.
If you consider the intersection of countries (in the top 50) that have less government restrictions on religion and also less social hostilities that would give you: Canada, Poland, South Korea, Mozambique, Brazil, Japan, and Taiwan. http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/restrictions/restrictionsfullreport.pdf Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Christians do not believe they do no wrong and they forgive those who do wrong against them.
In my experience, Christians are the ones who most readily shoot their wounded.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Christians do not believe they do no wrong and they forgive those who do wrong against them.
In my experience, Christians are the ones who most readily shoot their wounded.
What experience are you drawning on?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QUOTE]
Not a shock that the most religiously free nation on the face of the earth was founded by Christians.
From what I understand, in Medieval Spain, whenever the Christians would win back an area previously held by Muslims, they told the local Muslims and Jews living there to "convert or die". Conversely, when the Muslims would take a town back from the Christians, they simply forced the Christians and Jews to pay a tax or convert.
Who looks more open-minded and accepting in that case?
The simple fact is that access to money and information tends to cause open-mindedness, in a general sense, religious and otherwise. When the Silk Road was the main/only way to get things from China/India to Europe and back, the Muslims had much more access to money and information. The Middle East, at that time, was literally "Main Street, Earth". However, when the Silk Road fell into disuse as a result of advances in European shipbuilding and navigation tech/skills, Western Europe became "Main Street, Earth", while the Middle East fell into isolation and ignorance. Over the centuries, The roles became reversed.
To me, this is one of the best arguments against religion...All religions are subject to pointless, dangerous extremism, as proved by the historical facts I just mentioned. Isolate any person or group for long enough, and they turn crazy and fundamentalist.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: What experience are you drawning on?
Personal, mostly. I was a Christian for about 20 years. It was probably irresponsible of me to say that they are "the ones most readily" to do so. I was thinking of some specific incidents. But I would not say that I have witnessed more forgiveness within the ranks than without, in practice.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:To me, this is one of the best arguments against religion...All religions are subject to pointless, dangerous extremism, as proved by the historical facts I just mentioned. Isolate any person or group for long enough, and they turn crazy and fundamentalist.
The problem with that argument is that even atheistic belief systems are subject to dangerous extremism - as demonstrated in recent history by several of the Communist movements. It's less an argument against religion, and more an argument against believing strongly in anything.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Steven?
Using Medieval examples against Christianity? The Catholic church was not only a religion back then, it was a political power. Christians aren't the ones calling for Sharia Law. Our country is free and Christians have a right to express and vote the way their beliefs dictate. Expressing one's moral code is not hate. I'm a Christian and I'm a sinner. Do I hate myself? To a Christian, sin is sin...theft, alcoholism, lying, etc, etc. A true Christian church would no sooner expel a homosexual than a liar or alcoholic. The difference is, the liar and alcoholic don't cry discrimination when someone speaks against their behavior.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's less an argument against religion, and more an argument against believing strongly in anything.
Except, of course, that atheistic belief systems can also be religions.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Steven?
Using Medieval examples against Christianity? The Catholic church was not only a religion back then, it was a political power. Christians aren't the ones calling for Sharia Law. Our country is free and Christians have a right to express and vote the way their beliefs dictate. Expressing one's moral code is not hate. I'm a Christian and I'm a sinner. Do I hate myself? To a Christian, sin is sin...theft, alcoholism, lying, etc, etc. A true Christian church would no sooner expel a homosexual than a liar or alcoholic. The difference is, the liar and alcoholic don't cry discrimination when someone speaks against their behavior.
I'm eeeeeeeebil. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:To me, this is one of the best arguments against religion...All religions are subject to pointless, dangerous extremism, as proved by the historical facts I just mentioned. Isolate any person or group for long enough, and they turn crazy and fundamentalist.
The problem with that argument is that even atheistic belief systems are subject to dangerous extremism - as demonstrated in recent history by several of the Communist movements. It's less an argument against religion, and more an argument against believing strongly in anything.
I have to admit, it really does bug me when people take the complicated topic of groups of people doing terrible things and reduce it to simple, stupid statements like "It's because of strong belief." (edit:) or "Religious people believe things that aren't true and can believe anything."{/edit)
I mean, I get it. People don't really care about it for its own sake and are instead trying to use it as an attack/defense of religion. I just think this is a shame, because I think that this question (and the partial answers we have come up with) is much more important than this kinda pointless attack/defense.
[ February 27, 2010, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm not going to deny the wrongs committed by Christians five hundred years ago. I won't deny the evil committed against slaves two centuries ago. We need to decide, are we going to be like the middle east and fight forever over wrongs committed against our ancestors?
The eternal "chicken and the egg" is Jew vs Muslim. The same scenario justifies the never ending gang murders in our cities. Justice is never served. One side's justice is the other side's injustice. The Christian ideal of forgiveness is the only thing that can stop this downward spiral.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The ironic thing about this to me is that many of the concepts of individual liberty and suspicion of the government that went into the founding of our country were firmly grounded in The Enlightenment, a movement that was in many ways directly opposed to and by the religious of the day. And a large spur for the development of the Enlightenment ideas is how terrible mainstream Christians historically were.
The discovery of the New World and shifting of the trade routes away from the Silk Road definitely played a huge part, but I've often wondered if one of the reasons why the Islamic world never had their Enlightenment (which I think is one of the big reasons it is so troubled now) is because Muslim rulers and clergy were nowhere near as awful and evil and Christian ones.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I mean, I get it. People don't really care about it for its own sake and are instead trying to use it as an attack/defense of religion. I just think this is a shame, because I think that this question (and the partial answers we have come up with) is much more important than this kinda pointless attack/defense.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying there's something besides the "isolation causes ignorance which allows the rise of fundamentalist extremism which is a breeding ground for hate which is a breeding ground for violence" process? It all starts with isolation and ignorance, I think.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:I'm not going to deny the wrongs committed by Christians five hundred years ago. I won't deny the evil committed against slaves two centuries ago.
I quite agree. You can't use history to define what you are doing or who we are today. On the other hand I'm not one of the people trying to define our nation as "A Christian Nation because all of our founding fathers were Christians."
You can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't say "Christians of the past don't matter, except for those Christians in the past that matter."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I mean, I get it. People don't really care about it for its own sake and are instead trying to use it as an attack/defense of religion. I just think this is a shame, because I think that this question (and the partial answers we have come up with) is much more important than this kinda pointless attack/defense.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying there's something besides the "isolation causes ignorance which allows the rise of fundamentalist extremism which is a breeding ground for hate which is a breeding ground for violence" process? It all starts with isolation and ignorance, I think.
Yes, of course I am. There are isolated groups that don't develop into violent, hate filled murderers. There are extreme fundamentalists that are peaceful. Saying something is a breeding ground isn't really much of an explanation.
We've had many exchanges where someone noting the fact that some religious groups have done terrible things is responded to by someone else saying that non-religious (or often "atheist") groups have done terrible things, and it doesn't seem to go much further beyond that. It seems all about attack and defense and very little about actually understanding it.
If you look at groups that do these things, you very often find striking similarities in the nature and structure of their beliefs and organizational structures as well as the character of their members. Many of these things are lacking from groups who don't do these terrible things.
This is by no means a clear cut issue and can't be done justice outside of a complex analysis, but, ignoring all that, if I had to point to what I think is the single biggest commonality (in a western cultural context), it would be a lack of tolerance for uncertainty/ambiguity.
This almost always extends far from the obvious doctrinal areas of whatever their beliefs are and is a general trait of their character. In separate, even trivial, situations, they are frustrated with ambiguity and will KNOW things that they have no way of knowing. Interestingly enough, you can often find cases where people will actually reject parts of the doctrine they profess to follow in favor of getting rid of any ambiguity or uncertainty.
This is one of the reasons why I try to dispute the abuses of epistemology that some of the evangelical atheists routinely commit when they attack religious belief. The ability to say "I don't know." in cases where it is warranted is an extremely valuable trait to promote and, conversely, the drive to KNOW things that you do not and often cannot is something to oppose.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If you really want to know what modern moral intolerance is, Google "ask god what your grade is"
This student was shut down for reading the Webster's Dictionary definition of marriage. Apparently, Websters is hate speech. The self described tolerant are the most intolerant. Christians created a nation of free speech rights. Even Websters can't keep up with the politically correct terms of the day. Speech can be banned if it is considered "offensive" to a "protected minority".
The constitution grants you the right to speak freely, it doesn't protect you from someone else's "hate speech".
[ March 07, 2010, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Malanthrop, that google was very, very interesting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The self described tolerant are the most intolerant.
But you've already insisted that you're more tolerant than any of us. Does that mean you're more or less tolerant, really?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sala: Malanthrop, that google was very, very interesting.
It ought to be. The student won the first case and its been appealed to the federal court. If it isn't upheld it'll go to the US Supreme court. Of course, it's only a minor story. It is an important court case you aren't hearing about. They are going to decide if "hate speech" is free speech. What shocks me is pornography and the KKK have already won their cases. A Christian quoting the Websters definition of marriage has to go through the same process as Larry Flynt and the head of the Arian Brotherhood. Free speech sucks...you don't have the right not to be offended.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do we have free speech in classrooms now? When did that happen?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do we have free speech in classrooms now? When did that happen?
We've been castigating our teachers for so long it was inevitable that kids would go to class one day and be able to say anything without any sort of disciplinary response.
edit: While I was attending Utah Valley Univeristy, in my constitutional law class, one of the students started discussing a question and then somehow started to bear his testimony. To non-Mormons that is a affirmative statement of ones beliefs in God, the church, the scriptures, etc. The teacher who was a Mormon and also a judge cut him off and while he didn't threaten him in anyway, he indicated that what the student was doing could not be permitted in the classroom. Several of the students took issue with the teacher, and it turned into a sort of class debate between the teacher and a handful of the other students. I was the only student in the class who vocally sided with the teacher. The teacher didn't really need my help much, all I ended up doing was cementing my reputation as not much of a rightest to the kids in the class.
[ March 08, 2010, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do we have free speech in classrooms now? When did that happen?
We've been castigating our teachers for so long it was inevitable that kids would go to class one day and be able to say anything without any sort of disciplinary response.
I don't know what kind of environment you think our primary schools are, but this isn't even remotely true right now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The case under discussion occurred at a community college.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
As far as I am concerned, if my college professers can spout off anything they want be it truth or fiction, a student can do the same damn thing. I had a political science professor in college who's sole purpose was to try and convince us to vote for John Kerry. Every day we had another video or news article about how evil Bush was and how good of a person John Kerry is. I challenged him every day and on every point he made, mostly because everyone else just nodded and agreed without researching themselves.
Truth be told, I'm fine with him doing that. I got into heated arguments with the professor, but we treated each other with respect. I got an A in the class, and I suspect it was because I challenged him instead of just accepting everything he told us.
Differing views can create opportunities to learn. I respect what atheists believe. I like to think that atheists respect religious beliefs. Often however it just turns into religion bashing. I can understand the desire to convert atheists to religion, as those in religion want to "save" them. I don't understand the desire of some atheists to get others to not believe in God. I come from a religious background so it is difficult for me to understand that.
That isn't to say one side is more justified or even right in doing it. While I was a missionary I spoke to everyone I could. If someone did not want to listen or speak to me, I respected that. My philosophy was that I did not want to try and convert someone who did not want to convert. I was in many situations in which ministers and priests from other religions would invite us into a home posing as someone they were not. When we arrived all they wanted to do was bible bash. Well, they weren't going to change my mind and I wasn't going to change theirs, so I would just get up and leave.
And look, it is true that religious people have committed atrocities in the past, but you are looking at people, not teachings. I don't see anywhere in the teachings of Christ where he tells his followers to go out and kill non believers, treat them differently, or perform violent acts. To go out and state "religion is bad because of X" is ridiculous. The teachings are good, the people who say they follow them many not be.
Whether you believe Jesus was a messiah, a savior, or just a philosopher, you cannot deny that his teachings on treating your fellow man ,if followed, would make the world a better place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As far as I am concerned, if my college professers can spout off anything they want be it truth or fiction, a student can do the same damn thing.
You have, perhaps, missed the difference between a student and a professor.
I'm not saying that you are required to believe everything your professors tell you, mind you -- but they are not required to give you equal time to voice your own opinions on any given subject. In fact, a moment's thought should reveal why that's sort of a ridiculous expectation.
quote:I come from a religious background so it is difficult for me to understand that.
Try asking an atheist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp: I of course could be wrong, I do not pretend to be an expert, just a man with an opinion. From what I hear from folks, some of them teachers, they are often stuck in a frustrating environment where kids are obstructive and disrespectful, and teachers can do nothing but send the really bad trouble makers to the principle office, for fear of getting involved in litigation. The kids are undisciplined at home, and a teacher does not have the options a parent does.
edit: But I'm just somebody who went to a preppy private school where I had fantastic teachers, but also teachers that had a type of relationship I haven't encountered here from my exposure to people.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, it was a public speaking class.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, it was a public speaking class.
Oh, I know. I'm not speaking to the specific instance at all; the professor in question sounds like a petty jerk, although of course we have no idea how much of an enfant terrible the student had been up to that point. I'm saying that, in general, the idea that students are justified in voicing their opinions because professors are permitted to do so reflects a misunderstanding of the collegiate dynamic.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: the professor in question sounds like a petty jerk
Scuttlebutt from students (past and current) there that I know would support that.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)