I'm reposting part of a post I made elsewhere, edited slightly to stand alone. It was peripheral to the topic in which I wrote it, and has sort of gotten lost.
I've seen so many people here defend the idea of trying to legislate their particular religious views here in the US that I wanted to put this into a thread of its own.
For those of you who don't know, I'm an Orthodox Jew. A rabid right-wing religious fanatic, according to every other Jew I know. I'm very much a pluralist when it comes to valid views within Torah Judaism. I tolerate other religious views purely as a matter of practicality. I don't consider my view to be faith-based; rather, I think that anyone with sufficient education and honesty would agree.
Normally, I don't say such stuff, because it's wicked offensive, and there's no point in offending people without a reason. I mention it here because too many posters on this forum have implied that only secularists favor keeping religion out of our laws. And they're wrong about that.
There used to be such a thing as trial by combat. The basic idea was that neither side was ever going to admit to being wrong. So they'd fight, and whoever won was clearly in the right.
Nowadays, we generally look down upon such a procedure, because we know full well that wrong and evil can and does often win out, at least in the short term, over right and good.
But short of trial by combat, or the variation known sometimes as a jihad or a crusade, how can we resolve a dispute between people who know themselves to be right?
Voting is just as bad as trial by combat, because it can't determine truth any more than a swordfight can. And the First Amendment doesn't exist to stifle religion, but rather to prevent a trial by combat in the ballot box.
I don't have any problem looking at issues from a dual perspective. I will fight within Judaism against any attempt to have same-sex marriage. I will fight in the secular realm of this country to have same-sex marriage either recognized or not, but exactly as opposite-sex marriage is recognized or not.
I'll fight within Judaism to stop Jews from opening stores on Shabbat. And I'll fight just as hard against Blue Laws that use the force of secular law to try and shut down businesses for religious reasons.
I'll fight within Judaism to prevent Jews from marrying non-Jews, and I'll never recognize such "marriages" as being anything of the sort. But if someone were to try and pass a law to disallow marriage between members of different religions, I'd go to the barricades to fight it.
This isn't hypocrisy. This isn't schizophrenia. This is a recognition that supporting religious freedom in this country does not run counter to the absolute conviction that ones own religion is not only true, but is the only true religion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I submit that it is easier for you to hold this view because your religion does not actively recruit members for "salvation."
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I submit that this would make no difference if true. I am part of a religion that does recruit, and I don't want government to take a position on religion (other than to tolerate it).
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
If the government went ahead and endorsed any particular religion, that would be about the worst thing that could happen to us. First of all it would turn the war on terror into a war of Christians against Muslims as opposed to free people against murderers and tyrants. Secondly, we'd end up alienating the non Christian people of America, which runs counter to the basic principals it was founded on.
My problem is when the far left tries to stifle religious expression. There shouldn't be a problem with having a Christmas break in December, or wearing an exposed cross to school. However that's the exact kind of trivial stuff the ACLU-types flip out over. I think we all just need to be a little more tolerant of everyone else’s beliefs and not leave it up to the government to decide where the line is.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
There are certainly many members of faiths that prosetylize that don't feel that legislating their faith would be a good thing, Will, but nonetheless Tom has a point. If your religion is a closed group, you don't really have a motivation to get other people to behave as you do. In fact, doing so might even be something you actively didn't want, as it could blur the line between "us" and "them". If "us and them" is a big deal for you, as it is for starLisa, you're not going to want that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: I'm very much a pluralist when it comes to valid views within Torah Judaism.
Would it be fair if when I read the above, I hear you mentally inserting the phrase "what I consider to be" between the words "to" and "valid?"
Given what you've said about other Jews' opinions, I suspect that it'd be more fair of your to state that there are clearly defined limits to your pluralism, and that they are not universal among even Orthodox Jews, or "Torah Judaism," let alone all of Judaism.
In a way, I find you very consistent, sL -- you find the most rule-based, strictest interpretation of EVERYTHING you believe in, and then insist upon it as the ONLY possible stance to take.
That's not schizo unless you believed whole heartedly in things that are mutually incompatible.
Sorry to derail. It just struck me as odd that you had to give this particular preamble to your position. What does it matter how religious you are if we're talking about America's values? I mean, I'm not shocked that an Orthodox Jew would adhere to America's principles while living here. I simply expect it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other places to go.
Same for Christians who try to insist on their principles being inshrined in laws. There've got to places you can go if you really want that. This is America built by and for the people, all the people, and started explicitly to escape both the tyranny of government-based religions AND the tyranny of religious persecution.
(how's that for a derail and rerail all in one post?)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There shouldn't be a problem with having a Christmas break in December, or wearing an exposed cross to school.
Hm. I don't think those two examples are equivalent. I object to the former, but not the latter.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Now when you say Jews marrying non-Jews, where do you draw the line with people who are only culturally Jewish and do not actually go to a Synagogue on a regular basis, only participate in the High Holidays (kind of like Christmas and Easter Christians)?
What about Reform Jews or Conservative Jews who don't necessarily follow all of the same guidelines that Orthodox Jews do? What if one of them wanted to open a store on Shabbat?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
IIRC, starLisa has said that she considers those groups to be failed Jews. I'd imagine they fall under the "Gentile" category, if not something worse.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No idea what Lisa considers such Jews. But traditional Jewish law (i.e., Orthodox) has no such categories. If your biological mother is Jewish or if you convert properly, you are Jewish.
There are no "cultural Jews" no "failed Jews"; just Jews. Some may not be observant -- by choice, by upbringing, for other reasons -- but they are still Jews.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Maybe we ought to be discussing the purpose of her post i.e.
"But short of trial by combat, or the variation known sometimes as a jihad or a crusade, how can we resolve a dispute between people who know themselves to be right?"
There is alwasy the Elijah method "lets see which God brings fire from heaven"
Or the Shadrak Meshak and Abidnego "Toss us in a fiery furnace and see what happens"
Daniels "I can buddy up with the lions if you toss me in that pit"
Moses' "Lets have a plague war and see which God is stronger"
All joking aside I would need to think of a good method first, before I could suggest one. So I may jump in a later point in this discussion.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:There are no "cultural Jews" no "failed Jews"; just Jews. Some may not be observant -- by choice, by upbringing, for other reasons -- but they are still Jews.
Ok, I just know some people who call themselves culturally Jewish, which is why I made that distinction.
The jury's still out as to whether or not I'm Jewish (mom's mom's lineage, mom's cousin's doing some research).
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
What's objectionable about calling it a Christmas break? It's just asinine to have to go through and change everything to winter break. I sincerely hope no one's so offended by the word Christmas in and of itself. It’s not affirming the Christian faith; it’s recognizing the federal holiday of Christmas.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kojabu: Ok, I just know some people who call themselves culturally Jewish, which is why I made that distinction.
*nod* So do I. It's just not what I would call them . Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It’s not affirming the Christian faith; it’s recognizing the federal holiday of Christmas.
The recognition of the federal holiday of Christmas is indeed the offensive bit.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I submit that it is easier for you to hold this view because your religion does not actively recruit members for "salvation."
In fact, what most people don't know about Judaism is that we absolutely have requirements for both Jews and non-Jews. We hold that the non-Jewish obligation to abide by the Noachide laws is every bit as absolute as the Jewish obligation to abide by Jewish law.
There've been times in our history when we've actively sought to convert non-Jews to this proper observance, and the fact that we don't do it much nowadays has a little to do with a fear of being the victims of mass murder.
Also, we are very much obligated to get Jews to observe. So even if we aren't obligated to get everyone in the US (or the world) to become religious Jews, we certainly are obligated to do so with regards to a segment of the population.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: My problem is when the far left tries to stifle religious expression. There shouldn't be a problem with having a Christmas break in December, or wearing an exposed cross to school.
We are currently in the Jewish month of Tishrei. During Tishrei, there are 7 days in which we cannot work. Kids can't go to school, adults can't go to work.
Sometimes, if we're lucky, 6 of those days fall on the weekend, and we only have to take one day off. In a year like the current one, all seven are on weekdays.
I have to take those days off from work. But I have to take them as vacation, or personal days. I can't volunteer to work Christmas, because it's a legal holiday. There's nothing I can do to reduce the burden on myself. A burden which Christians in this country do not share.
Before you get irked at "leftists" objecting to a Christian holiday being a state holiday, take a moment to consider that it's not only leftists who might have a problem with it. Consider how easy it is for a majority population to step on a minority.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote: I'm very much a pluralist when it comes to valid views within Torah Judaism.
Would it be fair if when I read the above, I hear you mentally inserting the phrase "what I consider to be" between the words "to" and "valid?"
"Fair"? No. Politically correct, perhaps, but that's never been one of my strong suits.
What I consider doesn't matter. To the extent that what I consider may differ from what God's Torah says, that just means I have stuff to work on.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Given what you've said about other Jews' opinions, I suspect that it'd be more fair of your to state that there are clearly defined limits to your pluralism, and that they are not universal among even Orthodox Jews, or "Torah Judaism," let alone all of Judaism.
I don't really think so. I think it's utterly unnecessary to insist on glatt meat or chalav yisrael milk in the US. I don't myself. But I'm completely accepting of those who do. In the other direction, I make a point of standing up during the Kaddish prayer during services. So I was taught, and so I consider proper. But I also know that there are valid views that permit sitting during Kaddish, and I accept that some people go according to those views.
But when someone starts talking about driving on Shabbat, or allowing a Kohen to marry a divorcee, and they want to pretend that Judaism can in any way be twisted so as to make those things acceptable... well, it's not even a question.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: In a way, I find you very consistent, sL -- you find the most rule-based, strictest interpretation of EVERYTHING you believe in, and then insist upon it as the ONLY possible stance to take.
Heh. You're so wrong. I was sitting here while writing the above paragraphs trying as hard as I could to think of something I'm more strict about than the average Orthodox Jew. I was a little surprised to realize that it was so hard to find something. It was far easier for me to find ways in which there are extra stringencies within Judaism that I don't do.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: That's not schizo unless you believed whole heartedly in things that are mutually incompatible.
Sorry to derail. It just struck me as odd that you had to give this particular preamble to your position. What does it matter how religious you are if we're talking about America's values?
I think I addressed that. I'm tired of the repeated false claims around here (even in this thread) that you have to be secular or leftist to want to keep religion out of government. If I were secular or a leftist, my saying that wouldn't mean much.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I mean, I'm not shocked that an Orthodox Jew would adhere to America's principles while living here. I simply expect it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other places to go.
Same for Christians who try to insist on their principles being inshrined in laws. There've got to places you can go if you really want that. This is America built by and for the people, all the people, and started explicitly to escape both the tyranny of government-based religions AND the tyranny of religious persecution.
Amen v'amen.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: (how's that for a derail and rerail all in one post?)
<applause>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kojabu: Now when you say Jews marrying non-Jews, where do you draw the line with people who are only culturally Jewish and do not actually go to a Synagogue on a regular basis, only participate in the High Holidays (kind of like Christmas and Easter Christians)?
A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. Declaring "I don't accept the law" doesn't make someone exempt from it. Imagine that in any other context: "Well, I don't really hold by all that business of robbing banks being against the law, so fill up that bag right quick, or I'm going to start shooting."
quote:Originally posted by kojabu: What about Reform Jews or Conservative Jews who don't necessarily follow all of the same guidelines that Orthodox Jews do? What if one of them wanted to open a store on Shabbat?
Like I said, I'd fight against any government law that tried to restrict them from doing so. And I would fight at least as hard against any attempts (such as the Conservative and Reform movements) to try and label such an act as anything but a forbidden desecration of Shabbat and of God's Torah.
In certain cases, I might try to boycott the store. Like if they were a store selling Jewish books, I would make a point of buying elsewhere. If they were a restaurant, I wouldn't patronize them even during the week. If I thought other Jews weren't aware of what was going on, I'd try to publicize it in order to encourage the store owner to behave more properly, or failing that, to hurt his business enough that he'd have to eventually close. Nothing illegal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This isn't hypocrisy. This isn't schizophrenia. This is a recognition that supporting religious freedom in this country does not run counter to the absolute conviction that ones own religion is not only true, but is the only true religion.
Your religion is obviously fundamentally different from other religions. Thus your own standards of hypocrisy regarding secular and religious life do not necessarily apply to the standards of others.
You're an orange. They might be apples. What is true of an orange is not always true of apples. ----------- Dantesparadigm,
quote:What's objectionable about calling it a Christmas break? It's just asinine to have to go through and change everything to winter break. I sincerely hope no one's so offended by the word Christmas in and of itself. It’s not affirming the Christian faith; it’s recognizing the federal holiday of Christmas.
This appears to me to be an obvious problem. 'Federal holiday of Christmas'? Christmas is the holiday celebrating the birth of Christ as the birth of the Messiah, the Son of G-d. Just because you tack on the words 'federal holiday of' in front of it, doesn't change what the holiday commemorates.
Christmas is a word like any other word. It's not just a bunch of letters which strung together create a sound, it's an idea. That's why people get irritated by it. It's not like the idea of a holiday in December came first and then Christmas came along. ----- starLisa,
quote:I have to take those days off from work. But I have to take them as vacation, or personal days. I can't volunteer to work Christmas, because it's a legal holiday. There's nothing I can do to reduce the burden on myself. A burden which Christians in this country do not share.
This is an iniquity. But am I to understand your views expressed elsewhere, that you believe there should be no religious holidays for anyone?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: IIRC, starLisa has said that she considers those groups to be failed Jews. I'd imagine they fall under the "Gentile" category, if not something worse.
Not at all. My family is coming over today for a late lunch. My parents, and most of my siblings and their kids. Except for one sister-in-law, who keeps kosher (mostly) but is otherwise not observant, Judaism is really a side issue or a cultural one for them. They just don't know any better.
"A Jew who sins is still a Jew". Also, someone who was raised without an understanding of what Judaism is can't be considered culpable for what they do wrong.
My complaint isn't actually so much with Jews who aren't observant. It's with the movements that take advantage of them by offering them "permission" and guilt-free violations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have to take those days off from work. But I have to take them as vacation, or personal days. I can't volunteer to work Christmas, because it's a legal holiday. There's nothing I can do to reduce the burden on myself. A burden which Christians in this country do not share.
Except that many places stay open on Christmas, and many more likely would close even if the federal government didn't make it a holiday. There's no general prohibition on work on that day.
And in the federal government, the day is a vacation day that cannot be switched. You lose nothing by having it off, because if you didn't, you wouldn't get an additional vacation or personal day.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:This isn't hypocrisy. This isn't schizophrenia. This is a recognition that supporting religious freedom in this country does not run counter to the absolute conviction that ones own religion is not only true, but is the only true religion.
Your religion is obviously fundamentally different from other religions. Thus your own standards of hypocrisy regarding secular and religious life do not necessarily apply to the standards of others.
But I'm talking about one of the fundamental bases upon which the US was founded. It wasn't exactly founded by Jews, right?
And in certain areas, Judaism does not differ. Premarital sex is as forbidden (if not more so) in Judaism than it is in, say, Christianity. So is abortion as a form of birth control. So is euthanasia. So is blasphemy. So is something like Wicca (for instance).
And not just for Jews. We consider those things (well, maybe other than the first one) to be forbidden for non-Jews as well.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're an orange. They might be apples. What is true of an orange is not always true of apples. ----------- Dantesparadigm,
quote:What's objectionable about calling it a Christmas break? It's just asinine to have to go through and change everything to winter break. I sincerely hope no one's so offended by the word Christmas in and of itself. It’s not affirming the Christian faith; it’s recognizing the federal holiday of Christmas.
This appears to me to be an obvious problem. 'Federal holiday of Christmas'? Christmas is the holiday celebrating the birth of Christ as the birth of the Messiah, the Son of G-d. Just because you tack on the words 'federal holiday of' in front of it, doesn't change what the holiday commemorates.
Christmas is a word like any other word. It's not just a bunch of letters which strung together create a sound, it's an idea. That's why people get irritated by it. It's not like the idea of a holiday in December came first and then Christmas came along. ----- starLisa,
quote:I have to take those days off from work. But I have to take them as vacation, or personal days. I can't volunteer to work Christmas, because it's a legal holiday. There's nothing I can do to reduce the burden on myself. A burden which Christians in this country do not share.
This is an iniquity. But am I to understand your views expressed elsewhere, that you believe there should be no religious holidays for anyone?
I have no problem with an employer giving off whenever that employer wants. I have a problem with government recognition of a religious holiday.
I wonder how the Christians in the US would feel about Wiccans celebrating Beltane on the White House lawn. Probably a little bit like how I feel seeing a Christmas tree there.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I have to take those days off from work. But I have to take them as vacation, or personal days. I can't volunteer to work Christmas, because it's a legal holiday. There's nothing I can do to reduce the burden on myself. A burden which Christians in this country do not share.
Except that many places stay open on Christmas, and many more likely would close even if the federal government didn't make it a holiday. There's no general prohibition on work on that day.
Suppose I'm a bank teller. Suppose I'm a mail carrier. Please.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And in the federal government, the day is a vacation day that cannot be switched. You lose nothing by having it off, because if you didn't, you wouldn't get an additional vacation or personal day.
Then let's have it switched to December 5. Cool. That way no one gets a federally granted favor. Why do Christians get one of their holidays declared a bank holiday, and Jews don't get the same thing? What makes them special?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Suppose I'm a bank teller. Suppose I'm a mail carrier. Please.
Banks are allowed to stay open. Any private business is. Please. As for mail carriers, they're federal so consider my next response to cover them.
quote:Then let's have it switched to December 5. Cool. That way no one gets a federally granted favor. Why do Christians get one of their holidays declared a bank holiday, and Jews don't get the same thing? What makes them special?
Because there is something to be said for putting the federal holiday on a day when many people will take off anyway. My mom went to a school with a large enough Jewish population that they just decided to close the school on high holy days. It wasn't a support of Judaism or reasonable accomodation, but recognition that the religious beliefs of a large portion of the population will have a serious effect on the ability of the institution to function.
The government, when operating as an employer, is a market participant. As such, responding to the wishes of a majority of its employees is good business sense.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: It’s not affirming the Christian faith; it’s recognizing the federal holiday of Christmas.
The recognition of the federal holiday of Christmas is indeed the offensive bit.
Tom should we change the names of the planets to less religious names?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's a difference between a day federal employees get off and a federal holiday.
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
Most cultural celebrations of long standing have religious roots. Christmas has become very much a secular and cultural phenomenon. So much so that many Christians complain about it.
The majority of my atheist/agnostic friends celebrate Christmas as a secular thing and have Christmas trees, etc. with absolutely no relationship to the birth Christ. It has become a cultural holiday.
It's not like the government has institutionalized all the Christian holidays.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There's a difference between a day federal employees get off and a federal holiday.
Not a practical one: federal employees get federal holidays off, and there's little practical effect otherwise.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:I have to take those days off from work. But I have to take them as vacation, or personal days. I can't volunteer to work Christmas, because it's a legal holiday. There's nothing I can do to reduce the burden on myself. A burden which Christians in this country do not share.
There are Christians who don't celebrate Christmas. There are Christians who don't celebrate Easter or celebrate Easter on a different day than the majority. And there are very few Christians who cannot work on Christmas, Easter, etc. Church services come at all hours of the day as well as midnight so they can't have the excuse that they need the whole day off just to go to church. Few Christians have a religious requirement to take the day off work. I volunteer to work on holidays so the people with families can enjoy the day. I see a lot of nonChristians looking forward to such holidays too, to spend the day with family. And it is a choice to pick a job where you know you'll be required to take federal holidays as well as your Jewish days. Christians who have jobs where they may be required to work Christmas have to take that into consideration too.
Seems to me the real difference is that you have so many days you can't work for religious reasons, and Christians don't have that many, if any.
Although I do agree that governments should stay out of religion more than they do. And if they took away my Christmas holiday I wouldn't be upset at all.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. Declaring "I don't accept the law" doesn't make someone exempt from it. Imagine that in any other context: "Well, I don't really hold by all that business of robbing banks being against the law, so fill up that bag right quick, or I'm going to start shooting."
With secular laws, you can opt out, either by direct rebellion as you suggest, or by voting with your feet. How do you move away from being Jewish? A law which relies purely on coercion is an unjust law.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In that case, I think removing the symbolically and religiously especial status would make good sense .
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
starLisa,
quote:I have no problem with an employer giving off whenever that employer wants. I have a problem with government recognition of a religious holiday.
I wonder how the Christians in the US would feel about Wiccans celebrating Beltane on the White House lawn. Probably a little bit like how I feel seeing a Christmas tree there.
Is there any religious signifigance to a Christmas tree? This is an unrelated question. I'm not sure if there is or not, but given its signifigance, I don't think it should be put on the lawn of the White House.
Then again...would you be upset if the President put up a Christmas tree in the family portions of the White House? I don't think I'd see a problem with that.
As for employers giving off what holidays they wanted...well, wouldn't that result in mostly Christian holidays being given off? I see your point, though.
-------
KoM,
quote:With secular laws, you can opt out, either by direct rebellion as you suggest, or by voting with your feet. How do you move away from being Jewish? A law which relies purely on coercion is an unjust law.
Just because someone isn't exempt from something doesn't mean they're being coerced. I could be mistaken, but I was taking sL's statements to mean that even though a Jew might say, "I am no longer living under these laws," they are. Not that they should necessarily still be forced to obey by other human beings.
And I think you'll have to go further than just saying a law which relies solely on coercion is an unjust law in order for it to be true.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
fugu, could you repeat that in words of fewer syllables? I don't know what you just said. (I'm also not entirely sure of who you are responding to.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm responding to Dagonee. I said there was a difference between a day federal employees get off and a federal holiday, he said not a practical one, so I'm saying it would make sense to remove the symbolic/religious status of Christmas as a federal holiday and have Dec. 25th just be a day federal employees get off because so many of them would try to get it off anyways.
After all, if there's no practical difference, then the difference that remains would seem to be religiously motivated.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: KoM,
quote:With secular laws, you can opt out, either by direct rebellion as you suggest, or by voting with your feet. How do you move away from being Jewish? A law which relies purely on coercion is an unjust law.
Just because someone isn't exempt from something doesn't mean they're being coerced. I could be mistaken, but I was taking sL's statements to mean that even though a Jew might say, "I am no longer living under these laws," they are. Not that they should necessarily still be forced to obey by other human beings.
And I think you'll have to go further than just saying a law which relies solely on coercion is an unjust law in order for it to be true.
I think then that we have slightly different understandings of what it means to live under a law. I agree that in a purely formal sense, people might be living under a law they do not obey. If that's what comrade sL meant, fine. But I think that living under a law requires recognition that the law is just or at least reasonable, and some degree of willingness to obey.
For the other, can you think of any just laws that are upheld purely by coercion? (Note my careful use of the qualification "purely".) I haven't got my Homecoming books here, but in the last one, two characters have a dialogue something like this :
General : You can hardly argue that your subjects will obey purely from love of the law. King : Ah, but they do. General : Oh? I thought it was because of all those soldiers and judges. King : Quite so; but why do the soldiers and judges obey?
Now, unjust laws can be upheld other than by force, but I think I am safe in saying that laws upheld only by force are unjust.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks for the clarification, fugu. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The Christmas tree isn't actually Christian. And the date of December 25th, I'm pretty sure, was actually the date of some big pagan festival or something, and when people X conquered people Y, they just decided to change their pagan festival from the worship of people Y's original gods to the celebration of the birth of Christ.
Or something like that.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think celebrating midwinter was pretty universal across Northern Europe; when it gets that cold and dark, knowing that the sun will come back eventually is worth a big celebration.
I don't think this kind of historical root is very relevant, though; what matters is surely what the Christmas tree means to people today. And really, Christmas is a highly secular holiday these days.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. Declaring "I don't accept the law" doesn't make someone exempt from it. Imagine that in any other context: "Well, I don't really hold by all that business of robbing banks being against the law, so fill up that bag right quick, or I'm going to start shooting."
With secular laws, you can opt out, either by direct rebellion as you suggest, or by voting with your feet. How do you move away from being Jewish?
You don't.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A law which relies purely on coercion is an unjust law.
Do tell. If I tell my daughter (who is 5) that she has to clean her room, she can't opt out of it. Is that unjust? No. I'm her Mom. I have that appropriate authority, and it's based on a lot of things. Among them are the fact that she wouldn't exist had it not been for me. She would not have a roof over her head or food to eat if it were not for me. That room I want her to clean? That's mine. I bought it and gave it to her for her use, but it's still mine. Also, I know things that she doesn't know. I understand why it's proper for her to clean her room, even if she doesn't quite grasp it herself yet.
Now replace me with God and replace my daughter with me and you and the rest of the human race.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: starLisa,
quote:I have no problem with an employer giving off whenever that employer wants. I have a problem with government recognition of a religious holiday.
I wonder how the Christians in the US would feel about Wiccans celebrating Beltane on the White House lawn. Probably a little bit like how I feel seeing a Christmas tree there.
Is there any religious signifigance to a Christmas tree? This is an unrelated question. I'm not sure if there is or not, but given its signifigance, I don't think it should be put on the lawn of the White House.
Agreed. And there is definitely a religious significance to it for some Christians, and I think most Jews. It's a symbol of some really bad history. <shrug> We have a long memory.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Then again...would you be upset if the President put up a Christmas tree in the family portions of the White House? I don't think I'd see a problem with that.
I think I agree with you. I mean, it's their home, right?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for employers giving off what holidays they wanted...well, wouldn't that result in mostly Christian holidays being given off? I see your point, though.
Maybe. It could also result in swing holidays. For example, where I work, we were given a choice of Memorial Day or Columbus Day to take as a swing holiday. Well, other than the fact that Columbus Day used to be my half-birthday until they moved it to the nearest Monday, I don't know why I'd want either of those off.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just because someone isn't exempt from something doesn't mean they're being coerced. I could be mistaken, but I was taking sL's statements to mean that even though a Jew might say, "I am no longer living under these laws," they are. Not that they should necessarily still be forced to obey by other human beings.
Bingo.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: comrade sL
Just as a point of information (this is open to anyone), is "bite me" a legitimate form of expression this board? If not, then I'll refrain, and just let King of Clowns take the hint.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: QUOTE]You don't.
Yes, that was kind of my point.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Do tell. If I tell my daughter (who is 5) that she has to clean her room, she can't opt out of it. Is that unjust? No. I'm her Mom. I have that appropriate authority, and it's based on a lot of things. Among them are the fact that she wouldn't exist had it not been for me. She would not have a roof over her head or food to eat if it were not for me. That room I want her to clean? That's mine. I bought it and gave it to her for her use, but it's still mine. Also, I know things that she doesn't know. I understand why it's proper for her to clean her room, even if she doesn't quite grasp it herself yet.
Now replace me with God and replace my daughter with me and you and the rest of the human race. [/QB]
There is a difference between laws intended for adults, and the rules we impose on children. And since your god is a figment of your over-active imagination, the "Yahweh-knows-best" bit is just silly.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Don't Jewish people celebrate Christmas, not in the traditional sense, but with a movie and Chinese takeout?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Yep, my Jewish friends do. They say the lines are much shorter that day.
quote: wonder how the Christians in the US would feel about Wiccans celebrating Beltane on the White House lawn. Probably a little bit like how I feel seeing a Christmas tree there. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there any religious signifigance to a Christmas tree? This is an unrelated question. I'm not sure if there is or not, but given its signifigance, I don't think it should be put on the lawn of the White House.
Well, the Christians co-opted them from the Wiccans, so, it's kind of both, neh?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:And since your god is a figment of your over-active imagination, blah blah blah blah blah ...
King of Men, we've heard this from you before, and no one was impressed then, either. I can't imagine why you might think returning to it now is at all helpful to the discussion. We know you don't believe in any religion, and no one is asking you to. The mockery is out of line.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The White House is part government building, part private residence. Why not leave it up to the occupants at the time what they want on their lawn/grounds? If we had a Jewish president, or a Wiccan president, we wouldn't have a Christmas tree on the lawn, and there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Well, the Christians co-opted them from the Wiccans, so, it's kind of both, neh?
I'm not aware that there were any Wiccans in the days before Christians adopted the Christmas tree as a symbol ...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, I was going to make that point as well. Wiccans are pretty new, definitely newer than Christmas trees.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I stand corrected...it was the Pagans that the modern day Wiccans are inspired by.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: King of Men, we've heard this from you before, and no one was impressed then, either. I can't imagine why you might think returning to it now is at all helpful to the discussion. We know you don't believe in any religion, and no one is asking you to. The mockery is out of line.
Comparing me to a five-year-old is not mockery? If comrade starLisa can make insulting statements on the basis of her beliefs, I don't see why I should not.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:If comrade starLisa can make insulting statements on the basis of her beliefs, I don't see why I should not.
Eye for an eye, and everyone ends up blind.
At which point I will be running around and stealing all your wallets.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Comparing me to a five-year-old is not mockery?
Technically, she didn't compare you to a five-year old. She said that as she is to her five year old, God is to you. Since she equated you with herself in that analogy, it's clear she doesn't consider you a five year old.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I demand the right to be considered as a five-year-old if it means I can shout "She started it!"
No, seriously. Her beliefs are, really, pretty insulting to those of us who consider ourselves adults capable of making moral decisions independent of Big Brother.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think they fall into the realm of "things you can choose to be insulted by if you really, really want to, but are not intrinsically insulting" Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
quote: quote: If comrade starLisa can make insulting statements on the basis of her beliefs, I don't see why I should not. Eye for an eye, and everyone ends up blind.
At which point I will be running around and stealing all your wallets.
*snort/*snicker Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then Puppy, what do you care what a random atheist thinks?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Is it bad that I'm enjoying this?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Don't Jewish people celebrate Christmas, not in the traditional sense, but with a movie and Chinese takeout?
A Jew and a Chinaman were talking one day. The Chinese guy says, "We've been around for 4,000 years." The Jewish guy says, "Huh. We've been around for 5,000 years". The Chinaman looks at the Jew with disbelief and says, "Oh, come on. What did the Jews eat for the first thousand years, then?"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And since your god is a figment of your over-active imagination, the "Yahweh-knows-best" bit is just silly.
<yawn> I honestly don't know what people were thinking when they said they were glad to see you back. Would you mind going off and playing while the grownups talk?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: If we had a Jewish president,
God forbid.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Clowns: Comparing me to a five-year-old is not mockery? If comrade starLisa can make insulting statements on the basis of her beliefs, I don't see why I should not.
Oh, pshaw. I wasn't comparing you to a five year old. Go ask a grownup what an analogy is, and why the concretes used in a particular analogy are irrelevant.
I don't think of you as a five year old, O King of Clowns. A particularly difficult and petulant 17 year old is more like it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, why not take some advice from your elder brother (since morally you appear to be about five) : Just because Daddy asys it, doesn't mean it's true. And when we get down to "My dad said that his dad said that his dad said..." and so on for about a hundred generations, well. Ever play Telephone?
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote: Well then Puppy, what do you care what a random atheist thinks?
KoM, probably no one cares what you *think* anyone's god is as long as you don't say it insultingly to thier face. You're entitled to your opinion (and I suspect my own opinion is much closer to yours than to the people you're arguing with), but show a little tact.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well then, why not take some advice from your elder brother (since morally you appear to be about five) : Just because Daddy asys it, doesn't mean it's true. And when we get down to "My dad said that his dad said that his dad said..." and so on for about a hundred generations, well. Ever play Telephone?
Telephone with millions of people in parallel devoting their lives to passing a certain message down? That's a bit different than the single chain of whispering you're familiar with from your social events.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: KoM, probably no one cares what you *think* anyone's god is as long as you don't say it insultingly to their face.
For this reason, I'm enjoying this particular conversation enormously. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well then, why not take some advice from your elder brother (since morally you appear to be about five) : Just because Daddy asys it, doesn't mean it's true. And when we get down to "My dad said that his dad said that his dad said..." and so on for about a hundred generations, well. Ever play Telephone?
Telephone with millions of people in parallel devoting their lives to passing a certain message down? That's a bit different than the single chain of whispering you're familiar with from your social events.
That would be why mainstream Judaism hasn't changed by a single jot, tittle, or smidgen since Moses invaded the sovereign territory of the Canaanites.
Posted by Ser Bronn Stone (Member # 8759) on :
quote:starLisa said: Do tell. If I tell my daughter (who is 5) that she has to clean her room, she can't opt out of it. Is that unjust? No. I'm her Mom. I have that appropriate authority, and it's based on a lot of things. Among them are the fact that she wouldn't exist had it not been for me. She would not have a roof over her head or food to eat if it were not for me. That room I want her to clean? That's mine. I bought it and gave it to her for her use, but it's still mine. Also, I know things that she doesn't know. I understand why it's proper for her to clean her room, even if she doesn't quite grasp it herself yet.
I am curious. What do you believe the outcome would be if the only instructions you gave your daughter were purportedly 5000+ years old, though for some reason the originals were discarded and there were no way to really determine if that the instructions she was to follow had any relation to those she was originally given? And if those instructions were embedded in a mish-mash of folktale, allegory, seemingly arbitrary and pointless laws when not outright contradiction?
I'm guessing she'd laugh and continue playing with Legos.
And I think she'd have made the right choice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah:
quote: Well then Puppy, what do you care what a random atheist thinks?
KoM, probably no one cares what you *think* anyone's god is as long as you don't say it insultingly to thier face. You're entitled to your opinion (and I suspect my own opinion is much closer to yours than to the people you're arguing with), but show a little tact.
Humour aside, nobody would dream of calling for tact if I were to say "God is thus-and-so, because of this-and-that passage in the Bible." Why should disbelief have to be especially tactful?
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote: nobody would dream of calling for tact if I were to say "God is thus-and-so, because of this-and-that passage in the Bible."
There's a difference between that and "Athiests are ignorant fools; they just need to get thier heads out of thier rear ends and read this-and-that passage and then they'd see." Saying that someone's god comes from an "over-active imagination" is *really* insulting, and way, way over the line of polite discussion and into personal insults and irrational argument.
You didn't argue your opinion respectfully. No matter how firmly YOU beleive it, is still only ONE opinion. Be nice.
And, KoM, you think that just because something changes it's not still valid? How many ammendments are there to the U.S. Constitution again? And yet our country still stands on the same principles as it did 200+ years ago.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Such as slavery, a limited franchise, and an extremely weak federal government? But in any case, I do not argue that change makes something invalid. But since comrade starLisa apparently believes that a lack of change proves her world-view correct, well then.
On the issue of respect, well, yes, I am indeed lacking in respect for people who insist on believing in fairy tales. Especially fairy tales that show a fundamental lack of respect for human dignity.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Such as the self-evident equality of all. Note: slavery is illegal now. Which is my point.
And you're doing it again! Look, I AGREE with your views towards religion and *I'm* offended by how you express them. I don't believe in god, and I belive that all religion was developed as a tool to either keep the masses from harm (e.g shellfish not kosher because of red tied) or to control them (e.g. "the government is from god, please don't revolt"). I believe this because from what I know about life etc etc, it seems to be what makes sense.
But other rational, intelligent people believe differently. They belive what they believe with the same certainty that I believe what I believe. They hold thier beliefs sacred. Can you understand that? Surely there is something you hold sacred; imagine someone sarcastically reducing it to some sort of childish game or silly idea. There is nothing wrong with you sharing your beliefs in a CIVIL way, just as many others in this thread have.
And don't start saying that starLisa's p.o.v. is inherantly insulting to you as a human being. You think there is no god to whom she owes obediance, she thinks you are, in your words, under the watch of "Big Brother." Having a worldview and expressing it is not insulting. Bad-mouthing someone else's worldview obviously is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Because there is something to be said for putting the federal holiday on a day when many people will take off anyway. My mom went to a school with a large enough Jewish population that they just decided to close the school on high holy days. It wasn't a support of Judaism or reasonable accomodation, but recognition that the religious beliefs of a large portion of the population will have a serious effect on the ability of the institution to function.
quote: There are Christians who don't celebrate Christmas. There are Christians who don't celebrate Easter or celebrate Easter on a different day than the majority. And there are very few Christians who cannot work on Christmas, Easter, etc. Church services come at all hours of the day as well as midnight so they can't have the excuse that they need the whole day off just to go to church. Few Christians have a religious requirement to take the day off work. I volunteer to work on holidays so the people with families can enjoy the day. I see a lot of nonChristians looking forward to such holidays too, to spend the day with family. And it is a choice to pick a job where you know you'll be required to take federal holidays as well as your Jewish days. Christians who have jobs where they may be required to work Christmas have to take that into consideration too.
Seems to me the real difference is that you have so many days you can't work for religious reasons, and Christians don't have that many, if any.
quote: I wonder how the Christians in the US would feel about Wiccans celebrating Beltane on the White House lawn. Probably a little bit like how I feel seeing a Christmas tree there.
These three points struck me the most in reading this thread. The first is Dagonee's, and it just plain makes sense to me.
The second is Theaca's. Christians get one real day mandated off to them, Christmas. The only other holiday of significance I as a Catholic ever try to get off is Easter, but I've had to work a double shift on it for the last three years running. How many days do Jews want off? I wouldn't object to giving Jews a floating holiday. They can have choose one of their high holy days, and they get that one off. That evens things up.
As for the last point, so long as the Secret Service is there to make sure everything is done safely and with no security risks, the Wiccans can party away for all I care.
If tomorrow the Federal government decided to no longer make Christmas a federal holiday, it wouldn't matter much anyway. The only thing it would affect would be federal employees. I highly doubt any businesses would suddenly open up that were closed before. It makes little sense for many of them to be open anyway. Why would retail stores be open on a day when people have just finished shopping and are clearly going to want to be at home with their families? The reasons go on and on.
But since the only people this really affects are federal employees, I say let them argue it out. I don't think I should have a say whether or not my mailman works on Christmas or not. But if I did, I'd say let him have the day off.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lyr, nice summation. KoM, for this discussion the validity of any religion is not important. The validity of peoples beliefs is. starLisa has gone out on a limb by presenting her faith in a straightforward, no holds bar format. You can disagree with it all you want, she is not trying to convert you. However you both are on the same side--keeping church and state separate--yet you attack her beliefs, hence attacking her.
The main defense that certain Christian groups use for pushing closer ties between church and state is that they are being beaten down by overzealous evangelical atheists. That seems to be you, KoM.
That said, picture this scene. A group of kids and parents are protesting outside the principal's office. He recently banned football from highschool. They scream and shout, "You hate football. Without football there is no reason for school."
Finally the prinicpal comes out. He is a tall, thin elderly man with a white beard. He is very Uncle-Sam-esque. Some throw garbage at him, but he endures it, glaring back at them like only a great teacher can, which soon quiets the pack.
"I know that you are all upset at my decision to cancel all of the football programs here at the school. I know that students involved with sports programs are less likely to get involved with drugs, crime, or become pregnant. I know that school spirit is driven by successful teams, and that such spirit keeps other kids in school, and even increases the likelyhood of school taxes increasing. It is good for the students and it is good for the school."
The crowd sent a small buzz of agreement.
"However, the students and the overactive parents have been unable to control themselves at various games. When the teams come on the field with pointy sticks, clubs, knives, guns, and recently high explosives, I have no choice but to cancel the program. Not long ago a gathering of football fans this size, from the different teams within the school, would have only signified a riot. All of you would have been busy trying to maim, kill, or kidnap each other. I have cleaned up the mess of such meetings too many times. I can not allow it any more."
The crowd was silent.
"If you want to hate and despise me, fine. Most of you aren't trying to kill me. Its much less violent that when we ran the football programs. And don't forget, your kids can still play football outside of school when ever they wish."
"Its just not the same" yelled one father. "We need school money to buy the equipment!" yelled another. "We want the band and the cheerleaders like we used to have!" demanded a third.
The principal raised his hands and the crowd quieted. "I know this will make no difference to any of you, but I want it stated for the record. I canceled school sponsored football not because I want to see sports removed from the school, but because, frankly, you folks couldn't play well with others."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well then, why not take some advice from your elder brother (since morally you appear to be about five) : Just because Daddy asys it, doesn't mean it's true. And when we get down to "My dad said that his dad said that his dad said..." and so on for about a hundred generations, well. Ever play Telephone?
Telephone with millions of people in parallel devoting their lives to passing a certain message down? That's a bit different than the single chain of whispering you're familiar with from your social events.
That would be why mainstream Judaism hasn't changed by a single jot, tittle, or smidgen since Moses invaded the sovereign territory of the Canaanites.
Correct. And the fact that it appears to be different to you only reflects the extent of your knowledge of Judaism. 'Tain't just a book getting handed down. It's a system. If I use my microwave to heat up food and my partner uses it to cook something from scratch, it's still the same microwave.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ser Bronn Stone:
quote:starLisa said: Do tell. If I tell my daughter (who is 5) that she has to clean her room, she can't opt out of it. Is that unjust? No. I'm her Mom. I have that appropriate authority, and it's based on a lot of things. Among them are the fact that she wouldn't exist had it not been for me. She would not have a roof over her head or food to eat if it were not for me. That room I want her to clean? That's mine. I bought it and gave it to her for her use, but it's still mine. Also, I know things that she doesn't know. I understand why it's proper for her to clean her room, even if she doesn't quite grasp it herself yet.
I am curious. What do you believe the outcome would be if the only instructions you gave your daughter were purportedly 5000+ years old, though for some reason the originals were discarded and there were no way to really determine if that the instructions she was to follow had any relation to those she was originally given?
Gosh. I've never heard that before. Your razor logic has convinced me.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, where do you get "the originals were discarded"? What "originals" are you talking about? Are you supposing that the Pentateuch is all we claim to have been given at Sinai?
quote:Originally posted by Ser Bronn Stone: And if those instructions were embedded in a mish-mash of folktale, allegory, seemingly arbitrary and pointless laws when not outright contradiction?
There's a thread called "Torah 101". Your assignment is to go and read it and come back with questions on anything you don't understand.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
As entertaining as sarcasm can be, I would like to ask that folks tone it down a HUGE notch. First off, there are plenty of other places on the web where this kind of talking at each other is the norm, rather than the much regretted exception.
Here, we normally don't have it.
And it's because, normally, people try very hard to maintain a level of politeness not found elsewhere.
Maybe the people who want this kind of nasty back and forth in their "discussions" could agree to take it elsewhere? Maybe over to Ornery if you want to do it in the confines of an OSC-sponsored site.
It's up to you. The rest of the people here can probably just stay out the thread, but there's absolutely no reason for this. It isn't fun, or funny, or interesting, except in the sense that burning houses and car crashes have.
It happens to most of us, eventually, on topics we care about. But, seriously, enough already.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think you've got enough fingers for this particular dam, Bob:)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Bob, you're right and I'm sorry. I responded to rudeness with rudeness, and I should have used more restraint.
I will ask King of Men to stop referring to me as "comrade starLisa", as I find it offensive. If he continues it, I'll escalate my request to the moderator.
And Rakeesh, I hope you're wrong. If I can take Bob's words to heart, hopefully others can as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: KoM, for this discussion the validity of any religion is not important. The validity of peoples beliefs is. starLisa has gone out on a limb by presenting her faith in a straightforward, no holds bar format.
And I expressed my beliefs in a straightforwards, no-holds-barred format, and people jumped all over me.
Also, I do not understand how the validity of a religion is irrelevant to the validity of belief in it. Does a false belief become suddenly valid just because you stick the label 'religion' on it?
quote:The main defense that certain Christian groups use for pushing closer ties between church and state is that they are being beaten down by overzealous evangelical atheists. That seems to be you, KoM.
So what you are saying is that, because the bad guys are worried they are losing, they should be left alone?
quote:Correct. And the fact that it appears to be different to you only reflects the extent of your knowledge of Judaism. 'Tain't just a book getting handed down. It's a system. If I use my microwave to heat up food and my partner uses it to cook something from scratch, it's still the same microwave.
I did specify 'mainstream'. I seem to recall that you observe your faith rather differently from the other Jews on this forum; it follows that either your observance, or theirs, is different from the original. Also, I don't recall if you were there for the discussion some weeks ago about Asherah, but Judaism seems to have lost a mother goddess somewhere along the way.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I gotta say, I don't see that KoM has been any more rude or inappropriate than starLisa has been, if not in this thread than in others over the weekend. And yes, she's been called on it, same as he has been numerous times. I'd imagine neither of them is too likely to change their rather abrasive posting styles any time soon, as they've both stated in the past that they enjoy arguing this way.
Personally, my response has become that any post where the level of vitriol is higher than my tolerance level, I don't consider a valid part of the conversation. If this sort of post annoys you, you might want to consider doing the same.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You recall incorrectly. And no, I didn't see a discussion on Asherah, and such tree worship was never a part of Judaism. We never had more than the One God.
And I have to repeat my statement that you don't know enough about Judaism to make a valid judgement of it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but uninformed opinions are not deserving of respect. Certainly not when informed opinions are around.
I don't say this as an attack. I can say that I disagree with the common interpretation of the redshift, but my knowledge of physics and astronomy isn't sufficient for it to be of very much value. Oh, I could give some arguments, and they may even be valid. But the moment someone who really knows the material walks in, he's either going to label what I've said a no-brainer or a no-brains, and all my wanting him to be wrong isn't going to matter.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Personally, my response has become that any post where the level of vitriol is higher than my tolerance level, I don't consider a valid part of the conversation.
AMEN!
There are some posts that are so obnoxious that my only civil response is to ignore it. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have a classification system: Hatrack and Idiot. The nasty, vitriolic posts go in the Idiot column, and their presense is the price we pay for the Hatrack column.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but uninformed opinions are not deserving of respect.
True. But even informed opinions can be misguided, and it is for that reason I wasn't offended by KoM's comment about religion resulting from an over-active imagination. No matter how much I don't like that idea, I can't argue that it's entirely possible that he may be right, thus his "uninformed" opinions are at least somewhat valid.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
KoM, I didn't read the posts about Asherah, but Judaism definately spoke against anyone who worshipped the tree poles. Check Deuteronomy 12 for more information about this.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I love it when people are completely incapable of considering a point of view other than their own. It makes me feel better about myself.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but uninformed opinions are not deserving of respect.
True. But even informed opinions can be misguided, and it is for that reason I wasn't offended by KoM's comment about religion resulting from an over-active imagination. No matter how much I don't like that idea, I can't argue that it's entirely possible that he may be right, thus his "uninformed" opinions are at least somewhat valid.
I was speaking to the specific of him making statements about Judaism without possessing the requisite knowledge. He can't claim that there are contradictions if he doesn't even know what Judaism says or how it works. That just doesn't make sense.
If he wants to trumpet his atheism, that's fine. But when he gets specific about something where his knowledge isn't sufficient for his opinions to mean anything, I'll call him on it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Add me to the list of religious people who think that religion should be separate from government. Including what some people think is "trivial". It does not seem trivial to those "on the outside". In this country, there shouldn't be an outside.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In this country, there shouldn't be an outside.
I believe that it is practically impossible for there to not be an outside whenever dealing with three or more people.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I think they fall into the realm of "things you can choose to be insulted by if you really, really want to, but are not intrinsically insulting"
I think the proper name of that realm is "Insults not directed at me."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: posted October 24, 2005 12:51 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this country, there shouldn't be an outside. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that it is practically impossible for there to not be an outside whenever dealing with three or more people.
Okay. In this country, there shouldn't be a governmentally recogized "outside'. Better?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It may be practically impossible for there to not be an outside, but a community can strive to be inclusive or exclusive. A democratic society must strive toward being inclusive or it will inevitably become oppressive.
[ October 24, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
KoM sorry but I had to go to work.
I didn't phrase what I was trying to say clearly.
The argument about the separation of Church and State is what this thread was originally about. What is important in that argument is not how logically valid any one religion is. What is important is the fact that there are people who believe in there religion, and believe in it with deep, unyielding, heart felt devotion.
The secret to keeping Church and State separate is not by destroying all churches. All that attacks like that due is drum up support for the people being attacked.
quote:So what you are saying is that, because the bad guys are worried they are losing, they should be left alone?
When did they become bad guys?
When did belief in God become the sin?
They say, hate the sin but not the sinner. You are saying that they are bad guys and need to be unconverted.
Like you, I am not church goer. However I have met many people who are. They are not bad people. Sure there are a few who grab the headlines by doing stupid things, or saying stupid things, or just confusing themselves with the diety they are supposed to be worshiping.
However it is the majority of good people that you will scare with your rants and your insults, into thinning the gap between church and state.
The closest I come to converting has been not by Christians ranting and threatening me with damnation, but by Christians who lead a good and quiet and peaceful life. I see the good people that they are and want to emulate them.
Then I see the same goodness in agnostics, Jews, Muslims and others from around the world.
If you want to get people to accept logica agnosticism instead of what you believe is a dangerous fantasy, then you have to demonstrate to them that people who do so are not bitter, loud, and rude.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think that if we, the people of various religions, nations and traditions, are going to live together in a pluralistic way we're going to have to agree on some celebrations we can all join in on (in addition to our religious/traditional celebrations).
Of course, no one's ever going to legislate this kind of thing. It's just going to happen over two hundred years or so.
*twiddles thumbs*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
starLisa, I for one appreciate your words after my last post.
I'm not reading the rest of the new posts here, for a variety of reasons, but I do thank you for that post.
I also am extremely uncomfortable with the realization that my most recent 5 posts or so have been of a scolding nature. I'm going to stop it now. I figure people don't need me contstantly telling them how to act, and I don't want to become a Hatrack nanny (or ninny, for that matter).
I need to remember that my enjoyment of a thread (or lack thereof) is not the sole determinant of its worth to others.
Have fun, y'all.
I'm paddling out to catch a wave of fluff.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: You recall incorrectly. And no, I didn't see a discussion on Asherah, and such tree worship was never a part of Judaism. We never had more than the One God.
How do you know? Granted that the books which come down to us represent Asherah as a heresy, it's worth noting that they were written by the victors. Still, from the amount of groves that were chopped down, it seems clear that Asherah worship was moderately widespread. If the priests of Yahweh were indeed so righteous and powerful, you would think they would have smashed such a danger to their peoples' souls long before it could grow so poewrful. Moreover, everybody else had a mother goddess; why should the Jews be any different?
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
KoM I have to hand it to you, you are a master in the subtle art of pissing everyone off on all sides of a topic.
I do disagree with *everything* you say, as well as your general point of view towards everyone around.
But hey, let's all continue to enjoy this debate. I'm psyched.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I beg to differ; there's nothing subtle about my posts. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The argument about the separation of Church and State is what this thread was originally about. What is important in that argument is not how logically valid any one religion is. What is important is the fact that there are people who believe in their religion, and believe in it with deep, unyielding, heart felt devotion.
I don't think this is true, actually. If we could prove that a single religion were valid, wouldn't it make sense to enshrine that religion in our laws? On the other hand, it is true that I was actually arguing for a slightly more general doctrine than separation of church and state, namely separation of humans and superstition.
As for devotion, many people were quite remarkably devoted to Communism, and - in a more modern example - friend starLisa is reasonably strong for Libertarianism. If someone suggested making either of these the law of the land, surely you would not object to attacks (assuming they were well reasoned, of course) on their validity?
quote:The secret to keeping Church and State separate is not by destroying all churches. All that attacks like that due is drum up support for the people being attacked.
Well, tactical criticism is always good, to be sure; but after all, atheists have been trying the logical, well-reasoned route for a good few decades. I would suggest that those who can be deconverted by these methods already have been.
quote:Like you, I am not church goer. However I have met many people who are. They are not bad people.
I disagree : They are. They corrupt children by telling lies. They make important decisions on untrue foundations. Worse,they have the infernal gall to disagree with me.
quote:If you want to get people to accept logical agnosticism instead of what you believe is a dangerous fantasy, then you have to demonstrate to them that people who do so are not bitter, loud, and rude.
You think? It's not an analogy I would otherwise use, but wouldn't you say that comrade Jesus clearing out the moneychangers was being moderately loud and rude? Possibly even a little bitter. Yet he seems to have gained a following. On the other end of the scale, it was perhaps a little impolite of Hitler to claim that Jews were "a parasite on civilisation"; yet again, people followed the man.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
But KoM, the Money Changers in the market did not follow Jesus. The Jews did not follow Hitler, nor did any of the other people (gypsies, Russians, Patton) that he insulted.
Both were destroyed in the end.
Jesus was able to be resurrected either because he had divine help, or because the message that was emphasized was not an attack on bankers, but one of peace and brotherhood.
While some groups try to resurrect Hitler's legacy, they run into overwhelming opposition.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, tactical criticism is always good, to be sure; but after all, atheists have been trying the logical, well-reasoned route for a good few decades. I would suggest that those who can be deconverted by these methods already have been.
We're not making new people? There aren't new generations working out the ideas in their minds? Old people can't change? I'm confused, here.
I disagree : They are. They corrupt children by telling lies. They make important decisions on untrue foundations. Worse,they have the infernal gall to disagree with me.
All untrue (except for the last). They are - for the most part - good people who tell their children and make decisions based on what they beleive to be true. It's certainly arguable that what they believe is false and that such decisions are mistakes, but it doesn't mean they're bad. It means they're mistaken.
It's not an analogy I would otherwise use, but wouldn't you say that comrade Jesus clearing out the moneychangers was being moderately loud and rude? Possibly even a little bitter. Yet he seems to have gained a following.
Well, it probably helped that the whole rest of his life was devoted to spreading the words of peace, love, and forgiveness. With that context, a momentary lapse only served to point out how serious he was about moneychangers in the temple. Had he spent his entire life pointing out how stupid and bad everyone was who disagreed with him, I don't think he would have gone very far.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You think? It's not an analogy I would otherwise use, but wouldn't you say that comrade Jesus clearing out the moneychangers was being moderately loud and rude? Possibly even a little bitter.
I realize your ignorance of religion is as great as your belief that you are knowledgeable about religion, but...
Jesus was 'rude' to moneychangers that time. The incident you're describing was not Jesus's life, it was not his being. In other words, he changed tactics.
You don't. It's all rude and loud all the time.
You're right to equate your bigotry with Hitler, though, it's very appropriate. Like Hitler, anyone who disagrees with you must be morally, intellectually, and maybe even physically deficient in some way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and to further illustrate the laughable demonstration of Jesus as a rude and loud person thus enforcing your own style...
Jesus as a creator of ideas and ideologies was wildly successful. His legacy has endured through millenia. He was 'rude and loud' that time with the moneychangers.
Hitler was rude and loud almost all the time. What is Hitler's legacy? It didn't even make it past a decade. That's the style you're emulating. For someone who is so smug about how reasoned and logical their approach to dealing with the ignorant masses is, you'd think you'd take an obvious lesson from the success of past ideologies and apply it to your own approach.
But you don't, and you won't, which goes a long way to demonstrate what I've said for awhile: your rudeness and loudness have nothing to do with helping educate people and everything to do with puffing up your chest.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:As for devotion, many people were quite remarkably devoted to Communism, and - in a more modern example - friend starLisa is reasonably strong for Libertarianism. If someone suggested making either of these the law of the land, surely you would not object to attacks (assuming they were well reasoned, of course) on their validity?
That's a bad comparison and you know it. A method of administering laws and a philosophy of governing people is the foundation of a government itself. Thus, debating the best method is expected.
Religion, however, is not a necessary feature of government. Now if the government did have a national religion, then the validity of that religion would be up for debate.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I disagree : They are. They corrupt children by telling lies. They make important decisions on untrue foundations.
Well, that is your opinion, and fortunately your opinion is no better or closer to truth than any one else's opinion.
However, there's one thing I'm curious about. How does telling a child an unprovable idea that encourages him to be kind and forgiving to others make him a bad person? Or are you just looking at the actions of specific individuals and concluding that the entire group must be that way?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I think that if we, the people of various religions, nations and traditions, are going to live together in a pluralistic way we're going to have to agree on some celebrations we can all join in on (in addition to our religious/traditional celebrations).
Of course, no one's ever going to legislate this kind of thing. It's just going to happen over two hundred years or so.
*twiddles thumbs*
Independence Day, Thanksgiving,...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Jesus as a creator of ideas and ideologies was wildly successful. His legacy has endured through millenia. He was 'rude and loud' that time with the moneychangers.
Hitler was rude and loud almost all the time. What is Hitler's legacy? It didn't even make it past a decade.
Actually, I think you are comparing apples and oranges, or at any rate flowers and fruits. It is now about sixty years since Hitler's death; if we go back to AD 90, how many followers did Christianity have? Certainly fewer in absolute terms than neo-Nazism does today, and possibly fewer even in relative terms. I certainly hope nazism won't spread like Christianity did, but I don't think the experiment is done yet.
quote:While some groups try to resurrect Hitler's legacy, they run into overwhelming opposition.
Well, yes, right now they do. Remember the lions? Not to mention all those martyrs.
quote:Well, it probably helped that the whole rest of his life was devoted to spreading the words of peace, love, and forgiveness. With that context, a momentary lapse only served to point out how serious he was about moneychangers in the temple. Had he spent his entire life pointing out how stupid and bad everyone was who disagreed with him, I don't think he would have gone very far.
Well, these are moderately good points; still, it's worth noting that Jesus was all on his own. Atheists are numerous enough to specialise : One guy does the reasoning, another the teaching by example, still a third the shouting parts. Also, you might want to take another look at his sermons about rich people. On the whole, he didn't approve of 'em.
quote:Religion, however, is not a necessary feature of government. Now if the government did have a national religion, then the validity of that religion would be up for debate.
But we were discussing whether or not there should be a national religion. (Well, 'discussing' may be the wrong word since everyone agrees there shouldn't, but never mind.)
quote:However, there's one thing I'm curious about. How does telling a child an unprovable idea that encourages him to be kind and forgiving to others make him a bad person?
Three reasons : First, lying is bad in and of itself. (You can take this as a moral axiom if you like, or there are some economic arguments to be made.) Second, when the child finds out about the lie, he may well discard the kindness and forgiveness along with it. Third, I don't believe that these particular lies encourage kindness and forgiveness; quite the opposite, in fact. While it's not conclusive proof by any means, you could take a quick look at the murder and divorce statistics for red and blue states, and then for the US as a whole versus secular Scandinavia.
quote:We're not making new people? There aren't new generations working out the ideas in their minds? Old people can't change? I'm confused, here.
Well, to deal with your last point first : While old people can change, I think is is highly rare for them to do so on this subject; and in any case, changing the minds of youths is much more valuable, since they have more voting years ahead of them. Also, old people are where my "the ones who are going to deconvert have already done so" argument has its best application.
For young people, two other points : First, teenagers are, I think, less put off by rudeness than adults. Being usually rather brash and direct themselves, and inexperienced in how to consider others' feelings (*), they don't appreciate quite the same level of indirection as adults do. (Maybe. It seesm reasonable on the face of it, from what I remember of my own teenage years. I don't claim it as a scientific theory.)
Second, by showing a false respect towards the religious, there is the danger that both sides of the issue will seem worth considering. It is a bit like the cry of the creationists to 'teach the controversy' - which is to say, raise creationism to the same level as real science, because outside their own circles, there is no controversy. In propagandising to youths, I think it important to occasionally emphasise that the debate is not actually symmetric; all the theists have going for them is a few thousand years of habit.
(*) Not unwilling to do so, by any means. They just don't have much practice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I certainly hope nazism won't spread like Christianity did, but I don't think the experiment is done yet.
Nice dodge. So now you're trying to say that your rude and loud methods are still viable because hey, it's only sixy years after the end of WWII. We don't know that Hitler's methods didn't work.
Belief in that takes at least as much faith as a belief in G-d does.
The people who have done what you claim to want to do-educate people and enlighten them, leading toward truth and away from lies-the people who have done best at that do not share your methods.
Oh, wait, that's right. We're not sure the people who do it best don't share your methods. Because we're not 2K years past the Nazis.
Right. I forgot.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:However, there's one thing I'm curious about. How does telling a child an unprovable idea that encourages him to be kind and forgiving to others make him a bad person?
Three reasons : First, lying is bad in and of itself. (You can take this as a moral axiom if you like, or there are some economic arguments to be made.) Second, when the child finds out about the lie, he may well discard the kindness and forgiveness along with it. Third, I don't believe that these particular lies encourage kindness and forgiveness; quite the opposite, in fact. While it's not conclusive proof by any means, you could take a quick look at the murder and divorce statistics for red and blue states, and then for the US as a whole versus secular Scandinavia.
First, how exactly can you prove that all religion is a lie, or are you just against teaching children anything that can't be proven, or just against teaching children anything that isn't based on the scientific method?
Additionally, it does appear that you are applying the actions of certain individuals to the group as a whole. Some religions or ideas may not adhere to your idea of encouraging kindness, but that doesn't hold true for all religions.
Why not judge people based on their individual actions instead of oversimplified stereotypes?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, there's one thing I'm curious about. How does telling a child an unprovable idea that encourages him to be kind and forgiving to others make him a bad person? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three reasons : First, lying is bad in and of itself. (You can take this as a moral axiom if you like, or there are some economic arguments to be made.) Second, when the child finds out about the lie, he may well discard the kindness and forgiveness along with it. Third, I don't believe that these particular lies encourage kindness and forgiveness; quite the opposite, in fact. While it's not conclusive proof by any means, you could take a quick look at the murder and divorce statistics for red and blue states, and then for the US as a whole versus secular Scandinavia.
First, how exactly can you prove that all religion is a lie, or are you just against teaching children anything that can't be proven, or just against teaching children anything that isn't based on the scientific method?
There is a huge difference between teaching your children something you KNOW to be untrue (Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny) and telling something you believe to be true (whether it's religion, ghosts- anything you actually believe). The former is an outright lie, the latter is a well intentioned attepmt to pass on your personal truth.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: First, how exactly can you prove that all religion is a lie, or are you just against teaching children anything that can't be proven, or just against teaching children anything that isn't based on the scientific method?
Well, just for starters, most religions are mutually exclusive, short of going the Unitarian route and just saying "It's all good."
quote:Additionally, it does appear that you are applying the actions of certain individuals to the group as a whole. Some religions or ideas may not adhere to your idea of encouraging kindness, but that doesn't hold true for all religions.
Excuse me? I refer to statistics showing that areas with high religion are in general more violent than secular areas (*), and you come back telling me not to look at individuals? I think there is a disconnect somewhere in there.
(*) And before you say it, yes, I know that correlation isn't causation. But really, I don't think any of the commonly quoted options are good here : If violence causes religion, I don't think that's a good thing for religion. Likewise, if both are caused by some third factor, that's not exactly a great advertisement.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Excuse me? I refer to statistics showing that areas with high religion are in general more violent than secular areas (*), and you come back telling me not to look at individuals? I think there is a disconnect somewhere in there.
You yourself stated that your statistics are hardly conclusive, to which I agree with, yet you claim that religion actually discourages kindness. In fact, you've judged me and everyone else upon inconclusive statistics like the ones you've mentioned.
quote:if both are caused by some third factor, that's not exactly a great advertisement
I'm not sure that we could be sure of what the third factor may be, but why would it have to be a bad advertisement?
Try this very hypothetical idea. Suppose the religious people are happier, more content with life, wealthier, and have better sex lives. They peacefully go about their lives while doing the occasional kind deed to random neighbors. This apparent happiness causes the resident atheists to become filled with envy as they go around stealing from and murdering their fellow religious neighbors. In this fictional situation, the high religion and murder statistics would be related, but the problem would actually be the atheists. But then I don't suspect you'd want to be judged by actions that some other atheists did that you yourself might condemn.
-----
But back to the original topic, I agree that the government should be religion-free.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Heh, fair enough, you've found a third cause that would actually reflect well on religion. I was thinking more along the lines "Poverty causes both religion and violence."
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
"poverty" was more or less what I was initially thinking of too. I had to work pretty hard to come up with one that reflected well on religion. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The original topic was pretty interesting.
I'm a Christian Seventh-day Adventist, so it's not hard for me to be in favor of the separation of church and state, especially because if Christians were making religious laws, I'm sure the Sunday-keepers would outnumber the Saturday-keepers. There are enough offensive blue-laws out there to annoy me.
But even more than that, I'd still be for the separation of church and state. I'm against the movement to put prayer in schools, and I cringe when the President mentions God in non-personal ways, as if he speaks for all of us. I think the extreme right Christians can give all Christians a bad name. I hate that so much.
I work for the state, and I'm glad I have so many holidays and that a Christmas break is included. They can call it whatever they want, I don't care--but I do expect it. I also work for a school, so I'll have about 2-3 weeks off. This makes sense, because it is a break between semesters. The students and teachers need this break to gear up for the next semester. It makes me nervous that some people might want to take it away from me. What makes it great is that the days are all together--I'm afraid that if we had floating holidays that I wouldn't be able to take them off all together, and a day here and there is no fun and not rejuvenating.
I can't complain, though. We have 10 holidays, 12 personal days, and 10 sick days a year.
Yeah. Can't complain.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was thinking more along the lines "Poverty causes both religion and violence."
No it doesn't. Rich people both get religion and fight.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
(I'm also not entirely sure of who you are responding to.)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)