quote:ORLANDO, Aug. 25 -- Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics.
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris told interviewers from the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. She cited abortion and same-sex marriage as examples of that sin.
While I agree that Christians should be involved in politics, and that it's perfectly fine for people to hold religious convictions and have those inform their decisions in the political arena...I think Ms. Harris has a tendency to go way overboard with her rhetoric. This quotation doesn't surprise me, but I do hope there's more to it -- that the WP left out some context that makes her statement less obnoxious.
I'll have to look for the original interview article.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
This is from the last question/answer they put in the interview.
quote:Why should Florida Baptists care about this primary election?
They should care about this election period. I will tell you that everywhere I go throughout the state and even the nation, people say the pollsters, the politicians and spiritually—that Florida is the forerunner state. That what happens in Florida sets the trend for what happens nationally. And with this election, if Bill Nelson wins, it’s going to be a very frightening proposition in 2008 in the presidential elections because whoever wins Florida will win the presidency. And he’ll be in a position to largely influence. No other candidate can beat Bill Nelson except for me. No one even has a chance because of name identification and fund raising abilities and things like that. But the real issue is why should Baptists care, why should people care? If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I still think her rhetoric is overboard. She's speaking to a particular political base, of course and maybe decided to speak just to them in this article. I think a good politician remains mindful of the broader audience. In essence, she's calling everyone who isn't Christian some sort of mindless follower -- looking to the Baptists to save us from ourselves. Yeah, right.
I'm impressed at how she has parlayed screwing up a national election into a political career though.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
And when muslims get into power they can legislate Sharia. Huzzah. What a wonderful line of reasoning. =(
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boy, she's getting desperate. Hysterically desperate.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
And old. Wrinkly old.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
For some reason, the conservatives in Florida aren't following Gov. Bush's style. They're being very aggressively 'conservative', rather than trying to court swing voters in the state.
They must have their reasons for doing this, I'm guessing, and I know that Florida has a huge base of Christian Nationalists, so maybe it will work.
By the way, I don't recall seeing the war on terror being an issue in any ad campaigns yet here in Florida. I take this as a good sign.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
The Republican Cynthia McKinney.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Sounds like she has bought into the Christian Nationalist line of thinking. No, these are not just good, churchgoing folks...they actively advocate theocracy for the United States. These are the folks who say things like that separation of church and state is a myth or a "lie of Satan".
I just read an interesting book about the Christian Nationalists, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, by Michelle Goldberg. They don't want to just be left alone to live according to their worldview, but want to impose their worldview on the rest of the nation, even the rest of the world. And some of them aren't too worried about what they have to do in order to do that.
EDIT: Stupid code.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -Oscar Wilde
I'm also a bit insulted by the assumption that anyone who isn't a Christian "doesn't know better."
Well, sort of. I have considered the source.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Personally, I'm most amused by the assertation that "average citizens" are not Christian. Let's take a second look at that census data, I could swear it says almost 80% of Americans are Christian.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yeah, but they aren't Real True Christians (tm).
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It's like Christmas in the summertime! Cynthia McKinney went down in flames, then Liebermann lost the primary (though he could still win in the general election). But for me the most visceral schadenfreude has to come from the Harris campaign. I can't remember a worse state-wide campaign, in any state.
My Uncle Lance, a Florida judge, calls Harris crazy and dismisses a 2002 lawsuit by her.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
By not electing crazy people, we can hopefully start legislating sanity.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: I’m the only one who’s voted to support marriage in this entire race, primary and general.
Holy crap! Someone's trying to outlaw marriage?! Who?!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
"supporting marriage" in this context really means "Against marriage." The only marriage she supports is marriage for people like her.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Welcome to the next hyphenated name. NonChristian-American.
[ August 26, 2006, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by IndigoKnight1 (Member # 9526) on :
I was raised a southern baptist and felt ok about it. No big deal until my brother dropped out of the flock to marry a catholic. When his best friend gave me the rant about my brother it was time for me to leave. My brother's friend got hit first for putting his hands on me and the assistant pastor almost got hit for trying to jump in.
Obviously I'm not the most religious person in the world, but I still follow my christian views from my upbringing.
That being the case, if I don't think I would want someone to watch over a teenage daughter, or any child for that matter, I won't vote for them. On occasion, this means leaving a ballot blank, but I still follow my heart when I vote.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:...average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better...
Lovely.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I love it when people get what they deserve.
Harris deserves to lose, and she has just assured that she will.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm no theologian, but isn't it a guarantee that even Christian legislators will legislate sin?
Seeing as how, you know, Christians believe we're all sinners.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Harris didn't have any chance of winning before this, anyway.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
My take on it is that religion has no place in politics or government. That is not to say that leaders cannot or should not be religious - they just have an obligation, the way I see it, to leave the religious beliefs at home while governing.
Why? Because not everybody in this country is religous, and of those who are, not everybody shares their particular religious beliefs. Leaving all personal feelings out of public government is the only sensible way to govern as fairly as one can. If we don't consider religion, "sin," traditional religious laws, etc., then we must instead consider only those rules of society that can apply to EVERYBODY.
Take me, for example. I am an atheist. I do not believe in God, Jesus, sin, or any other aspect of religion. I *do* believe that society needs a set of rules that everybody adheres to in order to function and thrive. I am in favor of laws - I am not in favor of being told by my government that laws are in place because to go against them is "sinful." So, Harris' assertion that without Christians in office we will be legislating "sin" is particularly offensive to me, because I resent being told that I should live my life by the guidelines of a popular mythology.
(I mean no offense to the religious folks here - Christianity, like all other religions, is a mythology *to me,* and I don't expect any other people to adopt my beliefs!)
The point here is that I am not any less a citizen of the USA than any given Christian, and both the Christian and I should be governed in *exactly the same way* by our public government - as should the Jew, the Muslim, and Pagan, the Buddhist - everybody. Religion-neutral laws are the only way to satisfy the need for governmental equality and public respect for ALL beliefs. This is a fact that many fundamentalist politicians (like Harris) either disregard or are completely ignorant of. That's too bad, because it DOES effect my life and the lives of other non-Christians.
Again, I am not opposed to openly religious people in government. I am opposed to religious beliefs being made into law, and the accompanying implication that if I do not hold religious beliefs, then I am somehow unworthy of being called an American and that I need to "fall in line." And, as somebody already pointed out, how would the fundamentalists feel if a Muslim majority were to rise to power and institute their own religious laws? Or, horror of horrors, an atheist majority, that pigheadedly ruled that nobody could express any kind of religious beliefs anywhere? Not happy, I'd imagine.
Harris is an offensive, insensitive jerk, in my opinion, and I hope this nailed the coffin shut on her campaign.
Edit: Sorry this is soooo long, guys, and I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this kind of doo-doo makes me so ticked off that I wanted to get all my thoughts out in one go so I can never come back to this thread and never be tempted to read Harris's lameness again.
Yeah, that whole "because they don't know better" thing is just unspeakably offensive to me. I considered myself a very devout Christian until recently. I guess I "knew better" back then, according to her.
RARRRRRRRGH! *head explodes*
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yeah, but they aren't Real True Christians (tm).
hahahha!
Okay, wait, here's a hearty Evil Atheist laugh over that one: Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yeah, but they aren't Real True Christians (tm).
KOM not every Christians thinks that others who disagree with them on particular docterinal points are not REAL TRUE Christians, just mistaken.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Some of us even think that there can be more than one valid, un-"mistaken" opinion on particular doctrinal points.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:KOM not every Christians thinks that others who disagree with them on particular docterinal points are not REAL TRUE Christians, just mistaken.
I think KOM's point is that Harris has just allied herself with those who pull the "no true Christian" line when they don't agree with another Christian.
It doesn't matter how small the fraction is. They do exist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, BlackBlade, I'm fairly sure you yourself have pulled the 'No True Christian' when it came to events like the Inquisition, the Crusades, and indeed Hitler.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, BlackBlade, I'm fairly sure you yourself have pulled the 'No True Christian' when it came to events like the Inquisition, the Crusades, and indeed Hitler.
I'd like to see you once find a quote where I said somebody was not a, "Real Christian." Or something to that effect. I may have, but I cannot remember and I doubt doing so.
I cannot pretend to know the motives of EVERYONE involved in even 1 of those 3 events. I think its safe to say there were non Christians using Christianity as a means to an end, there were Christians who thought they were doing right, and there were Christians who thought it was wrong, but feared for the lives more than to rock the boat over it. And of course there were a handful of Christians who refused to participate.
Do you know the exact ratio of those 4 types of "Christians" when it comes ot those situations KOM? I sure don't, so don't condemn me for not taking EVERYONE's claims of Christianity at face value.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:My take on it is that religion has no place in politics or government. That is not to say that leaders cannot or should not be religious - they just have an obligation, the way I see it, to leave the religious beliefs at home while governing.
Why? Because not everybody in this country is religous, and of those who are, not everybody shares their particular religious beliefs. Leaving all personal feelings out of public government is the only sensible way to govern as fairly as one can. If we don't consider religion, "sin," traditional religious laws, etc., then we must instead consider only those rules of society that can apply to EVERYBODY.
Can you leave "atheism" at home when you go to formulate laws? As much as I might, in theory, believe that religion shouldn't be injected into laws, I don't really see how we can call upon individuals who are elected as representatives to chuck aside their belief systems when crafting or voting on laws. Especially if those belief systems are part of what got them elected.
And I don't mean that in a "vote for me, I'm more Christian than the other candidate" way. I mean it in a simple "he or she is like me, so I voted for them" way.
If Ms. Harris becomes a senator from Florida, it'll be because a majority of those voting bought her message and voted for her. (Either that or she rigged the election...again -- sorry, couldn't resist.)
So, if she gets into office, how should she respond but to represent the people who put her into office?
Again, in theory, I expect the Senators from my state, and the Representative from my Congressional district to at least consider me when they vote, but realistically, I know that they know that if we are diametrically opposed on a particularly issue, we're probably far apart on many issues. In which case, they know they never had my vote in the first place and aren't likely to win it now. Even more so, they aren't going to win my vote at the expense of all the votes of people who put them in that job in the first place.
So...really, representative government is a fine theory, but in practice is a numbers game.
Any politician who doesn't play that game either never gets elected or tends to have a short tenure in office.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Can you leave "atheism" at home when you go to formulate laws?
Quite easily. Atheism is a philosophy, just like any religion. A lot of people feel that atheism means opposition to god or regligion, when in fact it means a lack of any kind of religious beliefs. I'd think in a world where explicit religion is being left out of lawmaking, it would be pretty easy to also leave a lack of belief in God at home. I mean, I'm proposing that we don't make laws or political speeches or proclamations that say, "God says to do X," but rather, "It's decided by a majority that it is the best for all of us if you do X." Although that can be looked at as a basically atheistic statement, it doesn't exclude any religious beliefs. Rather, it welcomes all religious beliefs AND non-religious philosophies under the same umbrella while still communicating clearly what the letter of the law is.
quote: As much as I might, in theory, believe that religion shouldn't be injected into laws, I don't really see how we can call upon individuals who are elected as representatives to chuck aside their belief systems when crafting or voting on laws. Especially if those belief systems are part of what got them elected.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with politicians and leaders being openly religious. I have a problem with the decision that *their* religion is the *right* way to think (as illustrated by Harris's statement that non-Christian people just don't know any better, and also her comment that without fundamentally Christian beliefs *actively* demonstrated in government, we'll be legislating "sin," a concept which is in and of itself explicitly religious).
The good thing here is that most of the laws that make for a livable, productive society are universal to human communities. Yes, they are the laws set out in the Ten Commandments and many other major religious texts. But they are universally accepted. Why do we need to identify them as "Christian" (for example) when we can just as easily and more inclusively identify them as "the laws of society?" That definition includes Christians and atheists and everybody in the entire community (except the anarchists, ha ha).
I just have a problem with a particular religion's name being applied to laws and rules because of the exclusion it implies.
quote:And I don't mean that in a "vote for me, I'm more Christian than the other candidate" way. I mean it in a simple "he or she is like me, so I voted for them" way.
I understand that, and it is one of the most powerful campaign platforms. But as I said, just because your beliefs got you voted in, why do you have to draw such an obvious line of superiority and exclusion? Especially in modern America? Aren't we supposed to celebrate diversity and free thought here? So why are people who don't believe all Christian-like being so obviously rejected from society by our governments? Isn't it actually un-Christian to do so? Isn't the more Christian way to accept and love all the members of society, even if you don't agree with their "sins," and let God sort out who wasn't good enough and who was?
quote: If Ms. Harris becomes a senator from Florida, it'll be because a majority of those voting bought her message and voted for her. (Either that or she rigged the election...again -- sorry, couldn't resist.)
Heehee! Yes, I know. And there's a good chance she might. In the current world environment, nothing is scarier to some populations than a lack of a very publicly displayed God. I just wonder how all these people would feel if, as I said somewhere else, it was animist Pagan ideas that were being touted all over the government as if they were obvious truth that clearly *every* American accepted as the way things were. They'd all flip their lids, and they'd resent being told how to believe by their leaders. After all, being told how you should and should not believe is counter to our Constitution, right?
quote:So, if she gets into office, how should she respond but to represent the people who put her into office?
With laws that are fair to *everybody.* How can Christians complain about that? Just because "'Cause God said so" isn't tacked onto the end? She can still proclaim herself a Christian woman who loves and worships God - that doesn't bother me in the least - as long as she doesn't pubicly proclaim that I have to believe that, too, and also follow *God's* laws instead of the State of Florida's laws. As long as she doesn't make it implicit that in my following of her laws, I am also expressing a belief in God.
quote:In which case, they know they never had my vote in the first place and aren't likely to win it now. Even more so, they aren't going to win my vote at the expense of all the votes of people who put them in that job in the first place.
So...really, representative government is a fine theory, but in practice is a numbers game.
Any politician who doesn't play that game either never gets elected or tends to have a short tenure in office.
...and while my idea is only a Utopian dream, that right there is the sad reality of it. No, I don't expect to ever see fair representation and consideration of everybody in this government in my lifetime. It sure would be nice if it were as socially acceptable in America to be an atheist as a Christian, though.
I always have to laugh when Christians complain that it's "practically against the law to be Christian anymore!!!" They don't know what it feels like to have their belief system practically OUTLAWED until they've tried being an atheist! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:My take on it is that religion has no place in politics or government. That is not to say that leaders cannot or should not be religious - they just have an obligation, the way I see it, to leave the religious beliefs at home while governing.
I'm really not sure what people mean by this. Do you mean that it is inappropriate for me to pursue political change based on values which stem from my religious belief? If so, then you are applying a prejudice against the religious.
Let me offer an example.
Suppose we have two people who value wilderness. One participates in a native american religion, animism, that teaches a spiritual value for wilderness. The second is not at all religious, but likes to hike in the backcountry. Do both people have an equal right to support laws and policies that would preserve wilderness?
If both persons were elected to public office, would the animist be expected to leave his pro-wilderness values at home while governing?
What if instead of wilderness, they value unborn children, or heterosexual marriage, or private property, or social justice, or clean air?
The problem with saying that religious people should leave their religious beliefs at home when governing, is that religion influences what we value. There is no public policy choice that does not pit human values against each other.
If religious people aren't allowed to bring their values into the public arena, but non-religious people are then we have created a fundamental inequality between religious and nonreligious people.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote: I'm really not sure what people mean by this. Do you mean that it is inappropriate for me to pursue political change based on values which stem from my religious belief? If so, then you are applying a prejudice against the religious
If I may answer your question: short answer: yes.
Slightly longer answer: I will grant you that people may do things with the best of intent, and that these things may even work out beneficially on occasion. Everyone rolls a 20 once in a while.
BUT! when it comes to my government doing stuff, I only want it doing stuff for reasons that are rationally defensible. To take your example, I don't want somebody to save the trees because the tree-spirits are sad, I want somebody to save the trees because he can show why we NEED the trees.
You're familiar with the old saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"? It's nice to be well-intentioned, but it doesn't make the best policies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't really have a problem with religious people in government. If they run with their religion as a piece of their platform, and the people KNOW that they are getting an individual with heavy religious beliefs, and they KNOW that he plans to legislate those beliefs, then I don't really see how it is any different than someone who holds any other political belief, so long as everyone knows about it, there's nothing dishonest about it.
However, I do NOT think it is fair, for the religious to call people who oppose their legislative aims "anti-religious" or anything similiar.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I hope everyone realizes that Katherine Harris has no chance of winning in November. I can't find any exact poll numbers, but according to The Miami Herald she's trailing Bill Nelson by 30 points. Considering that she seems to be making self destruction a new art form, I don't think those numbers are going to rise.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
People of faith have the right to vote. People of faith have the right to be elected. People of faith have the right to serve when elected. People of faith have the right to honor their religion and their religious beliefs while in office. People of faith have a right to use the guiding principals of their faith to guide them while in office. People of faith have a right to use the guiding principals of their faith to make fair and just laws.
People of faith do not have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their religion, any more than they have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their wallet, their family, or their friends.
People of faith do not have the right to use the law to force thier religion upon anyone.
A law stating that everyone must believe in Jesus Christ is our personal saivor may sound like a great idea to someone looking to affirm this is a Christian nation. Outlawing Judaism for its supposed sin, in either the creation of modern Isreal, or its part in the death of Jesus may also be another law that will protect us from Sin, that a good "Christian" may decide to create. Such laws are not within their rights.
To argue that Abortion is a sin according to the Pope and must be stopped is not an argument that will convince me, since I am not Catholic.
So to, any argument a Christian politician has, that has its sole purpose the removal of a Christian sin will not be taken as valid by anyone who is not a Christian.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:People of faith do not have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their religion, any more than they have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their wallet, their family, or their friends.
I think that's part of the problem with this argument. Me making a law that gives a million dollars and tax free status to my brother isn't fair, of course, it caters directly to me and my family. However, abortion is almost entirely a religious issues. I'm...somewhat more pro-life, but not for religious reasons. However the grand majority of pro-lifers I think it is fair to say are religious. Should they not be allowed to legislate what is largely a religious belief? One that would force religious doctrine on others?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
But all religions are against abortion, not just one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Then aren't they all as a collective still forcing their beliefs on the NON-religious?
It's a problem because there are non-religious people that agree with them for non-religious reasons, but the issue stems from a point of doctrine.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Then they can stop using doctrine to support their point. Abortion is different because it isn't only religious people against it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: But all religions are against abortion, not just one.
Not true. There are religions that have no position on this issue, and religions that are pro-choice in at least certain circumstances.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Quite easily. Atheism is a philosophy, just like any religion. A lot of people feel that atheism means opposition to god or regligion, when in fact it means a lack of any kind of religious beliefs. I'd think in a world where explicit religion is being left out of lawmaking, it would be pretty easy to also leave a lack of belief in God at home. I mean, I'm proposing that we don't make laws or political speeches or proclamations that say, "God says to do X," but rather, "It's decided by a majority that it is the best for all of us if you do X." Although that can be looked at as a basically atheistic statement, it doesn't exclude any religious beliefs. Rather, it welcomes all religious beliefs AND non-religious philosophies under the same umbrella while still communicating clearly what the letter of the law is.
I think the analogous situation for an atheist would be when you are called upon to craft or vote on laws RESPECTING the religious notions of others. I've known atheists who could not fathom the value to this nation of allowing native Americans to hunt puma. They would simply say "no, that's an endangered species and we don't give two hoots abour your religion." Now, whether I agree or disagree with that sentiment, I think that the analogy is what we're after here. I mean, OBVIOUSLY an atheist would have no trouble separating the lack of belief in God from questions of "right behavior" on things like murder, abortion, etc. I think the case that needs to be considered is when our laws actually work to protect and nurture religious activities and you would need to decide what's best for America and what your constituents would want. If 90% of the people in your district believe in God, for example, would you feel best trying to get "In God we Trust" taken off of our money, and "Under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance? What about tax exempt status for churches. I know many atheists who have a major problem with that, and yet, it's a cornerstone of our tax policies in relation to the freedom of religion clause of the Constitution -- at least it has been so far.
Can you leave your atheism out of the equation when your "prejudices" tell you we're supporting religion? Even though most people seem to want it that way?
I don't see atheism (broadly defined so as to include agnostics) as "anti-religion" but I do see it often as exchanging one set of prejudices for another. In it's strictest sense (atheism excluding agnosticism), it is no more founded in science or reason than is religion. It's a belief that something unproveable does NOT exist. It's faith in Occam's Razor. Which is fine by me, but people often have trouble recognizing that faith in simplest possible explanations may not be warranted, and that it's precisely at those vast and ultimate questions where Occam's Razor is just as much a leap of faith as is believing the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or <insert name of deity here>
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:I'm really not sure what people mean by this. Do you mean that it is inappropriate for me to pursue political change based on values which stem from my religious belief? If so, then you are applying a prejudice against the religious.
No, not at all! I think it's inappropriate for *religion specifically* to be prominently displayed in government. For example, I feel it is wrong for a politician to say, "We don't kill people because God said not to." Or, worse, something like "We need to all do the Christian thing in this war." I think it's highly inappropriate for a politician to assume or to imply that everybody *is* or *should be* the same religion as they are.
I think it's perfectly OK for a politician to be openly religious, and to propose laws that may stem from their religious beliefs, as long as they aren't presented as "This should be the law because I belong to Religion X and therefore this is correct for everybody." That excludes people of other religions or of no religion, and all people in this society are, in theory, equally important with equal rights. Plus, the public should have a chance to vote on law changes, and majority votes should be respected by the government no matter what their personal religious beliefs may be.
quote: Suppose we have two people who value wilderness. One participates in a native american religion, animism, that teaches a spiritual value for wilderness. The second is not at all religious, but likes to hike in the backcountry. Do both people have an equal right to support laws and policies that would preserve wilderness?
Yes, absolutely. The only time I would consider any political action inappropriate would be if the animist said, "I am going to pass this law to preserve this wilderness area because Wek-Wek the Falcon God wants it to be that way."
quote:If both persons were elected to public office, would the animist be expected to leave his pro-wilderness values at home while governing?
No. I would hope that he would not, since many religious values are very beneficial to society. I would hope equally that he would not imply that everybody should believe as he does.
quote:What if instead of wilderness, they value unborn children, or heterosexual marriage, or private property, or social justice, or clean air?
In my opinion, it's fine for politicians to believe however they personally believe. It's fine for the public to know their reasons for believing as they do. What is not fine, in my view, is for them to imply or openly state that *everybody* should share those beliefs *and* share them *for the same reasons* (i.e., a specific religious doctrine). What is appropriate is for the public to vote on such topics, and for the governing politicians to uphold the laws according to majority feeling.
Sadly, that is often not the way things go.
quote:The problem with saying that religious people should leave their religious beliefs at home when governing, is that religion influences what we value. There is no public policy choice that does not pit human values against each other.
If religious people aren't allowed to bring their values into the public arena, but non-religious people are then we have created a fundamental inequality between religious and nonreligious people.
Perhaps I worded my thoughts wrong when I said "leave their religious beliefs at home," because that is not exactly what I meant. I'm A-okay with people being open about their religious beliefs, as I pointed out in my first post. What I feel they should leave at home is their belief that their religion is *the only right way of thinking.* Similarly, they need to leave the hateful speech that Harris displayed at home, if they are the kind of person who is predisposed to making stupid, exclusionary statements in their campaigns!
Sorry to create such confusion over my feelings on the topic. Although I am an atheist, I have a lot of respect for religion and I don't believe that everybody needs to think or feel the same way I do. That would be boring. I do believe that everybody's religions and philosophies need to be *EQUALLY* respected. That can't happen when a particular religion is set up by the government as "the right way to think." That is the religious attitude that needs to be left at home. And yes, if an openly atheist politician were ever to miraculously be elected to a major office, I would expect the exact same kind of equality-respect from him or her. Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: [QB] People of faith have the right to vote. People of faith have the right to be elected. People of faith have the right to serve when elected. People of faith have the right to honor their religion and their religious beliefs while in office. People of faith have a right to use the guiding principals of their faith to guide them while in office. People of faith have a right to use the guiding principals of their faith to make fair and just laws.
People of faith do not have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their religion, any more than they have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their wallet, their family, or their friends.
People of faith do not have the right to use the law to force thier religion upon anyone.
A law stating that everyone must believe in Jesus Christ is our personal saivor may sound like a great idea to someone looking to affirm this is a Christian nation. Outlawing Judaism for its supposed sin, in either the creation of modern Isreal, or its part in the death of Jesus may also be another law that will protect us from Sin, that a good "Christian" may decide to create. Such laws are not within their rights.
Dan_raven, thank you for summing my my entire point much more succinctly than I could. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Libbie, I agree with much of the rest of your post. I'm sorry I can't go point by point, though. I really don't do well with that posting style. I would, for example, point out that you chose to break my post so you disagree with something that I had already dealt with in the very next sentence, which you then agreed with.
Lisa does this kind of thing all the time. It's a style you may like. I can't deal with it effectively, so I won't. I'd have to spent 1/2 my time re-integrating my first post, then responding to your partialing out of my entire statement. I can't be bothered.
Also, since you chose to respond in chopped up pieces, I only have the energy to deal with one of your many thoughts on the topic. I assure you I agreed with a lot of what you had to say, but I'm already beat from typing a response to just the first part.
I'm NOT trying to be critical. I only begged Lisa to knock it off once. I'm just letting you know why you're only going to get partial responses from me if you adopt the chop-it-up style.
Sorry, in advance...
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
And what reglions are pro-choice?
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Then aren't they all as a collective still forcing their beliefs on the NON-religious?
It's a problem because there are non-religious people that agree with them for non-religious reasons, but the issue stems from a point of doctrine.
Why does abortion have to be presented to the public *as* a religious problem? Let the people vote on it. Their reasons for voting however they will are their own, whether religious or non-religious. There are plenty of non-religious people who oppose abortion, and plenty of religious people who support it. Let the majority decide without bringing religion into it. That's the only way that is truly fair to *everybody*.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: And what reglions are pro-choice?
Unitarian Universalism is officially pro-choice.
Judaism supports abortion if the life of the mother is threatened.
Several Protestant denominations including The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church have statments along the lines of "we don't support abortion as a form of birth control, but when life conflicts with life the choice must be left to the woman and her family, with appropriate medical and spiritual guidence."
The Japenese-American Buddhist Churches of America have the following in an official pamphlet: "It is the woman carrying the fetus, and no one else, who must in the end make this most difficult decision and live with it for the rest of her life. As Buddhists, we can only encourage her to make a decision that is both thoughtful and compassionate."
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote: And what reglions are pro-choice?
A somewhat complicated question. It wasn't that many centuries ago that, in most cultures, if you had a child that you could no longer afford to take care of, and a convenient slave-merchant wasn't handy, you simply sent it out into the woods to be wolf-chow.
That has been a fairly-common practice in most places on the face of the earth at one time or another. And to the point, I am unaware of any religion specifically prohibiting this practice.
Given the relative levels of technology available, this is certainly viewable as abortion. So it would seem to depend on how much of what isn't forbidden is compulsory.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Bob- I think you politely do what many people quite impolitely try, which is to assert that athiesm is analogous to faith. For some people it might be, but that's the beauty of athiesm.
As an athiest, I can tell you that I do not have faith in science and I do not consider myself an adherent of a religion. I don't follow a doctrine or a canon of writings and I don't not question my own reasons for thinking anything. I just wouldn't call my type of athiesm any kind of faith in any one thing. This does not, as many very cagey religious people will say, mean that I believe in nothing. As in, nothing is what I believe in, the thing which is nothing. No, I don't value that type of belief in the way religious people do, and I feel that is a major way in which religious people don't understand athiests. To some religious people, faith is assumed and the object of faith is the only question. God or nothing, the Spaghetti monster or the tooth fairy, or the devil or SOMETHING, or the thing that is nothing. But for me its none of these.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Please note that I answered the "which religions are pro-choice" question more specifically in the last post on the previous page. I'd hate to see it lost to end-of-page syndrome.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Jewish tradition upholds choice Jewish tradition has long affirmed and protected the life, well-being, and health of pregnant women and has upheld the basic right to abortion. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, representing Conservative congregations, in 1993 reaffirmed its resolution opposing any legislative attempts to weaken Roe v. Wade through constitutional amendments. Recent resolutions of the Union for Reform Judaism, representing Reform congregations, uphold an "unwavering commitment to the protection and preservation of the reproductive rights of women" and urge constituents to work toward securing or retaining these rights.
Jewish peoples feel free to elaborate on the quote, please.
I apologize for some of the perhaps overly strong words in that link.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:I think the analogous situation for an atheist would be when you are called upon to craft or vote on laws RESPECTING the religious notions of others. I've known atheists who could not fathom the value to this nation of allowing native Americans to hunt puma. They would simply say "no, that's an endangered species and we don't give two hoots abour your religion." Now, whether I agree or disagree with that sentiment, I think that the analogy is what we're after here. I mean, OBVIOUSLY an atheist would have no trouble separating the lack of belief in God from questions of "right behavior" on things like murder, abortion, etc. I think the case that needs to be considered is when our laws actually work to protect and nurture religious activities and you would need to decide what's best for America and what your constituents would want.
Any effective politician should be able to separate their personal philosophies from governing when it comes to protecting others' beliefs. The Constitution specficially states that we have a freedom of religious belief - so an atheist politician would have an obligation to support a law to protect religious beliefs *if* those beliefs were under attack and *if* those beliefs did not interfere with other laws. In the case of interference with other laws, voting by the public would be necessary.
If an atheist politician were to thumb his nose at a religion in jeopardy just because it is a religion, then they shouldn't be in office!
Now, in the case of puma-hunting, that goes against endangered species protection laws, so that would be something that would require expanded debate, with sensitivity to the religious issue at hand.
quote: If 90% of the people in your district believe in God, for example, would you feel best trying to get "In God we Trust" taken off of our money, and "Under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance?
If the majority agrees to it, then I suppose it's fine. But believe it or not, even many people who believe in God don't favor public displays of a "superior religion" or governmental endorsement of one particular mode of belief.
As for "Under God," that was added in the McCarthy era to somehow route Communism, so it's not even a part of the original Pledge and was invented to serve an incredibly goofy purpose. It should go just because it's a trifle embarrassing to still hold onto a relic of Commie paranoia in this day and age. In my opinion.
quote: What about tax exempt status for churches. I know many atheists who have a major problem with that, and yet, it's a cornerstone of our tax policies in relation to the freedom of religion clause of the Constitution -- at least it has been so far.
It sure is, and I'm personally fine with it. Churches serve an important purpose in our society and often need financial help to continue providing emotional necessities to the public. I understand that a lot of atheists have a problem with that, but tax-exempt status for churches isn't something that threatens an atheist's right to believe as they will - unlike political endorsement of one particular religion.
quote:Can you leave your atheism out of the equation when your "prejudices" tell you we're supporting religion? Even though most people seem to want it that way?
Sure, as long as the people who support religion don't try to mandate that I also support religion.
To give you some background on my life, I am the only atheist in a very large Mormon family. I have 54 first cousins and 10 sets of aunts and uncles just on my dad's side of the family (which is the more religious). I was raised religious and am very aware of the many positive benefits of religion in society. I had *myself* baptized when I was 19 because my religious training had slipped after my parents divorced, and I felt that I needed it in my life. So I am very familiar with religious life and religious society. I don't think it's bad, and I don't think that everybody needs to think like I do.
I do think that I have a right as an American to be free from political designations when it comes to religion. I have a right to be an atheist, and to live my life as an atheist, without being told by politicians that I "don't know any better" if I'm not, or that I need to obey certain laws *because* God says I do. See what I mean?
I'm all for everybody believing and practicing as they see fit, as long as it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or practices.
quote:I don't see atheism (broadly defined so as to include agnostics) as "anti-religion" but I do see it often as exchanging one set of prejudices for another.
Yes, sadly, many atheists are very prejudiced against religion. That is unfortunate - there is no need for that kind of thing.
quote: In it's strictest sense (atheism excluding agnosticism), it is no more founded in science or reason than is religion. It's a belief that something unproveable does NOT exist. It's faith in Occam's Razor.
Exactly right - which, in my mind, *means* "founded in reason." I can understand how others might not see it that way, though.
quote:Which is fine by me, but people often have trouble recognizing that faith in simplest possible explanations may not be warranted, and that it's precisely at those vast and ultimate questions where Occam's Razor is just as much a leap of faith as is believing the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or <insert name of deity here>
Yay, spaghetti monster!!
I guess I don't quite agree with you that believing that the most obviously simple explanation is probably the right one is as big a leap of faith as believing in God, but I can see why you do see it that way.
Thanks for a great discussion!
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: [QB] Libbie, I agree with much of the rest of your post. I'm sorry I can't go point by point, though. I really don't do well with that posting style. I would, for example, point out that you chose to break my post so you disagree with something that I had already dealt with in the very next sentence, which you then agreed with.
I did? Sorry about that - I should have thought that out better, obviously. I don't mind getting short responses. I know I get pretty long-winded, especially about topics I care about. Thanks for explaining! Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Also, real quick, I would like to elaborate a little on what a 'Christian Nationalist' is. Here is a link to Michelle Goldberg's elaboration on her definition. I'm posting this link because I don't want people to think that 'Christian Nationalist' is a code word for any Christian.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:"we don't support abortion as a form of birth control, but when life conflicts with life the choice must be left to the woman and her family, with appropriate medical and spiritual guidence."
This is what I have always believed, and thought my religion taught it; it never occurred to me that that position was considered pro-choice.
The problem is that pro-choice people feel that any limiting of abortion rights or access puts you in the pro-life camp; the staunch pro-lifers say that any beliefs that abortion is ever okay puts you in the pro-choice camp; and there's no category for what many (most?) people really believe.
Oops. End derail.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:
As an athiest, I can tell you that I do not have faith in science and I do not consider myself an adherent of a religion. I don't follow a doctrine or a canon of writings and I don't not question my own reasons for thinking anything. I just wouldn't call my type of athiesm any kind of faith in any one thing. This does not, as many very cagey religious people will say, mean that I believe in nothing. As in, nothing is what I believe in, the thing which is nothing. No, I don't value that type of belief in the way religious people do, and I feel that is a major way in which religious people don't understand athiests. To some religious people, faith is assumed and the object of faith is the only question. God or nothing, the Spaghetti monster or the tooth fairy, or the devil or SOMETHING, or the thing that is nothing. But for me its none of these.
Eloquently put! Thank you! For the most part, I am in the same camp as you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Then aren't they all as a collective still forcing their beliefs on the NON-religious?
It's a problem because there are non-religious people that agree with them for non-religious reasons, but the issue stems from a point of doctrine.
Why does abortion have to be presented to the public *as* a religious problem? Let the people vote on it. Their reasons for voting however they will are their own, whether religious or non-religious. There are plenty of non-religious people who oppose abortion, and plenty of religious people who support it. Let the majority decide without bringing religion into it. That's the only way that is truly fair to *everybody*.
I agree. But it's the same way then with ANY religious issue. They can argue that they should all be allowed to use their religious doctrine as a guideline to legislate their religion, even if it's under the guise of something else, so long as everyone knows what is being voted on, why does the source matter?
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Also, real quick, I would like to elaborate a little on what a 'Christian Nationalist' is. Here is a link to Michelle Goldberg's elaboration on her definition. I'm posting this link because I don't want people to think that 'Christian Nationalist' is a code word for any Christian.
Thanks for that Storm. When I posted earlier in the thread about the Christian Nationalists, it never occurred to me that anyone would think I was talking about all Christians. I've read and studied quite a bit about them and their wish-list, so I suppose I just assumed that because I know who they are and what they stand for, everyone does. Clearly, that is not the case.
I do think it is important that everyone be familiar with what these folks want, and how opposed it is to everything I was taught that this country stands for. They are a small group, in the total scheme of things, but they've got supporters in high places and so deserve to have an eye kept on them.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: According to link:
quote: Jewish tradition upholds choice Jewish tradition has long affirmed and protected the life, well-being, and health of pregnant women and has upheld the basic right to abortion. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, representing Conservative congregations, in 1993 reaffirmed its resolution opposing any legislative attempts to weaken Roe v. Wade through constitutional amendments. Recent resolutions of the Union for Reform Judaism, representing Reform congregations, uphold an "unwavering commitment to the protection and preservation of the reproductive rights of women" and urge constituents to work toward securing or retaining these rights.
Jewish peoples feel free to elaborate on the quote, please.
I apologize for some of the perhaps overly strong words in that link.
The link brings examples only from the Conservative and Reform movements, threfore leaving out half of the picture. The Orthodox movement has a very different opinion about the issue. In the Orthodox movement, abortion is allowed (by all opinions) if the woman's life is in danger. Some Rabbis hold that if the woman was raped an abortion is also permissible. But generally, although many Orthodox people are pro Roe v Wade and vote Democrat, the laws of the religion are kept separate from the laws of the country.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Crescent, does that mean that Orthodox Jews are pro-choice when it comes to positive law? That there is no official position because Orthodox Judaism is very heterogenous? Or that the law of the land isn't reflective of the religious law for Orthodox Jews?
Sorry to be dense.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
sorry I wasn't clear enough:
Orthodox Jews is a broad term. On one end there are the Ultra-Orthodox, and on the other, Modern Orthodox. Many Modern Orthodox Jews are pro-choice and pro gay marriage when it comes to positive law, but not when it comes to religion. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, though, tend to be more conservative about these issues in positive law as well.
For Orthodox Jews who are pro-choice, it is not because they don't believe in the moral code of their religion. It's more about letting people live however they believe to be right (as long as they don't harm others, of course). And since a fetus is not considered a full human being in Judaism, the abortion issue can be viewed in many different ways.
Tell me if I'm not being clear enough - I'm having trouble looking at this post through the eyes of someone who isn't so familiar with the religion as I am.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
quote: I don't see atheism (broadly defined so as to include agnostics) as "anti-religion" but I do see it often as exchanging one set of prejudices for another.
Being agnostic, I take mild exception to being relegated to a subset of atheism. The difference in placing no faith in a higher power and placing no faith in organized religion, while I'm not saying one is superior to the other or objectionable, I think is a fairly distinct one.
Also, if you define prejudice as personal preference, then yes it is a valid assertion, but if you define prejudice as a bias to prejudge people of other faiths, then I can't agree with your assessment there.
(Edit: I missed the qualifier "often" on my first read, so my second paragraph problem doesn't apply to the point you were trying to make). Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's fine. Thanks, Crescent. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
ChevMalFet,
I realize there's a lot of disagreement on what the differences between "atheist" and "agnostic" mean -- including among people who self-identify as one or the other.
I got that bit from the Wiki article and thought I'd better make it clear whether I was using a broad versus narrow definition of "atheist."
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Being agnostic, I take mild exception to being relegated to a subset of atheism. The difference in placing no faith in a higher power and placing no faith in organized religion, while I'm not saying one is superior to the other or objectionable, I think is a fairly distinct one.
I think it goes even further than that, in my opinion. Atheism doesn't lack *faith* in a higher power - it lacks any *belief* in a higher power. Faith kind of implies (to me, anyway) that you have some belief in a concept or religion or whatever the issue at hand may be. Atheists are "without religion" by literal definition - they don't believe that any god or gods exists at all. (But that is not to say that they are not just as likely to be moral and conscientious as any given religious person, of course. That is a common misconception, sadly).
Agnostics either acknowledge a supernatural higher power of some kind but don't ally with any set religion, or believe in that there is a strong possibility of a higher power (from what I've heard, anyway). They're definitely not in the same camp, and I can see why you'd be frustrated with that misconception!
quote:Also, if you define prejudice as personal preference, then yes it is a valid assertion, but if you define prejudice as a bias to prejudge people of other faiths, then I can't agree with your assessment there.
I took the word "prejudice" to mean bias against other faiths or beliefs in this instance, but I also took it with the assumption that the original writer was allowing that religion includes some prejudice by nature, as well.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
"Agnostics either acknowledge a supernatural higher power of some kind but don't ally with any set religion, or believe in that there is a strong possibility of a higher power (from what I've heard, anyway). They're definitely not in the same camp, and I can see why you'd be frustrated with that misconception!"
Um, my understanding of being an agnostic is that they don't know whether there is a higher power or not. There could be or their couldn't be. They kind of sit on the fence. This is sort of the definition that I would use:
Agnostic:
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Thats from dictionary.com
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm just generally confused, so I call myself an agnositic. Telling people you're confused generally leads them to think you're open for conversion. I have all the information I need, I just don't know what to do with it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
My statement was much more limited in scope than any of this. I have personally known some atheists and many, many agnostics. The self-professed atheists I have known personally have been of two types:
1) People who really meant "agnostic" but didn't know the proper terminology for their beliefs, and frankly, didn't care. In general, they just hadn't thought it through. In my experience, many of these people were young and asserting their independence from their own religious upbringing. Many were trying to be trendy or rebellious by using the term "atheist."
2) People who claim to KNOW that there is no God. They do not state it as a provisional belief that they are looking forward to some gradual unfolding through knowledge gained during their lives. They simply assert it as fact. In my experience, most of these folks were empiricists, intelligent, trained in science and logic, and had reached a conclusion based, in part, on accepting the simplest possible mechanistic explanation for the universe.
As I've said, I know there are many more versions of atheism and agnosticism out there, I just haven't known them personally. (And no...meeting someone on a web-board doesn't really count for this sort of thing).
Also, I know what the dictionary says the terms mean. For a more rounded presentation, I like the article on atheism at Wikipedia
I chose to use the broadest possible definition of atheism from that intro for one sentence of my earlier post. It doesn't mean I lump every non-theist together, I assure you. No more than I lump all theists together.
I also agree that it is entirely possible that an atheist will lead a life guided by ethical principals of a more-or-less universal nature. Those who do so tend to have well-thought-out moral positions.
Whether atheists in general are "just as likely" to be morally upstanding as the average theist...I can't say. In part that stems from a lack of data. I don't follow atheists around to see how they stack up, behaviorwise. I also don't stop people as I observe them engaged in moral, immoral, or amoral acts and ask what they believe about the nature of God.
Another big part of my unwillingness to consent to the "just as likely" statement is that we are probably going to run into the usual problems defining what IS moral behavior. At least some definitions require the presence of God, and by virtue of that assertion anyone who does not believe in God cannot be moral. While I don't subscribe to those viewpoints, I suspect that we're going to have trouble selecting any single view of morality that would ever allow us to proceed to the step where we could study the average morality quotient of atheists and theists and reach a valid conclusion on how they compare.
RE: use of the word "prejudice" -- it is a "loaded" word in our society. I selected it on purpose. I don't expect ANYONE to think through every situation. There isn't time or energy. We ALL have prejudices that we retain for whatever reasons, until we choose to admit challenges to our individual world views and find some of those prejudices no longer valid. The same is true of everyone. Saying it is true of the atheists I have known personally does not mean that I can't recognize the prejudices that theists hold -- or even some of the ones that I hold.
It's a rare person who has no blind spots with respect to things like core beliefs. From this point of view, agnosticism and religious skepticism are the hard way. In that respect, these are the most difficult paths BECAUSE they require the person to continually rethink their core beliefs, even in the midst of wondering whether there could/should be such a thing as core beliefs.
The true-believer never has such worries. Those theists out at the 3rd standard deviation are not bothered by questions. They may have trouble living up to the standard of behavior, but they know the right thing to do. Same for atheists. The ones who reach "true-believer" status don't have to worry about the core -- they KNOW God doesn't exist.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
blacwolve: agnostics make lousy converts, unless they've FIRST become convinced of something, and are thus no longer agnostic. I haven't seen anyone convinced by words alone. I suppose it'd be possible, but I just haven't seen it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Semantics is completely borked between Athiest and Agnostic.
You can be a strong athiest who can not be an agnostic and a weak athiest who can be an agnostic and that type of agnostic that a weak athiest can be is a weak agnostic and a strong agnostic is incompatable with that matchup. Makes perfect sense, right?
Right?? Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: blacwolve: agnostics make lousy converts, unless they've FIRST become convinced of something, and are thus no longer agnostic. I haven't seen anyone convinced by words alone. I suppose it'd be possible, but I just haven't seen it.
Just to clarify, my post wasn't meant as an attack of any kind, just a comment about another way the word agnostic could be used. I like the term, because it is more of a catchall term for everyone who is confused, or doesn't know. Even though usually they're confused or don't know in completely different ways.
In my experience telling someone who's trying to convert you that you're confused makes their eyes light up. Because if you're confused, it means that the right push might send you over into their religion. And it's true, I could very easily be pushed over into Christianity. But I already know more than most of the people (college students) trying to convert me about Christianity and Christian theology. The problem isn't that I don't know that Jesus died for my sins or anything like that. The primary problem is that if I believe in God, I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I can't love or worship Him. The people who might be interested in convincing me that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not correct are generally not the ones evangelizing.
*shrugs* So I say I'm agnostic and not really interested when I get cornered like that.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: In it's strictest sense (atheism excluding agnosticism), it is no more founded in science or reason than is religion. It's a belief that something unproveable does NOT exist. It's faith in Occam's Razor.
I do not agree with this. Not believing in something because you have been given no reason to believe in it is not simply faith in Occam's Razor. Believing that something specifically does not exist because you have no reason to believe in it does demonstrate faith in Occam's Razor. I think this is a pivotal point in the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Amanecer -- For about the 5th time, I thought I was clear in speaking about a particular type of atheist who, in my experience, claims to KNOW that God does not exist, and who cites, as proof of that, the principle that simplest explanations are the best.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think that Harris' opinion is a valid, if narrow, approach to take. If I may add, I also think that there are quite a few nominally Christian legistators who legislate, what I believe other Christians would consider, sin. And there are quite a few candidates, but for their lack of faith in Jesus Christ as their savior, who act in ways commensurate with the more attractive parts of Christianity.
*shrugs*
I'm not Christian. This isn't my debate. This is a civil war the christians have to fight among themselves. I'm disdainful towards Christians like Harris, and I'm tired of watching our nation cater to a specific class of Christians who I believe are beneath me and whose character is beneath the promise of this country. Anybody who was ready to raise a fuss over "under God," being removed from the pledge, given the phrase's dubious history, is barely fit to shine my shoes.
[ September 02, 2006, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wish that we, as a country, would elect people on their individual beliefs and morality, rather than their professed membership in any particular group.
It's sad that the majority of the populace is so lazy that they would like all their choices distilled to the most basic level.
Candidates simply pick from a selection of groups with the largest constituencies, and have their votes handed to them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Anybody who was ready to raise a fuss over "under God," being removed from the pledge, given the phrase's dubious history, is barely fit to shine my shoes.
Considering who's wearing the shoes, though, that's not much of an insult, is it? I'm sure there are lots of people who would be honoured and delighted to shine your shoes.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I don't really know that many people who admit to voting a party line. I do know a few (but still, not that many) who vote based on a professed religion.
I think the party affiliation is more a matter of pragmatism. It's nearly impossible to get elected in a partisan race if one isn't the candidate from a major party. It's just too difficult to get the funding to mount a truly effective campaign.
Parties, especially party "operatives" or "election consultants" really seem to be the cynical influence, imo. These are the folks who decide on the platform, who maneuver legislation prior to major elections (ensuring that we have a flag-burning amendment, or a pledge of allegiance amendment sometime within the few months leading up to an election.) These are the folks who set party platforms and try to hit the hot button issues they think will garner the most votes. Whether or not the candidates truly believe in it or not, if they want to be elected, they need access to the money...And that means becoming a party candidate and, at a minimum, paying lip service to the party line.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I wish that we, as a country, would elect people on their individual beliefs and morality, rather than their professed membership in any particular group.
I would add to that a basic level of capability to do the job. We're currently suffering from a serious lack of organizational capability in our government, and the party system is just perpetuating the situation.
I'd prefer someone that didn't fully fit the moral mold I envision as the ideal candidate who was prepared to run the government well than… Forest Gump, for instance.
On an upside, I suspect Nagin's campaign for a fully chocolate New Orleans is in full swing.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Bugger, I typed this whole long post re the semantic of agnosticism and a bit of browser wonkiness ate it.
The long and short of my point was that since, tangentially to agnosticism, I view all religions as valid sources of learning, if through the filter of their cultural origins, by nature I don't tend to hold prejudice against one or the other beyond a superficial level. By superficial, I mean that the religious prejudices I have taken the time to recognize tend to be regarding individual church gatherings, regional cultural groups; specific entities that I have found to be particularly intolerant. Even these, though, I'm not proud of as invariably once you've got a solid prejudice locked in someone comes around that isn't "in the mold" and you put your foot in your mouth.
And, Whammo, you are guilty of what, as an agnostic, tends to be particularly irksome (since it is very much a catch-all, people often end up with some diverse preconceptions).
quote:At least some definitions require the presence of God, and by virtue of that assertion anyone who does not believe in God cannot be moral.
I think you'll find that moral traditions that, by nature, require a belief in God tend to have originated in order to preserve political power structure/climate.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I think you'll find that moral traditions that, by nature, require a belief in God tend to have originated in order to preserve political power structure/climate.
Putting aside the tone of lecturer for a moment, could you explain precisely what this means? Isn't it possible to interpret EVERY generally shared societal "belief" as perpetuating the status quo, no matter what else it does or how it came to be?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I believe Bob is correct.
There really is no way to prove, or even apply a whole lot of evidence to a statement such as:
quote:I think you'll find that moral traditions that, by nature, require a belief in God tend to have originated in order to preserve political power structure/climate.
which don't require an acceptance of the pre-existing premise in order to be credible.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I dunno - you could at least form a couple of tests of the theory. For example, do we find any large religions that do not preserve the existing power structure of their societies? If we do, the hypothesis is falsified.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Except for the times which they don't preserve the existing power structure of their societies, such as religious movements-either with or without violence-attempt to change or overthrow the existing power structure of their societies.
It has happened before, KoM. I think you're well aware of it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Reformation merely changed which set of priests the peasants paid their tithes to. Christianity in the Roman Empire, much the same, especially after it got co-opted. Which other examples did you have in mind?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'd grant you the "after it got co-opted" part, but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that Christianity originated in order to preserve the current (at the time) political power structure/climate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: The primary problem is that if I believe in God, I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I can't love or worship Him.
Yeah. That would be a problem. Why do you think they have to be related?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair enough, dkw, but I did specify 'large' religions. Christianity wasn't a very major factor until Constantine's conversion.
Edit : And, come to that, if you read between the lines Jesus saw himself as a reformer of the Jewish faith, not the prophet of a new one. The universality was Paul's invention.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Which brings us back to ChevMalFet's original claim -- and do any religions originate as "large" religions? I could agree with a statement that as a religion becomes a majority position in society it tends to support rather than challenge the status quo, but the idea that any of them originated for that purpose doesn't seem historically supportable to me.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'origin'. Suppose we put it this way : Religions that have any success over the long term are always a conservative element, supporting the social status quo, whether or not that was the intent of their founder.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
How about "tend toward" rather than "are always"? Because there are also always elements present that go the other way. The classic example is slavery -- Christianity for years supported and justified the institution. But the abolition movement in both Britain and America was also primarily led by Christians who were acting our their faith convictions. Other exammples would be the state church in Germany during WWII vs the Confessing Church movement and the Roman Catholic church in South America vs the Liberation Theology movement.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: What about the Tai Ping Rebellion in China. Where Hong Xiu Quan created his own Christian sect and immedietly set out to topple the Manchurian govt converting and coercing people along the way? From almost the day it was formed it was focused on the complete conversion of all Chinese people and the removal of Buddhism, Taoism all forms of idolatry, and the destruction of all non Han Chinese.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Right then, bit of a spark of debate I didn't quite intend, aggravated by the fact that I shortened things rather than retype them—sorry if came off as lectury Bob. My point (and it's meant more as an idea than an immutable truth) is the moral traditions explicitly tied to a belief in a particular god (and by this I don't mean pro-life, or a particular religiously backed stance) tend to do little other than reinforce the power structure of the priests.
By this I mean Though shall have no other God but me, Shall not take my name in vain, shall keep the sabbath holy, must not approach the altar, intermarriage prohibitions, etc.
Dkw: I suspect very few started to support the status quo, and that really wasn't what I was trying to imply; I was just referring to a small subset of moral imperatives that religions generally have (or pick up along the way) to strengthen the "my tribe—everyone else" mentality. Very few political parties started off large, either, however, so obviously everyone has to start somewhere.
[ September 05, 2006, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: ChevMalFet ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And a lot of success that had over the long term, no? But even if it had succeeded, it would clearly have instantly become a strongly theocratic state, with the religion very intimately bound up with state enforcement. I would also note that comrade Hong saw himself as a reformer rather than a revolutionary; he didn't want to overthrow the system, he wanted to restore the Middle Kingdom to the point where it could afford to ignore the outland barbarians. He was against the corruption and inefficiency of his society, rather than the structure itself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And a lot of success that had over the long term, no? But even if it had succeeded, it would clearly have instantly become a strongly theocratic state, with the religion very intimately bound up with state enforcement. I would also note that comrade Hong saw himself as a reformer rather than a revolutionary; he didn't want to overthrow the system, he wanted to restore the Middle Kingdom to the point where it could afford to ignore the outland barbarians. He was against the corruption and inefficiency of his society, rather than the structure itself.
Oh he came quite close to overthrowing the manchurian govt, but close only counts in horseshoed and handgrenades. But I suppose you are right, alot of Hong Xiu Quan's efforts were in purifying not completely overhauling the govt.
edit: KOM I don't really buy that Jesus was reforming Judaism, and it was the zelous Paul that said we need to expand to other countries. True Jesus discouraged his apostles initially from going out amongst the gentiles, but at the end of his ministry he did say, "Go ye to all nations." Paul had to deal with some of the Christians trying to preserve elements of Judaism (specifically elements pertaining to the law of moses) that interfered with Jesus' words.
like kmbboots said, most organizations once they grow large enough support the status quo. And many liberal ideas appear conservative once time is allowed to pass. Early Christianity had some very radical ideas, it still does.
[ September 05, 2006, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'origin'. Suppose we put it this way : Religions that have any success over the long term are always a conservative element, supporting the social status quo, whether or not that was the intent of their founder.
Most organizations, once they reach a certain size and status, will support the status quo.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
True, but what reason does a corporation or army have to want to change it? A religion, on the other hand, is quite often in the position of being explicitly hypocritical when it supports an unjust status quo, as in the case of slavery. (I'm not so down on feudalism, mind you - it's not so obvious that there was any real alternative, given the technology of the time. Even so, calling it divinely appointed may be going a little far.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Paul had to deal with some of the Christians trying to preserve elements of Judaism (specifically elements pertaining to the law of moses) that interfered with Jesus' words.
Sez Paul. But this is very quickly going to get us into unproductive quote-slinging territory, with 'not one jot or tittle' vs 'not man for the Sabbath'.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: True, but what reason does a corporation or army have to want to change it? A religion, on the other hand, is quite often in the position of being explicitly hypocritical when it supports an unjust status quo, as in the case of slavery. (I'm not so down on feudalism, mind you - it's not so obvious that there was any real alternative, given the technology of the time. Even so, calling it divinely appointed may be going a little far.)
Or you could call it the natural product of a lack of divine guidance within the religion. When you get a big chunk of divinly inspired wisdom, it can only last for so long before it starts to answer fewer and fewer questions, and you end up using it as an arguement for conservative ideas. But then again if you actually have somebody claiming to be the mouthpiece of God constantly, your religion either keeps prospering and remaining on a progressive vein, or you start to believe in some less savory ideas.
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Is not the Pope consider infallible, and as such the voice of God? I mean not perhaps in the "Jesus told me" sense, but certainly in the "his word shall be consider as if divine" sense.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I thought the Pope was only infallible part of the time.
-pH
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
So he gets weekends and holidays off and a 40 hour work-week?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
No, infallibility only applies to certain statements made by the Pope, and it's my understanding that he doesn't make those kinds of statements very often.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I seem to recall Dag or kmbboots saying it has occurred exactly twice, in all the history of the Papacy. And I also seem to remember that both times it was on really obscure theological questions. Something about the literal ascendence in the flesh of Mary?
Posted by ChevMalFet (Member # 9676) on :
Thanks, Ph and King of Men, I actually should have known that having been to a childhood of sunday school and a catholic high school.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The Pope does not preport to speak for God on a frequent enough basis for me to be convinced its any different then the Protestants who say God no longer speaks to men.
Just my opinion.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I hope you're aware that that is NOT the postition of very many protestant denominations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Hey, the Pope might be infallible but that doesn't mean he can't be wrong from time to time." - Stephen Colbert
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I seem to recall Dag or kmbboots saying it has occurred exactly twice, in all the history of the Papacy. And I also seem to remember that both times it was on really obscure theological questions. Something about the literal ascendence in the flesh of Mary?
:not catholic, went to catholic school:
Doesn't stop theology teachers in Catholic schools from calling the bible's language "figurative" in this instance anyway. At least, my theology teacher had no problem saying that Mary didn't *really* ascend into heaven and all that.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I took several theology classes in college during which the professors (one was a priest) tried to get us to understand that "true story" then didn't have quite the same meaning as we think of now.
Then, something might not have literally happened, but a story about it that conveyed the important aspects of what happened and its meaning to the people was "true."
Now, we think of true stories as "Well of course that's literal truth, when you're sinning. When I do this other thing, that was a figurative story. Just your thing, that's the bad one, sinner." At least, that was my take. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I seem to recall Dag or kmbboots saying it has occurred exactly twice, in all the history of the Papacy. And I also seem to remember that both times it was on really obscure theological questions. Something about the literal ascendence in the flesh of Mary?
:not catholic, went to catholic school:
Doesn't stop theology teachers in Catholic schools from calling the bible's language "figurative" in this instance anyway. At least, my theology teacher had no problem saying that Mary didn't *really* ascend into heaven and all that.
One of my Sunday School teachers informed me that the miracle in the feeding of the 5000 was that "Jesus got everyone to share with each other." That was the point I stopped having any respect for my church. Actually, ironically enough, that was probably the single most defining moment in my religious evolution.
I'm just curious, I don't mean to be rude, but this is the second time in 24 hours I've heard mention of Mary ascending into heaven. I've never heard of that before (wasn't raised Catholic). Would someone mind giving me a reference?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It's a Catholic doctrine (and technically it'sassumption not ascension) so it's not surprising that you're not familiar with it.
Details here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Check out Harris' wikipedia article.
Her campaign started disintegrating because she's legitimately mental.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I seem to recall Dag or kmbboots saying it has occurred exactly twice, in all the history of the Papacy. And I also seem to remember that both times it was on really obscure theological questions. Something about the literal ascendence in the flesh of Mary?
Wow. King of Men, you actually read one of my posts. And understood and remembered it. I'm touched, no, overwhelmed. Thank you!
Also good to remember, the Doctrine of Infallibility is a relatively new doctrine. Although the idea was bandied about for centuries, it was only codified in 1870ish.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Thanks dkw!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I hope you're aware that that is NOT the postition of very many protestant denominations.
"THE Protestants who say..."
not
"Protestants who say..."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I took several theology classes in college during which the professors (one was a priest) tried to get us to understand that "true story" then didn't have quite the same meaning as we think of now.
Then, something might not have literally happened, but a story about it that conveyed the important aspects of what happened and its meaning to the people was "true."
Now, we think of true stories as "Well of course that's literal truth, when you're sinning. When I do this other thing, that was a figurative story. Just your thing, that's the bad one, sinner." At least, that was my take.
We learned about it more that the numbers in the Bible represent completeness, and so forth. And a lot about the historical context.
I go to a Jesuit school, but the only time I was taught by a priest was in history class.
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I can see how this might be the case in some of the stories of the Old Testament. But I am VERY careful when applying it because there are some cases where I think its more literally true than conceptually.
Abraham actually almost sacrificed Issac, Israel had 12 sons, I suppose them having names indicates literalness.
I think I can almost accept without question what the New Testament accounts say happened. I do not think they threw numbers in there to signify completeness, or made up stories to introduce gospel principles. For me at least its pretty obvious when Jesus is telling a story to teach a lesson, and when he is actually doing something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
After days of restraining myself I have to admit that everytime I see "legislate sin" I envision how-to manuals with the "approved procedure".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can see how this might be the case in some of the stories of the Old Testament. But I am VERY careful when applying it because there are some cases where I think its more literally true than conceptually.
Abraham actually almost sacrificed Issac, Israel had 12 sons, I suppose them having names indicates literalness.
I think I can almost accept without question what the New Testament accounts say happened. I do not think they threw numbers in there to signify completeness, or made up stories to introduce gospel principles. For me at least its pretty obvious when Jesus is telling a story to teach a lesson, and when he is actually doing something.
Not me. Many of those symbols and conventions(placement, position, day of the week, time of day etc.)are far too documented in other literature of the time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Judaism supports abortion if the life of the mother is threatened.
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss: In the Orthodox movement, abortion is allowed (by all opinions) if the woman's life is in danger.
Not supported. Not allowed. REQUIRED. Even if the mother is willing to take the risk, and even if the threat is indirect.
As far as JO views on laws restricting abortion, they range widely, as cresc mentioned:
In favor of strong legal limitations on abortion
In favor of some limitations on abortion (especially those after the first trimester)
Believe abortion as a form of birth control is reprehensible, but oppose legislation restricting it (either because they don't believe they have aright to legislate morality, or because they are concerned about restrictions in cases where Jewish law would require an abortion)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not supported. Not allowed. REQUIRED. Even if the mother is willing to take the risk, and even if the threat is indirect.
How big does the threat have to be for this mandate to kick in?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Like most matters of such great seriousness, CYLOR (consult your local Orthodox rabbi) applies.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Papal infallibility applies when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on matters of doctrine. I believe this requires that he say, essentially, "Look, everybody, I'm speaking ex cathedra now!" It's happened once, as mentioned above, to endorse the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
I'm curious to know if LDS Prophets are infallible.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Woa, this Harris chick is insane!
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Did my duty: voted against her. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I'm curious to know if LDS Prophets are infallible.
Do you mean "are they considered by their followers to be infallible, and if so under what circumstances?" Or, do you mean "have they ever been proven wrong?"
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Who?!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)