Ugh. Disgusting. What the hell happened to the separation of Church and State?? Now even the Democrats are pandering to these fanatics. Not only did both candidates kowtow to this evangelical preacher (Why not a Priest? Why not a Mormon? Why not a Hindu? Why not a Muslim?) but now even the Democrats are pandering to the religious right.
Ick.
Religion has NO place in Government. The mass media is partly to blame. They have a responsibility to public service, and the ratings race of the past decade has shattered that... now they are like politicians... pandering to whatever demagogue comes along.
And of course all the religious leaders and parents are to blame. They have failed this current generation and have raised their kids/flock to think it's ok to openly mix religion and politics.
But the politicians (as usual) are mostly to blame because they really ARE demagogues! They are willing to sacrifice American society and way of life for a short term win. Bush/Rove didn't give a damn about gay marriage...they weren't even Christians I bet. But they and they're people pandered and manipulated the religious fanatics to stay in power.
And now even Obama is doing it! Ugh.
Why has everyone forgotten the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the other things that made the USA free? If one religious movement is given more credit or power then all the others will suffer. So NO ONE should have any special treatment. Keep religion out of Government altogether. The Founders knew this...but we seem to be forgetting it.
The religious right attacks the word "secular" as meaning "godless" or "atheist". IT IS NOT! It means being neutral...it means getting work done and being unbiased.
But religions hate this. Because each religion thinks it has Ultimate Truth of the Universe and religious fanatics cannot stand not being in power to impose their will on the rest of Humanity.
Thus the need to keep religion out of government. Be religious if you want. Don't force it on othes. Let us save secular society.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
What are you a Godless commie*
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america to the republic for which it stands one nation under 'god' indivisble with liberty and justice for all"
But seriously I agree with you this nation shouldn't be ruled by someone who falls into the trap previous presidents have. Religion should be considered when making decisions but it should not be brought up in a campaingn or during a debate. It should have no effect on the americans mind, and the reason they vote. But it does and this is because religion has become to powerful in our culture. Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh
*(is that how you spell it?)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Okay Telp. Take a second and breathe.
Start a blog. It helps to vent. It's what I did.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nice rant!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: What are you a Godless commie* "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america to the republic for which it stands one nation under 'god' indivisble with liberty and justice for all"
*(is that how yo spell it?)
Just out of curiosity, did you know that the original pledge didn't contain the words 'under god'?
Given the fact that the people of America aren't 100% any particular religion, doesn't "under god" contradict "indivisible"?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Oh really? I didnt know that.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
My dear Tman...
I'll go on a ledge and assume you're not joking...You do realize that "under god" is not part of the Pledge right? It was added in the 50's because of the "godless commies" of the Cold War.
...I just like pointing out the obvious, don't mind me...
[you are joking! *phew*]
[ August 25, 2008, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
In school they don't teach you this. This proves that religion has become to pwerful in our culture.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Wait... Tman, are you being sarcastic or not? If you are *big hugs* If you aren't *backs away slowly*
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
*air hug*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What the hell happened to the separation of Church and State?
quote:Why has everyone forgotten the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the other things that made the USA free?
You seem to believe that we used to have proper separation of church and state, and that we used to remember the constitution, Bill of Rights, etc..
When is this time when church and state were properly separated, in your view?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: Okay Telp. Take a second and breathe.
Start a blog. It helps to vent. It's what I did.
***
Nice rant!
Hear hear guys... I'll get right on that... It's just so frustrating to see people gleefulling sacrificing our future for ignorance and darkness.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I don't understand where Telp's rant is coming from -- is there something specific that brought this on, or was it simply your overarching opinion that had to burst forth at this particular time?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: What the hell happened to the separation of Church and State?? Now even the Democrats are pandering to these fanatics. Not only did both candidates kowtow to this evangelical preacher (Why not a Priest? Why not a Mormon? Why not a Hindu? Why not a Muslim?) but now even the Democrats are pandering to the religious right.
This doesn't actually violate separation of church and state.
EDIT: I forgot to add that I totally understand your frustration. Discrimination against atheism and minority religions is heavily ingrained in American society.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I don't understand where Telp's rant is coming from -- is there something specific that brought this on, or was it simply your overarching opinion that had to burst forth at this particular time?
Atheists are being excluded from the interfaith gathering at the DNC. Here's an article on it. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Telp, the national parties are private organizations, not government. If they want to demonstrate their faith, fine.
Denying that faith exists, or that people of faith exist, and denying that those who do believe actually do believe, and are not delusional, enslaved, or tricked by their leaders, is the main reason they line up to vote against your preferred candidates.
Remember, just as you have the freedom not to believe in God, Allah, Buddha, or the great Spaghetti Monster, they have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to believe in it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I don't understand where Telp's rant is coming from -- is there something specific that brought this on, or was it simply your overarching opinion that had to burst forth at this particular time?
Maybe the fact that the DNC convention is opening (has opened?) with an "Inter-faith" thingy. Which is great, I suppose, if you have some sort of faith, but is a bit off-putting to the atheists and feels a bit like "Well, we don't need or want your votes, so why not purposefully exclude you?"
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Ahhh I'm shocked (but not appalled) This makes me wanna eat someone religious.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Denying that faith exists, or that people of faith exist, and denying that those who do believe actually do believe, and are not delusional, enslaved, or tricked by their leaders, is the main reason they line up to vote against your preferred candidates.
This is just plain false. Neither of the presidential candidates has done any of the actions you have listed nor, really, have any congressmen. Who exactly are the "preferred candidates that you are referring too"? AFAIK there is one atheist congressman and he certainly did not include any of the junk you listed as part of his platform.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It's just so frustrating to see people gleefulling sacrificing our future for ignorance and darkness.
Oh good grief. Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
I don't mind a rant about seperation of church and state because on the whole I agree with you. However you should also remember that one of the primary reasons that America was founded was as a haven of religious freedom, and that all of the founding fathers, (with the possible exception of dear Tom Paine) were deeply religious men.
I strongly disagree, and am slightly disgusted at your lack or respect, (and understanding of human nature) when you start saying that having a religion is "sacrificing our future for ignorance and darkness"
Get off your high atheist horse. I don't believe that you're going to hell, so please don't tell my that my IQ is the equivalent of the chimpanzee I might have evolved from.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: I don't mind a rant about separation of church and state because on the whole I agree with you. However you should also remember that one of the primary reasons that America was founded was as a haven of religious freedom, and that all of the founding fathers, (with the possible exception of dear Tom Paine) were deeply religious men.
I strongly disagree, and am slightly disgusted at your lack or respect, (and understanding of human nature) when you start saying that having a religion is "sacrificing our future for ignorance and darkness"
Get off your high atheist horse. I don't believe that you're going to hell, so please don't tell my that my IQ is the equivalent of the chimpanzee I might have evolved from.
Define "deeply religious" for the founding fathers. I'm behind you if you mean that most of them had Christian backgrounds. But to say that they were all 'deeply religious' is stretching it.
Oh, and you didn't evolve from a chimpanzee. You and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Rather than rant on a blog, why not send your message via mail to your elected officials, to the DNC organizers, and to the candidates?
Make yourself heard.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
quote:Oh, and you didn't evolve from a chimpanzee. You and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor.
That was clever
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Threads, I never said that either of the main candidates have done such a thing.
Then again, neither of those people are Telp's preferred candidate.
Telp is the one who has said those things. He is the Atheist Evangelist on this thread so far. It seems that Secular Evangelism is on the decline, which is what Telp is complaining about.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle:
quote:Oh, and you didn't evolve from a chimpanzee. You and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor.
That was clever
Was it? I thought it was just a polite correction.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Dan: He is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Honestly. Now get it right or suffer His noodly wrath.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Hey, do you how difficult it was to get me to spell spaghetttti, speghat, pasgh......pasta?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Atheists are being excluded from the interfaith gathering at the DNC.
As an atheist, I have to say I don't really have a problem with atheists not being part of an interfaith gathering, at least not on face value. Interfaith gatherings are for religious people to talk about their religious traditions. Atheism isn't a religious tradition.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I read that article. Apparently, they need to be there because they don't want to miss a party, no matter what the party is about. I don't find that to be a compelling argument.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I read that article. Apparently, they need to be there because they don't want to miss a party, no matter what the party is about. I don't find that to be a compelling argument.
I don't think politics and religion should mix, which is obviously what is happening here.
By even having the 'interfaith' event they are saying that faith is much more important to them and those without it and their views are unimportant. Including atheists, I think, would at the least be an attempt to say they care about our support.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I don't think the objection to the exclusion is quite so simple, kat. At least not from those with a brain.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't agree. If they had a "farming concerns" meeting, would it mean that they don't care about people who don't farm?
---
edit: Actually, framing it that way, I start to see the rationale for the complaints. "Religious concerns" at a national political convention should include people representing a secular viewpoint.
I think it matters what the purpose of the Interfaith conference is. If they are recognizing that faith is something that is important to many of their members, that's one thing. If they are doing any sort of policy discussion, it's a much different thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't agree. If they had a "farming concerns" meeting, would it mean that they don't care about people who don't farm?
Yikes! Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria, and I agree with Mr. Squicky who also agrees with Katharina!
--------
quote:At least not from those with a brain.
Classy!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I definitely don't agree with kat's characterization.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The other "arguments" were even more lame.
1. We hate Bush. Bush loves religion. Therefore, if you support religion, you love Bush. HOW DARE YOU.
2. You are being bad Democrats if you discuss anything unless it is important to EVERYONE. The agenda for the convention will consist of Oxygen: Good or Bad and, of course, We Hate Bush.
3. Some people don't like non-religious people. I'm not saying that's you, just some people. You look like those people. You don't want to be like those people, do you? How dare you discuss something that excludes us? By the way, all the other sub-topics are okay. Just not this one. If you have a party where I am not relevant, you are just like that girl in high school who rejected me when she overheard me calling all religious people ignorant and dark. YOU'RE SO MEAN.
4. You should have a different party instead - one that is about us.
5. Why do you want to talk about ideaology and what people have in common? Politics isn't about who you are, it's what you do! By the way, isn't great the nominee is black?
6. You want to talk about a subject that we have rejected as nonsense? YOU DON'T LOVE US. HOW DARE YOU.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:By the way, all the other sub-topics are okay. Just not this one.
Well, this is the one topic they're not allowed to make laws about. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Posted by Javert originally: Define "deeply religious" for the founding fathers. I'm behind you if you mean that most of them had Christian backgrounds. But to say that they were all 'deeply religious' is stretching it.
Well, it's hard to talk about them as a single entity since they were wildly divergent on a lot of points of personal philosophy and faith. But in general I don't think deeply religious is that far out of bounds.
I wonder though how much of it comes down to the use of language. If American political figures talked about "divine providence" as often as they did back then, I think you'd be hearing a lot more rants like Telps. The country has changed, and we're far less inviting or demanding of open professions of faith. But more so than that, I can candidates and officials are less desirous and comfortable with making them as well. Whether or not the founding fathers and the generation that followed were deeply religious or not isn't necessarily the issue, because we'll never know what was in their heart of hearts, and we'll never know what is in today's officials' heart of hearts, so we look at what they say, and there has been a precipitous drop off in the religious language from generation to generation starting in the 18th century.
Part of that might be our attitudes towards open displays of faith, and how dramatically they have changed over the years, and part of it just might be the way American speech has changed.
Telp -
I have to echo others who've said it: What has changed? When Jefferson was running against Adams he basically engaged in underhanded guerilla political warfare against Adams to try and paint him as a Godless monarchist. The irony there was that Adams was probably twice as religious as Jefferson by any real measure of faith, but that's immaterial. But come on, where is this shining past that you're alluding to? It's ALWAYS been like this, and if anything, things have gotten a LOT better.
Like my favorite history prof always says: "The good old days weren't all that good." (not particularly catchy, but certainly correct) We like to think that things always used to be better, but in many ways, things have only gotten better.
Personally I have no problems with professions of faith from presidents. I have no problem with them using their faith values as a tool in decision making. So long as they don't attempt to legislate a faith that we can't all agree on into law, it has to do with the personal realms of their lives, and I think that falls outside of separation of church and state, which was designed initially far more to protect churches than the state, but I do think it should go both ways, and I think it's hanging in there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nope. Not true.
---
Lyrhawn is right - what, exactly, is different now? What age are you lamenting where everything was secular and people held hands and made sure that what they thought was right never interfered with what they did?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Squicky,
I didn't mean the characterization specifically. I meant with the broader thing, the idea that Democrats by this action must not care about atheists' votes. Presumably Katharina agrees with that.
But I'ma drop it now, because I think chances of getting the two of you to agree on anything on purpose is highly unlikely at best:)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have no interest in Squicky's argument or agreement. It isn't relevant to what I'm saying.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
How many people do you know without a brain, Rakeesh?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The other "arguments" were even more lame.
Even the one about how, if they are dicussing faith and religion related policy issues, then secular voices should be included in the conversation? That doesn't seem that lame to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have no interest in discussing this with you, Squick.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What age are you lamenting where everything was secular...
I've never been under the illusion that atheists were anything but second-class citizens since the Senate voted unanimously to censure a California district court for finding "under God" to be unconstitutional. We're talking about a Senate that didn't censure the Dred Scott decision.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have no interest in discussing this with you, Squick.
Would you be willing to discuss such an intellectually dishonest post with anybody?
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I don't understand where Telp's rant is coming from -- is there something specific that brought this on, or was it simply your overarching opinion that had to burst forth at this particular time?
Alternatively, there's this. I find this way, way more disturbing than the interfaith meeting thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Exaggerated? Maybe. Intellectually dishonest? Nope. With anybody? Clearly no - not Squicky and after your uncharitable and accusatory question, not you. Somebody else, maybe.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That is disturbing, Stray. I can't believe a law like that was needed - I can't imagine the horror of being forced out of a healing profession because you refuse to commit murder.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I can think of one good argument why some non-religious people should be at that interfaith meeting.
It has to be a good reason. I read it on a bumper sticker.
When ever you have that many religious folks of different faith together discussing politics, a holy war is bound to erupt.
(runs and hides before people with torches and a stake show up)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:By the way, all the other sub-topics are okay. Just not this one.
Well, this is the one topic they're not allowed to make laws about.
But is is also the one topic they are allowed to have faith in, and discuss, regardless who disagrees with them.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It depends......if they are up front about their beliefs against abortion, then employers should be able to screen applicants at hire for this as well. It isn't illegal, nor does everyone agree it is immoral, and if you go into a profession that requires it...and the employer is up front about it being a requirement, then the employer has EVERY right to expect you to do your job. However, if you were up front about your beliefs and they hired you knowing it, then I think the employer shouldn't be able to force you to do it....unless it is medically necessary for the mother to live.
If you won't, that is your choice. Your beliefs shouldn't impact the availability of care to a patient, regardless of why you believe what you do.
Tough call either way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I could agree with that, Kwea, if it could be supported that it really is a requirement for that job at that time.
So, doctor at an abortion clinic? Definitely.
Sole doctor in an obscure Alaskan village? Probably.
ER doctor in a large urban hospital? Certainly not. There are other choices.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Believe it or not, kat, that was the point I was making. This conversation has a lot in common with the conversations Hatrack has had in the past about pharmacy's, and the right to carry/not carry the morning after pill.
There are clinics run/funded by religious groups where it wouldn't be a job description issue. There are also a LOT of non-surgical positions open as well.
However, if refusing to assist in a situation where a doctor does say it is necessary could place a patient's health at risk....then I am sorry, the medical worker's personal beliefs should take a back seat every time.
I personally knew a person who was a devout Roman Catholic who applied for a job at the Planned Parenthood clinic. However, she said she wouldn't "feel right" passing out condoms, or assisting (she was an RN) with an abortion.
When the clinic didn't hire her, she tried to sue them for religious discrimination.
For the record....I am now going back to school (providing I get the funding) to be an LPN, with plans to work my way up to an RN within 3 years, so I have thought about this type of situation very carefully. I know the medical field has some very nasty pitfalls for people who have strong religious beliefs, and I want to make sure I never place a patient at risk because their beliefs differ from mine.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That is disturbing, Stray. I can't believe a law like that was needed - I can't imagine the horror of being forced out of a healing profession because you refuse to commit murder.
Is it Strawman day today? Nobody told me.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Exaggerated? Maybe. Intellectually dishonest? Nope. With anybody? Clearly no - not Squicky and after your uncharitable and accusatory question, not you. Somebody else, maybe.
How charitable do you expect people to be when you intentionally make stuff up?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
What, exactly, did she make up?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
sorry for not replying more. Stuck at work without a computer and it's just too annoying to type very long via phone. Be back later!
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: What, exactly, did she make up?
Let's see...
quote:Originally posted by katharina: 1. We hate Bush. Bush loves religion. Therefore, if you support religion, you love Bush. HOW DARE YOU.
The letter in the article explicitly separates religion as a whole from the religious right. Nowhere does the letter even imply that religious belief means supporting Bush.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: 2. You are being bad Democrats if you discuss anything unless it is important to EVERYONE. The agenda for the convention will consist of Oxygen: Good or Bad and, of course, We Hate Bush.
The entire point of the letter is that the topic IS important to everyone but that not everyone is being allowed to participate. Nowhere does it say that the discussion has to be important to everywhere.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: 3. Some people don't like non-religious people. I'm not saying that's you, just some people. You look like those people. You don't want to be like those people, do you? How dare you discuss something that excludes us? By the way, all the other sub-topics are okay. Just not this one. If you have a party where I am not relevant, you are just like that girl in high school who rejected me when she overheard me calling all religious people ignorant and dark. YOU'RE SO MEAN.
Again, the whole point of the letter is that the "party" IS relevant to atheists. Nowhere does it say or imply that religious people are ignorant.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:As an atheist, I have to say I don't really have a problem with atheists not being part of an interfaith gathering, at least not on face value. Interfaith gatherings are for religious people to talk about their religious traditions. Atheism isn't a religious tradition.
Atheism only exists insofar as it is a position that exists in relation to religion. If there was no theism, there wouldn't be a concept of atheism.
I once took a comparative religions class at a state college. We had to give a speech as a final project. Most people were allowed to talk about their religion (we were required to talk about how religion affected us) but I wasn't allowed to talk about atheism, because it isn't a religion. After some argument, she allowed me to talk about secular humanism. But she deducted a letter grade because I mentioned that secular humanism is like a religion that atheists can belong to. She said that I had agreed not to talk about atheism.
Interfaith organizations are (IMHO) supposed to be about people with differing religious viewpoints getting together to figure out how to get along. Non-religious people are larger in number than most of the minority religions that will be present at this event. We deserve a place at the table.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
As an athiest I believe that this is faith in there not being a higher power. Therefore it is faith based and a religion. Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Atheism is as much a religion as Intelligent Design is a science.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My exaggerated parody of what the article said is more accurate than your interpretation.
Seriously - "We should be invited to a forum to discuss something we have disavowed because Bush sucks"? *laugh*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:As an atheist, I have to say I don't really have a problem with atheists not being part of an interfaith gathering, at least not on face value. Interfaith gatherings are for religious people to talk about their religious traditions. Atheism isn't a religious tradition.
Atheism only exists insofar as it is a position that exists in relation to religion. If there was no theism, there wouldn't be a concept of atheism.
I once took a comparative religions class at a state college. We had to give a speech as a final project. Most people were allowed to talk about their religion (we were required to talk about how religion affected us) but I wasn't allowed to talk about atheism, because it isn't a religion. After some argument, she allowed me to talk about secular humanism. But she deducted a letter grade because I mentioned that secular humanism is like a religion that atheists can belong to. She said that I had agreed not to talk about atheism.
Interfaith organizations are (IMHO) supposed to be about people with differing religious viewpoints getting together to figure out how to get along. Non-religious people are larger in number than most of the minority religions that will be present at this event. We deserve a place at the table.
You should've complained and had her sacked.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure. Because that's exactly what happens when you explicitly refuse to follow the assignment.
I'm impressed she didn't do more. Atheism seems to be or not be a religion depending on the conveniences of the argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We should be invited to a forum to discuss something we have disavowed...
Should pro-life activists be permitted to attend or speak at seminars about abortion and/or birth control? Why? They've disavowed these things.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Because that's exactly what happens when you explicitly refuse to follow the assignment.
Please tell me what the assignment was. Apparently you know more about it that I do.
quote:Atheism seems to be or not be a religion depending on the conveniences of the argument.
There is some truth to this. A more significant truth is that atheism has no defining principles. They say trying to get atheists to work together is like trying to herd cats. Most of us were raised in religious households, and came to our understanding of religion through independent thought, rather than acceptance of what we were told. There's no surprise that we should have differing views on whether atheism is a religion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You imply that those who are religious do just accept what they've been told and their commitment to their system of belief is less thought out than yours.
I can't imagine why such a condescending and ignorant attitude wouldn't be embraced. Honestly - whatever the goals of the interfaith shindig may be, being patronized by self-congratulatory fools can't be one of them.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
And yet you haven't answered my question.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
What question was that, Glen?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You imply that those who are religious do just accept what they've been told and their commitment to their system of belief is less thought out than yours.
Actually, the point that I think he was trying to make is that most religions have a template of beliefs, rituals, and cultural interactions that tend to bind the adherents together and promotes the organizational structure of their religion.
There is no such template for atheists. They share a single philosophical position (though even that position varies slightly from one to the next) and there are other philosophical positions that may be prevalent amongst atheists, but there is no structure around which atheists tend to organize.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Atheism seems to be or not be a religion depending on the conveniences of the argument.
Well, sort of. Atheism isn't necessarily a religion, but the freedom of religion also applies to one's freedom to not practice religion, so from the perspective of religious discrimination, atheism may be considered a religion.
Also, when one has to classify one's religion, atheism is what you state when you don't believe in a god, not because you consider it a religion, but for the same reason that someone would put "bald" in the "hair color" blank on their driver's license. It's like saying "not applicable"
Sam Harris makes an interesting point that we don't have a special name for people who don't believe in astrology so we should similarly not require a word to indicate non-belief in other supernatural ideas.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: My exaggerated parody of what the article said is more accurate than your interpretation.
I didn't give an interpretation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Atheism is as much a religion as Intelligent Design is a science.
While what you are saying is true in a strict sense, I feel compelled to point out that it's probably not a very effective argument for purposes of convincing that 30% of the population who want to believe in ID.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure, Threads. When everyone else in the world reads a text they come up with their own meaning for the words, but you, YOU, you alone can divine (heh) the truth and you alone are free from your own biases and experiences that color your understanding and you alone see the actual meaning with no interpretation occurring - a straight path from the symbols to englightenment.
No wonder you want in on the interfaith meaning! You're beyond this human ken.
*laugh*
-----
Glenn, if your question is "What was the assignment", then clearly one of the requirements, as reported by you, was to talk about an actual religion and not atheism, which you seemed to have failed to do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When everyone else in the world reads a text they come up with their own meaning for the words, but you, YOU, you alone can divine (heh) the truth....
Katie, your straw men are getting in the way of your argument; they're making you snide. Is that really how you want those conversations to go?
-------------
For my part, I believe atheists should have been permitted at the gathering -- not because atheism is a "faith," but because any meeting that is going to de facto function as a strategy session for government re: religion should also include a voice defending the merits of secular policy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Atheism isn't necessarily a religion, but the freedom of religion also applies to one's freedom to not practice religion, so from the perspective of religious discrimination, atheism may be considered a religion.
This is fine, as long as one considers both aspects of freedom of religion - the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. Too often (not in this thread so far) I see atheists try to get the benefit of the free exercise clause without the burden of the establishment clause.
quote:For my part, I believe atheists should have been permitted at the gathering -- not because atheism is a "faith," but because any meeting that is going to de facto function as a strategy session for government re: religion should also include a voice defending the merits of secular policy.
Tom, do you have any evidence that no such voice was present (will be present?) at the meeting?
quote:Sam Harris makes an interesting point that we don't have a special name for people who don't believe in astrology so we should similarly not require a word to indicate non-belief in other supernatural ideas.
Sam Harris is confusing philosophy and linguistics.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:For my part, I believe atheists should have been permitted at the gathering -- not because atheism is a "faith," but because any meeting that is going to de facto function as a strategy session for government re: religion should also include a voice defending the merits of secular policy.
Tom, do you have any evidence that no such voice was present (will be present?) at the meeting?
Um...the fact that no atheist or secularist was on the list of speakers?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Um...the fact that no atheist or secularist was on the list of speakers?
The voice Tom was speaking of wasn't to defend secular worldviews. It was to defend secular policy. One does not have to be an atheist to be an advocate of secular policies. See, for example, Lisa, kmboots, Tante Shvester, and a host of others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:One does not have to be an atheist to be an advocate of secular policies.
Asking a religious person to advocate on behalf of secular law is fine, sure. But why not an atheist, whose perspective on this one is sorely lacking in that crowd? Consider Lisa, who only believes that secular law is the best compromise available until the Temple is rebuilt, at which point she'd expect a theocracy; is she really going to advocate from the same perspective?
--------
quote:Sam Harris is confusing philosophy and linguistics.
I don't think so. Atheism isn't a philosophy any more than "disbelief in astrology" is a philosophy. There are atheistic philosophies, but that's not the same thing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Atheism isn't a philosophy
Whether atheism is a philosophy or not (and I was assuming it was not) is absolutely irrelevant to my statement. My point is that how different types of beliefs and disbeliefs are categorized is a philosophical question, and there are enough obvious distinctions between disbelief in astrology and disbelief in God to immediately dismiss the analogy made by Harris.
Even if his actual conclusion is correct, his argument as summarized above provides no real support for it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Too often (not in this thread so far) I see atheists try to get the benefit of the free exercise clause without the burden of the establishment clause.
Could you provide an example? Most of the overzealousness I'm familiar with from church/state issues has been in restricting free exercise *EDIT: or overly broad interpretations of establishment. I'm not aware of cases where atheists are attempting to get government endorsement of atheism contrary to establishment restrictions.
I'm not disputing your point, just looking for clarification.
quote:Sam Harris is confusing philosophy and linguistics.
I think Sam Harris is acknowledging the fact that religion is so pervasive in our society that even those who are not religious are compelled to define themselves in terms of religion. I don't think that's a philosophical or linguistic observation, but a cultural one.
[ August 26, 2008, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Could you provide an example? Most of the overzealous I'm familiar with from church/state issues has been in restricting free exercise.
I'm speaking of statements I've seen stating things like "the first amendment is on the side of atheists." More specifically, I've seen arguments that an expression of support for an idea based on secular humanism is not religious speech while a corresponding argument that invokes religious justification for its conclusions is religious speech. This can have obvious establishment clause implications.
I typically classify that error as overextending the definition of religious speech.
Brief aside: most of the overzealous advocacy by atheists about the first amendment has been trying to extend the establishment clause beyond its scope. Sometimes this equates to an attempt to curtail the right to free exercise of some, but more often it's an attempt to curtail the rights to free expression or free association.
quote:I think Sam Harris is acknowledging the fact that religion is so pervasive in our society that even those who are not religious are compelled to define themselves in terms of religion. I don't think that's a philosophical or linguistic observation, but a cultural one.
As summarized above, his point was not merely descriptive of society but also normative: he was saying we should not require such a word.
The point is that there is a linguistic construct to identify people who disbelieve astrology. I've just used it in the previous sentence. Because it doesn't come up too often, we haven't coined a shorthand way to say it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Atheism isn't a philosophy
Whether atheism is a philosophy or not (and I was assuming it was not) is absolutely irrelevant to my statement. My point is that how different types of beliefs and disbeliefs are categorized is a philosophical question, and there are enough obvious distinctions between disbelief in astrology and disbelief in God to immediately dismiss the analogy made by Harris.
Like what?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And of course all the religious leaders and parents are to blame. They have failed this current generation and have raised their kids/flock to think it's ok to openly mix religion and politics.
On the topic of the opening post, I have to say that I find Telp's desire to exclude religion from politics disturbing. I'm glad people haven't taught their children that it isn't OK to openly mix religion and politics. Politics extends far beyond the scope of government.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Atheism isn't a philosophy
Whether atheism is a philosophy or not (and I was assuming it was not) is absolutely irrelevant to my statement. My point is that how different types of beliefs and disbeliefs are categorized is a philosophical question, and there are enough obvious distinctions between disbelief in astrology and disbelief in God to immediately dismiss the analogy made by Harris.
Like what?
Like the fact that we seldom need to say "people who don't believe in astrology." We do often need to say "atheist."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:there are enough obvious distinctions between disbelief in astrology and disbelief in God to immediately dismiss the analogy made by Harris.
I'm not sure I see any, at least not any relevant to Harris' comparison.
quote:More specifically, I've seen arguments that an expression of support for an idea based on secular humanism is not religious speech while a corresponding argument that invokes religious justification for its conclusions is religious speech.
What is an example of an idea based on secular humanism? Is all ethical speech automatically religious speech?
quote:The point is that there is a linguistic construct to identify people who disbelieve astrology. I've just used it in the previous sentence. Because it doesn't come up too often, we haven't coined a shorthand way to say it.
More importantly, though, we don't speak of people who disbelieve in astrology as a group of like-minded individuals re: other topics.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
edit: Nevermind. What Tom said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What is an example of an idea based on secular humanism? Is all ethical speech automatically religious speech?
"Based on secular humanism" modifies "an expression of support for an idea," not just "idea."
quote:More importantly, though, we don't speak of people who disbelieve in astrology as a group of like-minded individuals re: other topics.
Another difference justifying the existence of the word. And it's a difference you yourself have implicitly asserted in this thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:"Based on secular humanism" modifies "an expression of support for an idea," not just "idea."
So the argument "we should do X because we don't want people to starve to death" is religious speech, since not wanting people to starve to death is based on secular humanism?
quote:Another difference justifying the existence of the word.
Actually, it's precisely this improper use of the word that is the motivation behind objecting to its use at all. By creating a class of people called "atheists," it becomes less obviously ridiculous to suggest that, say, all atheists have brown hair and horns. OSC uses the word "Darwinist" in a similar way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So the argument "we should do X because we don't want people to starve to death" is religious speech, since not wanting people to starve to death is based on secular humanism?
Tom, if you would like something I've posted clarified, please ask for that clarification without substituting an interpretation of what I said that reduces it to an absurdity.
I'm sure you appreciate the difference between "we should do X because we don't want people to starve to death" - which is an essentially scientific argument based solely on whether X will, in fact stop people from starving to death and how efficient it will be at achieving that goal - and "reducing the number of people who starve to death is a goal on which we should expend our resources."
quote:Actually, it's precisely this improper use of the word that is the motivation behind objecting to its use at all. By creating a class of people called "atheists," it becomes less obviously ridiculous to suggest that, say, all atheists have brown hair and horns. OSC uses the word "Darwinist" in a similar way.
And yet it's still a difference you've invoked in this very thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm sure you appreciate the difference between "we should do X because we don't want people to starve to death" - which is an essentially scientific argument based solely on whether X will, in fact stop people from starving to death and how efficient it will be at achieving that goal - and "reducing the number of people who starve to death is a goal on which we should expend our resources."
Can you think of an ethical argument -- like your latter one, which I think you're trying to say is an example of "religious" secular humanism -- that you would not consider a religious argument?
For my part, I think confusing ethics with religion is extremely problematic.
quote:And yet it's still a difference you've invoked in this very thread.
I haven't invoked it except to point out that it's often wrongly invoked. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:like your latter one, which I think you're trying to say is an example of "religious" secular humanism -- that you would not consider a religious argument?
I'm not saying what you seem to think I'm saying, probably because you've missed the context of this subtopic. Someone argued that atheists should receive protection under the free exercise clause of the first amendment even though atheism is not a religion (a conclusion I entirely support) because "from the perspective of religious discrimination, atheism may be considered a religion."
Everything I've said in this regard has been from the perspective of religious discrimination (more precisely, from the perspective of constitutional limitations on religious discrimination.
I am trying to say that the argument "we should feed the hungry" should receive the exact same treatment under the First Amendment whether it relies on the premise "because feeding the hungry creates a more stable society" or "because whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers...".
quote:I haven't invoked it except to point out that it's often wrongly invoked. [Wink]
So you were wrongly invoking it when you said that the crowd sorely lacked an atheist's perspective? Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
It is just silly that Atheists want to be included in a "faith" conference of the Democrats. On the other hand, I am surprised that the Democrats didn't let them in after the ranting and raving. After all, it is more of a secular party.
After years of atheists claiming they aren't religious, they want into a meeting specifically geared toward the religious. You can twist the meaning of "faith," but the implications are straight forward. This was a meeting for those who belong to religious organizations or believe in a supreme being; mostly on the left side. I would understand the athiest's arguments if they complained it was getting held at all. Personally, I think they should have held a conference of their own.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Also, when one has to classify one's religion, atheism is what you state when you don't believe in a god, not because you consider it a religion, but for the same reason that someone would put "bald" in the "hair color" blank on their driver's license. It's like saying "not applicable"
That's a good way to put it, actually. I like that.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:For my part, I believe atheists should have been permitted at the gathering -- not because atheism is a "faith," but because any meeting that is going to de facto function as a strategy session for government re: religion should also include a voice defending the merits of secular policy.
Tom, do you have any evidence that no such voice was present (will be present?) at the meeting?
Although I'm not concerned about atheists not being invited to an interfaith meeting, I do think that having atheists or agnostics present is the only way to guarantee that a voice defending the merits of secular policy will be present. There could easily be such voices at an interfaith gathering without atheists or agnostics, yes, but it isn't certain that there would be.
Added: To clarify, the core of my lack of concern about atheists and agnostics not being invited is that I don't think a voice advocating secular policy in governance is really needed at this particular interfaith meeting.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Why should there be any atheist voice of secular policy at an Interfaith gathering? It kind of defeats the purpose of having the gathering in the first place. Including atheists would have been irrelavant and in fact counter-productive. Again, I think it would have been better for athiests to disagree that this took place rather than try to muscle in where, frankly, they don't belong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This argument that someone should be there to talk about something not on the agenda is basically the earlier objection that the party should be about them and not about what it is actually about.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The original post linking the article about the interfaith gathering and some of the discussion since is inaccurate. Atheists are welcome at the gathering. There is no atheist speaker on the program.
There's a huge difference between a meeting that atheists aren't welcome at and a series of speeches, open to all, from religious viewpoints.
Query: Since atheism isn't a religion, and atheists don't have anything in common except lack of belief in God, how should the organizers have chosen a representative atheist speaker? And what would that speaker have talked about?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Why should there be any atheist voice of secular policy at an Interfaith gathering? It kind of defeats the purpose of having the gathering in the first place. Including atheists would have been irrelavant and in fact counter-productive. Again, I think it would have been better for athiests to disagree that this took place rather than try to muscle in where, frankly, they don't belong.
Why should there be an interfaith gathering at all?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a convention? There's something in common? It's relevant to constituents?
Do those who object to this have the same objection to the Congressional Black Caucus?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Was that directed at me, Occasional? If so, I don't see how it addresses what I said. I agree that there's no particular reason for an atheist speaker to be on the program, and have already said more than once, starting on page one, that I'm not concerned about no atheists having been invited to speak.
If religious folks want to have an interfaith gathering to talk about the role of religion in society, they're more than welcome. Frankly, I think those kinds of conversations need to be happening in particular between Christians and Muslims in the United States. No pressing need for atheist or agnostic involvement there, I don't think.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: ... Including atheists would have been irrelavant and in fact counter-productive.
I may note with some amusement that Buddhists were present at the interfaith meeting and thus there is a high chance that an atheist already spoke at the meeting. Buddhists are sort of "messy" in that many consider themselves atheist or agnostic. On the other hand, not *just* atheists are excluded, the meeting also leaves out people like agnostics.
Rather, it is more accurate to say that the meeting is for religious speakers (including atheist Buddhists) and excludes non-religious (including non-atheist agnostics) speakers.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Glenn, if your question is "What was the assignment", then clearly one of the requirements, as reported by you, was to talk about an actual religion and not atheism, which you seemed to have failed to do.
Nope. The assignment was to come up with a topic for a speech (relevent to the class), and have it okayed by her. There had been no stipulation that I "was not to talk about atheism" only that she didn't accept that atheism could be the topic of the speech. She had agreed that secular humanism could be the topic of the speech, despite the fact that she didn't consider it to be a religion, but that it played a similar enough role for an atheist.
If she had stipulated in the assignment that we couldn't mention atheism in our speech, I would have taken it to the deans. As it was, I took it to the deans when she lowered my grade, but since the one grade didn't prevent me from getting an A in the class, they didn't get too excited about it.
As an aside: She was an adjunct professor, and to my knowledge, she has not taught there since.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
This conversation has a lot in common with the conversations Hatrack has had in the past about pharmacy's, and the right to carry/not carry the morning after pill. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)