posted
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you are free from any repercussions FROM the speech – I would hope those repercussions wouldn’t involve physical violence, but not everyone in this world is as rational and reasonable as a hatracker…
I have to agree with Boa, I could see where certain things could be said, that would evoke an immediate, physical reaction that could include violence. We’re not always rational, reasonable, or especially Christian in the heat of the moment. But what these people did seemed to be premeditated - there is no justification.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it does mean freedom from repercussions in those cases where the repercussions are themselves illegal. Comrade Mirecki is not immune from having people send nasty emails attacking him as an Evil Atheist Conspirator; he is immune from being physically attacked, same as everyone else.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it illegal to attack him? Yes. Can it happen anyway? Yes. I'm not saying these people did a good thing. I'm not saying he deserved it. I'm in fact saying it was a bad thing, he didn't deserve it, and they deserve a nice long prison sentence. I'm just saying sometimes there are repercussions we didn't plan on. And some of them are illegal.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Actually, it does mean freedom from repercussions in those cases where the repercussions are themselves illegal. Comrade Mirecki is not immune from having people send nasty emails attacking him as an Evil Atheist Conspirator; he is immune from being physically attacked, same as everyone else.
Yes, but he is immune from physical attack for the same reasons everyone else is immune from physical attack: such physical attacks are against the law independent of any speech. In other words, Mirecki's immunity comes from law other than the freedom of speech.
But just to clarify, when you say "freedom of speech" do you mean the right guaranteed under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which, of course, applies only to the government, or do you mean a more broad freedom of speech founded in a natural right of man? I find that people often abuse the former by applying it in situations where it has no applicabilty.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you know you're unChristian, why do you accept it? Shouldn't your religion be suggesting to you that you change this about yourself?
I understand that many of things that Christ asked his followers to do are hard and that people have problesm living up to them, but I've never gotten how the idea that they are hard, so you don't have to aspire to them is responsible.
I didn't say that I felt it would be unChristian, only that others would accuse me of being so. Squicky, from your other posts (esp in the Hatrack Theists thread) it seems that as a nonbeliever, you have grabbed one concept from Christianity and attempted to derive an entire code of ethics from that one principle. Your frequent barbs at Christians about not living up to your notions of what being a disciple entails merely underscore your lack of understanding.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to my concept of Christianity (and I am a believer) the thugs who beat up the professor acted in a way that was spectacularly un-Christian.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, I don't know that you could call me a nonbeliever. I believe in Jesus' message pretty much. I think it's beautiful, though difficult. I don't have much of a belief in Christians or that they follow this message though.
I also don't know that you can say that I lack understanding. I believe, though I may be wrong, that I've established myself as one of the people who knows the most about Christianity here. I also used to be a pretty devout Catholic and my understanding of the religion hasn't really changed since them, though my path is somewhat different.
You may not want to include things like "Love your enemies." in your version of Christianity, but I don't think saying that when I say you should follow the words that Jesus said, I'm displaying a lack of understanding is something you want to be doing. But I've been wrong before.
From my perspective love of others isn't just one principle. It's the foundational principle of Jesus' message and what he said was the highest commandment. When your version of Christianity has you going away from that, it's a pretty good sign that you're perverting it.
edited to make it less confrontational.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Love your neighbor" is actually "a" foundational principle, not "the" principle. Loving God would probably also be considered a foundation of the Christian faith, I do believe. Jesus said loving your neighbor was the second, loving God was the first. See Mark 12:28-31.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those quotes don't mean they are the same thing. Saying something is "like" another does not make it the same. It simply means that they are of equal, or nearly equal, importance. Don't get me wrong, I agree that loving you neighbor is an incredibly important part of the Christian faith, but loving your God is also and can't be skimmed over in a discussion of the faith.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does it say that it is nearly equal? If you're going to go with that interpretation, where does the nearly come from?
edit: I'm not trying to gloss over the "Love God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole mind." part of the commandment. I'm trying to guard against treating of the two as separate.
Also, can I throw out Luke's take on it (Luke 10:27):
quote:He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
quote:I get that you don't want to include things like "Love your enemies." in your version of Christianity,
I missed this in Bao's ONE short post on this topic.
In the interest of fairness, this is what he said:
quote:If I was somewhere with my wife and someone got in her face and said some truly vile things, I would probably have a physical reaction. I know intellectually that there are other responses like walking away, etc. But to be perfectly honest, that is a situation in which words might move me to physical force. Now everyone can tell me how unChristian and uncivilized I am.
I don't think you'd be unChristian, or uncivilized. It might be a sin, and it might not be.
Remember, Jesus (the Prince of Peace, according to Christian belief) whipped people for mucking around in the Temple.
quote: Here's a hint, love of others isn't just one principle. It's the foundational principle of Jesus' message and what he said was the highest commandment.
Actually, love of God is what Christ said was the greatest commandment. I'm astounded by how often people forget this.
quote: When your version of Christianity has you going away from that, it's a pretty good sign that you're perverting it.
Bao wasn't preaching against lovingkindness. He wasn't making a doctrinal statement.
You are twisting his intentions to support your arguments, Squicky. Knock it off.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remember, Jesus (the Prince of Peace, according to Christian belief) whipped people for mucking around in the Temple.
Are you Jesus? Is Bao? Jesus never said that this is something you should do or that this is an example that you should follow. What he did say was in fact not to do things like this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).
I treat these two commandments as two halves of a whole. They are each important in their own right, but only reach their true potential when they are together. I agree that we should not consider one without remembering the other, but I was reading your earlier post to state that the only part of the command that matter was the second. With further clarification, perhaps we are in agreement.
One could make the argument that Jesus, by saying that the second is love thy neighbor, is implying that it is of lesser value, though nearly equal because it is mentioned in the same breath as the first. Also, they are separate because it is possible to do one without doing the other. (i.e. I can love my neighbor and treat him appropriately, but fail to love my God by acting in a manner that is contrary to His teachings but that does not demonstrate lack of love to my neighbor.) The Luke passage does not in anyway contradict this because it treats them as separate commands as well, hence the semicolon and the word "and."
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on, Squicky... this line of discussion is way off topic... can't we all just get along, and go back to bashing the jerks that beat up the professor?
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, love of God is what Christ said was the greatest commandment. I'm astounded by how often people forget this.
Depending on which version you read Jesus either made loving your neighbor "like unto" this, which at the weakest reading means equivilent or included loving your neighbor in his answer to what the highest commandment is. So, it's entirely possible that people aren't forgetting it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are the scriptures Squick and Aerto are throwing around:
quote:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
I suppose, then the contention is whether Christ meant 'first' as 'most important' or 'first in sequence given.' From the context, I intepret the word 'first' to mean, 'greatest,' or 'most important.'
Squick quoted his out of context:
quote: Luke 10: 26 26And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Where the question wasn't what was the greatest commandment, but what one had to do to get eternal life. It's a small difference, but in the interest of clarity, it's good to have them out here.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to derail this thread any further by getting into a discussion of righteous versus sinful anger, but there is a distinction. Perhaps another thread should be started so that this one can be returned, as smitty suggested, to its original purpose.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darn it Aerto, I was keeping Mark back on purpose. *grumble* People always breaking my shibboleths.
I disagree with your interpretation. There are plenty of ands in the Luke version. That doesn't mean that using your heart, soul, mind, and strength are all different commandments. From my perspective, if you start with the assumption that they are separate, you can make an argument for it, but reading the accounts of that and also considering the other places where Jesus explicitly makes treatment of other people equivilent to treatment of himself, I think my interpretation makes a lot more sense.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Aerto Let's just hope that those guy repent, turn themselves in, and take their lickin' from the law. That'll make all this a moot point.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it will. This is not a case of isolated individuals, but rather of examples of the character of a whole culture.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ultimately, of course, treating the commands as one or as separate is not all that important since nobody, save one, has or can satisfy them (or it) to the full.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it will either - they had time to plan this out, and probably feel righteous about it. That's the bad part.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why I feel that emphasizing the primary nature of the command to love you neighbors is an important part of this conversation. They feel righteous because, in their minds, they've "defended" Christianity. And all they had to do was violate the highest command the Jesus gave for the treatment of others. According to what Jesus said they just went out and beat Jesus, the being they purportedly accept as their personal savior. They defended their team while profaning what, if they were actually devout followers of the religion, would be one of their main guiding principles. And this behavior is what Christianity is to a large number of people.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe off topic I dunno, but when I was a little kid getting in fights at school, my dad used to say if I was getting bothered by someone I should "pop him in the nose." Sound Advice? Funny thing is my dad is an attorney. Well I guess parents make mistakes, but looking back on it, this is a rather HUGE one don't you think. Well I grew up luckily, and don't get into confrontations the way I did as a kid. Talk about instant gratification culture, I wish I was capable of just punching people I didn't like these days, it would be an effective temporary solution to many dilemas, of course it would quickly seperate me from any professional attachments whatsoever.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Which is why I feel that emphasizing the primary nature of the command to love you neighbors is an important part of this conversation. They feel righteous because, in their minds, they've "defended" Christianity. And all they had to do was violate the highest command the Jesus gave for the treatment of others. They defended their team while profaning what, if they were actually devout followers of the religion, would be one of their main guiding principles. And this behavior is what Christianity is to a large number of people.
Lets not go too far in speculating what was in the minds of the attackers. Perhaps they felt they were "defending Christianity," perhaps they just wanted to beat the crap out of somebody that they knew would get press attention. I think most can agree that it was not a Christian thing to do and I don't really see the proof that a large number of people think this is what Christianity is, but maybe I am missing your point. Are you saying many Christians think this behavior was an appropriate act of faith or are you saying that many non-Christians think that this kind of behavior is what Christianity teaches?
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:hey feel righteous because, in their minds, they've "defended" Christianity. And all they had to do was violate the highest command the Jesus gave for the treatment of others. According to what Jesus said they just went out and beat Jesus, the being they purportedly accept as their personal savior. They defended their team while profaning what, if they were actually devout followers of the religion, would be one of their main guiding principles.
Actually, all that the article says of the men's motives is here:
quote:Kansas University religious studies professor Paul Mirecki reported he was beaten by two men about 6:40 a.m. today on a roadside in rural Douglas County. In a series of interviews late this afternoon, Mirecki said the men who beat him were making references to the controversy that has propelled him into the headlines in recent weeks.
Nothing there about being fundamentalists; nothing about even being church-goers.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hatred and violence, more often nonphysical, though there is plenty of physical involved, is actively pushed by many Christian groups. I'd say that many of the people in these guy's culture believe that what they did was right.
You may not see this, but this is out there. For example, Christians statistically expresss a significantly higher level of prejudice and authoritarianism than the average population.
The tactics used by Christian advocacy groups are often disgraceful, even by a much lower standard than those set by Jesus. As I've said on another thread, Pat Robertson is the face for the largest Christian advocacy group and television network. Millions of people follow him.
There are an awful lot of bad Christians out there. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of good ones too, but there are an awful lot of bad ones.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of the problem is that people nowadays throw about random statements and accusations because there are no repercussions for their actions. I can make all kind of nasty accusations against Mr. Squicky (not that I would want to, he actually seems pretty all right), and what can he do about it?
Again, not saying the guy should have been beat up, but I'm sure he was expecting some feedback, making inflammatory remarks, even to a "closed" group
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't actually know what "inflammatory remarks" this guy made, other than regarding having a class teaching creationism as mythology as a slap in the big fat faces of fundamentalists. Not particularly mature, but, I mean, the guy is a science teacher in Kansas. That's gotta be pretty frustrating. Also, leaving aside the insulting tone (which isn't really that bad), what he said is basically correct. Perhaps his other "insulting" statements may be something like "They don't even take what Jesus said seriously.", which these guys pretty much proved is true. And also, he's a science teacher in Kansas.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Hatred and violence, more often nonphysical, though there is plenty of physical involved, is actively pushed by many Christian groups. I'd say that many of the people in these guy's culture believe that what they did was right.
You may not see this, but this is out there. For example, Christians statistically expresss a significantly higher level of prejudice and authoritarianism than the average population.
The tactics used by Christian advocacy groups are often disgraceful, even by a much lower standard than those set by Jesus. As I've said on another thread, Pat Robertson is the face for the largest Christian advocacy group and television network. Millions of people follow him.
There are an awful lot of bad Christians out there. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of good ones too, but there are an awful lot of bad ones.
One, if you are you going to cite statistics, please cite where they come from and give me numbers and methodology, otherwise such statistics are virtually useless.
Two, just because someone identifies themselves as Christian doesn't mean they actually are. I truly believe nobody on this earth can possibly know whether another person is Christian because it is not a self-identifying trait, like Republican or Democrat, so stats saying Christians do this (or people of any faith for that matter) or believe that are inherently misleading.
Third, I'm not sure how you can know that people in the attackers' culture think their actions were right. We don't know who the attackers were so how can we possibly know what their "culture" is, let alone what the culture thinks. You are making some Matrix style (over long distances) jumps in logic and presuming more than I think you should.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're getting "Christians", "People trying their very best to be Christian", and "People who aren't Christian but say they are" lumped into one group...
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, those two Commandments are a summary of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, Jesus' answer IS the Ten Commandments. All Ten are contained within the two and Jesus' answer was a way to get around an attempted intellectual trap laid by the Pharisees. The Ten Commandments, however, are one of the bases for the modern legal code in most, if not all, western nations. Along with the Code of Hammurabi, etc.
And distinguish between a Christian nation and a Christian state. (Nation being the people, state being the government). Its a distinction that isn't made enough.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, those two Commandments are a summary of the Ten Commandments.
Well...not quite. My understanding is that Jesus said all of the law and the (teaching of?) the Prophets hang on these two. Not JUST the 10 Commandments, but all of it.
I take that to mean that the 10 Commandments follow from these two Commandments. But from what Jesus said, it's more than that.
Matthew 22:40 is my reference for the above.
Mark's treatment of the same story doesn't reference the rest of the law, but reports that the scribe who asked the question got it right in saying that those two are more important than sacrifices and burnt offerings. (see Mark 12:28-34)
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:the guy is a science teacher in Kansas. That's gotta be pretty frustrating....And also, he's a science teacher in Kansas.
Except that he isn't anything of the sort. He's a professor of religious studies.
In fact, he was the chair of the department until he stepped down from that position this evening (that's not quite the big deal that it sounds like though--department chair is a rotating position in KU's religious studies department, and this year was just Mirecki's turn. Or at least that's the case unless they've changed how they do things since the last time I was in the department, which is possible).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are the 10 commandments more important in Judaism than all the rest of the law?
I don't have that answer for you, but I think that the Scripture in question had something to do with Jesus giving an answer to a particular type of person who was questioning him.
Because of a shared culture, it seems often true that Jesus' listeners would've had a more complete understanding of his words. Certainly the writers of the Gospels were assuming some cultural literacy on the part of the people who would read those words.
One possibility is that the sentiment expressed in Mark and Matthew are exactly equivalent -- in one case we hear about the two over-arching commandments being "more important" than all the sacrifices and burnt offerings. In the other case we hear that the entire rest of the law and the prophets flow from (or hang on) these two commandments.
Another possibility is that different versions of the story survived in different groups.
Another possibility is that the writer of Matthew copied Mark (or, I suppose, vice versa) and changed, clarified, or emphasized a few things.
And I'm not even addressing the possibilities that include divine influences on the authors, which for many would be the most important aspect of it all -- that it is ALL God's word, and thus all true.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aerto: One, if you are you going to cite statistics, please cite where they come from and give me numbers and methodology, otherwise such statistics are virtually useless.
Sometimes it's useful to just run a quick Google search to see if you can find statistics on the subject before attacking somebody's claims. The following came up as the second result on a search I ran.
Here's a passage from a research paper:
quote:From: SOCIAL -POLITICAL CONTEXT AND AUTHORITARIAN ATTITUDES: EVIDENCE FROM SEVEN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES by Robert Andersen and Jocelyn AJ Evans --PDF Link
"The results regarding religion are mixed. There is a general pattern that the less religious are least authoritarian. Only for ethnic prejudice is there no discernible relationship with religion. The religious effects are quite strong for moral conservatism and prejudice towards homosexuals and/or AIDS sufferers, where the more one practises their religion, the more authoritarian they are. For example, compared to the nonreligious, the odds of showing prejudice are 1.32, 1.88, and 1.82 times as high for nonpractising Christians, practising Christians and those who practise other religions. Given that the “other” religion category contains a large proportion of non-white respondents, it is not surprising that practising non-Christians are less likely to feel employers should discriminate on the basis of nationality. Concomitantly, Christians—whether practising or not—are least likely to support the hiring of non-nationals, despite being as tolerant of ethnic neighbours as other groups, indicative of a nuance between ideological and pragmatic discrimination. Overall, then, the findings suggest that Christians are typically more authoritarian than those who do not belong to a religion."
I think it does make sense that religious people tend to be more authoritarian and prejudiced than non-religious people. Religious folk, Christians in particular--but they are not alone in this--believe that they know the true way to live, and that discerning between righteous acts and sin is an important thing that they must do every day. I don't think this is necessarily negative, except in instances where it might lead to something such as housing discrimination.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see authoritianism or prejudice as a necessary outcome of believing that I know the right (or true) way to live. Quite the opposite. It is a component of that belief that I not become authoritarian or prejudiced, but a welcoming example.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I pulled up the paper you linked to - it was stunningly biased, and an excellent example of begging the question.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
tern, do you disagree with the World Values Survey that the paper was based on, or merely with the authors' analysis of the data? Surely the topic they try to tackle is hugely complex, but I don't see the stunningness of the bias. Could you explain what you mean?
(And a note: finding this particular paper was the result of a very quick search on Google and probably not the best there is out there. It did present statistics that backed up the claim in this thread though.)
Here is a relevant excerpt from the methodology:
quote:Ethnic-Religious Prejudice is tapped using a set of questions that asked respondents whether or not they would like to have people from particular groups as their neighbours. Respondents were coded 1 if they identified one or more of the following groups: people of a different race, Muslims, and immigrants/foreign workers. Those who do not show prejudice are scored 0.
Prejudice Towards Homosexuals and/or AIDS Sufferers is tapped using the same question as above, with those who claim that they would not like to live next to homosexuals and/or people who have AIDS are scored a 1, while all others are scored 0.
Moral Conservative Attitudes were measured using a three-item additive scale that asked opinions about homosexuality, divorce and suicide. For each individual item, respondents were asked to state where they stood on a 10-point scale (coded0-9) representing “never justifiable” to “always justifiable”. The final scale ranged from 0 to 27, with high scores indicating authoritarian attitudes.
Economic Discriminatory Attitudes is measured from a single item that asked respondents to agree or the statement: “When jobs are scarce, employers should give priority to [national citizen] people over immigrants”. A binary variable was created, coding those who agreed 1, and all other responses 0.
Bob, I would agree with you, although I think that there is a large minority at least within the Christian religion that doesn't. My dad, who is a fervent Catholic once told me that he believes discrimination--at least the base part of it, the recognition of difference--is critical to the way he lives. This is not to say that he would advocate treating a person with whom he disagrees with any less respect than he treats his friends. He just feels that this is an important part of living righteously.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Let's just hope that those guy repent, turn themselves in, and take their lickin' from the law. That'll make all this a moot point.
