quote:Dagonee: IIRC you have not decided if Romney's swich from pro-choice to pro-life was a real change of heart or a political move. Is that right? How do you plan on determining that? Vibes?
I have no idea how I'm going to determine this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee: IIRC you have not decided if Romney's swich from pro-choice to pro-life was a real change of heart or a political move. Is that right? How do you plan on determining that? Vibes?
I have no idea how I'm going to determine this.
I suppose if you catch him working in an abortion clinic you'd have your answer.
If he made revising or eliminating Roe V Wade part of his platform would that do it?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There is a difference between:
1. Believing that if an atheist were president that freedom would perish.
2. Believing that if the official state religion was atheism that freedom would perish.
3. Believing that if everyone in the country/world were atheist that freedom would perish.
I believe in 3 but not 1 or 2, (though 2 could lead to 3 but not necessarily) Is it so hard for an atheist to believe that if we went back to the days of a state sponsored religion that everyone was compelled to believe in that freedom would cease to exist? Well for the religious, pushing all forms of religious expression out of the public sector is a step in that direction, only towards atheism rather then a specific theism.
I believe in 2 but not 1 or 3. One, atheism isn't a religion. [/quibble]
But I also believe that no religion or god belief should be the official state position, and if the government makes an official position that it could lead to the loss of freedom.
As long as they came to the choice on their own, everyone in the country being atheist would be fine.
Why do some religious people think that "we're not going to mention religion" is equal to "we're promoting atheism"?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If he made revising or eliminating Roe V Wade part of his platform would that do it?
Not in and of itself. That would be consistent with both hypotheses that explain his switch. Moreover, Bush I made the same types of promises, and he gave us Souter on the Court.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do some religious people think that "we're not going to mention religion" is equal to "we're promoting atheism"?
If a promising candidate was running as the first atheist president of the United States but was coy or hesitant to talk about his/her atheism to the press or on debates, how would you feel about it?
What is atheism if not the absence of theism? Even if it is unintended isn't a reduction in religious expression an increase in atheist sentiment?
Part of what bugs me about secularism is that atheists who champion it, often look little different then ID proponents pushing an "alternate scientific interpretation." ID folks sound like they are screaming for science but in reality they are often trying to get religion back in public schools. Secularist atheist often seem like they are championing a cause that will conveniently make the country more comfortable for them at the expense of the rest of us.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If he made revising or eliminating Roe V Wade part of his platform would that do it?
Not in and of itself. That would be consistent with both hypotheses that explain his switch. Moreover, Bush I made the same types of promises, and he gave us Souter on the Court.
Yeah I considered that first part after posting but you were too quick for me to edit.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What is atheism if not the absence of theism? Even if it is unintended isn't a reduction in religious expression an increase in atheist sentiment?
That kind of definition is completely unable to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, it depends on what we're talking about. I have no objection to you, or anyone else, expressing their religion anywhere they want. I only object to the government promoting such things and giving religious people benefits that the non-religious don't get.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if it is unintended isn't a reduction in religious expression an increase in atheist sentiment?
Is expression akin to sentiment?
quote:Secularist atheist often seem like they are championing a cause that will conveniently make the country more comfortable for them at the expense of the rest of us.
What part of the "secularist atheist" agenda makes your life less comfortable?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What is atheism if not the absence of theism? Even if it is unintended isn't a reduction in religious expression an increase in atheist sentiment?
That kind of definition is completely unable to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism.
I don't really want to argue about the difference between atheism and agnosticism. For me, atheism is a certainty that there is no God where as for agnostics the question is still unanswered.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What is atheism if not the absence of theism? Even if it is unintended isn't a reduction in religious expression an increase in atheist sentiment?
That kind of definition is completely unable to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism.
I don't really want to argue about the difference between atheism and agnosticism. For me, atheism is a certainty that there is no God where as for agnostics the question is still unanswered.
We probably shouldn't have this conversation yet again, but just to be clear, most atheists that I know would be called "agnostic atheists".
posted
BB: Thats completely true. So what gives? An absence of theism is going to apply to both an agnostic and an atheist when it comes to everyday life. Also, in the strange way you're conflating public actions with private actions, a reduction in religious expression could mean an increase in either atheist or agnostic sentiment, there is no guarantee that either would necessarily benefit more. And thats without considering TomD's point.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
In this instance I think so. The less a person expresses their religion, the less they start to think about it, the less they start believing in it, the more they start cultivating atheistic sentiments.
quote: What part of the "secularist atheist" agenda makes your life less comfortable?
Right now not much, but for example banning nativities setup on public land feels like a step too far in the wrong direction.
We had a thread earlier where Javert was glad a school board refused to observe a mandatory moment of silence as to Javert it was just a disguise for getting mandatory prayer in school.
That sort of sentiment where any spark of religion needs to be stamped out worries me as far as public policy is concerned.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hey, BB, do you believe God also strategically placed men to create the Netherlands?
It's a possibility. I've yet to hear him comment on the matter, or else failed to correctly interpret text saying so.
It says in our cannon that God reveals his word everywhere and those that wish to please him will find him. I don't believe the US is the only nation/civilization God took a personal interest in creating.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Right now not much, but for example banning nativities setup on public land feels like a step too far in the wrong direction.
We had a thread earlier where Javert was glad a school board refused to observe a mandatory moment of silence as to Javert it was just a disguise for getting mandatory prayer in school.
That sort of sentiment where any spark of religion needs to be stamped out worries me as far as public policy is concerned.
It's the "public land" and the "mandatory" that are my issues, not the religion.
If you want to put the world's largest nativity scene on your private land, by all means do it. If you want to pray when you're in school, do it. As long as you don't cause a disruption to class, who has a problem with it?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you want to put the world's largest nativity scene on your private land
Do you have something against a nativity seen (or replace seen with, "scene" both work ) in a public park?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you want to put the world's largest nativity scene on your private land
Do you have something against a nativity seen in a public park?
Aesthetically? No. Constitutionally? Yes.
There are churches every few blocks in this country. Do they really not have enough room on their own tax free land that they must be put onto public land as well?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The less a person expresses their religion, the less they start to think about it, the less they start believing in it, the more they start cultivating atheistic sentiments.
You want to encourage religious expression as a way of controlling the thoughts of religious people? Well, I guess Big Brother also abbreviates to BB...
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, not promoting a religious expression over other expressions is not the same thing as "stamping out" religious expression. No one has stamped on our right to pray or set up nativities. There just shouldn't be a special public accomodation promoting our religious expression.
We can make whatever religious expression we want with our own time and property (within zoning and other laws and reason of course. No sacrificing virgins on the lawn.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The public park is there to serve the public.
Inasmuch as Christmas displays are an expression of the public's interest-- and inasmuch as they are not obscene-- then the people who want to put them up should be allowed.
Similarly, atheists who wish to use the park for putting up their own displays should be allowed.
Ditto with public school use.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Maybe none of that would happen, but for me at least, I believe the concepts of the rights of man were divinely inspired in the first place. Men capable of expressing those ideas intentionally placed so that they could play such a role. For me at least, I believe God himself had an active hand in creating the United States so that an environment of relative tolerance could exist.
- - - emphasis added - - -
Short question:
Do you think egocentrism is (in general) promoted by your religion, is it a consequence of scientific endeavor, or something else? What about in your case?
quote:Do you have something against a nativity seen in a public park?
Aesthetically? No. Constitutionally? Yes.
Does your opposition to that extend to situations where private groups are allowed to put up their own displays in the park (subject to reservations and permitting rules)?
quote:No one has stamped on our right to pray or set up nativities.
This isn't true. There have been explicit attempts to ban nativity scenes that were not receiving "special" public accommodation. In these instances, public accommodations available in general to private groups have been denied to religious groups. Many of these instances have been spurred on by threats or generalized fear of establishment clause litigation by groups such as the ACLU.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky: Wow, because that's totally not what I said. *I* said that beyond a certain point if the government cuts back on religious expression it leads in that direction. -----
kmbboots:
quote:BlackBlade, not promoting a religious expression over other expressions is not the same thing as "stamping out" religious expression.
You are right, but that does not mean it can't be used to conveniently create an atheist state. Look I am glad they removed mandatory prayer from public schools, it was not right, but there is a difference between making a good adjustment and taking the ball and running with it.
---- I already acknowledges that there is not much I feel oppressed over, and that the nativity thing is a small step in the direction I am uncomfortable with. If it all stops there, fine.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have something against a nativity seen in a public park?
Aesthetically? No. Constitutionally? Yes.
Does your opposition to that extend to situations where private groups are allowed to put up their own displays in the park (subject to reservations and permitting rules)?
As long as there isn't religious preference shown.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
The point I have heard made is that the concept of inalienable rights upon which the major freedoms found in the constitution are built derives from the religious conception of the founding fathers.
I don't know if I buy that argument. But I do think that linking freedom and religion and religious freedom isn't that farfetched of an idea considering the history of this nation.
That said, I don't think all that boils down into such a facile statement very well. And I also think that including this as the most obvious there-to-be-taken sound bite from the speech was a mistake.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Maybe none of that would happen, but for me at least, I believe the concepts of the rights of man were divinely inspired in the first place. Men capable of expressing those ideas intentionally placed so that they could play such a role. For me at least, I believe God himself had an active hand in creating the United States so that an environment of relative tolerance could exist.
- - - emphasis added - - -
Short question:
Do you think egocentrism is (in general) promoted by your religion, is it a consequence of scientific endeavor, or something else? What about in your case?
A.
See my other comments, the ones about God being interested in the formation of other countries. I don't think my religion promotes egocentrism.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have something against a nativity seen in a public park?
Aesthetically? No. Constitutionally? Yes.
Does your opposition to that extend to situations where private groups are allowed to put up their own displays in the park (subject to reservations and permitting rules)?
As long as there isn't religious preference shown.
As I alluded to above, there are active groups that seek to ban such schemes on establishment clause grounds. Although you don't advocate such things, there are people who do. Although I wouldn't call their goals the "secularist atheist agenda," there is such an agenda and BB is not simply imagining things when he points out its existence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As I alluded to above, there are active groups that seek to ban such schemes on establishment clause grounds. Although you don't advocate such things, there are people who do. Although I wouldn't call their goals the "secularist atheist agenda," there is such an agenda and BB is not simply imagining things when he points out its existence.
You have to look at each case separately. If an activist group is trying to ban a private religious group from using public land that is being equally offered to any other private group, then I don't support that ban.
But then again there are other issues as well, as we've seen with the BSA issues in the news over the past few years.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I agree. But when you see enough of the individual cases, patterns emerge. There's a clear pattern of some people trying to gain special treatment from the government for religion and for particular religions. There's also a clear pattern of some people trying to gain "antispecial" treatment for religion.
Both sets of people have had some significant success in getting governments to cave to their wishes. Both sets of people have been reigned in by the courts at various times.
But both sets represent ongoing efforts to alter the place of religion in the public square - either to promote it above or demote it below other forms of expression.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Twinky: Wow, because that's totally not what I said. *I* said that beyond a certain point if the government cuts back on religious expression it leads in that direction.
You've said you believe that "freedom would perish" if everyone were an atheist; you've also said that you're opposed to secularist efforts to curtail religious expression, on the grounds that a reduction in religious expression would indirectly lead to an increase in "atheistic sentiments," which you apparently think is a negative outcome.
If you'd said that you're opposed to secularist attempts to curtail religious expression on the grounds that curtailing freedom of expression is generally a bad thing, I wouldn't have drawn the conclusion I did. But you didn't say that, you said that the reason you're opposed to this "secularist agenda" is that it might lead to a rise in "atheistic sentiments." That's not so far from what I said as you might think.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I agree. But when you see enough of the individual cases, patterns emerge. There's a clear pattern of some people trying to gain special treatment from the government for religion and for particular religions. There's also a clear pattern of some people trying to gain "antispecial" treatment for religion.
Both sets of people have had some significant success in getting governments to cave to their wishes. Both sets of people have been reigned in by the courts at various times.
But both sets represent ongoing efforts to alter the place of religion in the public square - either to promote it above or demote it below other forms of expression.
Some people believe that the current level of preference that is shown towards religion is against the constitution as it is. If it stays at this level I wouldn't be terribly upset. But I don't like it having that foothold.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, on our own property? That surprises me.
No. I said nothing about my own property.
I'm alluding to the denial of public accommodations available to the general public being denied to religious groups.
For example, when our magazine was being unconstitutionally denied funds by UVA, we tried to have a fund-raising concert (with Phil Keagy, which would have been AMAZING) in a city-owned auditorium in Charlottesville. The city refused to give us the fundraising rate available to every other school (university and primary/secondary) group, explicitly stating that this was because we were religious.
Religious art was removed from a public art display (which allowed artists to register and put in their own private works). The only content-based restriction that was enforced against art in the show was based on the work being religious. I participated in a forum in which 8 people applauded that move.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some people believe that the current level of preference that is shown towards religion is against the constitution as it is. If it stays at this level I wouldn't be terribly upset. But I don't like it having that foothold.
And many people believe that the current level of government restrictions on religious speech in public spaces are against the constitution as it is.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:BlackBlade, what do you mean by "aetheist state"?
1: A state where the official government sactioned religion is atheism. Such as China or French Revolution France.
2: A state where theists of all form are actively persecuted.
There could easily be an alternate situation I've yet to conceive where after weighing everything, it is also an atheist state.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some people believe that the current level of preference that is shown towards religion is against the constitution as it is. If it stays at this level I wouldn't be terribly upset. But I don't like it having that foothold.
And many people believe that the current level of government restrictions on religious speech in public spaces are against the constitution as it is.
I don't believe I was talking about freedom of speech. I was referring to showing religious preference. Not the same thing.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've said you believe that "freedom would perish" if everyone were an atheist; you've also said that you're opposed to secularist efforts to curtail religious expression, on the grounds that a reduction in religious expression would indirectly lead to an increase in "atheistic sentiments," which you apparently think is a negative outcome.
No I said that I often distrust secularist atheists on the grounds that aggressive secularism can conveniently promote their religious view point. I'm saying that if you start eliminating where religion can be expressed beyond a certain point you make it harder and harder for people to remain strong in their faith. Surely you must concede that because of mandatory Christianity in middle age Europe there were many people who believed in Christianity who would not have given a free choice from the start?
I said nothing about forcing people to allow Christians to express their faith all the time so that Christianity can remain strong.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No you haven't. You gave two concrete (anecdotal) examples in your 10am post (CST), and neither dealt with speech. Do you have any actual examples for the restrictions you mentioned for speech?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Surely you must concede that because of mandatory Christianity in middle age Europe there were many people who believed in Christianity who would not have given a free choice from the start?
I think that mandatory Christianity was one of the things that led to Europe's growing secularism. So in that, it was a good thing.
It has been argued that the best thing for secularism in America would be for a religion to take control, because it would inevitably teach everyone why having a secular government is the right way to go.
Of course, I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy just to get there.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've said you believe that "freedom would perish" if everyone were an atheist; you've also said that you're opposed to secularist efforts to curtail religious expression, on the grounds that a reduction in religious expression would indirectly lead to an increase in "atheistic sentiments," which you apparently think is a negative outcome.
No I said that I often distrust secularist atheists on the grounds that aggressive secularism can conveniently promote their religious view point. I'm saying that if you start eliminating where religion can be expressed beyond a certain point you make it harder and harder for people to remain strong in their faith. Surely you must concede that because of mandatory Christianity in middle age Europe there were many people who believed in Christianity who would not have given a free choice from the start?
I said nothing about forcing people to allow Christians to express their faith all the time so that Christianity can remain strong.
Absent the first clause, the piece of my post you've quoted here is -- as far as I can tell -- a perfectly good paraphrase of your first paragraph immediately following it.
Note that I didn't say anything about forcing people to allow religious expression either; I said you want to "encourage religious expression" (emphasis added), and thereby discourage "atheist sentiment." I agree that ideologies that are pervasive in a community tend to self-propagate.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Surely you must concede that because of mandatory Christianity in middle age Europe there were many people who believed in Christianity who would not have given a free choice from the start?
But...that was a bad thing, right?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You cannot have Freedom without Religion and you cannot have Religion without Freedom
You can actually have both. The most fanatical Islamic cult locks away their women. You can see who those women definitely have religion, and not freedom. Atheists are here in America and enjoy their Freedom.
I believe that what Mr. Romney was trying to say was that you, "Cannot find true Religion without Freedom of Choice, and you can not have true Freedom of Choice without having Freedom of Religion." but that gets a bit wordy for a sound bite.
President Kennedy gave his speech as a Democrat, attempting to distance himself from religious conservatives. Mr. Romney gave his speech to Republicans, attempting to attract religious conservatives.
NPR talked to several South Carolina Evanglicals last week about Mr. Romney's religion. The one thing that they hyped about was not what they perceived as the "Un-Christian" aspects of the religion, but about its racist past. Four times I heard, "Up until 1978 they officially thought Blacks were unworthy..."
Did Mr. Romney address this issue? I know it is a non-issue with LDS members. However his opponents are going to "Swift Boat" him on it unless he makes his racial stance very clear.
As far as nativity scenes in the park...the only reason a church puts up a nativity scene in a public space, and not just in their church yard, is to advertise Christ. It seems to me to be just a large 3-D billboard saying, "Come to Church. Isn't baby Christ cute. Holiday Special happening now." and when its on the court house or city square it also sends a message, "This community belongs to the church. If you don't, you don't belong to the community."
If Wal-Mart wanted to use a public park to advertise their May-Day sales, and lots of people in the community work and shop at Wal-Mart, would they be allowed to set up a billboard?
They may be, if they paid the city for the use. I believe that if the church paid the city for the use of the park, the lights and power, the security and grounds-keeping that a Nativity requires, then yes--they could be allowed to set up a nativity scene, with a sign well lit saying which church or group sponsored the nativity, and that it was not done by the govt.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
JT -- perhaps it would help to explain why you don't think his examples deal with speech. On the face of them, they appear to, at least to me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, on our own property? That surprises me.
No. I said nothing about my own property.
No. But I did.
quote:
I'm alluding to the denial of public accommodations available to the general public being denied to religious groups.
For example, when our magazine was being unconstitutionally denied funds by UVA, we tried to have a fund-raising concert (with Phil Keagy, which would have been AMAZING) in a city-owned auditorium in Charlottesville. The city refused to give us the fundraising rate available to every other school (university and primary/secondary) group, explicitly stating that this was because we were religious.
Religious art was removed from a public art display (which allowed artists to register and put in their own private works). The only content-based restriction that was enforced against art in the show was based on the work being religious. I participated in a forum in which 8 people applauded that move.
I do understand that this is an issue for you. It is not the issue I was addressing which is private religious expression. What we do with our own time, property, and funds.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) in a public park?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
