PDA

View Full Version : Pope John Paul's Beatification ....


finnbow
05-01-2011, 08:06 PM
... and impending Canonization. Somehow, this whole ritual strikes me as decidedly odd. A French nun claims he cured Parkinson's Disease from the grave (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547226/Nun-tells-of-her-miracle-cure-by-John-Paul-II.html)and John Paul gets his first ticket punched. Now, they scour the Earth looking for a second "miracle."

Color me cynical, skeptical or whatever. Somehow, however, this is a bit much even for a person born and raised Catholic (though I've recovered ;))

CarlV
05-01-2011, 10:03 PM
Covering up for pervs is a fail IMO. I think they are trying to raise morale from it all.


Carl

BlueStreak
05-01-2011, 10:42 PM
They were jealous of the royal welfare recipient wedding. The Vatican can't stand to be upstaged when it comes to grandiose displays of decadence, Jesus wouldn't stand for it.:rolleyes:

Dave

noonereal
05-02-2011, 07:51 AM
... and impending Canonization. Somehow, this whole ritual strikes me as decidedly odd. A French nun claims he cured Parkinson's Disease from the grave (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547226/Nun-tells-of-her-miracle-cure-by-John-Paul-II.html)and John Paul gets his first ticket punched. Now, they scour the Earth looking for a second "miracle."

Color me cynical, skeptical or whatever. Somehow, however, this is a bit much even for a person born and raised Catholic (though I've recovered ;))

very nicely stated

let me say it my way

this kind of nonsense is craziness, these folks are nuts

JonL
05-03-2011, 11:26 PM
Yawn.

Superstition must be a dominant gene.

flacaltenn
05-04-2011, 12:18 PM
BlueStreaK:

They were jealous of the royal welfare recipient wedding. The Vatican can't stand to be upstaged when it comes to grandiose displays of decadence, Jesus wouldn't stand for it.


Huge belly laugh... ....

whell
05-04-2011, 12:37 PM
Is there a purpose for this thread other than to bash religion, or Catholics, or both?

JonL
05-04-2011, 01:18 PM
I think bashing religion is a worthwhile cause, FYI.

whell
05-04-2011, 01:54 PM
I think bashing religion is a worthwhile cause, FYI.

I'm sure that's the case.

finnbow
05-04-2011, 01:55 PM
Is there a purpose for this thread other than to bash religion, or Catholics, or both?

I was just remarking on the beatification ritual and the willingness of Rome to glom on to the nun's story with the supporting rationale of "there is no explanation using current scientific knowledge" and therefore it must have been the result of prayers to the dead Pope.

Somehow this causality seems just a little suspect to me. Just sayin'.:confused:

It's kinda like saying that my sore throat feels better this morning. It must be because I played Led Zeppelin last night.

To me (born and raised Catholic), it seems that it is a foregone conclusion that the Church wants John Paul to be a saint. Now they're beating the bushes for stuff to support it (even if the evidence is specious).

If you choose to believe it, fine. I'll take my evidence well-done, thank you.

d-ray657
05-04-2011, 02:26 PM
I think that there is a difference between bashing religion and questioning the rituals, questioning the assertions, and questioning the way people interpret religious texts. Honestly evaluating myself, I am religious, but not devout. I don't believe that people who don't believe the same as I do are going to Hell. I respect the right of others to profess their own faith, or to profess no faith at all. The beliefs of another don't diminish my beliefs, and I don't intend to take action to diminish another's beliefs. If I do happen to live my life in a way that causes other people to inquire into my beliefs, I will share what I believe and why. Unfortunately, I doubt too many would see me as a role model.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
05-04-2011, 03:42 PM
Is there a purpose for this thread other than to bash religion, or Catholics, or both?

nope. feel free to join in

whell
05-04-2011, 07:09 PM
I was just remarking on the beatification ritual and the willingness of Rome to glom on to the nun's story with the supporting rationale of "there is no explanation using current scientific knowledge" and therefore it must have been the result of prayers to the dead Pope.


That's why they call it "faith."

Also, there are other alleged examples of individuals asking for JP's intercession, and seeing their prayers answered.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-04-27-Pope_miracles_26_ST_N.htm

whell
05-04-2011, 07:11 PM
I don't believe that people who don't believe the same as I do are going to Hell.


I guess then that there must be other reasons why folks always tell me to go to hell. :)

finnbow
05-04-2011, 07:17 PM
That's why they call it "faith."

Also, there are other alleged examples of individuals asking for JP's intercession, and seeing their prayers answered.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-04-27-Pope_miracles_26_ST_N.htm

And do you actually believe such stuff? If so, you're in no position to criticize Muslim terrorists expecting dozens of virgins IMHO.

noonereal
05-04-2011, 07:31 PM
I guess then that there must be other reasons why folks always tell me to go to hell. :)

if you need any help in understanding why they tell you this just pm me and i'll explain :p

d-ray657
05-04-2011, 08:15 PM
I guess then that there must be other reasons why folks always tell me to go to hell. :)

If an atheist told you that, would it really be cursing?

Regards,

D-Ray

whell
05-05-2011, 07:10 AM
And do you actually believe such stuff? If so, you're in no position to criticize Muslim terrorists expecting dozens of virgins IMHO.

You're right, of course. One should have no reason to hope their love life is any better in heaven than it is on Earth. :D

So, you're suggesting that those who might attribute a favorable outcome to their prayers for a cure to their own affliction or for the improved health of a loved one to their God or thier religious beliefs are no better than a blood-thirsty terrorist? That's an interesting, and I hope singular, perspective.

noonereal
05-05-2011, 07:31 AM
You're right, of course. One should have no reason to hope their love life is any better in heaven than it is on Earth. :D

So, you're suggesting that those who might attribute a favorable outcome to their prayers for a cure to their own affliction or for the improved health of a loved one to their God or thier religious beliefs are no better than a blood-thirsty terrorist? That's an interesting, and I hope singular, perspective.

lol

typical disingenuous whell post

here is the bottom line

attributing or predicting actions based on faith is inane and shallow

whell
05-05-2011, 08:51 AM
lol

typical disingenuous whell post

here is the bottom line

attributing or predicting actions based on faith is inane and shallow

God Bless You, Noone!

whell
05-05-2011, 08:52 AM
If an atheist told you that, would it really be cursing?

Regards,

D-Ray

I dunno, but I've not noticed a difference in sentiment....

finnbow
05-05-2011, 09:05 AM
You're right, of course. One should have no reason to hope their love life is any better in heaven than it is on Earth. :D

So, you're suggesting that those who might attribute a favorable outcome to their prayers for a cure to their own affliction or for the improved health of a loved one to their God or thier religious beliefs are no better than a blood-thirsty terrorist? That's an interesting, and I hope singular, perspective.

Not exactly. Someone who prays and thinks improvements in their status are based upon a specific prayer or prayers offered (among many in their lives) is one thing. The Catholic Church in Rome glomming on to that belief and beating the bushes for similar attestations to support canonization is another thing altogether.

As noted in the OP, I find this ritual "decidedly odd." I'm not sure I would characterize that as "bashing religion," as you asserted, but me wondering aloud about the ongoing activities in Rome.

For the record, I attended a private audience with Pope Paul VI on the first day of his Papacy in Rome in the early '60's. Pretty cool stuff for a 10 year old kid at the time.

whell
05-05-2011, 09:09 AM
As noted in the OP, I find this ritual "decidedly odd." I'm not sure I would characterize that as "bashing religion," as you asserted, but me wondering aloud about the ongoing activities in Rome.


To be clear, it was not your comments (at least up to the "terrorist" comment) that struck me as "bashing." Some of the comments in the thread that followed however, did seem a bit pointed.

JonL
05-05-2011, 11:39 AM
I am unabashed in my bashing of religion. It is superstition at best and a tool for exploitation and destruction at worst. Sure, there have been and continue to be many good and charitable actions done by religious organizations and individuals, but that charity can just as easily exist without the mantle of religion. And that charity does not outweigh the waste of time and outright damage done by and in the name of religion.

Religion exists because human beings are smart enough to recognize the concepts of past and future, birth and death, finite and infinite, but not smart enough to truly understand those concepts. Human beings for some reason believe we are smart enough to understand everything in the world around us, and when presented with concepts that exceed our ability to understand (infinity, what happens when one dies, what happened before the universe existed, etc...) we invent a solution (God) so we don't have to face the fact that we are still humble animals with limitations on our intelligence.

You can call that bashing, I call it reality. What's bashing? Things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, Jihadism, and the genocidal atrocities we have seen in our own generation in Bosnia and Africa. Those are what I call "bashing." Not some stupid, meaningless chatter on a silly internet forum.

flacaltenn
05-05-2011, 03:55 PM
JonL:

The Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust and even arguably Jihadism would not have gotten off the ground without STATE complicity and funding. So I can't blame religion solely for these things.

Human beings for some reason believe we are smart enough to understand everything in the world around us, and when presented with concepts that exceed our ability to understand (infinity, what happens when one dies, what happened before the universe existed, etc...) we invent a solution (God) so we don't have to face the fact that we are still humble animals with limitations on our intelligence.



Why are we not smart enough to know the limits of our own intelligience? Or the limits of our moral strengths? The secular humanists have absolutely no humility. That's disturbing. These are the ultimate know-it-alls. They want you to believe that all the matter and energy in the universe (and now we have to include dark matter and anti-matter) could fit on the head of a pin at the time of the Big Bang.. I don't care what kind of Physicist you are -- that requires much MORE faith than Moses parting the Red Sea.

If you truly meant to claim yourself "a humble animal" then you have faith in something.

piece-itpete
05-05-2011, 04:14 PM
Jon, thanks for calling me smart, even if I'm not THAT smart. :p

Have you ever read the New Testament? You'd find that it is people who did those things, not God.

Pete

PS the holocaust wasn't religious.

whell
05-05-2011, 04:27 PM
You can call that bashing, I call it reality. What's bashing? Things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, Jihadism, and the genocidal atrocities we have seen in our own generation in Bosnia and Africa. Those are what I call "bashing." Not some stupid, meaningless chatter on a silly internet forum.

Let's see. Your argument/linkage/logic is that:

- religion leads to violence, therefore religion is bad.
- Christianity lead to the Crusades, the Crusades killed people, so Christianity is bad
- The bible depicts violent acts and wars. The bible is a religious document. Religion is bad.
- Islam lead to to Jihad. Jihad kills people. Therefore Islam is bad.

So, maybe we should get busy applying that same logic, if it works well for you. How 'bout this.

- JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was an Atheist. Atheism in bad.

- The Soviet Union was an athestic state. The Soviets slaughtered millions of their own people. Atheism kills.

- Hitler was conflicted in his religious beliefs throughout most of his life, ultimately choosing, according to some, to place Germany ahead of any notion of a "god". Hitler was a Nazi. Those who are conflicted about their religion or reject "god" are Nazi's.

If we're gonna be consistent, then by God (oops) let's be consistent.

finnbow
05-05-2011, 04:41 PM
The secular humanists have absolutely no humility. That's disturbing. These are the ultimate know-it-alls.

It goes both ways. Religious people insist that non-religious lack morals or a deeper understanding of life. Do morals or a deeper understanding derive from belief in myths?

Why is it that a man must believe in said (unproveable, unknowable) myths, and exclusively the Christian version thereof, to run for President?

Interesting article on atheism in America recently in the WaPost:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html

Its author takes questions here:
http://live.washingtonpost.com/why-do-americans-hate-atheists-herb-silverman.html

For the record, I consider myself agnostic (i.e., I don't understand the origins of the universe or God, don't claim to, and don't waste time trying to convince myself that a book written two thousand years ago has answers to this riddle)

whell
05-05-2011, 04:53 PM
Why is it that a man must believe in said (unproveable, unknowable) myths, and exclusively the Christian version thereof, to run for President?


I know. It really cheeses-off those folks who reject the idea that this is essentially a Christian nation. :p

Combwork
05-05-2011, 05:23 PM
You're right, of course. One should have no reason to hope their love life is any better in heaven than it is on Earth. :D

So, you're suggesting that those who might attribute a favorable outcome to their prayers for a cure to their own affliction or for the improved health of a loved one to their God or thier religious beliefs are no better than a blood-thirsty terrorist? That's an interesting, and I hope singular, perspective.

Not that singular. Pleas for divine intervention to cure a loved one or promises to attack the non-believers can both be made in the name of the same religion. It's nothing new; Christians were at it in both crusades, Caligula used belief in his own divinity to justify terrible acts. Vlad the impaler? Barking mad but also believed in his own divinity.

I have no religious beliefs. I don't know if there's an afterlife, or some other form of continuity but I don't feel the need to kneel before a totem, no matter what religion it represents. Arrogant? No, just being realistic. Belief is not the same as faith, and imo neither should depend on blind acceptance of cruelty. Is there any difference between extreme believers in Islam stoning an adulteress to death, or extreme Evangelical Christians beating the devil out of a child. "Yep, the operation was successful, but the patient died".

JonL
05-05-2011, 05:27 PM
Jon, thanks for calling me smart, even if I'm not THAT smart. :p

Have you ever read the New Testament? You'd find that it is people who did those things, not God.

Pete

PS the holocaust wasn't religious.

God didn't do anything, ever, IMO. God, and by extension, religion, is an invention of man. Then that invention is used to create artificial distinctions between "us" and "them," leading to the inevitable "conclusion" that "they" are inferior or to be feared, and in the worst cases, must be exterminated.

Yes, it's all been at the hands of man, but man likes to hide behind his mythology.

The holocaust may not have been purely religious in its motivation, but religion was the biggest of several reasons to select entire groups of people for extermination.

JonL
05-05-2011, 05:32 PM
Let's see. Your argument/linkage/logic is that:

- religion leads to violence, therefore religion is bad.
- Christianity lead to the Crusades, the Crusades killed people, so Christianity is bad
- The bible depicts violent acts and wars. The bible is a religious document. Religion is bad.
- Islam lead to to Jihad. Jihad kills people. Therefore Islam is bad.

So, maybe we should get busy applying that same logic, if it works well for you. How 'bout this.

- JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was an Atheist. Atheism in bad.

- The Soviet Union was an athestic state. The Soviets slaughtered millions of their own people. Atheism kills.

- Hitler was conflicted in his religious beliefs throughout most of his life, ultimately choosing, according to some, to place Germany ahead of any notion of a "god". Hitler was a Nazi. Those who are conflicted about their religion or reject "god" are Nazi's.

If we're gonna be consistent, then by God (oops) let's be consistent.

I'm not going to chase you down the rat hole of ridiculous logic.

IMO, religion has been and still is used to consolidate power, manipulate people, create artificial separation between peoples, incite and foment violence, and create unnecessary pain and suffering in this world. It's mythology and superstition, plain and simple, and it's a terrible shame that mythology and superstition continues to be such a powerful force in the world today.

JonL
05-05-2011, 05:48 PM
JonL:

The Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust and even arguably Jihadism would not have gotten off the ground without STATE complicity and funding. So I can't blame religion solely for these things.


Precisely correct. Ever since the inception of religion it has been used by the powerful to justify their actions. See the connection? Who's driving the bus?


Why are we not smart enough to know the limits of our own intelligience? Or the limits of our moral strengths? The secular humanists have absolutely no humility. That's disturbing. These are the ultimate know-it-alls. They want you to believe that all the matter and energy in the universe (and now we have to include dark matter and anti-matter) could fit on the head of a pin at the time of the Big Bang.. I don't care what kind of Physicist you are -- that requires much MORE faith than Moses parting the Red Sea.

If you truly meant to claim yourself "a humble animal" then you have faith in something.

I do not believe that anyone truly claims to KNOW what happened at the time of the Big Bang. There may be people who strongly believe various theories. Your comment about the seeming impossibility of all matter existing within the size of a pinhead exactly supports my point. I don't know whether that's what happened or not. It is unfathomable to my limited human mind that all matter in the universe could be so condensed. Just because I can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't the truth (it might be or not, I don't know), nor does it mean I have to invent some mythology so I don't have to admit that certain things are beyond the limits of my understanding.

Why do you say I have "faith" in something if I consider myself a humble animal? There are things that I understand, and there are things that other people understand that I do not, and there are things that no one understands. I'm completely comfortable with that.

noonereal
05-05-2011, 05:49 PM
I'm not going to chase you down the rat hole of ridiculous logic.

.

lol, that's our whell :D

JonL
05-05-2011, 05:55 PM
Let's see. Your argument/linkage/logic is that:

- religion leads to violence, therefore religion is bad.


Let's see...

Whell used the word "bad." Bad is BAD. Therefore whell is bad.

QED. :rolleyes:

finnbow
05-05-2011, 06:43 PM
I think Karl Marx had this one right.

Religion is the opiate of the people.

d-ray657
05-05-2011, 06:45 PM
There are those who take the "invisible hand" of capitalism as an article of faith; who have absolute faith that Barack Obama was not born in the United States; who believe that other races are inferior to their own; who believe that money is the measure of a man's worth. I think energy would be better spent on shattering the faith in those things, than in shattering the faith in One who, even from a secular point of view, had some pretty profound things to say about the way we should treat each other.

His non-violent message that we should turn the other cheek has turned out pretty well in Tunisia and Egypt (not to mention India). It didn't work in Libya, and is facing stiff opposition in other parts of the middle east.

BTW I strongly support a wall of separation between church and state. I agree the freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. The whole scheme promotes toleration. Not sure where the kick comes from bashing the faith of others.

Regards,

D-Ray

JonL
05-05-2011, 07:05 PM
I've been thinking about some of what I've written, and that it probably comes across very harshly. For that I apologize. I don't get a "kick" out of bashing the faith of others. I believe people should be free to believe whatever they wish. My posts should have been better directed towards what I believe and why, and not written in a way that would demean any individual. That said, I think it is probably impossible for me to express my reasons for my feelings about religion without offending believers to some degree, and there's not much I can do about that. What does really raise my hackles is when religious beliefs guide policies or actions that negatively affect people, and that IMO happens all too often all over the world.

I also think it odd that taking a strenuous anti-religion position is more taboo and more offensive to many than having a strong political disagreement or even expressing racism.

d-ray657
05-05-2011, 07:27 PM
I just love to argue.:D On this board at least, I don't think criticism of religion is even close to taboo. There are people who will respond to such arguments in much the same manner as if the criticism had been of capitalism or of unions or Ronald Reagan. I think, again, at least on this board, there is near universal rejection of racist comments. StereoRob's suggestion of the President's lumpy racing mount drew the ridicule it deserved.

I don't doubt that anyone's profession of atheism will draw negative comments, as will the practice of Islam or Buddhism. People are wary of belief systems other than their own. That is why religion, or lack thereof, shouldn't be the basis of political decisions. It is difficult to logically counter an argument that is not based on evidence.

I would, however, make one enormous exception to the exclusion of religious reasons for secular decisions - the Golden Rule. I suggest that any policy choice should at least give some consideration to that principle. (I could even argue that the action against Bin Laden fit within the Golden Rule. I'm pretty sure that if I had been responsible for the death of thousands and thousands of innocents, I would be expecting a bullet to the head.)

Regards,

D-Ray

JonL
05-06-2011, 01:30 AM
I try very hard to live by the golden rule in everything I do and I - obviously - do not believe in God or religion. Doing the right thing has nothing to do with superstition or mythology. It has everything to do with humanity.

BlueStreak
05-06-2011, 01:37 AM
I know. It really cheeses-off those folks who reject the idea that this is essentially a Christian nation. :p

Because it's not. Never has been and never will be. (Hopefully)

Which really cheeses off the fairytale believers.:p

Dave

BlueStreak
05-06-2011, 01:38 AM
I just wanna get laid.

Dave

piece-itpete
05-06-2011, 09:03 AM
LOL!

But certainly we were a Christian nation :p

God didn't do anything, ever, IMO. God, and by extension, religion, is an invention of man. Then that invention is used to create artificial distinctions between "us" and "them," leading to the inevitable "conclusion" that "they" are inferior or to be feared, and in the worst cases, must be exterminated.

Yes, it's all been at the hands of man, but man likes to hide behind his mythology.

The holocaust may not have been purely religious in its motivation, but religion was the biggest of several reasons to select entire groups of people for extermination.

See, you believe in the unproveable. What's that called? :wink:

Jewish folks were much more than religion. I'd argue that the biggest reason was that they did stay distinct, it made them easier to single out.

Hitler was NO Christian. Check out theis gem recited by Hitler youth:

"Adolf Hitler, you are our great Führer. Thy name makes the enemy tremble. Thy Third Reich comes, thy will alone is law upon the earth. Let us hear daily thy voice and order us by thy leadership, for we will obey to the end and even with our lives. We praise thee! Hail Hitler!"

I think Karl Marx had this one right.

Religion is the opiate of the people.

Marx? Pbbbbtht. Idioto lol.

Besides, he was wrong, born too early. This is the real one:

http://www.treehugger.com/old-tv-and-book.jpg

..I also think it odd that taking a strenuous anti-religion position is more taboo and more offensive to many than having a strong political disagreement or even expressing racism.

It's not more taboo, just even fiercer than politics :D Atheists are puddin' heads lol.

I just love to argue.:-D On this board at least, I don't think criticism of religion is even close to taboo. There are people who will respond to such arguments in much the same manner as if the criticism had been of capitalism or of unions or Ronald Reagan. I think, again, at least on this board, there is near universal rejection of racist comments. StereoRob's suggestion of the President's lumpy racing mount drew the ridicule it deserved.

I don't doubt that anyone's profession of atheism will draw negative comments, as will the practice of Islam or Buddhism. People are wary of belief systems other than their own. That is why religion, or lack thereof, shouldn't be the basis of political decisions. It is difficult to logically counter an argument that is not based on evidence.

I would, however, make one enormous exception to the exclusion of religious reasons for secular decisions - the Golden Rule. I suggest that any policy choice should at least give some consideration to that principle. (I could even argue that the action against Bin Laden fit within the Golden Rule. I'm pretty sure that if I had been responsible for the death of thousands and thousands of innocents, I would be expecting a bullet to the head.)

Regards,

D-Ray

D, always the gentleman. Even for a Democrat :D

Just the same, please run a Islamicist in 2012?

Pete

finnbow
05-06-2011, 09:09 AM
But certainly we were a Christian nation :p


... until the Founding Fathers wrote that pesky Constitution.

d-ray657
05-06-2011, 09:13 AM
Sorry, Pete. We'll be running a Christian born in Hawaii. We'll be thrilled with any of the ones that the GOP has offered up so far. Any of them will suffice as a doormat. :D Although, I'd pick Trump if I had my druthers.

Regards,

D-Ray

finnbow
05-06-2011, 09:17 AM
Sorry, Pete. We'll be running a Christian born in Hawaii. We'll be thrilled with any of the ones that the GOP has offered up so far. Any of them will suffice as a doormat. :D Although, I'd pick Trump if I had my druthers.

Regards,

D-Ray

If they put up any one of those clowns who "debated" last night in South Carolina, Michelle can go to the engravers this week and get invitations made for the Inaugural Ball.

d-ray657
05-06-2011, 09:33 AM
If they put up any one of those clowns who "debated" last night in South Carolina, Michelle can go to the engravers this week and get invitations made for the Inaugural Ball.

Here's Dana Milbank's take (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-debate-no-grown-ups-edition/2011/05/06/AFGpl16F_story.html).

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
05-06-2011, 09:33 AM
Ach nay! A we going to argue about the plain fact that we were, again? :D

Pete

whell
05-06-2011, 09:42 AM
Here's Dana Milbank's take (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-debate-no-grown-ups-edition/2011/05/06/AFGpl16F_story.html).

Regards,

D-Ray

Millbank is no less an adolescent than those that he wrote about in that article.

finnbow
05-06-2011, 09:43 AM
Ach nay! A we going to argue about the plain fact that we were, again? :D

Pete

Nah. We settled it.;)

finnbow
05-06-2011, 09:45 AM
Millbank is no less an adolescent than those that he wrote about in that article.

Perhaps so. But he's not running.

"If there’s any good news for the Republican Party to come out of the first presidential debate, it’s that the Associated Press and Reuters didn’t cover it."

QFT

d-ray657
05-06-2011, 09:48 AM
Millbank is no less an adolescent than those that he wrote about in that article.

What's your take on the GOP candidates. Respond here (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?p=62223#post62223), rather than take this thread further from the OP.

Regards,

D-Ray

flacaltenn
05-06-2011, 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn
The secular humanists have absolutely no humility. That's disturbing. These are the ultimate know-it-alls.

It goes both ways. Religious people insist that non-religious lack morals or a deeper understanding of life. Do morals or a deeper understanding derive from belief in myths?


FinBow: Glad you asked. I support people of faith because I've pondered this exact question. See it's not the "belief in myths" part that makes faithful people credible in their commitment to morals -- It's the DISCIPLINE and RITUAL and regular EXERCISE of those scruples and tenets that give them MORE credibility than your eggheaded secular humanist. Getting you ass and your families' asses out of bed every Sunday to go RENEW those commitments. Or as I now look at the important relief work being done by the strong church communities here after the tornado disasters. I don't tractor trailers of Atheist relief or Secular Humanist donuts being offered.

There's a lot to be said about discipline and exercise of your morals, and I don't see those mechanisms for the know-it-alls over on the secular humanist side. Just a lot of chest-thumping superiority and dreadful lack of humility...

finnbow
05-06-2011, 10:52 AM
There's a lot to be said about discipline and exercise of your morals, and I don't see those mechanisms for the know-it-alls over on the secular humanist side. Just a lot of chest-thumping superiority and dreadful lack of humility...

Pot:Kettle (as I search for the humility in the above statement). :p

piece-itpete
05-06-2011, 11:02 AM
Sorry, Pete. We'll be running a Christian born in Hawaii. .....

SUUUUUUUURE you will ;)

Pete

flacaltenn
05-06-2011, 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn
JonL:

The Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust and even arguably Jihadism would not have gotten off the ground without STATE complicity and funding. So I can't blame religion solely for these things.

Precisely correct. Ever since the inception of religion it has been used by the powerful to justify their actions. See the connection? Who's driving the bus?



Obviously the state co-opted the religious establishment and personalized it to their own goals. It's the STATE that spawned those atrocitiies. See the religious history of England for example.

I do not believe that anyone truly claims to KNOW what happened at the time of the Big Bang. There may be people who strongly believe various theories. Your comment about the seeming impossibility of all matter existing within the size of a pinhead exactly supports my point. I don't know whether that's what happened or not. It is unfathomable to my limited human mind that all matter in the universe could be so condensed. Just because I can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't the truth (it might be or not, I don't know), nor does it mean I have to invent some mythology so I don't have to admit that certain things are beyond the limits of my understanding.

Why do you say I have "faith" in something if I consider myself a humble animal? There are things that I understand, and there are things that other people understand that I do not, and there are things that no one understands. I'm completely comfortable with that.


Well then JonL, Thank God (actually yes - Him), you failed the secular humanist acid test. Because the true seculars would never admit that individuals have those kinds of limitations in their perception. They would claim that there is a scientific, rationale explanation yet to be uncovered at some future (undisclosed) date. Cop-out..

And Yes.. The accepted Big Bang theory requires EXACTLY those conditions that I mentioned. Which is more ridiculous? How many angels dancing on the head of a pin or how many mountains, planets, solar systems, cosmic dust clouds and black holes fitting on the head of pin?

In fact, the whole story in Genesis of the creation pretty well jives with science. First light (the big bang), then the firmament, then water, then beasts and fishes, and then man. Anyone have a problem with that? The only scientific problem is the timeline. Six days to create, the Seventh to rest. Well Heck.. If God was a gardener, creating a new berm in the garden, he might have told his wife he'd be back in week so she wouldn't get suspicious. And if he traveled at close to the speed of light, he could have been back in seven days. Einstein said so... and StarFleet proved it! :D

Which reminds me of a new science topic that just might make the secular humanists appear to be less than a squawking pack of monkeys. Maybe I'll post that later in an another Religion thread, but it has to do with teleporting DNA.

finnbow
05-06-2011, 11:21 AM
Obviously the state co-opted the religious establishment and personalized it to their own goals. It's the STATE that spawned those atrocitiies. See the religious history of England for example.

Were it not for Emperor Constantine and his mother Helena, nobody anywhere would be a Christian nowadays. How's that for state involvement?


Well then JonL, Thank God (actually yes - Him), you failed the secular humanist acid test. Because the true seculars would never admit that individuals have those kinds of limitations in their perception. They would claim that there is a scientific, rationale explanation yet to be uncovered at some future (undisclosed) date. Cop-out..


Those damn secularists and their rational, fact-based thinking claiming that they don't yet know everything!!! An outrage!!! It's enough to drive you crazy, isn't it?;)

flacaltenn
05-06-2011, 11:34 AM
Finnbow:

Got a secular equivalent to the DISCIPLINE and COMMITMENT of attending worship services? Spending you summer break building playgrounds in inner cities? Running a soup kitchen or shelter?

I don't remember coming across an Atheist shelter anywhere in Nashville.. Oh Wait..

Yeah--- The faith-bashing atheists and secularists pay their taxes! And of course, the State in which they invest ALL FAITH , will do all that for them... :p right back atcha!

Peace...

piece-itpete
05-06-2011, 11:35 AM
Fact based? Heck, they'd swallow an elephant :) How's final entropy working out? ;)

Many don't realise that the 1st amendment was as much to protect the church as the government.

And, Christanity was a powerful underground force before Constantine, even under risk of brutal painful death. Can't say what would've happened if he didn't convert.

Pete

finnbow
05-06-2011, 11:46 AM
Finnbow:

Got a secular equivalent to the DISCIPLINE and COMMITMENT of attending worship services? Spending you summer break building playgrounds in inner cities? Running a soup kitchen or shelter?

I'm sorry, but going to church (having done so every week without fail for 18 years) doesn't represent discipline and commitment. A sense of obligation, perhaps. Muslims pray 5 times a day. Are they really that much better than us?

So, secular people don't engage in civic projects? That's just plain silly.

BTW, the 5 most religious countries in the world are Sri Lanka, Malawi, Indonesia, Niger and Bangladesh. The five least religious are Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, and Japan.

Then look at the least/most religious states in the US. Are you starting to see a trend?
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/01/30/top-10-mostleast-religious-states-in-the-country/

BlueStreak
05-06-2011, 12:02 PM
FinBow: Glad you asked. I support people of faith because I've pondered this exact question. See it's not the "belief in myths" part that makes faithful people credible in their commitment to morals -- It's the DISCIPLINE and RITUAL and regular EXERCISE of those scruples and tenets that give them MORE credibility than your eggheaded secular humanist. Getting you ass and your families' asses out of bed every Sunday to go RENEW those commitments. Or as I now look at the important relief work being done by the strong church communities here after the tornado disasters. I don't tractor trailers of Atheist relief or Secular Humanist donuts being offered.

There's a lot to be said about discipline and exercise of your morals, and I don't see those mechanisms for the know-it-alls over on the secular humanist side. Just a lot of chest-thumping superiority and dreadful lack of humility...

A bunch of sanctimonious squat-pile, this. Do you live on earth, or some other planet where things actually work this way? You surely haven't witnessed the same human nature I have.

Dave

d-ray657
05-06-2011, 12:41 PM
Fact based? Heck, they'd swallow an elephant :) How's final entropy working out? ;)

Many don't realise that the 1st amendment was as much to protect the church as the government.

And, Christanity was a powerful underground force before Constantine, even under risk of brutal painful death. Can't say what would've happened if he didn't convert.

Pete

The First Amendment contained protection for ALL churches, and individuals.

I'm quite comfortable believing that there are atheists who live quite disciplined lives, and there are those who manage to make it to church on Sundays who can't find the top of their desk. The soup kitchen workers, disaster helpers, etc. come from a small portion of people who consider themselves Christians, even from a small portion of regular church attendees.

I will provide, however, one example of how religious adherence had a positive effect on discipline. The Methodist name for the church denomination comes from what was originally meant as a derogatory term. Some ridiculed the rigid discipline taught by Charles Wesley and those who adopted his theology. It also turned out that a proportionally greater number of Methodists succeeded in business and politics, and much of that success was attributed to the level of discipline they had adopted into their daily lives.

I'm fully expect that adherent's of the mental discipline of Buddhism have found that to be beneficial to success as well. Seems like the LA Lakers had a basketball coach who won a few championships who followed the teachings of Buddhism (http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/22/news/mn-43775).

There are also those who have come from the military who have had very successful careeers, and can attribute much of the the the discipline they learned in the military. Considering that only a small percentage of Americans serve in the military, the 20-25% portion of Congress who are veterans (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-05-27-raasch27_ST_N.htm) represent a high degree of success at that level.

I think that whatever avenues we can find to encourage us to become better persons should be welcomed.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
05-06-2011, 12:42 PM
The only example we have of a State sponsored atheism was a disaster for humanity. Something to think about.

Pete

piece-itpete
05-06-2011, 12:43 PM
Thank you D, very well said.

Pete

d-ray657
05-06-2011, 12:47 PM
The only example we have of a State sponsored atheism was a disaster for humanity. Something to think about.

Pete

That is just another example of the way in which the Soviets withheld personal freedom. The failure was more the failure of totalitarianism than of anything. Any political system that does not allow for freedom of thought is bound to die of stagnation.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
05-06-2011, 01:27 PM
I agree somewhat. It was and is part of their basic creed.

Pete

BlueStreak
05-06-2011, 01:40 PM
The only example we have of a State sponsored atheism was a disaster for humanity. Something to think about.

Pete

Somebody is suggesting state sponsored Atheism? Or are we just enforcing an non-Christians right to live without harassment or reduction second class citizen? Is that what has your knickers in a knot?

Dave

piece-itpete
05-06-2011, 02:24 PM
People are still allowed to vote their conscience. As long as they will not vote for a declared atheist it is so. Does that make an atheist a second class citizen? No, as long as you don't run for office ;)

And I'm allowed to speak in public, right?

Pete

flacaltenn
05-06-2011, 02:41 PM
Really BlueStreak?

You think that folks who just "claim" that their morals and altruism are well defined and excersized should be taken at face value? Or do we require some examples? Maybe an Atheist code we can all link to?

I personally believe that you need discipline and ritual and participation to keep you focused so that your ethics don't become situational or "relative".

The only "squat-pile" I see is all the venomous pronouncements of how people of religious faith are stupid and duped. In fact, my observation is the more you know about the science of how stuff works, and how untrustworthy the judgements of men are -- the more you need faith and humility.

I did also leave out the fact that for almost EVERY Civil Rights struggle in the history of man, religion has paid a major role.. Take that and stuff it somewhere..

Truce...

finnbow
05-06-2011, 02:55 PM
I did also leave out the fact that for almost EVERY Civil Rights struggle in the history of man, religion has paid a major role.. Take that and stuff it somewhere..

Truce...

Immigrant rights, Gay Rights, religious rights of American Muslims?

It seems the Religious Right didn't get the memo.

FWIW, the race wars of the Sixties were fought in the most religious states in the nation (see my previous list), and it was the secularists from up north (along with others from the least religious states in the list) who came down South and supported the Blacks.

One more. The Vatican was silent during the Holocaust, the biggest systematic deprivation of civil rights in world history (Pope Pius XII was said by many to be supportive of the Germans). In fact, the church felt it necessary to come out and apologize (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/65889.stm)for this silence.

As for the rights of young kids not be be sexually molested in their houses of worship (and having the crimes covered up by the church for decades), don't get me started.

Pitch me another straw man. That was just too damn easy.;)

d-ray657
05-06-2011, 03:19 PM
The beauty of living in a pluralistic society is that we have a great number of perspectives from which to view issues. I find that the church I grew up in had a significant effect on the values I formed as an adult - chief among them being tolerance. I find that the fellowship of the warm and caring persons I generally find in such a place is a great benefit to me. I also see service by individuals and groups in the congregation that create in me a desire to do more. But this is my personal experience.

Logic is also very important in defining the way I approach life. (John Wesley, BTW, had plenty of room in his theology for reason) If I reject ideas solely because of the source, I limit my view of the world, and tools with which I might deal with life. Here (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/) for example is a thought-provoking view of the killing of Osama Bin Laden. I'm not sure where anyone could find moral failings in this essay. I simply suggest that we accomplish less attacking the core beliefs of others than we do listening.

Regards,

D-Ray

JonL
05-06-2011, 03:28 PM
See, you believe in the unproveable. What's that called? :wink:

I don't believe in the unprovable. I believe the earth and the universe exist. I have no idea how they got here. I believe the physicists who are far smarter than I who say that their theories about the big bang, etc. are scientifically and mathematically supportable. Does that mean I believe IN those theories? No. Does it mean I KNOW that those theories are true? No. Does it mean I have FAITH in those theories? No. It means that I think they might be true, and if the smart physicists say that all the evidence supports those theories, then I'll say there's a good chance they are right.

On the other hand, maybe there's a frog who lives on Jupiter who invented the universe. I can wrap my pea brain around that idea much more easily than I can the ideas behind the big bang. Yep, that's what I was told. A frog. Must be right, it makes just a little more sense after all. Perhaps I'll write a book about it and in a thousand years people will worship the frog.


Jewish folks were much more than religion. I'd argue that the biggest reason was that they did stay distinct, it made them easier to single out.

Pete

Exactly my point. Religion is used as a way for people to separate themselves from one another, which almost invariably leads to aggression one way or the other. I say this as a person of Jewish heritage who lost many relatives in the holocaust.


There's a lot to be said about discipline and exercise of your morals, and I don't see those mechanisms for the know-it-alls over on the secular humanist side. Just a lot of chest-thumping superiority and dreadful lack of humility...

I don't like when people apply labels to individuals when those labels imply a whole host of characteristics that may not apply to the individual, and then they use those labels as a reason to argue against positions the individual may not hold. I'm expressing my own personal opinions and I'm quite willing to debate and defend them. I know nothing about what "secular humanism" means or what positions that label is meant to convey.



Well then JonL, Thank God (actually yes - Him), you failed the secular humanist acid test. Because the true seculars would never admit that individuals have those kinds of limitations in their perception. They would claim that there is a scientific, rationale explanation yet to be uncovered at some future (undisclosed) date. Cop-out..

I agree that there is a scientific, rationale explanation for everything. That does not mean that human beings will necessarily ever discover or understand them. Human beings are most certainly limited in our senses and intelligence. It is my position that the invention of God, religion, and the associated myths regarding creation and the "afterlife" are a direct result of human being's unwillingness to accept the limitations of their intelligence. It's far easier for many people to accept that God made the universe rather than accepting that it may be impossible for human beings to ever understand how the universe came to be. It is far easier and more comforting for many people to believe that God has a plan for them when things go badly rather than accepting that sometimes shit happens and it sometimes happens to you. It is far easier and more comforting for many people to believe that their souls will live on indefinitely in some glorious wonderful afterlife instead of accepting that no one knows what happens when you die and that very possibly what happens is that the bio-chemical-electrical stuff that goes on in our brains simply stops and that's the end of you and your soul.

To me, having faith in a supernatural being as the explanation for all that is not understandable is an avoidance of the reality that people's intelligence and perception is limited. "If I can't figure it out, it must be God. It can't be that I'm just not smart enough."


And Yes.. The accepted Big Bang theory requires EXACTLY those conditions that I mentioned. Which is more ridiculous? How many angels dancing on the head of a pin or how many mountains, planets, solar systems, cosmic dust clouds and black holes fitting on the head of pin?

The idea that the entire universe could exist on the head of a pin is no more ridiculous to me than is the idea that the universe goes on forever with an infinite number of stars and planets and all kinds of life and phenomena that we'll never see or understand. It's no more ridiculous to me than is the idea that the universe is NOT infinite and that beyond the ends of the universe exists.... nothing! And that nothingness goes on for how long? It's no more ridiculous than the idea that there are parallel universes, or that there's "dark matter," and black holes, and anti-matter. I don't understand any of those ideas. They are all unfathomable to me. I accept that. I accept that all those ideas may or may not be true. I don't need a neat and tidy explanation that relies on the invention of a supernatural entity to make me sleep at night.

flacaltenn
05-06-2011, 03:36 PM
FinBow:

You dished out a punch there. Good match.

I don't equate illegal immigrants with a Civil Rights struggle, so I don't buy that one. As far as immigration reform in general, you'll find religious institutions in the lead of "sanctuary" movements and a strong force behind repealing the racist immig. laws in 1965.

And I was talking about the PARTICIPANTS of the movement being strongly religiously affiliated so gays are a biased example due to largely secular preference. HOWEVER, the only religious organization I've visited in 20 years is the Unitarian Church and I can attest to the fact that every 3rd word or phrase on Sunday mentions "solidarity with our GLBT community". Those UU folks ARE true leaders of that movement along with more open Christian denominations.

Black civil rights, modern day slavery, Darfur,.... all good examples.

And since I referring to the faith of the primary participants, it stands to reason that initially ANY civil rights movement has little support. But often it's invocations of faith in God that give the movement strength. MLK spoke to that as a reverend, and it was hard to ignore even if you're a right-wing redneck.

Similiarly in the case of the Holocaust, doesn't matter that the Church was pre-occupied with it's OWN existence. The Jews in those camps had NO human appeal process. It's then when one realizes that putting all your faith in the actions of MEN -- as the "enlightened" secularists propose -- is not a very good idea -- And you WILL then (while you are dying in a hell hole) learn how to appeal to the only power that guarantees freedom and human dignity. That's what our Founding Fathers said over and over again.. And it personally resonates with me.

flacaltenn
05-06-2011, 03:48 PM
JonL:

Didn't intend to name-call. I just stepped into this thread to support the minority views of people who get ridiculed on faith. And the people doing the ridicule -- do disturb me because unlike you, they will attempt to pummel religious people for not completely accepting "settled science" (where have we heard that phrase before) on Creation or Evolution when some of those "accepted" explanations in their most gory technical detail require MORE faith to accept than the religious "myths" and "fairytales".

You're doing the intelligient thing actually by not requiring an answer, because buying off completely on the latest "scientific" views -- can make a monkey out of you in a mere century or so.
;)

finnbow
05-06-2011, 04:08 PM
And I was talking about the PARTICIPANTS of the movement being strongly religiously affiliated so gays are a biased example due to largely secular preference. HOWEVER, the only religious organization I've visited in 20 years is the Unitarian Church and I can attest to the fact that every 3rd word or phrase on Sunday mentions "solidarity with our GLBT community". Those UU folks ARE true leaders of that movement along with more open Christian denominations.

I must say, it's a little rich to hear a Unitarian get all fire and brimstone.;)

The Unitarian Church does seem to take a more common sense approach to its theology (and as such rejects a significant number of widely held Christian beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism#Christology)). In my experience, Unitarians are about as close as it comes to your dreaded "Secular Humanists." I'd go as far as to say that the Christian Right accepts Unitarianism about as much as it accepts Secular Humanism (or Mormons).

piece-itpete
05-06-2011, 04:19 PM
A very enjoyable discussion gentlemen :)

I don't believe in the unprovable. I believe the earth and the universe exist. I have no idea how they got here. I believe the physicists who are far smarter than I who say that their theories about the big bang, etc. are scientifically and mathematically supportable. Does that mean I believe IN those theories? No. Does it mean I KNOW that those theories are true? No. Does it mean I have FAITH in those theories? No. It means that I think they might be true, and if the smart physicists say that all the evidence supports those theories, then I'll say there's a good chance they are right.

On the other hand, maybe there's a frog who lives on Jupiter who invented the universe. I can wrap my pea brain around that idea much more easily than I can the ideas behind the big bang. Yep, that's what I was told. A frog. Must be right, it makes just a little more sense after all. Perhaps I'll write a book about it and in a thousand years people will worship the frog.


For all we know, evidence we've seen with our own eyes, either could be true. We rely on other people all the time, and most of what we think we know we're just taking on.... skip faith. Let's just say we believe the other person.

Exactly my point. Religion is used as a way for people to separate themselves from one another, which almost invariably leads to aggression one way or the other. I say this as a person of Jewish heritage who lost many relatives in the holocaust.


People here know I am a rapid anti nazi. Jewish folks have tried to remain a people, without a country, and succeeded for centuries, no mean feat! But that desire, and some seeming inbred hatred seemingly born into non Jews, made them an easy target. I'm not saying it's their own fault! Antisemites have serious hatred issues, probably a manifestation of self hate, or at high levels calculated evil, or both, my take.

I don't like when people apply labels to individuals when those labels imply a whole host of characteristics that may not apply to the individual, and then they use those labels as a reason to argue against positions the individual may not hold. I'm expressing my own personal opinions and I'm quite willing to debate and defend them. I know nothing about what "secular humanism" means or what positions that label is meant to convey.


Brother, say 'I'm a Christian' and holy cow the labels come out! So you know...

I agree that there is a scientific, rationale explanation for everything. That does not mean that human beings will necessarily ever discover or understand them. Human beings are most certainly limited in our senses and intelligence. It is my position that the invention of God, religion, and the associated myths regarding creation and the "afterlife" are a direct result of human being's unwillingness to accept the limitations of their intelligence. It's far easier for many people to accept that God made the universe rather than accepting that it may be impossible for human beings to ever understand how the universe came to be. It is far easier and more comforting for many people to believe that God has a plan for them when things go badly rather than accepting that sometimes shit happens and it sometimes happens to you. It is far easier and more comforting for many people to believe that their souls will live on indefinitely in some glorious wonderful afterlife instead of accepting that no one knows what happens when you die and that very possibly what happens is that the bio-chemical-electrical stuff that goes on in our brains simply stops and that's the end of you and your soul.

To me, having faith in a supernatural being as the explanation for all that is not understandable is an avoidance of the reality that people's intelligence and perception is limited. "If I can't figure it out, it must be God. It can't be that I'm just not smart enough."

The idea that the entire universe could exist on the head of a pin is no more ridiculous to me than is the idea that the universe goes on forever with an infinite number of stars and planets and all kinds of life and phenomena that we'll never see or understand. It's no more ridiculous to me than is the idea that the universe is NOT infinite and that beyond the ends of the universe exists.... nothing! And that nothingness goes on for how long? It's no more ridiculous than the idea that there are parallel universes, or that there's "dark matter," and black holes, and anti-matter. I don't understand any of those ideas. They are all unfathomable to me. I accept that. I accept that all those ideas may or may not be true. I don't need a neat and tidy explanation that relies on the invention of a supernatural entity to make me sleep at night.

It would seem that it makes it easier. It's not. Instead of saying 'life's like that' we say, we are evil and incapable of good. That it is indeed our choice. It is the opposite of easy. It is, pick up your cross.

Pete

flacaltenn
05-06-2011, 07:27 PM
Finbow:

I must say, it's a little rich to hear a Unitarian get all fire and brimstone.

The Unitarian Church does seem to take a more common sense approach to its theology (and as such rejects a significant number of widely held Christian beliefs). In my experience, Unitarians are about as close as it comes to your dreaded "Secular Humanists."

You're flattering Unitarians here because they are part of the Progressive political movement (soci@lists in camo) and vote your way more often than not. :D

The UU Church is more a caucus meeting than a prayer session. So many protests to organize there. I'm simply "monitoring" them.. Sssshhh.... I'm not a Unitarian, I only go there because I told my in-laws I was a Libertarian, so they take us to the Unitarian Church once in a while.. {{They don't get that there's a diff between Unitarian/Libertarian} and I don't want to hurt their feelings}.. Mixed marraige -- long, boring story.....

There's a sign outside a little country church here that reads.... "If you are spiritual, but not religious -- come check us out".. That's more my speed.

I actually wish I was able to fit into some congregation. The Jews kicked me out (silent treatment) in the early 80's because I didn't support every little dam thing that Israel did. Now you guys are stuck with me. :eek:

whell
05-06-2011, 07:32 PM
It appears that some who claim to be atheist or agnostic are demonstrating their distrust / intolerance of those who espouse a religion because they may be sanctimonious or judgmental. Liberal "tolerance" not apparent here.

On the other hand, some who espouse a religious view are suggesting some distrust for atheism because it is unclear from where such folks might derive their moral compass. Judge not, lest though shall be judged, right?

I think Pete was on point earlier. The measure of the man is his actions, not his religion or secular beliefs. However, I suggest a personal preference for a set of beliefs that sets high standards, and challenges me to achieve them. There are certainly examples on either side of the debate that exemplify high standards of personal behavior and charity to fellow man, as well as pitiful and horrid examples. However, at least on the religious/Christian side there is singular example with a message that continues to challenge me to be better than I am. Is there an analogous standard in the atheist camp?

flacaltenn
05-06-2011, 07:37 PM
Pete:

People here know I am a rapid anti nazi. Jewish folks have tried to remain a people, without a country, and succeeded for centuries, no mean feat! But that desire, and some seeming inbred hatred seemingly born into non Jews, made them an easy target. I'm not saying it's their own fault! Antisemites have serious hatred issues, probably a manifestation of self hate, or at high levels calculated evil, or both, my take.



self-hate and evil are valid... But it's also a complete intolerance to what Americans call "multiculturalism". Traditions and rituals that the majority don't understand. Now you (i bet) and me are not huge fans of politically correct multiculturalism. The kind where the school kids get to celebrate every holiday in the history of mankind EXCEPT American or Christian ones.. But we're probably kinda fond of having soapapillas on Cinquo de Mayo, or seeing a chinese New Year's parade...

Dem nazis only liked ONE KIND of parade..

flacaltenn
05-06-2011, 07:47 PM
Excellent - Whell.

seems we all need remedial work on our compasses....

But as for your question...
Is there an analogous standard in the atheist camp?

I'm afraid that after listening to atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, and secular humanists like Alan Dershowitz -- I'm afraid they defer to civil law, the ACLU and the govt for their bible and sermons.. Pretty sure that's the underlying guidance that they worship.

d-ray657
05-06-2011, 08:10 PM
I'd say that an analogous figure would be Socrates or Plato, or Stephen Hawking. Reason is the overriding principle. An ethical atheist would reason to determine what action would cause the least harm or do the greatest good. I personally believe that a spiritual life is a more complete life, but I have no reason to denigrate, ridicule or question the motives of one who does not believe the same.

I do question the motives of one whose primary interest seems to be the accumulation of wealth or power. I am particularly suspicious of those who take a position on social issues that advances their personal interests. I am appalled by those who use religion to advance an agenda that has little or nothing to do with religious values.

Regards,

D-Ray

finnbow
05-06-2011, 08:21 PM
I just get tired of politicians and other public figures who wear their religion on their sleeves and/or speak of how we're not yet a religious enough nation for their tastes. IMHO, it's none of their damn business how religious we are as a nation. Moreover, I'm not so certain that we'd be better off if we were more religious (looking at the data I provided on another post, the opposite seems true).

whell
05-06-2011, 10:07 PM
I'd say that an analogous figure would be Socrates or Plato, or Stephen Hawking.

Yet, to "Joe Sixpack", Joe the Plumber, or however we might describe the average American, who are the figures and what do the represent? Not every Christian is "deeply" religious, and not every Atheist has read "A Brief History of Time."

Virtue, personal honor and integrity used to be the glue that held "civilized" society together. For some, religion supplemented these characteristics, but there were some common codes of decorum and a more common sense of right and wrong. Now, behavior is viewed through the prism of "Who am I to judge?" Morality used to be a term associated with honorable behavior. Now it is a term that is derided as a tool used by those who are "unsophisticated" against those who are more "enlightened" and "unencumbered" by societal mores or norms of behavior.

There has, to me, been a weakening of the glue that holds society together. Whether that is due to an increase in religious intollerance, or possibility incivility being more fashionable, I'm not sure. However, I suspect that it's not a coincidence that at a time when religion seems to be taking it on the chin, incivility seems to be on the rise.

BlueStreak
05-07-2011, 12:58 AM
Immigrant rights, Gay Rights, religious rights of American Muslims?

It seems the Religious Right didn't get the memo.

FWIW, the race wars of the Sixties were fought in the most religious states in the nation (see my previous list), and it was the secularists from up north (along with others from the least religious states in the list) who came down South and supported the Blacks.

One more. The Vatican was silent during the Holocaust, the biggest systematic deprivation of civil rights in world history (Pope Pius XII was said by many to be supportive of the Germans). In fact, the church felt it necessary to come out and apologize (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/65889.stm)for this silence.

As for the rights of young kids not be be sexually molested in their houses of worship (and having the crimes covered up by the church for decades), don't get me started.

Pitch me another straw man. That was just too damn easy.;)

Thanks, Finn.

Dave

d-ray657
05-07-2011, 02:21 AM
Immigrant rights, Gay Rights, religious rights of American Muslims?

It seems the Religious Right didn't get the memo.

FWIW, the race wars of the Sixties were fought in the most religious states in the nation (see my previous list), and it was the secularists from up north (along with others from the least religious states in the list) who came down South and supported the Blacks.

One more. The Vatican was silent during the Holocaust, the biggest systematic deprivation of civil rights in world history (Pope Pius XII was said by many to be supportive of the Germans). In fact, the church felt it necessary to come out and apologize (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/65889.stm)for this silence.

As for the rights of young kids not be be sexually molested in their houses of worship (and having the crimes covered up by the church for decades), don't get me started.

Pitch me another straw man. That was just too damn easy.;)

There are decent and even heroic figures all along the religious spectrum. Gandhi, a Hindu, was one of the greatest leaders of modern times - developing ideas for political action that have continued to be successful even in the Arab spring. The African-American church played a central role in the civil rights struggle in the south (i.e., the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King). The Baptist churches were learning and promoting the non-violent approach of the Hindu, Gandhi. Northern Jews were prominent in their support and participation in the civil rights movement. The Methodist church has been in the forefront of fight for social justice. It's early social principles advocated collective bargaining and the end of sweatshops. Granted, Methodists were also active in the temperance movement. The Roman Catholic Church, while involved in enormous atrocities, has also supported vast improvements in science, in medicine, and in education. I do believe that some Catholics were ahead of Rev. Wright in advocating liberation theology.

Thomas Jefferson, occasionally treated here as a holy figure, was reputed to be an atheist or agnostic, although others will hotly dispute that. John Locke and John Stuart Mill, philosophers who were hugely influential on our governing principles, could easily be classified as humanists if not atheists.

People can commit atrocities in the name of religion, in the name of racial superiority, in the name of ethnic cleansing; or in the name of nationalism. That some humans use whatever rationale is available to justify attempted dominion over others, does not mean that their actions infect the entire human race or the entire body of religion.

Growing up a Methodist, I've often heard that our problem is that we don't believe in anything. I think is that we have the potential to believe in anything up to a point. The closest thing to an absolute truth that I know is that no one (religious, non-religious or atheist) has a legitimate claim to owning the absolute truth.

Regards,

D-Ray

BlueStreak
05-07-2011, 04:10 AM
Nice post, Don.

Dave

whell
05-07-2011, 09:57 AM
FWIW, the race wars of the Sixties were fought in the most religious states in the nation (see my previous list), and it was the secularists from up north (along with others from the least religious states in the list) who came down South and supported the Blacks.


That's bunk, Finn. If you're talking about the Freedom Riders, that was a pretty eclectic bunch with a variety of politics and passions. There were a pretty fair number of religious types who comprised that group as well. From Michigan alone the participants included Baptists ministers and Catholic priests. James Farmer, one of the organizers, had a Bachelors in Divinity and was a practicing Methodist.

d-ray657
05-07-2011, 11:26 AM
Of course he was a Methodist.:cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

finnbow
05-07-2011, 11:31 AM
FWIW, the race wars of the Sixties were fought in the most religious states in the nation (see my previous list), and it was the secularists from up north (along with others from the least religious states in the list) who came down South and supported the Blacks.

That's bunk, Finn. If you're talking about the Freedom Riders, that was a pretty eclectic bunch with a variety of politics and passions. There were a pretty fair number of religious types who comprised that group as well. From Michigan alone the participants included Baptists ministers and Catholic priests. James Farmer, one of the organizers, had a Bachelors in Divinity and was a practicing Methodist.

What part of those two bolded statements is false? The first bolded statement is completely true, and the second one mostly so (I was referring to the white folks who supported the blacks, not the Blacks themselves (e.g., James Farmer). They did, in fact, come from the "least religious states in the list." Some were religious, some not.

whell
05-07-2011, 11:36 AM
"it was the secularists from up north..." was the part I was reacting to. The activists that came from north to south to support the civil rights movement were a very diverse group, and that group could not be strictly described as "secularists".

finnbow
05-07-2011, 11:42 AM
"it was the secularists from up north..." was the part I was reacting to. The activists that came from north to south to support the civil rights movement were a very diverse group, and that group could not be strictly described as "secularists".

Fair enough. AFAIK, what distinguished the white folks on the buses wasn't their religion, per se, but their opposition to racism. I was reacting to flac's post wherein he states that virtually all civil rights movements were based upon religion. FWIW, scope out the white folks among the notable Freedom Riders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_riders#Notable_Freedom_Riders). You have a founding member of the Progressive Caucus and a number of anti-war activists (icky Secular Humanist types).

flacaltenn
05-07-2011, 12:10 PM
The fact that the American Civil Rights movement was fought in the "most religious states" of this Union -- just bolsters my initial point. I'm talking about the faith of the PARTICIPANTS of the movement. The hymns, the prayers, the supplication to a higher power. Go look up some of the marching hymns of the movement. What would Atheists chant about when their lives and liberty were challenged? This is what the powerless have left when the secular acts of man deprive folks of life and liberty.. I'm not talking about Institutional support. That's why the Founders invoked a non-denominational but clearly religious right to freedom in our Indepence Struggle. Because the ACLU, the mere laws of man, and relativistic morals cannot be trusted to preserve your freedom and liberties.
(Or maybe they preserve YOUR liberties at the expense of others)?

Alan Dershowitz and most Atheists would say all of that is poopy-cock. They are arrogant enough to believe that laws of society and the state can always be trusted with the powers to grant and enforce rights and liberty. No other guarantees or faith required -other than regular contributions to the ACLU.

FinBow: You weren't referring to Stokely Carmichael were you? "Anti-war" types are not automatic secularists. ANd the political spectrum is not the simple left-right thingy that most Americans use to jam everyone into... I think Quakers would be very disgraced to be put into the secularist camp or "the left" for that matter....

FWIW, scope out the white folks among the notable Freedom Riders. You have a founding member of the Progressive Caucus and a number of anti-war activists

If you follow his links further you'll find...

Carmichael said about the Parchman Farm sheriff that “The sheriff acted like he was scared of black folks and he came up with some beautiful things. One night he opened up all the windows, put on ten big fans and an air conditioner and dropped the temperature to 38 degrees. All we had on was T-shirts and shorts.”.[14] While being hurt one time, Carmichael began singing to the guards, “I’m gonna tell God how you treat me” to which the rest of the prisoners joined in.[

EXACTLY --- what I'm talking about.. Religious faith is an INVALUABLE resource for human dignity and equality.

It's the PARTICIPANTS of the civil rights movements and genocides that reach out to Natural Law and a Deity that has a simple ABSOLUTE moral law... Because they've been betrayed by the secular powers that govern their lives..

finnbow
05-07-2011, 12:30 PM
I have no idea what you just said (but it seems like you're stretching pretty hard to make some sort of point), but the fact remains that the most religious states in the country were, at the same time, the most racist. Period. For that matter, today the most anti-gay rights are also the most religious. Same go for the anti-Muslims.................

The pattern here in undeniable. I just don't see higher enlightenment in religious people, no matter how hard I squint.

JonL
05-07-2011, 01:03 PM
flacaltenn, the biggest thing I get from your second to last post is that all groups and movements are made up of individuals who do not all adhere to some monolithic set of characteristics. In other words, you can't tar everyone with the same brush, and there are many shades of gray in this world.

I hope you remember that when it comes to discussing other aspects of politics and religion. Because in your last post you seem to create an absolute and unbreakable link between atheism and the ACLU. I mean, WTF????

JonL
05-07-2011, 01:19 PM
It appears that some who claim to be atheist or agnostic are demonstrating their distrust / intolerance of those who espouse a religion because they may be sanctimonious or judgmental. Liberal "tolerance" not apparent here.

On the other hand, some who espouse a religious view are suggesting some distrust for atheism because it is unclear from where such folks might derive their moral compass. Judge not, lest though shall be judged, right?

Again, I apologize if my posts convey distrust or intolerance of those who follow a religion. That is not my intent. I judge people as individuals, and I have a great deal of tolerance for all points of view. I don't have a great deal of tolerance for the imposition of certain points of view on others. Some people I trust, and some I do not. Religion has no bearing on that.


I think Pete was on point earlier. The measure of the man is his actions, not his religion or secular beliefs. However, I suggest a personal preference for a set of beliefs that sets high standards, and challenges me to achieve them. There are certainly examples on either side of the debate that exemplify high standards of personal behavior and charity to fellow man, as well as pitiful and horrid examples. However, at least on the religious/Christian side there is singular example with a message that continues to challenge me to be better than I am. Is there an analogous standard in the atheist camp?

One can be challenged to be a better person and "do the right thing" without having to believe in any particular religion or deity. There are reasons all around us all the time. I care about my fellow human being, I care about the environment and all life on this planet. I try very hard to live my life in a way that makes me an asset to this world. It's just what I do. I don't do it for any reward, although the feeling one gets from doing something good is a nice reward. I behave this way just because it's the right thing to do. I don't need a figurehead or deity or organization looking over my shoulder or challenging me.

As I think about this, I'm speculating that there are thoughtful people in this world and people who live rather thoughtlessly and just sort of "exist." People who thoughtfully choose to be atheists OR choose to be religious probably also live up to a reasonable moral standard. Those who thoughtlessly go through life, just trying to "get over" probably don't live up to a particularly high moral standard, regardless of whether they attend regular services or don't give a crap about religion.

BlueStreak
05-07-2011, 01:35 PM
I have no idea what you just said (but it seems like you're stretching pretty hard to make some sort of point), but the fact remains that the most religious states in the country were, at the same time, the most racist. Period. For that matter, today the most anti-gay rights are also the most religious. Same go for the anti-Muslims.................

The pattern here in undeniable. I just don't see higher enlightenment in religious people, no matter how hard I squint.

Precisely.

Dave

flacaltenn
05-07-2011, 01:45 PM
FinBow: Whole STATES being racist? Religion as a Cause?

Now those are the generalizations.. It's not rational or scientific in the least to try to make correlations like those. But if that gimmick gets you to your personal happy spot..
I support that.. State output of beer ==== rates of spousal abuse? C'mon man. Sorry that you didn't get the point about the worth of faith and National Law.. Maybe it's just too conflicted with your notions about religion being a scourge.

JonL:: Number of high-profile atheist suites taken by the ACLU? Number of high profile religious expression suites taken? No I don't want to label them atheist. But they are a go-to legal tool of appeal for atheists and part of THEIR moral expression and code.

BlueStreak
05-07-2011, 01:46 PM
As I understand it, the entire basis of racism against "brown people" is derived from the story of the "Sons of Ham". Is it not? Wasn't their "...skin blackened that they might be despised...."?:rolleyes:

Just to make myself clear. I pretty much view organized religion as little more than another form of government. One that threatens eternal damnation for non-compliance, and offers eternal bliss for unquestioning followership.

Not always a bad thing, but when it is a bad thing it's usually bad in a very big way.

Threaten to fire a man for insubordination and he will just go get another job. Beat him and may defy you, as he could survive the beating. Threaten to jail him and he might escape. Convince him he will spend eternity in hell and you have left him no way out...............

Dave

whell
05-07-2011, 01:47 PM
Fair enough. AFAIK, what distinguished the white folks on the buses wasn't their religion, per se, but their opposition to racism. I was reacting to flac's post wherein he states that virtually all civil rights movements were based upon religion. FWIW, scope out the white folks among the notable Freedom Riders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_riders#Notable_Freedom_Riders). You have a founding member of the Progressive Caucus and a number of anti-war activists (icky Secular Humanist types).

Here goes: If there is anything that does bug me about going to church these days - Catholic church in my case - is that the messages from the pulpit on any given Sunday are very left-leaning in nature. Perhaps guilt an leftism are simpatico?? :p:D Leftism an the leadership in the Catholic church, at least in this area, are old friends:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gumbleton

BlueStreak
05-07-2011, 01:51 PM
Here goes: If there is anything that does bug me about going to church these days - Catholic church in my case - is that the messages from the pulpit on any given Sunday are very left-leaning in nature. Perhaps guilt an leftism are simpatico?? :p:D Leftism an the leadership in the Catholic church, at least in this area, are old friends:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gumbleton

What it means is that your political beliefs run afoul of the teachings of Christ. Tell your family to dress you in summer clothes when they bury you. It's going to be mighty warm where you're going.:p

Dave

finnbow
05-07-2011, 02:03 PM
Here goes: If there is anything that does bug me about going to church these days - Catholic church in my case - is that the messages from the pulpit on any given Sunday are very left-leaning in nature. Perhaps guilt an leftism are simpatico?? :p:D Leftism an the leadership in the Catholic church, at least in this area, are old friends:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gumbleton

What gets your goat about the Catholic Church are the things that make me more willing to give them a pass (i.e., against the Iraq War, against the death penalty, their concerns for social justice, charity work). Other stances, not so much (e.g., pedophilia coverup, use of birth control, the self-serving hocus pocus addressed in the OP). A mixed bag, indeed.

I just don't buy into the notion that blind allegiance to this mixed bag is in any way more enlightened than not buying into it.

noonereal
05-07-2011, 02:11 PM
Here goes: If there is anything that does bug me about going to church these days - Catholic church in my case - is that the messages from the pulpit on any given Sunday are very left-leaning in nature.

How could they not be?

:confused:

Christ was a classic liberal and that is whose teachings they follow.

BlueStreak
05-07-2011, 02:20 PM
How could they not be?

:confused:

Christ was a classic liberal and that is whose teachings they follow.

What, are you suggesting Christ didn't go around calling workers bums and freeloaders, whilst praising the self-serving and avaricious exploits of greedy rich men? Are you saying he would never call an elderly woman a "welfare queen" and tell her if she wants her degenerative arthritis treated she should, "Start by going out and getting a f**king job!!!"?:rolleyes:

Dave

flacaltenn
05-07-2011, 02:42 PM
So multiple people here are telling me that a belief in Natural Law and an absolute moral code was NOT the primary justification for America's Civil Rights movement. That the folks marching in the streets and getting jailed didn't claim their rights on the same Divine concept of dignity and freedom that our Founders did in the Declaration of Independence when THEY mentioned God? Must really hurt the simplistic notion of religious folk being stupid dupes of your right-wing political enemies. That's easier I suppose..

Here --- chant a few Birmingham marching hymns while you read MLK -- Letters from a Birmingham Jail for the first time since your public school obviously didn't require it. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html ( "MLK - Letter From a Birmingham Jail")

One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.

That's the legal argument. Rooted in a FAITH in God's law. Not man's law.. That's EXACTLY what the protesters in Birmingham heard before they faced the dogs and fire hoses..

Don't look at me. I'm not religious. But I am PRO-choice on everything. And I believe that MY RIGHTS are secured by a higher power than man's law..

Sorry you can't or won't acknowledge that this makes sense to a LOT of people..

noonereal
05-07-2011, 02:42 PM
to be honest, i'd really like to hear a red state minister try to justify the gop platform

i think it would be mesmerizing

flacaltenn
05-07-2011, 02:48 PM
FinBow:

I just don't buy into the notion that blind allegiance to this mixed bag is in any way more enlightened than not buying into it.


But buying whole-hog into a mixed bag say ..... like the Dem party.... well now that's a diff story.. That's more of a limited choice problem isn't it? where you HAVE TO choose between 2 mixed bags that might both have rot in them.. :p

finnbow
05-07-2011, 03:00 PM
FinBow:



But buying whole-hog into a mixed bag say ..... like the Dem party.... well now that's a diff story.. That's more of a limited choice problem isn't it? where you HAVE TO choose between 2 mixed bags that might both have rot in them.. :p

You may have gotten the impression from my posts that I'm a Democrat. I'm not. However, I've just become thoroughly disgusted with the GOP since ~2002/2003 and they seem to be getting crazier by the minute (and one of their particularly loathsome aspects is their fealty to the Religious Right, a group that lacks a shred of the dignity you've referred to in other religions).

I would love for the GOP to get its head out of its ass and become a viable, reasonable and sensible party and stop catering to the cavalcade of angry, barking fools that has become its base.

JonL
05-07-2011, 03:12 PM
JonL:: Number of high-profile atheist suites taken by the ACLU? Number of high profile religious expression suites taken? No I don't want to label them atheist. But they are a go-to legal tool of appeal for atheists and part of THEIR moral expression and code.

Well, I don't follow this stuff much, and I haven't looked up all the cases the ACLU has taken... however it would seem to make sense that the ACLU would take a lot of cases on the behalf of atheists. After all, the major religions tend to have well-financed organizations that can do their legal bidding. Atheists... not so much. Furthermore, it seems that there are more legislative efforts to impose particular religious beliefs upon the public, and that's the sort of thing the ACLU tends to fight against.

I don't know why the ACLU has become another one of those labels the right likes to use to imply all sorts of negative connotations. I think the ACLU plays an extremely valuable in defending the constitutional rights we all supposedly want to enjoy. Why are they so reviled by people who claim to revere the constitution?

flacaltenn
05-07-2011, 03:30 PM
JonL:

You should ask yourself why Atheists dont' have much of an infrastructure.. They have several magazines, websites and orgs.. Including some that exist solely to poke fun at people of faith. I have no problem with protecting their rights. They should not be forceably coerced by religion doctrine. But I think the poking fun part is obnoxious.

I support the Institute for Justice instead of the ACLU.. Same deal, less partisian. Tends to take the cases that the ACLU ignores because of its political bent.

FinBow:

My sincere sympathies on your dilemma. It's really hard to find a political home nowadays.. However, I've done the math and I feel FAR less threatened personally by the "religious right" than I do by the "pestering left". The leftists are not in my bedroom, but they are in everyother room of my house and my wallet. What I eat, what I drive, what I earn, what I buy, what I say, how I raise my kids, how green i am, ect.. Much more intrusive into my life than an occasional well-dressed Mormon boy showing up at my door. Or folks who don't want their tax money going to a medical procedure where a life could be (arguably) terminated. I can deal with that. So from a THREAT standpoint --- I give a slight edge to the GOP. HOWEVER, I will never fund or support EITHER party.

Had to consider all that before I moved to the Bible Belt from California. THey are not influencing me here. they are not shunning me here because I'm not in church on Sundays. Because they know I'm supportive and interested in their beliefs. The only crimp is not being able to buy liquor on Sunday until after noon... :cool:

BlueStreak
05-07-2011, 03:43 PM
You may have gotten the impression from my posts that I'm a Democrat. I'm not. However, I've just become thoroughly disgusted with the GOP since ~2002/2003 and they seem to be getting crazier by the minute (and one of their particularly loathsome aspects is their fealty to the Religious Right, a group that lacks a shred of the dignity you've referred to in other religions).

I would love for the GOP to get its head out of its ass and become a viable, reasonable and sensible party and stop catering to the cavalcade of angry, barking fools that has become its base.

Hear, hear! I feel much in the same way.

Dave

BlueStreak
05-07-2011, 03:47 PM
Well, I don't follow this stuff much, and I haven't looked up all the cases the ACLU has taken... however it would seem to make sense that the ACLU would take a lot of cases on the behalf of atheists. After all, the major religions tend to have well-financed organizations that can do their legal bidding. Atheists... not so much. Furthermore, it seems that there are more legislative efforts to impose particular religious beliefs upon the public, and that's the sort of thing the ACLU tends to fight against.

I don't know why the ACLU has become another one of those labels the right likes to use to imply all sorts of negative connotations. I think the ACLU plays an extremely valuable in defending the constitutional rights we all supposedly want to enjoy. Why are they so reviled by people who claim to revere the constitution?

+1. If more people followed what they do more closely, and gave objective thought about the activities of this group, they might be surprised.

Dave

BlueStreak
05-07-2011, 03:55 PM
So multiple people here are telling me that a belief in Natural Law and an absolute moral code was NOT the primary justification for America's Civil Rights movement. That the folks marching in the streets and getting jailed didn't claim their rights on the same Divine concept of dignity and freedom that our Founders did in the Declaration of Independence when THEY mentioned God? Must really hurt the simplistic notion of religious folk being stupid dupes of your right-wing political enemies. That's easier I suppose..

Here --- chant a few Birmingham marching hymns while you read MLK -- Letters from a Birmingham Jail for the first time since your public school obviously didn't require it. http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html ( "MLK - Letter From a Birmingham Jail")

That's the legal argument. Rooted in a FAITH in God's law. Not man's law.. That's EXACTLY what the protesters in Birmingham heard before they faced the dogs and fire hoses..

Don't look at me. I'm not religious. But I am PRO-choice on everything. And I believe that MY RIGHTS are secured by a higher power than man's law..

Sorry you can't or won't acknowledge that this makes sense to a LOT of people..

Yes, religion did play a big part in getting people to stand up for themselves and getting others to support their cause. I think we all know that. It's interesting to note that it HAD to be employed. I would think that people would see a terrible wrong and simply want it to be righted. But, alas, there often has to be some external motivation.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go trim the Jasmine before God damns my soul to hell for committing "sloth". Or, maybe I just want to do it, because it's the right thing to do.:rolleyes:

Dave

JonL
05-07-2011, 04:59 PM
JonL:

You should ask yourself why Atheists dont' have much of an infrastructure.. They have several magazines, websites and orgs.. Including some that exist solely to poke fun at people of faith. I have no problem with protecting their rights. They should not be forceably coerced by religion doctrine. But I think the poking fun part is obnoxious.


First I'll say that I don't agree with anybody or organization that relentlessly ridicules others. A little satire or hyperbole is understandable on any subject, but offensive ridicule should be avoided IMO.

I think atheists don't have much of an infrastructure because most atheists don't view atheism as a defining characteristic. I don't believe in god or religion but I don't need to join a group to maintain or express my lack of belief. I'm an audio enthusiast, so I joined Audiokarma. If I was disinterested in audio I don't think I'd join a forum where everyone made all sorts of posts expressing their disinterest in audio. I imagine that would be a pretty quiet group.

finnbow
05-07-2011, 06:00 PM
FinBow:

My sincere sympathies on your dilemma. It's really hard to find a political home nowadays.. However, I've done the math and I feel FAR less threatened personally by the "religious right" than I do by the "pestering left". The leftists are not in my bedroom, but they are in everyother room of my house and my wallet. What I eat, what I drive, what I earn, what I buy, what I say, how I raise my kids, how green i am, ect.. Much more intrusive into my life than an occasional well-dressed Mormon boy showing up at my door. Or folks who don't want their tax money going to a medical procedure where a life could be (arguably) terminated. I can deal with that. So from a THREAT standpoint --- I give a slight edge to the GOP. HOWEVER, I will never fund or support EITHER party.

As you, I'm not a believer in either party's agenda. That said, I don't accept any of the political conventional wisdoms (spewed by the parties) either. I don't think the GOP is the party of national security, family values or fiscal discipline (neither are). Same goes for the conventional wisdoms that the Dems claim. They're all full of shit IMHO.

I just have extreme difficulty supporting a party (the GOP) who moves in lockstep with the crazy, xenophobic lying assholes who populate talk radio and Fox. It's kinda a matter of principle. I just can't be in a party that welcomes such people. Simple as that.

Democrats tend to be overly idealistic and prone to overregulation. OTOH, a balance is needed to ensure that we don't become a full-fledged corporatocracy/oligarchy, even though the Dems are also in the bag for industry (though less so IMHO).

You may find this interesting; I serve on three different national consensus standards committees/commissions and almost invariably side with the industry view of things (on the issues we address). The Labor view of these issues (generally of a technical/managerial nature) is generally that any regulation (standard) is a good regulation.

Similarly, industry believes that no regulation is a good regulation. I believe that a good regulation is a good regulation. The trouble is that any regulation (or standard) written by a large group or committee ends up being a friggin' mess. I think we're better off with no standard than a friggin' mess. BTW, the politics of such committees makes national politics seem pretty tame and civilized.

d-ray657
05-07-2011, 07:26 PM
A lot of this discussion reminds me of my favorite TV character ever - Dietrich on Barney Miller. He and WoJo and Barney are discussing the afterlife. Dietrich says he believes that life just ends, and there is no reward or punishment. Barney asks him that if his time came, it turned out that there was an afterlife, and he had to answer to God, what would he say. Diertich: "Whoops."

Regards,

D-Ray

JJIII
05-07-2011, 07:54 PM
A lot of this discussion reminds me of my favorite TV character ever - Dietrich on Barney Miller. He and WoJo and Barney are discussing the afterlife. Dietrich says he believes that life just ends, and there is no reward or punishment. Barney asks him that if his time came, it turned out that there was an afterlife, and he had to answer to God, what would he say. Diertich: "Whoops."

Regards,

D-Ray

There it is!

finnbow
05-07-2011, 08:38 PM
A lot of this discussion reminds me of my favorite TV character ever - Dietrich on Barney Miller. He and WoJo and Barney are discussing the afterlife. Dietrich says he believes that life just ends, and there is no reward or punishment. Barney asks him that if his time came, it turned out that there was an afterlife, and he had to answer to God, what would he say. Diertich: "Whoops."

Regards,

D-Ray

I've been practicing that. "Whoops, whoops, whoops." There, I think I've got it.;)

flacaltenn
05-08-2011, 07:00 PM
FinBow:

This is fascinating, kinda off this topic (which probably killed my chances of EVER being invited to a AudioKarma beer blast).

I believe that a good regulation is a good regulation. The trouble is that any regulation (or standard) written by a large group or committee ends up being a friggin' mess. I think we're better off with no standard than a friggin' mess. BTW, the politics of such committees makes national politics seem pretty tame and civilized.


I've done the same thing from the electronics side. IEEE and others.. The participants are all supposed to be professionals in the field, but they act like petty UN delegates looking for crumbs to bring home to their companies. Standing on their heads looking dumb to justify some tech advantage for the home team.

I'd rather end up with an "industry standard" media player that "screws" the consumer because they can't make unlimited copies of copyrighted material -- than a "federally designed" communication link that HAS TO incorporate a child-safe V-Chip, use a previously hacked NSA approved encryption code so that the govt can always tap your packets, and must include something licensed from GE because "they are our favorite corporation of the month" and their lobbyists are the funnest people in town..

flacaltenn
05-08-2011, 07:33 PM
BlueStreak:

Yes, religion did play a big part in getting people to stand up for themselves and getting others to support their cause. I think we all know that. It's interesting to note that it HAD to be employed. I would think that people would see a terrible wrong and simply want it to be righted. But, alas, there often has to be some external motivation.



To me, the belief that your dignity and liberties are secured by a higher power, is much more than a P.R. gimmick or a crutch, or an excuse to weave some gospel music into your movement.

I think the reason the left freaks out about "people of faith" is that they invoke a "higher power" than the state to justify their liberty and freedom. It's the same kind of disgust that must have been on King George's face when he first read that punky Declaration of Independence (with the GOD stuff in it).. "Those people are not LOYAL after all I (we)'ve done for them????" Or the reaction that Stokely Carmichael was looking for from the (presumably religious) Sheriff when he told him -- "I'm gonna tell GOD how you're treating me".

The people in a civil rights movement or a concentration camp NEVER have adequate public opinion on their side because of "man-made" legal conditions backed by the power of the state. So when you hope that "terrible wrongs" are just OBVIOUS -- that rarely happens..

Now all we have to do is to convince the "religious right" that dignity and liberty are indeed due to gay folk (in terms of basic legal equality, not neccessarily word play about marraige). Every other political/religious diff with the "religious right" is just a valid debate about the proper role of state power. (ie, abortion, Muslim intolerance, ect)

BTW, IMHO, Much of the Muslim intolerance in this country is due to state restrictions of freedom that APPEAR to be neccessary, but are totally mockable. I'm talking about Patriot Act provisions and the TSA. The fact that my 10 yr daughter gets a pat-down while Yasir just walks on thru with his prayer rug. I don't think SAMPLING of this type has any purpose whatsoever other than inflaming backlash.. Or that my company deposits MIGHT be held for a Fed Check to see if I'm a terrorist. People are antsy about that crap and it FUELS the resentment. I hoped FOR SURE, the Progressive revolution would fix some of that -- but it wasn't on the change list.

finnbow
05-08-2011, 08:30 PM
BTW, IMHO, Much of the Muslim intolerance in this country is due to state restrictions of freedom that APPEAR to be neccessary, but are totally mockable. I'm talking about Patriot Act provisions and the TSA. The fact that my 10 yr daughter gets a pat-down while Yasir just walks on thru with his prayer rug. I don't think SAMPLING of this type has any purpose whatsoever other than inflaming backlash.. Or that my company deposits MIGHT be held for a Fed Check to see if I'm a terrorist. People are antsy about that crap and it FUELS the resentment. I hoped FOR SURE, the Progressive revolution would fix some of that -- but it wasn't on the change list.

I think TSA's silly practices have more to do with putting on a nice security show for the gullible public that doing anything meaningful about airline security. It's all about making people think it's safe to fly. Consider that all Al Qaeda needed to do WRT to changing tactics from the shoe bomber (after TSA made you remove your shoes) was to move the bomb to their crotch. Luckily, neither exploded.

BlueStreak
05-08-2011, 08:34 PM
Yeah, that's what it is.:confused:

You speak of concentration camps. Tell me; How many Jewish folk went in thinking they would survive because of their faith....and how did that work out for them?

Look. I don't care what you believe. Your spiritual choices are yours to have, the first amendment guarantees each and every one of us that right. And I support that right. The constitution also bars us from requiring public servants to pass a "religious test".

Why do you suppose that is?

Maybe the founders were pragmatic men who knew religion could be used as a tool to control minds? Maybe they understood the evil that could sprout from an unholy alliance of church and state? Maybe they had witnessed, with their own eyes what happens when a powerful government demands you join their church?

The governments link to religion should begin and end with the enforcement of the First Amendment. When serving in government, one should check his/her religious beliefs at the door.

BTW, good luck with getting religious folk to accept gays. Their Bible has demonized homosexuality as "........an abomination in the eyes of the Lord." And you will burn in hell for non-compliance.:p

Dave

BlueStreak
05-08-2011, 08:44 PM
Here's an interesting read for your perusal;

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1650.htm

In my opinion when people attempt to declare a nation as being a "(Insert name of religion here.) Nation" it implies an exclusivity that flies directly in the face of the 1st Amendment and the spirit of religious freedom. It only makes sense that being free to pursue ones religious beliefs and desires would also include being free of the undue influence of the religious beliefs of others. Anything less is not freedom, but rather the very essence of tyranny.

So, believe whatever you like. Just keep it out of my face, please.

Dave

flacaltenn
05-08-2011, 09:49 PM
You speak of concentration camps. Tell me; How many Jewish folk went in thinking they would survive because of their faith....and how did that work out for them?


Well BlueStreak -- it may have kept many alive according to anecdotal evidence. But not because their God weakened the power of the German state or that they expected "angels of God to smite" dem Nazis - Indiana Jones style. What it definately DID DO, is inspire them to NOT be afraid of guns and self-defense and give them the courage to form a nation based on the motto "Never Again". Didn't alter their faith because God didn't rescue them, but it sure changed their view of relying SOLELY on the state they lived in. Moreover, tolerating the inconceivable is a lot easier if your faith tells you that your captors are wrong... Otherwise it's just a legal dust-up.

Maybe the founders were pragmatic men who knew religion could be used as a tool to control minds? Maybe they understood the evil that could sprout from an unholy alliance of church and state? Maybe they had witnessed, with their own eyes what happens when a powerful government demands you join their church?

The governments link to religion should begin and end with the enforcement of the First Amendment. When serving in government, one should check his/her religious beliefs at the door.


Don't know WHY you seem to be so threatened by this bogey-man of the "religious right". Can't fathom what that threat really is outside of this phoney pony about this being formed as a "Christian Nation". Nowhere in the advanced WORLD of the late 1700s, was there a nation based on such a secular view of govt. Did Santa Claus sit somewhere on your public property? Does having a statue of Moses and Ten Commandments on your public building put your panties in a wad? Being raised as Jewish kid, I loved all that Christmas hoopla. They didn't suck my Jewish soul out of me when I sang Christmas carols at the PUBLIC school. In fact, getting irate about stuff like kind makes hypocrites of the 1st degree out of the MultiCultural left.

What exactly IS this humungeous threat from the "religious right" that impacts your life?

And how does that compare to the threat of a political opposition to the "godly" party that wants to change your diet, your light bulbs, and control your body and mind in every OTHER way than a belief in God?

Can't completely check religious beliefs at the door. Because then you'd be called a liar when the debate anchor asks you about Biblical beliefs. Just look at the number of questions asked last week!!! For crying out loud, the PRESS wants to make it a test for office.

How would you handle that BlueStreak????? "situational ethics time"

flacaltenn
05-08-2011, 09:56 PM
P.S.

I'm not asking the right to "accept" gays. This is diplomacy here. Remember you don't have to be non-judgemental to be tolerant. And you don't have to condone the behaviour that you're acknowledging is a free choice.. What I am doing is asking them to grant human rights and dignity to the person by equalizing the laws. At the same time, I'm asking the GLBT community to honor the traditional meaning of "word" marraige and choose some UNIQUELY GLBT phrase. Be creative.. like gays usually are.. OMG that was satire..

Doesn't have to be 2 trains coming at each other like the abortion issue. That's the media's fault.

BlueStreak
05-08-2011, 10:40 PM
Well BlueStreak -- it may have kept many alive according to anecdotal evidence. But not because their God weakened the power of the German state or that they expected "angels of God to smite" dem Nazis - Indiana Jones style. What it definately DID DO, is inspire them to NOT be afraid of guns and self-defense and give them the courage to form a nation based on the motto "Never Again". Didn't alter their faith because God didn't rescue them, but it sure changed their view of relying SOLELY on the state they lived in. Moreover, tolerating the inconceivable is a lot easier if your faith tells you that your captors are wrong... Otherwise it's just a legal dust-up.



Don't know WHY you seem to be so threatened by this bogey-man of the "religious right". I fear Theocracy, the unquestioning followership it entails and the absolute power it demands. Can't fathom what that threat really is outside of this phoney pony about this being formed as a "Christian Nation". Phoney pony, is right. Why do you think the GOP feels the need to make this assertion, if not to make false assertions in the name of gaining power, and the control that comes with it? Nowhere in the advanced WORLD of the late 1700s, was there a nation based on such a secular view of govt. Precisely, and that's why the creation of a secular state was essential to the establishment of individual freedom. Most other nations were Monarchies, based on the belief that leaders are chosen by God, through bloodline. It was a nightmare.Did Santa Claus sit somewhere on your public property? Does having a statue of Moses and Ten Commandments on your public building put your panties in a wad? Yes. Because it doesn't belong there. I firmly believe in the "wall of separation". You?Being raised as Jewish kid, I loved all that Christmas hoopla. So did I, Still do. So decorate your house, put a wreath on your head and wrap youself with lights and go swimming for all I care.They didn't suck my Jewish soul out of me when I sang Christmas carols at the PUBLIC school. Glad to hear it didn;t destroy your faith, but it didn't belong in the public school. That was wrong.In fact, getting irate about stuff like kind makes hypocrites of the 1st degree out of the MultiCultural left. How so? The extremists who go after churches and private residences, yes, I would have to agree. But those who protest the presence of religious icons in government owned building are exactly correct.

What exactly IS this humungeous threat from the "religious right" that impacts your life? See my above statement.

And how does that compare to the threat of a political opposition to the "godly" party that wants to change your diet, your light bulbs, and control your body and mind in every OTHER way than a belief in God? Really? Light bulbs? I don't give a shit about light bulbs. If it saves some energy, I'm all for it. As a matter of fact my house is full of them already. Light bulbs are far less a threat to my liberty than theocratic dogma. My diet needs changed, I'm fat. Most Americans need to change their diets, We're a nation of unhealthy fat fucks in case you hadn't noticed.
We've tried "education", we've tried leaving it up to "personal responsibility"----None of that is working. The costs are killing us. Something will eventually have to be done whether a bunch of fat ass cry baby teabaggers want to hear it, or not. Me included.

Can't completely check religious beliefs at the door. Because then you'd be called a liar when the debate anchor asks you about Biblical beliefs. Just look at the number of questions asked last week!!! For crying out loud, the PRESS wants to make it a test for office.

How would you handle that BlueStreak????? "situational ethics time"

You avail them of what your personal spiritual beliefs are, but that you understand they have no place when you're at work.

I'm not stupid, I understand that many people do look at a candidates religious background when deciding who to vote for, and that there is nothing I can do about that. And frankly, wouldn't want to change it if I could. They can use whatever basis they want upon which to make their decisions. However, to me religion is irrelevant within that process. I would have no problem voting for an Atheist, a Jew, or whatever, so long as his ideas for a better society connect with mine. It just doesn't mean anything to me..................Until I see some freak screaming "Christian Nation"! To me this is a turn off, something to stand against every bit as I would stand against the creation of an American Islamic Caliphate. To my mind a Christian Theocracy is every bit as threatening as a Muslim Theocracy, or any other Theocracy for that matter.

Tell me; As a "Jewish kid", do you only vote for Jewish candidates? Would you vote for a Jewish candidate simply because he/she is Jewish and no other reason? I suspect your answer is no on both counts. You're more thoughtful than that. Am I right?

I have met too many of my fellow Christians who do this, (Ummmm, pardon the pun.).......religiously. They feel they have to.:rolleyes:

Dave

d-ray657
05-08-2011, 11:56 PM
Well BlueStreak -- it may have kept many alive according to anecdotal evidence. But not because their God weakened the power of the German state or that they expected "angels of God to smite" dem Nazis - Indiana Jones style. What it definately DID DO, is inspire them to NOT be afraid of guns and self-defense and give them the courage to form a nation based on the motto "Never Again". Didn't alter their faith because God didn't rescue them, but it sure changed their view of relying SOLELY on the state they lived in. Moreover, tolerating the inconceivable is a lot easier if your faith tells you that your captors are wrong... Otherwise it's just a legal dust-up.



Don't know WHY you seem to be so threatened by this bogey-man of the "religious right". Can't fathom what that threat really is outside of this phoney pony about this being formed as a "Christian Nation". Nowhere in the advanced WORLD of the late 1700s, was there a nation based on such a secular view of govt. Did Santa Claus sit somewhere on your public property? Does having a statue of Moses and Ten Commandments on your public building put your panties in a wad? Being raised as Jewish kid, I loved all that Christmas hoopla. They didn't suck my Jewish soul out of me when I sang Christmas carols at the PUBLIC school. In fact, getting irate about stuff like kind makes hypocrites of the 1st degree out of the MultiCultural left.

What exactly IS this humungeous threat from the "religious right" that impacts your life?

And how does that compare to the threat of a political opposition to the "godly" party that wants to change your diet, your light bulbs, and control your body and mind in every OTHER way than a belief in God?

Can't completely check religious beliefs at the door. Because then you'd be called a liar when the debate anchor asks you about Biblical beliefs. Just look at the number of questions asked last week!!! For crying out loud, the PRESS wants to make it a test for office.

How would you handle that BlueStreak????? "situational ethics time"

I can't tell whether this is a post about religious beliefs or about the size of the civil government. What ever religious points are made are so intertwined with libertarian talking points that I can't follow them. Perhaps I am just dim-witted.

Regards,

D-Ray

JonL
05-09-2011, 01:37 AM
BlueStreak:



To me, the belief that your dignity and liberties are secured by a higher power, is much more than a P.R. gimmick or a crutch, or an excuse to weave some gospel music into your movement.

I think the reason the left freaks out about "people of faith" is that they invoke a "higher power" than the state to justify their liberty and freedom. It's the same kind of disgust that must have been on King George's face when he first read that punky Declaration of Independence (with the GOD stuff in it).. "Those people are not LOYAL after all I (we)'ve done for them????" Or the reaction that Stokely Carmichael was looking for from the (presumably religious) Sheriff when he told him -- "I'm gonna tell GOD how you're treating me".

The people in a civil rights movement or a concentration camp NEVER have adequate public opinion on their side because of "man-made" legal conditions backed by the power of the state. So when you hope that "terrible wrongs" are just OBVIOUS -- that rarely happens..

Now all we have to do is to convince the "religious right" that dignity and liberty are indeed due to gay folk (in terms of basic legal equality, not neccessarily word play about marraige). Every other political/religious diff with the "religious right" is just a valid debate about the proper role of state power. (ie, abortion, Muslim intolerance, ect)

BTW, IMHO, Much of the Muslim intolerance in this country is due to state restrictions of freedom that APPEAR to be neccessary, but are totally mockable. I'm talking about Patriot Act provisions and the TSA. The fact that my 10 yr daughter gets a pat-down while Yasir just walks on thru with his prayer rug. I don't think SAMPLING of this type has any purpose whatsoever other than inflaming backlash.. Or that my company deposits MIGHT be held for a Fed Check to see if I'm a terrorist. People are antsy about that crap and it FUELS the resentment. I hoped FOR SURE, the Progressive revolution would fix some of that -- but it wasn't on the change list.

It's late, I've had a lot to drink, had an interesting date. So I'll keep it short. This post that I've quoted is simply a bunch of BS. "The left" "freaks out" only when so-called people of faith seek to impose their belief systems upon the entire country, in violation of the constitution. It has nothing to do with "higher powers," or anyone's beliefs in a supreme being as more powerful than the state. Get over it. Keep your god and religion out of everyone else's life, just like the constitution demands, and we'll all be happy. Believe whatever you want, but keep it between you, your god, and your house of worship. Please, just leave me out of it.

The left may "freak out" when the religious right seeks to impose their Christian fundamentalist values on our laws and our nation. How would the right feel if Muslims tried to impose their values through the enactments of laws? Oh, wait. They right is already constructing all kinds of strawmen about that with these ridiculous rants about how Sharia law is going to overtake the country.

finnbow
05-09-2011, 09:34 AM
I can't tell whether this is a post about religious beliefs or about the size of the civil government. What ever religious points are made are so intertwined with libertarian talking points that I can't follow them. Perhaps I am just dim-witted.
Regards,

D-Ray

Ditto, counselor. :confused: I'm hoping it made sense to flacaltenn (Actually, I'm not. A mind is a terrible thing to lose.);)

BlueStreak
05-09-2011, 09:46 AM
It's late, I've had a lot to drink, had an interesting date. So I'll keep it short. This post that I've quoted is simply a bunch of BS. "The left" "freaks out" only when so-called people of faith seek to impose their belief systems upon the entire country, in violation of the constitution. It has nothing to do with "higher powers," or anyone's beliefs in a supreme being as more powerful than the state. Get over it. Keep your god and religion out of everyone else's life, just like the constitution demands, and we'll all be happy. Believe whatever you want, but keep it between you, your god, and your house of worship. Please, just leave me out of it.

The left may "freak out" when the religious right seeks to impose their Christian fundamentalist values on our laws and our nation. How would the right feel if Muslims tried to impose their values through the enactments of laws? Oh, wait. They right is already constructing all kinds of strawmen about that with these ridiculous rants about how Sharia law is going to overtake the country.

+1.

Dave

finnbow
05-09-2011, 10:01 AM
+1.

Dave

+2. Very lucid, even with a buzz. Maybe flacaltenn should partake of a little Tennessee sipping whiskey and then post a retort. It might make sense then.;)

whell
05-09-2011, 10:30 AM
What exactly IS this humungeous threat from the "religious right" that impacts your life?


From a lengthy post, I teased out this question, which I think is worthy of discussion. Does the left sincerely believe that there is anyone who wants to see (in First Amendment terms) a government mandated, "established" religion in this country?

noonereal
05-09-2011, 10:44 AM
From a lengthy post, I teased out this question, which I think is worthy of discussion. Does the left sincerely believe that there is anyone who wants to see (in First Amendment terms) a government mandated, "established" religion in this country?

you mean to tell me that you don't?

i doubt this very much

piece-itpete
05-09-2011, 10:45 AM
I still vote my conscience ;)

Flac, I do indeed drink Margaritas on drunken Mexican day.

I'd say that an analogous figure would be Socrates or Plato, or Stephen Hawking. .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPKEk2aHjow


How could they not be?

:confused:

Christ was a classic liberal and that is whose teachings they follow.

Matt 20:1-16 "For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who was the master of a household, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.

When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. He went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace.

To them he said, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. About the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle. He said to them, ‘Why do you stand here all day idle?’ "They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ "He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and you will receive whatever is right.’

When evening had come, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last to the first.’ "When those who were hired at about the eleventh hour came, they each received a denarius.

When the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise each received a denarius. When they received it, they murmured against the master of the household, saying, ‘These last have spent one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat!’ "

But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Didn’t you agree with me for a denarius? Take that which is yours, and go your way. It is my desire to give to this last just as much as to you. Isn’t it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own? Or is your eye evil, because I am good?’ So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen."

I'm trying to fit that into a liberal worldview :confused:

Pete

finnbow
05-09-2011, 10:50 AM
Does the left sincerely believe that there is anyone who wants to see (in First Amendment terms) a government mandated, "established" religion in this country?

Not directly, of course. That would go down in a heap of ashes, constitutionally speaking. What the religious seems to prefer is a piecemeal approach (abortion, gay marriage, railing against (never gonna happen) Sharia, imposing their view of "family values," supporting intelligent design in the classroom, perpetuating the myth that Christians have a monopoly on virtue, perpetuating the myth that Christians are being persecuted in the US, ....)

I guess some of this stuff may find some traction were its vocal proponents not such friggin' hypocrites.

BlueStreak
05-09-2011, 11:24 AM
From a lengthy post, I teased out this question, which I think is worthy of discussion. Does the left sincerely believe that there is anyone who wants to see (in First Amendment terms) a government mandated, "established" religion in this country?

No. And that is my entire point. Keep religion OUT of government and vice versa. That's what YOU don't get.:rolleyes:

Dave

BlueStreak
05-09-2011, 11:25 AM
Not directly, of course. That would go down in a heap of ashes, constitutionally speaking. What the religious seems to prefer is a piecemeal approach (abortion, gay marriage, railing against (never gonna happen) Sharia, imposing their view of "family values," supporting intelligent design in the classroom, perpetuating the myth that Christians have a monopoly on virtue, perpetuating the myth that Christians are being persecuted in the US, ....)

I guess some of this stuff may find some traction were its vocal proponents not such friggin' hypocrites.

+1. This is what I'm talking about. Do you EVER hear anyone saying, "I vote Democratic because they reflect my religious values."? I don't. But I hear it coming from the right, regarding the GOP, ALL of the time. Despite the fact that, realistically, there is almost nothing Christ-like about the Republican platform either.

Dave

piece-itpete
05-09-2011, 11:31 AM
So, how do you keep folks religious beliefs from influencing their vote?

Pete

finnbow
05-09-2011, 12:08 PM
So, how do you keep folks religious beliefs from influencing their vote?

Pete

By showing them that the politicians pandering to their religious values are nothing but cynical hypocrites?

piece-itpete
05-09-2011, 12:20 PM
I'd say that's a two edged sword.

Pete

BlueStreak
05-09-2011, 12:47 PM
By showing them that the politicians pandering to their religious values are nothing but cynical hypocrites?

Bingo! Maybe once they realize they are being had, they will learn to look beyond the pseudo-religious hullaballoo of ambitious politicians and keep their spiritual beliefs in the church and in their hearts where it belongs?

One can only hope.

Dave

BlueStreak
05-09-2011, 01:09 PM
I still vote my conscience ;)

Flac, I do indeed drink Margaritas on drunken Mexican day.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPKEk2aHjow




Matt 20:1-16 "For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who was the master of a household, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.

When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. He went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace.

To them he said, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. About the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle. He said to them, ‘Why do you stand here all day idle?’ "They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ "He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and you will receive whatever is right.’

When evening had come, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning from the last to the first.’ "When those who were hired at about the eleventh hour came, they each received a denarius.

When the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise each received a denarius. When they received it, they murmured against the master of the household, saying, ‘These last have spent one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat!’ "

But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Didn’t you agree with me for a denarius? Take that which is yours, and go your way. It is my desire to give to this last just as much as to you. Isn’t it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own? Or is your eye evil, because I am good?’ So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few are chosen."

I'm trying to fit that into a liberal worldview :confused:

Pete

Nice little story. Except in the real world it goes like this;

Pete and Dave are out looking for work. They meet two dudes who say, "The vineyard is hiring. It a great job, the guy paid us a full denarius. The work is hard, but the pay is worth it. Go check it out. Here's the address." So, Dave and Pete go down to the vineyard and talk to the guy. He says, "Okay, you're hired. You also go into the vineyard, and you will receive whatever is right.".

While Dave and Pete are out toiling in the vineyard, the master of the household goes out and makes a bunch of stupid investments that deplete a big chunk of his funds. Because he is now depressed and blaming everyone but himself for his troubles, he goes on a drinking binge, running up a tab that he cannot pay. So, he stops by the bank to borrow money, but, alas the bank will only loan the master of the house enough to pay half of his payroll. (Because they know he is an idiot.)

At the end of the day, he returns to the vineyard. Dave and Pete approach the guy to collect their well deserved pay. He hands them half a denaruis. Dave and Pete ask; "Half?, I thought the job paid a whole denarius?" The master of the household yells, "Yeah? Well that was a deal I worked out with someone else! I told YOU, 'Whatever (I feel.) is right!' And I happen to think you're a couple of lazy ass whiners who don't deserve a full denarius! So, take your half a denarius and scram!" Then mumbles to himself, "Damn vineyard workers are going to be the end of me..............".:p

Dave

piece-itpete
05-09-2011, 02:21 PM
I know of no legit businesses that short their workers. I suppose there must be some, in criminal court somewhere, or out of business the next week.

And when are the Great and Godly Democrats going to do what they say? I get the distinct impression that they are cynical hypocrites.

I saw a show on atheists a few years ago. Two things I remember - the lady who got very mad if someone said 'Bless You' after she sneezed, and another guy who spent his free time marking out 'in God we trust' on paper money :)

Better revisit the monuments in DC, we'll have to chisel words off them. After we fire the Congressional Chap.

Pete

d-ray657
05-09-2011, 02:42 PM
I know of no legit businesses that short their workers. I suppose there must be some, in criminal court somewhere, or out of business the next week.

And when are the Great and Godly Democrats going to do what they say? I get the distinct impression that they are cynical hypocrites.

I saw a show on atheists a few years ago. Two things I remember - the lady who got very mad if someone said 'Bless You' after she sneezed, and another guy who spent his free time marking out 'in God we trust' on paper money :)

Better revisit the monuments in DC, we'll have to chisel words off them. After we fire the Congressional Chap.

Pete

I'd be interested in knowing what show it was. It seems like they have identified a couple of people with O/C disorder who happen to be atheist. It would be like saying that the Koran burning preacher and Sarah Palin are representative of Christians.

BTW, there are a lot of chaps in Congress who deserve to be fired.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
05-09-2011, 02:47 PM
Agreed D, but it didn't make it any less funny :)

Pete

flacaltenn
05-09-2011, 02:56 PM
Disclaimer.. I have NEVER spent so much time on a "religious" thread in my life.. And in total board time -- I'm probably in the 20,000 post region or so.. So all of my bullshit as it's been called, is just natural curiousity from a person who is certifiably clear of all loyalty to either sanctioned American party.

I don't need to argue about the facts that Natural Law and the belief in a higher sanctioning power of freedom and dignity is a MAJOR element in the founding of America and the Civil Rights Movement. It's historical record and fact. That you don't appreciate WHY it was neccessary to invoke GOD in those instances --- is your loss. Perhaps we'll just wait until YOU find yourself a victim of man-made state power..

In fact, D-Ray is telling me that my last post was so peppered with libertarian spew, that he was dumbfounded about what that had to do with a belief in God. The question WAS "which political faction is a bigger threat to freedom and liberty? So of course, we need to look at whether the "threat" of the religious right or the nannifying left is more apparent in terms of personal choice and liberty.

So -- Seems like we're left with my curious question about that threat. And it's no wonder that my observations about Natural Law superceding man-made law when those laws conflict didn't register with most of you.

Because (for example), BlueStreak comes back and tells me that he EXPECTS the govt to dictate his dietary restrainsts in order to solve his extra poundage. That's whatever policy they decide to mandate is just good for me as well. And he tells me that Santa Claus in a city parade and Christmas carols in public schools is COMPLETELY verboten -- but my daughter spent a day in a public school dressed as an Arab girl reciting Koranic verses.. And SOMEHOW -- that's NOT a total Multicultural hypocrisy!! .. Now realize, I didn't mind the excersize, any more than I resented the Christmas assemblies as a kid. BUt the political left SOMEHOW views cultural ethnic celebrations MUCH differently when it comes to Christian practice. That's absurd. I'm PRO-Multicultural celebration. No ifs, ands, buts... And I don't see a threat in that free expression EVEN WHEN it occurs it occurs in Public context. That's NOT theocracy..

More absurd is the fact that BlueStreak sees NO threat in having the govt mandate toilets that don't flush, washing machines that don't clean, a TV system that pretty REQUIRES a cable or satellite hook-up, or light bulb technology that is going to be market obsolete before the incandescent ban takes effect. Since those things don't bother you and you don't equate THEM to threats to your freedom and choice, -- How about a govt that decides it can seize your property and give it to someone else simply because the NEW owner will pay the state more in income?

And then when I ask BlueStreak exactly what the political threat from the religious right is that is huger and uglier than anything I see coming from an over-reaching left-leaning govt, Dave (can I call you Dave?) tells me to "see the comments above".. I was HOPING
to learn of more imminent obvious threat so that I can raise my alert status to at least Orange or Red and join the left in defeating it. But I can't get an answer to that question.

Which leaves me with the only rational conclusion. That this pummeling of the "religious right" is just dam convienient because of the way demographics align within the Left-Right political divide. That Christians ARE subjected to a different standard when it comes to the exercise of multicultural or ethic celebration and ritual. And that the left has no sense of self-preservation when it comes to preserving their personal social and economic choice and sees increased state power as a pure blessing.

Someday -- I'm gonna go reclaim the mantle of LIBERAL politics. In fact, a good third party choice would be the "New Liberal" party of America. Where once liberal meant tolerance, personal (not group) rights, and a native DISTRUST of unchecked govt power.

But in the meantime folks -- I'll take a break from this board so that y'all can get back to bashing each other over stupid comments made by stupid politicians who are only famous because the media is too lazy and ratings conscious to raise the debate to issues and solid philosophical differences that are likely to rock your world..

d-ray657
05-09-2011, 03:43 PM
I think the problem is that historically, Christianity has not been presented in schools as "part" of a multicultural learning experience, but as state sanctioned religion. There is no problem with Christianity being described as a big part of the cultural diversity that exists in America. Moreover, it is perfectly acceptable to teach the Bible as literature. I would expect the involvement of the African American churches in the Civil Rights movement to be reported as part of that history. And nothing prevents a student from stating his or her faith in the context of a discussion of social issues. I wouldn't expect a student to get a very good grade in a science class by reporting that evolution didn't occur because the Bible says so.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
05-09-2011, 04:18 PM
I take a small issue with state sanctioned, as it was simply the nations religion reflected by the government.

But yeah, I understand ya :)

Flac, hang around. Not many argue against the benevolent and wise all powerful government ;)

Pete

finnbow
05-09-2011, 05:47 PM
Speaking of religion, how's this grab you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/hillary-clinton-der-tzitung-removed-situation-room_n_859254.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk1|61653

d-ray657
05-09-2011, 06:25 PM
I'm sure that there are plenty of Republicans who would like her out of the picture too.

Regards,

D-Ray

whell
05-10-2011, 12:05 AM
No. And that is my entire point. Keep religion OUT of government and vice versa. That's what YOU don't get.:rolleyes:

Dave

Please find a single instance where I have posted support of it. Let me save you the trouble. You won't.

whell
05-10-2011, 12:08 AM
By showing them that the politicians pandering to their religious values are nothing but cynical hypocrites?

So, what do you make of religious leaders making political speeches from the pulpit on Sundays, or passing the collection plate to raise money for a political candidate?

JonL
05-10-2011, 12:36 AM
So, what do you make of religious leaders making political speeches from the pulpit on Sundays, or passing the collection plate to raise money for a political candidate?

No religious institution should have tax exempt status IMO. Let 'em pay taxes, then they can make political contributions same as any other organization... except that's all screwed up now also.

BlueStreak
05-10-2011, 01:01 AM
So, what do you make of religious leaders making political speeches from the pulpit on Sundays, or passing the collection plate to raise money for a political candidate?

I think the day a preacher starts making political speeches from the pulpit should be the day his church starts paying taxes.

Dave

d-ray657
05-10-2011, 01:34 AM
I think the day a preacher starts making political speeches from the pulpit should be the day his church starts paying taxes.

Dave

That's pretty close to the way the IRS sees it too. I think it has to rise to the level of endorsing a candidate before a church loses it's IRS exemption. However, my partner got a letter from the bishop of his diocese advising that a wrong vote could put his immortal soul in danger. He wrote a pretty good letter to the bishop about his abuse of power.

Regards,

D-Ray

finnbow
05-10-2011, 07:49 AM
I remember as a kid in Catholic church in the late '60's that the priest went over the sample ballot from the pulpit telling the congregation how to vote. Nice.:rolleyes:

piece-itpete
05-10-2011, 09:11 AM
Ah yes, use money to enforce speech restrictions.

Churches have played a pivotal role in US politics from before the revolution.

They are also huge in charity.

Pete

JonL
05-10-2011, 10:02 AM
Why should they get preferential tax treatment? Let them pay their share of taxes, let them take the appropriate deduction for their charitable work, and let them say whatever they please. Just like the rest of us.

BlueStreak
05-10-2011, 01:46 PM
Ah yes, use money to enforce speech restrictions.

Churches have played a pivotal role in US politics from before the revolution.

They are also huge in charity.

Pete

If you engage in political debate, you should HAVE to pay taxes. This does NOT force anyone to stop speaking their minds. You and I do it every day, and we pay our taxes, don't we? So the churches can "pony up or shut up" as far as I'm concerned.

But, then, religious institutions aren't a "sacred cow" to me. (Pun intended.)

Dave

piece-itpete
05-10-2011, 01:58 PM
We eat beef. Not only beef, but on Fridays to boot. :eek: :)

Pete

finnbow
05-11-2011, 01:03 PM
What do you guys make of this?

"More than 75 professors at Catholic University and other prominent Catholic colleges have written a pointed letter to Mr. Boehner saying that the Republican-supported budget he shepherded through the House of Representatives will hurt the poor, elderly and vulnerable, and therefore he has failed to uphold basic Catholic moral teaching.

“Mr. Speaker, your voting record is at variance from one of the Church’s most ancient moral teachings,” the letter says. “From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor. Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/12catholic.html

piece-itpete
05-11-2011, 01:24 PM
Perhaps they should look to themselves.

I heard an excellent thing years ago - when Jackson 1st went to Washington, he voted to help something or the other. Later, he actually apologized to his constituents, because he realised it wasn't his place to force them, to decide for them what charity was worthwhile.

Our attitude towards government reminds me of Homer Simpsons' campaign slogan - 'Can't Somebody Else Do It?'

Pete