Here’s some compelling viewing, compliments of Pharyngula.
It’s John Kasich of FOX interviewing Brian Flemming, producer of the video “The God Who Wasn’t There“). Kasich is so upset, you’d think he really believes in hell. Flemming has heard it all before, obviously. Loved his line: “I think that Atheists can play basketball too.”).
To sum up Kasich: Atheists are bad bad bad bad bad bad bad people. No matter how they live their lives.
Makes you wonder why they don’t light candles and burn incense on the TV set at FOX.
If Kasich is a Christian of any denomination more right-wing than Unitarian, he proabably sincerely believes in Hell and eternal damnation. My family's pastor is that way. He is a wonderful, intelligent human being with an unfortunate strain of Lutheranism running up and down his body.
Dan: I suspect that Kasich would continue to espouse a belief in hell even when the cameras are turned off. I don't doubt that he would say he believes in hell. My point, rather, was inspired by Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, where Dennett suggests that most believers don't really believe in God. Many of them are actually closet agnostics. They really believe in belief. They believe that they are supposed to believe in the things taught by traditional religions.
If they actually believed in hell and God, their lives would not so closely resemble (or be inferior to regarding many measures of social dysfunction) the lives of the agnostics and atheists they so often curse. I could be wrong in the case of Kasich (or any other ostensible believer), but this is where I put my chips.
Erich:
Definitely with you on this one. The belief system of many religions is so very strong because it was embedded so early in ones youth. Most( I think most is accurate) people who have faith in a religion also foster that same faith in their children as well as people around them.
Although, I think that there is very good reason for this practice, even if a person doesn't truly believe in every aspect of their religion. For example, I'm an agnostic(not simply in the Christian sense… agnostic in the broader sense meaning I have a belief that there is something else out there, but don't particularly think that it is the same as any of the faiths currently in existence), although I was brought up a catholic. I'm sure when I have a child I will start him off as a catholic as well and have him/her baptized. Why do this if I don't actually believe in the faith that I'm baptizing him in? Because, even though I may not agree with many of the spiritual concepts that they hold dear, I do believe that much of the morality taught by Christianity (not all, but most) is very positive and is a good building block to help the proper development of a child… you know, things like "the golden rule" and "respect thy mother and father" etc.
I definitely wouldn't force my child to continue in this faith at the point when he gets old enough to question some beliefs and explore himself more. But, early on, I don't see anything worng with "Thou shalt not kill". I think that it can be a tool just like any other and you can use it as much or as little as you like. Like the spanish "Santeria" of which my grandmother prescribed which was a mingling of Christianity and Voodoo. It has the saints as well as White and Black magic.
Once the kid gets to the point that he questions then he can go on his own journey of discovery. If that journey brings him back to Christianity, then he already has a solid base to work off of. If his journey takes him to Islam, or Hindu or Buddhism… that would be fine too because many faiths have so many similarities starting out that a base in Christianity would still help in understanding other faiths.
If he wishes to be atheistic, at least he will understand the faith and concept of organized religion that he is turning his back on, as opposed to a person that was never exposed to it and just decided it sounds stupid without ever having partaken.
I loved the Kasich question, "Why are you so angry?" He goes on and on, frothing and condemning Flemming (say that a few times, just for fun), clearly angry and agitated. Flemming waits calmly for a chance to answer that never appears.
Who's the angry one?
Of course, this seems to be the Fox interview procedure: Frame an issue just so, present carefully unanswerable questions, then don't allow your
guestvictim to attempt to answer until time is up.Hey! There's a real Massachusetts law that would put all of these blasphemers in prison. Click here for the text.
Why is it that lawmakers won't let judges do their jobs? First they establish mandatory sentencing guidelines, because they believe trial court judges can't do a competent job of sentencing, now they apparently believe GOD can't do a competent job of sentencing, either. Eternal damnation in burning hellfire wasn't enough of a punishment, so they decided to supercede God by adding a year of jail time. How ironic that in seeking to punish blasphemers, those Massachusetts lawmakers committed the very misdeed themselves: trying to put themselves above God.