Here’s a not-so-subtle reference to “Dr. Laura” by West Wing. I’m posting as my personal protest to the passing of Prop 8 in California.
I suspect that all of those California Bible-thumpers who successfully voted in favor of bigotry are resting content tonight. And no, you don’t have to be consciously and intentionally bigoted to be bigoted.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI[/youtube]
Here’s more on Prop 8 from Wikipedia:
Religious organizations that supported Proposition 8 include the Roman Catholic Church, Knights of Columbus, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson, American Family Association, Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, California’s largest, also endorsed the measure. . . . About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.
If only the Roman Catholic Church would have spent 1% as much effort on rooting out their own rapist priests as they did trying to prevent gays from having their long-term committed relationships recognized by the state.
Karl wrote, "Secondly, the public school has morphed over the years and will continue to morph into the place were special interest groups seek protection for their perspectives."
"…special interest groups seek protection for their perspectives." Does that include religious zealots, like Karl, who want public schools to teach so-called "intelligent design"?
Here are all the consequences of gay marriage, all charted out in color. http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/gayma…
Vicki Says
3. I can’t tell if this one reveals a scary, Fred Phelpsian streak in your thinking, or not.
It certainly is a horrible crime. But there’s absolutely no indication in the articles that the victim was ex-gay and the perpetrators gay, which would be the minimum needed to imply that it was in ANY WAY related to your premise. Your reasoning seems to be that they COULD be gay, because of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy. The automatic jump from “military veterans commit horrible crime” to the “gays in the military” theme makes me wonder about the influence of Fred Phelps on your thinking.
My point was that it is nearly impossible to discern the real motivation in crimes of this type, some of which might be very carefully concealed ex-gay or racial hate crimes.
Grumpy says:
“…special interest groups seek protection for their perspectives.” Does that include religious zealots, like Karl, who want public schools to teach so-called “intelligent design”?
I.D. would like to be a special interst group but they manage to get labelled religion in disguise which can't be tolerated when it happens to match with the majority view of America – that's classic dis-establishement of one religion in defferrence to one that claims to not be a religion – the marriage of humanism and naturalism a.k.a. atheism for the real believers beyong the initiate phase.
Mark states:
Sex—fully consensual sex—is the best thing humans can give each other above and beyond material safety and security. To use a rough analogy, why would you limit it to one item on the menu in only one restaurant? I think that entire monogamy thing is fine if it is a free choice, which means it is one among many. If people prefer monagamy, great. Let them be monogamous. If, on the other hand, that is not how they wish to live their lives, who do you think you are to condemn them for it?
This is where I must differ with human animals to the nth degree. I have said it before, I do not condemn anybody for any expression of their sexuality. Having laws and guidleines for behavior does not condemn anyone. Not having laws and guidelines destroys a civilization – because the civil nature of dialog and interaction is removed.
The best thing people (human animals or those honestly espousing religion) can give each other is respect and concern for each other while admitting that perspectives over sexuality and other behaviors can differ in fundamental ways.
Respect and concern from my vantage point means agreeing to disagree over a very personal matter like sexuality. People will always have a right to continue to make choices concerning how they will express their sexuality, because that is a fundamental right – to make choices.
Where I unfortunately disagree with human animals is that I fully believe there are positive and negative consequences of pursuing both short term and long term choices. Short term sexual freedom choices are destroying the blacks of the human race in Africa because long term choices in America are looked upon as the norm for the entire world. I do not believe we can ignore history or how my choices affect other people in the world in which I live.
You may not agree with my values, nor I with you, but that does not make it proper to advocate for my values at the cost of someone else's – that is what war is all about.
When an individual or group of people believe the only way to get their values accepted is to be agressive, confrontational, or hostile towards others they are not giving the best thing they can to another person or a group of people which is respect and concern for them as individuals or a group.
When one group diametrically opposes the definition of a term by the language and culture in which they are present, it may not seem like it to those who wish to change the meaning – but it is also a culture war.
Slavery is still present in the USA. How do I know it? Black voters who both helped elect Obama and also pass the anti-gay marriage propositions are being told they are both the good guys and the bad guys. Gay marriage advocates are trying to use the values of the black community both for and against them to accomplish their purposes. They become the pawns because they are still being villified by the white liberal party extremists in the cultural war of values. They apparently are still in need to re-education so they must still be in slavery to something a.k.a. their own limited choice of "proper values."
Anyone who thinks that what goes on behind the privacy of their own doors doesn't affect the mindset and perspective of the entire nation or the entire world is only fooling themselves. Happiness is not a state of mind and body that can be separated from the approval of society. This is why homosexuals so desperately desire the redefinition of marriage – because they think that will make them happier with themselves by telling others there really aren't any negative consequences with their behavior.
History and the majority of people across the world do not agree that homosexuality is free of negative consequences. In fact, most of History and the majority of people across the world do not recognize that consensual sex is free of consequences. The consequences are mainly positive in marriage between committed heterosexuals and negative or at best neutral anywhere else.
I'm not stuck on plumbing issues, I'm stuck on the need for positive reinfocement that matches the actual human condition, not one that is oblivious to it around the world or in my own family.
I can give mutual respect and concern to all manner of people – that should be a higher goal than sexual pleasure with those consensual in agreement with my personal experience.
You forget there are millions of people in this world that do not pursue sexual relations with anyone. Could it be that they really understand the cause of wars more than the rest of us? Does what they contribute to society mean anything, or do they give only second best?
Vicki says:
You want to take away my friends’ rabbi’s license ’cause she marries same sex couples, but you’re for freedom of religion? WTF?
I'm for the people entrusted with the implementation of the mission of a religion or a religous organization (its leaders) to be able to remove those who try to change the meanings of well established doctrines and teachings that these renegades believe no longer are appropriate. Fewer of our nation's eartly founding univeristies would never have lost their religous heritage if that were the case.
I'm for the people entrusted with the defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights of our Nation (at all levels of governemt) to be able to remove those who try to change the meanings of well established and still majority held understandings of what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights actually meant to those who wrote it. Those who interpret it to favor a spefic religious viewpoint or a secular (lack of religious view point) can very clearly obstruct existing laws of the land, by selective enforcement.
A Rabbi that marries a gay-couple is not following the Jewish religion ask the majority of Jews if that is the case. Rabbis are under very loose clerical guidelines however.
An Imam that marries a gay-couple is not following the Islamic religion ask the majority of Muslims if that is the case. He would be taken outside and be shot.
A Baptist minister who marries a gay-couple is not following the Baptist religion, ask the majority of Baptists if that is the case. The Baptist minister if evicted from the church however will likely go start another one down the road like the original Baptist Roger Williams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theo…
The list goes on and on . . . . . .
However,
A humanist that marries a gay-couple is following the tennants of the faith as spelled out in the humanist manifesto, ask the majority of humanists if that is the case.
Humanist's claim to be doing no harm to other religions by re-defining gay-marriage. How ignorant do you think people really are?
I think I've said about all I have to say on this matter. Karl and I will have to agree to disagree.
BTW, when I say "fully consensual sex" respect and concern are implicit—that's the only way to be fully consensual is to have respect and concern.
Karl, I have no idea what you're trying to say. No is arguing with your premise that humanism is a value system.
Humanism is a value system.
OK?
No, do you, or do you not, feel it is the government's responsibility to keep a religious group from calling a ceremony for same sex couples "marriage", if there is no attempt to defraud or deceive the civil authorities?
Of course there are crimes where motive is hard to discern. But the minimum requirement to classify a crime as a hate crime against a particular group, would be to ascertain that the victim is a member of the group in question. There's no evidence that either of the victims in this case were "ex-gay."
The premise you needed to support was that bigotry and hatred against "ex-gays" was a serious problem we need to be concerned about. "Pick 3 examples to support your premise" is a middle school level expository writing skill. If you can't find 3 examples, don't expect to BS your way through the assignment.
If you look at the FBI stats I linked to, you can see there were 5 murders and 700 assaults with documented evidence of anti-gay bias. That is a serious problem we need to be concerned about. You can provide no evidence that bigotry and hatred against "ex-gays" is a serious problems, but I don't suppose that will stop you from continuing to make the claim.
Vicki Asked:
"Do you, or do you not, feel it is the government's responsibility to keep a religious group from calling a ceremony for same sex couples "marriage"?, if there is no attempt to defraud or deceive the civil authorities?
This is what I believe should be true for a government that calls itself democratic.
I believe it is the responsibility of the people to choose what the definition of terms are and what practices they believe are best for that society. The government is only a vehicle for the people to express their will. It is not a tool of manipulation to intimidate and force changes upon people. When groups need to use the goverment to force cooperation they are not really leading anyone, they are bossing others around in a manner that speaks of manipulation and abuse. (a.k.a. slavery or fascism)
Lincoln didn't cause the civil war by the Declaration of the Emancipation. He enabled the people to decide what they thought was best for the nation, by providing a significant number of people with a vested interest in their own future to actively play a role in the outcome.
Affirmative action has been helpful to a point in helping to bring equality, but it has also resulted in mindsets that are inflammatory whenever the term is used. This is not because people believe that others should be oppressed or remain oppressed, but because people shouldn't have special protections or priviledges in the market place of commerce or ideas.
When the American people are informed about issues which they are concerned about, when given the opportunity they tend to chose conservative values. Telling them they are stupid, ignorant, illogical or irrational does nothing but change the issues in confrontations where neither side will win anything. Nobody wins concerning issues when intimidation and manipulation are the focus of any change that involves strong advocacy.
It is not the role of a democratic government's justices to tell the people what the will of the people ought to be. It is the role of the people (all that care about an issue) to speak up for themselves and not remain silent. It is is not the role of the goverment to try to silence any religion nor to promote any religion that is peaceful, respectful and not prone to the intimidation of others.
The government has the right to adjudicate all manner of legal contracts including civil unions. It does not have the right to redefine a specific religous definition of terms and force that upon religous faiths. It also should not prefer or promote the tennants of humanistic philosophy as if it weren't a religion.
This I believe is true for a society that values all of its multicultural diversity. Notice, it doesn't say anyones values have been wrong in the past and will contuinue to stay wrong in the present or the future, but it does permit the majority of the people to express both their perspective and their will.
Now a socialistic democracy is one that encourages the values and will of any group or subgroup to be thrust upon the rest of the populace, by political activism. The revolutionary war and civil war were both political activism. Leaders of oppositions there decide what is best and make the people that don't agree become pawns in a specific groups' push for idiological power or redefinition of terms. This is never a situation to be desired, but sometimes it is the only way for a minority or a majority to accomplish its goals. When a minority pushes its ideology that is really not democratic nor from a moral perspective which the rest of the population can't approve of, the outcome will be short lived and many will never forgive the conflict in values and beliefs that were brought to the surface.
Vicki wrote: "You can provide no evidence that bigotry and hatred against “ex-gays” is a serious problem, but I don’t suppose that will stop you from continuing to make the claim."
Since when has a lack of evidence stopped religious conservative bigots from making outlandish claims on any and every topic and presenting them as absolute fact?
It's their modus operandi in a freaking nutshell: make unsupported claim A; repeat A as often & as loudly as possible; if any serious challenge arises, cry persecution &/or switch to claim B; repeat process until challenged again.
Karl: yawn, fail.
The problem with bigotry such as yours is that it simply can't be logically justified because it is by nature prejudicial, irrational and baseless. Homophobia is by definition an _irrational_ fear – a fear without reason. The more desperately & loquaciously you attempt to defend and rationalise both, the more exposed you are as an unthinking & unreasonable person. Which is a pity, because you seem educated and intelligent, both attributes which could be put to much better use than at great length justifying discrimination against your neighbours, who have done absolutely nothing to earn whatever combination of hate & fear you hold. I won't hold it against you though, you're not the first person in the world to waste a perfectly good functional brain.
From Andrew Sullivan:
The idea that gay people somehow want to persecute these churches, that we're out to get you, and hurt you and punish you is preposterous. The notion that there are rampaging mobs of gay people beating up on Christians is also unhinged. To take one flash-point between a radical Dominionist group deliberately trying to rub salt in the wounds of Castro Street bar patrons after closing hours – in which no one was hurt – as the harbinger of some kind of mass gay pogrom against Christians is daffy. To equate a few drunk gays with Bull Connor is deranged and offensive. There are elements on both sides who do not represent the core. That core can coexist with mutual respect in the context of legal and civil equality.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_d…
Vicki says:
"Free speech means you’re free to tell me I’m a hardened sinner bound for hell, and I’m free to tell you’re full of shit."
Now there's a real statement of respect and concern!
Neither of us has said either of these things (as far as I've been paying attention even though Hank comes close as times). Most are free to say whatever they care to here on Dangerous Intersection, but not all (ERIK P) comes to mind.
I guess when a person tries to think they can hold a conviction to truth that they themselves can't measure up to the only thing to do is to allow anything but the belief that there really is an absolute truth from an absolute authority that anyone will one day be held accountable to.
The only absolute that I hold my self to without reservation is that there is God, and who God is and what God requires of people can not be fabricated by people themselves.
At some level I believe in the necessity for God to reveal Who God is and where man fits into the equation. From what I understand about humanism, when it leaves out a creator it makes mankind and society's wishes the only substitute for God that they care to discuss.
These leaves humanism short of the mark and therefor capable of grave wrongs and injustices, both to their fellow man and but even more so to their creator.
The strange thing about human animals without respect and concern for one another. They find ways to use power and control of others for their own selfish ends. This however all begins because they choose first to silence their own conscience in regards to their creator.
The slave trade from Africa would have been impossible if other Africans really had shown respect and concern for each other. They didn't listen to their own consciences, probably because they were to upset about their own survival and the injustices they believed others would do to them if they didn't do it first to their enemies.
You can decry all you like that I'm a bigot or a prejudiced blank-ety blank because my values don't match yours, but I will not recourse to insults or ad hominem attacks to try to belittle or intimidate.
I realize I will never be able change the viewpoints of most of the folks here on Dangerous Intersection. I just want you all to know that despite our differences over many issues, they all come down to this one thing.
The only absolute that I hold my self to without reservation is that there is God, and who God is and what God requires of people can not be fabricated by people themselves.
It is my sincere hope that there are still enough people who believe the same thing and that they will not remain silent or intimidated by those who are atheistic but who nonetheless require that societies values and beliefs become more and more meaningless everyday.
Andrew and Erich from earlier:
I do not believe that gay people want to directly physically harm or persecute anyone. They want to however change the doctrines, teachings and beliefs of these institutions. For a church this is as much of an assault as it would be for Alan Keyes to be appointed a Federal Judge over the District that included Los Angeles and San Franciso. There would be an outcry of foul and impeach him. If Congress approved it you would see riots in these cities.
Jefferson believed that it was the right of a people to decide if their laws and values were appropriate, not for a circular reasoning and mutually supportive alliance between church and state to reinforce each other.
The use of religious perspectives to support heinous practices has been documented. There is no shortage of examples.
There are probably just as many heinous practices or more by atheistic or perverted despots or oligarchies that sought to eliminate the pervading religious views of people often in favor of the biases of the new ruling authorities. You can't pin this one just on the failure of religion or its imperfect leaders.
Marxism can be as much of a religion as it is a social ideology. The same can be said for communism. Radical Islam would seek to combine religion and political power that would once again be like the soviet political power that kept the people anywhere but free to think and breathe for themselves.
The fatal flaw in a non-republican form of democracy without a reliance upon the values of its leaders (who can and do make mistakes) is that when the people as a majority make a wrong choice for which it can not blame upon its leaders the only solution that can rectify the matter is the elimination of the entire majority that makes the wrong choice. The wandering in the wilderness or 40 years comes to mind.
This had to happen to end slavery in the United States, this was wilderness experience for the United States.
Slavery in America was not brought to America by people trying to live like Jesus Christ, – it was brought by atheistic inhumane animals who were out for the personal gain at the cost of other human animals. The subjugation of any people to another is never condoned indefinitely which is what slavery became in America. The South had not seen that their servants were just as equal as they were in the eyes of God. Lincoln's religious convictions were central in the choices he made. Should he have kept his faith out of politics?
If I hear Hank that is exactly what he believes is needed in this "culture war." He believes that unless the "humanistic values of compassion and concern," (really anything goes in terms of adult sexuality) are dominant in a political system he believes the majority be damned and lets force the perspective until they are no longer the majority.
History has shown more inhumanity to man from ungodly atheists than from ungodly Christian leaders. That is very well documented – and it continues to this very day. If you seek to silence the Christians you are barking up the wrong tree.
I agree, history has examples of flawed Christians in unholy alliances with corrupt political systems. The USA Is in one right now that it may not see the light of day from if the human animal values become the religion of the future and the inherent values of the creator are torn down.
I am not always right, I am not perfect, but I am not blind to the values that I have chosen to live by. My values are not based upon all human animals having the same equal rights. Human animals in prison do not have the same rights as the judge who put them there. Human animals that are blind to their own nearsightedness sometimes need to have that pointed out. Our Declaration of Independence makes reference to a creator, until such time as that is removed from the document I will assume I have the right to believe in such a being which was and continues to be a major piece of the fabric of our society.
I'm sure many here on dangerous intersection would like to see that removed from public education because it still makes it reasonable to believe in a creator.
My values are based upon an intelligent design and purposeful existence for all people that trys to keep the will of the creator in the minds and in the heart of all people. It's the people who believe that other people have as much right to decide the creator's will that strikes me as unjust behavior.
The Emancipation Proclamation contains statements of religious belief, should it have been kept out of the public arena?
"And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God."
Humanists would love this entire document if only that last little phrase was ditched. The only problem is the document wouldn't have come about without the religious sentiments it contained.
As far as I know all of the Presidents of the United States have had some kind of belief of God, therefore they did not merely consider themselves human animals. If ever one comes to power who really doubts that God intervenes in the affairs of man, our Nation will no longer be a Nation under God. Until such time those who seek to influence churches that do believe in God. are in essence waging a "cultural war," which is a form of persecution by seeking to activelt promote the dis-establishment of the doctrines and teachings of said churches.
Karl: I don't have the energy to try to correct all of the numerous serious ways in which I disagree with the immediately preceding comment. I don't do this out of disrespect–I know that you are sincere in your beliefs. It's just that I'm tired of tracking down what I consider to be numerous factual falsehoods on which you base your opinions.
Coupled with those falsehoods are what I consider to be bizarrely twisted definitions that allow you to announce conclusions that I find startlingly at odds with well established history (e.g., your bizarre assertion that Christians weren't responsible for slavery, only non-believers).
I'm afraid that our conversations, which have sometimes been engaging, are producing severely diminishing returns.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on many things you assert.
Erich – please don't misqoute me.
Erich Stated:
"Coupled with those falsehoods are what I consider to be bizarrely twisted definitions that allow you to announce conclusions that I find startlingly at odds with well established history (e.g., your bizarre assertion that Christians weren’t responsible for slavery, only non-believers)."
I said no such thing! I said those responsible for slavery were not acting like Christ. There is a big difference! People can label themselves anything they choose or would like to be known as, or others can label people anything they would like taht suits their ideas and opinions.
A man in the Army of Alexander the Great who was also named Alexander, was accused of cowardly actions. He was brought before Alexander, who asked what his name was.
He replied softly, “Alexander.”
“I can’t hear you,” the ruler stated.
The man again said, a little louder, “Alexander.”
The process was repeated one more time, after which Alexander the Great commented, “Either change your name or change your conduct.”
Christians can best be identified by their stated beliefs that agree with their long term behavior, not just by their names.
For some strange reason Republicans are held to a higher standard than liberal democrats.
Atheists and many naturalists prefer to be identified by their name and their skeptical outlook which gives them license to say and do nearly anything without moral consequences.
Karl:
The readers will be the judge of whether I misconstrued what you wrote.
I do think most of the above comment is absurd and not based in fact. Rather than repeat myself, see http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/11/08/the-b…
Karl writes:—"your bizarre assertion that Christians weren’t responsible for slavery, only non-believers).”
I said no such thing! I said those responsible for slavery were not acting like Christ. "
Excuse me, but your quote was…
"Slavery in America was not brought to America by people trying to live like Jesus Christ, – it was brought by atheistic inhumane animals who were out for the personal gain at the cost of other human animals."
So who then were the atheistic inhumane animals? I'm willing to consider that you were thinking of two different groups, but…
Karl,
Belief in god is not the issue (regarding your contention that most presidents have believed in god). The issue is the tendency of certain people to turn religion into a political position and then act like little Napoleons in shoving it down everyone's throat. You have alluded to having a problem with this yourself. And most humanists, you may find, are also, many of them, believers. The difference between humanism and what you seem to espouse is that humanists recognize that solutions don't come from god, they come from people of good will acting in the best interests of their fellow humans. Sometimes that requires giving short-shrift to a particular religious viewpoint. Just like a lot of mainstream christians give short shrift to Leviticus these days. Are they atheists?
I'm beginning to sense censorship in subtle ways.
I never said I wasn't a humanist either. That's not all I am however. I sense very few here have caught any sense of my concern for people, real people in the quagmire of their lives. I have said this repeatedly in several ways. I will try to say it again in a different way. Humanists that claim to exclude God out of the picture leave themselves open to their own perspective on the nature of life and reality. They then call this perspective their own "humanist manifesto" of living which becomes their all encompassing rule of faith and behavior that permits them to believe they are good people for doing so.
Leviticus was written to a specific people at a specific point in their development as a people (in this case the Israelites). Just as this blog is being written to/about human animals at the crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media. The God of the Ages has not changed, the fundamental message has not changed. The application of the message and the scope of the message has changed, but if you are observant the God of both the Old and New Teastament overall hasn't changed one iota. To understand the faith of the Old and New Testament you must come to be connected with the message giver – not just the message.
You can look at your parents (or yourself for that matter) one day and exclaim the next day that they/you have changed, because this is very much the case with people who must make decisions as to how they will interact with their own beliefs as well as other people everyday.
One day you may have faith in what your parents told you. Later on you may consider them to have lied through their teeth to try to manipulate you into believing/acting the way they thought best for you at the time. Much of the Old Testament is this sort of dialog between the religious rulers of Israel and the nation, with the presumption sometimes of speaking on God's behalf for all of time and eternity.
However, the only way to get the full message for all of time and eternity is to keep reading and to increase your understanding of how God actually interacted with the people of the Bible throughout the various points of time and cultures that they were specifically a part of. God's full perspective and message can only be ascertained through continued ongoing interaction with the words and their meanings as an individual evaluates them in the context of their variable daily lives.
I'm concerned about the 12 and 13 year olds who end up being told anything goes with their sexuality, just don't settle on any particular perspective until you've had the chance to consider them all equally.
I'm concerned about the children of divorced parents who often end up caught in the cross fire of their parents hostilities.
I'm concerned about the spouse that is cheated upon yet is called immature when they don't want the behavior to continue or to repeat itself.
I'm concerned about the people who think the church and the name Christian makes them one.
I'm concerned about the destruction of young peoples' hope for a better world by atheists who claim they don't believe in God – but delude them selves and actually are actively seeking to destroy the faith of others in the process.
People like Richard Dawkins seek only one thing – and it is not open dialog.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi…
When they really suceed in destroying the faith of others will they openly talk about it? How many people here on Dangerous Intersection were faced with a similar dilemma in their lives? How many valued their earthly lives so much that they surrendered to the bullying of the atheist because they saw no other respectable option? Many here claim to have been converted or saved by science. What have you been saved from and what have you converted to?
Mark asks:
"So who then were the atheistic inhumane animals? I’m willing to consider that you were thinking of two different groups, but…
Some of the atheistic inhumane animals were fellow Africans of their brothers that they sold to get them away from themselves and to obtain a monetary reward.
Some of the atheistic inhumane animals were the more "civilized
barbarians" (some say they were Christians) who though more educated were just as capable of bullying others and killing them if they didn't cooperate with their thirst for power and control over others.
Some of the atheistic inhumane animals convinced themselves they were doing the "humane" thing by removing the pagan ignoramuses from the heart of darkness.
Some of the atheistic inhumane animals were called Arabic, some were African, some were called European, some were called American, . . .
Some of the atheistic inhumane animals spoke Arabic, some spoke English, some spoke Spanish, some spoke Native African languages, . . .
Some of the atheistic inhumane animals called themselves Islamic, some called themselves Christian, some called themselves Godless atheists, some called themselves better than others, some called themselves from a superior race, some believed the black race was demon cursed, . . .
Some of the atheistic inhumane animals called themselves respectable business men, some called themselves pirates, Some called themselves priviledged enough to be allowed to dominate other people, . . .
Stange thing – probably none of them called themselves atheistic inhumnae animals, even though that is what many would now call them.
There is a part of everyman and woman that if it is not resisted daily – tends to lead us all to become atheistic inhumane animals towards our fellow brothers and sisters. This is not something that goes away when left unchecked. It will tend to look for social support in people it interacts with. It will deny it exists to the individual who wishes to justify criminal behavior. It will rise up and destroy young people before they are born or at the time they least suspect it.
The atheistic inhumane animal lives in me when I fail to consider my personal relationship with my creator in all of my thoughts and actions.
The atheistic inhumane animal is not two people – it is every man woman and child apart from the infusion of the value system that the creator and author of life will provide to those who recognize the atheistic inhumane animal that would first delude them and secondly enslave each individual and then all of society if left unchecked.
Karl,
Your post on humanism I have little quibble with. And I do see your concern and feel it is perfectly legitimate. You and I would have different solutions, clearly, but I understand you well enough.
As to the "atheistic animals" you refer to in great detail—it was not their atheism, if indeed they were atheists, that made them act so. I think you are applying a label to them out of revulsion for their actions. All these groups have embraced a religious doctrine, not only christian, and it claim that they were atheists is simply to make an assertion that one would have to be an atheist to do something so heinous. This is a false syllogism. Slavery is an aspect of human culture that seems to have persisted regardless of religious conviction. At best, you might say some were bad examples of their religions, but painting them all with the brush of atheism also suggests that atheists would automatically deal in slavery.
The slaveholders of the Old South used Scripture quite adroitly to excuse slavery. Even those who never owned a slave would have found this consistent with their view.
From time to time someone tries to claim that Hitler and the Nazis were atheists. This is to limit the definition of religion to only one brand. The Nazis were steeped in the occult and a kind of ancient Germanic paganism that was tied to all manner of religious and quasi-religious concept. They were superstitious. They believed in Destiny. The soldeirs of the Third Reich wore belts on the buckles of which was stamped Gott mit uns (God With Us). It is natural to wish to distance our own selves from such monsters with an assertion that they could not possibly be religious (we usually say christian, but the alternative to chistian is not automatically atheism)—but the fact is they exhibited and embraced all the trappings of self-consistent faith-based behaviors of an evangelism which is by definition religious.
The religious tend to overlook the two-sided nature of their faiths. Such grandeur is often the flip side of much horror. It is an act of will that prevents people from recognizing this. The god of the Old Testament is awful—awe filled. Destroyer of armies, leveler of cities, judge and executioner…pretty awesome.
It is not atheists who have wrought the worst things upon the world—they have been too few and frankly too indifferent for the most part—but those who have felt the hand of god upon them, filling them with a sense of destiny, driven by an apprehension of fate. They are the chosen, the elect, the appointed (and annointed). To simply look at the horrors they unleashed and decide that they must have been atheists is simplistic and wrong. Many of them shared your faith—they just had a different "take" on it than you do.
For the record, I prefer humanists, whether religious or otherwise. Most humanists really don't think they're better than anyone else. Unlike a lot of religious folks, who think their faith makes them…special.
Karl, my brother….I appreciate the conversation you are trying to have, w/o being offensive or rude as many are being to you. I am afraid however you are casting pearls before……
Ann: Pearls are quite beautiful, thank you, and pigs are extremely intelligent animals. http://ngcblog.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblog/2007/11/hog_genius_the_amazing_pig.html
I think you are almost hearing me. Now I will clarify and say the term atheistic is not a creed it is a behavior. There is no single term for Christianistic as two words need to be combined so you have the full meaning of "Like Christ.
This is because the original term "Christian" meant "a little Christ," and it was originally meant as a term of derision that some of the Jews and Gentiles who were set in opposition began to call those who followed Jesus Christ. It was a mocking term then and it still is to many in the world.
"Atheistic" behavior can run the gamot from respectable and caring to detestable and hostile, as can the behavior of Christians or any other group of people that manage to get a label slapped upon them. In this sense no group of people by their behavior can claim to have a leg up on any other group. By behavior we are all capable of actions that are selfish and capable of disrespect of others.
The atheist however doesn't consciously choose to include "God their creator" as one of the others to be included as someone that they could disrespect or even turn against – because they believe they can eliminate God from consideration.
Nonetheless the atheists replace the values and beliefs normally associated with a religion of choice with what they perceive to be the proper values for their society to possess (humanist manifesto). This is what socialism is all about. Atheists may think they are solving problems which God can't in this sense, but all they are really doing is replacing one set of values with the ones they believe are more appropriate.
God can and will solve the problems, but if God solved them the way they were solved in the Old Testament people would have little if any choice in choosing to follow God's values and beliefs out of anything but fear. Would you want to see your fellow man subjected to fear as the only deterent for wrong ideas and wrong behavior?
Likewise Christians whose behavior and concern for others modelled that of Jesus would solve in numerable conditions here and now on planet earth. The only sticking point between us Mark (as I see it) apears to be whether or not God as a creator, redeemer and transformer of sinners is real. Or if man can pull himself up by his bootstraps and better the conditions of the world without consideation of God in the process.
Those who are "like Christ" should not behave in the manner you would like to associate with them. Just as you would say atheists are not all hell bent on destroying other people's lives. However, I can fully admit that many people who are professing Christians do have tendencies to both believe and act in ways that are not Christ like, as many people who are atheistic do not always have your ideal humanistic atheism in mind.
Is this the same with your "ideal" humanistic atheist that you believe should be able to do a better job than those of other faiths.
If it is not you are under the delusion I mentioned concerning whose values are of ultimate concern in this life we live.
Here is where the analogy is both similar but breaks down as well. You choose to believe your brand of atheist is to be preferred above other religious types, perhaps even when your motive for its selection is not fully known to you (it can change at society's beck and call). I believe you think man is the measure of all things and that God can't be factored into your perspective. You believe you have chosen your brand of atheism for a humane reason. I can't argue with that. However, if someone were to first suggest and then repeatedly show you that you were doing something inhumane would you then feel obligated to change?
If so there are values and beliefs that the society seems to be free and at will to either create or destroy. This would include the forms and documents of government for a free or enslaved people. Then the issue comes down to what is freedom from condemnation by the society. It will never find an end. Every group with any lawless idea can push their agenda and claim they are not being treated with dignity or respect.