This video is a couple years old, but it makes a worthy point for those of us who sometimes get weary of hearing how foolish and vile we are when we are accused of these things by people who don’t even know us.
Foolish and vile atheists
- Post author:Erich Vieth
- Post published:February 22, 2009
- Post category:Bigotry / Religion
- Post comments:183 Comments
Erich Vieth
Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.
It is the concept of secular marriage (civil unions) that are optional. No traditional religious understandings of marriage as I have studied them promotes sensual erotic pleasure to the extent that the pleasure is the means and the ends to an ongoing relationship between a man and a woman. The physical sensations and emotional conections are surely parts of the experience but if these sensations and connections are more important than an ongoing relationship, some one has put the cart before the horse as the saying goes.
Karl, without emotional connection, which, in marriage, is (usually) enhanced by the closeness of erotic pleasure, marriage would be worth…what? Without the emotional bond, why bother with the rest of the partnership? Isn't the emotional connection to another the primary reason humans marry? I realize it is not the only reason, and I realize people do marry for other reasons…but emotionally, without connection, why bother?
Those whose main reason for marrying is to obtain a legal disclaimer for sensual eroticism truly do not understand the nature of the interpersonal relationships really required for marriage.
Marriage is first and foremost the commitment to a mutli-level interpersonal relationship with another person. Only one of the facets of this relationship between a man and a woman is open caring expression of their individual and mutual sexuality.
Why then would the very elderly stay married? This then is also why so many think divorce is really an easy option, when the sensual eroticism "feelings" have diminished, what more could there be to the relationship?
Tf marriage is primarily about emotional connections, what does one do with the highs and lows of these emotional connections when expectations very often remain at different levels from the actual realities of day to day experiences?
Karl,
And why oh why do you assume because a union is "merely" civil, that is any less true? Religion does not have a lock on the relationship question. If you have been basing your perceptions of civil unions on the idea that all they are for is to somehow validate sex between two people, then I can see why you have such a jaundiced view of it.
But again: sex is a conversation. A particular kind of conversation, but a conversation. It extends the ongoing conversation that is a relationship. But it is by no means the only form between two people in love nor can it be. But without it, the whole intimacy question becomes problematic.
On the other hand, gimme a break—traditional marriage as practiced before the 20th century was more or less just the community telling two people, "Okay, you can have sex now and have children, we're cool with that. Everything else is your business. Oh, and woman? He now owns you and everything you bring to this and everything you ever will bring to it."
And yes, I'm simplifying, but not by much.
Karl writes:—"Those whose main reason for marrying is to obtain a legal disclaimer for sensual eroticism truly do not understand the nature of the interpersonal relationships really required for marriage."
Agreed.
and:—"Marriage is first and foremost the commitment to a mutli-level interpersonal relationship with another person. Only one of the facets of this relationship between a man and a woman is open caring expression of their individual and mutual sexuality."
Hear hear! Yes!
and:—"Why then would the very elderly stay married?"
Because by then (presumably long before then) they have become best friends in the fullest sense of the term. (There are many less exalted reasons as well, no less valid.) But you have to stop and ask if age is an impediment to carrying on the erotic part of the relationship. Infirmity is, but they do not necessarily coincide. (But I'll grant that the evident loss of erotic interest in the elderly is one of the clearest examples of "Use it or lose it.")
and:—"This then is also why so many think divorce is really an easy option, when the sensual eroticism “feelings” have diminished, what more could there be to the relationship?"
This ties back to your first statement, which I wholly agree with. But if you condemn people for indulging in sex before marriage, you kind of set this up for many. "Relationship" and "orgasm" are not synonymous, and a lot of people don't seem to quite get this, especially young people.
finally:—"Tf marriage is primarily about emotional connections, what does one do with the highs and lows of these emotional connections when expectations very often remain at different levels from the actual realities of day to day experiences?"
It's called working at it, which you very well know. The phrasing you use is problematic because it implies, in this context, that you are using "emotional connection" as a synonym for "sex" and that is a narrow way to look at it. Actually, I think marriage—by that I mean a committed longterm relationship that includes sex, sharing of debt, mutual dependence and trust, etc—is all about emotional connections. Without them, you'd be better off with a business partner or a regular paid companion.
So since really I find myself very much in agreement with your statements hear (with a proviso or two), just what is it we're debating? Are you trying to assert that sex is unimportant? Or that all the rest of what constitutes a good relationship can only be secured by a traditional, religiously based marriage? I'm not sure just what you're putting yourself in opposition to here.
Karl writes: "The establishment clause should tell all Americans they have no right to force a secular redefinition onto a religious but also legal term like marriage."
Nope. The establishment clause tells us that the legal definition of marriage MUST be defined in secular terms, and that those terms must be Constitutional.
Please note: The possible "solution" some of us were discussing earlier, about the government granting only civil unions, is essentially (seems to me, anyway) a semantic clarification (OK, we'll let the churches keep the term "marriage" for themselves). But whatever we call it, the LEGAL definition of marriage/civil union should be a purely secular one.
Look at it this way: If you want to violate the establishment clause by imposing religious concepts onto U.S. law, which religion's definition of "marriage" would you use? They don't all define it the same way. You would indeed wind up "pitting one religion against another", which would also violate the establishment clause.
Mark, Mindy and Stacy, I am not writing to point out differences, I try to write to point out or explain similarities in our perspectives.
The definition of marriage is not a civil issue with religious connotations. It has nearly always been a religious issue with civil connotations. Trying to wrestle this term from the religious and replacing it with a secular term is directly against the purposes and interpretations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
If the establishment clause says marriage must have a specific secular meaning. If a legal document which states what a persons rights are or are not concerning their use of the term marriage, then the state has established a religion of convenience to accommodate people with varying backgrounds. This is of course disestablishment of an existing religion in the minds of many people, which smacks of an attempt to prohibit these same people from the free exercise of their religion because someone does not agree with their beliefs and has told them what they must believe.
This is thought control and likely to result in all manner of people who will call religion a root of evil just because someone convinces others that they have a right to tell others what they have a right to believe or not believe.
People couldn't force Latter Day Saints to only have one wife, but they could sure make it a matter where the state where they resided was not going to perpetuate legal questions when and if these marriages wished to obtain legal recognition in states not in agreement with polygamy, or even with the federal government itself. Legally there are no marriages in the US that grant full legal rights to those who believe in polygamy or polyandry, yet these rights will also develop as soon as the state starts defining what a marriage can or can not be.
The state has a given right to regulate various civil and interpersonal relational aspects of a specific society, but it does not have the right to tell the people what they must or must not believe concerning marriage., unless of course you are currently working to transform a religious definition of into a secular one.
The state is not given the right to define a marriage, only to regulate the manner of its interpretation along legal lines. Any attempt beyond this is either the establishment of a state religion by controlling the use of religious terminology, or else it becomes a matter of conflict with the "not to prohibit the exercise clause” of any specific religion.
The state has every right to describe what it calls an issue of civil rights, but it can not force any religion to agree with the states interpretation of what is an article of faith for a specific religion.
How would it sound to you if atheistic scientists got the state to order any and every university, college, high school, grade school, church and synagogue to only teach that evolution can not have any potentially fatal flaws in its presuppositions. Then those who believed or thought otherwise could be taken to court on the basis that they were being a nuisance to society and that their religion could not discuss this in an open secular setting because certain people didn't like what the alternatives to evolution might imply.
Some would probably call this progress, but then those who think their values are facts are sorely deluded.
People seem to be behind their understanding of the separation of church and state, as long as their own interpretation of matters matches the state's legal code. When their interpretation doesn't match the state legal code, they presume they have the right to force a new definition upon existing words.
Anti-slavery sentiment didn't win the abolition of the concept of slavery from America or even other parts of the world. It set legal boundaries for the prohibition of its use in the US, because there are no laws in most religions that state who is allowed to make slaves of others. In fact. the Bible says people who somehow are once bound into slavery are suppose to be granted freedom and independence. Those previously without full legal standing in a code of justice are suppose to have a way to obtain those full civil right – this is the beauty and simplicity of the US Constitution, the Bill of rights, and the rest of the Amendments.
It is not the same thing to say that the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments have the ability to make a people religious or secular. The documents encourage an ability for a religious and/or secular people to live together with one another by not allowing the state to dictate the meanings of terms and beliefs.
Religions didn't define when slavery was ok or not okay although many may have thought it did. Slavery was a social issue more than a religious doctrine.
People's equality under the law can be addressed in many ways besides trying to transform religious terminology into secular definitions that render the religious meanings impotent.
Again, I repeat, trying to redefine the religious connotations of word such as marriage in a manner that creates a prohibition upon the rights of people to practice the religion they have chosen which includes traditional definitions of this specific term is not what America is about.
Karl writes:—"Again, I repeat, trying to redefine the religious connotations of word such as marriage in a manner that creates a prohibition upon the rights of people to practice the religion they have chosen which includes traditional definitions of this specific term is not what America is about."
And there's the crux of it, Karl. That is, what you consider a "prohibition upon the rights of people."
What is being prohibited? If we say, secularly, that gays may get married, what does that prohibit you from doing or believing?
Only one thing: dictating who should or should not be allowed to get married. That is the only "right" you lose.
I'm still not clear how allowing a group to have a given right destroys that same right in another, unless it is somehow, in your mind, a right to feel special and proprietary about something.
Prohibitions on gay activity were always based on the common perception that there is "something wrong" with those people, so it seemed ludicrous to grant rights to those viewed as aberrant. That has been the basis for every withholding of rights from out-groups, no matter what, including people who simply pray a different way. Stated or not, the assumption is "They aren't like us, so something is wrong with them."
It is the hallmark of enlightenment to get over such categorizations.
So how would this work, that if suddenly tomorrow the United States conceded the right to gays to get married, you suddenly have your rights clipped? How does that work? Would your marriage suddenly dissolve? Or would it in your mind suddenly not be as important as it was the day before? Would your children be denied the right to get married? Just exactly what do you think would happen?
Nothing. Your friends who are married would still be married, you would, you would all (presumably) hold your mates in the same high regard, you would not have lost one iota of the sentiment you have always had toward each other. No one would prevent your kids from entering into marriage. What would change other than your opinion of the society in which you live?
Would you live any differently? Would you think god had abandoned you? Would you move to Canada because you expected god to smite the entire 50 states? How would your life change?
I really don't get this. If a legal definition changes in anything else, we might grumble or applaud, but we adjust, and life goes on, and we personally do not have much difficulty with the change, so what's the deal? Is it only that you want to live in a country that displays a certain kind of character, and this would change that character? If that bothers you, then you don't know as much about the United States as I thought—this country's character is ALWAYS changing, it always has.
As to marriage always being a religious thing…
It is hard to argue because, as I said earlier, for SO LONG religion and government have been inextricably intertwined. This society is an experiment in the separation of the two. So how would you even make such as argument either way?
I think that if you look at the way marriage has been conducted over 5000 years of history, and especially the concommitant prohibitions on related practices, etc, one thing is clear: marriage has evolved as an aspect of property law. The feminists are dead right about this. And it is a matter of practicality. Marriage creates an economic unit in which efficient management of the products of marriage—children—are paid for cared for and matriculated into society. Women, regardless how the institution has been dressed up, are property, first of their father, then he trades them to their future husband, and she's then bound to him.
Only at the affluent levels of advanced societies do we see the kind of egalitarianism begin to emerge between male and female that we now today expect as a given. It's a resource issue.
Things like that tend to attract the best efforts of those whose job it is to sugarcoat the reality and make it palatable. Not hard really given that companionship is a nice thing and for most of history new kids are a boon to the community.
But a religious issue? Only because the state and the church have generally always been pretty much the same thing.
That is unsentimental and kind of cold, I know, but break it down and look at what the institution actually does and it's obvious.
Heterosexuals have been turning it into a romantic love fest only since the end of the 18th century and the common perception that it is anything more than "an arrangement" arrived at not by the couple but by the families is less than two centuries old. We've been changing the "interpretation" all along.
Oh, and btw the way, this charming bit of sophistry tickled me: "The state is not given the right to define a marriage, only to regulate the manner of its interpretation along legal lines."
Excuse me, but "interpretation" goes directly to "definition" because a definition is arrived at only through interpretation. If the state may interpret, it de facto defines what it is interpreting, especially if the interpretation runs counter to the prevailing belief. Yeesh, you argue like a Dominican.
And for the last time—"then the state has established a religion of convenience to accommodate people with varying backgrounds."
Bullshit. If there is no worship of a deity at the core of a philosophy IT IS NOT A RELIGION. That's a red herring. A straw man argument. If we disestablish a religion in a given context and replace it with a secular practice, we have not erected a secular religion because there is no such thing.
Unless you feel that whenever people "believe in" something it automatically makes that something a religion, by virtue of the belief…?
Well, then you make my argument for me that there is no god—who needs one when the only ingredient required for a religion to exist is belief, regardless what the thing believe may be? (I've been saying that all along.)
But it's addlepated. It's backwards thinking. And it's tiresome.
Mark said: "That has been the basis for every withholding of rights from out-groups, no matter what, including people who simply pray a different way. Stated or not, the assumption is “They aren’t like us, so something is wrong with them.”
It is the hallmark of enlightenment to get over such categorizations."
And I just thought that bore repeating. The "right" to define marriage via religion only applies to the definition of marriage within that particular religion. The fact that the religious and secular definitions have been long intertwined does not make it right, nor does it mean that as we become more educated and knowledgeable, as well as more accepting of diversity, as a society, we cannot reinterpret the secular definition.
Thank you for, yet again, eloquently sorting through so much of the nonsense, Mark.
Mark states and asks –
"It is hard to argue because, as I said earlier, for SO LONG religion and government have been inextricably intertwined. This society is an experiment in the separation of the two. So how would you even make such an argument either way?
By looking at the 1st amendment and applying it clearly and forthrightly. Separation is not cut and dry, as so many are led to think. Some cases clearly limit what the government can and can not do regarding establishing any religious preferences, but it certainly also can not tell people that they can not hold to religious ideologies and beliefs.
If a Mormon wants to have several wives at the same time, the only concern of society seems to be how this will influence the children and especially how will children not be unduly influenced by such arrangements?
How early will the children be committed to an arranged marriage? This seems to be the focus of the societal concern for children in non-traditional marriage arrangements.
How does one not think that children raised without a mother or a father will not also be unduly influenced by such arrangements? We are "family" is obviously different from we are "biological parents."
Definitions of civil/secular issues can not be such that the secular definition linked to any specific religious doctrines or ideologies, erodes the rights of people to define these terms of their ideologies. In order to not prohibit the free exercise of a religion, the definition of a marriage can not be subject to governmental endorsement.
You ask what harm can come from the redefinition of a term such as marriage? For those who will not let the definitions of others affect them, nothing will change for them unless they've been waiting for the freedom of choice to let them out of an unwanted relationship.
Look at the result of people holding to beliefs like sex before marriage is not immoral, or divorce is really not to be looked down upon. And oh, by the way, the only problem in any matters sexual is breaking one's commitments, nothing more and nothing less. With these attitudes in place is there any wonder people are confused as to where the direction of all matters religious are headed?
How do you avoid these problems of breaking one's commitments? Well, that's a no brainer – don't presume you need to make any commitments unless you find it to your liking.
Not waiting for a sexual relationship with one's spouse reveals that you do not agree with the traditional definition of marriage by most religions. That in itself erodes the basis of religious marriage, so once you have crossed that fence why even try to consider if the fence even exists at all? The lowering of any standard has the affect of allowing any other standards regarding similar subjects to reconsider as well.
I sense from Mindy that she can be a virtuous humanist who has a God that she states fits her perspective, but this God is not in anyway connected to anything/anyone other than her own anthropomorphic concepts and beliefs.
How do you avoid these problems of breaking one's commitments? Well, that's a no brainer – don't presume you need to make any commitments unless you find it to your liking.
If a proposed "civil right" requires a redefinition of religious terms, this is not the best solution. We have seen in America that those who do not commit to marriage will seldom speak in favor of any of the reasons for withholding complete sexual relationships until marriage.
This kind of speaks for itself
Karl, for the record (and I'm sure this will come as no shock to you) I think waiting for marriage for sex is a, generally speaking…
I was going to say stupid. But that's not true.
People, as you have pointed out, often get married for the wrong reason, one of them being they're just hot to trot. What happens if they find out after the ceremony that they just ain't compatible in bed? Happens all the time, causes no end of pain, and while it should not be cause for rampant divorce, well…
I do not believe virginity is important at a societal level. Both Donna and myself were THRILLED that we weren't when we met.
As to the commitment part, you still haven't said why letting gays get married—which, well, it's marriage, so it seems to me there's a commitment there—will have any bearing on everyone else's commitment or attitude thereto.
As for the 1st amendment…look, you can't lay everything on that. This is a social change that is being demanded at the grass roots, it is not being imposed top down. Like all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the guidelines are not concrete, set in stone. People and societies change. This society is changing.
The wonderful thing about our Constitution is that we can do that without tearing down the government in the process. We can become something different without destroying ourselves.
But to get back to the commitment thing…under past and present marital conditions you have the same problem. How do you avoid breaking commitments? I don't see that problem being any different than it has always been.
We should, however, I agree, be better about keeping our promises.
Karl, for the record, I use the term "God" only because that is the easiest for others to understand. The higher power I feel exists has little to nothing to do with any religion's version of "God," because my HP (an expression I hate, btw, but can't come up with a better name right now) will, someday, be explainable – but not likely til centuries after we're all gone. It is based in energy and connectedness, and it matters to me. I would be no less surprised to see it disproven than I would explained, and because I understand that, just as I believe in an "it" that is not judgmental in anyway, I don't base my commitments or promises or whether I keep them on fear of God's retribution. I base my commitments on . . . honor? On valuing my own word and the word of another? I want to be trusted, and I want to be able to trust. In my fellow person, in my spouse or sig. other, my friends, my children. I lived through a period in my life, many years ago, during which "trustworthy" was likely the last adjective anyone would have used to describe me, and they'd have been right. I was lost, and traveling the wrong path.
I got better. Through rehab, therapy and the close connections of people who mattered to me, who cared about me and who were willing to give me another chance. I've worked very hard not to let anyone down since then by breaking promises or lying. Period. And it has nothing to do with religion.
Mark has done a fine job of explaining so much of exactly how I feel about religion – I will add that from your explanation, religion seems to have an awfully lot to do with controlling sex. Back to the property issues – long before DNA tests could prove paternity, the only way to make sure that baby she carried was yours was to own her. To make sure that you took her virginity, and to make sure she had little to no access to other men, or they to her. That was what marriage was about – it has changed in our culture, obviously, and is a dramatically different entity than it once was. Fortunately. But to say that allowing it to continue to change is wrong is simply naive and blind to the fluidity of our democracy, and its ability to become what the people want it to be, as Mark said, without being overthown. Pretty cool when you look at it that way.
As for children being affected by new interpretations of marriage, yes they are. Children are affected positively by being raised in a home with loving adults – parents, grandparents, whomever. Adults who actively parent and nurture. Whether it is a mom and dad, a mom OR dad, or two of one or the other, whether it is multigenerational, adoptive or otherwise, I have yet to see any statistics proving that one family configuration greatly "out performs," in terms of the emotional well-being of the kids, any other. Today, with divorce becoming more amicable than in the past and with the availability of family counseling, etc., even kids from "broken" homes do very well. Kids with problems come from all kinds of demographic backgrounds, and when real problems arise, that can usually be traced to dysfunction, not orientation or configuration. And one of the main causes of family dysfunction? Spouses who do not get along.
Karl wrote,
"Again, I repeat, trying to redefine the religious connotations of word such as marriage in a manner that creates a prohibition upon the rights of people to practice the religion they have chosen which includes traditional definitions of this specific term is not what America is about."
Karl, if that's what was going on I would agree with you. But nobody is trying to prohibit people from practicing the religion they've chosen. And nobody wants to tell churches how to define marriage.
The Roman Catholic Church, for example, does not recognize divorce. Civil law does. If you're divorced, the Catholic Church won't marry you. Has anybody ever tried to force the Catholics to bring their beliefs into line with civil law? No. They are free to define marriage, and related issues, as they see fit.
If your church thinks marriage must only be between a man and a woman, it will be free to teach that, and to marry only "opposites", even after gay marriage becomes legal. And rightly so.
Stacy,
I'm sure I don't need to tell you this, but it should perhaps be stated so it's out in the open (out of the closet?)
Karl's religion tells him that such things as marriage SHOULD BE DEFINED THE SAME WAY FOR EVERYONE and if he must live in a country that permits such wide-ranging redefinitions as gay marriage, then he is forced to accommodate that which his religions says must not be accommodated. It runs counter to how he believes we all ought to be.
Now, Karl realizes that this puts him in a difficult spot because he knows not everyone does—or should—be made to conform against their will to a set of practices that go to conscience, and he has made it clear that he has found ways to live here, amidst all this contrary-to-teaching morass and maintain his own sense of self and faith. With a few minor provisos, to date marriage is pretty much the same regardless of particular denomination. Everyone condemns divorce (even while doing nothing to end it), so we're all pretty much in agreement with the broad outlines of what constitutes marriage.
But this—GLBT marriage—this really pushes it because he feels he must take a stand against it or alter his stance vis a vis what his religion tells him. This is really different.
The fact is, people of that kind of faith only tolerate the secular insofar as it doesn't tweak their noses too much. At heart, they know we're in error, and they're just biding their time till we either realize our error and correct it or the next revolution sweeps all this secular stuff aside and we can re-establish what is right and true according to their precepts. Condoning, accepting, even standing by while such things stand are the same as participating.
Now Karl may tell me I'm wrong about him, but so far he hasn't argued in such a way as to make me think differently about his position. It is not that HE should not, according to his religion, condone gay marriage, but that, according to most religions including his, NO ONE should. More and more he becomes Lot, living in Sodom.
My opinion, at least.
Mark says:
"As for the 1st amendment…look, you can’t lay everything on that. This is a social change that is being demanded at the grass roots, it is not being imposed top down."
This society will turn into a Banana Republic if we somehow dismantle the workings of the first ammendment.
Grass root changes have no more chance of being proper and correct than do policies and protections put in place from those who have examined history, human nature and the cyclical trends found in any society. Hitler's party was a grass roots movement, that didn't make that popular movement correct at all.
The more things change the more they stay the same because there is nothing new under the sun. I take it that you wish to see your ideas and opinions held to be more important than the workings of the US Constitution, Bill of Righth, and other ammendments,
As well as many Separate state constitutions and ammendments.
If anyone thinks attempting to live life as an honorable non-religious people is a modern day flash of insight you are indeed way to absorbed in your opinions to learn from history.
The inability to keep extremists from either end of the spectrum that are opposed to your ideas at bay will result in many less than honorable decisions to protect both religious and those claimed to be "non-religious" ideas and beliefs.
Karl, please, will you back up the following with some specific examples and facts, because all that comes to my mind upon reading it is "preposterous."
You said: "If anyone thinks attempting to live life as an honorable non-religious people is a modern day flash of insight you are indeed way to absorbed in your opinions to learn from history.
The inability to keep extremists from either end of the spectrum that are opposed to your ideas at bay will result in many less than honorable decisions to protect both religious and those claimed to be “non-religious” ideas and beliefs."
'Splain, Karl. What history supports your premise here?
Karl writes:—"I take it that you wish to see your ideas and opinions held to be more important than the workings of the US Constitution, Bill of Righth, and other ammendments"
No, not at all, though my opinions and ideas are very dear to me. My point is, this is not something that originated with an interpretation of the 1st amendment—it originated as a demand for equal rights, which now that it has grown large enough not to be ignored, must pass muster under constitutional review, and SO FAR a number of state Supreme Courts have found that it does. That's what I meant when I said this is not being imposed top down.
But let's be clear: slavery was supported by the constitution. It required a revision of how the constitution works to obtain an end to slavery. The framers were brilliant, yes, but human, and they could in no way have foreseen so much of what has transpired in the subsequent 230 years.
We would only become a Banana Republic if we insist that the Constitution is so rigid that for anything new to occur we would have to break it. Scalia is wrong when he says the Constitution is not a "living document" and we must adhere to original intent. He's wrong because there is no way to do that. We are not the same people, we do not live in the same times, we are not faced with the same problems.
I've been listening to this kind of Chicken Little diatribe for decades and it always delivered by people who confuse fashion with principle. Of course, you think, by your last post, that that's what I do.
—"If anyone thinks attempting to live life as an honorable non-religious people is a modern day flash of insight you are indeed way to absorbed in your opinions to learn from history."
And what have you learned from history? That oppression is the unfortunate but necessary cost of stability? That repression is the only viable alternative to unbridled license? By that reading, everything is forever in a state of collapse, civilization is always crumbling, and the reduction of the ability of the Chosen Few to dictate propriety is the constant hallmark of the coming dark age.
Rome began to fall when it closed its mind around the intolerance that a triumphant christianity imposed on what had been a pluralistic empire. Other factors contributed, but once membership in the Empire meant abandoning one's home faith, no one wanted to join anymore and the enemies had new allies in the assault.
We have been becoming, bit by ragged bit, a nation wherein people can be who and what they are without pledging their values to a monoculture, and we have been growing and becoming better as a consequence. For myself, I rather like the nation we're trying to become, and I'm looking forward to the day that Norman Rockwell ceases to be the single dominant iconography of my country.
If you really think that letting gays get married spells doom for the United States, then I can only assume that you acquired your tinted glasses at a Pat Robertson rummage sale. It's time, don't you think, to stop categorizing people into groups and start seeing them as people first? The day comes when no one ever introduces someone at a party with a qualifier (this is Jeffrey—he's gay), then maybe we'll have reached the point where people are just people. That would be a nice place to be, don't you think? Don't you? Or do you prefer having the various types understood in advance so you can put on the appropriate behavior for the occasion?
Banana Republic my ass…how easy do you think it is to be "different" in a Banana Republic?
You can keep claiming all along that there have never been atheists of your strip and variety in the history of mankind.
This is because most strong notable secular leaders usually start on their rise to popularity amid a ground swell of grass roots that are intolerant towards those they claim are themselves intolerant due to the existence of some public policy or some religious principle. The beginnings of nearly all such popular leaders then progressively gets others to rally around them because they are believed to be serious about honorable democratic changes. This is what a grass roots movement is all about.
Do you really think a half crazed skin-head could get respectable press to build a faithful following?
Do you think examples like Hitler's rise to power started out as an intentionally despicable racist party bent on killing others that they didn't like very much?
Do you think Castro changed once he got in power, or did he plan all along to bring a revolution that would kill untold number of people?
When a truly dedicated dictator get to his position by using the democratic principle of open fair elections, any existing system of checks and balances must be removed for such a dictator to obtain unquestioned control of a country. This is happening slowly happening right now in America. Why would Obama even think the term "Czar of anything" would have a favorable connotation to people who know history? These appointees are in essence expanding the executive powers to a level never seen before.
The Congress may as well go home and vote from a secure internet IP for all of the impact they are making upon the direction of the country. Obama tells them "his experts" have the matter in hand, and all they need do is say "Yes, because we believe and trust you and your hand picked chosen experts." The Congress has in essence gone belly up and cares to do nothing about it.
Most wars are caused by leaders who think they answer to no one other than the allegiance of those who are their followers. Whatever a people considers to be the bond between a leader and their followers is indeed the "honorable value" that both transcends culture and permits other values of lesser honor to be sacrificed to the pragmatism of the proposed changes.
How many leaders of offensive aggressive wars do I need to site? If you claim you wouldn't start a war because of your honorable opinions and ideas, someone who believes them just as much as you do, but who would have no problem dropping other less important humanistic values will happily replace any leader who tries to remain moderate.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The America people in government will only remain moderate by applying the 1st amendment clearly and honestly, they will become extremists by saying the 1st amendment doesn't matter
Karl, do you really believe that Christians are exempt from corrupting power? That the only ones able to be corrupted are those who profess atheism? That is simply laughable. From the Crusades on through time, to the modern day zealot preachers who whirl their flocks into frenzies of hate for anyone who is not like them then fall to the "pleasures of the flesh," power knows no particular boundaries when it comes to corrupting. Atheism does not equal corruptible, as much as you wish it did.
Karl…
Huh?
Oh, but this:—"Do you think examples like Hitler’s rise to power started out as an intentionally despicable racist party bent on killing others that they didn’t like very much?"
Yeah, he did. You should read Mein Kampf. He didn't do anything he didn't say he was gonna do. Antisemitism and transcendent Aryanism played very well in Germany at that time.
—"Why would Obama even think the term “Czar of anything” would have a favorable connotation to people who know history?"
The title—in this government—is not original to Obama. I think the first one was under Reagan, the "drug czar"? Someone remind us who that was. But it does seem to play well here, mostly under Republicans.
—"The Congress has in essence gone belly up and cares to do nothing about it."
You're not paying attention, Karl. They did that under Bush, they've been balking under Obama.
—"The America people in government will only remain moderate by applying the 1st amendment clearly and honestly, they will become extremists by saying the 1st amendment doesn’t matter"
Nobody has said that the 1st Amendment doesn't matter. And a clear and honest application of the 1st amendment, btw, would have kept religious bullshit out of the public schools all along, and prevented the words "under God" from being inserted into the pledge or "in God we trust" printed on our currency. A clear and honest application of the 1st Amendment would prevent the nonsense of Intelligent Design from getting any kind of toehold in science classrooms.
But it would also require religion as history to be taught in public schools. Cuts both ways, yes it does, but I suspect this is verging on the absurd at this point. Allowing gays to marry is not the harbinger of a dictatorship. For someone now claiming to want moderation, you seem to making extreme assertions.
But I repeat: huh?
When one only sees the world in black and white, good or evil, one cannot actually practice moderation in anything. Not possible. You're "saved" and therefore good and fine with religious slogans, etc.(Yours, of course) being inserted into public life, or you're not saved and therefore at risk of the corruption of evil power and therefore should not be allowed to speak in public let alone be in charge.
Or so sayeth Karl, in typical fallacy-ridden fashion.
A slight tangent.
Said Mark: "You should read Mein Kampf".
Everyone should read Mein Kampf, but especially those religionists who claim Hitler's atheism led him on his twisted crusade (however, I know full well how unlikely a creationist conservative is to read anything that might shed some light on his pet theories).
Essay question: Given the content of the following excerpts (first from Mein Kampf, second from a speech in the early 1920s) as well as Hitler's deep abiding interest in the occult & Aryan mythology, is it reasonable to conclude that Adolf Hitler's Final Solution and the war that accompanied it was in any way based on atheism?
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."
I could go on. I intend to, if Karl continues to equate a lack of belief in his god with the fucking Nazis, who my grandparents shed blood to defeat.
Wow, Hank – I admit to total ignorance of that before reading your comment. Powerful stuff – thanks for sharing.
Anyone that thinks the use of language that sounds theistic but appeals to the baser instincts in man or the hatred of man for his fellow man is not a negation of the religion they hold to, is easily swayed to believe anything their leader(s)will tell them.
The same goes for atheists. Those who claim to hold to a humanitarian form if atheism or even a non-standard theism by appealing to the baser instincts in man or the hatred of man for his fellow man is a negation to the very humanitarian beliefs they hold to and are easily swayed to be intolerant while claiming they would like to see more toleration in others.
Hitler used a twisted view of religion to stir up the people and cast blame for the plight of the Germans unto Jewish ethnic groups as well as other ethnic groups. This manipulation by leaders has been around since the earliest chapters of Genesis and has proven to be the easiest way to hoodwink a people of religious sentiment.
I have no doubt that there have been untold numbers of people who have claimed to be theistic/Christian who are not, just as there are untold numbers of atheists who claim to be humanitarian as such, but are not.
What bothers me is when anyone tries to say that those of a specific religious faith or even those who are atheist are somehow less prone to force their values and their image for society upon others. They become blinded to the very motivations and activities in themselves that they would condemn in others.
People who have to use emotionally charged language to get people to follow them are prone to do whatever they think is necessary to keep leading, even when they have nothing of any real significant substantive value to contribute to the equation.
They define the parameters and then find a way to change these same parameters so that they remain in power and force their values and opinions onto others.
I know full well this is how most societies work, but I also know that there are some standards worth holding to and dying for. The rub comes when many people believe the standards of love and compassion mean we must allow anyone to do whatever they please and call it freedom.
I'm sorry but if that were the case the US would stayed out of WW I longer and we would simply let every half crazed dictator do as they please, despite where it would end up taking their people – most likely into a long series of wars and hostilities towards even people of their own nation that happen to disagree with them.
Many people either find themselves in bondage to some aspect of the legal code, or some even put themselves into prisons of their own making and then start their own terrorist activities. These activities don't need to always be with guns and bombs – sometimes words, fear mongering and phobias accomplish the same purpose as they are also open aggression against those of the world that can be scapegoats for why people find themselves in the prisons of their own making.
Karl, you say Hitler used a twisted version of religion, but an awfully lot of Germans, at the time, believed him. To any of us, it was twisted and not at all what your interpretation of the bible means. But the fact that so many bought into it and followed him is more than a little troubling, don't you think? Of course leaders like him use dramatic emotional language to full affect to achieve the following they desire. You think religious leaders the world over don't do the same thing? What do you think makes religion so incredibly powerful if not for the emotional appeal?? How many preachers cry when they preach? How many heartstrings are pulled, every Sunday morning, across the country, in the name of sharing God's word??
The only reason your don't see it as anything but wonderful is because you agree with it.
We come back to the same old argument, ad nauseum. You say "The rub comes when many people believe the standards of love and compassion mean we must allow anyone to do whatever they please and call it freedom."
As I and many others have said, also ad nauseum, no one is advocating allowing anyone to do whatever they please. Only that everyone be allowed to be exactly who they are. The last bastion of true discrimination is against those who are gay, and who are NOT allowed to be who they are. That does not equivocate "anyone doing whatever they please," no matter how many times you try to say it does.