“Christian” marriage is outlawed by the Bible. I’m not exaggerating. You’ll find all of the stunning details, along with citations to the Bible, at Dwindling in Unbelief. How does the Bible outlaw traditional “Christian” marriages? Here are some of the Bible rules listed:
- The Bible says that Christians should not marry.
- But if a Christian man decides to get married (which he shouldn’t), he can have more than one wife.
- And if he doesn’t like one of his wives (like if she’s unclean or ugly or something), he can divorce her.
- If a Christian man gets married and then discovers on his wedding night that his new wife is not a virgin, then he and the other Christian men must stone her to death.
- Christians shouldn’t have sex (even if they are married, which they shouldn’t be).
- Christian parents must beat their children (which they shouldn’t have, since they shouldn’t get married or have sex).
- Good Christians must hate their families.
(If they abandon them for Jesus, he’ll give them a big reward.)
This list list only includes the first seven rules. Go to Dwindling in Unbelief for the details and the pinpoint citations. Don’t just trust me on these rules. Go read the Bible. These rules are all there, clearly stated.
Conclusion: We need to march to America’s heartland and start picketing traditional Christian marriage because it is clear that traditional Christian marriage contravenes the clear teachings of the Bible.
Mindy states:
"You and yours, OTOH, believe that the pleasure derived through sex was bestowed upon us as a blessing but a curse, imbuing us with an ongoing temptation to be avoided. We can prove our “strength of character” by not acquiescing to such temptation. If we can avoid giving in until married into a monogamous relationship, then we “win.” We have somehow reached a higher plane, bettered ourselves than all those heathens out there who cave to their baser instincts, thus proving how very lowly they are."
I do not think I agree with one of the things you said.
Personal strength and self-control has nothing to do with some win/loose game God is playing with men.
If that's how you view the matter I can see why you have written off the possibility of faith in anything but the material world and humanistic perspectives.
God created the entire spectrum of human experiences, there is nothing new under the Sun. What I have experienced and what you have experienced in regards to physiological stimuli and psychological conditioning and interpersonal relationships are only different in the extent to what we think is the appropriate times and places and conditions for the expression of such things.
I only hold fast to a view that the Spirit of man enabled to exist by God is an aspect of my being that that I hold to by faith, because I believe in a creator and sustainer of life. This can not be proven scientifically or faith in the whole affair would also be meaningless.
Solomon put it well in chapter three of Ecclesiates
1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot . . .
Karl
Re-reading your comment, I need to take you to task on your other points:
I am most certainly not free to do as I wish. I am constrained by society, by personal ethics, and by taste. Dancing nude on a table might be acceptable in a Cancun nightclub during Spring Break – but not at an ice-cream social (even one in a nudist colony). I would never consider otherwise, regardless of my wishes. That, by the way, is called self-control.
I also do not live life free of the influence of others. I am a social creature, bound in many ways to every human I encounter – some negligibly, others strongly. I am influenced by other people in innumerable ways every single day: from conversations, blogs, newspapers, magazines, books, radio, and TV.
To be free of influence I would need to be certain and sure of myself and completely self-contained. I'm not, and never wish to be so.
I'm proud to be a social animal, happy to live my life awash in ideas – some of which I like, some of which I abhor, but all of which influence me in some manner.
Again – you need to get out more.
Tony: Thanks for cleaning that up. I concur.
Tony C.
I'm sorry to have read too much into your platitude.
You wrote: "I’d prefer to continue to engage with you directly, as humans should, and hope that my influence will help you discover the joy of free, UNFETTERED (emphasis mine) humanity."
So there still is something about "humanity" that keeps you from being all that you might want to be? I'm sorry to hear that.
Tony and Mindy can make everything suit them by using the words "as I see it," or "from my perspective."
Bravo, I should use that more often, problem is when I do it I get accused being just a little right of center or not to be taken seriously.
When I present something to back up my views its either from the wrong journal, to old, or not relevant. Sorry to have to make you read such drivel.
***Important warning*** For those people now concerned about the ill-effects of masturbation (because of caveats by Karl), consider this 1844 French book warning that masturbation can cause death. I found this information at a site called Lambert Dolphin's Library.
An inventor recently developed a protoype "baby translator" – a device that analyzes the the babbling and cooing sounds made by infants and interprets the sounds into English.
During a test at the nursery at a respectable hospital, the following conversation was recorded between two newborns:
Generally speaking, prepubescent children have no interest in sexual activity other than curiosity about what it is. But this idea that Karl put forth, that sex outside of marriage leads to child molestation through a series of relationships where the younger of the two partners moves on to someone younger, is odd at best.
The marriage concept is found in most cultures and is not about morality but about property and ownership. Traditionally marriage was a contract between families that marked a merging of families and a pooling of agricultural resources. Throughout the old testament there are may examples of men having many wives and concubines. Taking a wife signified an increase in ones wealth and power, while concubines were often slaves who were purchased for the purpose of bearing children, often when age or health made it impossible for the wife to do so.
Karl – only dictators, proselytizers, and children believe in black and white – for reasonable adults, everything has a caveat or exception.
Sad to say, you are demonstrating your unwillingness to be a 'reasonable adult'.
'As I see it', or 'in my opinion' generally signify 'my personal stance'. You are perfectly entitled (and on a blog such as this, expected) to engage in a dialog. To refute those comments with which you disagree, and hold personal statements up to the light of scrutiny and evidence.
Your perspective, you tell us frequently, is that of the bible. More specifically, that of the inerrant bible. You are therefore a proselytizer, and we therefore expect to see no shade of gray, only black or white. I must say you deliver (in spades!)
You are also engaging in alligator tears in your last comment. We're not questioning the articles you use. Feel free to bring whatever evidence you care. But be aware that science moves on!
A mid 19th century treatise on psychology wouldn't be considered particularly relevant or enlightening! A mid 20th, could be more relevant. Something from PLoS published this century, more relevant still. It all depends on context and what you argue based on that evidence (is it supported by the evidence or not? Is the evidence credible, or not? Are there alternate credible hypotheses?)
So to continue.
We're challenging your interpretation of those articles. In most cases they very clearly did not say what you said/suggested/implied/imputed they did.
You keep confirming my 'back of the envelope' analysis of your writing persona (which may have little correspondence to you as a person – it happens)
Erich hears very little of what I say, only what he wishes to ridicule. Funny/sad thing is that sordid description of death induced by masturbation while an outlandish characterization was probably written as an attempt to shock people into a realization that they will loose control of more than their sexual appetites.
Again it comes down to what is wrong with refraining from masturbation and keeping one's fantasies and imagination focused for other purposes.
People that restrain sexual impulses are not wimps, I believe it is just the opposite. Operant conditioning should even tell the animal side of human nature that it is harder to break a conditioned habitual response than it is to form one.
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
-Wimpy
Karl asks, "Again it comes down to what is wrong with refraining from masturbation and keeping one’s fantasies and imagination focused for other purposes."
Nothing. What IS wrong is assuming that a person who does NOT refrain from masturbation uses up his or her fantasies and imagination in doing so and has nothing left for other purposes.
THAT seems to be your argument. Do you not see the fallacy of what you say? You seem to be saying that either you masturbate – or engage in some other non-missionary position marital sex act – and are therefore incapable of any self-control at all AND are without fantasy and imagination. OR, you "control" your urges and refuse to masturbate et al, and only by doing so are capable of engaging in any other higher pursuit.
The logical conclusion we draw when you make arguments like that is that YOU BELIEVE (not us, we don't agree) your self-control in this arena makes you somehow superior and closer to God, and you believe that by giving in to SOME of our carnal urges, those of us who do not abstain from the above are headed down a path of debauchery, intellectual bankruptcy and, of course, eternal damnation. Which is quite a laughable conclusion, but one you seem to continue to draw.
Trust me, everyone who has responded to you, Erich included, hears what you say. Just because he ridicules your stance on the bible and HOW YOU USE IT TO JUSTIFY YOUR PREJUDICES does not mean he does not hear you.
I'd like to come to Karl's defense a bit, with reference to Sigmund Freud.
In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud argued that in societies where basic urges are restricted or blocked by stringent moral systems, those urges emerge in more sophisticated and convoluted ways: they sprout up as libraries, universities or hospitals.
I acknowledge that Freud was way off base on many of his conclusions, but I think that there is something to his idea of sublimation.
Imagine a society where sex is free-wheeling. Everyone has 13 sex partners and anything goes. I suspect that the culture of such a society would be much different than that of a morally "uptight" culture, where cheap pleasure was frowned on. I wrote about Freud's idea of sublimation here.
I don't think it's an either or proposition. I know that there are great artists, engineers, teachers and philanthropists (and clergy) who get their pleasure in ways that would give Karl the heebie-jeebies.
I think, then, that there is room for a middle ground where we get the most bang for the buck (so to speak): where people are not ostracized/imprisoned for a bit of intoxication (by whatever means) or a bit of sexual straying (in whatever ways).
It would be fascinating to run this experiment precisely. What society has the "best" culture (to include libraries, hospitals, arts–everything we love about great cultures): A morally uptight society, an free-sex and free-drug society, or something in the middle. I believe that the latter is what you'll find in those societies with the cultures that tend to be most-admired by most others.
Erich
I think the society you're looking for already exists (in some measure) in France – a society that lauds intellect, philosophy, art and science, and is also (positively and thoroughly) unashamed by their physical nature.
The US is the home of the strip club, and the largest porn industry in the world, alongside the most puritan communities and the largest televangelical networks, as well as some of the best funded private universities and research institutes in the world.
France is home to a thriving 'artistic' movie industry, has some of the finest universities in the world, leading research institutes, world-leading use of (and research into) green energy, a cafe society that loves pleasure and conversation, and more casual naturists per square mile than almost anywhere (outside Germany and Sweden) – and every beach is topless.
Now which one is the 'moral leader' again?
Not to say that France is perfect (far from it – they even insist on speaking French!) But it is a much more vibrant and (dare I say it) human society than much of America, today.
Interesting, Erich – and yes, it makes perfect sense. But I would imagine that the kind of repression that results in libraries, universities and hospitals can also create double lives, lies and power plays.
Middle ground only makes sense – but my problem with Freud's assessment is that, like Karl, he seems to be operating on the assumption that without outwardly imposed restrictions, we would all devolve to the lowest, most base mentality, interested only in meeting those physical needs.
I just don't think that's true. I think our minds would take over and look for ways to relieve the boredom. I believe we'd set our own middle ground.
Of course, I could be wrong.
From my perspective and the amount of history I have studied, its quite clear that successful human societies are a combination of altruistic principles (positive behavioral quidelines) which are maintained through a struggle with each required antithesis. When an opposing group to a majority held altruism forces silence through media and legal intimidation, the cultures lifetime is limited. When this happens both internal and external forces will cause all manner of conflicts including culture and civil wars.
This happened once in US history regarding differing interpretations concerning slavery, but because the concept was not altruistic (in a positive behavioral sense) the appeal to human compassion (a positive behavioral altruism) enabled the north to see the struggle through because the positive behavioral altruism couldn't be silenced in the hearts of christians and others who held similar perspectives.
Should an altruistic standard that is common to the majority of a culture be reversed, the culture will go through a series of consecutive ideological revolutions with neither side winning, both will loose.
You may debate what are the common altruistic values and behaviors of any specific society, but the one thing that they are not is a list of do's and don'ts.
I have already said these altruisms are things there is no law against. The Bible calls them phrases like the fruit of the spirit.
These are a few, there are others: Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control.
There are many instances in modern America right now where these altruistic character traits are set aside because those that claim to have a secular perspective can intimidate and silence others in the courts and in the media.
There is no guarantee that simply because a perspective is claimed to be secular, that the perspective is altruistic and "good" for a specific culture.
The only way sexual behavior could be considerd altruistic would be for the people who practice a specific behavior to also possess the altruistic characteristics (the fruit of the spirit) above mentioned.
Under these qualifications, some degree of the altruistic or non-secular must be associated with sexual behaviors for there to be no limitations upon it promotion.
Karl
I agree somewhat with the beginning of your hypothesis. Your comment regarding the dynamic between altruism and it's antithesis is simply our 'emergent societal behaviors' resulting from evolution as a social species. Similar behaviors are observed in the societies of almost every social animal.
But I take umbrage at your comment
It was my understanding (and many reputable historical sources agree) that many of the most vociferous opponents to the repeal of slavery were predominantly Christians (with the notable exception of the Quakers and Moravians) who saw slavery as part of the 'Natural Order" and quoted scripture and verse in support of their claims. They were strongly adamant that such repeal could only lead to the abandonment of god and the growth of "wanton secularism".
From Wikipedia (which has many solid citations)
I also find I disagree with your conclusion that sexual behavior is predicated upon a dynamic between altruistic and non-altruistic (selfish) behaviors, and also disagree with your imputed claim in that last sentence that altruistic is non-secular!
You also make a spectacular claim that
Care to back that up with some facts – if there are such cases, surely you can direct us to some precedents?
Mindy: Good caveat about sublimation. It might be that a mind that becomes complex and energized has more energy for both culture AND beyond-the-norm sexual exploration. That is CERTAINLY the case for many artists.
I do suspect, though, that if you want to make most people intellectually unproductive, most of the time, give them easy pleasures. Give them lots of exquisite food, music, sex (both sex itself and sexually infused amusements, such as TV and movies), give them all kinds of opportunities to become sloth-like. Give them American suburbs (dare I say?).
Maybe I should have said that relatively free sex (and sexual imagery–our titillating TV and movies) is merely one of MANY amusements that are sapping the limited hours and energy of many Americans.
If modern Americans didn't have all of their relatively mindless distractions and amusements, what would they do instead? Freud thinks (and I agree) that more of them would venture off to ponder the difficult intellectual exercises that tend to lead to technical marvels, medicines, books, hospitals, etc.
He pointed to redirected sexual energies as the engine of this sublimation. Geoffrey Miller points to sexual selection.
If children are raised to think that it's OK to screw around, and that life is all about satisfying their cravings (sexual and otherwise), I think that it's less likely that a child will redirect some of his/her animal energies into the cultural endeavors that we hold in high esteem.
This is an operating assumption in my mind, and I do find it to be compelling at times. It leads to dozens of other questions. I certainly don't claim to know how it might affect any parent's attempt to raise a particular child, for example.
Erich – I think perhaps you misspoke in your next-to-last paragraph? That children are more likely to redirect, or less likely?
I wholeheartedly agree with Tony's response to Karl, on all fronts.
And I think you raise a very valid point, Erich, about what makes us sloth-like, and that some will slide to that if overly-tempted. I think the propensity toward sloth-dom runs along a continuum, as do most things in life, with some very likely to give in to the temptation, others, not so much. Self-control comes more naturally to some than others, and perhaps those to whom it does not are the ones who need religion to exert the control they themselves cannot.
Thanks for the correction, Mindy. I've made the change.
Perhaps ALL people who are widely viewed as successes are tightly controlled, but that control comes from different directions. Some of us feel constrained by external rules and norms and we are most comfortable with that external guidance. People like Karl, for example, make it clear that they trust that external guidance for ultimate guidance (even though, if they thought about it carefully, they'd recognize that the rules are made of words and words are highly plastic). Aristotle had much criticism about this mentality that external rules can tell us how to live our lives.
The rest of us trust in ourselves to make good decisions; we rely on our inner judgment as the final arbiter, though we often refer to the rules, because recognize that there is often wisdom in rules, especially those rules that have withstood the test of time.
Tony (and by extension Karl)
The Civil War is something I know a wee bit about, having done a rather onerous amount of research for a novel I have yet to start writing. To claim that Christian compassion prompted the freeing of the slaves is a gross oversimplification.
Yes, there were many good Christians who opposed slavery, and, Tony, who also saw it as somehow a "natural order" thing—not the slavery per se but the fact that whites were superior to blacks, making white "responsible" for them. There were also a great many Christians, good or otherwise, who opposed emancipation, seeing the justification for it in Biblical passages, mostly OT.
It was not compassion that set in motion the events leading to the Civil War, but politics. And whenever you have politics you have such a mixed bag that it becomes difficult if not impossible to tease apart motive.
When Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union and maintain slavery, he meant it. But what he meant was a kind of backhanded concession to the Peculiar Institution, because he knew perfectly well that it could not be done. We had effectively two distinct economic systems, and the whole country was affected by their incompatibility.
To put it as simply as possible for brevitie's sake, the North more and more found itself having to "carry" the South in international trade. Cotton was beginning to drop in value because new sources had opened up, undercutting the South. While it is true that King Cotton was still profitable in 1861, it is also true that in a very short time it wouldn't be, for reasons that go all the way back to the Founding. (Check Jefferson's concerns over plantation farming, which he labeled Manure Politics.) The South HAD to expand the plantation system because cotton agriculture is devastating to the soil—the only way they could survive was to keep moving. (Interestingly, you can follow the "path" of the plantations today by looking at the most impoverished areas of the South—the geography conforms almost exactly with the westward expansion of plantations. The soil is only now beginning to recover.) The North had a vested interest in keeping this system from spreading because the Southern States used a law known at the 3/5s act to vote "on behalf" of their slaves—each slave was valued at three-fifths of a man and the owner could vote them as a block. They had enough votes to undermine all manner of federal program—it was politically untenable to keep going this way, because the North needed to expand as well.
Slavery as an institution was beginning to fail economically. When the South seceded, there were many moves afoot to acquire new territory in Central America, Mexico, even some feelers put out to South America—expansion was essential. But the act of secession was what prompted the Civil War, the underlying causes were as much if not more economic as altruistic, and the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in those states that had already fallen to the North—Tennessee and Kentucky—and was used as an attempt to spark an uprising in the heart of the South.
Altruism? There was plenty, but not on the government's behalf. It was a happy alignment of factors in that regard. Primarily, though, Lincoln saw clearly that the system could not long be sustained as it was.
Just for clarification.
Tony C states:
"It was my understanding (and many reputable historical sources agree) that many of the most vociferous opponents to the repeal of slavery were predominantly Christians (with the notable exception of the Quakers and Moravians) who saw slavery as part of the ‘Natural Order” and quoted scripture and verse in support of their claims. They were strongly adamant that such repeal could only lead to the abandonment of god and the growth of “wanton secularism”."
I didn't say it was the "southern flavor" of naturalism mixed in their interpretation of Christianity that had an altruistic view of man's inhumanity to man. The leaders of many churches and local governments in the south obviously had secular ideas that had overshadowed the clear teaching of scripture.
If I didn't make it clear it was the "altruistic" (whether Christian or humanistic) principles of compassion and the unversal brotherhhod of man that were the positive motivators in this struggle. The north gathered more support from their masses and their generals knew that the stuggle shifted to their favor when the governmental decrees combined altruistic principles with a compassionate appeal on behalf of those who were being oppressed.
I'm sure there were a fair share of ungodly secularism in the churches in the south because of the manner by which protestant missionaries found themselves having to compromise their own convictions to be given opportunity to be heard by those in the South who saw nothing innately evil about slavery.
Tony C stated:
"I also find I disagree with your conclusion that sexual behavior is predicated upon a dynamic between altruistic and non-altruistic (selfish) behaviors, and also disagree with your imputed claim in that last sentence that altruistic is non-secular!"
If altruistic principles of human compassion, self-control, love. faith, … etc. actually exist they are not secular in the sense that these values exist in a framework that is beyond a simply neutral commonness to all people.
The commonness to all people is both positive and negative thoughts, behaviors, activities and habits.
People have shown over and over again that they do not know to choose the best, especially when it involves a level of self-control that is required to overcome poor choices and the inclinations that these choices develope in the lives of people.
I have heard most everyone say here on DI that they acknowledge that people have the ability to make both positive and negative impacts upon their own lives and the lives of others by their choices and activities.
The actual physiological functioning of sexuality is obviously something that can to some extent be separated from an individuals persona, as witnessed by those who start out life with one orientation and then decide that they can be some other orientation or some other orientations as they decide.
When I say that people tend to make sexuality altruisitc, take the example of Mark who to some degree equates sex with the divine or the Almightly. The only way for sexuality to really be altruistic for people like this is to have whatever altruistic ideals that they hold to regarding relationships to also be present in matters relating to their sexual imaginations, activities, behaviors and habits.
As for how Tony C can doubt that there are secular militant endeavors to silence altruistic ideals, he really needs to focus upon his own tactics as well as those of the far left that would like nothing better than to force law cases or provide activist judges cases anywhere they choose.
Tony a couple of weeks ago was (and probably still is) convinced that I need to be investigated by the authorities for teaching science in an altruistic (as I see it) manner in a private Christian School.
hmmm
Sorry about the font issue in the blockquote – I'll see if I can edit it 🙁
Tony: I've got your back on the ont-fay oblem-pray.
Karl writes:—"I’m sure there were a fair share of ungodly secularism in the churches in the south because of the manner by which protestant missionaries found themselves having to compromise their own convictions to be given opportunity to be heard by those in the South who saw nothing innately evil about slavery."
That's a cop out, Karl. People who overwhelming see the world through a lens of reliosity tend to see EVERYTHING through that lens and base all their decisions and ideas on what they perceive as religious truth. It may, in time, prove to be a false assumption, but to them in their head there is no secularism coloring anything. They found the biblical passages to justify their beliefs and compounded those passages with their own "take" on the natural order. You do not get to blame secularism for the fuck-upped worldviews of those who are so deeply entrenched in their own sanctimony. This was post-Enlightenment— there were plenty of well-reasoned SECULAR arguments against slavery, arguments at least as heartfelt as the views of the Quakers and other like-minded Christians.
The fact is, historically and otherwise, that people grasp an idea they perceive as divinely inspired and because they believe it is what god wants, if their so-called faith is strong enough, reason cannot move them, and it is that which many of us rail against. Because from their point of view—as with yours—there is no court of appeal greater than god and what they perceive as god's will is final. So if they get it wrong, too bad for us poor, benighted secularist who may be more driven by altruism than anyone doing good out of fear of hellfire. After all, when we do good it's only because we think it's right, not because we think there will be browny points with the almighty.
I also believe that people create God in their own image and likeness.
then if I had a god it would be… <font size="10px">gorgeous!</font> (but a little too full of himself, if you know what I mean!)
Mark: ditto.
Here are some articles concerning what I referred to regarding secularization silencing public debate concerning values and ideologies.
Granted these are not sources anyone here would call their cup of tea, but the perspectives are still obviously impacting people with valuea and ideals that the secularists wish to silence.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031002…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesus-Mis…
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/cardinal.ur…
http://bashingsecularism.blogspot.com/2009/03/chr…
http://www.heythrop.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/…
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/133…
Karl
Thanks for taking the time to research and post your links.
You're right – they are not what I would normally peruse in depth (for many reasons). But I'll respond to each of them in turn
1) Your Australian Cardinal Pell objects that Christianity is not being provided a priviledged place in public life. I honestly don't see the problem. The Christians have had a place of priviledge for the past few centuries, despite most countries declaring or recognizing themselves as secular. It's not an attack on religion, it is simply a failure to 'bend the knee' to religion and religious doctrine.
2) Ah yes – the 'Attack on Christmas'! I have no idea where this is coming from, but I, my friends, my colleagues, in fact everyone I know (even my Jewish and Moslem friends) celebrate the 'season' of Christmas, and enjoy sharing gifts on Christmas day. My family and I say Merry Christmas to people I meet. For me, it has always been a secular holiday, with some (optional) trappings of religion – even as a practicing Catholic in Scotland. I have never seen this 'Attack on Christmas' first hand – only reported on Fox news and similar outlets. This surprises me! I travel over 100,000 miles a year on business, to all corners of the US. You'd think I would have noticed something as deeply rooted and as widespread as an 'Attack on Christmas'.
3) The missing 'Jesus' is actually (if you read the article) stagecraft – this was not a religious speech, it was a secular speech by our president. The locale was full of iconography – the most visible was covered, simply to provide a consistent context for President Obama's speech, similar to every other speech by the President. Stage-craft, not witch-craft.
4) this is a copy of (1) – provide links, but at least provide variety.
5) I have absolutely no idea what this person is trying to say (in terms of 'bashing secularism'), but he doesn't say it very well or clearly. The government response was very clear – if you take government money to provide services – you provide services to all who are eligible with no 'religious means test'. The other commentary seemed to be no more than petulance (again, boiling down to a pouting "but we're special!")
6) this is a somewhat reasonable piece. Attacking through stereotypes is not, evidentially, something I (nor any of the authors here) do. It does, however, strike me as an example of the pot calling the kettle black: the most vociferous 'labellers' today are not the secularists, but the evangelical right. Equating the election of Obama as equivalent to the rise of the AntiChrist, and other such drivel. So close, but no banana.
7) I thought this a very strange note for you to incorporate. Essentially the report highlights occasions where religious leaders have 'overstepped their bounds' and chastised (in the form of a demand, in the case of the Pontiff) legislators and entire governments for failing to craft and enact policy in line with their narrow religious tenets. How a government with multi-cultural and multi-religious members, that by it's constitution is required to be secular (no establishment) could possibly abide by the tenets of every religion represented in it's chambers (never mind in it's population) is insanely impossible. Or do you advocate that we should replace the constitution with the bible? the torah? the koran? the bhagavad gita, perhaps? I think we're better off having legislators deal with their religion as a personal matter, and if it influences their vote – that is their privilege. As it is the privilege of their constituents to vote them out of office if they don't like their voting record.
In none of these links do I see any instance of 'secularists' trying to silence anyone. What I do see is an old and dying elite running scared. I see 'the old order' complaining about 'these damn kids', while forgetting their own youth, and their own time of ideas and idealism. I see narrow tribal loyalties forged by ignorance, being broken on the anvil of global education and tolerance. I see fear, uncertainty and doubt being sown by those with something to lose – not the people or the parishioners, but the gilded cardinals, the pastors and preachers, who fear a life with no influence.
With education comes understanding. With understanding comes tolerance. With tolerance comes acceptance. With acceptance comes independence of thought.
It is this last that the pastors cannot abide, methinks.