I got into a stupid flame was the other day on Facebook with a friend (and her commenters)
She [A] posted the following to her wall:
If you think that putting up a mosque 600 ft. from ground zero and have
the opening of the mosque on the anniversary of 9/11/11, is immoral,
inhuman and a complete lack of respect for the memories of all that
perished on that day and their survivors & that politicians are
doing a grave injustice to the fallen heroes, their families and the
people of New York City, THEN PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THIS TO YOUR WALL
The first commenter followed with
[B] its digusting its even a thought in someones head…..
I saw this and saw yet another vile, right-wing sponsored attack on civil liberties. I am not religious, and abhor religion. I think it perpetuates an evil upon the world that does incalculable damage to current and future generations. However, I do support the rule of law, and the Cordoba House people have the right to build there.
So I posted, what I thought was a reasonable and factual statement to counter the right-wing memetics that have been strewn across the TV & Blogosphere in recent days:
[me] Sorry to have to say this, but the mosque (prayer room) already exists at the site. The proposed building is to be a Community Center (like a YMCA, but Muslim not Christian).
There is nothing disgusting in allowing people the right to self determination. Conflating the acts of terrorists with the wider community of people who share the faith professed by those terrorists is simply wrong!
Do you berate every Catholic because of the acts of the IRA, or because some priests are guilty of paedophilia? Every protestant because of the acts of the UDF, Timothy McVeigh, or Abortion clinic bombers?
The Constitution of the US is a wonderful thing, and it enshrines rights for EVERY American - not just the ones YOU agree with!
The US is the embodiment of the values and ethics espoused by the Enlightenment, and by philosophers like Voltaire:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire in her biography of him)
I thought this was fine – given the 700 character limits on facebook comments – but then the flaming began. I’ll just post the thread without edit and let it stand on it’s own. All I will say is that if this is the response of reasonable people, then this country is in worse shape than I thought.
[C] I have to disagree with Tony in that the basic idea of a memorial means different things to different cultures. In the Christian culture, putting a building or memorial near the site of the fallen is a way to honor the dead. In Islam, it is a way of honoring heroes and their actions. Big difference! While I don’t think it should be built there, I don’t think there is a legal way to prevent it. I would feel better if it were even just a few blocks away.
[B] Thank you (C)! Exactly!
[me] (C), I have to disagree. The community center is not, except in the minds of right-wing pundits a 'tribute' to anyone. This is NOT a memorial! It's a community center, and unless one has an agenda against people who happen to be Muslim, it is disingenuous (at least) to suggest otherwise. Care to cite the primary source of this being a 'Muslim Memorial'? Everything I've read to date states it's a community center. Not a memorial. Not a tribute to fallen heroes ( although such would be perfectly valid - many American Muslims worked and died at the Twin Towers on 9/11). It's a YMCAYMMA!
You may *disagree* with the appropriateness of their decision. But you can't *demand* that they not build their center.
And when you say “I think it should be further away”… how far away is acceptable? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? How about in Jersey City? Or perhaps in Madison, WI? As soon as you start to draw arbitrary lines on ‘appropriate’ that have no foundation in law, you start on the path of societal control that even Stalin could only dream. Our ideas of appropriate all differ. Our constitution allows us the ability to ‘meet in the middle’ recognizing that while we may disagree, we agree on the fundamental – that I may not impose my narrow perspective upon you, not vice versa.
I find it strange that the same people who shout about ‘activist judges’ and ‘the coming of Sharia law in the US’ are the same ones demanding the kind of control over the body politic that they so denigrate in others and that they see around every corner the scary ‘other – ‘ so much so they are more than willing to excise our freedoms for the imposition of more constraints and controls (but that’s OK, ‘cos it’s Christian, right?)
Lastly – I am happy that you recognize the legal right of the Cordoba House to build their community center. I’m less happy that you continue to conflate, and use denigratory terms to reference that ‘other’. They are Americans. Please accord them the same respect and rights that you would anyone else .
[D] I think we, as Americans, should do the right thing…..get even! I say we build a pork BBQ place on one side, and a strip club on the other.
Image by Erich Vieth (using Creative Commons WTC image and mosque image by Achilles (Dreamstime.com) with permission)
[A] OK Tony..stop it with the right wing bullshit. You are ASSuming this opposition is being fueled by those on the right. For most citizens, it’s not about right, left, or in the middle. It’s about the surviving family members. Where were you on 9-11? Switzerland, Canada, Spain? We were watching in horror the events of 9-11. (M) was traveling that day. I didn’t know if he was on a plane or on the ground. I remember the silence afterward. No planes in the sky. I thought the world was ending. I’m not an idiot. I know these were acts of extremism. Where’s the line? The only “agenda” I have currently is to decide whether or not I should drop your ass as a friend on facebook.
[A] EXACTLY what I was thinking, (D)! Bravo!
[me] (A) - I'm sorry you feel that way. On 9-11 I was in a building opposite the US mint in downtown Philly - watching the events unfold with two of my team members who lived minutes from the towers, - and realizing that we all had colleagues and friends at a client site in Tower one. My focus in the immediate aftermath was making certain that I could get everyone in my team to safety as all federal buildings and their vicinities were being interdicted. I lost a colleague from my office, and others from offices across the country in the attack. I have friends who were directly impacted, and many who still live in the vicinity. Despite being thus affected I can recognize appropriate versus inappropriate, and still stand by my earlier statement, and will even expand upon it: I disapprove of ALL religion, and think it exacts untold evil upon the world, but while this particular group act legally I will defend their right to do so - just as I would defend the rights of any others acting within the law. Whether you agree or not with the appropriateness of the Cordoba Group's decision to build their community center, there are NO valid objections available in law.
[me] (D) - there already is a strip club less than half a block away - and at least three BBQ (and fast food) joints within a few hundred feet.
OK – I admit this was an asinine response. 🙁 But then it’s followed by this…
[E] Where did this guy come from? I’m appauled at the justification. And for the record ….. there also is “no valid objections in the law” to the other 98% of americans having an issue w/ it and speaking that freely.
(A) – I’m w/ you on this one
I am dismayed, but unsurprised. There is no nuanced response. I find the knee-jerk reactions to be no different to those that fueled Catholic/Protestant ‘troubles’ in Ireland and the West of Scotland when I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s. They are no different to the commentary made about ‘uppity’ blacks or white ‘apologists’ prior to integration. They are no different to the comments made about Japanese Americans interned following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
They are no different to the commentary of any bigot.
I wholly disagree with the stance of those behind Cordoba House, just as I am against those who build mega-churches, or fight to close down abortion clinics, or deny basic rights to LBGT couples. However, I will defend the expression of those viewpoints against similar bigotry.
UPDATE: One of Scalzi’s guest bloggers apparently feels the same way. Great post on this same issue at Whatever
UPDATE 2: Daryll Lang posted a Photo Essay and a blog post on this issue. Both deserve to be seen.
UPDATE 3: Some final posts over the past 24 hours…
[C] The issue has absolutely nothing to do with religious tolerance and everything to do with compassion, kindness and sensitivity to the families of the 9/11 victims who were murdered there. Period.
[me](C): Does that compassion extend to the many Muslim Americans families who lost loved ones? I know of one such family, personally (mentioned in passing above).
All I see is an 'astroturf issue "think of the families", which appears from a dispassionate perspective to be more about "Oh Noes, Teh Muslim" than it is about "values" or "compassion". I have not seen ANY outcry from anyone other than the right-wing blogosphere and pundits, such as Gingrich, Beck, Limbaugh, and their ilk. This is a manufactured issue, that has become a stain on American Democracy. Are the constitutional rights of Americans so small a thing that being a "Muslim American" makes you somehow less deserving of those rights? The outcry against this is manufactured and directed by nothing less than bigotry. I don;t mean to imply that people who are uncomfortable with the decision are bigots. Simply that the issue has been manufactured and amplified by bigots.
[A] ok. we can agree to disagree. Tony—lucky thing I’m so crazy about your wife and kids—ok, and you too—MOST of the time. I can’t believe you called me a flippin bigot! NO RESPONSE NEEDED 😉 My page, I get the last word.
You’ll notice that reading comprehension is not a strong suit here – since I specifically stated that those people who felt uncomfortable are not necessarily bigots – but the people instigating the outrage most certainly are.
I declined to comment further.
UPDATE 4: The NYT has an article that reports how the rampant and vocal opposition to the moslem center (mosque)
is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam
I'm a technophile with an enduring interest in almost anything real or imagined. I suffer fools badly, and love trashy science fiction, plot-free action movies, playing guitar, and baking (especially scones. You haven't lived 'til you've eaten my scones. I've recently undertaken bread, and am now in danger of gaining in a matter of weeks the 60 pounds I've lost in the past 2 years). My wife & I are Scottish, living north of Atlanta, GA, with two children, one dog, and a growing collection of gadgets. I work for a living.
Providing funding and/or assistance for the construction of a not-for-profit Moslem community center has opened a door that we should recognize as one we as a country do not want to go down.
You sure are noisy even from so far away.
Citation needed.
Who is funding this with public funds?
And are you sure this is something you want to push? Like the tax dollars that go towards the funding of 'charter schools' with religious curricula? Or the tax dollars that are used to support the build or maintenance of 'community centers' like the YMCA?
Don't go there, unless you want some serious, fact-based, whup-ass!
Karl writes:—"There will never be a total separation of values and beliefs from human experience. In like manner, as long as “We The People” are the very agents of the government it will be impossible to remove the influence of values and beliefs upon the government."
Nobody says there will be such separation. Basically, what this is all about is proselytization. I do not want a president to use religious language when talking about policy. I do not want some numbnut general using the rhetoric of religious crusade in *my name*. I do not want a teacher leading a class in prayer. I do not want this religious affiliation crap in my governmental discourse. Like anyone else, they can believe whatever they want, but when representing me or anyone else I want it *out* of the picture. If the policies they decide upon make sense to me, I don't care from whence it comes, but if one of them says "Jesus told me to do it this way" I want that one voted out of office. I elected him/her, not Jesus, and they will kindly take orders from ME, not some unseen nebulous incarnation of a sky fairy.
For the record, I don't want them to talk about Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, the Buddha, the Great Sky Father, Elohim, Yahweh, Baal, Zeus, or the Thetans and I certainly do not want any of that nonsense to be explicitly wired into public policy. Like I say, if a policy makes sense to me *as policy* then I don't much care what inspired it, but the moment they wed it to their religion publicly, it stops being about the policy and becomes an act of evangelism, and I DON'T WANT IT IN MY GOVERNMENT!
Now, is that simple enough for everyone to understand?
To move it briefly from the realm of religion, we currently have a situation where if the term "socialism" (which most people do not understand) gets attached to a piece of policy or legislation, it automatically makes said policy suspect, no matter what kind of sense it might make on its own merits. There is baggage to the label and it poisons the discourse.
Just so with religion. And there is no need for that to occur. People make policy, not god. Whether the policymakers feel inspired by their deity or not makes no difference to the utility of the policy, but the explicit introduction of their religious inspiration makes the policy suddenly not about the issue at hand but about how Jesus will save us all through the inspired instrument of this bill.
It doesn't matter who or what one consults to craft policy, so long as the policy is sound. (and the policy needn't be progressively liberal – I'm willing to accept that I'm not always right, and neither are my politics!)
I had a boss, once, who'd ask his Mom what she thought of strategies and tactics – his Mom had been dead for a couple of decades, and he definitely didn't believe she was a ghost and listening… it just helped him reach a, to him, morally & socially acceptable position. He didn't expect us to just do as he said on the "word of his Mom!" but because the idea made sense.
I expect no less from any leader or pundit, and decry any pandering to special interests in whatever form that takes. Religion just seems to be one especially long-lasting flavor. "Tea Parties" are another.
Use to be all politics was local. Now politics in America appears to have morphed into something more like, "Like it or not, keep your mouth shut or you have no chance of making a correct policy decision."
Use to be the majority ruled in matters of political correctness. Now the most vocal legal beagles determine political correctness.
Use[sic] to be all politics was local. Now politics in America appears to have morphed into something more like, “Like it or not, keep your mouth shut or you have no chance of making a correct policy decision.”Use[sic] to be the majority ruled in matters of political correctness. Now the most vocal legal beagles determine political correctness.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and I hazard to guess that you don't either.
What you write makes absolutely no sense, unless you are railing against abiding by the bill of rights… you know that pesky document that declares we have freedom of speech?
The majority were against civil rights.
The majority were against emancipation.
The majority were for prohibition.
The majority is often an ass.
Our constitution protects minorities so that we are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately the only vocal minorities I see having a significant and unwarranted influence today are the evangelists and the tea partiers. Despite that, and regardless of how much I detest their stance, I will do everything in my power to ensure they are allowed their say. Just so long as I, and their other opponents, are allowed our say too.
I am not pushing for the removal of religion from the public arena, that would be a definite prohibition there of religious liberty.
I am of the same thinking of Madison and Jefferson that to provide a precedent for the funding of any specific forms and structures of religion with taxpayer monies would be steps in the wrong direction.
If charter "public" schools have religion instruction directly funded by taxpayer funds this is a step in the wrong direction.
If the YMCA have worship services in the room next to the gym they had better get their own funding, or the public dollars should dry up.
You need to read beyond the scary headline (and the extremely biased opinion piece), and recognize the fact that Imam Rauf has been working on State Department business since early in Bush's first term – as a special envoy to the mid east. The current administration are sensibly continuing the practice. His trips are at the behest of our Government. They are not fundraising trips. There are many others who do that job as well or better than the Imam.
Does your worldview somehow cause you to view Imam Rauf's behavior more critically than might otherwise be expected?
It's just another example, Karl, of your occluded vision. Saying so does not make it so.
Also — JoshuaPundit is not a News organization. It is a blog. Like this is a blog. It is, at best, opinion. That particular blog at least wears it's bias on it's sleeve (A digest and commentary on the war against Jihad). As does this blog (see the masthead, and about DI!)
Finally: I am not pushing for the removal of religion from the public arena, that would be a definite prohibition there of <del datetime="2010-09-29T12:25:26+00:00">religious </del>liberty. Fixed that for you. Religion does not and should not get any special treatment., It should be treated exactly the same from a governmental perspective as basketweaving or bonsai. Otherwise we agree completely. I do not wish religion to disappear. Just to get out of politics, out of public education (Dover, Texas BoE?) and out of MY life. What YOU do with it is YOUR concern.
I am of the same thinking of Madison and Jefferson that to provide a precedent for the funding of any <del datetime="2010-09-29T12:25:26+00:00">specific </del>forms and structures of religion with taxpayer monies would be steps in the wrong direction.. Again, we agree (other than your restriction to 'specific'). No funding for any forms or structures of religion. But no bars on personal viewpoint. For example: If a judge wants to pray before holding court, that's his personal business, and no-one can stop him doing so – in the court or in his private chambers. If he demands that everyone in the courthouse join him, that is governmental imposition of religious form and against the law.
I'm glad to see that we finally (almost) agree on something. It does seem to be two steps forward, and one back…
Thew Bush state department's trips were not begun with the idea of raising money for the construction of a ground zero mosque/community center.
This is an evolution of a strange order allowed by those who have not wished to discuss how it happened but as usual point to the claimed precedent started by someone else to make what is now happening seem connected.
I redfuse to connwect the dots again as usual.
The original trips were not suppose to be about fundraising for anything but about cross cultural exchange.
As usual, I am not Islamophobic, any more than you arr christianophobic.
You are conflating, and are close to making libelous allegations. I'm not claiming that you are an islamophobe. I merely point out that your 'news sources' are distinctly and unapologetically so.
Provide actual evidence that Imam Rauf is doing anything other than State Dept business (good-will missions). Otherwise that topic is closed. The State Dept are clear on saying what his mission is. He is clear on saying what his mission is. But you seem to think that the islamophobes are more reliable than the two actual actors in this?
Evidence and actual citations please. Put up. Or shut up.
Regarding me:
I am not christianophobic. Don't flatter yourself. I am, however, religiophobic.
I consider religion a cancer on the human psyche, and the sooner we are rid of it the better. However, unlike most ardent religionists, I am willing to live with and accommodate religionists to the extent that they live with and accommodate me and everyone else who disagrees with their particular fairy tale. That is the measure of tolerance. Perhaps you should look that word up.
I detest Islam, Judaism, Christianity (in all of it's flavors), Zoroastrianism,. Satanism, Wicca, Buddhism, and every other flavor of religion past, present and future. I do not detest the people who follow those religions. For the most part they had no choice in the matter, being born into it.
I will do everything in my power to ensure your views are not silenced. Would you do the same for me, an atheist, if this were a Christian theocracy? I'll understand if you try not to answer honestly, because honesty would demand that you treat me as an abomination.
Karl writes:—"I am of the same thinking of Madison and Jefferson that to provide a precedent for the funding of any specific forms and structures of religion with taxpayer monies would be steps in the wrong direction."
So…we should tax churches? As far as I'm concerned, that's a state subsidy, tax exempt status, which many churches abuse (becoming landlords, media holding companies, etc.)
Here is the actual wording of the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It should be noted that the term religion is referred to without any cross outs. The understanding of the Supreme Court of late has also stated that ir-religion fits into these matters the same way.
You can rest assured that in America whether the majority are theists or not, that both religion and irreligion are equally protected liberties and freedom of speech is assured.
The mainstream media will never be told to cease from their biased point of view, no matter how many people stop watching them. Can we say the same for Fox and Friends or talk radio? As far as I know, no one in America would declare it tolerable to try to stifle the opinions and beliefs of atheists and agnostics. However, it is also clear to me that segments of the legislature and segments of the executive branch have desired to usurp the clear written meaning of this amendment through policies and regulations that are unconstitutional.
I cannot ever see America becoming a "Rome" that declared a specific religion as the state religion.
I do however witness on a regular basis those who claim to be irreligious having more and more support from the fourth estate (mass media approved peer review) and less and less tolerance for Christianity.
It almost seems that in order to try to lessen a majority religious worldview in America, any and all other irreligions and religions alike get favorable coverage by the drive by media, and that the only religion that is prohibited from redressing a grievance is that of the majority.
I can and do live with this every day. I do not consider you or any other atheist or agnostic an abomination that needs to be irradiated or even converted. I seek to be understood and to understand where you are coming from.
Don't quote the first amendment at me – you don't seem to understand what it really means. I presented (earlier) the 'Establishment Clause' specifically – which is that first clause – the one that specifically mentions religion. And I see much more 'activist' support in the House, Senate, and Supreme Court for rabidly Christianist interpretations than you imply in your response. Would you care to address my actual point – that 'revisionists' (like Palin) are seeking to re-interpret the constitution, and especially the first amendment, as being specifically about supporting Christianity (despite all the contextual correspondence of the founders to the contrary). That non-Christian viewpoints are being vilified and reviled.
Then… to the rest of your comment.
Are you NUTS????
You can rest assured that in America whether the majority are theists or not, that both religion and irreligion are equally protected liberties and freedom of speech is assured. […] As far as I know, no one in America would declare it tolerable to try to stifle the opinions and beliefs of atheists and agnostics. […] it is also clear to me that [some in government] have desired to usurp the clear written meaning of this amendment through policies and regulations that are unconstitutional. […] I do however witness on a regular basis those who claim to be irreligious having more and more support from the fourth estate (mass media approved peer review) and less and less tolerance for Christianity. It almost seems that […] the only religion that is prohibited from redressing a grievance is that of the majority.
So where are the almost 20% of the irreligious (as identified in demographics surveys) in our representatives? Congress? Senate? I see an overwhelmingly large over-representation of Christianity – especially that of the in-your-face evangelical variety. Try standing for any office anywhere in America's 'heartland' – without membership in a Church – indeed without membership in the RIGHT Church – and see how far your campaign will go. The only atheist representatives I know of are from highly educated, liberal, urban areas (not to conflate, but thems the facts. Pete Stark [D/CA] is the only openly atheist office-holder at the federal level. There are a couple more in some state legislatures).
Where are the endless parade of main stream stories that highlight stupid religious practice and fairy tales for what they are? Why does every fucking science article in the main stream media need to have a religious idiot making a useless and irrelevant counter-comment 'for balance'.
Karl – you are delusion personified. You think you live in a world of persecution. You know not what that means.
Christianity is the majority, the default, and the most-frequently-stated position in the US mainstream. Trying to present any alternative viewpoint is like swimming uphill while wearing lead pants. Here in North Georgia, I can't drive a hundred yards without passing a church, or a billboard with a christian motto (usually one that highlights how much of an abomination a sinner like me is – demanding that I REPENT!!!!!). Meeting new people socially is usually an interesting conversation – because one of the early questions (after where is your accent from) is "where do you go to church?". Christianity is overwhelmingly dominant in the US. (I lived for seven years in Eastern PA – it was very similar with regards to 'overt Christianity', if just a little less pushy). Try to inject some reality into your mind-set. It really will help with your blood-pressure.
Lastly, it's nice that you, personally, don't see me as an abomination.
So how is that 'cherry picking' working for you? Christianity as religion-a-la-carte?
Karl – your religion states very clearly that I, and others of my ilk, are abominations, and that YOU (the good Christian) must act to bring us to god. This is especially true if you are an evangelical Christian (not so much if you are a strict Calvinist). Don't you actually do what your religion commands, Karl?
If your religion was in charge, I would be lucky to be a second-class citizen, assuming I were allowed to live (atheists and gays were targets for the pogroms too, you know). My kids would be required to be educated according to your principles (or do you deny Dover and the Texas BoE, which happen to be simply the most visible and easily referenced examples – and those within our own supposedly secular environment. I can go dig up thousands of examples just by googling. It's everywhere).
Unlike you, Karl, I actually do live with this every day. With people wondering how I can be 'such a nice person' and 'seem to do the right thing' without god. They honestly think that I'm really just saying I don't believe, and that I secretly do believe — otherwise I'd just be out there rapin' and murderin' and being all hellacious. That is my reality here in the 'bible-lovin' south'.
Karl writes:—"As far as I know, no one in America would declare it tolerable to try to stifle the opinions and beliefs of atheists and agnostics."
Really? Hmm…
People find it "tolerable" in this country to try to stifle all sorts of opinions and beliefs. It just depends on their own personal foibles. What always happens is when a minority has finally had enough of being ignored, dismissed, or oppressed, the shouting starts, and the majority cultures reacts with dismay and anger and claims that the minority is trying to oppress the majority. This is what happened throughout the civil rights movement.
So in the last couple of decades of right wing reaction to a more vocal a-religious stance you hear about the "embattled" christians and the oppression of religion. Of course, once you add other religions into the mix, the message gets a little more muddled—we shouldn't be saying anything bad about christians, but those Muslims over there, well, that's different.
But you are not entirely wrong. SOME people will not tolerate oppression, and often those people end up in government, where they become targets for the previously self-satisfied and comfortable who see their actions to remove imbalances as attacks on said self-satisfaction and comfort. When it bites us in the ass, we get very motivated.
If we introduced religion into public schools in a class wherein they were ALL discussed, how long would it be before the same people bitching about religious oppression now would be clamoring to have religion removed from the public schools? This is not entirely speculation on my part—I attended a PTA meeting once where this topic got raised and I made exactly that suggestion. Let's have a separate class for religion—for ALL of them. We'll teach Judaism, christianity, Islam, Buddhism, all of it in the same class.
The shouting match that ensued was priceless. A few of these folks looked as if I had just urinated on their bible.
The advocates of religious inclusion do not want to be Inclusive. They want a theocratic condition.
I agree, it would not last long. But the fight to put them back in their box would be a horrible political bloodletting. I think it is safer all around to keep it out.
Freedom, any freedom, carries with it the burden of responsibility for any and all actions taken under that freedom.
Part of this principle can be taken to mean that the tabloid media, which has sought to vilify the Islamic faith, is responsible and must be held accountable its role in inciting violence against Muslims.
A key point in the media bullshit promoted by Fox, is being built around the funding sources for the cultural center near the world trade center location. A little research shows that to date, no funding has yet been procured for the project. The actual property is currently owned by a real estate investment company controlled by a member of Rauf's congregation, who has offered it for the project. No government funding, no foreign funding.
If you think the role of Christians in the world is to pass judgement upon sinners, those you consider to be "Christians" have indeed failed in their mission.
Christians are not called upon to somehow convince sinners that they need to repent because they (the Christians) know what's right and what's not.
Christians themselves are called upon to live lives that admit their own sinful tendencies and to sympathize with this same condition in all men.
We are also called upon to respect the mindset and worldview of others that would see this as just basically all screwed up.
Hope this clarifies where I am coming from a bit more.
If you think the role of Christians in the world is to pass judgement upon sinners, those you consider to be “Christians” have indeed failed in their mission.
This is not about what I think. It is entirely about how so called Christians act. Are you trying, honestly, to tell me that these other proselytizing, sermonizing, preachifying, and politicizing Christians are not True Christians™?
Christians are not called upon to somehow convince sinners that they need to repent because they (the Christians) know what’s right and what’s not.
So you don't believe or follow the tenets of evangelism? What do you believe? Describe it to me in terms we can both understand. I seem to have misunderstood Evangelism entirely, and protestantism completely. Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand? Can you help?
Christians themselves are called upon to live lives that admit their own sinful tendencies and to sympathize with this same condition in all men.
This sympathy of which you speak. Is that Christian code for hating gays? Hating Islam? Hating Atheists? Hating Secularism? These are all positions taken by ostensibly mainstream American Christians. Do you deny these positions are normal in Christianity? That those who promote such behavior are not True Christians™?
We are also called upon to respect the mindset and worldview of others that would see this as just basically all screwed up.
Where exactly in the scripture does it tell you to do that? I seem to recall quite a few examples of the opposite (I can cite them if you wish).
Hope this clarifies where I am coming from a bit more.
Yes indeed! You are saying that everything we see as Evangelical Christianity – in the mainstream of American politics and social life – is actually not Christianity but something strange and unreal and not Christianity at all! Despite the fact that its practitioners and proponents call themselves Christians, they are, in fact, not Christians, and certainly they are not a good, honest, forthright, and upstanding True Christian™ like you.
It should be obvious that there are many ways that "Christianity" is perceived by people.
There is only one perception that should mean anything of substance for the devoted evangelical follower of Christ. That one way is how well they have shown others by their actions first and words secondly that they appreciate the forgiveness of sin that was/is offered through Jesus Christ? This is personal evangelism; it is at the heart of an evangelical lifestyle.
Here are several quotes from St. Francis of Assisi.
Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.
Above all the grace and the gifts that Christ gives to his beloved is that of overcoming self.
For it is in giving that we receive.
I have been all things unholy. If God can work through me, he can work through anyone.
If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.
It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.
Lord, grant that I might not so much seek to be loved as to love.
Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
No one is to be called an enemy, all are your benefactors, and no one does you harm. You have no enemy except yourselves.
Where there is charity and wisdom, there is neither fear nor ignorance.
Where there is injury let me sow pardon.
While you are proclaiming peace with your lips, be careful to have it even more fully in your heart.
End qoutes. These pretty much summarize my viewpoint upon evangelical Christianity.
As most people of any real life experience will tell you however, most Christians fail more at this than anything else because they feel they owe an obligation to society to uphold the values of the society they are accustomed to.
There is a mixed nature to the message of a collective group of people as compared to the individual overall. The common phrases used to eliminate this personal failure to witness effectively are ones like this. We are in the world, but not of this world. We are called to love the sinner, but hate sin. Unfortunately, if people do not find release from their own sin (i.e. both Christians and non-Christians) we end up projecting hatred of the sin we see in ourselves onto others in a way that seems to enable us to feel better about ourselves.
What is witnessed by most people from organized Christianity then is endorsed moral values communicated as cultural and political legalism. This comes about from everyone having some kind of a sense of what is right and wrong for them that they somehow feel obliged to pass along to others as well.
The obvious thing that is seen by most people about Christianity is a code of legalism. Do such and such and that will earn you a "prize" as you would call it. Tony, I’d be glad to offer you a prize for answering honestly if that is what this discussion has been all about.
Some view Christianity as having all the right words to say that can convince some people that you can talk the lingo and by doing so this makes you an authorized representative.
Every individual person at some point will realize that there is something about their own sense of values that they can not live up to on their own efforts. For some this doesn't bother them one bit, and they simply ignore the values, or change the importance of these values all together. Some will even change an entire value system to make it more amenable to their own worldview and beliefs.
Other people may believe that certain values are significant enough to be minimal requirements to maintain social harmony and to provide social justice for those being treated unfairly by other people. The snafu in all of this is that given the opportunity anyone who has the honesty will state that the bare minimum should be that which makes it easier for them to excuse their own shortcomings.
Here is a wrong I have seen promulgated throughout any culture and political system where Christianity has been a major contributor to the culture. Many Christians out of their sense of commitment to the values they hold (not just from their relationship to Jesus Christ) will add more and more legalistic rules/values as a way of trying to make others feel less and less worthy and to try to convince others of their need of Jesus Christ.
If you would like some biblical references about how Christians are suppose to respond to others that do not believe the same, you may look up references in the Bible along the lines of persecution. These verses would probably apply equally well to those atheists that do still have some sense of moral restraint, for some reason or another.
The Christian is not called upon to let the society they are a part of to destroy itself by a loss of self-restraint. However, the individuals who are a part of society are suppose to be given repeated opportunity to understand why at least certain minimal values need to be maintained so that society does not do just that – i.e. self-destruct.
The Christian therefore has a choice to make whenever he or she is confronted with others that openly reject that which is of value to them. Either they will keep the importance of any specific value in their life or they will reject that value. But the one value you will never see a devoted Christian agree to compromise upon is the importance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Why is this value one they will never compromise upon? I think it would be obvious, but I will spell it out if you haven’t heard it often enough from others.
I don't care if Christians have doctrinal issues with one another. I don't care if your particular brand of Christianity is different from the one I see around me every day.
I don't care.
All I care about is that self-proclaimed Christians want to impose their 'values' upon me and everyone else. All I care about is retaining my right to free expression, and to ensuring that religion has no official place in our government.
I could care less if the office holder thinks the earth is flat, so long as he or she listens to sensible counsel in making policy. Ditto for religious beliefs.
So thanks for the screed but it was wasted. Your beliefs are not mine. Your stories are not my gospel, they are merely stories. Your god isn't.
I don't care if you reject or accept anything I say. I just wish to not be a second class citizen because I don't share your delusion. Today, that seems to be the case. Lack of god is too often conflated with lack of morals, despite extensive evidence that would suggest that the least moral have generally been religious adherents.
So – no more preaching, please. Especially no more preaching about what this mythical Christian you seem to be referring to does or ought to do. I'll take my knowledge of Christianity not from its advertising, but directly from its products.
Karl! Hitler was not an atheist. Not by his own admission nor by any evidence you can produce. That's bullshit. Most believers WANT him to be an atheist, but he was not. In fact, the only thing that explains his antisemitism is his chrisianity. His hatred was firmly based in the schizo attitude of mainstream christian thought for well over a thousand years.
So stop disseminating nonsense just to make it look like christianity would have saved all those people.
I'd say I was shocked, but that would be a lie. Your response is simply par for the course.
I realize the last thing an atheist with scruples wants is to understand where an evangelical is coming from.
That statement would have been fine standalone… but you've told us already on numerous occasions 'where you are coming from'. Your last comment was apparently telling me how all those other Christians that are so much in my face are not True Christians™.
I want to understand where everyone I talk to is coming from. Once I understand that, and inform the other through dialog that I understand that, I do not need the other party to continue to preach and proselytize at me.
Ignore reality, much?
I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be put into a category with Pol Pot, Hitler, or some of the other more famous atheists throughout history.
[aside]Godwin![/aside]
Apart from the documented fact that Hitler was Catholic, and even if lapsed was always and ever fueled by religion (Got Mit Uns? the entire text of Mein Kampf?), you religious nuts have really got to pick some new bad guys to pin on Atheists.
Really. It's getting old. None of the people you can cite as atheist were evil because they were atheist. They were evil because they were evil. For every evil atheist you can name, I can cite ten, twenty, a hundred evil theists. Given that the theists are supposed to have an imposed moral compass, how many evil atheists do we need to equal even one evil theist?
Do you want to go there? I don't. (because it is stupid – not because it is hard).
Next time you meet an evangelical ask them if they are very pleased with the company you seem to place them with.
A little projection, methinks?
I don't need to ask – they share, they preach, they witness. I am not the one putting people into boxes, and then telling them how evil or fallen they are because they're not saved.
However, if I ever get a chance to get a word in, I will ask. I can imagine the response, since most of them already volunteer the company they like and admire (this is not a blind study).
I'd like to say this has been worthwhile, but it has been like throwing rocks into a quarry. No discernible difference in outcome, regardless of the volume or frequency of rocks thrown. It doesn't seem to matter what I say, or what evidence I bring. You cling to your book, and you demand to interpret evidence as you personally see fit. Such a lot of hubris for one so humble.
Tony, who told you it was one book? It's 66 books, different authors, different writing styles and different time periods more accurate than any of the ancient documents. If you're going to scrap the books of the Bible, then you have to scrap all of ancient history.
Scrap all of ancient history? How does that follow? The books of the Bible, in your view, are the only reliable source? What about Herodotus (to name one)?
Yes, it is an anthology of 66 separate books (and many outliers which constitute the so-called Apocrypha) and some are more historical than others. But in contemporary parlance, "The Bible" is regarded rhetorically as a single thing. One can speak of it as a single "book" because it is published and advocated as a unified text.
Walter, for the rational empircist the only really bad book of ancient history is the Bible,
You should know by now that anyone can propose a different historical line to what's in the Bible and as long as one says there is some proposed scientific model along with it, it will immediately be placed into greater value than a book of fables and old wives tales.
for the rational empircist the only really bad book of ancient history is the Bible,
On the contrary. The Bible is not a 'bad' book – it is merely one of many. Its contents are acknowledged to be largely apocryphal, especially when examined in light of other contemporaneous texts from other sources.
That you (and your fellows) see it as uniquely true and divinely inspired, does not make it so. It's a book. A historic melange of many thousands of texts, written and edited over many thousands of years.
From a secular standpoint, the OT (and the Torah from which it is derived) is a fascinating document for social historians and anthropologists. The NT is an interesting study in how documents are built to define a worldview, and edited to reflect that changing worldview (the elimination of women as 'priests' around the second/third centuries, for instance). The Koran is similarly revisionist in it's teaching – building upon while revising both the OT and the NT anthologies.
You should know by now that anyone can propose a different historical line to what’s in the Bible and as long as one says there is some proposed scientific model along with it, it will immediately be placed into greater value than a book of fables and old wives tales.
Actually, no. That is not how science works, and you should know that since you both continually proclaim such deep knowledge of science. Anyone can propose a historical line by citing and demonstrating evidence (including inferential evidence from alternative non-historic sources). That is one thing your bible (all the thousands of manuscripts, if you wish to be pedantic) fails to do. It fails for one very simple reason. In your mind the bible is holy writ, and therefore its words are the touchstone against which all other explanations are assessed. If the test is contrary to your biblical truth, then the 'new evidence' is obviously wrong.
It's not that we value other evidence more highly than your bible as a matter of course. It is simply that the evidence, taken impartially, directs us so.
You again demonstrate your desire to cherry pick your truths to suit your preconception.
Karl, that's funny but untrue. A great deal of historical research is done based on the Bible. One no more relies on it 100% than one would rely on Seutonius for serious scholarship on Roman tax policy. The problem with folks who reason along your lines is that if we don't accept every damn bit of it as absolutely true, then we appear to have rejected all of it. That's bogus and you know it.
It seems to me that part of the problem is that too many Christians seem to believe that all non-Christians are incapable of the noble qualities of compassion, charity, and good will.
The problems arise when unscrupulous politicians capitalize on this belief, by sowing the seeds of fear, uncertainty, distrust and anger, then cultivating those seeds into hate.
Hatred can be steered and directed. Hated directed is raw and awesome power in the hands of charismatic ego-maniacal leaders.
It is very easy for politicians to create fear and mistrust of people from a different culture, with a different religion, different language and different customs. We are expected to believe they are, because of their differences, totally depraved, especially if they refuse to forsake their culture and become like slaves to the greedy corporations.
America is a super power in a state of decay, Much of the rest of the world sees this, even when we don't.
If Hitler was not an atheist then he was a self agrandized and calculated evolutionist that took what Darwin taught as support for his flavor of hatred and fear mongering.
You can not call him anything close to Christian.
I'd be glad to let you call his values a result of a warped cultural deconstruction of Chrisitianity which was replaced by ultra-nationalism.
Where do you get your information from? Being forced to walk back from your earlier Godwin, you still proclaim he's not my kind of Christian.
What kind of Christian should I call him? His entire philosophy, his state sponsored religion, his nationalism – all were founded upon his statement that the Aryan race were the true sons of God, and his anti-semitism came from exactly the same place as Martin Luther's: that the Jews killed the son of God.
He was a follower of Christ. Just because he had doctrinal differences doesn't mean you can deny that. Or are the only True Christians™ those who share exactly your doctrine, and the rest are fakes, apostates, unbelievers?
If this is your argument, then you really are a vile, unprincipled, bigoted idiot.
Your statement "It seems to me that part of the problem is that too many Christians seem to believe that all non-Christians are incapable of the noble qualities of compassion, charity, and good will."
. . . is a bit onesided.
There is the potential for that which is good and noble as well as that which is evil and dispicable from every human being on the face of the planet.
This is not something that is built soley into our genes and DNA. It is greatly a matter of our will and disposition.
Some people are told what is good and evil from others and they simply will not believe until they have their own experiential framework to guide them.
Some people can be told what happened historically and they will simply not believe as well because they didn't experience it themselves.
When we decide something is good and something else is evil this will likely have an impact upon our thinking patterns, words and actions as well.
Our thinking patterns and the words we use will more than likely result in the overall actions and behaviors we decide to pursue with our lives.
Everyman and woman, boy and girl has an internal ability to process words, emotions and experience into a worldview. I do not doubt that there are "noble" atheists as well as "noble" other non-Christians. Its just that any such claim is about as pointless as saying the bible is a noble work overall that just needs to be considered from a different scientific perspective to bring its errors to light.
That people chose to believe something is noble makes it noble for them. One's culture and heritage plays a part but one's own will and disposition will always be the factors which tips the worldview the way the individual desire it to go.
This is my discription of human selfishness, which we all live with. Call yourself Noble, but realize your "nobility" could just be a self serving tool to accomplish your own ends.
Nobility as well as good and evil are not scientific, but science can be used to deconstruct anything you don't wish to believe is noble, or good or evil.
Karl. replace 'science' with 'religion' in your last post. replace 'atheist' with 'theist' and vice-versa.
One point you make: That people chose to believe something is noble makes it noble for them.
I thought you had said before that good and evil were absolute, god-given, and nor at all relative? That morals were absolute, god-given, and not relative?
But somehow, nobility is relative?
What the hell is nobility if not sacrifice for the greater good, holding to morals in the face of immorality, being an exemplar of good in the face on not-good?
If nobility is relative (and I believe it is) – then so too is the domain upon which it is defined: morality.
If morality is relative, then where does than leave god-given morals?
You cannot have it both ways. But then, arguments from authority often result in such inconsistencies, since they are founded upon unstated and indefinable axioms.
And in your last statement you demonstrate your ignorance once more: Science is not about 'wishing'. Science is. It tests hypotheses against reality. If the hypothesis fails the tests, then it is not reality that is wrong.
You simply cannot abide the simple fact that your strong foundation of faith is actually built on pure ephemera. You must keep wishing else it will collapse around you.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
Karl
You sure are noisy even from so far away.
Citation needed.
Who is funding this with public funds?
And are you sure this is something you want to push? Like the tax dollars that go towards the funding of 'charter schools' with religious curricula? Or the tax dollars that are used to support the build or maintenance of 'community centers' like the YMCA?
Don't go there, unless you want some serious, fact-based, whup-ass!
Karl writes:—"There will never be a total separation of values and beliefs from human experience. In like manner, as long as “We The People” are the very agents of the government it will be impossible to remove the influence of values and beliefs upon the government."
Nobody says there will be such separation. Basically, what this is all about is proselytization. I do not want a president to use religious language when talking about policy. I do not want some numbnut general using the rhetoric of religious crusade in *my name*. I do not want a teacher leading a class in prayer. I do not want this religious affiliation crap in my governmental discourse. Like anyone else, they can believe whatever they want, but when representing me or anyone else I want it *out* of the picture. If the policies they decide upon make sense to me, I don't care from whence it comes, but if one of them says "Jesus told me to do it this way" I want that one voted out of office. I elected him/her, not Jesus, and they will kindly take orders from ME, not some unseen nebulous incarnation of a sky fairy.
For the record, I don't want them to talk about Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna, the Buddha, the Great Sky Father, Elohim, Yahweh, Baal, Zeus, or the Thetans and I certainly do not want any of that nonsense to be explicitly wired into public policy. Like I say, if a policy makes sense to me *as policy* then I don't much care what inspired it, but the moment they wed it to their religion publicly, it stops being about the policy and becomes an act of evangelism, and I DON'T WANT IT IN MY GOVERNMENT!
Now, is that simple enough for everyone to understand?
To move it briefly from the realm of religion, we currently have a situation where if the term "socialism" (which most people do not understand) gets attached to a piece of policy or legislation, it automatically makes said policy suspect, no matter what kind of sense it might make on its own merits. There is baggage to the label and it poisons the discourse.
Just so with religion. And there is no need for that to occur. People make policy, not god. Whether the policymakers feel inspired by their deity or not makes no difference to the utility of the policy, but the explicit introduction of their religious inspiration makes the policy suddenly not about the issue at hand but about how Jesus will save us all through the inspired instrument of this bill.
Screw that. I want it out.
Great comment, Mark.
It doesn't matter who or what one consults to craft policy, so long as the policy is sound. (and the policy needn't be progressively liberal – I'm willing to accept that I'm not always right, and neither are my politics!)
I had a boss, once, who'd ask his Mom what she thought of strategies and tactics – his Mom had been dead for a couple of decades, and he definitely didn't believe she was a ghost and listening… it just helped him reach a, to him, morally & socially acceptable position. He didn't expect us to just do as he said on the "word of his Mom!" but because the idea made sense.
I expect no less from any leader or pundit, and decry any pandering to special interests in whatever form that takes. Religion just seems to be one especially long-lasting flavor. "Tea Parties" are another.
Use to be all politics was local. Now politics in America appears to have morphed into something more like, "Like it or not, keep your mouth shut or you have no chance of making a correct policy decision."
Use to be the majority ruled in matters of political correctness. Now the most vocal legal beagles determine political correctness.
Karl
I have no idea what you are talking about, and I hazard to guess that you don't either.
What you write makes absolutely no sense, unless you are railing against abiding by the bill of rights… you know that pesky document that declares we have freedom of speech?
The majority were against civil rights.
The majority were against emancipation.
The majority were for prohibition.
The majority is often an ass.
Our constitution protects minorities so that we are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately the only vocal minorities I see having a significant and unwarranted influence today are the evangelists and the tea partiers. Despite that, and regardless of how much I detest their stance, I will do everything in my power to ensure they are allowed their say. Just so long as I, and their other opponents, are allowed our say too.
Tony I guess you missed this news article
US State Department Funding Ground Zero Imam's MidEast Fundraising Trip
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2010/08/us-state…
I am not pushing for the removal of religion from the public arena, that would be a definite prohibition there of religious liberty.
I am of the same thinking of Madison and Jefferson that to provide a precedent for the funding of any specific forms and structures of religion with taxpayer monies would be steps in the wrong direction.
If charter "public" schools have religion instruction directly funded by taxpayer funds this is a step in the wrong direction.
If the YMCA have worship services in the room next to the gym they had better get their own funding, or the public dollars should dry up.
Karl
Re Imam's trips funded by the State Department….
You need to read beyond the scary headline (and the extremely biased opinion piece), and recognize the fact that Imam Rauf has been working on State Department business since early in Bush's first term – as a special envoy to the mid east. The current administration are sensibly continuing the practice. His trips are at the behest of our Government. They are not fundraising trips. There are many others who do that job as well or better than the Imam.
Does your worldview somehow cause you to view Imam Rauf's behavior more critically than might otherwise be expected?
It's just another example, Karl, of your occluded vision. Saying so does not make it so.
Also — JoshuaPundit is not a News organization. It is a blog. Like this is a blog. It is, at best, opinion. That particular blog at least wears it's bias on it's sleeve (A digest and commentary on the war against Jihad). As does this blog (see the masthead, and about DI!)
Finally:
I am not pushing for the removal of religion from the public arena, that would be a definite prohibition there of <del datetime="2010-09-29T12:25:26+00:00">religious </del>liberty. Fixed that for you. Religion does not and should not get any special treatment., It should be treated exactly the same from a governmental perspective as basketweaving or bonsai. Otherwise we agree completely. I do not wish religion to disappear. Just to get out of politics, out of public education (Dover, Texas BoE?) and out of MY life. What YOU do with it is YOUR concern.
I am of the same thinking of Madison and Jefferson that to provide a precedent for the funding of any <del datetime="2010-09-29T12:25:26+00:00">specific </del>forms and structures of religion with taxpayer monies would be steps in the wrong direction.. Again, we agree (other than your restriction to 'specific'). No funding for any forms or structures of religion. But no bars on personal viewpoint. For example: If a judge wants to pray before holding court, that's his personal business, and no-one can stop him doing so – in the court or in his private chambers. If he demands that everyone in the courthouse join him, that is governmental imposition of religious form and against the law.
I'm glad to see that we finally (almost) agree on something. It does seem to be two steps forward, and one back…
Karl,
How about a quick refresher on "Islamophobia"
Thew Bush state department's trips were not begun with the idea of raising money for the construction of a ground zero mosque/community center.
This is an evolution of a strange order allowed by those who have not wished to discuss how it happened but as usual point to the claimed precedent started by someone else to make what is now happening seem connected.
I redfuse to connwect the dots again as usual.
The original trips were not suppose to be about fundraising for anything but about cross cultural exchange.
As usual, I am not Islamophobic, any more than you arr christianophobic.
Karl
You are conflating, and are close to making libelous allegations. I'm not claiming that you are an islamophobe. I merely point out that your 'news sources' are distinctly and unapologetically so.
Provide actual evidence that Imam Rauf is doing anything other than State Dept business (good-will missions). Otherwise that topic is closed. The State Dept are clear on saying what his mission is. He is clear on saying what his mission is. But you seem to think that the islamophobes are more reliable than the two actual actors in this?
Evidence and actual citations please. Put up. Or shut up.
Regarding me:
I am not christianophobic. Don't flatter yourself. I am, however, religiophobic.
I consider religion a cancer on the human psyche, and the sooner we are rid of it the better. However, unlike most ardent religionists, I am willing to live with and accommodate religionists to the extent that they live with and accommodate me and everyone else who disagrees with their particular fairy tale. That is the measure of tolerance. Perhaps you should look that word up.
I detest Islam, Judaism, Christianity (in all of it's flavors), Zoroastrianism,. Satanism, Wicca, Buddhism, and every other flavor of religion past, present and future. I do not detest the people who follow those religions. For the most part they had no choice in the matter, being born into it.
I will do everything in my power to ensure your views are not silenced. Would you do the same for me, an atheist, if this were a Christian theocracy? I'll understand if you try not to answer honestly, because honesty would demand that you treat me as an abomination.
Karl writes:—"I am of the same thinking of Madison and Jefferson that to provide a precedent for the funding of any specific forms and structures of religion with taxpayer monies would be steps in the wrong direction."
So…we should tax churches? As far as I'm concerned, that's a state subsidy, tax exempt status, which many churches abuse (becoming landlords, media holding companies, etc.)
Mark: I think that (taxing churches) is a change past due.
Mark & Tony–
I concur that applying taxes to churches is an idea whose time has come, especially when they lobby for or against specific legislation and endorse specific candidates. Many pastors are planning a large protest on Sunday of IRS tax policy on the matter by doing just these things, which are prohibited under current regulations.
Tony,
Here is the actual wording of the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It should be noted that the term religion is referred to without any cross outs. The understanding of the Supreme Court of late has also stated that ir-religion fits into these matters the same way.
You can rest assured that in America whether the majority are theists or not, that both religion and irreligion are equally protected liberties and freedom of speech is assured.
The mainstream media will never be told to cease from their biased point of view, no matter how many people stop watching them. Can we say the same for Fox and Friends or talk radio? As far as I know, no one in America would declare it tolerable to try to stifle the opinions and beliefs of atheists and agnostics. However, it is also clear to me that segments of the legislature and segments of the executive branch have desired to usurp the clear written meaning of this amendment through policies and regulations that are unconstitutional.
I cannot ever see America becoming a "Rome" that declared a specific religion as the state religion.
I do however witness on a regular basis those who claim to be irreligious having more and more support from the fourth estate (mass media approved peer review) and less and less tolerance for Christianity.
It almost seems that in order to try to lessen a majority religious worldview in America, any and all other irreligions and religions alike get favorable coverage by the drive by media, and that the only religion that is prohibited from redressing a grievance is that of the majority.
I can and do live with this every day. I do not consider you or any other atheist or agnostic an abomination that needs to be irradiated or even converted. I seek to be understood and to understand where you are coming from.
Karl
Don't quote the first amendment at me – you don't seem to understand what it really means. I presented (earlier) the 'Establishment Clause' specifically – which is that first clause – the one that specifically mentions religion. And I see much more 'activist' support in the House, Senate, and Supreme Court for rabidly Christianist interpretations than you imply in your response. Would you care to address my actual point – that 'revisionists' (like Palin) are seeking to re-interpret the constitution, and especially the first amendment, as being specifically about supporting Christianity (despite all the contextual correspondence of the founders to the contrary). That non-Christian viewpoints are being vilified and reviled.
Then… to the rest of your comment.
Are you NUTS????
So where are the almost 20% of the irreligious (as identified in demographics surveys) in our representatives? Congress? Senate? I see an overwhelmingly large over-representation of Christianity – especially that of the in-your-face evangelical variety. Try standing for any office anywhere in America's 'heartland' – without membership in a Church – indeed without membership in the RIGHT Church – and see how far your campaign will go. The only atheist representatives I know of are from highly educated, liberal, urban areas (not to conflate, but thems the facts. Pete Stark [D/CA] is the only openly atheist office-holder at the federal level. There are a couple more in some state legislatures).
Where are the endless parade of main stream stories that highlight stupid religious practice and fairy tales for what they are? Why does every fucking science article in the main stream media need to have a religious idiot making a useless and irrelevant counter-comment 'for balance'.
Karl – you are delusion personified. You think you live in a world of persecution. You know not what that means.
Christianity is the majority, the default, and the most-frequently-stated position in the US mainstream. Trying to present any alternative viewpoint is like swimming uphill while wearing lead pants. Here in North Georgia, I can't drive a hundred yards without passing a church, or a billboard with a christian motto (usually one that highlights how much of an abomination a sinner like me is – demanding that I REPENT!!!!!). Meeting new people socially is usually an interesting conversation – because one of the early questions (after where is your accent from) is "where do you go to church?". Christianity is overwhelmingly dominant in the US. (I lived for seven years in Eastern PA – it was very similar with regards to 'overt Christianity', if just a little less pushy). Try to inject some reality into your mind-set. It really will help with your blood-pressure.
Lastly, it's nice that you, personally, don't see me as an abomination.
So how is that 'cherry picking' working for you? Christianity as religion-a-la-carte?
Karl – your religion states very clearly that I, and others of my ilk, are abominations, and that YOU (the good Christian) must act to bring us to god. This is especially true if you are an evangelical Christian (not so much if you are a strict Calvinist). Don't you actually do what your religion commands, Karl?
If your religion was in charge, I would be lucky to be a second-class citizen, assuming I were allowed to live (atheists and gays were targets for the pogroms too, you know). My kids would be required to be educated according to your principles (or do you deny Dover and the Texas BoE, which happen to be simply the most visible and easily referenced examples – and those within our own supposedly secular environment. I can go dig up thousands of examples just by googling. It's everywhere).
Unlike you, Karl, I actually do live with this every day. With people wondering how I can be 'such a nice person' and 'seem to do the right thing' without god. They honestly think that I'm really just saying I don't believe, and that I secretly do believe — otherwise I'd just be out there rapin' and murderin' and being all hellacious. That is my reality here in the 'bible-lovin' south'.
Karl writes:—"As far as I know, no one in America would declare it tolerable to try to stifle the opinions and beliefs of atheists and agnostics."
Really? Hmm…
People find it "tolerable" in this country to try to stifle all sorts of opinions and beliefs. It just depends on their own personal foibles. What always happens is when a minority has finally had enough of being ignored, dismissed, or oppressed, the shouting starts, and the majority cultures reacts with dismay and anger and claims that the minority is trying to oppress the majority. This is what happened throughout the civil rights movement.
So in the last couple of decades of right wing reaction to a more vocal a-religious stance you hear about the "embattled" christians and the oppression of religion. Of course, once you add other religions into the mix, the message gets a little more muddled—we shouldn't be saying anything bad about christians, but those Muslims over there, well, that's different.
But you are not entirely wrong. SOME people will not tolerate oppression, and often those people end up in government, where they become targets for the previously self-satisfied and comfortable who see their actions to remove imbalances as attacks on said self-satisfaction and comfort. When it bites us in the ass, we get very motivated.
If we introduced religion into public schools in a class wherein they were ALL discussed, how long would it be before the same people bitching about religious oppression now would be clamoring to have religion removed from the public schools? This is not entirely speculation on my part—I attended a PTA meeting once where this topic got raised and I made exactly that suggestion. Let's have a separate class for religion—for ALL of them. We'll teach Judaism, christianity, Islam, Buddhism, all of it in the same class.
The shouting match that ensued was priceless. A few of these folks looked as if I had just urinated on their bible.
The advocates of religious inclusion do not want to be Inclusive. They want a theocratic condition.
I agree, it would not last long. But the fight to put them back in their box would be a horrible political bloodletting. I think it is safer all around to keep it out.
Freedom, any freedom, carries with it the burden of responsibility for any and all actions taken under that freedom.
Part of this principle can be taken to mean that the tabloid media, which has sought to vilify the Islamic faith, is responsible and must be held accountable its role in inciting violence against Muslims.
A key point in the media bullshit promoted by Fox, is being built around the funding sources for the cultural center near the world trade center location. A little research shows that to date, no funding has yet been procured for the project. The actual property is currently owned by a real estate investment company controlled by a member of Rauf's congregation, who has offered it for the project. No government funding, no foreign funding.
If you think the role of Christians in the world is to pass judgement upon sinners, those you consider to be "Christians" have indeed failed in their mission.
Christians are not called upon to somehow convince sinners that they need to repent because they (the Christians) know what's right and what's not.
Christians themselves are called upon to live lives that admit their own sinful tendencies and to sympathize with this same condition in all men.
We are also called upon to respect the mindset and worldview of others that would see this as just basically all screwed up.
Hope this clarifies where I am coming from a bit more.
Karl
This is not about what I think. It is entirely about how so called Christians act. Are you trying, honestly, to tell me that these other proselytizing, sermonizing, preachifying, and politicizing Christians are not True Christians™?
So you don't believe or follow the tenets of evangelism? What do you believe? Describe it to me in terms we can both understand. I seem to have misunderstood Evangelism entirely, and protestantism completely. Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand? Can you help?
This sympathy of which you speak. Is that Christian code for hating gays? Hating Islam? Hating Atheists? Hating Secularism? These are all positions taken by ostensibly mainstream American Christians. Do you deny these positions are normal in Christianity? That those who promote such behavior are not True Christians™?
Where exactly in the scripture does it tell you to do that? I seem to recall quite a few examples of the opposite (I can cite them if you wish).
Yes indeed! You are saying that everything we see as Evangelical Christianity – in the mainstream of American politics and social life – is actually not Christianity but something strange and unreal and not Christianity at all! Despite the fact that its practitioners and proponents call themselves Christians, they are, in fact, not Christians, and certainly they are not a good, honest, forthright, and upstanding True Christian™ like you.
So, Karl. Do I win a prize?
Tony,
It should be obvious that there are many ways that "Christianity" is perceived by people.
There is only one perception that should mean anything of substance for the devoted evangelical follower of Christ. That one way is how well they have shown others by their actions first and words secondly that they appreciate the forgiveness of sin that was/is offered through Jesus Christ? This is personal evangelism; it is at the heart of an evangelical lifestyle.
Here are several quotes from St. Francis of Assisi.
Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.
Above all the grace and the gifts that Christ gives to his beloved is that of overcoming self.
For it is in giving that we receive.
I have been all things unholy. If God can work through me, he can work through anyone.
If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.
It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.
Lord, grant that I might not so much seek to be loved as to love.
Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
No one is to be called an enemy, all are your benefactors, and no one does you harm. You have no enemy except yourselves.
Where there is charity and wisdom, there is neither fear nor ignorance.
Where there is injury let me sow pardon.
While you are proclaiming peace with your lips, be careful to have it even more fully in your heart.
End qoutes. These pretty much summarize my viewpoint upon evangelical Christianity.
As most people of any real life experience will tell you however, most Christians fail more at this than anything else because they feel they owe an obligation to society to uphold the values of the society they are accustomed to.
There is a mixed nature to the message of a collective group of people as compared to the individual overall. The common phrases used to eliminate this personal failure to witness effectively are ones like this. We are in the world, but not of this world. We are called to love the sinner, but hate sin. Unfortunately, if people do not find release from their own sin (i.e. both Christians and non-Christians) we end up projecting hatred of the sin we see in ourselves onto others in a way that seems to enable us to feel better about ourselves.
What is witnessed by most people from organized Christianity then is endorsed moral values communicated as cultural and political legalism. This comes about from everyone having some kind of a sense of what is right and wrong for them that they somehow feel obliged to pass along to others as well.
The obvious thing that is seen by most people about Christianity is a code of legalism. Do such and such and that will earn you a "prize" as you would call it. Tony, I’d be glad to offer you a prize for answering honestly if that is what this discussion has been all about.
Some view Christianity as having all the right words to say that can convince some people that you can talk the lingo and by doing so this makes you an authorized representative.
Every individual person at some point will realize that there is something about their own sense of values that they can not live up to on their own efforts. For some this doesn't bother them one bit, and they simply ignore the values, or change the importance of these values all together. Some will even change an entire value system to make it more amenable to their own worldview and beliefs.
Other people may believe that certain values are significant enough to be minimal requirements to maintain social harmony and to provide social justice for those being treated unfairly by other people. The snafu in all of this is that given the opportunity anyone who has the honesty will state that the bare minimum should be that which makes it easier for them to excuse their own shortcomings.
Here is a wrong I have seen promulgated throughout any culture and political system where Christianity has been a major contributor to the culture. Many Christians out of their sense of commitment to the values they hold (not just from their relationship to Jesus Christ) will add more and more legalistic rules/values as a way of trying to make others feel less and less worthy and to try to convince others of their need of Jesus Christ.
If you would like some biblical references about how Christians are suppose to respond to others that do not believe the same, you may look up references in the Bible along the lines of persecution. These verses would probably apply equally well to those atheists that do still have some sense of moral restraint, for some reason or another.
The Christian is not called upon to let the society they are a part of to destroy itself by a loss of self-restraint. However, the individuals who are a part of society are suppose to be given repeated opportunity to understand why at least certain minimal values need to be maintained so that society does not do just that – i.e. self-destruct.
The Christian therefore has a choice to make whenever he or she is confronted with others that openly reject that which is of value to them. Either they will keep the importance of any specific value in their life or they will reject that value. But the one value you will never see a devoted Christian agree to compromise upon is the importance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Why is this value one they will never compromise upon? I think it would be obvious, but I will spell it out if you haven’t heard it often enough from others.
Karl
How can I tell you this so you understand?
I don't care if Christians have doctrinal issues with one another. I don't care if your particular brand of Christianity is different from the one I see around me every day.
I don't care.
All I care about is that self-proclaimed Christians want to impose their 'values' upon me and everyone else. All I care about is retaining my right to free expression, and to ensuring that religion has no official place in our government.
I could care less if the office holder thinks the earth is flat, so long as he or she listens to sensible counsel in making policy. Ditto for religious beliefs.
So thanks for the screed but it was wasted. Your beliefs are not mine. Your stories are not my gospel, they are merely stories. Your god isn't.
I don't care if you reject or accept anything I say. I just wish to not be a second class citizen because I don't share your delusion. Today, that seems to be the case. Lack of god is too often conflated with lack of morals, despite extensive evidence that would suggest that the least moral have generally been religious adherents.
So – no more preaching, please. Especially no more preaching about what this mythical Christian you seem to be referring to does or ought to do. I'll take my knowledge of Christianity not from its advertising, but directly from its products.
Thanks for the reply Tony.
I realize the last thing an atheist with scruples wants is to understand where an evangelical is coming from.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to be put into a category with Pol Pot, Hitler, or some of the other more famous atheists throughout history.
Next time you meet an evangelical ask them if they are very pleased with the company you seem to place them with.
Thanks for your time.
Karl! Hitler was not an atheist. Not by his own admission nor by any evidence you can produce. That's bullshit. Most believers WANT him to be an atheist, but he was not. In fact, the only thing that explains his antisemitism is his chrisianity. His hatred was firmly based in the schizo attitude of mainstream christian thought for well over a thousand years.
So stop disseminating nonsense just to make it look like christianity would have saved all those people.
Karl
I'd say I was shocked, but that would be a lie. Your response is simply par for the course.
That statement would have been fine standalone… but you've told us already on numerous occasions 'where you are coming from'. Your last comment was apparently telling me how all those other Christians that are so much in my face are not True Christians™.
I want to understand where everyone I talk to is coming from. Once I understand that, and inform the other through dialog that I understand that, I do not need the other party to continue to preach and proselytize at me.
Ignore reality, much?
[aside]Godwin![/aside]
Apart from the documented fact that Hitler was Catholic, and even if lapsed was always and ever fueled by religion (Got Mit Uns? the entire text of Mein Kampf?), you religious nuts have really got to pick some new bad guys to pin on Atheists.
Really. It's getting old. None of the people you can cite as atheist were evil because they were atheist. They were evil because they were evil. For every evil atheist you can name, I can cite ten, twenty, a hundred evil theists. Given that the theists are supposed to have an imposed moral compass, how many evil atheists do we need to equal even one evil theist?
Do you want to go there? I don't. (because it is stupid – not because it is hard).
A little projection, methinks?
I don't need to ask – they share, they preach, they witness. I am not the one putting people into boxes, and then telling them how evil or fallen they are because they're not saved.
However, if I ever get a chance to get a word in, I will ask. I can imagine the response, since most of them already volunteer the company they like and admire (this is not a blind study).
I'd like to say this has been worthwhile, but it has been like throwing rocks into a quarry. No discernible difference in outcome, regardless of the volume or frequency of rocks thrown. It doesn't seem to matter what I say, or what evidence I bring. You cling to your book, and you demand to interpret evidence as you personally see fit. Such a lot of hubris for one so humble.
Tony, who told you it was one book? It's 66 books, different authors, different writing styles and different time periods more accurate than any of the ancient documents. If you're going to scrap the books of the Bible, then you have to scrap all of ancient history.
Walter,
Scrap all of ancient history? How does that follow? The books of the Bible, in your view, are the only reliable source? What about Herodotus (to name one)?
Yes, it is an anthology of 66 separate books (and many outliers which constitute the so-called Apocrypha) and some are more historical than others. But in contemporary parlance, "The Bible" is regarded rhetorically as a single thing. One can speak of it as a single "book" because it is published and advocated as a unified text.
But throw out all of ancient history…? Come on.
Walter, for the rational empircist the only really bad book of ancient history is the Bible,
You should know by now that anyone can propose a different historical line to what's in the Bible and as long as one says there is some proposed scientific model along with it, it will immediately be placed into greater value than a book of fables and old wives tales.
Karl, Walter
On the contrary. The Bible is not a 'bad' book – it is merely one of many. Its contents are acknowledged to be largely apocryphal, especially when examined in light of other contemporaneous texts from other sources.
That you (and your fellows) see it as uniquely true and divinely inspired, does not make it so. It's a book. A historic melange of many thousands of texts, written and edited over many thousands of years.
From a secular standpoint, the OT (and the Torah from which it is derived) is a fascinating document for social historians and anthropologists. The NT is an interesting study in how documents are built to define a worldview, and edited to reflect that changing worldview (the elimination of women as 'priests' around the second/third centuries, for instance). The Koran is similarly revisionist in it's teaching – building upon while revising both the OT and the NT anthologies.
Actually, no. That is not how science works, and you should know that since you both continually proclaim such deep knowledge of science. Anyone can propose a historical line by citing and demonstrating evidence (including inferential evidence from alternative non-historic sources). That is one thing your bible (all the thousands of manuscripts, if you wish to be pedantic) fails to do. It fails for one very simple reason. In your mind the bible is holy writ, and therefore its words are the touchstone against which all other explanations are assessed. If the test is contrary to your biblical truth, then the 'new evidence' is obviously wrong.
It's not that we value other evidence more highly than your bible as a matter of course. It is simply that the evidence, taken impartially, directs us so.
You again demonstrate your desire to cherry pick your truths to suit your preconception.
Karl, that's funny but untrue. A great deal of historical research is done based on the Bible. One no more relies on it 100% than one would rely on Seutonius for serious scholarship on Roman tax policy. The problem with folks who reason along your lines is that if we don't accept every damn bit of it as absolutely true, then we appear to have rejected all of it. That's bogus and you know it.
Karl,
It seems to me that part of the problem is that too many Christians seem to believe that all non-Christians are incapable of the noble qualities of compassion, charity, and good will.
The problems arise when unscrupulous politicians capitalize on this belief, by sowing the seeds of fear, uncertainty, distrust and anger, then cultivating those seeds into hate.
Hatred can be steered and directed. Hated directed is raw and awesome power in the hands of charismatic ego-maniacal leaders.
It is very easy for politicians to create fear and mistrust of people from a different culture, with a different religion, different language and different customs. We are expected to believe they are, because of their differences, totally depraved, especially if they refuse to forsake their culture and become like slaves to the greedy corporations.
America is a super power in a state of decay, Much of the rest of the world sees this, even when we don't.
This video illustrates our current image to the rest of the world. An accurate English translation of the lyrics can be found here.
If Hitler was not an atheist then he was a self agrandized and calculated evolutionist that took what Darwin taught as support for his flavor of hatred and fear mongering.
You can not call him anything close to Christian.
I'd be glad to let you call his values a result of a warped cultural deconstruction of Chrisitianity which was replaced by ultra-nationalism.
Karl
Where do you get your information from? Being forced to walk back from your earlier Godwin, you still proclaim he's not my kind of Christian.
What kind of Christian should I call him? His entire philosophy, his state sponsored religion, his nationalism – all were founded upon his statement that the Aryan race were the true sons of God, and his anti-semitism came from exactly the same place as Martin Luther's: that the Jews killed the son of God.
He was a follower of Christ. Just because he had doctrinal differences doesn't mean you can deny that. Or are the only True Christians™ those who share exactly your doctrine, and the rest are fakes, apostates, unbelievers?
If this is your argument, then you really are a vile, unprincipled, bigoted idiot.
Niklaus,
Your statement "It seems to me that part of the problem is that too many Christians seem to believe that all non-Christians are incapable of the noble qualities of compassion, charity, and good will."
. . . is a bit onesided.
There is the potential for that which is good and noble as well as that which is evil and dispicable from every human being on the face of the planet.
This is not something that is built soley into our genes and DNA. It is greatly a matter of our will and disposition.
Some people are told what is good and evil from others and they simply will not believe until they have their own experiential framework to guide them.
Some people can be told what happened historically and they will simply not believe as well because they didn't experience it themselves.
When we decide something is good and something else is evil this will likely have an impact upon our thinking patterns, words and actions as well.
Our thinking patterns and the words we use will more than likely result in the overall actions and behaviors we decide to pursue with our lives.
Everyman and woman, boy and girl has an internal ability to process words, emotions and experience into a worldview. I do not doubt that there are "noble" atheists as well as "noble" other non-Christians. Its just that any such claim is about as pointless as saying the bible is a noble work overall that just needs to be considered from a different scientific perspective to bring its errors to light.
That people chose to believe something is noble makes it noble for them. One's culture and heritage plays a part but one's own will and disposition will always be the factors which tips the worldview the way the individual desire it to go.
This is my discription of human selfishness, which we all live with. Call yourself Noble, but realize your "nobility" could just be a self serving tool to accomplish your own ends.
Nobility as well as good and evil are not scientific, but science can be used to deconstruct anything you don't wish to believe is noble, or good or evil.
Karl. replace 'science' with 'religion' in your last post. replace 'atheist' with 'theist' and vice-versa.
One point you make: That people chose to believe something is noble makes it noble for them.
I thought you had said before that good and evil were absolute, god-given, and nor at all relative? That morals were absolute, god-given, and not relative?
But somehow, nobility is relative?
What the hell is nobility if not sacrifice for the greater good, holding to morals in the face of immorality, being an exemplar of good in the face on not-good?
If nobility is relative (and I believe it is) – then so too is the domain upon which it is defined: morality.
If morality is relative, then where does than leave god-given morals?
You cannot have it both ways. But then, arguments from authority often result in such inconsistencies, since they are founded upon unstated and indefinable axioms.
And in your last statement you demonstrate your ignorance once more: Science is not about 'wishing'. Science is. It tests hypotheses against reality. If the hypothesis fails the tests, then it is not reality that is wrong.
You simply cannot abide the simple fact that your strong foundation of faith is actually built on pure ephemera. You must keep wishing else it will collapse around you.
Karl,
your mind is like a steel-trap.
Anything that gets into it gets mangled.