I was inspired by a convergence of ideas* recently, and created a graphic to express the thought. Feel free to use it however you want, I'd just appreciate a link back here if you do.
Hatless, I absolutely LOVE the sign! Talented, aren't ya?!!
Makes one wonder doesn't it, how loud some people can scream, when their rights are the least bit scratched, while ours are dented beyond repair or recognition.
Um, I don't think you understand the concept of atheism.
A-theism is the absence of belief in theism, so, you know, how can you separate an absence of anything from anything else?
Of course, if you mean to say you would prefer a mixing of religion and government rather than not having them mixed, then I guess this hamhanded graphic might communicate that. But, the question remains, which religion to use when making new laws?
So, if it ever becomes federal law for women to keep themselves covered from head to toe, or murder of homosexuals becomes legal, remember that you asked for it.
anonymous, I don't think you understand the concept of this graphic.
one does not need to understand the concept of atheism to recognize the horrible aftermath it has left when it has been established as the basis of state power - the prime examples of communism and naziism being referenced by the symbols in the graphic.
neither did i say that i would prefer a mixing of religion and government. if you are the same anonymous atheist who commented here before, you may remember my statement to that effect.
this graphic was intended to be a counterpoint to those who are so vociferous about the relatively small problems caused by religion in government that they ignore the massive problems caused by unmooring government from any religious tenets.
so if it ever becomes federal law to send dissenters to firing squads and the 'ethnically impure' to gas chambers, remember that you asked for it.
Atheism isn't the foundation upon which communism and Nazi Germany were established. Likewise, religion is not the antithesis to their principles.
Hitler cracked down on people who professed to be atheists and banned freethought organizations by launching an “anti-godless” movement. In 1933 he said, “We have undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out.”
Seriously, Nazi Germany was mainly Lutheran. Go look it up.
As far as communism is concerned, you are probably referring to Russian communism, specifically Marxism, Stalinism and so on. Again, under such governments no one was told they couldn't practice their faith. The governments was not anti-Christian, but post Christian in the sense it considered religion irrelevant to the interests of the state.
Despite this, most people were still very religious in Russia throughout it's history.
Now, China is a different story, but that's because they were never Christian to begin with, and being an atheist in their culture means something completely different than it does in ours.
The point is - you are misinformed. I suspect that's because a there was a lot of anticommunist Christian rhetoric throughout the 1950s, and it persists today. Billy Graham often referred to communism as "Satan's religion."
Personally, I have no special love for socialism, communism or democracy. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, but religion has nothing to do with them.
please stop confusing the peoples of certain states with the various governments which ruled over them.
germany has been (generally) lutheran for centuries. naziism was a horrid but relatively brief aberration, and the socialist core of it was atheistic, no matter what bizarre claims they made to the contrary. now i'm no *specific* fan of lutheranism, but the vast majority of them didn't (and still don't) ship off jews, gypsies, and 'others' by the trainload to be butchered. the nazi government did exactly that, mainly due to the atheistic ideal of setting up the state to be a god. so what happened in 1930's germany was at best an aberration and at worst and abomination to lutheran ideals.
hitler also mounted a campaign of subverting church leadership so that he could claim to be lutheran in a traditionally lutheran society. this is an extreme example of what politicians both left and right often do - claiming to be whatever religion or ethnicity plays well with the voters just to get into power. martin luther would not have approved of what hitler did under the claim of being lutheran.
re: "despite this, most people were still very religious in russia throughout its history." - yes, the people were and likely still are religious, but the soviet government most certainly was not, and that was precisely the problem. the soviet government and other notorious communist governments in southeast asia persecuted all dissenters (religious or otherwise) largely because they have again set up the state to be their god. mass murder of its citizens is an extremely common feature of atheistic governments (whatever they name themselves), whereas it is a relative rarity among other governments, and is correctly seen as a failure rather than a feature when it does happen under nominally christian governments (see also: abortion).
re: "i have no special love for socialism, communism or democracy. each has its strengths and weaknesses, but religion has nothing to do with them." - yes, all of mankind's attempts have their "strengths and weaknesses", which is why the need for a strong foundation outside of mankind should be realized. judeo-christian ideals offer the most solid foundation for good government, and all examples you may name to the contrary (which are unfortunately far too numerous) are due to man's failure of those ideals. i'll even admit that the political movement of christian dominionism is doomed because of its human failing of focusing on earthly power. but atheism offers no roots except at best feel-good sophistry and at worst bloodthirsty state-worship.
Ok, so you say the Judeo/Christian philosophy is the best ever for founding a government upon despite Constantine, The Crusades, The Inquisition, Israel and Palestine and the gazillion of other examples I could name because of Man's failing, yet you somehow find a way to say that's no big deal because no one can get it just right like God suggests? It seems to me that you have crafted a way to have it both ways. Yes - nations built on religions always suck, but it isn't the fault of religion. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Let's say we continue to allow the Bible to affect policy. Suddenly, homosexuals can't get married, stem cells can't save lives and we can't buy beer after 10 on Sundays.
Those issues are state/legal issues, and shouldn't be affected by the way one group of people believe philosophically or spiritually. You can hate homosexuals all you want, and your churches do not have to allow them to marry inside, but that shouldn't affect the legal state of marriage where two taxpaying citizens join in a legal agreement. You can see useless, undifferentiated afterbirth as whatever you want and do not have to take part in anything associated with it, but don't allow your religious beliefs to affect the lives of people who don't see eye to eye with you.
The Bible is a fine work of literature, but I would never want to be ruled by the laws and traditions of a defunct 2,000-year-old desert tribal culture who were even dumber than people are today.
Christianty has its virtues, but so does every religion. The government must remain neutral so you can enjoy those virtues without people with badges and nightsticks telling you otherwise.
Atheism is neutrality. A government "under God" cannot breathe and adapt to new information, new and better ways of seeing the society it creates, a diverse population of people from a variety of religions, and a global landscape where opposing religious factions think with their holy books first and their law books second.
So, yes, you shouldn't confuse the government with the people it rules over. An atheist government doesn't mean an atheist population.
An aside: You brushed aside all of my statments about Nazi Germany by basically saying, "Oh yes they were too; I don't care what facts you bring up." What's the point of having a conversation if you are unwilling to consider the other person's viewpoint no matter what evidence is presented?
re: "What's the point of having a conversation if you are unwilling to consider the other person's viewpoint no matter what evidence is presented?" - Good question. Why are you unwilling to consider my viewpoint? In previous years I have already seriously considered every single one of the arguments you've made (and many more), examined all the evidence, and come to my conclusions. You have not presented anything new to me except for your particular varieties of straw men and red herrings.
You continue to accuse me of advocating things that I never said (ex. stoning homosexuals).
I did not "brush aside" your comments about Nazi Germany, I attempted to clarify the waters you deliberately muddied.
You falsely assume that since some of my ideals happen to coincide with some items under your own personal concept of what constitutes "religion", that I must advocate every particular policy that every religion has advocated.
And once again, I did not advocate being "ruled by the laws and traditions of a defunct 2,000-year-old desert tribal culture who were even dumber than people are today." What I advocate is a rule based on the underlying principles which you refuse to believe: that man was made in God's image and therefore each individual has great worth, that we are to love (not in the wishy-washy romantic sense) our neighbors as ourselves, and that we are to be good steards of the earth. What I would point to as ideal government 1) you continuously and deliberately mischaracterize, and 2) has not yet been truly tried, so your broad brush of lumping it in with the Inquisition, Islam, and the 'religious right' is highly fallacious.
re "nations built on religions always suck, but it isn't the fault of religion. Sorry, I don't buy it.": If you were intellectually honest, you would recognize that 1) nations built on atheism always "suck" worse, and 2) atheism offers no basis for deciding what "sucks" and what doesn't. If your moral compass is based on evolution (as you seem to suggest), you have no basis on which to judge good or bad. Atheistic evolution gives you no basis to tell anyone to evolve one way or another. Atheistic evolution offers no basis on which to distinguish who is "more" or "less" evolved, and not even enough basis on which to say what "should" or "should not" be. If morality only comes about through atheistic evolution, you have as little basis for arguing your points and blaming someone for not agreeing with you as you would have for telling a snake to evolve by sprouting wings and blaming him for not obeying you. (For the sarcasm- impaired, the rest of this paragraph is 'fighting absurdity with absurdity'.) Perhaps Islam is more evolved (they seem strong at the moment)? or fascists (the trains ran on time)? or dolphins (no warfare)? or Canadians (they're so polite)? Maybe nuclear weapons are a sign of a higher level of evolution, and the less-evolved should be vaporized? Hitler certainly believed that the Aryan race was more evolved than others, so their form of morality must have been correct? Or maybe this whole evolution thing is running backwards and mankind should revert to swinging through the trees? Who can tell?(\ sarcasm) That's the kind of world you get when you follow atheistic evolution to its logical extreme.
It is at this point where I suspect you will try to reclaim the moral high ground (as you did before) by saying that there is an innate sense of good and evil which is obvious to everyone. That innate sense is both true and obvious, but that only reinforces my point that there is something outside of and independent of mankind which has defined what is in fact good and evil. Relying on evolution to define your morality is very shaky ground, because those morals might evolve right out from under you tomorrow, just like gills or a prehensile tail...
Now, if you are so insistent that I "don't allow (my) religious beliefs to affect the lives of people who don't see eye to eye with (me)", please set an example for us by never letting your beliefs affect the lives of people who don't see eye to eye with you either. If you trust evolution so much, just be quiet and let everybody else evolve on their own, okay?
p.s. The link at Viewpoint wasn't working, so here is a direct link to the first of a six-part series that covers this discussion much more clearly:
yawn, enough with your straw men, red herrings, and circular sophistry. go get your own forum - comment moderation is now on, and that tripe won't make the cut.
10 comments:
Hatless, I absolutely LOVE the sign! Talented, aren't ya?!!
Makes one wonder doesn't it, how loud some people can scream, when their rights are the least bit scratched, while ours are dented beyond repair or recognition.
Um, I don't think you understand the concept of atheism.
A-theism is the absence of belief in theism, so, you know, how can you separate an absence of anything from anything else?
Of course, if you mean to say you would prefer a mixing of religion and government rather than not having them mixed, then I guess this hamhanded graphic might communicate that. But, the question remains, which religion to use when making new laws?
So, if it ever becomes federal law for women to keep themselves covered from head to toe, or murder of homosexuals becomes legal, remember that you asked for it.
anonymous, I don't think you understand the concept of this graphic.
one does not need to understand the concept of atheism to recognize the horrible aftermath it has left when it has been established as the basis of state power - the prime examples of communism and naziism being referenced by the symbols in the graphic.
neither did i say that i would prefer a mixing of religion and government. if you are the same anonymous atheist who commented here before, you may remember my statement to that effect.
this graphic was intended to be a counterpoint to those who are so vociferous about the relatively small problems caused by religion in government that they ignore the massive problems caused by unmooring government from any religious tenets.
so if it ever becomes federal law to send dissenters to firing squads and the 'ethnically impure' to gas chambers, remember that you asked for it.
Atheism isn't the foundation upon which communism and Nazi Germany were established. Likewise, religion is not the antithesis to their principles.
Hitler cracked down on people who professed to be atheists and banned freethought organizations by launching an “anti-godless” movement. In 1933 he said, “We have undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out.”
Seriously, Nazi Germany was mainly Lutheran. Go look it up.
As far as communism is concerned, you are probably referring to Russian communism, specifically Marxism, Stalinism and so on. Again, under such governments no one was told they couldn't practice their faith. The governments was not anti-Christian, but post Christian in the sense it considered religion irrelevant to the interests of the state.
Despite this, most people were still very religious in Russia throughout it's history.
Now, China is a different story, but that's because they were never Christian to begin with, and being an atheist in their culture means something completely different than it does in ours.
The point is - you are misinformed. I suspect that's because a there was a lot of anticommunist Christian rhetoric throughout the 1950s, and it persists today. Billy Graham often referred to communism as "Satan's religion."
Personally, I have no special love for socialism, communism or democracy. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, but religion has nothing to do with them.
please stop confusing the peoples of certain states with the various governments which ruled over them.
germany has been (generally) lutheran for centuries. naziism was a horrid but relatively brief aberration, and the socialist core of it was atheistic, no matter what bizarre claims they made to the contrary. now i'm no *specific* fan of lutheranism, but the vast majority of them didn't (and still don't) ship off jews, gypsies, and 'others' by the trainload to be butchered. the nazi government did exactly that, mainly due to the atheistic ideal of setting up the state to be a god. so what happened in 1930's germany was at best an aberration and at worst and abomination to lutheran ideals.
hitler also mounted a campaign of subverting church leadership so that he could claim to be lutheran in a traditionally lutheran society. this is an extreme example of what politicians both left and right often do - claiming to be whatever religion or ethnicity plays well with the voters just to get into power. martin luther would not have approved of what hitler did under the claim of being lutheran.
re: "despite this, most people were still very religious in russia throughout its history." - yes, the people were and likely still are religious, but the soviet government most certainly was not, and that was precisely the problem. the soviet government and other notorious communist governments in southeast asia persecuted all dissenters (religious or otherwise) largely because they have again set up the state to be their god. mass murder of its citizens is an extremely common feature of atheistic governments (whatever they name themselves), whereas it is a relative rarity among other governments, and is correctly seen as a failure rather than a feature when it does happen under nominally christian governments (see also: abortion).
re: "i have no special love for socialism, communism or democracy. each has its strengths and weaknesses, but religion has nothing to do with them." - yes, all of mankind's attempts have their "strengths and weaknesses", which is why the need for a strong foundation outside of mankind should be realized. judeo-christian ideals offer the most solid foundation for good government, and all examples you may name to the contrary (which are unfortunately far too numerous) are due to man's failure of those ideals. i'll even admit that the political movement of christian dominionism is doomed because of its human failing of focusing on earthly power. but atheism offers no roots except at best feel-good sophistry and at worst bloodthirsty state-worship.
p.s. and here are two links at viewpoint that address some roots of this and the previous debate:
http://www.wscleary.com/pov/home?month=05&year=2007#3416
http://www.wscleary.com/pov/home?month=06&year=2007#3417
Ok, so you say the Judeo/Christian philosophy is the best ever for founding a government upon despite Constantine, The Crusades, The Inquisition, Israel and Palestine and the gazillion of other examples I could name because of Man's failing, yet you somehow find a way to say that's no big deal because no one can get it just right like God suggests? It seems to me that you have crafted a way to have it both ways. Yes - nations built on religions always suck, but it isn't the fault of religion. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Let's say we continue to allow the Bible to affect policy. Suddenly, homosexuals can't get married, stem cells can't save lives and we can't buy beer after 10 on Sundays.
Those issues are state/legal issues, and shouldn't be affected by the way one group of people believe philosophically or spiritually. You can hate homosexuals all you want, and your churches do not have to allow them to marry inside, but that shouldn't affect the legal state of marriage where two taxpaying citizens join in a legal agreement. You can see useless, undifferentiated afterbirth as whatever you want and do not have to take part in anything associated with it, but don't allow your religious beliefs to affect the lives of people who don't see eye to eye with you.
The Bible is a fine work of literature, but I would never want to be ruled by the laws and traditions of a defunct 2,000-year-old desert tribal culture who were even dumber than people are today.
Christianty has its virtues, but so does every religion. The government must remain neutral so you can enjoy those virtues without people with badges and nightsticks telling you otherwise.
Atheism is neutrality. A government "under God" cannot breathe and adapt to new information, new and better ways of seeing the society it creates, a diverse population of people from a variety of religions, and a global landscape where opposing religious factions think with their holy books first and their law books second.
So, yes, you shouldn't confuse the government with the people it rules over. An atheist government doesn't mean an atheist population.
An aside: You brushed aside all of my statments about Nazi Germany by basically saying, "Oh yes they were too; I don't care what facts you bring up." What's the point of having a conversation if you are unwilling to consider the other person's viewpoint no matter what evidence is presented?
re: "What's the point of having a conversation if you are unwilling to consider the other person's viewpoint no matter what evidence is presented?" - Good question. Why are you unwilling to consider my viewpoint? In previous years I have already seriously considered every single one of the arguments you've made (and many more), examined all the evidence, and come to my conclusions. You have not presented anything new to me except for your particular varieties of straw men and red herrings.
You continue to accuse me of advocating things that I never said (ex. stoning homosexuals).
I did not "brush aside" your comments about Nazi Germany, I attempted to clarify the waters you deliberately muddied.
You falsely assume that since some of my ideals happen to coincide with some items under your own personal concept of what constitutes "religion", that I must advocate every particular policy that every religion has advocated.
And once again, I did not advocate being "ruled by the laws and traditions of a defunct 2,000-year-old desert tribal culture who were even dumber than people are today." What I advocate is a rule based on the underlying principles which you refuse to believe: that man was made in God's image and therefore each individual has great worth, that we are to love (not in the wishy-washy romantic sense) our neighbors as ourselves, and that we are to be good steards of the earth. What I would point to as ideal government 1) you continuously and deliberately mischaracterize, and 2) has not yet been truly tried, so your broad brush of lumping it in with the Inquisition, Islam, and the 'religious right' is highly fallacious.
re "nations built on religions always suck, but it isn't the fault of religion. Sorry, I don't buy it.": If you were intellectually honest, you would recognize that 1) nations built on atheism always "suck" worse, and 2) atheism offers no basis for deciding what "sucks" and what doesn't. If your moral compass is based on evolution (as you seem to suggest), you have no basis on which to judge good or bad. Atheistic evolution gives you no basis to tell anyone to evolve one way or another. Atheistic evolution offers no basis on which to distinguish who is "more" or "less" evolved, and not even enough basis on which to say what "should" or "should not" be. If morality only comes about through atheistic evolution, you have as little basis for arguing your points and blaming someone for not agreeing with you as you would have for telling a snake to evolve by sprouting wings and blaming him for not obeying you. (For the sarcasm- impaired, the rest of this paragraph is 'fighting absurdity with absurdity'.) Perhaps Islam is more evolved (they seem strong at the moment)? or fascists (the trains ran on time)? or dolphins (no warfare)? or Canadians (they're so polite)? Maybe nuclear weapons are a sign of a higher level of evolution, and the less-evolved should be vaporized? Hitler certainly believed that the Aryan race was more evolved than others, so their form of morality must have been correct? Or maybe this whole evolution thing is running backwards and mankind should revert to swinging through the trees? Who can tell?(\ sarcasm) That's the kind of world you get when you follow atheistic evolution to its logical extreme.
It is at this point where I suspect you will try to reclaim the moral high ground (as you did before) by saying that there is an innate sense of good and evil which is obvious to everyone. That innate sense is both true and obvious, but that only reinforces my point that there is something outside of and independent of mankind which has defined what is in fact good and evil. Relying on evolution to define your morality is very shaky ground, because those morals might evolve right out from under you tomorrow, just like gills or a prehensile tail...
Now, if you are so insistent that I "don't allow (my) religious beliefs to affect the lives of people who don't see eye to eye with (me)", please set an example for us by never letting your beliefs affect the lives of people who don't see eye to eye with you either. If you trust evolution so much, just be quiet and let everybody else evolve on their own, okay?
p.s. The link at Viewpoint wasn't working, so here is a direct link to the first of a six-part series that covers this discussion much more clearly:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html
yawn, enough with your straw men, red herrings, and circular sophistry. go get your own forum - comment moderation is now on, and that tripe won't make the cut.
Post a Comment