It always amazes me how many otherwise intelligent people are unable to see glaring differences.
You remind me of the person with whom I had an argument about including “under God” in the preamble to the Canadian constitution. This person said: " Look, I may not agree with federalism, but I have to accept that the constitution describes the country as being governed by a federal government and provinces, each sovereign in their spheres of jurisdiction."
Of course the comparison is ridiculous. The Constitution of a country MUST describe if it will be a unitary state with only one government level, such as France, or a federation with a federal government and constituent states, provinces or whatever, like Germany, Canada and the USA.
Saying that there will be a federation with member states is not an opinion, it is a fact. That is how the country will be governed. Stating that God exists in the preamble is NOT needed to describe the governing of the country. It is nothing more than the theist majority putting their foot on the necks of unbelievers and saying “so there”.
Similarly, there is no comparison between yellow pages and a Bible. Since there is a phone in the hotel room, there is a book allowing you to look up numbers. It does not constitute any favour for a religious viewpoint. Automatically including a bible does.
In the first place, travel brochures are not a statement of religious opinion. Automatically putting a Bible in every hotel room makes a statement and favours a particular religious viewpoint whether you like it or not. The Gideons are saying that this is good reading that should be offered to everyone, and by placing it in every hotel room, the hotel operators are agreeing with them.
I think that Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” which could be reproduced cheaply in the form of a short pamphlet (but I would have to check copyright considerations) could be offered to various hotel chains for inclusion next to the Bible.
What do you think are the chances that they would accept? What do you think are the chances they would back off for fear of “offending” people?
And if someone were offended by the presence of this pamphlet and wrote about it in SDMB, I wonder if he would be called every name in the book?
Finally, Tom, since you seem to know the proportion of hotel guests likely to be offended by the presence of the Gideon Bible, do you also know the proportion of guests who would be offended if bibles were NOT put in the rooms?
Funny how THEIR right to be offended always seems to trump mine.
Seeing that the hotel you stayed at had the Teachings of the Buddha there, I’d say the chances are pretty good, actually.
But, again, try it. Get 770 copies of the book you want to distribute and ship them to the Banff Springs. If they say “no,” you’ve got a point. But until they say “no,” you’re railing against an imaginary foe.
Imaginary foe? Come on now! I will admit that my assumption that the hotel would reject my offer remains hypothetical until someone tries it. But we are talking about Alberta, the yahoo right-wing Texas of Canada here.
Can you imagine the first time a right-wing Bible thumper comes back to his hotel room and finds his teenage son or daughter reading “Why I am not a Christian” and says he/she found it in the drawer? What do you think are the chances of their going apeshit? Of organizing a massive protest with all the right-wing fundie churches in Alberta?
Yes, yes, I know, they have not done so for the booklet of the teachings of Buddha. But that is the difference. They tolerate other religious viewpoints. But atheism is not seen as a religious viewpoint with equal rights. It is seen as an attack on their religion.
Well, wouldn’t it be? If you want to leave a book explaining why Christianity is supposedly bad or wrong, how is that not an attack on their religion? After all, the work in question is called “Why I Am Not a Christian,” not “Why I Am an Atheist.” What would be more analogous to leaving Bibles in hotel rooms, would be if you left books of inspiration, philosophy, poetry, or moral instruction from an atheist point of view. If you do that and people get offended, I may concede your point.
Okay, fair enough. There is more than enough material in “the Portable Atheist – Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever”. It includes writings by Lucretius, Hobbes, Spinoza, Carl van Doren, George Orwell, Carl Sagan, Steven Weinberg right up to our modern stars of unbelief such as Richard Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It does not HAVE to be Bertrand Rusell’s WIANAC.
But just for fun, I would like to include a short pargraph that says: “If anyone believe in God, let them be put to death. Their blood be upon them.”
When outraged theists object, I will laugh and tell them that we no longer apply that and that they are chicken-shit drama queens to be getting upset about it.
And that would be logically consistent if it weren’t so disingenuous.
Since you never made the retraction sincerely, and since you don’t have thousands of years of development (or any development at all, in your case) to back that up, you’re really just coming off yet again as a bitchy, whiny, drama queen.
That is exactly the belief of the Gideons. So what? Since no one appears to have objected to the practice (or had the guts to actually take action other than whining to third parties), while many other people appear to have accepted the book without complaint, (the Gideons claim that hotel feedback indicates that 25% of patrons use the bibles), a reasonable conclusion is that it serves the desires of some large group of people.
No. It is not like adding “In God We Trust” to the money. Adding flip phrases about God to money requires direct government intervention and it irritates a lot of religious people, just as it irritates many non-religious people. In addition, every person who is required to handle money must actually look at the motto, (e.g., while verifying that the bill is not counterfeit), while no one has to actually open the rarely used drawer to see the book and absolutely no one has to open and read the book.
I have not seen anyone in this thread miss any satire and you appear to be the only poster in this thread who routinely misses irony. Posting a sophomoric attempt at satire that falls flat under the weight of its own pretentiousness as the OP of a thread in a Forum ostensibly devoted to debate does nothing to test whether the respondents to that silliness actually grasp irony or satire.
I don’t want to hijack or argue, but it’s kind of a misconception that Buddhists believe that “the universe is essentially a bad place and life is suffering.” It’s more of a realization of the state of being, a starting point, almost pointing out the obvious. It’s realism… but then it goes right into explaining how to change that and free yourself and other people from that suffering. It’s sort of like taking responsibility and realizing what you are working against, it’s a state of awareness upon which change is built. Whereas, Christianity approaches it from a different point and attributes suffering to devils, demons, or the punishment of God. It’s an inner attribution rather than an outer blame.
I have been following this thread out of interest. My cents (as a Christian):
I have stayed in hotels with the Gideon. They use the New King James version, while I prefer either the NIV or the NRSV with the accompanying footnotes and commentary on translations, etc.
I have stayed in hotels that also have the sayings of Buddha, and I took it home to read. I was not offended by this bit of literature that is not of my faith, I was intrigued.
I have stayed in hotels with the Mormon text as well (and I have taken a copy home). I am not offended by the Mormon belief either (and they are welcome to hold a Baptism for me as part of their belief structure). Once again, not offended even though many Mormon beliefs are contrary to mine.
Getting worked up over the presence of a Bible in a desk drawer seems silly to me, and a waste of outrage energy when there are far more important issues in this world.
So do Buddhists. In Buddhist thought, suffering (and the perception of life as “bad”) is caused by desire
That karma thing is not inherent to Buddhist philosophy, by the way. It got incidentally imported from Hinduism in some strains, but it’s not a necessary Buddhist belief.
Except for the fact that there is no “we” as far as what atheists believe or do, other than not believe in God, god or gods. In fact, I’m sure you’d piss off a few of your fellow atheists here on the SDMB if you pulled a stunt like that, since they’ve been fighting against that stereotype for a while.
I’d be among the atheists annoyed by a stunt like that. That would amount to Valteron making a statement not only that my wife and kids (not to mention our own parents and siblings) should not only be put to death, but that I am somehow signing off on that sentiment.
Actually, it doesn’t go without saying, because christians don’t believe in personal accountability. The entire religion is based upon somebody else paying the price for their sins.
The first Noble Truth preached by the Buddha is that life is suffering. The rest of the Noble Truths explain how you escape from it - by realizing that suffering is inevitably caused by attachment and sensual cravings (Noble Truth #2), that relinguishing such cravings and attachments leads to the end of suffering (N.T #3), and that the way to do this is to follow the Buddhist eightfold path (N.T. #4).
Proclaiming it as “realism” just means that you happen to believe it. Which is fine. To me it seems that it may well be true, at least in part. But it is certainly a very pessimistic philosophy, and the sort of thing one could well wish were not true, if it was. I do not however think it totally true - attachments can be bad and good.
I won’t get into the comparison with Christianity, as I’m not Christian, though I will say that the notion of a universe composed of suffering isn’t incompatible with what I understand of Original Sin - both religions are essentially saying that you are literally in a world of hurt unless you follow the religion, only Buddhism does not require a god to impose said hurt - the world just naturally is like that.
See, that isn’t entirely correct. It’s a double standard buy-in that completely avoids the idea of personal responsibility.
1> Everyone is damned to an eternity of suffering for their sins, no matter how great or small. Since Original Sin is not a choice, personal accountability doesn’t enter into the equation. You’re fucked just by being born. Period.
2> Unless you buy-in (accept Jesus), in which case you’re off the hook.
I was born and raised a Conservative Baptist. But as I’ve gotten older, grown and learned, it’s that first part that has turned me off of Christianity. No real Creator God, especially not one who proclaims a message of Love, could justify punishing innocent non-believers, or hell, even completely guilty blasheming child raping mass murderers - to an endless Eternity - billions and billions of years being just a drop in the bucket of - (capital E) Eternal - punishment.
Well, that and the rest of the completely fucked up image of God we see in the three Religions of the Book (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).
That being said, there is no point in attacking others for their beliefs. It doesn’t serve any purpose but to feed your own need for drama and offense, which is ultimately about your own need for attention and anger, and not anything to do with the other person’s beliefs or their person.
