in reading newdow v. u.s. congress, it struck me how emphatically religious people believe that the government’s (and society’s) flaunting of their judeo-christian religions does nothing to put atheists in a lower position. my favorite thing to quote on this topic is the ex-wife of the man bringing the case, who fought to have her daughter’s name held from the court records, so that she does not suffer “a lifetime of scorn”, known forevermore as “the little atheist girl” who fought the pledge. one of the judges in the 9th circuit court case claimed that any harm done by “under god” in the pledge is minimal at best, so this can’t be considered a promotion of religion by the government. in fact, i think the toughest task for newdow to overcome in the SCOTUS case will be showing that harm is in fact done. but when the very people who want their religion proclaimed all over the public forum, claiming that it does no harm to the nonreligious, foresee a “lifetime of scorn” for the atheist child, one has to wonder if their position is tenable.
yes, it is strange how many people believe that without belief in god, there would be no reason to refrain from murdering people. it scares me, in fact, that these people can see no other reason to behave morally.
grienspace, I don’t hold religious people to a higher standard than those who aren’t; I hold people to a particular standard. It would be very difficult for me to hold religious people to a higher standard solely for the sake of having religion, when I see a number of religious beliefs that strike me as actively promoting evil.
While I can see your point, lissener, it rarely comes across to me that way; most often when I see that sort of comment it’s in a context of, roughly, “Well, people with the right religion wouldn’t do that.” (My own devotion to my faith is not something that gets cited as a sign of morality, for some reason.) It most often looks like an expression of disbelief in the events to me, one that gives people of a particular subset of faiths some presumed mystical shield against all possibility of wrongdoing.
To the point of patriotism in the OP: I find this particularly disgusting. Especially since it came in the response to a display of the sort of thing that happens when people think that their gods particularly care about the fates of nations.
Lilairen said, “To the point of patriotism in the OP: I find this particularly disgusting. Especially since it came in the response to a display of the sort of thing that happens when people think that their gods particularly care about the fates of nations”
Yeah…between the Jews, Muslims, and Christians, I can’t WAIT to see which god steps in and saves the world. Especially the world that resides in the Middle East.
Anyone else reminded of the recent case - in Milwaukee I believe - where a behaviorally challenged boy was smothered during an attempted exorcism by his minister in his church?
And of course there is General (My god can beat up your god) Boykin.
Possibly we atheists need to adjust our thinking of just what type of behavior one should expect of religious folk.
No, not at the OP – I think Eve has a strong point to make. At the people who insist that “the religious” (by which they mean Christians, and perhaps Jews – certainly not Moslems, and Goddess preserve us from their including Wiccans!) are somehow “more moral” than anyone else.
By our own teachings, we Christians admit to being sinners incapable of changing ourselves. If one can live an ethical life without God’s help, he or she deserves our praise and perhaps envy, not our condemnation.
One of the most incisively sardonic exchanges ever to grace this board was when one of the fundy. contingent began explaining how God’s law teaches him/her not to be a murderer/thief/rapist, and someone quoted that and petitioned the fundy’s God never to let him/her lose his/her faith, because we would then have to deal with a murderer, thief, and rapist.
My faith has led me to a life rich in personal fulfillment, with a sense that I’m treating others as they deserve to be treated. Someone once did an OP in which he asked the religious among us if proof of the absence of God would lead us to change. I said, effectively, no – I believe my ethics are proper whether or not Christ commands them.
Eve, imagine if the original quote had said, “investigators and neighbors are still trying to make sense of two sharply contrasting realities: four adopted youngsters starving in plain sight and a family that was widely seen as loving and deeply committed to humanism.” Would that have bothered you?
Because that’s how I see it. The opposite of “deeply religious” isn’t “committed to atheism”; it’s “not deeply religious.”
A deeply religious person is a person who adheres strongly to a code of morals. Those morals may be good (don’t kick puppies!) or bad (smite the infidels!), but the deeply religious person adheres firmly to them.
You generally figure that any code of morals contains a don’t-starve-your-children clause, whether that code is secular humanism, fundamentalist Christianity, or communist anarchism. It’s therefore especially surprising to see someone deeply committed to any code of morals starve their children.
It wouldn’t be especially surprising to see someone only nominally committed to a code of morals commit such a crime; you EXPECT such a crime to be committed by someone without a strong code of morals.
I have no problem with either of these sentences. I don’t think all religious people should be held to a higher standard than all atheists. I do think that folks with strong moral beliefs can, on some issues, be held to a higher standard than folks without strong moral beliefs.
I would’ve been equally surprised, for example, had the crime been committed by a professor of philosophy.
Attending public school in Chicago, my buddy who went to the local Catholic school told me that the nuns frequently told them that they were “better” than the kids in public school.
Heck! Some of us even went to catechism!
Daniel - I’m not sure where you are coming from. I cannot recall ever seeing someone described in the news as a humanist. Certainly not as meant by a secular humanist.
IME, “deeply religious” is generally meant as a shorthand for “holier-than-thou.” With the limited exceptions when it means flat out wacky like Piper Laurie in Carrie.
People who are deeply committed to certain codes of morals deny their children medical treatment.
My experience is that religious people tend to believe that they are more deeply committed to a higher moral code than non-believers. My experience has also been that this is definitely not the case.
Dinsdale, I agree that the news doesn’t normally describe folks as humanist, but that’s not my point: my point is that such a description would be apt, and I would understand the reporter’s surprise in such a case.
Again, I’m not saying deeply-committed-to-moral-codes people are better than anyone else – but in some areas, I’ll hold them to higher standards. I’ll generally expect a person deeply committed to a moral code to tell fewer lies in their own self-interest, for example. And I’ll expect that person not to starve children.
I’ll have these expectations without knowing which particular moral code they’re committed to.
" . . . investigators and neighbors are still trying to make sense of two sharply contrasting realities: four adopted youngsters starving in plain sight and a family that was widely seen as hateful and deeply religious."
I would leave it at that, but I am sure many here wiould willfully try to remain ignorant on my point.
I do not thing the label “religious” or even “deeply religious” can stand on it’s feet as an absolute. We all know of the stories of deeply religious parents who withhold medical care for their children because of their faith. We all know of deeply religious societies who commit human rights violations because of their religion.
However, if you are upset that he has added religious to compliment hi point about how caring the parents where, you are the ones with problems. It has been pointed out already about how society usually thinks a deeply religious person should act according to how we are taught religious people should act.
People who post shit like this and can complain about being offended strikes me as someone with a little too much balls to be calling the kettle any fucking color.
I think Eve is correct in feeling insulted… I feel the same way too. Especially when said religious people start doing things to choir boys, or have lovers and apologize on TV.
Or stone women to death, or declare jihads that kill innocents, or curtail basic human rights within nations in the name of a book? I would not go there if I were you. “Said religious people” did not all do that. They even condemn such acts. I’m a bit offended by your lack of insight to what you blathe about sometimes.
[logistican mode = ON]
First, the quotes do not imply logical equality between morals and religion. They say instead that if you’re religious, you’re likely to be moral. This says nothing about irreligous people. Really. Trust me on this: I spent far too much time arguing with my professor until he convinced me. Simalarly, the statement “Atheists don’t believe in a murdering, cruel, capricious god who creates plagues for fun and spies on people in the shower” is literally true, and says nothing about the beliefs of theists.
[logistican mode = OFF]
It’s kind of a logic error to extract an insult from this, even if the insult is seemingly implied.
All we can get from the quotes is that such behavior is considered unusual from religious people. The converse is not stated one way or another, so to run with the implication is ultimately an assumption - a logical error.
That said, as others have pointed out, we expect the religious to be more kind and caring and moral, and it’s something human to (falsely) assume that no religion = no kindness, caring, or morality. But, it happens. The best idea is to not do it yourself.
I think the connection between these particular quotes and general anti-atheist sentiment in America is precarious.
But there is anti-atheism, and for as long as there continues to be, atheists will have to constantly be defending themselves and fighting for their own freedom.
Living in Canada, I haven’t experienced firsthand the all-pervading Jeebus worship that y’all are drowning in. But I know it exists, and maybe because I am used to living in live-and-let-live-land, the thought makes me shudder.
I’m going to disagree with TonyJ that to assume no religion=no morality is human. IMHO, to assume that is very American. What is human is to explore and to ponder and to think critically and freely. That’s the best of humanity anyway. Maybe if more people did that, there would be less bias against atheists and humanists.
OK, I’m confused. Who are you insulting here–the Times reporter who originally said that religious people couldn’t abuse children, or me? If it’s me, would you please elaborate?
“I’m an atheist and I’m not insulted. The statements in the quotes are bromides. Most people don’t put a lot of thought into what they say.”
Yup my reaction as well. I suppose if you parse the statements closely you could call them offensive but that would be paying them more attention than they deserve.
Incidentally it’s not just atheists who are not “deeply religious”. It also includes people who are mildly observant, probably a majority of the US population.
Hang on, don’t we have a very basic logical error of inference here?
“All religious people are moral” does not mean “All non-religious people are not moral”. Just like “All cats are furry” doesn’t mean “All non-cats are not furry”.
So the reporter thinks “Religious” implies “Moral”. Well, that’s the impression many religious people like to give off. Personally I disagree and think it very foolish to believe this in the face of all the counter-examples in the world (coughFredPhelpscough). But it says exactly zero about non-religious people.
