Sdimbert—I don’t think I am being alarmist or extremist; a politician has made statements I strongly disagree with and which make me uneasy, so I am writing him a letter to tell him. I haven’t used any unladylike words or even the blessed Wally’s “putz”—I guess I am Unfit for the Pit . . .
Gotta get back to GD, where I am mud-wrestling Libertarian . . .
Oh come on Izzy you should be flattered. You’ve made such a dent in the board that the mods can’t keep their minds off of you.
Nen:
I said that:
**
You responded:
**
No. Again, you are reading into my remarks. I said that Lieberman implied that he feels that morality can not be maintained without religion." I did not say that I think he said that “Atheists are immoral.”
I believe that there is a difference between those two statements.
Moving on, your post establishes that you believe in a total separation between Church and State, you think the wording of the Pledge of Alliegence is offensive and you don’t care at all what religion Lieberman practices as long as it doesn’t interfere with his governing.
That is all fine. The point where you and I disagree is that point at which (I think) you over-react. You said:
**
I’m not even sure where to begin my response to that remark. Taken out of it’s context and momentum, doesn’t it look a little excessive?
What “executive mandate” has Lieberman made? He has no executive power yet! And, even if elected, he will not have power to make “executive mandate” (whatever that is) because he is running for Vice-President!
You go on:
**
I agree. They should also be capable of solving difficult problems related to world peace in a fortnight. And fly. (Now I guess it’s me being sarcastic 
)
Look, everyone is misunderstood sometime. I am not suggesting that you misunderstood me, or Lieberman or that I misunderstood you. All I want everyone to do is calm down and stop automatically pigeon-holing a man who is unlike any political figure who ever came before him.
You say that you, “utilized all quotations availble from the referenced media” and that you, “ignored nothing inconsistent with my thesis.” Yet you neglected to touch upon his, “our faith is not inconsistent with their freedom” remark in your original attack.
I find that inconsistent.
Gaudere:
You points are well-made and well-taken.
You are correct to point out that those who find Lieberman’s remarks troubling should point out to him that they feel this way.
It will be interesting to see how he chooses to deal with the Atheist constituency.
But I feel the need to point out again that he is not the first candidate to run on a religious platform; far from it, in fact.
Also, could you chime in on the point I’m trying to make with Nen, above? I don’t want to re-open the whole “Can Atheists Be Moral” Debate, but can you speak to my point that there is a difference between the following statements:
[ul]
[li]Morality can not be maintained without religion[/li][li]Atheists are immoral[/li][/ul]
Eve:
You’re right. I think I have committed the same sin as the illustrous Gaudere, confusing your posts for Nen’s.
Nice to be in such good company! 
I don’t see a difference between the two statements. If morality cannot be maintained without religion, where religion is operated by the religious, then those without religion cannot maintain morality. Gaudere, catch sdimbert’s drift, please enlighten me.
No.
None. True. He will have significant influence.
Sarcasm aside, being a politician requires that one must be able to convey one’s ideas. Frequently, such expression is the arena of public speaking. I simply feel that such statements, which can be easily misconstrued, should be omitted from one’s speech if the content does not infer the intended meaning.
I am calm. If I got irate over this stuff I’d be dead.
It’s irrelevant, but:
[sarcasm]
Lieberman is “unlike any political figure”, yet his statement are “nothing new.”
[/sarcasm]
If you read my first post once again, you’ll find the referenced quote. Secondly, I offered an explanation regarding how Lieberman’s statements could be considered offensive; I did not attack, but that’s irrelevant.
Wait a second! I make the same points pertaining to the same topic and you understand her but not me?! Well, she is more eloquent, but I must protest.
I am an athiest. I find Lieberman’s statements offensive.
I find similarly statements from other politicians equally offensive. That in no way invalidates any complaints I have against Lieberman.
I take a hard line on the separation of church and state. I object to the presence of religious ideas in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency. Even if I did not, it would not invalidate a complaint about Lieberman’s words.
Yes, there is. One addresses the qualities of morality, the other addresses the qualities of athiests. However, both statements depend upon the position that no basis for morality can be found without religion. I find this position both incorrect and offensive.
Most importantly:
Um, Eve, I thought you were mad at him? Isn’t this sending mixed signals?
"Joe Lieberman Can Kiss My Godless Backside
Um, Eve, I thought you were mad at him? Isn’t this sending mixed signals?"
—Not at all, dearest. Nen will be taking a photo of our encounter and we will send it to the Washington Post. Let’s see how THAT effects his campaign!
Eve, I cannot possibly believe that you said that. I am just shocked by the ignorance you’re showing here. It just amazes me that you can hold such a position.
It would affect his campaign. It would have an effect upon his campaign.
Sorry; I just expected better from a writer.
(::ducking and running like hell:
Thanks, John, you just have to bring up holding positions while I have to take photographs and try not to make a wise comment about needing a wide angle lens for the shot.
“Yeah, just hold that pose–I need to switch lenses.”
Nen:
**
Let me try it this way:
[ul]
[li]Religious people believe that Morality exists, as directed by God.[/li][li]Atheists don’t.[/li][li]A Religious Person says, “Morality can not be maintained without religion.”[/li][li]Atheists get upset.[/li][li]Religious Person explains what he meant: Religious people believe that Morality = “What God Says It Is.” Without religion to tell us what that is, Morality can not be maintained.[/li][li]Does this mean that Atheists are not Moral? Yes, according to the definition used by Religous Person and his Religious Friends.[/li][/ul]
In other words, I don’t think that George Washington was saying that Atheists are immoral. He was saying that, according to religious people, atheists are immoral.
Is this a big secret? Nen, Gaudere, DavidB, Eve, does it shock you that some religious people feel that those who deny God’s existance are incapable of Morality? I have seen this issue argues in GD many times!
If I were an atheist, I might find Joe Lieberman’s announcement of support for Washington’s statement troubling, unless I also heard him say, in almost the same breath, that room exists for those who believe differently.
Joe Lieberman said both of these things.
Drain Bead,
Thanks for the links. You are right, of course, many people here have debated whether or not God belongs in the Pledge of Alliegence. I maintain, however, that in general society, God’s place there is a fairly well accepted thing.
Back to Nen:
You are also right - of course Lieberman, if elected, will have “significant influence.” I objected to the term “executive mandate.” I still have no idea what it means; it is not a political or legal term I have heard before.
You posted:
**
:sheepish grin:
I forgot what we’re arguing about. Which statements are you referering to?
Regarding my apparant self-contradiction (“nothing new” and “unlike any figure before”): Joe Lieberman’s comments regarding religion are “nothing new.” He, as a candidate, is “unlike any figure before him” because he is an Orthodox Jew.
Spiritus Mundi:
Thanks for clarifying my remark.
However, your assertion that, “both statements depend upon the position that no basis for morality can be found without religion” should be appended with the words, “for the religious.”
Finally, Nen, I just cruised over to the People Pages to take a look at Eve pic. Uhhh… can I have a copy of those shots of her and Lieberman?
Eve, I know exactly what you mean. Your alarm isn’t so much over Lieberman as it is more general outrage on what’s becoming an ugly trend everywhere, with the Lieberman speech only the latest chapter.
Even so, I gotta tell ya,
gives me the total heebie-jeebies; the government is gonna pigeonhole me like that so they can “reach out?” <Shudder!>
Seriously, I am serious here… how much would the press take notice if all us Dopers wrote in for Cecil on the the Presidential ballot? I’m serious, let’s do it.
“Wide-angle lens?” Why, I outta . . .
Ergo, Lieberman, a religious man, states atheists are immoral by citing Washington.
Lieberman did say both. Just like I don’t mind (insert racial, sexual, or otherwise preferred slur here).
Executive mandate: a command issued from the executive branch of government.
Touché, but I’m not a politician.
Finally, photos will be available to all Dopers.
No, no, thank you, Nen- by making the much more egregious insult, you deflected all possible abuse I might have received.
Good to see that some people will still throw themselves on their swords for complete strangers. Again, muchly appreciated.
Eve, darling, I would never so much as insinuate that one would be necessary. Oh, I said wide-angle? I thought I said zoom. A zoom lens is necessary for something so small, firm and shapely. Please forgive the typo.
John, I’m gonna kill you.
Well, thank goodness I didn’t say he could BITE my backside, like I was going to . . . For all I know, my backside isn’t even kosher . . .
(:bouncing around the Pit like Daffy Duck:)
Woo Hoo! Woo Hoo! Woo Hoo!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nen *
**
Again, I’ll nitpick far enough to say that Lieberman, a religious man, states that atheists are immoral as far as religous people are concerned.
Am I the only one who notices an important difference?
You’ve lost me. 
**
**
I understand what the words mean, it’s the concept I’m having trouble with. Can you give an example of an “executive mandate” that has been made before?
**
Now I’m dancing like Daffy Duck!
I don’t think a religious platform requires denigrating those whose beliefs are different than yours.
I’m hardly shocked, but when religious sorts with power over me start saying I am incapable of morality, I start to wonder what they’re going to do to me. I mean, you can’t have these loony immoral atheists running around free, can you? Better convert them! Better preach to them 24-7! Better post your religion’s Holy Statements all over the public schools, so their children learn the One True Moral Way! Better keep a close eye on them, who knows what they’ll do!
It is dangerous for a group to have those in power decide that their group is inherently immoral. It’s often used as an excuse for predjudical treatment–you know how white supremecists like to cite the high crime rate of blacks to show how blacks are inferior and deserving of less freedom than the inherently more “moral” whites. And Lieberman feels he can express his belief that atheists lack genuine morality without fear of any strenuous objections–the sad thing is, it seems he’s pretty much right. Which means a heckuva lot of people agree completely that I can’t be truly moral. I wonder what laws these fine upstanding citizens will pass to make sure I don’t run amok.
sdimbert,
I don’t see how the difference is important. 1) If Lieberman doesn’t feel that atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, et cetera are deemed moral by those who are religious and 2) Lieberman is religious, then 3) Lieberman doesn’t deem atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, et cetera moral.
Calling someone immoral based on religious orientation is similar to stating one is inferior due to melanin concentration, hence, the racial slur innuendo.
Anything the president signs is an executive mandate, especially when congressional approval isn’t necessary.
Gaudere, well said.
Eve, I suppose it would be Kosher provided that he left your breasts alone. The mixing of meat and milk is usually frowned upon.