I wasn’t going to vote for his ticket anyway, so this doesn’t change anything, but it’s enlightening to know that the candidates on both sides feel they need to run on how pious they are. Whoopee.
I’m voting for Kodos.
Pardon me? If I say that Jews are immoral, and I am running for political office, would you reassure yourself by saying, “Oh, he only meant Jews were immoral as far as non-Jews were concerned.”
Do you really see this as a distinction worth consideration?
Phil, you FOOL!
Kang is the only choice of the rational, thinking, succulent human!
- The man says:
I disagree. Faith belongs in private life. Public life must include all, and for those of us who are atheists or agnostic, that means religion must be avoided in public life. It’s called “separation of church and state.” The supreme court has agreed with me. That a vice presidential candidate would voice his opposition to this central, important, American principal is very alarming.
-
The fact that some people are complacent about this, or “used to it”, does NOT mean the rest of us are overreacting when we are outraged. I would suggest YOU need to get a bit MORE excited.
I disagree. For atheists, freedom of religion IS freedom from religion, and it IS guaranteed by the constitution; again, the supreme court has agreed. This is NOT a Christian country. It is a HETEROGENEOUS country. The government represents us all, or should, right? The fact that a majority of Americans are Christians is completely irrelevant. Rights are those spheres of life where individual desires trump the will of the majority. In fact, that’s the whole point of civil rights, like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Democracy does not, and can not, obviate civil liberties or deny them to anyone. So majority views are irrelevant.
How often have we heard the exact same line from proselytizing fundamentalists? If it rings a little hollow at this point, can anyone not see why?
Washington may have said that, I don’t know. He was a man of absolutely unimpeachable character, but he was far from the most astute thinker of his day, particularly in politics - although given his contemporary company that is not exactly a harsh condemnation. I would guess that even if he said it, he probably wasn’t talking about governmental policy so much as about social structure, i.e. PRIVATE life.
Frankly I have serious doubts about the Adams quote. I suspect it is either a misquote or taken grossly out of context. Can anyone venture a source for this quotation? It is true that Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act, in complete violation of the first amendment, so even if he did say it, that isn’t necessarily a ringing endorsement.
Do you have cloven hooves and chew your cud? If you do, then your backside is kosher. If you chew your cud but do not have cloven hooves, or if you have cloven hooves but do not chew your cud, or if you do not have cloven hooves or chew your cud, then your backside is kosher.
My tentative conclusion is that Joe Lieberman, being an observant jew, would refrain from biting your backside. Especially if you put cheese on it.
**
Change the last sentence to "…then your backside is NOT kosher. Cripes, try to make a simple jest…
Personally, other than thoughts of Eve’s backside, I don’t see a lot to get excited over here. With Leiberman as a candidate, religion is obviously going to be an issue in this campaign. I think his speech was the equivalent of telling mainstream American voters “Don’t worry about me being a Jew because I promise to act just like a Christian.” In terms of actual political impact if Leiberman is elected (or even if he becomes President) I expect it to be about as meaningful as Bush’s pledges of “compassionate conservatism”.
Note that he also wrote in the Treaty of Tripoli that, quote, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
Well, this certainly has stirred the pot! Personally, I like Lieberman. He speaks his mind, and doesn’t try to hide it or neutralize it to be politically correct.
At least you know where he stands, so you can make an informed choice. I’d take that anyday over the other guys whose rhetoric changes daily, depending on a) the group he’s addressing; and b) who wrote his speech that particular day.
Well, at the very least it’s disturbing. However, knowing that politicians must pander to the religious, I can only hope that this is an instance of Joe saying whatever it takes to be elected. Otherwise, I’m going to run out of people to vote for while voting against other people.
And Gary Kamiya, of Salon, has this to say.
Waste
Flick Lives!
Once again, APB9999 jumps in and wins my heart! You can bite my godless backside anytime, dear heart.
I note in the Times today that even the Anti-Defamation League has asked Lieberman to kindly shut the hell up. Not in those exact WORDS, of course . . . Oh, I also read that Cheney is about to start pounding the Bible on a Midwest tour. [Frank Nelson voice:] “Oh, GOOOODIE.”
I would not be so quick to use that as a citation, matt_mcl. The Treaty of Tripoli is somewhat of an urban legend. The line is not in the original Arabic text of the treaty, and it is quite possible that anti-Christin Thomas Paine-ally Joel Barlow made it up out of qhole cloth hen he translated it. In any event, a revised Treaty of Tripoli was ratified a decade later with no mention of that.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#usanot has some information about this. Even though the tone of what is mentioned tries to put a positive spin (positive for “The Atheism Web” position) on it, I think if you look at the fact, it is a dubious claim at best.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, six days, 11 hours, 47 minutes and 19 seconds.
5699 cigarettes not smoked, saving $712.45.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 18 hours, 55 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]
There is a difference between saying that religion promotes morality, and even that morality would not be maintained without religion, and saying that all athiests are immoral. It would seem to me that lieberman has said the first concept, but it is being interpreted as if he said the second. I personally hold to both of these positions (i.e. that religion does promote morality, but that many athiests are moral). I am also not running for any office, so you will not have a chance to vote against me.
And, Gaudere, these are indeed my words, so you may hold me to them.
APB9999:
There is no justification for the idea that “faith belongs in private life”, and the Supreme Court has never agreed with anything of the sort. Separation of Church and State refers to official governement law and policy. To imply that government officials must hide their religion is rediculous.
-
Religion promotes morality
-
Many athiests are moral
There is no contradiction. -
Morality is necessary for morality
-
Many athiests are moral
These statements contradict each other.
Lieberman chose to cite the warining, “never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” Now, the only real question is whether this should be interpreted at the societal level only or also at the personal level.
If it is interpreted only at the societal level, it implies directly that a society without religious underpinings cannot be moral. Now, if individual athiests can be moral then I find the proposition that a population of athiests must necessarily become immoral to be untenable. If this is Lieberman’s position, then I am unimpressed with his ability to reason.
If it is interpreted at the personal level, it implies that athiests inevitably become immoral over time, even if they do not begin as immoral. If this is Lieberman’s position, then I am personally offended.
If neither of these represents Lieberman’s position, then he should choose his citations more carefully.
If it is interpreted
You might want to take some time to explicate this more completely. This statement fairly begs for misinterpretation.
BTW – the last sentence in my post above was a C&P error. Please disregard.
Well, I mailed him that letter yesterday—shall we all hold our breath while I await a response?
By the way, I posted his addresses—are any of you going to write to him, as well, or am I the only loudmouth here?
Spiritus Mundi,
I assume the first line should read “Religion is necessary for morality”. This is not a contradiction, as noted earlier. The first line refers, as you suggest, to a society. The second line refers to an individual. Obviously once a society has lost its morality the individual members will ultimately be affected as well.
I find this position to be quite tenable - true in fact, whatever it may say about my ability to reason. In any event, I’m quite sure that this is indeed Lieberman’s position, and don’t think it should be represented otherwise, barring evidence to the contrary. In fact, it would seem to me that this is the meaning of the quotes from Washington and Adams (if indeed they are genuine).
Just what would that misinterpretation be?
Eve: I put mine in the mail this morn. I, too, will be waiting with bated breath for a response.
Waste
Flick Lives!