This, of course, is a radical weakening of your earlier position which stated that a moral society could not be maintained without religion. I note that you have apparently not even noticed the shift. I also note that point 3 above is a pretty big lump of assumption to swallow axiomatically. Perhaps you have some support for that statement?
My point was that your thinking in this matter lacks rigor and clarity. I believe that hypothesis has been well supported by the evidence collected in this thread. I would be happy to reassess that position should you ever provide data which does not fit the model.
It has not escaped my thought process that not every single atheist will become a mass murderer in the absence of a religious influence. Any discussion of morality or lack thereof can only be done in relative terms. If there was any genuine lack of clarity on this point in my original post, I apologize for this.
Actually I am not asking you to swallow it. My original purpose in posting to this thread was more to clarify what I believe is confusion over the true stance of Lieberman (and the “quotes” from the Founding Fathers). As you suggested that this calls Lieberman’s ability to reason into question I disputed this, and in further support of this stated that I agree with it. Whether you “swallow” this or not, it is not unreasonable, and your fears for Lieberman’s sanity may be allayed.
Having said this, I will disclose my reasons for believing as I do. 1. The unceasing propaganda by religious leaders to lead a moral life is bound to have some positive moral effect. 2. The belief in a God who wills you to lead a moral life and can deliver eternal reward/punishment is a powerful additional incentive to lead a moral life that would not otherwise be present.
But, as mentioned, this is not really a part of this discussion. Perhaps this is worthy of thread of its own.
My point is that my thinking does not lack rigor, and probably not clarity either. If you try to dispute this by ignoring the context of what I (and APB9999) said, I do not feel that you have added anything. If you feel that my words in context are still lacking clarity, you may wish to point it out. To this point you have not done so.
What hypothesis? That my thinking lacks rigor and clarity? That of APB9999? I don’t think either of these has been demonstrated in this thread at all.
Like all politicians, Lieberman has buckled under and back-pedaled, after getting flack from the media—and from Gore, probably. He said yesterday that he wouldn’t object to an atheist president “as long as I thought he was a moral person,” and that he does indeed know immoral religious people and moral nonreligious people.
I of course am not impressed—did anyone really believe Jesse Ventura when he took back his original opinion that “religion is a crutch for the weak-minded?”
Jodi—all I ask is that you understand why I am angry with Lieberman, and you DO understand. I am somewhat surprised, though, that you wouldn’t be upset with a strongly ANTI-religion candidate. Why not?
It’s pretty obvious what happened. Gore called Leiberman in and chewed him out: “Why the hell were you thinking Joe? You’ve pissed off Eve and you know we need that Movieline endorsement if we’re going to win this thing.”
Don’t have any links, but there was a sizeable article in today’s NY Times (Weds.). Should be in most newspapers (you need to register to access the Times online, so screw 'em).
I accept your apology for a lack of clarity on this matter.
Yes. But the relative statement you are supporting now is not the blanket statement that Lieberman (and you) originally espoused. That statement reflected a lack of reason unless predicated upon the idea that either individual athiests cannot be moral or no society can remain moral. Your present statement is simply grounded in religious prejudice. It is not, on its face, unreasonable.
Unless you predicate that a soceity based upon a secular moralitty would necessarily have less interest in fostering that morality within its populace then this point is irrelevant to the question of whether a religious society is necessarily more moral than a non-religious society.
This is simply a recasting of the idea that religious individuals will behave, in some aggregate measure, more morally than athiests. Do you have any objective support for such an idea? My own readings have done little to convince me that religious people are less likely to lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc. than anyone else.
Both points, of course, ignore the question of whether the behavior codified within a specific religious system can indeed be considered moral. There have been religions in this world that advocate warfare, rape, genocide, murder, theft, etc. Your argument seems predicated upon the idea that if a priest/rabbi/monk/shaman/holy book/personal revelation tells you it is what God(s) want then it is moral. I disagree.
I agree.
I listed several areas of otential confusion several posts ago. In particular, I pointed out that when considering the statement, “There is no justification for the idea that ‘faith belongs in private life’,” it would be nice to know if you are opposing private with public in the sense of “openly displayed” or in the sense of “supported by government funds or sanction.” It seems to be a relevant point when discussing issues of religion and the US Government. I also wondered exactly what justification you were looking for? Do you feel no idea has merit unless it has been thougt by someone famous? Do you require a legal precedent for the idea? Is Constitutional scholarship sufficient justification or must it actually accord with a decision by the Supremem Court? Is popular opinion worthy justification? If so how popular is enough?
I specifically restricted the hypothesis to your thinking on this subject. But, with that clarification, yes.
I will reiterate, I haven’t made any “overgeneralized statements.” I said:
How is that a generalization? He announced, “as a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God’s purpose.” He asserted a portion of his platform. Did I indicate that the concept in question was the sum total of his platform? No, I did not.
Prove that my constitutionally oriented declarations are indefensible. I have proven that I haven’t asserted a fallacy.
For the second alleged generalization, I stated:
To which you replied:
The preceding sentences clarified the perspectives in question. Technically speaking, I grant you that the word “the” prior to the word “perspectives” should be “these” so that the sentence could stand alone. I did not foresee a misunderstanding as to what those perspectives were. You were clear on the infractions I referenced, perhaps there was a reading error on your part.
Part II: Citizen vs. Senator
Is Lieberman a citizen? Yes. Does Lieberman cease being a citizen when he steps out of the country? No. Is Lieberman a senator? Yes. Does Lieberman cease being a senator when he steps out of the office? No. Is Lieberman male? Yes. Can Lieberman act both as a male and a citizen? Yes, in fact he must have a sex change or renounce his citizenship to act in only one of the two capacities. Can Lieberman act both as a citizen and a senator? Yes, in fact he must quit his job or renounce his citizenship to act in only one of the two capacities.
The issue isn’t crucial for the reasons enumerated in Part III.
Part III: Ramifications
Lieberman never made any such indication with the statement, “as a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God’s purpose.” Nope. That assertion cannot be remotely construed as his intention to make “such efforts.” As I stated previously, “Liberman has asserted his perspective as a part of his platform. His platform is effectively an announcement of planned achievements when elected.”
I am simply taking Lieberman’s comments at face value. He voiced a need to focus on faith and God as a nation. I think that the phrase “theistic take-over agenda” is a bit more radical than what he intends, but the future implementation of laws or programs that initiate a theistic tone in the national state is a message he has conveyed.
Lieberman wants to take the nation “back to God.” Would such an act constitute a violation of the First Amendment? Is it a violation for the government to support one religion in lieu of another? Would a government focus on faith and God constitute support of one or more religions in lieu of others? The answer to all three questions is “yes.” Consider the “indefensible” defended.
Allow me to attempt this explantion once more in hope that you will follow the logic. There are four possible scenarios in which Lieberman is elected Vice President. Herein are the reasons why his citizen/senator status is irrelevant.
Lieberman is a citizen. He has no intention of following through with his theistically oriented bent. Lieberman lied.
Lieberman is a citizen. He intends to follow through with his theistically oriented bent when elected. Lieberman will violate the First Amendment.
Lieberman is a senator. He openly assaulted those who are not religious and supported one or more religions in lieu of others. Lieberman has violated the First Amendment.
Lieberman is a senator. He intends to follow through with his theistically oriented bent when elected. Lieberman will violate the First Amendment again.
Part IV: An Aside
I don’t want to see Lieberman incarcerated for a constitutional violation. I could care less what events precipitate as a result of his statements. I simply want Lieberman to be aware that he has greatly offended many people with his slanderous accusations and that continuing along the same vein will not be tolerated.
You seem to understand Gaudere’s perspective. Mine is very similar to her’s. Why do you have such a problem with mine?
I think that what some people haven’t clarified is that there is a difference between Lieberman (or any other highly religious politician) making those remarks and the typical politician doing it.
When Clinton, for example, makes a speech at a black baptist church down south, I expect it to be peppered with religious references and rhetoric because that’s POLITICS.
When Lieberman says the same things there is a different more disturbing spin on it as it is less motivated by politics and more by personal belief.
The relative statement that I am now supporting is the same as that which I originally said, and which Lieberman espoused. As I’ve noted earlier, statements are best understood in context, and all statements about lack of morality are to be understood to be relative.
Your comments concerning the morality of an atheist society have been noted. I would be glad to discuss these in a separate thread.
Some history. Joe Lieberman made the statement that “I feel as strongly as anything else, that there must be a place for faith in America’s public life”. What does this mean to you? Is he proposing to support faith by some government funds or sanction? Has anyone made such a proposal in this campaign? No, clearly he meant that people, and public figures should be open and public about their religious feelings and thoughts. Now, step 2. APB9999 said in response “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.” This implies that faith should not be publicly practiced and espoused. No such principle has ever been decided by the Supreme Court. If APB9999 meant government funds or sanction he should clarify this (and give some rationale for this strange interpretation of Lieberman’s words). I gave him the opportunity to do so. But he has dropped out of this debate.
Justification refers to inherent justification. As in “there is no justification for all this obfuscation about such simple matters”.
No. You may believe all statements about morality should be understood as relative, but that is by no means a universal attitude. In particular, it is by no means a universal attitude among people of faith that atheists can be moral.
The statement Lieberman quoted and you agreed with makes no nods to moral relativism. In fact, it quite explicitely makes an absolute statement that we should not believe that morality can be maintained without religion. It may make you more comfortable to read some element of moral relativism into the statement, but it does not exist in the original.
For that matter, even the “morally relative” reading you prefer seems based upon nothing but religious prejudice. I am hardly appeased by an attitude which can be summarized, “Sure, athiests can be moral, they are just less likely to be moral than religious folk.”
re context
I am aware of the context of your remarks, having read this thread from the beginning, but I thank you for your recapitulation. Apparently, you have live i the US but have remained ignorant of the long history of government efforts to promote/suppress specific religious practices/images through public sanction. Just in the present day there are issues of posting religious codes in courtrooms, sanctioning prayer in mandatory classroom settings, disallowing unpopular religious practices because they conflict with public policy, etc. I can see how ignorance of such a social context would allow you to say:
Yes, people have made such proposals. Many times. Lieberman’s statements included: “we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God’s purpose” and “our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. Given that context I do not think it unreasonable to interpret the private/public dichotomy as referring to government support/sanction. Nor do I think it requires a “strange” interpretation of Lieberman’s words.
You, of course, have been consistent in asserting that your words require no clarification and the issue could not possibly be interpreted in any way other than your own.
Agree or disgree, just characterize the issue correctly. (BTW, the “summary” is also incorrect).
Can I draw your attention to the words "Is he proposing and "anyone made such a proposal in this campaign? Despite my alleged ignorance of social context, I was careful to put these words in to make clear what I meant. You may extrapolate from Lieberman’s words what he is likely to do about those other issues, but to interpret his words as meaning this is to take them out of context. But hey, why should Lieberman’s words be different than mine?
Again you are extrapolating what Lieberman likely would do about such issues. There is no doubt that he was not actually referring to such actions with the words that he spoke. (Nor was John Adams, for that matter).
(I erred enter the code which resulted in a quotation error. Lynn, please delete my previous post).
As Eve noted, an article in today’s New York Times quoted Lieberman’s response to previous statements which were addressed by the ADL. There has been much controversy surrounding two issues in this thread. Lieberman has amended both his statement regarding the morality of those not religiously oriented and his statement regarding a national focus on God and faith. Lieberman said:
I am pleased to know Lieberman does not deem all irreligious people immoral. I continue to take offense that he believes the irreligious have a greater probability of being immoral. Lieberman also stated:
Some have asserted that Lieberman has no plans to sanction or support any particular religion(s). As is evident from the aforementioned comment, he will continue to advocate faith; moreover, it is his intention that this advocation be supported by the implementation of programs and legislature. It may be “less a matter of programs and legislation,” but some still constitutes a violation of the First Amendment. Lieberman opined:
Clearly, Lieberman has not grasped the concept of which he speaks, or knowingly disregards said concept. I take offense at the two previous quoted statements–they are exclusionary. Lieberman continues slander and voice plans for constitutional infractions.
I have ben characterizing the issues quite carefully. However, I will await your own summary of the statements:
**1) Society as a whole is significantly more moral than it would otherwise be due to the influence of religion.
2) The unceasing propaganda by religious leaders to lead a moral life is bound to have some positive moral effect.
3) The belief in a God who wills you to lead a moral life and can deliver eternal reward/punishment is a powerful additional incentive to lead a moral life that would not otherwise be present.
**
I am not surprised that you object to my own summary of these viewpoints. Nor am I surprised that you have failed to deal with the logical implications of your own statements. I await your own summary of those points as they relate to the relative morals of religious and non-religious populations.
Hmmm – you apply your framework to his statements and decide the meaning is absolutely clear. If another framework is applied to his words you complain that it is unfounded extrapolation. Another example of rogor in the IzzyR idiom, I am sure.
Perhaps you could apply the same careful readings that you use for your own posts to mine. If you do, you might realize that I never claimed Lieberman had spoken directly to those issues. I simply pointed out that the fact that those areas of contention exist within our political spectrum combined with Liebermans quoted statements (I helpfully bolded one of them so it should be easy to pick out) support a reasonable interpretation that the public/private dichotomy to which APB9999 made reference was to a government sanction or suport.
You, in your astounding clarity and amazing contextual understanding think that it requires a “strange” interpretation of Lieberman’s words to arrive at such an idea. My thoughts on your thoughts have, I hope, been made clear.
I have not criticized Lieberman for what he meant. Unlike yourself, I do not know what he meant in his private heart. I have criticized the words he spoke. I have also criticized two possible interpretations of some of those words: one which implies athiests are immoral, and one which implies a sloppiness of thought.
You have identified yourself with one of those positions.
I’m not sure what you mean with all this. Your interpretation of Lieberman’s words was, and remains, unreasonable.
In addition, I note that in the previous post by Nen, he cites Lieberman’s own explanation of his remarks and lo! they are as I have been saying. So the world wonders. Will Spiritus Mundi find it within himself to retract his previous “interpretation”? Don’t hold your breath folks. Tune in next post for another exciting edition of Spin City.
I am sure a great master of reason and a rigorous thinker such as yourself is familiar with the diference between an an interpretation of a statement and an extrapolation of that statement to another.
Your three bolded statements seem fine to me. I’m not sure what you’re bringing them for. I have already indicated that I would discuss them in another thread. But then, perhaps you’ve interpreted my words differently. Take it slowly. 1. Another 2. Thread.
since I feel myself more and more inclined to remember that we are in the PIT. Feel free to open up this other thread you keep talking about, though. Or were you expecting me to post in it before it existed?
It is increasingly clear that you lack understanding in a number of areas. Nevertheless, I see that you have no difficulty declaring unreasonable that which you do not understand.
I have given you many opportunities to address specific points in this thread, most of which you have ignored. I will give you the opportunity to ignore another one: what, exactly, is my interpretation of Lieberman’s words.
Surely this will not be too difficult for you? Simply find the passages where I have interpreted Lieberman’s words, quote it, and interpret it. Extra credit for developing a clear argument that the interpretation is unreasonable.
I note in this post by IzzyR that he remains unable to read carefully. Perhaps if you complete exercise 1 it will help you understand your error here, too. I will give you a hint:
Lieberman originally said the second. Now he says the first. See if you can take it from there and figure out why I feel no need to recant anything I have posted.
Or perhaps you meant this passage instead:
If that is the case, then I again point you to problem 1. Please find a place where I have interpreted Lieberman’s words in a manner contradictory to this statement.
I have made it a point to answer every specific question or issue that you have raised in our conversation. You have been far less generous with your thoughts. I leave it to others to decide which mode of behavior is most reminiscent of political spin doctoring.
The statements seem fine???
You continue to amaze me.
But not with your ability to comprehend written english.
I am not amazed that the statements seem fine to you, they are your own statements. They are your own statements. They express a viewpoint which I characterized as religious prejudice, specifically the prejudice that a religious population, and therefore the individuals who compose that population, is likely to be more moral than a non-religious population. You objected to that characterization. You also objected to my summary of those viewpoints. I offered you the chance to give your own summary.
Said summary, apparently, is “seem[s] fine to me”.
That much is clear. It does not “seem fine” to me.
It’s just plain difficult, except in the context of “transparent pandering”, to figure out how religion is such a crucial issue in deciding who will hold an office that is explicitly prohibited from intervening in religious affairs. Wait a minute, that is, unless there are hidden agendas being pursued (Gasp!). One would think that expertise and real leadership, not this flim-flam “Charisma” crap, would be the central issue. I wish that all of this religion garbage* was a smoke screen for some other issue. However, it is not. This election is actually focussed on something that should remain largely outside of election criteria. Surprise!!! (Dear EVE, hopefully this was not a highjack.)
*Only in it’s pertinence to politics.
PS: John, if you peruse my other thread you’ll see that my concerns re: the Supreme Court are justified.
He also said in the message, essentially, for all Texans to behave like “good Christians”:
“I urge all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need. By volunteering their time, energy or resources to helping others, adults and youngsters follow Christ’s message of love and service in thought and deed.”
It must thrill the Muslims, atheists and pagans who live there to know that Bush essentially declared that Christ had the exclusive message of love ond service.
I would insult you back since this is the Pit, John, but unlike you I rather keep this particular thread a civil debate.