Why do I feel like I’m sliding down hill while reading this entire thread???
Geez. Y’know, I thought the big deal in Christianity was the idea of Christ dying in order to save the world from sin and all that. I had no idea that the exclusive message of Christianity was to do good works with one’s fellows. But obviously, if you think that suggesting that people do good works is in essence telling them to “go be Christian”, then that’s what’s being said.
Y’know, given how, in the first paragraph I’ve quoted, you immediately associate “good works” with “must follow Christ”, that’s a real ironic statement to make.
Read the damned thing again, capacitor. Please let me know where:
1.) Bush identifies Christ as the Savior of the World, Son of God, or even the main figure in a religion.
2.) Bush states that the message of love and good works is exclusively one of Christ.
To take offense at this document is to go into it looking for matieral to take offense at, and to jump to specious conclusions in order to do it. Which is exactly what you’re doing.
Read the document again, except use “Martin Luther King Jr.” instead of “Jesus Christ”. Does it still sound like Bush is trying to push people into a religion?
Whoa. Irony of ironies, ladies and gentlemen- an athiest with a holier-than-thou attitude. Will wonders never cease?
IzzyR, you said:
Where did you offer the explanations of his remarks?
Spiritus, can you enlighten me? I rather thought his clarifications bolstered my original understanding (which I find to be similar to yours).
Capacitor—Oh, I agree; I find Bush and Cheyney more terrifying from a religious standpoint (and a few others) than Gore and Lieberman.
My original rant was because I expect BETTER of the Democrats (and I’d think a Jew would be more considerate and careful about demonizing other [non] religious minorities).
Spiritus Mundi
In this regard you seem to be doing fine as is. But if you feel the need to express yourself more fully feel free to do so.
What could have possbily given you the impression that I was going to open another thread? You keep bringing up unrelated matters, in an apparent attempt to divert the discussion to areas in which feel you are on stronger ground. My response to these is that I would discuss them, but not as part of this debate. Go ahead.
See below.
Try here.
Lieberman clearly meant the second from the start. I, despite what you claim is an inability to read carefully or comprehend written English, pointed this out from the start. Also here.You, with your superior abilities in so many areas, insisted otherwise. When the speaker himself confirmed my interpretation, you insisted that he still “originally said” the first. Somehow I am not surprised.
You have also made a point of substituting your own interpretation for the clear intentions of others, and insisting that they were retractions even when the makers of those statements insisted otherwise.
I can live with that. And I think those statements stand on their own. To repeat, what do want?
Areas of dispute include whether lieberman originally intended to say that all athiests must necessarily be immoral, and whether his call for religion in public life refers to programs and laws etc. I am not surprised that you agree with your esteemed colleague Spiritus. This appears to be the position of all the atheists in this thread. This was, in fact, the purpose of my original post. However, despite such unified beliefs among the atheists, I believe this interpretation is the result of a heightened sensitivity to church/state issues, more than a reasonable interpretation of his words in context.
IzzyR:
Lieberman stated,“George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition ‘that morality can be maintained without religion.’”
Lieberman clearly stated the first from the start, regardless of his intentions. Now Lieberman has clarified that irreligious people are simply more probably immoral.
He did no such thing (see above).
I completely disagree. Lieberman originally stated:
He then clarified that statement with the following:
He said, “less a matter of…”, not “not a matter of…”
My original “interpretations” coincide precisely with his statements. I extrapolated no information in an unreasonable fashion.
Nen,
Your first point has been addressed at length.
Your second is a good one. Nonetheless, I do not believe that the guy meant for his original statements to be interpreted as a call for legislation etc. His use of the term is meant to describe the general concept of public life etc. is more etc. But you may reasonably disagree with that.
As a Capitalist, devout Agnostic, scientist and artist, all of the foregoing discussion about non-religious people being incapable or less capable of moral behavior really cracks me up. A theory that I am currently developing called, “Hot Logic”, (as opposed to scientific ‘cold logic’) points up the fact that societal structures that merely follow rational and logical behavior patterns will also arrive at moral forms of conduct. Scientists are currently observing several different species, (from insect to primate) who have developed sharing strategies that promote survival and cohesive behavior (despite redistribution of personal gain). The human mind is quite capable of arriving at similar schemes WITHOUT religion. This is not to say that religion cannot also instill moral conduct. I am just amused at the notion of an overarching, ritualistic fabrication like religion being touted as the “only” path to morality. Sensibility and coherent philosophy also dictate the value of moral conduct. Please note how the “Golden Rule” (Do unto others…) of Christianity manifests in almost every other culture on Earth, religious or not. This is why Lieberman, Gore, Bush, Cheney et al, all come across as sanctimonious, exclusionary, pandering nit wits on these religious issues. To continue to bring up “Christian” values in their run for office in our nondenominational government is a slap in the face for all other nonchristian religious practicioners plus athiests and agnostics as well. That they are willing to marginalize a population segment that is specifically addressed and protected by our wonderful Constitution only points up their political and philosophical bigotry.
John, what if a governor declares an Ayatollah Khomeni Day, in appreciation of his philosophy? He was a religious revolutionary like Jesus, and he actually created a theocratic state that the revolutionaries at Jesus’s time thought that Jesus would create. Now you see why the American Jewish Congress says that the proclamation violates the"spirit and intention of the First Amendment of the Constitution."
John, George Bush is not explicit about condemning non-Christians, but he is known not to be too subtle about it.
And John, I am no athiest. I am just non-religious. And my gnostic friend, I would not speak about holier-than thou attitudes if I were you.
Make that agnostic friend.
Sorry. I have no ability to explain IzzyR’s convolutions of thought. Reading his last post to me confirms, among other things:
He cannot tell the difference between a position held and a position explained.
He believes that saying a thing again is the same as defending/explaining it.
He believes that Lieberman explaining what he meant to say is the same as Lieberman never saying the fist thing.
He believes that my explaining what Lieberman said is the same as my interpreting what Lieberman meant.
He believes that somewhere, apparently several somewheres, I have been trying to argue what Lieberman intended to say rather than what he did say.
He believes that, even though Lieberman has felt the need to clarify statements that many people found to be extreme, any such interpretation of the original remarks is unreasonsable.
He believes that “not the same as IzzyR” is the same as “unreasonable”.
He believes that no human being could ever make a statement about morality that was not intended to be relative, no matter how many people have been killed throughout history because their beliefs were considered immoral.
He believes that showing off his skills with UBB code is equivalent to making a reasoned response.
He believes that “quote and interpret” is synonymous with “link”
He believes that, in responding to his questions and statements, I have somehow been trying to guide this discussion into a direction of my liking.
He is unable to appreciate the ability to logically understand a position without supporting it personally.
He is unable to understand that careless words can be offensive or dangerous if the speaker did not intend them to be offensive or dangerous.
He is unable to examine his own position dispassionately enough to see the inherent prejudice of his belief.
I could go on, but I think this list has become wearisome enough.
IzzyR, since the OP did not complained about any of the digressions in this thread I saw, and see, no reason to start another. You apparently felt differently and raised the idea that perhaps a different thread should be started. I was willing to follow you to one if that was how you felt. Instead, it seems you prefer to simply use the idea of another thread as an excuse to avoid answering questions you find uncomfortable.
As to the words you continue to say are fine. Those words reflect prejudice. You are a religious bigot. You objected when I characterized the words that way before, and I have given you more than one opportunity to rephrase them or expand upon them. You have refused.
It hardly makes you the first bigot to feel smugly correct in his prejudice.
As to what I want, I want to live in a world where ognorance and bigotry absent. Failing that, I console myself with pointing them out when I see them trupmeted on this message board. I understand that the bigot in question is unlikely to reexamine his beliefs, but perhaps the example will spur someone else to actually think about some subtle prejudice in their own heart.
Oh, I almost forgot.
IzzyR, in all of his careful reading, also seems to have overlooked, or been unable to comprehend, this statement:
OK, lets us compare two positions: Joe L would like “for Americans to have (more) faith”. Ok- personally I agree with this, but I feel it was inappropriate coming from a Political leader. Joe was wrong, here. He later admitted this & retracted the statement. Note, that at no time did he suggest legislating his faith or morality, and I do not beleive he would do so. All right, could be better, but he did retract. I’ll let him get off the hook, this once.
Now, Bush wants to have a CONSTITUTIONAL admendment that would allow prayer in schools. And, he wants to force his religous views on abortions on all Americans. He would make it a CRIME to go against the Religous Right’s religous/moral opinions (on abortions). So, Bush would force, by gunpoint, HIS religion/faith on us. :rolleyes:
Joe thinks it would be nice if we all had a little more faith. No laws, no forcing, no Admendments.
SO- which Politician has the more “scary” religous views?
That one’s easy. Pat Buchanon.
OK, Spiritus- you win. “Oooohh, that one scares even me.”
Spiritus Mundi,
This is just to acknowledge your last post. At this point, there’s not much that’s not been covered. Or, one might claim, I realize that I’ve been completely destroyed by your logic. In any event, I’m going to let it rest here.
Here’s the thing that’s still bothering me:
Why is it “inappropriate” for a political leader to say that he would like Americans to have more faith?
First of all, JL is not a “political leader,” he is a political candidate. Yes, I know that this was touched upon earlier, but please, everyone, before jumping on me, consider the following distinction: It is illegal for Joe Lieberman to use his resources as a Senator to aid him in his bid for the Vice-Presidency. If that is the case, then any interpretations of statements he makes as a candidate must ignore his Senate position.
Anyhow, my real point is that a political candidate can say that he wants… well, anything at all. If I were running for office, I could get up on a soapbox and say that I want all Americans to eat less red meat. Or more. Or that I wanted to pass a law requiring all male children to be named “sdimbert”. Whatever.
Of course, your response would be to not cast your vote for me. Or maybe you would cast your vote for me. Either way, a candidate can say whatever he wants, and JL was speaking as a candidate, not a Senator. And, even if he was speaking as a “political leader” (ie, as a Senator, not a candidate), all he did was express his opinion - still legal (and appropriate) as of the last time I checked.
'Nuff said.
Sdimbert—I agree with you completely (everyone stop and catch their breath in amazement). I WANT to know the best AND the worst about every candidate; so the more they mouth off, the better. If Al Gore believes that all kittens should be drowned at birth, I want to know NOW.
What my OP stated was that I think Joe Lieberman’s statements reveal him to be a narrow-minded fundie jerk. I’m glad I know he’s a jerk, though I will still probably vote Democratic anyway, as Bush and Cheyney are even MORE narrow-minded fundies. It’s just that I am disappointed to learn the truth about him.