Theists and atheists may each act as morally as the other. My point is that as long as a man believes in a Creator and the unalianable rights he imbued us with, he cannot justify infringing on those rights. To get to the point of despot, he has to first abandon that belief.
Someone brought up Hitler as an example that falls outside this judgement. And it seems instructive here. I beleive it to be false. Although Hitler was a baptized Catholic, his beleif system was one of racial superiority. That is not a Christian concept. He knew he couldn’t just attack the Church and half of Europe at the same time, so he played the Church and used it as an instrument to control people and buy him time. There was a Straight Dope piece done on this very issue. I leave each of oyu to come to your own conclusion. I say that just because Hitler gave religion lip service in order to manipulate the Church and the people, that does not make him a Vhristian. The actions he took are simply incompatible with any Christian belief.
Nonsense. Thousands of good, Christian theists were quite willing to deny thousands of persons in the U.S. their inalienable rights for nearly two hundred years, going so far as to fight a war to deny those rights just over 70 years after the Constitution was adopted, and then finding ways to bend the laws for an additional hundred years after they lost the war.
I have no idea where you have come up with your belief, but the idea that Carl Sagan, Stephen J. Gould, Isaac Asimov, Richard Feynman, Warren Buffet, Arthur Miller, Studs Terkel and numerous other atheists are less likely to preserve human rights than Pat Robertson, George W. Bush, Jerry Falwell, Donald Wildmon, James Dobson, or numerous other believers who have already spoken out to reduce the rights of fellow citizens is simply absurd.
It seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how and what people believe with some basic prejudice against non-believers rooted in an ignorant preconception. There is no basis for your assumption. It simply takes an untested (and easly disproven) prejudice and asserts it as fact.
Tell it to the slaves of the South, the Native Americans slaughtered by Christians, and all the others killed by racism justified, motivated and/or promoted by Christianity.
The Inquisition would disagree. So would the Crusaders and the conquistadores. By that logic I can “rehabilitate” Communism by claiming that Stalin and Beria and Mao and Pol Pol weren’t following real Communism so their atrocities don’t count. It’s a classic No True Scotsman Fallacy. You claim Christianity is morally pure by simply dismissing immoral Christians as not being Christians.
BUt your saying that the “Christian” candidate is lying, and that he too, is an atheist. anyone can be lying about anything. Hopefully, the process would reveal him to be didhonest. If we don’t have faith in that, we should never vote for anyone. Keep in mind, the atheist candidate could also be lying, about everything except being atheist. An interesting thought experiment, and I commentd you on both the originality and the intricacies of it, but it doesn’t really get us anywhere. We have to believe that the process will reveal flagrant lies.
You’re right about the first part. I got too focused on the Theist/Atheist thing. But regarding the end, I don’t see how you can say that. The D of I invokes the Creator as the source of our rights. If you don’t beleive in a Creator, you may agree with the sentiments, but there is no reason to beleive that they are unalienable.
I was using Deist in the sense of Theist, meaning that somoen who believes in a Creato and may or may not have taken an additional step to practicing a religion.
I guess it depends on what you think constitutes a theocracy. Some would say that we’re almost there with “In God We Trust”, officials swearing on a Bible, “…one nation under God”, school prayer, etc. I don’t. I think that the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of silencing religion, so I’m sure that the threshold that I would have for calling the U.S. a theocracy is much higher than most on these boards. To answer a question that may come up, I wolud advocate any Theist/Deist acknowledgement, in additon to the most basic Judeo/Christian principles that went to the founding of the nation. I honestly believe that the nation would not have been formed without them as the foundation, and that having gentle reminders woven into our society would be a good thing.
If you phrase it that way, the position of *weak *atheism, I’m more inclined to agree with you. The extreme position, strong atheism, is “I beieve there is no God”. There have been long discussions about this on these boards. I’m not sure if you particpated in them or not.
No. My belief pretty much stops at there is a Creator. A Grand Design.
My experience on these boards has not borne that out. I have been amazed at the level of hostility to God. From the foaming of Der Trihs to the almost incessant characterization to pink unikorns, fire-breathing dragons and invisible men. Such childishness is not only bereft of a sereious desire to discuss the issue, it is quite insulting. I’m glad to see you are not of that camp. Still, I do get the impression that there is a desire to quash God from our society.
It is part of any western monothesitic belief.
I don’t know how to quantify "remotely. I would say they are “more” likely. I can aonly make judgements from my experience. And based on what has transpired since 9/11, and the tepid—at best—renouncement of Islamic extremists, I am not as optimistic about the numbers as you are.
If you want to focus on the individuals, as you have doen here, I agree. But Christian-based terrorism is not near the threat to us as is the Islamic strain. I seriously do not see how you can even begin to question that. Perhaps, we should move on.
Oh, that’s right, it’s a religion of peace. :rolleyes: All those killings in Africa and Asia—never happened/aren’t happening, right? And the website you linked to is a step in the right direction. But a tiny one. From what I read and saw on TV after 9/11, I became more suspicious of the religion, not less.
Don’t know. I don’t know the number of candidates. Maybe the number is zero. But your attempt to compare is ridiculous. We’ve had thousands and thousands of Christian candidates and how many Muslim ones. Five? Ten?
Yes, this occurs. Yes, sometimes this is done by Christians. But it is not done in the name of Christianity. That is of paramount importance. The quarrel gay peolpe may have with Christians is not physical violence, but the belief that homosexuality is a sin, which the Christian response to is: “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” And if I were gay, I’d be MUCH more afraid of what Islam had in store for me than the rest of Christiandom.
And why the last hunderd years (although I’d like to hear what you think the number is), why not the last ten? Or twenty?
Yes. But radical Christian fundamentalism does not equate with terrorism the way radical Islam does. And the threat of Christian Terrorism is miniscule compared to the Islamic threat.
This all depends on “how likely” and our respective comfort levels.
That is precisely the point I made above. But that is a HUGE difference.
That doesn’t comport with reality, Im afraid.
And I with yours.
Miller, it is obvious that we have different world views and that based on the lives we’ve lived that we assign different values to different things. I, I think, am more conservative in many ways. I’m probably more cautious. I’m probably more willing to give up some privacy rights for greater security. I probably carry more insurance. So I am quicker to draw a cut-off line on things than you are. That said, in reading what you and other have written, perhaps I’ve come to too extreme a postion. Upon reflection, I would not say I would never, ever vote for an Atheist or a Muslim. After all, it usually comes down to two candidates. But, to be honest, I would find it very, very difficult to do so. But if I already discounted one candidate and liked the other one after I examined his thinking and his history, it would be possible. This doesn’t change my postition as far as this discussion goes I don’t think. But much of what you and others has said has resonated somewhat and I’m much more comfortable with this revised position. So thanks to all for forcing me to re-examine my position. The modification is smaller than you probably still feel is defensible, but I feel better about defending it .
There’s no more reason to consider them inalienable if there is a creator.
:rolleyes: “Silencing religion” ? The yammering of religion is inescapable in this country.
You mean slavery, genocide, and the oppression of the poor and women ? Good Christian values like those ?
Because it’s just that stupid; comprison to Invisible Pink Unicorns and Spaghetti Mosters is perfectly fair; in fact, it’s overly nice.
There are Christians who seriously want to bring about the end of the world; that’s why the election of Ronald Reagan nearly provoked a first strike from the Soviets. IIRC Falwell spent years trying to convince him to start a nuclear war, specifically to kill everyone but the true Christians who would be Raptured to Heaven. I’m far more afraid of the Christians; they are the ones with the power to do real damage.
That’s either a delusion or an outright lie. “God Hates Fags” is not a non-religious statement, and beating gays to death is not non violent. Islam is trivial, because it’s unlikely to ever have the power to do much to gays here. Christians harass and assault and kill gays all the time, including their own children.
Are you saying that the Christians who attack abortion clinics don’t count because they are not true Christians? You do realise that many Muslims don’t see terroristic Muslims as being true Muslims either? If you want to deny those acts as not being done by “real” christians, there’s a hell of a lot of terrorist activity by muslims you’re going to have to discount, too.
You keep saying that there’s a danger that an elected atheist will decide to void our rights because he doesn’t believe these rights are descended from God. I’m saying that a theist is equally, if not more, likely to void those rights because he believes they run counter to God’s will. That strikes me as the vastly more likely scenario. I base this on the fact that there are, today, a panoply of theists who are explicitly opposed to many of the central tenets of the Constitution. And I’m not just talking about radical Islamists. I’m talking about mainstream Christians like Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell.
But your entire thesis here is based on the assumption that an atheist (or Muslim) candidate is going to be lying about his devotion to upholding the constitution. If you have faith in the system to keep candidates honest, that faith applies equally to both theists and nontheists. If an atheist and a theist are both running for office, and both pledge their support for the constitution, why would you assume the atheist is being dishonest, and the theist honest? If you assume they’re both honest, why are you afraid that the atheist won’t safeguard the constitution, despite his promise to the contrary?
Because an individual theist does not necessarily believe that the rights in the Constitution or the ideal of the DoI are given to us by a Creator. Or they might believe that to be true of some of those rights, but not others. Or they might believe that the Creator gave us a whole different set of rights that are at odds with those laid out by our founders, and try to get those turned into law, instead.
I don’t, either. Wikipedia defines a theocracy as, “In the most common usage of the term theocracy, some civil rulers are leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the Byzantine Emperor as patron of the head of the official Church); governmental policies are either identical with, or strongly influenced by, the principles of a religion, and typically, the government claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion.” Which seems a servicable definition to me. I don’t think this describes the US. I do think, however, that your belief that one should have some sort of religious, but non-Muslim, inclinations to be trusted with holding office is a long step in that direction.
In what ways has religion been “silenced” in this country?
I think you might have left some words out of this passage. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
That’s absolutely ludicrous. I’m a strong atheist. I’m very certain that there is no God. This is not an extremist position. No more so than being very certain that there is a God, and Jesus is his son.
I don’t think you can take these boards as representative of the population as a whole. If I did that for the subject of, for example, gay marriage, I’d have to conclude that there is overwhelming support for it among the Republican party.
Der Trihs is an anomaly. Most other atheists on this board don’t like him, either. But as an example, he does help highlight the paucity of your “atheism is an extremist viewpoint” argument, as you won’t find a more extreme atheist than him on these boards. So let’s look at his extremism, in context with other extremists: An extremist Muslim crashes an airplane into a skyscraper. An extremist Christian bombs an abortion clinic. An extremist atheist… calls theists mean names on an internet message board. One of these things is not like the other; one of these things does not belong.
I disagree with you as well as to the probity of using the invisible pink unicorn to make a point about faith. It’s not childish at all. It’s a perfectly appropriate metaphor for the futility of trying to use God to prove a point in a debate with someone who does not believe God exists. Telling me that human rights are important because Jesus said so carries as much weight with me as telling me they’re important because the Easter Bunny said so. You only perceive it as “hostile” because you are so totally unused to the idea of anyone criticizing the concept of God. It just does not happen in our society, so even the most tepid criticism tends to be perceived as some sort of hate crime.
No, it is not. It is not a part of any Western monotheistic belief, except Deism, which is an exceedingly minor religious viewpoint. If you’re going to continue to argue to the contrary, you’re going to have to provide a cite. Where does the Bible talk about human rights, as understood in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
Your perception of the reaction of Muslim communities to the events of 9/11 bears little - if any - relation to the real world. There are over a billion Muslims in the world: how many of them do you think are terrorists? How many do you think are sympathetic to terrorists? And, the $10,000 question, do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up those beliefs?
Because I’m aware of the facts and history of Christian terrorism in this country. There have been two succesful terrorist attacks in this nation’s history carried out by Muslims. Two. There have been thousands carried out by Christians. Even narrowing it down to the last century, the overwhelming number of terrorist attacks in this country have been carried out by Christians. There’s simply no comparison between the two. Christian extremism is a far, far greater threat to people in this country than Islamic extremism could ever hope to be.
If you’re not going to count the millions of dead throughout history at the hands of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist tyrants against those religions, I don’t see why I should have to count those dead at the hands of Muslim tyrants against the religion of Islam.
You didn’t even read it, did you? Let me recap. Among the people cited by that website as speaking out against the attacks of 9/11 are:
Professor Asma Afsaruddin, of Notre Dame University
Professor Vivienne Sm. Angeles, La Salle University
Professor Ghazala Anwar of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Professor Jonathan Brockopp, Director of the Religion Program at Bard College
Professor Patrice C. Brodeur of Connecticut College
Professor Arthur Buehler of Louisiana State University
Professor Amila Buturovic of York University
Professor Juan E. Campo of the University of California, Santa Barbara
Professor Vincent J. Cornell of University of Arkansas
Professor Frederick M. Denny Chair of Islamic Studies and the History of Religions, University of Colorado
Professor Abdullahi Gallab of Hiram College
Professor Behrooz Ghamari of Georgia State University
Professor Alan Godlas of University of Georgia
Professor Hugh Talat Halman, of University of Arkansas
Professor Pieternella (Nelly) Harder Vandoorn, of Valparaiso University
Professor Marcia Hermansen of Loyola University, Chicago
Professor Valerie J. Hoffman, of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Professor Qamar ul-Huda, of Boston College
Professor Aaron Hughes of the University of Calgary
Professor Amir Hussain of California State University, Northridge
Professor John Iskander of Georgia State Univeristy
Professor Ahmet Karamustafa of Washington University in St. Louis
Professor Tazim Kassam of Syracuse University
Professor Zayn Kassam of Pomona College
Professor Ruqayya Khan of University of California at Santa Barbara
Professor Kathryn Kueny, of Lawrence College
Professor Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Dean of the College, Georgetown University
Professor Richard C. Martin, Emory University
Professor J.W. Morris, Chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter
Professor Gordon D. Newby, Executive Director, Institute for Comparative and International Studies at Emory University
Professor James Pavlin of Rutgers University
Professor Jack Renard of St. Louis University
Professor Omid Safi of Colgate University
Professor Walid Saleh of Middlebury College
Professor Zeki Saritoprak of Berry College
Professor Michael Sells, Haverford College
Professor Laury Silvers-Alario of Holy Cross University
Professor Alfons Teipen of Furman University
The Council on American Islamic Relations
The Islamic Circle of North America
The Islamic Society of North America
The Organization of Islamic Conference, which met in Qatar and featured representatives of over fifty Islamic nations
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Abdul Hakim Murad
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi
Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed al-Tantawi, on behalf of Al-Azar, one of the most respected institutions of Sunni Islam
Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Countil, Qatar
Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d’etat, Egypt
Dr. Muhammad s. al-Awa, Professor of Islamic Law and Shari’a, Egypt
Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat, Islamic scholar, Syria
Fahmi Houaydi, Islamic scholar, Syria
Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Chairman, North America High Council
Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College in London
Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai
King Abdullah II, of Jordan
Fatah
The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Hamas.
Let me say that one again: fucking Hamas denounced the attacks on 9/11.
The Palestine Legislative Council
Abdel Qader Al-Husseini, son of the late Palestinian leader Faisal Al-Husseini
Ayatollah Imami Kashani, Iran
In addition, candlelight vigils, moments of silence, and other public observances of support for America in th wake of the attacks were held in Palestine (including two seperate candlelight vigils and a five minute moment of silence observed by over one million Palestinian students), an “unprecedented” minute of silence observered in the largest soccer stadium in Tehran, a candlelight vigil on the 18th in Tehran, and a rally of support in Bangladesh. And that’s just what I turned up from one cite after typing “Muslim 9/11 sympathy” into Google. The outpouring of support from Muslims and Muslim nations was instand, overwhelming, and all but universal. To call this a “tiny step” is either staggeringly ignorant, or monstrously unfair. What more do you want? How much clearer can it possibly be made that the vast majority of Muslims deplored - loudly and publically - the attacks on the US on 9/11?
See, maybe this is just my crazy liberalism speaking, but when I don’t know something, I try to avoid drawing conclusions about that thing.
Like fuck it’s not.
No, the quarrel gay people with Christians is their insistence on trying to use their religious beliefs to justify physical violence and political sanctions against us. I don’t care if Christians think I’m a sinner for being gay. That sort of Christian is still going to think I’m a sinner for not being Christian in the first place, so the sinfulness of homosexuality is sort of a moot point.
And frequently, the Christian response is not, “Love the sinner and hate the sin,” it’s “Kill the fucking faggot.”
Well, then you’d be an idiot. Islam is no friendlier to gays than Christianity. In fact, it is quite a bit more hostile, in most places on the planet. But if you’re gay, and living in America, the Muslim attitude towards homosexuality is going to have virtually no impact on your life. I am not going to be executed by an Islamic cleric for having sex with a guy. I am prevented from marrying a guy by Christians living in this country, who have no better reason to forbid such a marriage than, “God says its a sin.” The impact of Christian fundamentalism is felt every single day by gays in this country. The impact of Islamic fundamentalism is felt rarely, and in no greater or lesser force than any other American citizen.
You tell me: I used the same time frame that you did in picking out atheistic tyrants.
Again, this is factually incorrect. Muslim terrorism is very, very rare on this continent. By comparison, Christian terrorism is quite common.
Forgive me if, based on your posts in this thread, I place little value on your perception of “reality.”
All of which is probably true, but where you have decided to draw the cut-off line on this particular issue is grossly unfair to millions of people, bears little relation to reality, and reflects poorly on you as a human being. That said…
I’m glad that you’ve found the discussion productive. I can’t say that anything here has changed my opinion on the subject, but the process has helped refine and sharpen my own beliefs, and I’ve found the discussion interesting and invigorating. Assuming you meant this last paragraph as a “sign-off” for the debate, thanks for sticking around for it and putting up a good fight.
Even if a candidate campaigned based on strong religious beliefs, it wouldn’t affect how I vote. If a deeply religious fundamentalist campaigns hard to end all abortions, I couldn’t care less about his/her reason – they just don’t get my vote because I’m passionately pro-choice. A Muslim who campaigned on a platform of human rights, social responsibility, environmental stewardship, strong defense and honesty in government would get my vote over the Presbyterian who campaigned on returning to the gold standard or eliminating Social Security.
I’d even vote for a Jehova’s Witness regardless of his platform, if only for the pure irony of it.
As Miller’s pointed out, there have been few attacks on American soil perpetrated by Muslims when compared to Christians. While those attacks by Muslims are higher profile and higher in scale, the attacks by Christians are much more frequent.
That’s not quite how I would put it. I think that a belief that our basic rights are God-given does provide an extra hurdle for moving counter to them. The link to the second half your paragraph is the word “basic”. I’m rather insistent, as you have seen, that candidates acknowlege a Creator and the most basic rights, but I am wary if they attempt to heap additional rights on to the unalianable ones. Although I am pro-choice, I could vote for a candidate of either opinion. Although I believe in the “right” to bear arms, I do not include it as a basic, fundamental right, in the natural law sense. So, I would be very wary of a Christian candidate who would seek to conflate the most basic rights with those that we’ve added in order to make society more palatable/succesful or with those “rights” that stem from religious dogma.
Let’s say that they’re both equally honest. The theist has an additional hurdle to overcome before falling to the point of seeking to strip people of the most basic human rights.
I think before anyway ascribes to Christian dogma that he must subscribe to natural law theory. I think you an I are using the term “rights” to mean two different things. I’m referring to those things that are inseperable from human-ness. You seem to broaden it to include written law. While positivism (written law) is based on natural law, and might even codify the most basic rights of natural law., it does not follow that “all rights” as established by statute are rghts in the natural law sense.
Given what is at stake, I simpy think it prudent.
You know as well as I. When I grew up each town could decorate the public property at Christmas. We could celebrate in class (as we did Hanauka (SP?)). Now, we can’t. Now we have a push to oust the Ten Commandments from court houses. We’ve had a case go to the Ninth Circuit (I think) attempting to strip currency of “In God We Trust”. There was an attempt to purge “under God” from The Pledge. A valedictorian had her mic cut off when she talked about God. At the heart of it is a fantasy that the Founders intend a “wall” between church and state and the blind embracing of Jefferson’s utterance in a letter to a Connecticut clergymen, while ignoreing the overwhelming evidence in the oposite direction. There’s also the desire to paint any one who doubts any aspect of evolution as a knuckle-dragging troglodyte and aqnyone who utters the phrase “intelligent design” as a rabid, unthinking, Youg Earther. All ridiculous. All not helpful to our society.
Sorry. I think the last few answers explain it better any way.
As long as you include that “and” I think you are right. But unless you are both willing to end a statement of your beleifs with “, but I may be wrong”, I think they are both extremist positions. That’s why I find the agnostic and weak atheist postion so much more reasonable.
True. I’m kind of stuck though, because these boards are where I’ve been most exposed to atheism.
My guess is that there have been violent acts done by them. My guess is that many of the anarchists would fall into the atheist category. Also, as I’ve pointed out, atheists have been responsible for more deaths in the past 100 years than all the wars combined. I don’t mean to keep throwing this up just to score a point. But it points to what can happen. I think we are passed the days of Christianity being contorted to similar ends, except for Islam.
I’ll have to call bullshit this time. I am happy to discuss the issue, ad nauseum, as a search of these boards will attest. I find it to be very interesting as a philosophical discussion. I do not find it interesting to have to continually read past the childishness. It is very easy to argue the actual point of fire-breathig dragons (Sagan)as an issue unto itself. But to have the term and others continuously thrown about in the discussion is completely asinine, not to mention, rude. I have moved to bowing out of the discussions when it comes to that. If people would rather have a more comfortable discussion with only those who agree with them, far be it from me to intrude on the circle jerk.
I’m not talking about rights that come from the Bible, or any book of religion. The human rights I’m talking about—those of the D of I—are tose explained through natural law theory. And that theory necessitates belief in a Creator. That basic *philosophical *theory comports with any western monothistic belief system. Here ar e two quick cites that might help you understand where I’m coming from:
I don’t know the number. But I’d say it is too high fro me to be comfortable. Aside from 9/11, Bali, and other notable events, we have the mass killings of Christians in Africa, in Malaysia earlier this year, three little girls walking home in their Christian school uniforms were accosted and beheaded, we have the bombiing in London, we have the 7 idots in Florida, the group that just got caught in Canada, the recently uncovered pot to blow up ther Holland Tunnel, and the numerous arrests that have been made since 9/11. That’s my evidence. Do you have any numbers to show why you are so comfortable?
First, I’ll ask you to define the thousands. If you mean attacks by the Klan, I’ll grant you them, but that is not a problem in today’s woirld. So for our intents and purposes, they are ancient history. As far as what is the greater threat, I think you have to define what you consider a threat. I am much less concerned with a threat to our right to privacy regarding phone calls than I am with the Holland Tunnel or GW Bridge, or the Chrysler Building, or the Sears Tower being blown up.
Can we agree that we can ignore all deaths that happened prior to 900 A.D., as the world situation at the time bears no relationship to the society we live in today? How about 1400A.D.?, 1600? 1870?1910? Shouldn’t we ignore all situations that do not translate to our time. I don’t think sending Christians to the Lions or dunkiing witches is something we have to concern ourtselves with. Do you? Similarly, the bounds of what society has deemed appropriate or acceptable has moved over the years. I have a picture from Time/Life from the forties, I think, where a bunch of good 'ol townsfolk are in a little circle having a grnad old time as they encourage a ten-year-old buy to club a baby coyote to death. I love that picture. I love it because it is so outright disgustiing to us in our time. It shows how far our standards have moved in just a few decades. The threat of religion to hang people and burn churches through something like the Klan, I am pleased to say, a problem of the past. An isolated incident now like a church burning or the horrific murder of James Bird can now be assigned to the stupidity of a few individuals and not to an organization the exist to perpetrate such heinous acts. The Muslim problem is a current one. I’d say THE current one.
Actually I did read it. I was both gladdened and unimpressed. I remember the throngs dancing in the streets. I remember Imams here not renouncing the murderers. I remember them not wanting to help the authorities. If I was an Imam I would have offered the authorities every bit of assistance I could. I would have felt I had to do it because I was fighting for my religion, preventing it from being hijacked. They didn’t do the. They failed. Was the failure innocent? Or were they/are they complicit in allowing terrorists to operate. I wonder, right now, how much planning and support for terrism occurs behiind the doors of the mosque, both knowingly and unknowingly.
Another thing, that little chart at the bottom of your cite seemed intentionally misleading. The seek to want to equate Muslim terrosim with iddle East terroism. Ignoring the terroist acts by Muslims in Asia and Africa. Nice little bait and switch.
I doubt you can claim to know that it was a “majority”, never mind a “vast majority”. And I’m actually more focused on the Muslims here. I don’t recall all the specifics, but I remeber Mosques refusiing to cooperate with the authorities. I don’t know about you, but if you’re going to refuse after something like 9/11, you have to live with the impression your actions leave.
:rolleyes: Is this an intentional attempt to degrade the conversation? So what’s the number smart ass? Let’s say for all relevant years, say the last 15? You do realize that it doesn’t matter to our conversation, don’t you? That one sample size is huge and that the second is so miniscule that it doesn’t even qualify? If you’re tired of the discussion, I’d prefer that we both just bow out before it gets pissy.
Do you really think there is any church, or diocese, that holds as one of its tenets “Thou shalt bash gays”?
Yiour conflatiing two different things here. Things that are worlds apart. Physical violence is unexcusable and illegal. Presenting your view of the world in a political forum and hoping to sway society to your thinking is not only legal, it is admirable. That is we figure out what the best society is. I’m surprised from the history of your posting that I am aware of that you would begrudge anyone there right to present their ideas in a legal manner, even if you did not agree with what they were proposing. As far as their rationale, they are free to offer any rationale they’d like. It would behoove them, though, to offer a rationale that would sway people. The same burden that falls to you.
Miller, I think the inherent emotion in the issue allows for some hyperbole, but
“frequently” is entirely unfair and utterly ridiculous. Just run some numbers through your head and see if the word “frequently” comes to mind.
I’m idiot, but you agree with my major point. :rolleyes:
As far as not having to worry about Islam and how they’d prefer to treat gays, the reason you don’t have to worry abou it is because they don’t have any power here. On the other hand, some manage to not let their lack of political clout to get in the way of a loveing cliterectomy and sweet little eleven-year-olds.
FIne. Pissy, pissy, but fine. I’m getting the feeling it might be time for both of us to move on.
You’ll have to define what those acts are and provide a timeframe. I don’t think the burning of witches is relevant. And come to think of it, the burning of churches and intimidation in the south doesn’t qualify either. They were purely racial crimes. The victims often shared the exact same religion. Were they terrorist acts? Yes. Were they terrorist acts based on Christian beliefs in any way, shape or form? No.
I’m only responding to this becasue it’s so obvious that you think you’ve constructed a logig trap with steel jaws. Gee, hmmm, let’s see: who would be more likely to get elected to congress or the White House (where they could do theor evil deeds), a Christian or a muslim? Hmmmm, tough one. Christian, Muslim? Muslim, Christian? Elected in the U.S. Geeze, i’m gonna have to ponder that one. I mean it’s a real conundrum. I’ll thiink on this for a month or two and get back to you. Keep checking back though.
I take a longer view. Slavery had been part of the world for as long as we know. At some point m uch of it started to disappear. I credit the ideas in the D of I with that (which pre=date the Dof I itself). I think you would agree that if some ugly compromises had not been made, that the nation would not have been formed. Considering the existence of the nation a good thing, for us and the world, I am glad they made those ugly compromises. Once the words were signed off on, the die was cast.
I skipped the rest of your posas I think it’s been covered elsewhere, particularly my shift in position. Feynman was piercing.
Actually, i’m not so certain they weren’t. Obviously without the racial component they wouldn’t have happened, but a considerable amount of anti-black spokespeople used words from the Bible to support their ideas; I would say they were motivated in all cases by racist attitudes but that their own particular christian-based belief was a factor in many cases.
Anyway, defining acts. I had a quick look on Wikipedia and found this handy link; http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/. It’s a map showing attacks on abortion clinics and workers from 1982-97 (add in six more years worth of attacks to that list). Obviously these attacks are motivated by religious belief (since no-one else really has a problem with it), and since the U.S. is primarily a christian country I think we can go with christian attackers. There are organisations devoted to this cause; the Army of God is one. I won’t link to their web page because they have some rather disturbing pictures, but if you want it’s pretty easy to find. Fred Phelp’s God hates Fags cadre stop just short of killing (AFAIK) but certainly their spread of fear and terror counts quite significantly, and are quite willing to take advantage of any other terrorism for their own use (they’re another group to add to your list of people who “danced in the streets” after 9/11 and 7/7).
I’d like to add another point; you suggest that because a person believes in a Creator, and thus the inalienable rights granted by that deity, that they are much less likely to change or revoke the laws relevant to those rights than an athiest. But surely, if someone believes that certain rights are inalienable, they may feel they have a free hand to change what they wish? After all, a christian (for example) President may feel that since the right to life (for example) is drawn from God, he can remove any penalty for murder. After all, all accounts will be settled in the afterlife.
I have more confidence that a non-religious (or at least, a religion that does not believe in an afterlife or judgement) President would seek full justice on Earth. What motivation does a religious President have for seeing justice when they believe a higher power judges after death?
No. You’re dodging. Your claim is that someone who acknowledges a Creator is less likely to dismiss natural rights than someone who does not acknowledge a Creator and you are avoiding the very clear point that such is not the case. For one thing, the DoI is not the law of the land, the Constitution is. The DoI has a lot of flowery rhetoric to stir up support for the independence movement, but people routinely ignore major passages in it. The idea that a person who did not have a belief in a god would be less likely to support the rights of people, merely because Jefferson included some ceremonial deism in his text is based on nothing but a personal prejudice that seems to have no underlying support. This is especially true when we take the longer view that a large number of those good theists were continuing to defend the right to deny rights to their fellow citizens over 100 years after the country had abolished slavery. Can you point to any atheists who have advocated denying rights to citizens of this country?
Actually, you do not remember “throngs” dancing in the streets. What you recall are a few video shots of a fairly small number of people taken for maximum effect to make it appear that the groups were much larger than they were. You also apperar to have forgotten that this was not some world-wide phenomenon that included the entire Muslim world, but a tiny number of isolated instances in places where the U.S. was already considered an active oppressor (or supporter of oppression) and that even there the numbers of people "dancing’ was tiny.
As to your claims about Imams, unless you can put numbers to your claims, they are meaningless. In the first days after the attacks, there were numerous offers of support. Within days, there was a round-up of persons of Muslim heritage that looked a lot like the hysteria directed at the Nisei Americans in early 1942 and a number of Muslim religious leaders stepped up to defend their people. I can think of maybe four religious leaders who have been accused of actively working against the U.S. (in a nation with well over a million Muslims) and I suspect that you are confusing religious leaders who were attempting to defend their congregations from attack with people actually supporting the terrorists.
Care to make some kind of philosophical argument for that? And please begin by clearly defining “essense.”
I disagree with the words “created” and “endowed.” Otherwise it’s perfectly true, provided we remember Jefferson was making an assertion in ethics rather than science, and such a statement cannot be considered “true” or “false” in a factual sense.
In legal parlance, by the way, an “inalienable” (or “unalienable”) right is a right you yourself have no power to give up or renounce. A right no one else can take away from you is an “indefeasible” right. Of course, in law, “rights” are defined much more specifically than in ethics.
In other words, if religion isn’t allowed to force itself down people’s throats - and get public funding to do so - religion is being silenced.
A long history of legal precedents matter as well, you know.
Not ridiculous; true, and true. If you are a creationist, you are either a fool or ignorant.
Communists, not atheists. Communism’s atheism was nothing more than it’s version of the Christian religion’s denial that other gods exist, and served the same purpose; to excuse the destruction of rival religions.
There are strong religious overtones to the war in Iraq, and America is getting more religiously rabid by the day. I find it perfectly believable that in a decade or two we’ll have rounded up and killed American unbelievers, and conquered or nuked a few million foreign heathens. That seems to be where America’s heading, if the trend doesn’t reverse.
And as I and others have pointed out, that’s nonsense.
First, how do you intend to tell the difference. Second, are you now claiming that as a believer you want us to have fewer rights ?
Once again, no he doesn’t. Repeating that won’t make it any less silly.
“Thous shalt not suffer a witch to live”; the people who burned “witchs” were just doing “God’s will”. It was a religious act.
Of course they were; racism was heavily justified by Christianity.
In other words, I’m right; the Christians are more dangerous to us, but you’ll make non-arguments like this to deny it.
That’s funny, considering how you are talking about the innate moral superiority of the believers, because they won’t compromise people’s “inalienable rights”. Then you support condemning all those people to slavery, trampling their rights. You disprove your own argument.