The problem, as the founding fathers feared, was a creation of a state religion and the discrimination that creates; it is becoming a defacto state of affairs in some areas:
That implies it was always so, the things is, the founding fathers would have made the whole point moot by making laws to make it it so at the start of the Nation; instead, history shows currency was changed to begin to say that some Americans are not equal to others:
In FreeRepublic… out of all places… the discussion did notice the inconvenient truth that the Foothill High School valedictorian had agreed to change her speech. This being a publically funded event, she was right away ignoring the rights of others that did not want to be proselytized in a virtually captive audience. Since in essence she did go back on the promise to use the edited speech, she did lie and the administration had the right to kill her mic.
I get the feeling once again that the founding fathers and early government people did not lose any sleep by not having a church or religion in control of making the laws:
The Tripoli Treaty of 1797 between the US and the Barbary States, unanimously approved by the US Senate on June 10, 1797, specifically states that the US is NOT a Christian nation; once again, there was no sleep lost then by dropping religion from the affairs of the state.
In a board dedicated to fight ignorance, that is not a desire, it is a position based on the facts found so far.
Essence is that which makes something itself. That which makes it itself and not something else. Take man, his essence—that which makes him unlike other beings—is the power and quality of his mind. The reason he has such a mind is to use it.
This essence, this ability is present in man when he is born. Nothing need be done to instill it. It might be heightened and honed, but the seed is there. And it will grow. Similarly, man comes into this world with certain rights, those that allow him to live as per his design. So he has a right to his own life, and the right to defend it. He has the right of liberty, to go and do as he wishes. He has a right to self-determination, to be able to work to improve his situation on earth.
The essence of man is entwined with those basic rights. The essence is to grow and to use his mind to improve his situation. This all goes back to the defining quality of man.
But if you don’t agree with those two words you’re really not left with anything except the opinion of one man. Tell me, do you think slavery is morally wrong? Why? And it’s not enough to say “well I wouldn’t want someone to enslave me”. Is it an absolute wrong independent of whatmay or may not happen to you? and again, why?
I was unaware of this legal distinction (thanks), but a discussion of “legal” rights is different than the one we are having. Maybe “inseperable” would avoid confusion, if you think it exists.
We are born with the capability for intelligence for genetic reasons, not some mystic essence handed over by a god. You don’t really believe rights are genetic, do you ?
Which is less authoritive that the word of some uncaring god, how ?
Yes it is; that’s pretty much the foundation of morality.
You getting this from Aristotle or Plato? (Please not Aquinas!)
You only asked me what I agree with. Now, if you want to get into what actually gives moral rules their authority, or how we can know what is ethical or unethical, that’s a whole separate thread. Five or six separate threads, actually. Let’s get back on topic: You wouldn’t vote for an atheist for a practical reason: You don’t think an atheist would respect human rights the way a theist would. But what reason do you have to think so? Comparing the actual behavior of atheists and theists throughout history lends that assumption no support to speak of.
It should be noted, BTW, that as Jefferson spent more time in government, his unshakeable support for basic human rights grew stronger while his Christian faith grew weaker, until he was in fact quite the strong atheist with an opinion pretty much completely opposite of magellan01’s. If Thomas Jefferson doesn’t know about who can or can’t appreciate personal liberties, I don’t know who does.
Because you say so? Let’s say we have two princes, twins even, Prince A and Prince B. They both were equally loved and equally educated. They are both equally intelligent and share identical politics. When the turn 21, theirir father—the benevlolent, kind, and wise King—asks each of them to rule two of his distant lands, which are also identical in every way. As they depart for their new realms, Prince A has an experience, a dream, and when he awakens he believes they he has become aware of a much higher power, God. He is intrigued by this and meditates on it. He even seeks out an old wise man who knows about this God. After a year of study, he feels enlightened. He is also pleased that ALL of God’s laws comport perfectly—100%—with the beliefs of his father and his twin brother. He then goes off to rule his realm.
The question is, does Brother A have more reason to protect the laws than Brother B? I don’t see how you can say no. Keep in mind, Brother A has all the reason Brother B has. PLUS he has an additional one, as well.
Immaterial. We are not discussing what is legal and what is not. That is a different, much simpler discussion. If you want to know what is legal and what isn’t, simply look to the Constitutions and your local statutes.
Rhetoric merely helps make or reinforce a point. It persuades. The fact that rhetoric is used, flowery or otherwise, does not detract from the meat of the document. This seems to be an attempt on your part to disparage, without substance. Unless I misunderstanfd you.
And what passages do you think are often ignored? And for good or ill?
To clarify: belief in a Creator who imbued us with those rights at birth. See the twin Princes above for support. (logical)
Not off the top of my head. But I’m sure there were a few atheists in the south and I’d bet that some of them were perfectly happ to perpetuate slavery, maybe even “string one of 'em up”, just like their Christian brethren of the time.
Jefferson was not an atheist, but one of the least religious of the bunch and he had plenty of slaves. I don’t think that most people would say that Jefferson did not believe the words he wrote, but his keeping slaves turns him into a hypocrite. I think there we have, in one man, the struggle of the age: embracing the ideals of the nations while doing what was necessary to keep it together.
Tell me, if you could travel back in time and your only ability was to stop the formation of a U.S. that allowed for slavery or to allow it to be formed as it has, would you stop or allow it’s formastion?
Prove it. You can’t. And since my recollection does not agree with what you describe, I will go with my recollection of what I remember, not yours. As odd as that may seem.
Jefferson was a Deist, which was about as close to atheism as an intellectual during the Enlightment could become. He believed in a “creator” of sorts but did not believe in a deity who was active in the universe. He did not believe in miracles or the supernatural and was greatly contemptuous of religion in general and Christianity (which he compared to “demonism”) in particular.
Something which I think is most pertinent to some of your own assertions is that Jefferson did not believe morality came from God.
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
–Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Thomas Law, 1814.
Jefferson said a number of other things which indicated an explicit belief that religion had no place in government.
Abraham Lincoln was even more hostile to Christianity and was probably an atheist (at least for some periods of time).
George Washington may have been an atheist or agnostic too. He attended church rarely and declined to pray when he did attend. It was said by close associates that no one ever saw him pray privately either or ever express any religious opinions at all. He was at least decidedly indifferent to religion and it played no role in shaping his public policies.
No, he doesn’t. Atheists do not hold their convictions any less strongly than a theist. They face the same hurdle in losing those convictions: the idea that rights are important, and make the world a better place. Believing that God backs that interpretation does not give one any extra strength in avoiding it. All one has to do is decide that God doesn’t really support those rights after all. And what is there in the world to contradict that viewpoint? There are plenty of religious denominations that do not have any interest in human rights. Their arguments about what God wants are no more or less persausive than the arguments that God granted us our rights. The only barrier to accepting them is the experience and moral character of the person listening to the arguments.
No, they do not. Natural law theory is in no way an integral part of the Christian faith. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, stop repeating this falsehood as if it were true.
What rights, specifically, are you talking about, then?
Another untruth. The evidence, in personal writings, treaties, and statutes is overwhelming that the founders saw the importance of retaining a sharp division between religion and government.
A vast overstatement of the attitude towards creationism on these boards, where objects are chiefly to the idea of teaching either theory as science, and a meaningless babble when applied to the country as a whole, where the majority of the citizens believe in some form of creationism and/or intelligent design
You use the word “extremist” in such a fashion as to render it meaningless. Having an opinion on the exsistence, or lack thereof, of God is not an extremist position. Extremism comes in how one prosecutes those beliefs. How many acts of violence or terrorism have been committed in the US to advance an atheistic agenda?
What makes you think that? What has changed in the Christian religion that makes it immune to such contortions? Why is Islam, in your view, especially so susceptible to it that we cannot afford to trust any Muslim, regardless of his actual character or history?
That last sentence is ironic, since you’re the one who refuses to participate in discussions where people aren’t sufficiently defferential to your own beliefs.
Then you can’t really claim that they’re an essential part of any religion, can you?
I notice that neither cite states that a belief in a Creator is a necessary component to a belief in natural law. Although the Wiki article does point out that it is a part of the Roman Catholic belief system, so you’ve got the Pope on your side. Of course, as a casual examination of the history of the Catholic church shows, there’s a wide gap between holding a belief and following it.
If you don’t know the number, how do you know it’s too high? This is as close as I’ve ever seen to an outright admission that someone is basing their worldview on nothing more than prejudice, with absolutely no regard to facts.
Yeah, my evidence is the billion people on this planet who subscribe to the Muslim faith. You’ve got a handful of acts committed by a small number of people, all of which were instantly decried by other Muslims around the world. To you, this means all Muslims are suspect. But when presented with similar evidence of Christian atrocity, you wave it away: They aren’t “real” Christians, or it “doesn’t apply.”
If the Klan’s activities are “ancient history,” then so are the “atheist tyrants” you keep going on about when you’re trying to demonstrate the perils of atheism. If the lynchings of the '60s are too far in the past to be considered, then so are the depradations of Hitler and Stalin and the other dictators of the '30s, '40s, and '50s.
I’m worried about being killed because someone thinks that’s what their religion wants. There are a lot more Christians in this country who feel that way than there are Muslims. So I’m more worried about Christians, than I am about Muslims, because I am far more likely to become one of their victims than I am to become one of bin Laden’s.
No, you do not, because there were no throngs.
Cite? How many Imams are we talking about? What sort of help were they refusing to offer? How many Imams did help the authorities?
Wow. What a blatant and, I suspect, deliberate misrepresentation. The chart includes statistics from Africa and Asia. It does not break down terrorist attacks by religion, but by region, to show that not all (or even most) terrorist activity takes place in the Middle East.
I never heard anything about mosques refusing to co-operate with authorities. I suspect, considering the quality of your arguments so far in this thread, that you are remembering a few isolated reports and blowing them out of proportion, or that the mosques were refusing to comply with requests that were excessive or unfair.
I don’t know what the number is. You’re the one who introduced it into the debate and began to form arguments from it. It’s not up to me to provide concrete numbers to support your wild assertions.
And so long as you continue to slander me based on my beliefs, I do not think I will be bowing out of this debate. You, however, are free to run off whenever you feel like it.
I think that depends on what direction you’re trying to sway society. Fred Phelps preaches that homosexuals should receive the death penalty. His followers have never actually attacked any homosexuals (to my knowledge) but his goals are hardly “admirable.”
Where in this thread (or anywhere else) have I called for the restriction on anyone’s freedom of speech?
No, I do not agree with your major point, which was that a homosexual living in America should be more afraid of violence at the hands of Muslims than of Christians. Any gay man in America who is more worried about the Taliban than Jerry Falwell is an idiot, because Jerry Falwell hates you every bit as much as bin Laden, and, because he has popular support and connections to this country’s political system, is actually in a position to affect your life on a daily basis. I’ve never been directly harmed by the actions of a Muslim terrorist. I am harmed on a daily basis by the efforts of non-terrorist Christians to restrict my rights in this country. And that’s ignoring the efforts of the terrorist Christians out there, who are just as willing to kill me as any frothing-at-the-mouth Shiite hiding in the deserts of Afghanistan or Iraq.
And Christians do. In fact, they’ve got most of the power in this country. Which is why I’m far more afraid of them than I am of any Muslim, even when the Christians aren’t actively trying to kill me.
Femal genital mutilation is not a part of Islam. It’s a cultural practice, not a religious one. Most Muslim nations do not perform it, and many non-Muslim nations do.
And if you want to talk pederasty, lets not forget your natural law buddies, the Catholics. All that God-given Hobbesian philosophy didn’t do much to prevent them from cornholing a whole mess of altar boys, and then spending the better part of a century covering it up.
Not so. I could equally say Brother A has less reason to protect the laws; after all, there is one above him who judges and lays out the law regardless of what he may do. Brother A may safely deny any or all of those rights, happy in the knowledge that the God above him will sort it all out. Brother B, on the other hand, believes that there is no life after death; that what we have on Earth is all we will have. He, then, has an extra reason to protect those laws; any and all justice will be dispenced in his realm, not the afterlife, thus he has added motivation to seek said justice.
Brother B of course. Given that Brother A is taking advice from visions in his head, he could easily decide that all children under ten should be sacrificed to God. Basically, the non-psycho brother is more trustworthy.
As soon as this metaphor was brought in, I wondered if the name of one of one of the brothers was George. Not the president, but a king of old England. I would say king George, like Brother A, was sure God was on his side when he decided to become so pig headed with the American colonies.
Incidentally, back in those days it was common knowledge that we had kings by the grace of god or it was God’s will that we had kings, it is no wonder to me that people who were deists and/or unbelievers of that godly “rule” were part of the American revolution. What I learn from history is that there has been a continuous effort to breach what it was supposed to be the “wall of eternal separation between Church and State.”
Clearly, Brother B has the better odds of protecting the laws, because he is not going to change direction and drop all his education if he happens to have a new dream that tells him to go off in another direction.
Unless you can provide evidence that any of those atheists actually argued the point from their philosophical perspective, that is immarterial. You have made the wholly speciaous claim that just because someone happens to think that “rights” were given by a “Creator” that person will have more of a “hurdle” to denying rights to fellow citizens. The reality is that all the people who have denied rights to their fellow American citizens have, indeed, believed that those rights were bestowed by a Creator and they went and found lots of excuses to ignore that point. Your argument is based on the (Fundamentalist Christian) belief that ethics and morality only descend from God (even if you have chosen to not follow the FC beliefs, you are basing your arguments on their logical errors).
I may or may not be able to prove it; I am still working on that. However, it does not surprise me in any way to see you claim that you will hold onto your cherished beliefs rather than seek facts that would interfere with those beliefs. Name one place where people cheered the WTC/Pentagon attacks outside Palestine and Iraq (and, in Iraq, they were organized by Hussein). So your world wide feelings among Muslims are limited to a small group of people in tiny a strife-torn land and a city in which the dictator ordered the celebration.
Given that you offer no evidence, I certainly shall.
Given that you seem to have missed all these, I am not surprised that you missed the descriptions of what really happened regarding “dancing in the streets.”
I wondered why this thread was still going and now I see, so, as a believer, here’s my 2 cents.
It is a completely baseless and empty contention that belief in a deity will somehow make a person more likely to understand and defend the rights of others. It’s an opinion with no evidence.
Someone either perceives and comprehends what is in the D of I and our Constitution or they don’t quite get it. It is just as likely that someone perceives it from a moral, ethical and philosophical point of view as a thesitic point of view.
Atheist or Theist are both subject to the temptation that the reigns of power bring with the position. The individual whomever he or she might be, has to have the integrity to, honor those principles above all else. Not an easy task in a job where corruption and a compromise of those principles is rampant.
Missed this earlier, somehow. No, the problem is, I am not an extremist. Have I called for the religious to be executed, or imprisoned, or reduced to second class status ? Have I called for them to be harassed or beaten up or fined ? Have I protested their funerals or placed crank calls against them or toilet papered their house ? No to all of those. I get called an extremist against religion because I call religion and it’s followers names on the internet; religion is so untouchable in our society that that gets me labeled an “extremist”, a label normally reserved for the people who do do such things as shoot or imprison those they disagree with. Militant yes, obnoxious, yes, extremist, no.
If I were to hypothetically get banned for issuing death threats against magellan01, it would be fair to call me an extremist; it’s not fair to call me that just because I consider his beliefs stupid or immoral and say so. Plenty of people on this board say that about Republicans, for example; are they all extremists ?
That’s a fair point. I wouldn’t say you’re (Der Trihs) an extremist, only that you’re more extreme in your views than the majority of athiests on the board. Either way, I think the main point is that your arguments and thoughts on religious people and debate in general are pretty removed from the majority of athiest-on-the-board’s arguments and ideals, and that of “athiesm” in general.