And that, I agree with. Nor have I claimed otherwise, despite the occasional attempt by some others to paint me as typical. I’ve never been typical in my life, and I’m not starting now.
I think you missed Miller’s point.
magellan01 was lamenting the fact that there was so much extremist anti-religious hostility on this message board. Miller pointed out that you are as “extreme” as we get, and since you are no more of a genuine extremist than the typical mouth-foaming fundy preacher, magellan01’s complaint regarding “extremism” was unfounded.
Interesting discussion. I’m getting a little overwhelmed here and time is working agaist me. With the other stuff of life I don’t have the time to answer much of it as fully as I would like. I’m having a hard time simply responding to everyone.
The founders were simply against congress establishing an official religion. That’s the law. It says nothing about one religion being dominant in the culture. It certainly says nothing about restricting mentions of religion as they pertain to the founding of the country.
It does no such thing. Whether it started back with Hamilton or today makes little difference. A belief in God was part of the founding of this country. Acknowledging that publicly makes perfect sense.
There argument is not one of original art. The existing debate is not one of addition, it is one of subtraction. Even so, even if it wasn’t in there, they should be able to add it today. It accurately reflects the the ideas the Founders had about the beginnings of this country.
No one is saying that. No one is suggesting that religion should be in control of making laws, then, or now.
Three things:
-
Context might help: Tripoli (the first country to declare war against the US) along with the other Barbary States had been demending tribute from us and accosted our ships. Their were two previous Truces that lapsed or were ignored. Prior to the Treaty, the Barbary States had been attacking ships from what the perceived as Christian nations: England, Spain, The US, and others. The Treaty was in large part to secure the release of Americans that were threatened to be sold into slavery. To save the sailors, secure safe passage for American ships, and not instigate a Holy War between Muslim and Christian Nations, a Treaty was drafted. It matters not a little that we were in the inferior negotiaing position. So if language was used that was humbling to the Americans, that should not be surprising. This is an explanation, but not the best one.
-
The phrase “Praise be to God” appears several times in the Treaty.
-
Additionally, in doing a little research it seems that this phrase might not even be in the actual Treaty. As per the Yale Law School Avalon Project:
“As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all.”
You might find this interesting.
First of all, God encompasses Allah. Additionally, If I were liviing in a country founded on Muslim principles by people who were overwhelmingly Muslim it would make perfect sense to me.
So fighting ignorance means calling people who who don’t agree with you on the topic troglodytes and anyone who mentions intelligent design is a Young Earther? You may have a thing or two to learn about ignorance, my friend.
By the way, you might want to try constructing your own arguments. Doesn’t it get boring copying and pasting other’s words from other websites?
No one in particular. It’s been a while since I read them. But all three, plus Locke, Kant, and others. I think a great insight is gotten through Antigone, by Sophocles. “There are laws higher than those of Kings.”, or something like that.
You think I over react to the Islamic threat. I think you overstate the threat to gays. I don’t mean to make light of the actual threat that is out there, and the number should be zero, but there isn’t that much violence toward gays.
It means that Muslims are more suspect as supporters of Islamic terrorism than non-Muslims. Seems rather sensible.
Oh, slow the fuck down. My point is that they attempt to equate in the mind of the reader Muslim violence with Middle Eastern violence, ignoring the fact that much of the violence in Africa and Asia is also Muslim violence. I suggest you check it again.
So now what someone with religion does is not try to impose their beliefs at every turn, but to sit back as society moves in whatever direction it will and watch disinterestedly, knowing that God will straighten things out when he gets around to it. Sounds like you’re trying to have it both ways. (not directed exclusively to you RT.)
Okay. But in this hypothetical, that one I’ve constructed, that doesn’t happen. Who is more likely to protect the laws more fervently, Prince A or B?
[QUOTEcosmosdan]
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.
[/QUOTE]
So, if you believe X and you believe God has decreed X, then as a believer, you would have as easy a time changing your mind about X whether you believed God decreed it or not? Is that what you’re saying?
Oh, Puhleeease. DT is the very definition of extreme in his beliefs. Just the fact that he does not commit violence doesn’t mean that his views aren’t ecery bit as batshit as someone like Phelps.
I’m not suggesting disinterestedness, more a disconnect. If I believe there is some being “above” all of us, then I have less motivation to set things right where I am. For example; if someone steals something precious from me, it would make sense for me to ask for it back (assume the thief is a big guy who could pummel me easily). If I didn’t believe that the legal system works, I might just do that; go and ask for it back. I have to take great care, though, because not only is it a difficult task to begin with, one wrong word and i’m looking at a knuckle sandwich. But, happily, I do believe in the legal system; so, if I have an oppurtunity to ask for my item back, i’m less concerned with failure. I don’t have the added motivation to succeed in persuading him, since if I fail I can always go to the police and in turn the courts, who have the resources and wisdom to deal with the matter fairly (at least in theory).
Now, to apply this analogy to religious people; say i’m a police chief, and i’m dealing with some criminals who’ve taken a hostage. If I were athiest, my idea of the best plan is to get the hostage out alive. That’s the priority, since if he’s dead, that’s it, he’s gone. It’s likely that I will call in a negotiator, as opposed to sending in the SWAT teams, for example. On the other hand, if I were a religious police chief, I have less of a problem with the more aggressive techniques; sure, it would be better if the hostage came out alive, but if they don’t, well, that’s ok. If they’re a good person, they’ll be judged by whoever upstairs and get into the good afterlife.
So what’s stopping me, religious police guy, from doing that? Well, for one thing, it’s only slightly more likely. I’m not suggesting any religious police chief (and i’m sure there are more than a few) is likely to send in the men with machine guns at the drop of a hat; only that it’s a more palatable route for him than for the athiest. More to the point, the other thing stopping me is accountability. There are people above me even in that position who’ll have my head if I don’t go by the book. The same is true for a President; but there’s a lot less accountability for a President, both in terms of people who have power over them and ability to shift blame. A President is capable of “getting away with” a lot more. Whereas our police chief has only the lives of criminals and a hostage in his hands, a President of the U.S. has many more lives to protect, and enemies to deal with. To carry the analogy through; wouldn’t you say a religious President is more likely to risk the lives of innocents, given that should things go wrong, it isn’t (in his belief) the end of their lives?
Uhm, you did notice that I said that?
He’s extreme in his views, but that doesn’t make him an extremist, a term used pretty much only nowadays for those who commit violence.
One question, though; you said earlier that (in a response to Miller saying most athiests didn’t give a crap about if you believe in God or not)-
“Extreme” as an adjective for a viewpoint is dependent on context. For something to be an “extreme” viewpoint, it must be utterly out of the norm, either to one side of the issue or the other (assuming there are only two sides). “Extreme” generally suggests people hearing that opinion would think, “Uhm, ok. That’s going too far.” An extreme viewpoint is a surprising one.
Yet, you believe there is an active movement to “remove” christian-related things from society. That, in comparison to the rest of this board, Der Trihs’s rantings (and I do agree they are rantings) fit in pretty well with the responses of others. His views are, in your experience, reasonably widespread.
How, then, are they extreme? If there is, as you say, a considerable portion of the boards or society who share his views, then they approach the norm; they’re not extreme. You can’t say both that his views are outrageous and shocking (both words implied by extreme) if you’re also unsurprised and used to such views.
I believe you when you say that you find Der Trih’s views to be extreme; so I suggest that perhaps his views or similar ones aren’t as common as you believe. That you find them extreme suggests you yourself aren’t used to hearing of them.
Yes. But at the same time you protect him from from a badge that he absolutely deserves. You do not need to be violent to have extremist views. That is utterly ridiculous.
Well, you conflated society and these boards in your question. These boards are undoubtedly left of center, and not by a smidgen. The fact that DT has been considered extreme to the point of being discounted by some on these boards that are on the left I think makes it clear that he is indeed extreme.
I’ve had an argument here before where I say something to the effect "These people argiing point X are bat shit crazy. For instance, take this [DT quote goes here]. The response I’ve gottne back is “Don’t use such a broad brush. There are a range of opinions on this side of the debate. DT’s is extreme and few people, if any, on these boards will defend it.” I am happy to do that because I want to believe that he is extreme and that the rest of the world isn’t batshit extreme. Sometimes that has been bourne out by the lack of support he receives and by beiing condemned by people on his own side/ Sometimes he finds more support than I want to acknowledge exists. It’s confusing abd it sounds like some people want to have it both ways. But on balance. I’d say he represents the mall beyond the parking lot outside the wall in left field.
We don’t know. You set forth no more than that from which I extrapolated: one prince is driven by principles as amended by dreams and the other by principles alone. Since only the one who relies on principles alone will defend the principles without being distracted by dreams, the prince who relies only on principles has fewer chances to allow himself to be corrupted. The fact that you claim (in retrospect) that your dreaming prince did not happen to later betray the principles says nothing about the probability that he would have. It is simply you revising your scenario to make your hypothetical work out the way you want it to.
Since we have more than adequate real world evidence that people who believe that rights derive from a Creator are more than willing to trash those rights in spite of their beliefs, your hypothetical is little more than wishful thinking. Using exactly the scenario you provided, I provided a logical extrapolation that overturned your assumption and the best you can do to refute it is to claim that my possible scenario just happens to not occur.
I have no idea why you hold onto your belief so tenaciously. It does not seem to be rooted in anything more than a belief on your part that it must be true. As a personal belief, I have no criticism of it. As a prionciple from which one should judge other persons, I find it ludicrous in that it has no basis in fact or substance.
Yes I was constructing a hypothetical. I didn’t do it tightly enough. Fine. I sought to tighten it. You mnake it sound as if there is something wrong with that. I’m accustomed to people takimg a hypothetical and saying “Oh, I see what your’re saying” which would be the point of constructing it. Next time I will be more careful.
But I simply cannot see how you cannot grant what is basically a tautology. Two people. They both have equal belief in and love for the law. One of them has that respect for the law PLUS the belief that it is tied to divinity. Barring any change in attitude from either party, the one has two reasons to support the law, the other just the one reason. If reason #1 shot down or threatened, he still has reason #2.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Only the one with the extraneous stuff going on will ever have a reason to change their mind.
I understand a hypothetical; I simply note that your hypothetical failed to demonstrate what you hoped it would.
Onward.
Not when people who have other religions or no religion pay for it.
You can say that only by ignoring that the founding fathers today would be expelled from the Christian churches of today or unable to be elected to positions in the current government for being deists or even worse (Thomas Paine).
:dubious:
I had to look for the right link to the Yale article since yours did not work:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm
Great read, but I see some things are not quite right in your assessment:
-The “Praise be to God” is on the Receipt of the treaty, that is the part of the treaty that was written by the Berbers.
-The Arabic translation of the American treaty to the Berbers also has the “Praise be to God” virtually in every article, but this is missing from the official approved English treaty. IMHO it is what the Arab faithful translator put there.
-It is established that Joel Barlow’s English translation of Article 11, as recorded in the certified copy of January 4, 1797, is contained in the version of the treaty that was approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate.
Once again: no one lost any sleep for saying so then, today it would be a very different story, it shows that what the red scare started then, now it is being continued by the current terror menace and that is affecting the wellbeing of American democracy.
Jewish, non-Christian or “we dislike government imposed praying” religions like Jehovah witness and Atheists are finding that they are becoming second class citizens.
Good, but that is why I don’t live over there.
Funny thing, those were your words, my reply was directed in any case to the reality that Creationism and ID should be dismissed as Astrology and Phrenology until they come with evidence to even pretend they are science.
Besides noticing your veiled insults, I thought reinventing the wheel was unnecessary. In any case, your arguments on the treaty are clearly misleading.
Oh, and I missed this, earlier.
Actually, there are very few posters who would claim that anyone who doubted “any aspect” of evolutionary theory as a “knuckle dragging-troglodyte.” Although, a person who dismisses the entire panoply of evidence regarding neo-Darwinian Natural Selection certainly demonstrates a massive amount of ignorance regarding science.
Similarly, while there are a few posters who would consider adherents to “Intelligent Design” to be “rabid, unthinking Young Earthers,” the majority of posters, here, simply recognize that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience dressed up to sneak Creationism into public school education. This has been well documented by those who have had to actually do battle with the ID proponents, such as the voters of Ohio (against a religious faction of the state school board) and the citizens of Dover, PA.
That ID is anything more than an attempt to slide religious teachings into secular curricula has been thoroughly disproven. If that is an example of “hostility” to religion, then it must be noted that it is a defensive action in response to the assault on science by some misguided religious people.
Needed to add this reply to that silly “point”:
Reardless if it is coming from other websites, it is illogical to attempt to dismiss arguments when they come from other sources; if you feel you can not deal with them (As I noticed, several points were ignored on your reply), well, too bad.
Well, I guess that’s a point on which we differ. I don’t think we can reconcile our different definitions of an extremist; I do agree with you that strictly linguistically speaking, someone with extreme views is an extremist. It’s just that society nowadays tends to see “extremist” and read “person who is willing to commit violence for their beliefs”. I’m not attempting to protect Der Trihs; I find his views as worrying as you do.
I’d say that too. And yet you’ve made it clear that you found his views fit in pretty well with other’s views and methods of debate on these boards. He can’t be both extreme and part of the norm.
It’s possible that for the difference in terms of support and condemnation that some of his views are less extreme. For example, while his thoughts on religion and religious people are quite extreme, his views on the current U.S. administration tend to have some support. And i’m sure that his opinions on more mundane things are a bit more similar to everyone else. It might not be people wanting “to have it both ways”, but just a different response to different viewpoints that he holds.
Speaking of having it both ways, you seem to be saying there that he has both support and condemnation, yet on balance he’s extreme. It looks as though you want it “both ways”; to be able to say the board holds far-left (and ridiculous, given that it’s Der Trihs) viewpoints and that Der Trihs is extreme. You really can’t do both.
Getting off this argument, what did you think of my on topic analogy? I did leave a question that i’d like to see your response to.
The answer, if they have equal belief and love of the law, is that neither is more likely to ignore the law. That’s implicit in the idea that they have “equal belief in and love for the law.” If one of them were more likely to ignore the law, their belief in and love for the law would not be equal. You can’t judge someone’s behavior by the number of principles they support. What matters is how strongly they support them. If Prince A is a theist, but also a moral equivactor, then he can not be trusted to support the law, no matter what his theology says. If Prince B is an atheist, but has absolute courage in his convictions, then he will support the law, wether or not he worries about supernatural penalties for his actions. You’re focusing on the number of hurdles in front of a person, but that doesn’t tell you anything useful. What’s important is how likely that person is to jump. That’s something determined by the person’s character, not by his beliefs.
Pew Poll comparing Muslim and Western attitudes.
Support for suicide bombing ranges from 7% among German Muslims to 57% among Jordanian Muslims.
Lonesome, did you intend to post that here? Or were you aiming for the What fuels the hatred?-terrorists thread?
I would be skeptical of a person believing in snake handling. rattlesnakes does not make you closer to god or my vote.
People that believe in the Rapture are short on thinking ability and dont get my vote.
Quakers give up too much to their church elders and dont qualify for my vote.
Any one who says his church is more important than the ability to survive in peace with our neighbors gets no support from me.
People who define themselves as Christians, Jews or any other religion dont get my vote. They are Americans and citizens of an increasingly dangerous planet first. I have no need to know anything of their religion and if it affects my ability to live in peace it should be rated as equivilant to black magic. Muslim religion is fine if you live in peace and keep it to yourself. I dont want to hear about it. You have nothing new to say. I dont find any of them compelling and all of them incresingly dangerous.
Why do Islamic candidates get a pass on putting their religion first but not Christians or Jews?
Nobody does. Religion is at best a secondary ,personal process that should be kept to ones self. Very religious people show their susceptability to programming. They should not be proud of it and run around exclaiming it as a virtue.
Ok. It just seemed from the way you phrased it - stating Christians and Jews (and people of other religions) shouldn’t be voted for since they don’t put their country first, and then saying Muslim candidates would be “fine” if they live in peace and keep it to themselves - that Muslims were being “let off” the putting religion first criteria.