Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis Fourth of July, those who identify themselves as non-believers, or humanists, or atheists -- or a whole host of other names which signify a nontheistic worldview -- have much cause for celebration. After eight years in the Bush wilderness -- and an even longer period of ostracism by the Washington political establishment -- a rising demographic of like-minded Americans and a new president are guiding us back to our roots as a secular nation.
"We have generally been a pariah group in America," says Woody Kaplan, Advisory Board Chair of the Secular Coalition for America. "Pretty much unrecognized by the political establishment. Yet there's almost no religious group in America as large as us…. We were that third rail that politicians failed to touch."
Indeed when the Obama Administration invited the Coalition to the White House for a meeting in May it marked a stark departure from recent history.
"Joe Lieberman famously talked about the constitution providing for freedom of religion but not freedom from religion -- and questioned the possibility of non-believers to be ethical human beings," Kaplan says. "Suffice it to say we were never invited as an identity group into the Bush White House. But interestingly enough… we were only invited into the Clinton White House under the rubric of core civil rights or civil liberties interests, and not as an identity group of nontheists."
Things began to change shortly after then-Senator Obama announced his candidacy for president.
"He was on one of those talking head shows," Kaplan says. "And he was talking about Dr. King's arc of the moral universe bending towards justice. He followed that with ‘no matter what your belief system' -- and he made a list, a litany -- ‘whether you're Christian or Jewish or Muslim or have no religion at all.'"
Within a week the Coalition approached Obama. They let him know they had never been part of that "list" before -- never had had a seat at the table -- and they would appreciate it if he would continue to include them whenever appropriate.
As Herb Silverman, the Coalition's President says, "Lip service is better than no service at all."
"It's helpful in bringing us out of the closet," Kaplan says.
Obama agreed and remained true to his word. And then came the moment approximately 50 million Americans-- who identify themselves with terms like agnostic, atheist, materialist, humanist, nontheist, skeptic, bright, freethinker, agnostic, naturalist, or non-believer -- will never forget. In his inauguration speech, Obama said, "…Our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers." Two weeks later he talked about "non-believers" and "humanists" at the National Prayer Breakfast.
Kaplan gives a sense of both the historical and personal significance of Obama's words.
"The shock came at the inaugural speech -- arguably the biggest speech a President ever makes -- and he listed us there" he says. "And he's continued to do that -- he mentioned us twice at Notre Dame. And then he did it [this month] in Normandy. I can't tell you what a pariah group feels about those statements. For the first time we have a seat at the table. We're not thought of, evidently, as automatically unethical."
After meetings with the Obama transition team in coalition with other groups interested in church-state issues, the Secular Coalition for America was invited to the White House for its own meeting with Associate Director of Public Engagement Paul Monteiro. Kaplan, Silverman, Legislative Director Sasha Bartolf, and Associate Director Ron Millar all attended.
"It was the first time a nontheistic group met privately with the White House," Silverman says. "So in large part we just got to know each other… to have them learn more about our constituency, how many people we represent."
The Coalition described the "full spectrum of nontheists it represents" within its nine member organizations. (Now ten, with the recent addition of American Atheists). Among those organizations are the Society for Humanistic Judaism, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, and the American Humanist Association. The Obama Administration expressed particular interest in reaching out to the Secular Student Alliance. The Coalition also addressed some of the issues of greatest concern to nontheists, including coercive religious proselytizing in the military, faith-based initiatives, and employment discrimination.
"We also pointed out that we are much more unified than we used to be, and so we hope our needs will be taken into account," Silverman says. "And that we watch legislation, we watch what politicians say. And we think that it could be beneficial to the Administration for them to take our point of view into account, just like they do for other interest groups. I think they did get the message in the White House…. We're hoping now to become players in all three branches of government."
As the Coalition continues to carry out its mission of increasing the visibility of -- and respect for -- nontheistic viewpoints, and protecting the secular character of our government, it seems to be moving forward with great confidence. This comes as no surprise, given the fact that there are now more nontheists in America than Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Mormons and Jews combined, and the organization itself has made huge strides.
Kaplan describes the Coalition's transformation from its founding in 2002 with a sole employee and "half a year's money in the bank", to having a full-time lobby shop. That shop includes newly hired Executive Director Sean Faircloth.
Faircloth brings with him ten years of legislative service in Maine, including as the House Majority Whip. He also taught legal courses within the University of Maine system. In addition to advocating for the separation of church and state, he was active on children's issues, and founded and managed the Maine Discovery Museum, the largest children's museum in New England outside of Boston.
Faircloth says that the Coalition is "very pleased" with the recognition it has received from President Obama. But he adds, "I think we still have some important issues to address."
Perhaps foremost among those issues is the Obama Administration's continuation of President Bush's faith-based initiative. In a campaign speech in Zanesville, Ohio, then-candidate Obama declared, "First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion."
But Bush's policy remains in place while the program is under review, so under current law religious organizations can receive funding to provide social services, discriminate in hiring for those programs, and proselytize. The Coalition is advocating to end this clear violation of the separation of church and state.
"The President deserves great kudos for making his Zanesville statement. We would like him to [now] implement it," Faircloth says.
The Coalition is also pleased that the Obama Administration has ended the global gag rule, allowed stem cell funding, and largely ended funding for abstinence-only education programs. (There are some loopholes the Coalition is still working to address.) On the other hand, the nomination of Republican Congressman John McHugh as Secretary of the Army is a real concern. McHugh has one of the worst records of anyone in Congress on church-state issues. In fact, he voted against an amendment that would have required the Secretary of Defense to present Congress with a plan to prevent coercive and abusive proselytizing at the Air Force Academy.
Faircloth says the importance of the Coalition's advocacy extends beyond the specific issues themselves.
"I want to be involved in those lobbying issues," Faircloth says. "But also in terms of allowing people the comfort level and the opportunity to say, ‘Yeah, that's what I happen to believe. I happen to agree with Mark Twain. I happen to agree with Clarence Darrow.' And allow those people to feel comfortable joining an organization, whether it's a humanistic association, chapter, whatever the case may be -- saying, ‘I care about these values because I view them as moral values, and they connect to these policies….'"
Faircloth also sees the rise in the nontheistic demographic as an opportunity to reconnect with our nation's heritage.
"I see historical trends coming together that bring us back to our nation's heritage," he says. "Think if a presidential candidate were to say as Jefferson did, ‘Religions are all alike, founded on fables and mythology'…. Madison said, ‘In no instance have churches been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for everyone noble enterprise.' Abraham Lincoln said, ‘The bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.' These tremendously valuable leaders, I question whether were they to be a candidate for public office today… would they be [elected]? And that would be a great loss to the nation…. I think something has gone haywire when it seems that they were more free to speak their individual perspective -- in some cases 200 years ago -- than elected officials might feel today. We want to address that issue."
Indeed when the Coalition ran a contest to find the highest ranking official who identifies as a nontheist (or one of the terms within the nontheist nomenclature), 60 members of the House and Senate were nominated. The Coalition spoke to each of them, and 22 admitted it but refused to go public. Only Congressman Pete Stark was willing to be identified.
Kaplan notes that the sample was skewed and that the number of nontheists in Congress is significantly larger. The legislators who were nominated were more likely to articulate their belief system than others, and some of the 60 nominees didn't admit to their belief system for fear it would be leaked.
"But we see at the very least there are 22 people who think that honestly admitting their worldview would cause them not to get reelected," Kaplan says. "That's an awful commentary on a pluralistic, liberal America."
Nevertheless, with its constituency growing -- and growing more visible, assertive, and respected -- the Coalition is optimistic about the future.
"All that terminology has meaning, but to me what is of greater meaning is our shared set of values," Faircloth says. "We think that [our constituency] is a quiet, thoughtful, moral group that is significantly growing in our society and it's time to let that blossom…. The Founding Fathers specifically addressed the issues that the Secular Coalition for America raises, and they specifically took our side on these issues. So, we're very proud of the civil rights movement we're involved with and we feel its heritage goes back to the founding of this nation."
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Amen.
Posted by Malcontent at 07/03/2009 @ 9:38pm
Nothing against the thoughtfully religious of course, but us non-believers have been patiently hoping for the wheel to turn, and to receive the proper respect that should be accorded us.
When an acknowledged atheist can run for higher office we'll perhaps be able to say that we have reached something approaching "civilization".
Thanks for the post, Katrina.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/03/2009 @ 9:48pm
"guiding us back to our roots as a secular nation."
Blatant LIE with NO evidence! Try actually reading American history of our representative republic and the writings of all the Christian founding fathers in our historical archives in the Library of Congress to at least get a clue!
Posted by BigPasture at 07/03/2009 @ 11:39pm
big pasture-slavery is a good example of how we were founded based upon Christian principles as does the stealing of land and the murdering of the native population.Very Christian stuff.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2009 @ 12:08am
Posted by BigPasture at 07/03/2009 @ 11:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
read history.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/04/2009 @ 12:55am
The question of why America's enshrined "separation of church and state" does not work as a secularising force or as something that produces tolerance and harmony needs to be answered.
This from "Separation of Church and State?" points to a different solution:
"A number of books by Americans themselves have recently cast doubt on the value of the American principle of separation for ensuring the tolerant, pluralist, and multi-religious society that their constitutional Fathers wanted.
In The Challenge of Pluralism, Monsma and Soper (1997) examined relations between church and state in five democratic societies--Australia, Germany, England, the Netherlands, and their own United States. Their conclusion was that the American model actually fosters some kinds of religious discrimination. Even countries with a formally established church like England seem to have a better record of religious tolerance and genuine pluralism, while Australia's pragmatic principle of neutrality is presented as something the Americans could learn from.
Spinner-Helav (2000) has also recently questioned whether the principle offers enough safeguards for fringe and extremist religious groups in a multicultural United States. Meanwhile, the religious right has been intent on undermining the principle from the other direction by insisting that God must be restored to the centre of American political life (Olasky 1992, 2000).
The principle of separating church and state was designed to protect the freedom of belief from a tyrannical state. However, in Australia, the major bullies have always been in the churches, not in the state. This seems to be so even in America.......To separate church and state is not the answer to our problems."
http://tinyurl.com/lp7tjp
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 02:45am
Please visit www.secular.org to sign up for Action Alerts from the Secular Coalition for America. Join America's secular movement. As Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America, I know that numerous laws undermine the separation of church and state. We must stand up for the values of Madison and Jefferson. A clarification: I taught courses such as Criminal Law, Criminal Evidence, Administrative Law, Judicial Process and Legal Writing & Research at University College of Bangor, a part of the University of Maine System, but not the law school. At www.secular.org we work toward the day that all people, including those who share the values Mark Twain and Clarence Darrow, play a full role in the American journey. Join us. Sean Faircloth, Executive Director, Secular Coalition for America
Posted by Sean_Faircloth at 07/04/2009 @ 07:05am
It's like the blind leading the blind - one says there's nothing there - the other believes them and steps on a land mine. Sorry - but not believing something doesn't make it true - it merely makes it an opinion. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you I am going to kill you, and you say, I don't believe you have a gun, when I pull the trigger and your head explodes, it doesn't make any difference that you don't believe, your brains are gone none-the-less. Adios
Posted by reformed2 at 07/04/2009 @ 07:37am
It's like the blind leading the blind - one says there's nothing there - the other believes them and steps on a land mine. Sorry - but not believing something doesn't make it true - it merely makes it an opinion. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you I am going to kill you, and you say, I don't believe you have a gun, when I pull the trigger and your head explodes, it doesn't make any difference that you don't believe, your brains are gone none-the-less. Adios
Posted by reformed2 at 07/04/2009 @ 07:37am
I don't know about anyone else but being referred to as a "non-believer" is a little like referring to "anti-choice" folks as "pro-life" or the other way round.
In other words the term non believer has always had a negative conotation. Like "burn those filthy non believers!"
Everybody believes in something. Even if that belief is in nothing.
Just sayin...
Posted by chaoszen at 07/04/2009 @ 09:12am
As an atheist/Humanist for many years, it has been frustrating to have witnessed the virtual exclusion of non-believers from government.
I am glad to see this development, and I'll have to look into this "Coalition", an organization I've not heard of previously. Unfortunately, the sort of folks who are "secular" tend to be shy of organizations; the old "herding cats" notion....
It's a common assertion by the religious that America is a "Christian nation" or that it was "founded on Christian principals". Although many of the founders were, in fact, believers, a number of the key movers and shakers were if not overtly atheist, professing Deism; a philosophy that excludes God from human affairs. They were also wise enough to separate religion from politics in no uncertain terms, being familiar with the abuses incurred in Europe, and the blatant discrimintation that took place in the early Colonies.
It's been said that this separation has resulted in the lively and flourishing religious scene in America, while in Europe the state-sponsored churches continue to languish.
Posted by Bikewer at 07/04/2009 @ 09:24am
Great article to wake up to on the morning of the 4th of July!
Thanks, Nation.
Posted by Tully at 07/04/2009 @ 09:32am
It's like the blind leading the blind - one says there's nothing there - the other believes them and steps on a land mine. Sorry - but not believing something doesn't make it true - it merely makes it an opinion. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you I am going to kill you, and you say, I don't believe you have a gun, when I pull the trigger and your head explodes, it doesn't make any difference that you don't believe, your brains are gone none-the-less. Adios
Posted by reformed2 at 07/04/2009 @ 07:37am
Conversely, believing in something (esp. something that says doubt = blasphemy ) doesn't make it true either.
That is a horrible analogy, for all I have to do is look at your gun, feel the barrel against my head, hear you cock the trigger or smell the gunpowder or oil.
If you were to oil a piece of pipe, press it to my head and not let me turn around, you might fool me. But that would still be more evidence than you have for your beliefs.
If there is ever an opportunity for me to see, smell, hear or feel god, let me know. Until then you assertions are illogical and specious.
What you wish/choose to believe is your choice and there are many believers out there. But, your logic is faulty and faith has nothing to do with logic. (Except in Pascals mind).
Posted by Malcontent at 07/04/2009 @ 10:06am
"The question of why America's enshrined "separation of church and state" does not work as a secularising force or as something that produces tolerance and harmony needs to be answered." Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @
lrjones4, KVH starts with the flawed assumption that America was founded as a secular nation and you seek to build an entire case on that unfortunate error. You are not alone. Most secularists I speak with believe one or all three of the following statements are true: "There is a separation clause in the Constitution." "Thomas Jefferson wrote it." "Jefferson spoke for the Founding Fathers."
All three statements are demonstrably false.
This is important to understand because many of the groups she mentions don't just want a seat at the table. They want the entire buffet. For every historical figure she quotes, I could easily point to the same people expounding ideas that directly refute her arguement.
It is a paramount principle of our freedom that faith based institutions be allowed the same rights and accomendations as secular ones. You and I have no freedom from religion. Faith based institutions get the same tax status while being politically active and discriminating, based on doctrine,in hiring.
Simply put, what's good for Planned Parenthood is good for the Catholic Church.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2009 @ 10:23am
Just a question for the editors and readers of The Nation. I am not an atheist, nor am I a fundamentalist Christian. I am somewhere in between. But it seems that the writers, editors, and many reader believe there is no room at this inn for people of faith. (Seems to be that way at The New York Times, lately, too.) Are you saying that in order to keep my liberal progressive credentials, I must give up my search for the transcendent, for the spiritual, for something beyond? Or do you just want me to shut up, go away, and cancel my subscription?
Posted by ddipiazza at 07/04/2009 @ 10:43am
ddipiazza, I am curious. What in this article makes you feel excluded. It seems to me that the article and the Secular Coalition's message is about recognizing that humanists, atheists and other nontheists are as much an important part of the body politic as theists. If that is true, then by definition, theists are an important part of the body politic. Why do you feel marginalized by this?
Posted by mkb at 07/04/2009 @ 11:09am
Posted by BigPasture at 07/03/2009 @ 11:39pm i think you should read what the founding fathers have written. i think what they say will severly question your opinion of them.
Posted by nathantankus at 07/04/2009 @ 11:39am
Curious. For all our "The Founders were all Christians" (and subtlely, "fundamentalist/evangelical/literalist Christians to boot") fellows on the Right, like RIO/Big Postture...
what exactly was "Christian" about half the Founders having SLAVES, and Thomas Jefferson in particular f**king one of them?
Posted by Mask at 07/04/2009 @ 11:40am
"Somewhere between chance & mystery lies imagination, the only thing that protects our freedom. despite the fact that people keep trying to reduce it or kill it off altogether."
Luis Bunuel
Posted by Sorelish at 07/04/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2009 @ 10:23am
Yes I think your position is very supportable. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." , which may on the surface seem to be based on the separation of church and state principle but rather could equally be used as an encouragement for the promotion of religion. The "establishment of religion" bears particular reference to the times and European custom.
In fact Jefferson's interaction with the Danbury Baptists can be seen as a political sop to Evangelicals of the time who were the chief proponents of separation of church and state (and still should be if they were biblical proponents of the Evangelical faith in which there can be no valid state church entity).
I thought the article was good in that it showed that states, like Australia, where there is no Bill of Rights or "separation of church and state" legislation are far more tolerant and accommodating of religious faith and non religious belief than the US is. In fact at present it is the secularists in the US that press the historic Evangelical doctrine of "separation of church and state" as though they had thought of it.
Of more concern is the following statement from KVH, which indicates the secularists are just as guilty as your wayward Evangelicals of seeking state recognition, this time with privileges as the state recognised "church of secularism".
"And we think that it could be beneficial to the Administration for them to take our point of view into account, just like they do for other interest groups. I think they did get the message in the White House…. We're hoping now to become players in all three branches of government."
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 11:55am
Posted by mkb at 07/04/2009 @ 11:09am
Surely in a secular state the promotion of anti religious views are just as inconsistent with secularism as the promotion of pro religious views are?
Anti or pro are but private views and should have no place in the political life of a secular state?
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 12:06pm
Sorelish
good shout out to Bunuel. check out the movies he made in Mexico in the midpoint of his long and brilliant career. pounce, people.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/04/2009 @ 12:26pm
while in Europe the state-sponsored churches continue to languish. Posted by Bikewer at 07/04/2009 @ 09:24am | ignore this person | warn this person
exactly which European countries have state sponsored religion?
Posted by emile duBois at 07/04/2009 @ 12:30pm
my big problem with religion is the fact that it is subsidized by the united states government. i think they should subsidize some aethiest and humanist organizations too or stop subsidizing them all.
Posted by nathantankus at 07/04/2009 @ 12:35pm
lrjones4,
I am totally confused by your post. You quote me as having written something I did not.
Posted by mkb at 07/04/2009 @ 12:35pm
"There is a separation clause in the Constitution." "Thomas Jefferson wrote it." "Jefferson spoke for the Founding Fathers."
All three statements are demonstrably false. Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2009 @ 10:23am
Bullshit! How are they demonstrably false?
The first Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.."
That important statement is a clear separation of church and state if there ever was one.
Posted by chaoszen at 07/04/2009 @ 12:44pm
which may on the surface seem to be based on the separation of church and state principle but rather could equally be used as an encouragement for the promotion of religion.Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 11:55am
Of course it is an encouragement of religion. An encouragement of religion entirely separate from government. I'm frankly aghast that some people do not see the difference. It is not equally a statement for the promotion of religion as far as government is concerned. But a promotion of "free excercise of religion" as far as the peoples right to worship as they choose.
Without the establishment of a state sponsored religion.
This is integral in the establishment of a entirely new country apart from the church of England.
You have to be a fair dense creature to not see that.
Posted by chaoszen at 07/04/2009 @ 12:56pm
Although I don't know if any European states currently have what amounts to "state-sponsored religion", this has certainly been the case historically.
As to the "languishing"....I believe current polls show a number of European countries indicating 40% or so of the population identifying as "atheist" or "secular", and that religion is increasingly viewed as a pro-forma social institution.
Posted by Bikewer at 07/04/2009 @ 1:22pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 11:55am
I take issue with you on only two points. The concept of separation of church and state to Evangelicals in Jefferson's time was, clearly, not the same as what that term has come to mean today. The focus of their efforts was limited only to the various states having official churches.
It was not based on a belief that one's theological position should be excluded from the public sphere. It was the exact opposite. The very act of writing to the President and asking for his intervention was a political act based upon a religious foundation.
Secondly,I refer to your response to mkb: "Anti or pro are but private views and should have no place in the political life of a secular state?"
Is this really possible? If you argue against gay marriage, will you not be percieved as pressing your religious values irregardless of your reasoning. If you desire to remove "under God" from the pledge, are you then not considered, by some, a militant secularist?
Actually, Turkey has made your views part of their Constitution. People, much more knowledgeable than myself, observe this has led to an overly draconian restriction of religious freedom.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2009 @ 1:33pm
"Although I don't know if any European states currently have what amounts to "state-sponsored religion", this has certainly been the case historically."
this is not what you stated. the clarification helps.
As to the "languishing"....I believe current polls show a number of European countries indicating 40% or so of the population identifying as "atheist" or "secular", and that religion is increasingly viewed as a pro-forma social institution. Posted by Bikewer at 07/04/2009 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I agree with this, of course. this has also been true in our country, with the exception of the born again folks.
in my city, NYC, churches have been converted to luxury apartments. what else.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/04/2009 @ 1:33pm
If you desire to remove "under God" from the pledge, are you then not considered, by some, a militant secularist?
the under god part is of very recent vintage, the 1950s I believe.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/04/2009 @ 1:35pm
"There is a separation clause in the Constitution." "Thomas Jefferson wrote it." "Jefferson spoke for the Founding Fathers."
All three statements are demonstrably false. Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2009 @ 10:23am
Bullshit! How are they demonstrably false? Posted by chaoszen at 07/04/2009 @ 12:44pm
chaoszen, it never ceases to amaze me when the very people who debunk religion as superstition for the dull witted can exhibit such ignorance. Frankly sir, you would make more sense if you threw some bones into the air and tried to figure the meaning of their landing positions.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2009 @ 1:47pm
Yeah Emile, with Bunuel's films, intention often doesn't produce the desired result as the ascetic do-gooders failings portray.
The right wingers might smirk at these failings, since their primary impulse is to destroy in order to save. Of course, they don't see any contradiction. In their world it's all sunshine & flowers. After the fact.
Posted by Sorelish at 07/04/2009 @ 1:58pm
the history thing...
well of course the vast majority of early americans were some form of christian though as always many forms did not consider other forms as real christians, but that's part of the nature of the religion...
and BEFORE the constitution various states had varying laws concerning religion. but to confuse the fact that most early americans were christian and pre-constitution states sometimes had official religions or religious restrictions is more than a tad self delusional and cause serving...and to ignore the writings and lives of jefferson and franklin, just to name a couple, as well as THE SPECIFIC WORDING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT .
some of these martyr seeking cromwellians of the christian right seem to feel that any who refuse their borg like efforts to assimilate all is a threat to them.
so lying about history is not such a sin i guess, especially if you believe the lie.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/04/2009 @ 2:09pm
Like those god fearing types have done such a great job when in charge.... The Inquisition, Iran, pre-war Japan, the Crusades, indigenous natives, et al ........................
Posted by Freewheelin_Franklin at 07/04/2009 @ 2:35pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/04/2009 @ 2:09pm You make some valid observations related history except I remind you some of the states had official religions for years after the Constitution was signed. Many,at the time, felt the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government.
Jefferson and Franklin may have been our most articulate and prolific Founders but they seemed to both contridict themselves in both words and deeds.
My view: The Framers (Jefferson was not one) engaged in a real slog and, at times, slug fest to come up with this document. James Madison is called by some the "Father of the Constitution," but his skill was in getting others to reach consensus rather than promote his own ideas. We should also remember he was often a spokesman for the silent George Washington.
For these and other reasons, I find stepping beyond the language and attributing interpretations to one or another individuals, problematic.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2009 @ 3:08pm
Despite the decline in morality and living a life of faith in this country, atheism remains a fringe element in the country.
It is highly unlikely to dramatically change anytime in the near future. That means that all of you anti-faith mockers do so from a fringe position in American society
<A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the non-religious are about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%. Another survey attributed to Britannica shows the population of atheists at around 2.4% of the world's population. It is difficult to determine whether atheism is growing or not. What is certain is that in the some areas of the world (such as Europe) atheism and Secularization seems to be on the rise. While there are more atheists than ever before, polls show that atheism's percentages seems to be declining. This may be because birth rates in religious societies are much higher
The most recent ARIS report, released March 9, 2009, found in 2008, 34.2 million Americans (15.0%) claim no religion. Of which, 1.6% explicitly describe themselves as atheist or agnostic>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
Posted by antisocialist at 07/04/2009 @ 4:04pm
antisocialist-America is not less moral now than before nor are less people living according to faith.In fact,we ended slavery, forced segregation,stopped murdering the native population, gave women equal rights,and other such things that made us a bit more moral than before.There are towns in the old west and parts of big cities that had much higher crime rates than we have now.Workers were treated,for the most part,horribly in the past and that has changed. As far as sex is concerned,humans have always been the same where that is concerned.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2009 @ 4:32pm
antisocialist-One of the interesting things about life is that diaries from the past show that people back then complained about the same lack of morals stuff and other such things that you,and others, complain about today.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/04/2009 @ 4:37pm
First problem is the opening paragraph states The President is "guiding us back to our roots as a secular nation". Our roots are freemdom from religeous persecution not being a secular nation.
Second, why should nontheists (i.e. no religeon or churches) even care about church-state or religeous issues? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Third, just believe in something. If you have no religeon whatsoever, no "higher power" or after life that you believe will come to pass someday, then what is the point in living now?
Posted by xsquid at 07/04/2009 @ 5:06pm
Posted by xsquid at 07/04/2009 @ 5:06pm
Are you calamari now or are you just planning on it?
Posted by Sorelish at 07/04/2009 @ 5:44pm
You make some valid observations related history except I remind you some of the states had official religions for years after the Constitution was signed. Many,at the time, felt the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2009 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
did not know that. thanks.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/04/2009 @ 5:47pm
Most Europeans are indeed secular in the sense of being disconnected from organized religion, though there are still some confessing Christians (as opposed to merely cultural Christians). Something similar holds for most European Jews. The growing religion in Europe is Islam, mostly thanks to immigrants rather than indigenous populations.
Oddly, the rest of the world sees religion much more favorably than developed societies. Islam and Christianity are spreading rapidly in Africa. Islam is of course a revitalized force in the Middle East. Both Catholicism and Protestantism are booming in parts of Asia, notably South Korea and China (despite persecution of Christians and other groups such as Muslims and adherents of Falun Gong). Large parts of Latin America, long solidly Catholic, are being swept by Pentecostalism (now about 25% of the population of Latin America overall, though varying greatly by country and booming notably in Brazil, where even leftist candidate Lula has extensively courted the large Pentecostal vote).
Why is so much of the developing world now finding religion? The reasons are no doubt very complex. Regardless, it is curious that religion is "back" (often in new forms) in so many societies, although it seems clear that it never actually had left most of those societies.
None of this is to suggest that the developed world, including the US, should emulate the third world in religion--or anything else for that matter. The modern West is the first major to civilization to go so far in giving up religion--we are all part of a great cultural experiment, an exciting and perplexing one whose "results" may not be known for a long time. One is tempted to hedge one's bets--perhaps out of age-old superstition--by imploring that God help us all.
Posted by feinfein at 07/04/2009 @ 6:45pm
my big problem with religion is the fact that it is subsidized by the united states government. i think they should subsidize some aethiest and humanist organizations too or stop subsidizing them all.
Posted by nathantankus at 07/04/2009 @ 12:35pm
Surely that would be the case for atheistic and humanistic hospitals, schools and soup kitchens etc.
BTW how many of them are there in the US?
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 7:55pm
I am totally confused by your post. You quote me as having written something I did not.
Posted by mkb at 07/04/2009 @ 12:35pm
You may note I was asking questions and may just as easily have responded to ddpiazza. My sense is that in a secular society neither organised religion nor organised anything else should have a special "seat" or if you please the over attentive ear of the government. That includes such entities as the Secular Coalition.
That would only be acceptable if there were political parties such as the "Atheist Party of America" or the "Christian Coalition Party of America" presenting for and gaining representation in Congress and thus openly be part of the political process.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 8:28pm
Surely that would be the case for atheistic and humanistic hospitals, schools and soup kitchens etc. BTW how many of them are there in the US? Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 7:55pm
Good point. Humanistic operations like that need to be embraced by all for any debate to have any credibility. And I'm not a practicing christian.
I await the atheist soup kitchen!
Posted by ficheye at 07/04/2009 @ 8:36pm
Like those god fearing types have done such a great job when in charge.... The Inquisition, Iran, pre-war Japan, the Crusades, indigenous natives, et al ........................
Posted by Freewheelin_Franklin at 07/04/2009 @ 2:35pm
Maybe but they are eclipsed, in terms of numbers, by the God hating Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots et al.
Which should bring a thinking person back to the far more significant factor than theism or anti-theism viz human nature. Or the reliable old Calvinistic doctrine of human depravity upon which principle your founding fathers seem to have relied. I read this a moment ago in Lowry's "Our Founders the Realists":
"There is a degree of depravity in mankind," James Madison wrote in The Federalist, "which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust." (When revolutionaries talk of depravity, it is often to brand their class or ethnic enemies for destruction. Gas chambers, prison camps, and killing fields inevitably follow.)
(The depravity of which our Founders spoke was different. It ran through the hearts of all men, themselves included. It tempered their expectations of what they could achieve and what they should attempt. No secular millennium, no perfectly harmonious republic -- because, as Madison wrote),"the latent causes of faction are sown in the nature of man."
Incidentally for those who wonder if Christianity was a deep influence on some of the founders, Madison embraces, in his thinking, the most fundamental tenet of Christianity. It is the basis for soteriology and lot more specific than talking about God or the Almighty, which may mean anything one pleases.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 8:57pm
my big problem with religion is the fact that it is subsidized by the united states government. i think they should subsidize some aethiest and humanist organizations too or stop subsidizing them all.
Posted by nathantankus at 07/04/2009 @ 12:35pm
Perhaps you ought to become more familiar with our laws instead of just speculation and assumption
Per the IRS
<exempt purpose--To be tax exempt, an organization must have one or more exempt purposes, stated in its organizing document. Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC lists the following exempt purposes: charitable, educational, religious, scientific, literary, fostering national or international sports competition, preventing cruelty to children or animals, and testing for public safety.>
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf
there is no benefit that is solely for religious organizations under 501c3.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/04/2009 @ 9:09pm
Katrina has gone beyond her usual silly splashing in the kiddy pool to stupidities in deep water.
President Obama's inaugural address, was not merely wrong on the facts, it revealed his ignorance of America.
We are not a nation of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and none-believers.
We are a nation where our faith or lack of faith is NO ONE'S BUSINESS. It is not a public matter, it is not subject to inquiry, nor is it something to play politics with.
Obama started out by bringing religion to the fore and using it politically. He made a point of separating Christians from Jews by plunking Muslims between them. Why? The the numbers don't justify it. Jews outnumber Muslims more than 2 to 1, possibly 3 to 1. Nor does our history. The Pilgrims and Puritans preached from the Old Testament, gave their children OT names and aspired to build a new City on the Hill. America's prevailing religious tradition is Judeo Christian, not Christian-Muslim-Jewish.
In short, that important speech, by pointedly introducing religion, playing with it for a political end, relegating Jews in a foreshadowing of a new policy towards Israel, and by sucking up to Muslims, twisted the truth and betrayed America's fundamentals.
Moreover, since when does an American president bow from the waist to any king let a lone to the Muslim king of a theocratic dictatorship? He spoke for 55 minutes in Cairo praising the Arabs and lamenting America's dark past and apologizing to Iran, but not 10 seconds about the bloodbath by Arabs shouting Allah Akbah across the border in Darfur.
Katrina is a hopeless case.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/04/2009 @ 9:44pm
"... Actually, Turkey has made your views part of their Constitution. People, much more knowledgeable than myself observe this has led to an overly draconian restriction of religious freedom."
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2009 @ 1:33pm
That may be so but is the removal of say prayers from public schools any less a draconian restriction of religious freedom? And perhaps thus puts a query over what the "establishment of religion" means.
As far as the SOC&S goes you are no doubt aware of it's biblical origins in "render to ceasar...." and that the Founding Fathers were influenced in their "wall of separation" idea by John Calvin (who along with other reformers was not always consistent in the application of that principle), thus it was in its origins a simple basic Christian idea which all denominations now more or less recognise.
You state that the idea of SOC&S now has a different meaning from the Jefferson era. I take it that you mean the secularists have appropriated something which you say never existed or at least was not in the Founders minds?
I think my suggestions are impractical whilst one holds tenaciously to some sort of SOC&S doctrine but that really is what is at issue. The alternative is tolerance of different view points and legislative processes to sort out intolerance when it arises. This is a difficult area and may touch upon the liberty of free speech but it does seem to work in other societies, Turkey excepted.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 10:35pm
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/04/2009 @ 1:33pm
Perhaps one way to look at the separation of church and state is that the implicit precept is directed at Christians rather than at the state. And the state's only constitutional responsibility is to ensure it does not establish any religion with the power of the state behind it.
That, it seems to me, then lets either group, organised theists and organised anti-theists do as much lobbying of government as they please without violating any legal restriction.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 10:50pm
And,last,but not least, don't leave out us Deists/Theists who(like free masons & AA 12-steppers)believe in a Creator who perhaps does NOT answer exclusvely,to the prayers/meditations of christians,muslims,jews,hindus,bhuddists,etc...
For us,"secular" means non-sectarians AND nontheists alike,AS WELL AS tolerant sectarians.
Posted by LNBOW at 07/04/2009 @ 11:19pm
Because a theocracy is exclusionary, it can never be a democracy which requires inclusion without exception of all equally. It cannot be a republic because a republic requires the separation of church and state and equal rights to all. Examples of theocratic countries include Israel and Iran http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/Structure4.htm Israel, unlike Iran, wants to have it both ways; It lies about being a democracy whereas Iran does not.Natenyahu's demand that Israel be recognised as a Jewish state is actually a planned euphemism for expulsion/ethnic cleansing of the Palestinains whose land the Jews they have stolen; Iran has no history of attacking another country or stealing land from anyone for over three hundred years. Israel is a theocratic barbarous apartheid garrison state.
Posted by mystic at 07/05/2009 @ 12:26am
Interesting article. However, the Secular Coalition for America is just as male-dominated as all the religious groups. I have found that more often than not, athiestic men are as just as misogynistic as fundamentalists.
Posted by ktrig at 07/05/2009 @ 01:20am
Perhaps you ought to become more familiar with our laws instead of just speculation and assumption
Per the IRS <exempt purpose--To be tax exempt, an organization must have one or more exempt purposes, stated in its organizing document. Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC lists the following exempt purposes: charitable, educational, religious, scientific, literary, fostering national or international sports competition, preventing cruelty to children or animals, and testing for public safety.>
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf there is no benefit that is solely for religious organizations under 501c3. Posted by antisocialist at 07/04/2009 @ 9:09pm that is irrelevent to my point. we are still giving tax exemptions to all religious organizations. i dont think we should be doing that. further under 501c3 an aethiest or nonthiest secular organization has no place. i still dont think religion should be tax free even if peta is too.
Posted by nathantankus at 07/05/2009 @ 04:58am
ktrit,
Male-dominated? I checked.
Board: 3 men 2 women. http://www.secular.org/board/
Staff: 3 men and 3 women.http://www.secular.org/staff.html
Why do you say male-dominated?
Ron_H
Posted by Ron_H at 07/05/2009 @ 07:19am
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin "Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." - Thomas Jefferson "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government." - Thomas Jefferson "In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people." - James Madison " The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." - John Adams "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." Abraham Lincoln
Posted by John321 at 07/05/2009 @ 08:46am
"Back to our roots as a secular nation" - we don't think so. Your history teachers must have been from the 1960's to present. Why don't you read George Washington's Farewell Address - "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle" September 17, 1796. God bless you and keep you
Posted by MustangSally at 07/05/2009 @ 09:09am
MustangSally, we are all already well aware that Washington was a spiritual and religious man (though not necessarily Christian). However, to use that quote to claim that he intended for America should be anything but a secular nation is purely intellectual dishonestly. View, for example, a few more of his quotes:
...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. [George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, from The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, Isacc Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore W.W. Norton and Company 101-102]
The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. - George Washington
We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States. -- George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 497, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom
Posted by Zel at 07/05/2009 @ 09:25am
For the many who actually believe that there should be a strong division between religious views and how the government functions, this is great recognition that this can happen.
I can only think back to when JFK overcame the idea that EVEN a catholic could be president. I wasn't until the past president and the "religious right" made a move to install religion as a political power did this become a divisive issue.
President Obama was correct in saying that religious beliefs should be separated from politics. I would prefer that we select politicians based on how well they can represent the total population, not just a those with a similar religious persuasion.
Thanks for the article!
Posted by afisher at 07/05/2009 @ 10:07am
The alternative is tolerance of different view points and legislative processes to sort out intolerance when it arises. This is a difficult area and may touch upon the liberty of free speech but it does seem to work in other societies, Turkey excepted.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/04/2009 @ 10:35pm |
I concur without reservation and am facinated by your arguement that, if our Constitution were worded differently, there may not be as much room for misinterpretation.
'Tolerance' is the key word. That admirable quality which I egotistically claim to possess is beyond the scope of legislation or judicial imposition. I choose to live in neither a theocracy nor a government imposed secular society. That is a position that puts me at odds with people from both sides of the religion issue.
The contrarian in me sort of enjoys that.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/05/2009 @ 11:38am
Posted by chaoszen at 07/04/2009 @ 12:44pm
Chaoszen, since you never responded to my previous post, I fear I may have stepped over the line with that answer. Please forgive me if I did. I take political issues seriously but engage in highspirited debate as a form of recreation. I try not to go too far when making snide comments.
BTW. I googled your screen name and if you are the dude into B movies, motorcycles and guitars, we are kindred spirits.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/05/2009 @ 12:05pm
First of all, there are indeed state-sponsored religions in Europe. In Britain, the Anglican Church is the official church of the country and receives unique state support. In a few Scandanavian countries, the Lutheran Church is the official church.
France, on the other hand, has taken precisely the opposite approach. It has primarily perceived religious freedom as freedom from religion, which is why (for instance) it bans headscarves.
Neither of these approaches is healthy in a democratic society.
Moreover, I think there's an important distinction to be made between a separation of church and state, and a separation of religion and politics. Intertwining religious and political institutions is dangerous and potentially corrupting to both institutions, but a separation of religion and politics is neither possible nor desirable. Religious individuals and groups have legitimate contributions to make in political discourse, as do those who are not religious. Though I fully grant that religion has caused many terrible episodes in American and world history, it has also been those appealing to the equality and dignity of all human beings as creations of God which helped end such travesties as American slavery and segregation. Was it only Christians that did this? Of course not. But was the contribution of their theologically-driven perspective one that a democracy shouldn't embrace. I think not.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/05/2009 @ 2:18pm
Sorry, correction:
But was the contribution of their theologically-driven perspective one that a democracy shouldn't embrace? I think not.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/05/2009 @ 4:10pm
George Washington"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society".
Rev. Dr. Abercrombie: On sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the Congregation.Rev. Dr. Wilson: After that, upon communion days, he absented himself altogether from the church. Rev. Dr. Beverly Tucker: The General was accustomed, on communion Sundays, to leave the church with her sending the carriage back for Mrs. Washington. Rev. Dr. Bird Wilson: He never was a communicant in them. Rev. William Jackson: I find no one who ever communed with him. Rev. E.D. Neill: The President was not a communicant. Gen. A.W. Greely: There is no reliable evidence that he ever took communion. St. Louis Globe: There is nothing to show that he was ever a member of the church. Washington himself I have never been a communicant.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson
Posted by John321 at 07/05/2009 @ 7:05pm
Separation of Church and State means Separation of Religion and Politics!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Church=Religion State=Politics
Posted by John321 at 07/05/2009 @ 7:11pm
Gaze in a fire, as home sapiens has for 50,000 perhaps 100,000 years. Look up at the night sky as we did just as long. Like chimps, we are curious. Probably unlike chimps, we have an advanced recognition of the fact of personal death.
I would bet almost every tribe and culture, from the Pleistocene to now, had and has a response to our innate curiosity about the usual suspects of perennial questions (where do we come from, meaning of life, what happens when we die, etc.). And I would bet almost all the answers have involved religion / spirituality.
Certainly, with the Enlightenment there's been a shift in this age old phenomenon. Especially in the more advanced cultures and of course only relatively recently, science / reason / atheism have established a foothold.
Alongside the more scientifically-centered nodes, new encompassing worldviews are forming and reforming with new approaches to spirituality, morality, and ethics. Commonly in this dance older paths bump up against newer ones - as happens here at The Nation everyday.
Few are fluidly conscious of this live, dynamic process occurring within as it unfolds.
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2009 @ 7:42pm
Thomas Jefferson's letter to William Short
"As you say of yourself, I TOO AM AN EPICUREAN. I consider the genuine doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. Epictetus, indeed, has given us what was good of the Stoics" Thomas Jefferson
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Thomas Jefferson
"The authors of the gospels were unlettered and ignorant men and the teachings of Jesus have come to us mutilated, misstated and unintelligible." Thomas Jefferson
It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist. Thomas Jefferson
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson
Posted by John321 at 07/05/2009 @ 7:52pm
<i>Posted by John321 at 07/05/2009 @ 7:11pm </i>
If it really means that, then it is neither desirable nor even possible. If it means that, individuals who are religious must separate themselves entirely from their religious convictions when entering the political sphere. First of all, how can they even do that? For many, religious beliefs anchor their moral philosophy and their beliefs about what society ought and ought not do. How can you ask them to completely set that aside? Second, even if they could, why should they have to? It seems to me like democracy should ultimately be about free discourse, where ideas should be able to interchange freely. Since the idea of complete "public reason," (i.e. only dialoguing around a common framework) is not actually possible, why shouldn't democracy be able to incorporate all views into its debate on society's direction and goals?
Thankfully, you conflate things that don't have to be conflated. Separation of church and state is NOT the same as separation of religion and politics; having a state fund churches is very different from someone who is religious bringing that viewpoint into the public debate and calling the government to account when it fails to treat its citizens (and others) with the dignity that they deserve as equal persons in the eyes of their creator. To say that religious individuals do or should have nothing to say about meaningful political or social issues seems bizarre at best and fundamentally anti-democratic at worst. To defend it, you have to say that religious viewpoints either have nothing to say about politics (a false and dangerous presumption) or that they should simply keep silent (which they cannot do).
Posted by Thrawn at 07/05/2009 @ 9:35pm
Thrawn's right on this fundamental factoid of these United States. Christians can coalesce and form political bodies such as the Christian Coalition or Reverend Larry's beloved Focus on the Family and thump bibles, damning our heathen nation. They adjust not supposed to get income (or owe less taxes) while doing so.
But should they own big media outlets, should profit-driven corporations own big media outlets, and thus promote their guy?
The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen Rush Limbaugh and Clear Channel, or 24-7 extreme wingnut Fox. The Dobson's and 700 Club are comparatively small potatoes.
But while we're on this topic, let's play a hit from way back in 2007:
Associated Press Friday, March 9, 2007; Page A06
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Bill Clinton over the Monica S. Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.
"The honest answer is 'Yes,' " Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson to be aired today, according to a transcript. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2009 @ 11:05pm
This is a great time for non-believers like myself. A secular America has always been the vision intended by our founders. It would appear that the Christian right is starting to lose its grip on the republican party.. Soon we'll just have to deal with the greedy wall street republicans, and not the bible thumpers!! maybe I'm dreaming
Posted by e4phil at 07/06/2009 @ 03:01am
James Madison[1751-1836] American president and political theorist. Popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. also see 'First Amendment' section of the 'Law & Government' section "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." James Madison "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" James Madison
Posted by John321 at 07/06/2009 @ 07:07am
"Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign."--James Madison
John321, the quote above is from the same document you have used to state your case. It could be interpreted to mean that atheists are not part of the body politic. Personally, I do not believe Madison wished to exclude nonbelievers but I am just trying point out the futility of picking and choosing the statements of certain individuals and projecting their views upon the Constitution which was the product of the entire convention.
By the way, your charactization of Madison's role is not accurate.
Thrawn's assertion that it is impossible to separate religion from politics is credible. I would go on to say that any attempt to do so would be a violation of the Bill of Rights and Article VI of the Constitution.
In practical terms this means religious institutions must be granted the same rights and accomedations granted to secular groups like Planned Parenthood. They can be politically active and still be treated equally under our tax system.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 07/06/2009 @ 09:01am
<i>Posted by John321 at 07/06/2009 @ 07:07am </i>
Again talking about the institutions rather than the subject-matters. If I'm not mistaken, this comes out of his Memorial and Remonstrance, where he attacks the idea of a Virginia tax to support some religious matters. What he seeks to address there is an intertwining of the church and the state, by which the government officially helps to fund the church. With that, I would largely agree with him; when the church is beholden to the state, its fundamental nature becomes corrupted and the state is more easily able to wrap itself in religious approval. However, this does not discount the "prophetic role" for religion, i.e. calling the state out when it falls short of treating people as they ought be treated. He would never say that preachers should not march in the streets and declare that slavery and segregation were sinful because they failed to treat human beings as equal creations of God.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/06/2009 @ 09:06am
Reverend Larry's beloved Focus on the Family and thump bibles, damning our heathen nation. They adjust not supposed to get income (or owe less taxes) while doing so.
But should they own big media outlets, should profit-driven corporations own big media outlets, and thus promote their guy?
The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen Rush Limbaugh and Clear Channel, or 24-7 extreme wingnut Fox. The Dobson's and 700 Club are comparatively small potatoes.
Posted by winyahn at 07/05/2009 @ 11:05pm
I have never referenced James Dobson or Focus on the Family in the 5 years I have posted here regarding any positions of mine.
Dobson is not a religious authority (despite attempts by the left to portray him as such). He is not an ordained minister. He is a Psychologist who runs a Christian based nonprofit organization.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 09:18am
Posted by John321 at 07/06/2009 @ 07:07am
Those sentiments really are not inconsistent with these quotes below from Madison nor from the position of Evangelical Protestants:
James Madison is known as the father of the U.S. Constitution. He was also the fourth President of the United States. He was the primary author of the Bill of Rights and engineered the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Madison believed Christianity to be the foundation upon which a just government must be built. Writing on June 20, 1785, he stated:
Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government.
Madison expounds further:
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
In 1788, Madison stated:
The belief in God all powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it.
In Madison's personal Bible, his hand written notes appear in the margin of Chapter 19 of the Book of Acts:
Believers who are in a state of grace, have need of the Word of God for their edification and building up therefore implies a possibility of falling. v. 32.
Grace, it is the free gift of God. Luke. 12. 32-v.32.
Giver more blessed than the receiver. v. 35.
To neglect the means for our own preservation is to tempt God: and to trust to them is to neglect Him. v. 3 & Ch. 27. v. 31.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/06/2009 @ 09:18am
Humility, the better any man is, the lower thoughts he has of himself. v. 19.
Ministers to take heed to themselves & their flock. v. 28.
The Apostles did greater miracles than Christ, in the matter, not manner, of them. v. 11.
In his manuscripts on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison wrote:
Christ's Divinity appears by St. John, chapter xx, 2: 'And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!' Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts iv, 33: 'And with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.'
On November 9, 1772, Madison wrote to his close college friend, William Bradford:
A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here we neglect to have our names enrolled in the annals of Heaven."
These may be from his early university days but Madison's later position of separation of church and state is an essential biblical doctrine and it is easy to see that in the following:
In his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance," Madison argues that the establishment of Christianity "is a contradiction to the Christian religion itself; for every page of it disavows dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them."(71)
"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet I yielded to the evidence which has convinced us."(68)
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/305/foundfathers.htm
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/06/2009 @ 09:18am
It must be terrible to believe in nothing at all, and since it is illogical and arrogant to assume something does not exist simply because we can't see it is actually not very intelligent either. However, one of the basic principles behind the Founding Father's creation is that people must decide for themselves about God, and worship,(or lack thereof) shall not be infringed upon.
In fact, that's my main problem with the secularists today: They are very fond of interpreting the "establishment of religion" part to support their concept of "separation of Church and State": Oftentimes they forget about that "or the free exercise therof" part.
Oops!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/06/2009 @ 3:04pm
I in NO way want to interfere with anyones personal religious practices, but when we leave our houses, churches, etc..etc.. then we are in the public i.e. "secular" sphere and we are then governed by the secular i.e.non-religious laws and constitution of our country. The oft repeated line of there is separation of church and state, but not of "religion" and "politics" is just a semantic presto chango of those who usually try to interject religion into politics. What is a "church"? Oh,it's just a building, it's a building for what? Religion. What is "State"? Oh,that would be our country,and what do we do "Politics" is a process by which groups of people make decisions. "Politics" ultimately comes from the Greek word "polis" meaning state or city. "Politikos" describes anything concerning the state or city affairs.
Posted by John321 at 07/06/2009 @ 7:11pm
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Proclaimed by George Washington, the first President of the United States, June 10, 1797 "Gentlemen, we are not, nor have we ever been a Christian Nation ...The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation." John Adams second President of the United States "The hocus-pocus phantasy of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs." Thomas Jefferson, third President of the USA
Posted by John321 at 07/06/2009 @ 7:33pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/06/2009 @ 09:18am
I stand corrected on this. Why no mention of him in 5 years? What do you think of him and his organization? They're very successful in terms of right wing Christian propaganda, IMO. Would you disagree?
Posted by winyahn at 07/06/2009 @ 7:36pm
<i>Posted by John321 at 07/06/2009 @ 7:11pm</i>
Okay, fine. Then I have a question for you. Martin Luther King specifically maintained, in public speeches and rallies, that segregation was an affront to the equal dignity of human beings as creations of God. Was he wrong to say this? Should have have only done so in private? Are you actually suggesting that religion either does not or should not have anything to say on questions that, as you put it, "concern the city or city affairs"? I know you're not defending coercion, but let me ask you this way: in what specific contexts do you think that religiously-driven viewpoints should be expressed?
You're also wrong about the conflation. I don't know how you don't see a difference between the state funding churches and people choosing to frame some arguments in theological terms. These simply are not the same thing, not by a mile. The government and the realm of public debate are not remotely the same thing, nor are the viewpoints of religious individuals the same thing as religious institutions that are legally constituted as organizations with "personhood." These really are distinct categories.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/07/2009 @ 12:23am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/06/2009 @ 3:04pm |
"It must be terrible to believe in nothing at all, and since it is illogical and arrogant to assume something does not exist simply because we can't see it is actually not very intelligent either."
Disbelief in your conception of G-d does not a belief in "nothing at all" make...my atheism includes a belief in physics which inspires awe and not terror.
To believe in something of which one cannot prove the existence is tantamount to insanity...and that does inspire terror, in the rational.
"However, one of the basic principles behind the Founding Father's creation is that people must decide for themselves about God, and worship,(or lack thereof) shall not be infringed upon."
Yes the Founding Fathers' document was built from many reactions to decidedly broken separations between certain Anglican churches and monarchist states.
"In fact, that's my main problem with the secularists today: They are very fond of interpreting the 'establishment of religion' part to support their concept of 'separation of Church and State': Oftentimes they forget about that 'or the free exercise thereof' part."
Fair enough.
Do let us know when we can expect your tax payments and when we'll be free to exercise a belief that smoking certain plants can bring one closer to divinity, without forfeiting our property and/or autonomy.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/07/2009 @ 01:25am
SNOWBALL, I'm not afraid of God.
And your "faith" that God does not exist, and it is a faith since you can't prove that either, has to be considered, or not, like mine, equally insane
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/07/2009 @ 08:18am
Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves.
It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?
Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-
Posted by John321 at 07/07/2009 @ 08:21am
RELIGION IN A DEMOCRACY
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.
Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.
To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving a church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
Posted by John321 at 07/07/2009 @ 08:31am
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Posted by John321 at 07/07/2009 @ 08:35am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/07/2009 @ 08:18am |
There is no burden of proof on me since I've never claimed that your G-d does or does not exist; that's on you alone.
I just wish you fools would stop killing people who don't share your pathology...or 'faith' as you call it.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/07/2009 @ 09:35am
The religious right have been falsely attributing quotes to our Founding Fathers. So much for "not bearing false witness!" This speaks to the hypocrisy of right wingers who want to change America from a democracy to a theocracy.
Here is a list of false quotes that they have been circulating in the internet/print:
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! (falsely attributed to Patrick Henry)
It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here. (falsely attributed to Patrick Henry)
The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart. (falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
The future and success of America is not in this Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded. (falsely attributed to James Madison)
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. (falsely attributed to George Washington)
It is impossible to rightly govern a country without God and the Bible. (falsely attributed to George Washington)
The Founding Fathers all spoke highly of the separation of church and State. Here is a real quote from Jeffereson:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or exercise thereof thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Posted by riomarcos at 07/07/2009 @ 10:03am
Of course I noticed when Obama included us in his speeches. Actually, I was shocked and pleased. The christians have skewed the line between church and state so much that they actually believe this country was founded as a christian nation when nothing could be further from the truth. We will progress beyond belief once we have the strength and courage to get over ourselves.
I look forward to the day that those of reason are allowed to influence the course of history as much as those of faith.
Posted by ntech at 07/07/2009 @ 10:22am
Our nation was founded by those steeped in religion because that was the prevalent understanding. So was slavery. When slavery was found to be an obsolete construct, it was tossed. Religion has been found to be an obsolete construct.
Hopefully our nation can eventually get beyond the superstition and dogma that shackle so many. Our species is the only hope for life beyond Earth's known demise in a few billion years (or sooner if we're not careful).
http://www.CelebrationOfReason.com
Posted by BrainUser at 07/07/2009 @ 10:33am
Pointing to our Constitution is often pointless as so few Americans have read it. I, for one, consider it to be the greatest, most sacred document in the history of mankind. As to those that like to say this is a christian nation. Not just our Constitution but the law says otherwise. Article IV of Our Constitution states, "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." Treaty of Tripoli Sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams(one of the leading founding fathers, a founding member of the Continental Congress and a coauthor of the Declaration of Independance), having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation. Treaty Of Tripoli, Art. 11. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen(Muslim); and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan(Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." It is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Let us be law-abiding citizens of the United States of America.
~;^}>
Posted by Pulladigm at 07/07/2009 @ 11:13am
I look forward to the day when a politician will be ridiculed and rejected at the ballot box for actually believing that a myth/fable, or superstition, is true or real. For those who actually see the value of the biblical parable, and try to live Christ-like, I am glad to have you here in the real world, but we are not, and were never intended to be a Christian nation.
The founding fathers, like most intelligent people, saw the dangers in mixing theology with political power, and wisely tried to separate the two. Religious zealots have succeded in moving US backwards since 1776 in this respect(especially the Knights of Columbus), but we, the secularists, are not defeated. We are energized with the openness of the Obama administration, and the rejection of Theocracy in Iran, and are begining to come together as a political force. We are more active, intelligent, and motivated than the religious right ever was, and we will not allow our country to be highjacked again by religious extremists from abroad or from within!
"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States." G. Washington-1793
Posted by yakiski at 07/07/2009 @ 4:39pm
<i>Posted by John321 at 07/07/2009 @ 08:21am </i>
Right at the top, I think it's worth noting that you didn't quite answer my question. MLK did not speak exclusively in the "universalist" language that you're defending. Many of his appeals, both in his church and on public marches, were theologically-based. Is that wrong?
I think this is a very fascinating issue, and it's certainly not an easy one to resolve. I fully agree with you that coercing religious exercise or banning it or anything like that is both unconstitutional and antithetical to good democracy. That, however, is a far cry from the idea that religious ideas have no place in the political realm.
The only reason you really give, and I think it's at the core of your position, is that religious ideas are bad because they allow no compromise. Why should this be? I mean, sometimes it is, but sometimes it's not, and I think there's a compelling reason (on religious grounds) why there often wouldn't be. Many religions teach that human beings fall short of the perfection of God, not only in their behavior but also in their perception. Theologians like Reinhold Neibuhr have argued that this gives us strong reason to embrace humility (and I think it's also one reason, among many, why inerrancy fails spectacularly). Moreover, even to the extent that we know what principles to apply, there's a lot of reasonable debate on how to apply perfect ideals in an imperfect world. That, after all, is the definition of compromise: adapting principles to a world that often requires a choice between the lesser of two evils. The fact that religion is ultimately anchored in absolute principles doesn't mean you don't ever compromise, especially since different principles often end up coming into conflict.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/07/2009 @ 5:25pm
I think there's two other problems with the "public reason" position you're defending, though:
1) I'm not convinced it's possible. One problem with asking people to translate their arguments into a universal language is that no such language exists. Any value system from which people will argue ultimately rests on foundational assumptions. Some people's foundational assumptions are mutually exclusive with those of other people. Unless your alternative is to utilize the least common denominator, I'm not sure how this universalist position works.
2) It doesn't seem desirable even if it's possible. First of all, the problem originates from dogmatism and refusal to compromise, not from religion itself. That means that you only have grounds to say that certain forms of public religious discourse are bad, not all forms. Second, why shouldn't framework assumptions be allowed to the surface? I don't mean that in the coercive sense, I mean: what's so bad about having a full discussion rather than just scratching at the surface? If some religious premises are involved, then why not bring them in? Third, I think you actually create a perverse incentive. Advocacy groups whose real reasons are religious now have an incentive to cloak their reasons in "secular rhetoric." Because their rhetoric is a cloak, it's much harder to actually dialogue about. If you force them to lay bare their assumptions, it's a lot easier to call them into question.
If democratic discourse is ultimately a discussion about what we envision a good society to be, why shouldn't we welcome multiple different contributions to that? Why should a democratic society actively work to avoid talking about what really underlies the positions we take?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/07/2009 @ 5:31pm
The article on the resurgence of secularism asserts that "there are now more nontheists in America than Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Mormons and Jews combined." Yet lots of nontheists, me included, belong to religious organizations. Mine doesn't happen to require belief in a god as a condition of membership, but I wonder how many folks in creed-based denominations are like the woman I heard someone tell of the other day, who said she just shut her ears to all that doctrinal stuff because she liked the people in her church. Or, as Alexander Pope put it in his Essay on Criticism: "As some to church repair/Not for the doctrine, but for the music there."
Posted by ABQtuba at 07/07/2009 @ 5:33pm
Reading this sort of nonsense from the "secularists" reminds me to be thankful I live in a tolerant society that thinks of each fellow citizen as an Australian rather than a believer or an atheist. What a weird society you have. Can't help thinking that your founding Fathers have got a lot to answer for if this is the sort of anti-intellectual discourse their progeny engage in.
The fact that America is far and away, numerically, the most Christian nation on earth indicates that the Founding Fathers of the Jefferson variety stuffed up pretty badly in trying to make a secular nation. Alternatively the secularists here are not in tune with the Founding Fathers intentions. Either way your founding documents have either produced, in terms of numbers, a nation of Christians or have not prevented that happening.
My guess is that their intention was not what present day doctrinaire non-theistic secularists imagine it was, as religion has been the big winner, ever since the Founding Fathers, so we are told, did their best to prevent that happening, in the USA.
For those who think that Muslims are some sort of secularists, different from Christians and Jews, their religion is founded on the the same Abrahamic theistic foundations and Jesus is one of their more important prophets. Of which intelligence your Founding Fathers were no doubt aware. Sort of on the same side against the non-theists.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/07/2009 @ 7:41pm
Let me start with a question: Can you name a moral action taken, or a moral statement made, by a believer that could not have been made by an atheist? I don't think so. I'll take your case at its strongest--that would be Dr. King. Fortunately for us, he wasn't really a Christian, because if he had followed the preachments in Exodus about the long march to freedom, he would have invoked the right that the Bible gives to take the land of others, to enslave other tribes, to kill their members, to rape their women, and to destroy them down to their uttermost child. Fortunately for us, he didn't take that route.
The people who actually organized the March on Washington, Bayard Rustin and A. Phillip Randolph, were both secularists and socialists. The whole case for the emancipation of black America had already been made perfectly well by secularists. I don't particularly object to the tactic of quoting the Bible against the white Christian institutions that maintained at first slavery and then segregation. But there's no authority in the Bible for civil rights--none whatever. There is authority for slavery and segregation!!!
The widespread view among white liberals that black people in some way prefer to be led by preachers is a condescending one. It leaves out heroes of the movement like Rustin and Randolph, and has licensed the assumption that people like Jesse Jackson and, much worse, a complete charlatan and thug like Al Sharpton, are somehow OK because they've got the word "Reverend" in front of their names. That's done enormous damage, not just to black people, but to the country in general. It's the Falwell equivalent.
Posted by John321 at 07/07/2009 @ 8:07pm
<i>Posted by John321 at 07/07/2009 @ 8:07pm </i>
There's a fair amount that I agree with you on here. I don't think that being a Reverend should make you immune to criticism, nor that "black people prefer to be led by preachers." What I would say, though, is that religious individuals driven by their convictions have often been extremely important to movements for social change. As have those with no religious belief.
However, your argument regarding slavery and segregation is a false strawman. First off, the only way you could possibly pin someone to that position is if they affirmed inerrancy, and even then it's doubtful. The theological arguments for slavery and segregation were (and obviously are) insanely weak and rather desperate. You COULD make an argument that Paul would defend maintaining a status quo...but that would also speak against anyone who was single and chose to get married, so even that argument would hold very little water. Also...no authority in the Bible for civil rights? Really? What about the notion of all human beings being created in the image of God? How about Jesus' refusal to treat people differently based on their sex, race or nationality? How about his insistence on breaking down barriers (ex: Good Samaritan)?
Also, though I agree that clearly atheists can take moral stances just as religious people can, I don't know why that's a reason for religious people to keep the real premises of their arguments under wraps. Everyone starts from some foundational premises, and when you encourage people to cloak their arguments in universalist rhetoric, you make it more difficult to call the basic premises on which their arguments rely into question. Why not have a full and open public square?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/07/2009 @ 8:49pm
Wow! I think we have come to agreement! That's one more wonderful thing about our country we do have freedom of speech,of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble! Why not have a full and open public square? We do,we're doing it right now, but when we get to politics, then the separation of church/religion and state/politics comes in. Then we need universals and common reasons. Example, I take it we're both not Hindu. Nothing against them. But if a law maker stood up and said my faith "just says so" we should make eating cows illigel( NOT good enough). Or Muslim or Jewish people don't eat pork. If a law maker stood up and said "my scripture says" everyone gets stoned for touching a pig. I could go on and on with examples. I'd say that Dr. King, Ghandi, even Niebuhr really did use "universals"(not in Niebuhrs theological writings but more so on war and philosophy), or their messages wouldn't have resonated with people of other faiths or no faith. If Ghandi had just tried to preach Hindu orthodoxy to the British,the Muslims,etc... we wouldn't be talking about him.
Posted by John321 at 07/08/2009 @ 07:10am
And I agree with you the basic fact is on this point of morality is that we decide what is good in our good books. I mean, we come to the Bible and we see that it says in Leviticus, "If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, you are supposed to stone her to death on her father's doorstep." We choose to reject this pearl of ancient wisdom, and then we choose to emphasize something like the golden rule, so that the guarantor of our morality is in our brains, not in our books. The door leading out of religious literalism doesn't open from the inside. I mean religions have been moderated because of the pressure of modernity. I mean, secular politics and a conception of human rights and our growing scientific understanding of the universe has applied pressure, muchmore so in the case of Judaism and Christianity than it has in Islam, because Islam has been isolated from the enlightenment and even the renaissance in some significant sense. And so this comes from outside, so this is not to be credited to faith. This is the legacy of faith continually losing the argument to science and secular politics and commonsense. This is why we're not stoning people to death for adultery. We're having a perfectly congenial conversation, and we could collaborate on a common project to help people. There is no barrier to that. But this is to be ascribed to basic human decency. And a larger purview of ethics and intuitions about how we want to collaborate with one another.
Posted by John321 at 07/08/2009 @ 07:25am
I've traded in my moral compass for a Nicomachean GPS.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 10:31am
I feel the same way about this "burden of proof" thing SNOWBALL. The atheistic world argues admirably untill someone asks them to justify or prove their faith in God's nonexistance as they ask us to do. We can't, and we say that-after all that's what "faith" is. But the atheists answer is "well we don't have to" "you don't prove a negative" I think I heard on here once. How convenient. I've said on here many times that I'm not an evangelist. If you believe, good for you, if not, well good luck to you. Tell you one thing, though. As much death that has been caused in Jesus's name (not that He would have) if you think this would be some peaceful idyllic, cum-ba-yah world if run by non-believers, your kidding yourself. Religion many times has only been the excuse for conflict. Without it, men would have found something else, to be sure.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/08/2009 @ 11:17am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/08/2009 @ 11:17am |
The big difference for me is proselytization.
Atheists, for the most part, don't spend their time trying to convince believers that they should stop believing; when my Christian friends come over for dinner, I invite them to say grace, because I know it is important to them and I place a high value on tolerance.
I've spent most of my life being told that I'm not a moral person because I don't have belief in what I can't experience with my own CNS and mind, despite the fact that my behavior is more morally correct, by Christian standards, than most every "good Christian" I've met or seen on Sunday morning TV.
The danger in faith, for me, is the things that people do without considering whether the source is G-d or just his wily middlemen on earth. I agree that religion is often (mis)used as a motivational tool for decidedly unspiritual purposes.
I have no illusions that a world run by atheists would necessarily be any less ugly than Stalin's Soviet; a true connection to the spiritual should help one see that killing another is a futile endeavor in the long run, if not sooner.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 12:38pm
I was trying to stay away from this, I prefer the term "ignostic". An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '. A coherent definition of "God" must be presented before the question of the existence of "God" can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of "God" (per that definition) is meaningless. Someone can not speak of "God's existence", or even the probability of "God's existence", since the concept itself is unverifiable and thus nonsensical. This rules out atheism and agnosticism as well as theism because all three positions assume that the sentence "God exists" is meaningful. In other words, when someone says "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God", I have NO idea what either of you are even talking about!!!!! It's just a words.
Posted by John321 at 07/08/2009 @ 12:44pm
SNOWBALL, It actually bugs me a little, even though I don't know you, that others judge you as immoral because of how you feel about all this. There are so many out there who, in their attempts to "bring one to the correct side" become as bad as their perceived enemy. As a student of medieval history I've heard enough stories in that vein. If there is one thing I've learned from Christianity, its that each must decide for themselves, and frankly, what God's going to say in the end to each person, anyone whose honest doesn't REALLY know. There are too many today, though, who think they do.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/08/2009 @ 1:00pm
Posted by John321 at 07/08/2009 @ 12:44pm | Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/08/2009 @ 1:00pm |
Maybe if I could find a Valentinian Gnostic church, I'd feel differently...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_h9eQ15CIs
May you be as blessed as you'd like.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/08/2009 @ 1:14pm
Sam Harris http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6734321991450996691&ei=uURVSsTt BY-OqQL2ytnHAw&q=sam+harris+aspen
Posted by John321 at 07/08/2009 @ 8:27pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6734321991450996691&ei=uURVSsTt BY-OqQL2ytnHAw&q=sam+harris+aspen
Posted by John321 at 07/08/2009 @ 8:28pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNMUz1iediU&feature=PlayList&p=C6DBC47B06 5FA901&index=0&playnext=1
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 08:05am
Moreover, since when does an American president bow from the waist to any king let a lone to the Muslim king of a theocratic dictatorship?
he should have held hands with him, like the previous occupant of his office.
I am a hopeless case. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/04/2009 @ 9:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by emile duBois at 07/09/2009 @ 08:35am
what's a lone?
Posted by emile duBois at 07/09/2009 @ 09:00am
what's a lone? Posted by emile duBois at 07/09/2009 @ 09:00am |
"Alone is an unfortunate predicament...lone is an aesthetic choice!" - Batmanuel, from "The Tick"
Posted by snowball777 at 07/09/2009 @ 09:52am
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 08:05am |
Good stuff there...especially the new commandment about not deep-frying ALL your food.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/09/2009 @ 09:56am
Chip, regarding the burden of proof being on theists and "you can't prove a negative," its very simply explained and its "convenience" as you say works both ways. While we would both agree that there isn't a miniature invisible tyranasaurus-rex that follows me around all day, noone can prove that there isn't. I could elaborate on that principle all day but it works the same way with god-views, just as christians, muslims and hindus cannot disprove any of each others gods. You can't prove something doesn't exist, you can however prove something DOES based on testable evidence. I said it works both ways because while you say its "convenient" atheists can withdraw from the question, the inability to prove non-existence of anything conveniently allows theism to continue. In fact I am sure it will be the last crutch of religion to stand on if it ever disappears. As for a world without religion being some sort of utopia, I don't think anyone claims that, or at least I am not aware of anyone. A world without religion would certainly be a great deal more peaceful though. Science and education would flourish much moreso, likely leading to a much greater rate of medical treatments and advancement in technologies of all kinds. Hundreds of billions of dollars wouldn't get flushed down the tax-free-church-toilet every year. Everyone could work for the future, instead of trying to defend the ancient past. There will be bad people with or without religion, as there would still be wars, but at least those people and wars wouldn't be in the name of or masked by religious motivation.Thereby reducing their frequency by quite a noticable amount.
Posted by Xallus at 07/09/2009 @ 10:41am
Posted by Xallus at 07/09/2009 @ 10:41am | ignore this person | warn this person
there haven't been any religious wars in some time.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/09/2009 @ 12:56pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8977707456613231598&ei=UVRWSqC6M ZGYrQKXqqmABQ&q=sam+harris+beyond+enlightenment
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 3:34pm
Before I try to prove or disprove anything I'd like to know what it is we're talking about?? Someone says you can't prove or disprove "God" or "gods", but what IS that????
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 3:40pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFISW7M8uv0&videos=yO5aFUBB6RI&playnext_f rom=TL&playnext=1
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 3:41pm
"Surely in a secular state the promotion of anti religious views are just as inconsistent with secularism as the promotion of pro religious views are?" -lrjones
Secular government, as in NEUTRAL, as in NO COMMENT... Not ANTI-RELIGIOUS, that would be an ATHEISTIC government (e.g. printing money that says, "In No God We Trust"). In order for society to be free, the government cannot take a side. Pragmatically, there is no "theistic pluralism" in legislation. Try it some time. Secularism is the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR for human beings. Get it?
"My guess is that their intention was not what present day doctrinaire non-theistic secularists imagine it was, as religion has been the big winner, ever since the Founding Fathers, so we are told, did their best to prevent that happening, in the USA." lrjones
First, America was the last great national experiment. No one could know how things would turn out. More importantly, the separation of C&S was meant to foster the principle of FREEDOM OF CHOICE, not to establish civic religiosity/secularity per se, so to say that Jefferson, et. al failed to make America as such is disingenuous, as that was not their aim. It was to make them FREE. Religious or not (as he and Madison were IN THEIR YOUTH), they chose FREEDOM as the gold standard. Whether or not Madison (and other Founders), early on at least, privately believed that "Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government," in legislative effect, "the Government of the United States of America [was/is] not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," as it says in Art. 11 of the Treaty of Tripoly. Either way, they could have secretly hoped for either a more secular or a more religious society at different times in their lives, as we know their views changed.
Posted by gatogreensleeves at 07/09/2009 @ 5:17pm
BTW how many ["atheistic" charities] are there in the US?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQbI8YmqyE
Posted by gatogreensleeves at 07/09/2009 @ 5:25pm
"Incidentally for those who wonder if Christianity was a deep influence on some of the founders, Madison embraces, in his thinking, the most fundamental tenet of Christianity. It is the basis for soteriology and lot more specific than talking about God or the Almighty, which may mean anything one pleases"- lrjones4
It was in our genes long before that, what the evolutionary psychologists call, "coalition bonding": Tribal collusion in order to advance shared agendas. It will always exist and does not mean America was based upon religion or Christianity any more than it would be based upon religion or Christianity because legislation and religion have language in common.
Posted by gatogreensleeves at 07/09/2009 @ 5:34pm
there are many secular charities. such as Goodwill.
the opposite of religion is secularism, not atheism.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/09/2009 @ 5:36pm
Actually the biggest charities in the world are NOT religious charitiesi.e.Secular Charities and Aid groups: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, DonorsChoose.org Kiva.org The Union of Concerned Scientists American Red Cross The American Red Cross, a humanitarian organization led by volunteers, guided by its Congressional Charter American Civil Liberties Union United Nations Children's Fund Doctors without Borders Amnesty International Oxfam International The Nature Conservancy Population Connection DefCon: Campaign to Defend the Constitution The SEED foundation Project Peanut Butter Electronic Frontiers Foundation Mercy corp International Peace Institute Seva Anti-Discrimination Southern Poverty Law Center The Alternatives to Marriage Project Planned Parenthood Federation of America EngenderHealth Ipas National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy Treatment Action Campaign Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers Lambda Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Human Rights Campaign Scouting For All Americans United for Separation of Church and State American Civil Liberties Union People for the American Way Freedom from Religion Foundation Secular Coalition for America Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science I'm tired,but I could go on and on.
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 6:20pm
Yes, I agree the opposite of religion is secularism, not atheism. Ther are non-theistic religions!!!! Actually, many thinking religious people of different religions want the separation of church/religion and state/politics. Our coutries laws and constitution are really from Anglo-Saxon common law (i.e.Germanic pagan law) and Greco-Roman (pagan) ideas of Senate and House,Republic,federalism,democracy,voting with ballets, etc...etc... Where in the Bible is there equal rights? Where is there the right to vote? Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? Freedom of press (artistic expression-art/pictures is forbidden by the ten commandments!!!!) Where is slavery and segregation outlawed?(old and new testament support slavery) Where are property rights? Where are family values even? Trial by jury of your peers? Womens rights? Where are animal rights? Where are genocide and infanticide outlawed?Where is human sacrifice outlawed?Christianity is based on human sacrifice and eating his body and drinking his blood!!!
WHERE ARE HUMAN RIGHTS ??????????????????
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 6:44pm
Where is human sacrifice outlawed?Christianity is based on human sacrifice and eating his body and drinking his blood!!! WHERE ARE HUMAN RIGHTS ?????????????????? Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 6:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
the story of Abraham and Isaac is the bible's version of the outlawing of human sacrifice.
Jesus' preaching can be understood as favoring human rights.
good posts, man
Posted by emile duBois at 07/09/2009 @ 6:51pm
Our coutry's laws and constitution are really from Anglo-Saxon common law (i.e.Germanic pagan law) and Greco-Roman (pagan) ideas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 6:54pm
"Incidentally for those who wonder if Christianity was a deep influence on some of the founders, Madison embraces, in his thinking, the most fundamental tenet of Christianity. It is the basis for soteriology and lot more specific than talking about God or the Almighty, which may mean anything one pleases"-
It was in our genes long before that, what the evolutionary psychologists call, "coalition bonding": Tribal collusion in order to advance shared agendas. It will always exist and does not mean America was based upon religion or Christianity any more than it would be based upon religion or Christianity because legislation and religion have language in common.
Posted by gatogreensleeves at 07/09/2009 @ 5:34pm
One needs to be a bit familiar with a broad range of Christian doctrines to distinguish between what is nature and what is nurture. I had not read Madison before but as soon as I noticed him speak about the "innate"depravity of humans and how that impacts on society a red light saying Calvinist flashed. So on investigation I discovered that he was a Presbyterian (hence the Calvinistic view of human nature) and further that he had been a man of biblical piety. Jefferson seems on the other hand to owe his anti-religious sentiments purely to nature. viz the unnurtured atheism that comes naturally to all of us.
I think I agree with all that you say in your other post viz that there was neither the intention of making America in a religious or an anti-religious mould, whatever their personal convictions about either proposition were. And was pointing out the difficulty in holding that that is what the Founders wanted by showing how far short they had fallen of that goal if that was in fact their intention as some here are claiming.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/09/2009 @ 7:07pm
There's no condemnation. The Abraham story is about his willingnes to do human sacrifices!! What about Jesus? That's a human sacrifice and everyone eats his body and drinks his blood?? Christianity is based on HUMAN SACRIFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!And ritualized cannibalism !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Despite what Christians say on the subject, the New Testament isn't so good as to make The Bible a reliable basis of morality. In fact, much of the book is an embarrassment to anyone who would say it's a moral book, much or less a perfectly moral book. And nowhere is this clearer than on the question on slavery. And the truth is The Bible in its totality, Old Testament, New Testament, support slavery. If we recognize anything, if we converge on any point in ethical terms now it is that slavery is evil. Nowhere in the Bible is this evil recognized much less repudiated.
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 7:09pm
Our coutry's laws and constitution are really from Anglo-Saxon common law (i.e.Germanic pagan law) and Greco-Roman (pagan) ideas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 6:54pm
Sounds like a pretty dodgy proposition but if you change Anglo-Saxon to English or British (common law) you are getting closer to that which is today practiced in the former colonies. Here are some of them from wiki:
Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England and in those nations which trace their legal heritage to England, as former colonies of the British Empire including the United States, Singapore, Pakistan, India,[2] Ghana, Cameroon, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong.[3].
It is easy to observe that countries like India and Pakistan are neither majority Christian nor for that matter Pagan ( paganism is also religion) thus there seems to be little relevance in your comment about pagan derivations. It is about as relevant as saying common law is Christian in origin as was generally held in the US until about 1927.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/09/2009 @ 7:50pm
I agree our country, our government is Secular , which is neutral. That means separation of church/religion and state/government. So, everyone is free to be Muslim,Christian,Buddhist,Hindu,Jewish,Wiccan,Sikh,Jain,Shinto,tribal religions,Raelian,Flying Speghetti monster, or no religion: Humanist,Atheist,Skeptic,Bright,Freethinker,Naturalist,non of the above, or WHATEVER you want to be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a free country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 7:53pm
from dictionary
pa⋅gan:
A person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 7:59pm
You are correct there are various pagan religions. My point was merely non-biblical. Our coutry's laws and constitution are really from Anglo-Saxon common law (i.e.British from Norman French with Anglo tribes) and Greco-Roman ideas. That's where we get Senate and House,Republic,federalism,democracy,council,voting with ballets, trial by jury,tort,etc... The Roman Constitution or mos maiorum (Latin for "custom of the ancestors")Modern legislative bodies, such as the United States Senate and the United Kingdom's House of Lords, are modeled after the Roman senate. Under the Constitution of the Roman Republic, the "executive branch" was composed of both ordinary as well as extraordinary magistrates. The Roman constitution was one of the few constitutions to exist before the 18th century. None of the others are as well known to us today. And none of the others governed such a vast empire for so long. Therefore, the Roman constitution was used as a template, often the only one, when the first constitutions of the modern era were being drafted. And because of this, many modern constitutions share a similar, even identical, superstructure (such as a separation of powers and checks and balances) as did the Roman constitution.
Posted by John321 at 07/09/2009 @ 8:15pm