Techskeptic sent me a link to a great rant from an atheist explaining why she, as an atheist, is angry. She made some great and valid points. Several of the things that make her angry make me angry, as well. However, there are a few things that I disagree with. Let me start by posting what I agree with (these are pulled straight from her post).
I’m angry that the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, said of atheists, in my lifetime, “No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.” My President. No, I didn’t vote for him, but he was still my President, and he still said that my lack of religious belief meant that I shouldn’t be regarded as a citizen.
I’m angry that women are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because the Catholic Church has convinced them that using condoms makes baby Jesus cry.
I’m angry at preachers who tell women in their flock to submit to their husbands because it’s the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them within an inch of their lives.
I’m angry that so many believers treat prayer as a sort of cosmic shopping list for God. I’m angry that believers pray to win sporting events, poker hands, beauty pageants, and more. As if they were the center of the universe, as if God gives a shit about who wins the NCAA Final Four — and as if the other teams/ players/ contestants weren’t praying just as hard.
I’m especially angry that so many believers treat prayer as a cosmic shopping list when it comes to health and illness. I’m angry that this belief leads to the revolting conclusion that God deliberately makes people sick so they’ll pray to him to get better. And I’m angry that they foist this belief on sick and dying children — in essence teaching them that, if they don’t get better, it’s their fault. That they didn’t pray hard enough, or they didn’t pray right, or God just doesn’t love them enough.
I’m angry that children get taught by religion to hate and fear their bodies and their sexuality. And I’m especially angry that female children get taught by religion to hate and fear their femaleness, and that queer children get taught by religion to hate and fear their queerness.
I’m angry about the Muslim girl in the public school who was told — by her public-school, taxpayer-paid teacher — that the red stripes on Christmas candy canes represented Christ’s blood, that she had to believe in and be saved by Jesus Christ or she’d be condemned to hell, and that if she didn’t, there was no place for her in his classroom. And I’m angry that he told her not to come back to his class when she didn’t convert.
I’m angry — enraged — at the priests who molest children and tell them it’s God’s will. I’m enraged at the Catholic Church that consciously, deliberately, repeatedly, for years, acted to protect priests who molested children, and consciously and deliberately acted to keep it a secret, placing the Church’s reputation as a higher priority than, for fuck’s sake, children not being molested. And I’m enraged that the Church is now trying to argue, in court, that protecting child-molesting priests from prosecution, and shuffling those priests from diocese to diocese so they can molest kids in a whole new community that doesn’t yet suspect them, is a Constitutionally protected form of free religious expression.
There’s more. There’s a lot more that Greta is angry about. But those are the ones I agree with her on and am also angered by.
The post, as a whole, was hard to read. It was definitely driven by anger, but she really had no other way to get her point across.
Other things she is angry at include people trying to make abortion illegal, Americans who believe in creationism, pastors who counsel from the Bible, and Christians who try to speak up and let the world know that Christianity isn’t really what people think it is.
There’s a flip side to a lot of what Greta said - there are some things she’s angry that Christians do when Atheists do the same damn thing. But it’s okay for the atheists to be that way. They’re right. Christians are stupid and wrong.
I’m writing this from a middle perspective. It’s articles like these that feed my doubts, so I’m not writing this from a Christian perspective. I’m not sure there’s any Christian perspective left in me. But I do understand the Christian perspective and can still see where Atheism gets it wrong when talking about Christianity. But then - that was something else that made Greta angry. So I can’t win.
It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry. If they’re fundamentalist, she’s angry. If they aren’t, and try to make people see the difference, she’s still angry.
What does she want?
It was argued on her page that they (atheists) don’t want the eradication of religion (primarily Christianity), but what other alternative is there? Seriously, I want to know. If the fundies are stupid, and the ones who aren’t fundies are stupid, then what’s left?
Share This
Wow! she really makes some excellent points. My kind of atheist. It’s funny how she addressed quite a few of your posts and the resultant comment threads here.
for me too, there were a few things that didnt ring completely right with me (my list of “right things she said” is far longer than yours though!)
Yeah she is angry the people still beleive in creationism (as am I) but worse, they try to foist this belief into the schools as science. For me, and I strongly suspect for her, its not that people beleive in creationism, its that so many beleive in creationism and consider it to be a scientific theory equal to evolutionary theory. Its not really their fault that much, clergy and politicians like equivocate the layman word “theory” which means hypothesis or “hunch” to that of the scientific word “theory” which is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena supported by experimental evidence and has predictive value. They are entirely different.
The key with clergy trying to counsel is not anger at their right to do that, it was anger at their doing in lieu of medical or psychological counseling (please note I didnt say psychiatric) which uses scientific methods to categorize and treat disorders such as depression, anxiety, and so forth.
On abortion, i guess we will never agree. I see it as distinctly lesser evil (and would be even lesser if we would condone the use of Plan B and ru486, which BTW are not like “taking an aspirin”) than forcing women into having 1.3 million unwanted kids in the adoption roles and/or in families that didnt want them. Not excited about the rise in single motherhood (actually i have no idea how they do it). Which is why both sides must find common ground. No pro-choice person thinks abortion is the greatest thing since the dawn of time. Everyone agrees (mostly, there are always fringe elements), that no abortion is best. Common ground must be on the causes of abortion (unwanted pregnancy) and how to lower that (like removing useless programs like AO and focusing on ones that actually help), otherwise progress will never be made. Banning abortion is like banning religion or alcohol. we already know it wont stop abortion, religion or the consumption of alcohol, why would we do things we already know wont work? So the pro-lifers have to ask themselves: do they want abortion to stop, or do they just want it swept under the rug? Information is the key. show people actual models of what their fetus looks like. Provide ultrasounds in low income neighborhoods. Strengthen teen awareness programs and explain to them all the ramification’s of having unprotected sex (with as many gross pictures as possible). Side effects will be lowering the spread of STD and AIDs too. Why would banning abortion stop the spread of STDs?
I’m not sure about the “can’t win part”. There are things christians do in the name of christianity and there are things the people do in the name of humanity. The problem is the doing it in the name of one religion or another. That immediately puts up a wall and makes communication impossible. Finding common ground in the name of humanity is the way to progress. Then Christian can be Christians, jews can be jews and atheists can be atheists. If we continue doing things in the name of one religion or another or no religion at all, we have no hope of progressing.
It was argued on her page that they (atheists) don’t want the eradication of religion (primarily Christianity), but what other alternative is there? Seriously, I want to know.
athiesm. deism. spirituality. for starters. I mentioned to you, that an incredible point was made in the comments, one that I had not realized:
religious folks are afraid that if atheists have their way, their religion, their zone of comfort and security, will be taken away from them.
Atheists are not an organized religion. We do not have a huge lobby somewhere (although it appears that some coalescence is happening) trying to prevent you from believing what you want (in fact this goes against our morals which include not oppressing free will).
Atheists, in general (again there are some loonies out there) do not want to ban religion. First off, china and russia tried that, and many times in history humans tried to ban one religion in favor of another and clearly it doesnt work. Second, what good would it do? What we want is for humanity to act and react based on evidence, real, measurable, physical evidence and not based one one groups random interpretation of one of many book of myths. Is the bible any more ‘real’ or “right” than the Koran, or hindu scripture? Critical thinking and debate without religious zealotry. No “because god said so” arguments.
The key is to agree that we want humanity to live with each other. This can only be done if we organize our societies separate from organized religion, while still embracing it, acknowledging its benefits and failures, since it comes in so many forms.
OK enough rant… sorry.
p.s. I have to say, I find this blog theme to be less warm and friendly than your old one. Its more ‘cool’. I’m getting old, the font is too small for me.
It was argued on her page that they (atheists) don’t want the eradication of religion (primarily Christianity), but what other alternative is there?
I think “eradication” is kind of a bad choice of word here. I am not aware of any skeptical atheists who would try to force others to believe as they do by force. I’m aware of very few who would try to give atheism favoured status with governments - most atheists just wish govts would stay out of the whole debate.
In general, we don’t want religion to be eradicated or suppressed; we want it to be abandoned. We would like people to leave it of their own free will, because they recognise the weaknesses inherent in it and see atheism as a superior alternative.
That said, personally I think it’s healthy to have a broad variety of philosophical stances floating around (if only so I have someone to argue with :)), so I wouldn’t want religion to be completely abandoned. I do wish that it wasn’t a dominating force in quite so many countries, though.
You mentioned that Greta seemed to be complaining about moderate Christians speaking up. I don’t think that was the intent. The core message of that section is in the last sentence:
When you’re an atheist, it becomes painfully obvious that there are vast reams of theology which exist only to provide a hiding place for Christians who have seen their more concrete arguments fall apart. A classic example of the same principle is omphalos creationism, the only use of which is as a fall-back position for YECs when they’re losing a debate.
It’s not moderate Christianity that bothers us*; it’s moderate Christianity that’s basically used as a rhetorical gambit. For more info, I recommend this article on Mormon apologetics - a classic case where the sophisticated positions exists only to create a smokescreen for the unsophisticated positions.
By contrast, I really enjoy reading this blog, because the author spends just as much time disagreeing with his fellow Christians as he does disagreeing with us atheists. And he always gives a straight answer, even if it’s “I’m not sure”. And his message doesn’t miraculously shift depending on the audience.
Even though I don’t agree with him, it’s pretty damn obvious that his moderacy is more than a Rowling-esque cloak of invisibility. When you were writing primarily from a Christian perspective, I felt the same way about Imago Dei.
Sorry to be wordy, very sleepy.
* Well… not much, anyway
It was argued on her page that they (atheists) don’t want the eradication of religion (primarily Christianity), but what other alternative is there? Seriously, I want to know.
athiesm. deism. spirituality. for starters.
I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn’t asking what alternatives there are to Christianity. I was asking what it is that atheists want if it isn’t to eradicate religion. Because from what I’ve read and experienced in conversation, that’s exactly what atheists want. And I don’t see an atheistic alternative to eradicating religion. That’s the alternative I was asking for.
Which is why it’s fair for Christians to think that if atheists get their way, then Christianity will be taken away.
oh.. sorry.
I think i misunderstood your question, but then answered it properly.
We want to humanity to acknowledge that we have one planet to live on and that we should all be able to live on it together. We want society to base its actions and reactions on data.
I dont see why you can’t have your religion while I totally disagree with any of its reality, as long as we are both demanding that our society is moving forward based on evidence and reason.
for example, its OK for a religious fanatic to suggest the we try an abstinence only program, because he thinks that what god wants. Lets try it (we did), see what happens (not good), and then expand it or throw it away based on the results. This is the opposite of what we do now, as we continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this silliness (my state just rejected federal funds for this, whew!).
Same goes for foreign policy, gay marriage, abortion or any issue you can think of. we have about 5 billion more years before the sun blows up, that’s plenty of time to refine a society. We already have the data for tons of this. But we can’t do that unless we start focusing on humanity, and talking with (not at) each other with humanity as the focus rather than one god or another.
I dont see why you can’t still beleive whatever you want to beleive within this framework. Granted, in time, religion may fade away as old mythology, but the key would be not to have it simply replaced by modern mythology (as in The Secret, any drivel that comes out of deepak chopras mouth, or anything that isn’t physics with the word ‘quantum’ in it). This can only happen if we teach and hold true to basing our understanding of the universe on evidence.
Tech is right- it’s about COEXISTING together. Religious folk should NOT pass laws based on their folklore book. If we use reason, data, and critical thinking, there’s no reason why we all can’t get along. Atheists get pissed when laws are passed based on the RELIGIOUS beliefs of others.
Think about it Amanda- you happen to be a christian, so you aren’t going to get pissed if laws are passed based on your religion. But what if we lived in some strange time where laws in the US were passed based on Islam or Scientology?? You’d be less than pleased and would fight for your right to believe what you want.
Atheists are fighting for the right to NOT believe in a higher power. If we all try to live without passing laws based on religious thought, we’d be much better off in the long run.
I thought this was a good summary of how sometimes religion can do more harm than good.
Re Musicguy’s comments about Christian laws being enforced, I think from reading some conservative Christian US blogs that they feel that liberal i.e. ungodly laws are being forced on them and their families.
and they should be UNGODLY. they can have god in church and in their homes
Buffy,
I agree that this is what they think. For example, allowing two people who love each other to start the same sort of family as any other two people, with the same sense of security and the same economic benefits doesn’t sound scary, does it? but when you say that those two people can be of the same sex, then this is a case where the religious feel that liberal laws are being shoved down their throat.
However these are the same people who also thought that blacks and whites marrying were an abomination. Even Jerry Falwell recovered from that particular bit of vitriol.
The debate, must always be about humans and humanity simply because there are so many religions and the ‘real’ god has not shown herself, nor has she actually said clearly what she wants. As a christian YOU dont have to marry another woman (I presumed you are a christian woman, forgive me i that is totally wrong, its just an example). You dont even have to like it when two women get married. I don’t like rednecks spitting tobacco on the street, that doesnt make it illegal, nor should it. I can think of no way that someone else chewing tobacco affects me or anyone else, unless I accidently drink his spit cup (it happened…yuk!). Likewise, I have yet to hear how two gay people getting married destroys anything about getting married or affects a hetero married couple that don’t even know them. This is the difference between legislating based on what we should do as humans and legislating based on random interpretations of one old book of legends or another.
It doesnt have to be called marriage, call it Gay Zamblooey for all I care (although I can imagine a reason why it should be called marriage, to avoid the whole separate but equal nonsense).
Free speech is another thing that theists feel like they get rammed down their throat. Not when they use it of course, but instead, in peoples rights to have t-shirt with offensive things on it, create and distribute pornography, and so forth. But censorship based on folklore is yet another form of reducing free will. That isnt to say there shouldn’t be some moderated censorship, there should, because children dont have the same capacity or experience to filter what they see, and parents need the help.
Anyway, theists have every right to try to prevent liberalization from happening, if they like. However, it will always be a losing battle if the reasoning lies in an interpretation of one book or another, either in the form of non-progression (like the abortion issue) or increased resentment because of underhanded ways of getting what they want (closed door meetings leading to a ridiculous amount of money being spent of AO and other faith based programs).
The sooner we acknowledge that every religion is in the minority the better. Then lets separate things that one group does for religious reasons away from what everyone should do as humans.
This will do two things: First we will be able to advance better as a society because we will be doing things based on evidence and reason. Secondly people will join one religion or another due to spiritual reasons rather than reasons like power, politics, coercion, and so forth. Wouldn’t that be a more ‘pure’ scenario?
btw, my verbage is not quite right…
when I say ‘theists’ or ‘the religious’, i mean SOME theists and SOME religious people. Please forgive me.
And here is where we disagree, tech. Because I believe that He did, and He has.
I really hope that the “real” god is a big black woman. She’s going to be none too happy about that whole submissive thing. hehehehe
Kidding aside, the issue here is not whether or not the real god has shown him/her/it self, but rather how we can exist where everyone’s beliefs are not infringed upon. When it comes to issues of the state, this should be a no brainer- one religion should not take precendence over any other. Hence, the idea of a secular or neutral government.
All kidding aside, the point that tech raised is at the center of the question. The question of whether there is a God and what He expects is at the heart of the matter and makes all of the difference.
But to your point, the idea of a secular or unbiased government originated in Christian thought, but if you even toss that out, I’m not particularly against the idea in theory, but in practice it is a fairy tale. Look down through history– there’s never been a government that has been able to be secular and neutral to all religion. That’s because people are religious (with their theists, pantheists, atheists, etc).
Atheism is a religion– a religion that believes that there is no god. It’s tightly linked with humanism– the belief that we are all that there is and that human kind is all we should be concerned about.
Cloaked behind the “secular” government philosophy are religious principles that are put in place instead of Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, etc. and then protected with more fervor than all of these together.
The religion of humanism and atheism sees as guiding principles that they cannot be neutral to other religions but must attack them, while labeling themselves as something other than what they are.
People got so up in arms about Bhuddist carvings in Afghanistan being blown up when each and every year atheists are erasing people’s free religious expression. They’re suing to take down statues, they’re protesting manger scenes, etc. all in the name of their religion– and we’re somehow suppose to accept it because they worship no god.
what is is this poker hands bot? Very annoying. soon amanda will be putting up the “type these letters” thing.
Min, as usual, could you back something up?
the idea of a secular or unbiased government originated in Christian thought
Nonsense, secular governments have been adopted on and off, to varying degrees of success since ancient greece and ancient india. Islamic societies in the middle ages also practiced it. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of it with references.
Look down through history– there’s never been a government that has been able to be secular and neutral to all religion.
Thats true. Does that mean it is impossible or something we should try for? Looking down through history, women and men have never been equal in society, should we not try for this? Looking down through history there has never been a time where slavery and oppression are eliminated, should we abandon our efforts there. Looking down through history - there has never been a time when the human population has been free of disease, should we abandon those efforts also?
Min, YOU are in the distinct minority in your religious beliefs. YOU are almost as atheist as me (I just went one god further). Not only are you Christian, a minority, but you have a set of beliefs within christianity that even pull you away even further from a majority. same is true for me, jews, hutus and zoroastrians. So, how can you possibly expect to be successful in getting everyone to pay attention to your set of rules, based on your beliefs about one of many gods with one of many interpretations of one of many books? your best bet is to find justifiable reasons for some of your quirkiness and use those to try to move your agenda forward. Using God and the Bible will continue to get you nowhere.
for example, could you justify, again, why women should submit to their husbands, regardless of the husbands actions. I never understood that.
Atheism is a religion
Cripes that is tired. you haven’t bothered to understand atheism if you are going to go on with that old tired rhetoric. Its the lack of religion. Is “not playing baseball” a sport? Nuff said.
Cloaked behind the “secular” government philosophy are religious principles that are put in place instead of Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism, etc. and then protected with more fervor than all of these together.
I dont even understand what you are trying to say. The whole point of everything I wrote was that a society that uses evidence and reason does not mean you have to have your religion taken away from you.
Were men eliminated in the feminist movement? Were all the white people killed off in order to obtain civil rights for blacks?
The religion of humanism and atheism sees as guiding principles that they cannot be neutral to other religions but must attack them
This is the opposite of what I was saying. Nice work. you are simply showing phobia and mindless regurgitation of nonsense that has been spewed to you.
People got so up in arms about Bhuddist carvings in Afghanistan being blown up when each and every year atheists are erasing people’s free religious expression. They’re suing to take down statues, they’re protesting manger scenes, etc. all in the name of their religion– and we’re somehow suppose to accept it because they worship no god.
Links please. Yes, the 10 commandments do not belong in front of a courthouse. How would you feel if you were on trial with the words “the is no god but Allah, and mohamed was his prophet” flying over the head of the judge? Religious statues do not belong in our government or in our schools for the same reasons I have already gone over. Feel free to put a 20 foot jesus on your front lawn though. Wear as many I LUV JEZUZ t-shirts as you like. Apply as many “Its a child, not a choice” bumper stickers on your car as you like.
The buddhist statues were of historical significance. The new 10 commandments put in front of the courthouse had no historical significance at all. No one is asking that St. Peters cathedral in Rome be razed.
(amanda, is there any way for links to be more clear in this theme?
Here min, I found this for you
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
Your brand of christianity is but just 1 of about 34,000 different versions of Christianity. Christianity is but one of 19 major religions which are divided into about 270 major religious groups.
And you are going to tell me that your particular brand of god fearing is the one we all should be following? Give me a break. If I’m going to be forced to choose a religion its going to be buddhism.
What will followers of your brand of god fearing do when the Muslim population overtakes the Christian population later this century?
I think what Min was saying (correct me if I’m wrong) is that atheists and humanists can be as passionate about what they believe to be right as Christians etc. Which I think is true.
You’re right about secular governments to a degree, tech. I guess I was thinking about modern American law rather than historical, and I wasn’t thinking about the Grecian government– regardless of the fact that they had multiple gods I do believe they tried to rule on reason.
The question of whether it is possible or even desirable to have a government based on reason alone and not impacted by religion must be answered by looking at people. As long as there people are involved that have a belief structure, they are going to make judgment calls based on that structure. People make decisions based on the things that impact them.
Contrary to the atheistic model that denies a soul or an inner desire for a God, I don’t believe that man will ever not have a belief system about the spiritual world, and so to strive for something that is impossible is an exercise in futility at best.
Though I don’t have a problem striving to eliminate any of the things that you mentioned in support (slavery, hunger, disease) I believe that these too are impossible to completely cure because of what I believe about the world– and that is the true core of the problem.
The core of the problem can be identified as what your view of the world is– is it a place where people can continually get better? Is man the best there is? Can people continually strive to be good?
I don’t believe so. The world is going to continue to decay. Man is fallen, and will continue to be so. People can strive to be good, but they will fail apart from God’s grace.
And that’s why I make the leap to call atheism a religion. In it’s own right you can claim that it’s the absence of a god, but because religion can be defined by a particular worldview and applying that belief to a person’s actions– atheism has a worldview and follows a humanistic set of beliefs about it.
An atheist believes that there is no god. He’s not an agnostic who does not know, but requires an active belief to prove the very thing that he believes is untestable. It’s truly an illogical position for it requires absolute knowledge about something that is claimed to be unknowable.
As for my beliefs– since when are you an expert on what I believe? I believe that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved– all those that believe in their heart and confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus will be saved. This includes those that may not share what I believe in regards to interpretation of the Scriptures.
And even then, why would I let being a minority bother me? Christians have seldom been the majority if you look over the course of history. I also think that Christianity becomes the most pure under true persecution– and though I’m not desiring persecution I recognize that Christianity’s growth has been punctuated by it.
We can talk about individual things that I believe at another time, as it is mostly distraction from the core issue.
The problem with atheism is, again, that it is married to humanism and is not content to let people believe what they will but attempts to use the vehicle of government to indoctrinate children into adherence of its particular religion. Rather than being neutral towards religion, it tells children that religion is folly. Rather than allowing people to practice their religion, it forces it out of the classroom.
I could link to story after story of people that tried to submit homework assignments about Jesus, that wanted to give oral reports about their faith, who wanted to testify about God at their graduation activities, who wanted to pray before their ball games and instead of being able to exercise their freedom to believe what they wish, they were told they would be imprisoned.
That is the exact problem I’m stating. You can’t be both offended by Christianity and at the same time say it’s irrelevant. You can’t see it’s like believing in Santa Claus at the same time you want to erase any and all mentions of it.
Oh, and Christians have lived in countries that are not Christian– there are Christians in secular countries, Christians in Muslim countries, etc. And yet it’s not the Christians who are protesting and requiring the removal of things of cultural significance (both traditional and current).
We can certainly go down the trail of why a nation based on Christianity is superior to that which is based on atheism or islam if you want, but again, I’m not going there at this time. And my feelings about what is above a judge are irrelevant. I’m a servant of the Creator of the Universe who holds this world in the palm of my hand. What do I care what flies above a judge?
My point is that atheism isn’t neutral, it’s aggressive. It’s not irreligious, but contains a set of core beliefs about things and holds them as tightly (if not moreso) than those that worship a god. It is more aggressive in its attacks on other religions than Christianity.
“Rather than allowing people to practice their religion, it forces it out of the classroom.”
That’s because it doesn’t belong in a classroom!!! If it were a CATHOLIC school or a CHRISTIAN school, then by all means, pray as much as your heart desires. The issue is that by allowing religion into schools, you are FORCING it on those who have a different belief system, whether that be atheism, buddhism, etc, etc.
Min, since you’re so fond of definitions, check out the definition of religion:
“a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Other than the moral code part, I don’t see how atheism can be considered a religion. You’re just grasping and straws in the hopes of buttressing your ridiculous claims.
Oh, tech:
Ever hear of a spectator sport?
musicguy, first, couple of points on prayer and schools:
1. tech said that people should be free to be able to believe what they want– this includes being able to do it where they want. Granted, there has to be some order to it, but this would mean that instead of “no prayer or Bible reading in schools” there should be a time designated where it would be permissible, or even a moment of silence.
2. I can pray anywhere any time I want because I don’t have to pray audibly.
Second, since there cannot be an absence of religion– each person has a worldview which impacts what they say and do– religion cannot be removed from the classroom since there always has to be some religion in place.
You cannot prove evolution (no one was there), but you force it upon kids. You cannot select books for reading assignments without pressing a decided point of view. You cannot teach history without discussing the historic components of this nation– were the founders Christians, deists, agnostics? What you say about what they believe and what you choose to highlight reflects a worldview.
We are creatures with subtext– with a set of beliefs that we cannot “check at the door”. The question is, whose beliefs will be taught, what religion do we want as our standard, and what religions tolerate others expressing themselves and which do not.
If you compare what’s out there, countries founded on Christian principles appear the most tolerant of other points of view– at least so far as I can see.
Second, is Atheism a religion? If you read the wikipedia entry (that might be changed by the time you get there!) there are many similarities.
Plus, there’s this:
The Supreme Court considers atheism a religion. We can bandy about the term as much as you want– it seems that atheists really get enraged at the concept of defining what they really are. How about I stick to worldview rather than religion?
(Of course, given the number of books, societies, online groups, etc. it may well be that atheists may soon be more “organized” than “organized religion”. They may want to consider getting together once a week, pouring over the latest works of Hitchens, Hawking and Dawkins, and figuring out how they can apply it to their daily lives. Hey, if it’s fun, they may want to come up with some songs they can sing, maybe purchase a building they can get together in (or perhaps just a website where they can chat), and… well, you get the idea.)
Buffy,
totally right. And I totally agree. However passion must play second fiddle to tolerance for all the reasons I mentioned, but mostly because it simply is immoral to try to foist ones religious beliefs or edicts on someone else, they must come to it willingly, otherwise you have unending conflict. So, as an example, if a fundamental Christian says “no one should eat shrimp” and wants it to be a law, they must give a reason that is compelling to those of other religions (or no religion), otherwise you are mired in conflict. I used a silly example, but the same is true for gay marriage, abortion, and any of the things that Greta was screaming about.
Min,
It’s really weird to read your comments. you’ll go from saying something totally obtuse and ridiculous to saying something totally clear and acute. Actually, it usually goes from acute to obtuse.
You are totally right that most people beleive in god or gods. I really don’t have a problem with that, I dont think they can help it. A small minority of us are missing the coding that makes us attracted only to the opposite sex , a small minority of us are missing the coding that allows us to recognize faces , a small minority of us are missing the coding that compels us to believe surpernatural sky daddies that there is no evidence for .
(total aside: while gathering links, I found this, it was VERY funny)
no, genetics are not free will limiters as many will have you beleive. They provide a statistical disposition, or lack of one, mostly because there is not one gene for any one trait. So, I fully recognize that most people have a disposition the compels them to beleive in god. It is one thing that has made our species very successful. But like many genetic traits, in the modern world, some traits that were successful in specific regions before, are no longer successful in a global society. Religion, was very protective and productive in a regional scheme, however in a global environment it causes conflict, strife, and suffering, (although it certainly isnt the only thing) while the good aspects of it, community, altruism, and compassion, are easily accomplished without it.
Contrary to the atheistic model that denies a soul or an inner desire for a God
Stop. No. You are showing your arrogant non-understanding of atheism again and setting up a straw man. Atheists ask for proof of god or a soul before believing in either of them. We also ask for proof that a medicine works before taking it, proof that someone is guilty before convicting them, and so forth. that is very differnt that outright denying it (although there are fringe elements everywhere). You say the soul exists? What color is it? how much does it weigh? Where is it located? And yes, if you can not find hard evidence for it, then there is no reason to believe it exists.
Atheism does not rail against spirituality. It rails against making actions based on no evidence. If meditating makes you feel good, go for it. If believing in a giant taco that poops ice cream makes you comfortable, go for it. Its foisting those views on people who do not share it when conflict comes. Conflict that can be avoided.
is it a place where people can continually get better? Is man the best there is? Can people continually strive to be good?
I don’t believe so.
Because there is no evidence we are capable of that? No evidence that we were in fact able to eliminate slavery in most of the world. We have not been able to in fact double the lifespan of huge portions of the world population? There has been no evidence of great strides in equality between men and women and people of different races? You think somehow we are more decayed that we were say 1000 years ago when it was common to rape and kill your own citizens to force your mandates, when women were owned like cattle. we have decayed further than when we used to smear mercury into wounds to heal people, not wash hands before surgery?
you must be the most hopeless pessimist on the planet. Despite all the great strides we have made in economy, technology, longevity. The amazing work in architecture, literature, music and science we are falling?!? We live in a freer society than ever in the history of man and we are falling. What makes you say that? Becuase a tiny minority makes money by getting naked in films? Because less than 0.3% of our countries population has done something wrong enough to end up in jail? What could possibly compel you to make a statement like that?
In it’s own right you can claim that it’s the absence of a god, but because religion can be defined by a particular worldview and applying that belief to a person’s actions– atheism has a worldview and follows a humanistic set of beliefs about it
OK then call it a worldview and compare it to a christian worldview (but try to understand that worldview before you make the comparisons). A way of interacting with the world around you is very different that believing in things without evidence and making an organization out of it.
n atheist believes that there is no god. He’s not an agnostic who does not know, but requires an active belief to prove the very thing that he believes is untestable. It’s truly an illogical position for it requires absolute knowledge about something that is claimed to be unknowable
See? Acute. but its old school. The great majority of atheists, even Dawkins and Sagan (see dragon link above), almost all of them, are asking for evidence before action. The two words are pretty synonymous these days. We just dont beleive in something without evidence for it. With evidence, our model of the world will become more accurate, just like everything else in science. There is plenty of hard evidence tha thte sun will rise tomorrow, in fact it have strong predictive value. There is no such evidence for any of the thousands of deities out there.
since when are you an expert on what I believe?
I never said I was. I only know a few of your weird beliefs, not all of them.
I also think that Christianity becomes the most pure under true persecution
Wow the Jews must have a monopoly on purity then.
that it is married to humanism and is not content to let people believe what they will but attempts to use the vehicle of government to indoctrinate children into adherence of its particular religion
LOL what?!? I suppose repeated attempts to get prayer in schools, creationism in school, prayer in congress, posting the 10 commandments in government buildings, (oh i could go forever here) is not attmepts at indoctrination?
Min, you really have it wrong here. The key is to make it so that the population of the country is free to practice their religion or lack of religion (in fact, while you may dislike them, this is one of the main goals of the ACLU). you can not do this if you favor one religion over another. That is why science must remain science. Religious studies must include most religions (I think its safe to say that not covering some tiny cargo cult in new guinea wont hurt anyone), and ethics and morality must be based on the good of humans and not the good of one religion or another. If aftere that, you want to beleive that God strangely demands compulsory love (as if that is possible), then so be it.
I could link to story after story of people that tried to submit homework assignments about Jesus…
Please do, lets talk about the merits of it. However, why do you blame atheists for it? Why wouldnt Muslims be equally appalled? Or Zoroastrianists?
You can’t be both offended by Christianity and at the same time say it’s irrelevant.
Strawman. I’m not offended by christian beliefs. have fun. I’m offended by presumptuous actions in the name of one religion over another. this is clearly laid out by Greta in her article. No one says religion is irrelevant, quite the opposite. Its very relevant, in that all the things about religion that Greta rightly points out are acts of limiting free will and its immoral.
Oh, and Christians have lived in countries that are not Christian– there are Christians in secular countries, Christians in Muslim countries,
No shit.
it’s not the Christians who are protesting and requiring the removal of things of cultural significance
Gimme a break, Christians are constantly railing against things they don’t like that don’t even harm them. Like this, and this, and this, and this… obviously I can go forever.
oooh but you mean in those countries where they are minority? Well there are two good reasons for your perception of that. First: These societies you are talking about are far less free than ours. Putting up a fuss can land you in jail or dead. so people here tend to be more vocal about inequalities simply because they can. Second, our media is one of the most nationalistically focused in the world. Even if it happened you wouldn’t hear about it. I would expect only muslim news sources to report it, wouldnt you?
What do I care what flies above a judge?
then you seem to be incapable of empathy. If you can not understand how a mulsim or a gay man may be treated differently than a white christian man, when the judge clearly has a religious overtone to his decision making, then your religion has failed in giving you what is totally natural to most of the human race.
“The Supreme Court considers atheism a religion”
Yeah, and as it stands, the same supreme court ruled that abortion be legal and accessible in this country. I love how you hate the court in comment thread, but love them in the next. The inconsistency is mind boggling.
Secondly, although I can’t prove evolution, there is a shit load of scientific evidence saying it happened. I’m talking about fossil records and other real data and evidence, not some mystical book with any number of translation errors.
“So, as an example, if a fundamental Christian says “no one should eat shrimp” and wants it to be a law, they must give a reason that is compelling to those of other religions (or no religion), otherwise you are mired in conflict.”
yes, but said reasons must be grouded in CRITICAL THOUGHT, REASON, AND SCIENCE, not “…because my sky daddy said no!!!!” And with gay marriage, that’s pretty much the reason! SCIENCE cannot give you any good reason why gay marriage would be a detriment to society, so these pseudo-scientists make phony claims based on NOTHING, that CANNOT be peer-reviewed, that are SHUNNED by main-stream scientists, and expect the rest of the world to swallow it without question or pause. Time to post my favorite link, from wingnuts daily– eating soybeans makes you gay– or as i like to call it, BULLSHIT SCIENCE!
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327
Yeah, not gonna happen!
min,
1) how do you do those cool quotes?
2) a spectator sport is a sport which has lots of viewers, unlike say, hunting or hiking. A spectator sport refers to something that is still a sport. Are you playing baseball if you are watching it? How is that the same thing as athiesm not being a religion. Are the atheists sitting on the side watching a religion participating in the religion? I dont get it.
ranted, there has to be some order to it, but this would mean that instead of “no prayer or Bible reading in schools” there should be a time designated where it would be permissible, or even a moment of silence.
Guess what? you are right. the only thing that prevents that are slippery slope arguments. but why have it at all? what compelling reason is there to have something like this? What is its purpose? You can have plenty of moments of silence at home, on the way to school or work. free periods. etc What compelling reason is there to have a moment of silence at school? There are plenty of schools that do have them, or have had them. Did grades improve? Did violence drop? This is the type of thing that is required to adopt a practice like this. Why not propose it as a study. If it helps, lets do it, if it doesnt do anything or makes things worse, lets not.
You cannot prove evolution (no one was there), but you force it upon kids.
Oh my word, Min, that is truly idiotic. You cant prove King Henry the 8th either then, or the civil war, or any historical event or person. Please, Please, Please brush up on evolution and more importantly the reasons why evolution is such a strong science before making more unbelievably ridiculous statements like that. If you need links to primers, I will happily provide them.
We are creatures with subtext– with a set of beliefs that we cannot “check at the door”.
THAT is totally true. Which is why if you foist one beleif over another, you will always end in conflict and suffering.
If you compare what’s out there, countries founded on Christian principles appear the most tolerant of other points of view– at least so far as I can see.
There are literally hundreds of religions and sub religions in India. I don’t think you have seen very far. here look
ow about I stick to worldview rather than religion?
Hey we got to the same place!
it may well be that atheists may soon be more “organized” than “organized religion”.
we may have to in order to get true equality and reduce conflict and suffering. It will still be an organization based on evidence rather than on based on faith and interpration.
Hence why I like to try to stick to single trains of thoughts because to possibly try to answer everything would be exhausting and unclear.
First– tech, put what you want quoted inbetween blockquote tags. ≶blockquote>This is quoted text≶/blockquote> will turn out like this:
(or at least it should have.
It definitely makes comments easier to follow.
Tech, contrary to what you’re saying, I may be no more guilty than you are about what we’re saying. So, I suggest a truce on the “you don’t know what you’re talking about my faith” back and forth. We’re not experts on what each other believes, and I believe that we’re both accurate when it comes to the group to which we are referring.
Check out the article on atheism on wiki. It turns out that Atheism is an amorphous blob (almost as much as Christianity) that either positively affirms the non-existence of a god (which would easily be classified a religion) or rejects theism (which seems to be more along the lines of what you’re claiming to believe.
The problem that we’ve gotten into is talking about the generalities instead of the specifics– a lot of “fun”, if you will, but it does nothing but to aggravate the other person because of the inaccuracies.
So, I suggest talking about what you believe and what I believe instead of what the general group believes. Or, perhaps just follow one line of debate or walk away. Because I see nothing but exponential growth in each successive reply, and, frankly, the question is does that really benefit anyone?
Actually that is a pretty good entry in wiki about it. sadly, here is no demographic analysis of types of atheism. But if you bother to read any of the dawkins or harris stuff, (i have not read hitchens or dennet, so I cant say anything about those). you will see that they are confirming implicit atheism, not an outright rejection of any god, because it is not rejectable )nor affirmable). They both even affirm the benefits and positive features of deism and spirituality.
so the most popular authors do not subscribe to the “There is definitiely no god” thinking, so assigning explicit atheism to people who say they are atheists just isnt really rational.
I dont mind at all talking on a personal level. That is fine with me. Sadly, personal beliefs are not really at issue. What is at issue, and why atheists are frustrated (as greta indicates) is because of the actions of groups of the religious on to people who are not of that religion (not specifically atheists). for example, you may want all abortion stopped, an I may want it to be obsolete. So what? The issue is what the actual legislation is doing and how it is affecting peoples lives.
coming here, I have been provided some good insight into the theist mind that I certainly did not have before. Of course not all are the same. As not all muslims are the same, nor all pastafarians. By stumbling around and being corrected for my generalities or shall I even say predjudices, I can be corrected and get better insight. It show I understood the fear that if atheism grows that theists fear that their will have their religion taken away.
If we talk about it, then this fear can be understood and avoided. Virtually no atheist wants the end of religion by force or coersion. that is an act of limiting free will. We know that wont work. But I wonder how many other actually got this same bit of insight that I did. 65% percent of americans would not trust an atheist president. Could this be mostly out of fear that your religion would be taken away?
I just read an article that reminded me of this discussion. Illinois lawmakers have required a time of silence in public schools that is for “silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.”
Hmm…. well I wish all laws like that had sunset clauses (like this experiment in maine should if it doesnt) to look at what benefit this provides, if any at all. If it does, keep it! If not, stop wasting peoples time.
I still don’t get why you cant silently pray or reflect on your activities of the day before you get to school.
So, you’re upset at your own ideology and religion so you attack Christianity? Chrisianity, what the most powerful nation in the world is founded on? Ha, what a joke, I always love a good laugh, and you gave one to me. Check this website out about Muslims, let’s hear what you have to say about them: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
I love high horse comments like that. Soon china will be the most powerful nation on the planet, sheer population, resources and technology. Then the most powerful nation on the planet will have been founded by tyrant with no religion at all besides his own.
Is most powerful=best? I would strongly disagree. i would say strongest economy would be a good indicator (EU beats us), best educational system would be a good indicator (36 other countries beat us), best healthcare (10 other countries beat us), longest living (at least 5 other countries beat us).
But you are probably right, we have more guns and missiles than anyone else. See how effective they are against terrorists?
Go read your Jefferson before you keep making nonsense comments like that one.
tech, I agree that most powerful nation has nothing to do with it.
1. It misses the whole point of Christianity– that it’s not something bound to an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly one.
2. Sometimes God allows things to come into the life of a nation to bring it back to Him, so the nation that follows God is not always the most powerful.
Let alone the whole thing about founding vs. present time. (We can go down the whole is this a Christian nation thing some other time…)
However, tech, I’m not sure how one measures “best health care”– with the different ways you could measure it I’m not sure what way your stats measured it. I know that, from what I’ve read, you can’t beat the U.S. as far as technological means of care and quality of care. As far as coverage, that is definitely different, but I haven’t really read of many people wanting to go to some other country because it has superior forms of medicine (except for an obscure article of people going to China for stem cell treatments with little to no success…).
And believe it or not, we agree on the whole sunset clause thing. I wish more legislation had this stuff– in fact, I’d almost go so far as to say that I wish it were mandated to be on all legislation (that would keep more laws away from being written because they’d have to spend time debating old laws) because we never seem to re-evaluate our old laws.
I mean, take for example Bush’s tax cuts that are up in 2010 or the AMT. They’ll sunset, and then they’ll have to have the discussion of whether or not to make them permanent or get rid of them… It forces discussion and new ideas, which is a good thing.
know that, from what I’ve read, you can’t beat the U.S. as far as technological means of care and quality of care
Actually you can. If I had a brain tumor, I’d be off to japan. If I had AIDS I’d be off to france. American companies do provide a great majority of the best diagnostic equipment, there is no doubt about that, but the best medicine is something we only take part in and do not monopolize.
I think most people dont go to other countries for medicine because most people couldn’t afford such an endeavor, either due to money constraints to time, or because they simply don’t research it. Plus we are lead to believe exactly what you just said, US is Best when it comes to medicine, which brainiacs like DJ up there just fall for hook line and sinker.
I wish it were mandated to be on all legislation
Well looky here, total agreement. If we had that, I wouldn’t mind seeing states experimenting with death penalty laws (which as far as I can see right now, do nothing to stem crime), limitations on abortion (I would expect to see a lot of state border crossings), gun control expansion/contraction. the goal must be to declare what the law is trying to fix, create a measurement so you can tell if the law is working, and define what is successful and what isnt. But we must agree that if something is not working or making things worse, it must be eliminated regardless of personal preferences.
Attacking Iraq would have been a prime example. The goal that they keep blathering about is increasing security. Great! we all agree! how do you measure that?
Man, we could advance quickly that way. The serious debate would be at the start of a new law, not when the media decided to pick on it.
[…] Why One Atheist is Angry […]
So, you just come back ranting on the United States I see. So, what exactly is your opinion on the website I told you to check out? Don’t even think twice about attacking Christianity before looking at Islam. In many cases I agree with the basis of this dicussion, but some I do not.
1. The American Constitution was founded on Biblical principals, so for Bush Sr. to say that Atheists are unpatriotic I would have to agree with.
2. As for condom use, I use them myself, so generally I would have to agree with the article.
3. Women are NOT supposed to be beaten by their husbands. That is NOT the basis for the Christian faith, and anyone that tells you otherwise is a wacko, yes I agree 100%.
4. I also think it’s rediculous the people who pray to God for poker winnings and Super Bowl outcomes. That’s crazy.
5. This ALWAYS stirs up a debate - is God responsible for people’s illness and death are is it just life? Well, let’s remember tha God has a plan for all of us and that we have an adversary in this world, Satan.
6. I would disagree with this one - many things in the Bible are said by God just for your own good. For example, when you are young teen, experimenting with sex, you’re playing with fire. You could get pregnant and your life could go down the tubes. Gay/Lesbian relationships never accomplish anything good, especially in a “family” setting. Studies have shown it’s bad for the children, for that they only get one side of the family rasing them (either the mother or the father).
7. For this one, I believe that the teacher certainly went overboard, but considering what a lot of Muslims are doing to Christianity, I believe this is reasonably justified.
8. Every time a priest molest a child, my heart sinks. This is in NO way God’s will, and I get outraged when I hear this. Those priests who perform those acts are WACKJOBS and need serious help.
I’m not even American, and I still know enough to say… huh??? Here is a link to the text of the Constitution of the USA (plus Bill of Rights and other amendments). Here is a link to Leviticus (which IIRC contains the bulk of Biblical law).
Let me know if you manage to find any overlap. I couldn’t.
My country (UK) has in the past suffered the effects of law founded on Biblical principles. You Americans do execute a lot of people, but not that many…
That’s some of my friends you’re talking about there. You may wish to justify or qualify your assertion.
It sounds like you’re seriously suggesting that threatening and punishing kids for not converting to your religion is acceptable behaviour. If so, I’m absolutely disgusted - shame on you.
In regards to #1, I do not believe that you can simply look at the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the amendments and Leviticus to tell if the Constitution was based on Biblical principals. To find out how the Constitution came about you’d have to research the Federalist Papers, read up on common law and then follow along with a lot of the statements of the first Presidents.
That being said, I think that DJ would be on much firmer ground if he argued that American law is based on Biblical law than saying the Constitution itself is. Sure, the principles of limited government, freedom of religion (AKA freedom of conscience) and equality are found in the Bible– but what’s more interesting is the tort laws, the differences between premeditated and accidental murder, etc.
Most of the basics of criminal law come right out of principles from Leviticus. And then, let’s not forget that a majority of the states that ratified the Constitution had established state churches, and had many laws that (though they are now being repealed) echoed Biblical teaching: Sunday closing laws anyone?
Would I go so far as to say that Atheists are unpatriotic? I don’t know that I could say that. I know that there was a time that Atheists were held to contempt because it is part of this nation to recognize a Higher Power (swear on the Bible in court, etc) and any that would not recognize that Power would be suspect because they would (by definition) be responsible only to themselves.
So, I don’t know if I can say they are unpatriotic, but I can say that they are outside of the traditional understanding of what it means to have traditional American beliefs. Right now, however, America is in a state of flux, and what it means to be an American now is different from the traditional meaning.
For example, when you are young teen, experimenting with sex, you’re playing with fire. You could get pregnant and your life could go down the tubes.
Why do you need god to tell you that? Or why do you need to use a God model to teach this to your kids?
Why not just explain this very thing in biological terms, or in terms of how life changes with a baby. Or better yet (and I keep condoning this), why not show kids truly disgusting pictures of advanced stages of gonorrhea or a syphilitic brain, or a severe herpes outbreak. These are things that will help to keep teenage sex, or irresponsible teenage sex down.
Gay/Lesbian relationships never accomplish anything good, especially in a “family” setting. Studies have shown it’s bad for the children, for that they only get one side of the family raising them (either the mother or the father).
This is utter nonsense. You are either just making stuff up now, or are simply taking some other devoutly religious persons word for it. There are an overwhelming number of studies that show little or no evidence of any difference (barring abuse or other negative ramifications - which also do not have higher rates in gay families) between raising kids in healthy gay families or healthy hetero ones.
Please link to your “studies” so I can evaluate your sources.
Atheists are unpatriotic I would have to agree with
Well then I would have to agree with this statement: you are an intolerant moron who doesn’t read the constitution or any washington, jefferson, or franklin.
let’s remember tha God has a plan for all of us and that we have an adversary in this world, Satan
I thought Christianity was monotheistic. Now you say there are two gods?
That is NOT the basis for the Christian faith…
This is in NO way God’s will
and every time you say something like that, there is another christian disagreeing with you.
Min,
That was one of the most cogent things I have ever read from you. I of course disagree with you many things, but nonetheless, admire your clarity.
No atheist would say there is nothing in the bible that is useful. Of course there is. In fact most of the very things you are referring to are in the Torah (OT) and Koran also. So why are the laws you are refering to “Biblical” and not “Koranical”? So there are obvious things that have made our laws, because they have always made sense in terms of help us to live with each other.
the point is we took out most of the stuff from the bible, laws that makes sense, and left the stuff that was ridiculous for god people to fawn over. It doesnt mean we did a perfect job of filtering the moral from the immoral out of that book.
Why can’t I buy beer on sunday morning?
Then I could go into all the other things that make no sense, and you will disagree with me on because you have cherry picked stuff out of the bible.
First off, my colleague at school just said, “Really?? But I was thinking that I need to get me one of those!”
Anyway, it’s good to know that nothing good has come from my monogomous, three year, evil, gay relationship. I know for a fact that our friends, family and neighbors would adamently disagree, but hey, the fundie is entitled to his position, right??
Perhaps he’d like to back that up that drivel with the tiniest shred of scientific, peer-reviewed evidence from somewhere other than a fundie-based website.
A healthy relationship is a healthy relationship. I’m done responding to this craptastic comment.
LOL Craptastic….. I have to use that more often. That is up there with asshat on my list of funny words.
For example, when you are young teen, experimenting with sex, you’re playing with fire. You could get pregnant and your life could go down the tubes.
BTW, which is the bible story that shows that getting pregnant as a young teen is playing with fire and your life can go down the tubes? Perhaps it is in there, I just don’t know where.
The only young woman I can think of that got pregnant, blamed the adultery or rape on a made up god and then gave birth to your messiah.
oof. sorry, I couldn’t help it.
tech, I don’t know whether to be flattered or offended. Thanks for baffling me.
Why do I call them Biblical? Which one came first? I’ll save you the research: The Old Testament scripture was written long before Koran. In fact, Mohammad borrowed many of his stories from the Bible. There was no such thing as a Muslim when Moses crossed the Red Sea and received the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law.
There is a lot of practical overlap with morality– and I think this bears toward your other comments as well. Laws in the Old Testament fall into multiple categories:
1. Administrative / Protective Law
For instance, in the Old Testament Scripture there were prohibitions on eating certain kinds of meat– but we see that in the New Testament that those restrictions were limited. Was there any moral binding in those laws? Only in the sense of obedience/disobedience and not in the substance itself.
2. Ceremonial Law
For instance, in the Old Testament a proper Hebrew would bring sacrifices for sin to be offered at the temple. In the New Testament, Christ is the ultimate sacrifice, offered once for all, and therefore there is no need to do this now.
3. Moral Law
For instance, the laws against murder, worshiping false gods, etc. These will never change.
Now, some laws fit in multiple categories– like the prohibition of fornication (sex outside of marriage including homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, etc.). These laws are both moral and protective.
Obviously, since there are differences of opinion on morality, many Christians have to stress the protective side of this law because reason is the language of the day. However, what I’ve found odd and contradictory is that when arguments are made from reason, there is still a bias in the listener that refuses to hear the reason simply because the person believes the morality.
Case in point, a month or so ago we had a discussion on abortion– namely, when does life begin and when is it a baby. I argued purely from reason, but we got bogged down in what I believed as far as my faith and what those like me practice. It was purely irrelevant to the discussion of when is the baby alive, and it took us quite a long time to have someone even admit that they were fine with killing babies to give women a choice.
You cannot have it both ways– that’s the answer to your question– you cannot say “you should avoid risky sex because of the fact that condoms can’t protect you from STDs, they are not 100% effective against AIDS or pregnancy, and that the emotional changes in relationships sometimes destroys said relationships” because the response will be “but your faith says…”
And therein is the rub. You choose the topic and the discussion (just as I do on occasion!) parameters and try to control it to protect your view, and there really is no reasonable debate going on and there’s very little chance that we’ll persuade someone one way or the other.
And yet, here I am writing a post length reply in a comment box…
Why do I call them Biblical? Which one came first? I’ll save you the research: The Old Testament scripture was written long before Koran
OK, so we should be saying American law is based on Jewish scrupture, not christian scripture. Right? I mean… which one came first?
As to the rest:
1. or… there is no reason to make a law about eating meat since there is no defensible reason to outlaw it.
2. or… there is no defensible reason for a sacrifice for anything so we don’t legislate it now
3. or… there is no defensible reason to allow people to murder other people as this is already been shown to end in gang wars and petty retribution.
I didnt need to invoke any book or any deity for examining the reason for these laws or lack of laws.
Now, some laws fit in multiple categories– like the prohibition of fornication (sex outside of marriage including homosexuality, adultery, promiscuity, etc.). These laws are both moral and protective.
And yet, for the most part, we dont legislate against any of that, and when we do, we dont enforce it. If we did, we would have the markings of a totalitarian state. Are you endorsing a totalitarian state?
I actually dont quite get the point you are making in the rest of your post.
Apologies in advance for the sarcasm, I’ve had a long day.
Where precisely? I must’ve missed that bit - is the section about freedom of religion before or after Exodus 22:20? Is the section about equality before or after Ephesians 6:5? And where is the section about limited government?
Some of these principles might have been found among some early American Christians. That doesn’t make them Biblical, it just means that people can revere the Bible whilst ignoring most of its actual content.
Again, the fact that Leviticus prohibits some of the same stuff as American law doesn’t mean they’re related. To demonstrate that, you’d have to show that they shared more material than (for example) US law and the Code of Hammurabi. Have you checked this, or were you just assuming that your preferred ancient text was responsible for it all?
American common law probably does have small amounts of material that’s traceable to the Bible, but only because you lot cribbed it off of us Brits. So saying “disbelief in Biblical principles means you’re denying US law” would be silly - you might just as well say “defying British sovereignty means you’re denying US law”.
Heh… Hammurabi. I wrote about those laws quite a while ago and did a short piece on them for an anthro class once upon a time. They really do have considerably more to do with modern US law than Moses’ stuff, and they predate the Moses stuff by roughly 600 years.
Thanks for the memory jog.
Holy crap… this conversation picked up again and I had no idea because I’m not getting emails on this one. Geez! Lots of stuff going on here… and of course, I have nothing useful to add.
Both are part of the modern Christian Bible. Therefore you would be correct with either answer; however, as part of the current conversation the Christian Bible and traditions would have been the framework for common law at the time.
As to eating certain types of meat– there was a reason to outlaw it in the Old Testament. Without any type of refrigeration and primitive means of preservation, certain meats would be harmful to eat.
As for murder, your definitions do not show the subtlety or nuance between the different forms of murder (1st degree vs. manslaughter, etc) that our current system has. These concepts are in the Biblical framework. If you remove a cultural framework, what is the difference between whether I killed for self defense rather than killed in cold blood? Both could have the retaliation factor you mention. (for example, if I killed the intruder who shot at my wife then the gang member killed me, and then my family killed the gang member– where does it end? Is anyone justified?)
I’m sorry if I lost you on most of this, tech, I was trying to examine the different types of laws that were in the Bible and how they applied to common law. The fact that these kinds of laws are in part of laws in states illustrates my point– regardless of whether they are enforced.
The fact that Sunday was expected to be a day of rest and that we had blue laws is not from Hammurabi. We had laws on the books against adultery (I had a post on this– that in Michigan adultery is still a felony), and other things that are directly taken from the Bible– and the funny thing is that people believed they were free. American has never been a totalitarian state.
In fact, I could argue that America is more totalitarian now than at any point in the past simply by looking at how many laws we have on the books, the way that we’re taxed in every means possible, etc. America is far more oppressive now than at any time in the past.
Lifewish, you need to look at context and can’t just take things in any order you wish. In Exodus we see laws set up for a specific country that was to be God’s ambassadors to the world. That’s why ceremonial law is not something that was ever passed into common law. That’s why we don’t have coded words like “no other gods before me”, etc. To see religious freedom, look at the New Testament.
Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world. He said “whosoever will may come.” That’s not the “go and force people to convert” that is Islam. That’s not the “ridicule and belittle” of Atheism.
When Paul walked into Athens and had his speech on Mars Hill he didn’t try to get elected to public office to try to force people to be Christian. He presented “the unknown God” to the people there. He respected the people, even though he had the truth.
As for Eph 6:5- that passage isn’t a command to have slaves, but for people of each position to do their best in that position. One could easily say “employees, be obedient to your employers”– something I’m sure a lot of bosses would agree would be a good thing! And you will notice that it says “after the flesh”– a recognition that we are more than flesh, and the internal is more important than the external.
I believe that if you ever read the writings of the founders and the preachers of the day you would find the same type of sentiment– desire that all would be treated equally, that all would be able to worship as they chose, a believe that Christianity was the truth (no doubt)…
American common law comes from the Brits. And that law is not based off the Code of Hammurabi, but based on the times– where Christianity was big in the Middle Ages.
I dont have time right now….but real quick…
Without any type of refrigeration and primitive means of preservation, certain meats would be harmful to eat.
same is true for vegetables and mushrooms. They didn’t outlaw them. god could have just said “Thou shalt thoroughly cook your meat”.
Lifewish, you need to look at context and can’t just take things in any order you wish
yes he can, becuase that is the exact reason there are 30,000 forms of christianity (oh but i know…. most of those arent REAL christians), everything from relatively reasonable roman catholicism to these nice folks.
Your particular cherry picked choice of contexts is different from 300 other sects cherry picked choice of context. How about them snakes?
More later…
Why shouldn’t we look at the OT for this? From where I’m standing, it seems like you’re kinda bouncing backwards and forwards between OT and NT - referring to the OT to support your claim that common law is Biblically-rooted, and the NT to support your claim that Biblical law has any semblance of justness or equality. How do you justify that switching?
i beleive it’s called piecing together an argument through bible quote mining. it’s a fun game, but laughable in the end.
Lifewish asks a good question– why not take any quote from any point in time and apply it to right now? I can certainly see where it might look like I’m jumping around.
The complexity of the discussion necessitates two very different arguments– one of them has to do with where common law came from and the other deals with where freedom of conscience came from.
There is no question that common law circa 1776 was based in the Bible, specifically the levitical administrative and moral law. This didn’t include not wearing clothing combining two types of material or that kind of stuff, but did acknowledge pre-meditated vs. defensive murder, etc.
Why use the OT here? Because the text in Leviticus is the set of laws that God assigned to His chosen people– the people he wanted to be an example to all the other nations. Therefore, a people that were religious and believed that God would have a pretty good idea of how a country should be formed would have looked to the way He setup His government for advice.
Now, no country other than Israel is God’s chosen people, according to the Bible. Also, if you look at the NT, you see that the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ, so a lot of the ceremonial aspects (the sacrifices, the unclean periods, etc.) were past.
It’s all a matter of timing.
In the OT there was a declared country-wide religion: Judiasm. They had to be Jewish, they had to sacrifice, they had to worship only God. Why? Because they were to be a “model country.” God was going to use them to reach the world (primarily through Christ, but secondarily through their testimony).
In the NT, Jesus said that His kingdom was not to be of this world, but of another. Paul tells the Christians in Rome in the book of Romans that they are to submit to the governing authority– not rebel, not try to take it over and push their morality on everyone…
The NT stresses that people have a choice– they can choose Christ, they can choose not to follow Christ. There’s passages that say that some will be mislead, that some will doubt, etc.
Does that help at all? It’s hard to do this in a blogging media– it’d be much easier with a back-and-forth.
really?!?
Its totally true that mosiac law is not the same as the Code of hammurabi. It appears to be more of an evolution of the laws. Same “moral” issues addressed, 600+ laws instead of 200+, but to say american laws are based on biblical laws is simply farcical. American laws are an evolution of british laws, which we an evolution of other laws, which were an evolution of biblical laws which were and evolution of Hammurabi’s laws.
At this point, neither God nor the bible need be invoked one single time to generate a law, or a enforcement structure for immorality. Secular law can completely recognize the nuances between 1st degree and second degree murder, and the the debate on the distinguishing features, levels of punishment etc, need not invoke god at all, and shouldn’t (because debate gets thrown in the garbage).
Killing someone in self defense is obviously far better than murdering someone. Murdering someone violates all moral codes by intentional attempt to remove someone free will to live, increasing suffering, reducing happiness. Self defense killing, only removes the murderers free will, while preserving suffering and increasing happiness. Incapacitating someone in self defense is obviously even better than killing them. It preserves more life and allows for trial about their level of punishment. none of these views should be taken in terms of an individuals point of view (obviously the murderer is unhappy about violence invoked in self defense), but instead should be viewed in terms of community or society. Where was god invoked in that description of “levels” of law? When was the Bible required? The same analysis can easily be brought to the differences in premeditated murder and incidental murder. You just think that secular, reason and evidence based law isn’t good because you are not used to thinking about humanity and society in that way, and just reject it because its different. for the same reason you could reject western (new) medicine and try to cure all your ailments with acupuncture and homeopathy, but you don’t do that do you? (or do you?)
God and the Bible are never required for law or morals and they don’t guarantee morals either by any means, its time we get past the dark ages.
American law is based on both the Bible and common law, which was rooted in the Bible. If you do a little digging you’ll find that a Sir William Blackstone and his commentaries is said to be foundational to both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States. His law books were in great demand and the critical thought about the body politic at the time (common and civil law) were heavily influenced by his writing. Indeed, next to the Bible, the commentaries were to be studied to know how one should act in the country.
Here’s one interesting passage:
Reason and logic, according to the expert of common law at the time, were to be used to find the God given laws. Far from a secular concept of law, Blackstone put forth that laws were God-given (hence the conversation in the DOI about live, liberty and property as gifts from the Creator).
Continuing from the same site:
So, a man that believed that law came from God and the Bible influenced America’s institutions.
You see, God and the Bible are essential to this very country– and you can see it in the DOI. Who gives any person “inalienable rights”? From where do you derive the “right” for anything?
You can certainly make logical arguments about how murder takes away a free will to live, but from where do you get that free will? Who is to say that you deserve that will?
The DOI made the point that England did not have the right to tax Americans and take away their life, liberty and property because the people did not belong to them– they did not derive their rights to their person from England. They derived them from a higher authority: from God.
This is the foundation of our society. The concept that law is higher than any power in the land. That government doesn’t have the ability to take away these rights because they are not the giver of these rights.
Let me try to illustrate.
I run a blog, and on that blog I alone have the rights to create content, allow comments, shape the design, etc. You can comment because I allow you to comment. You can read because I allow you to read. Your rights are because I gave you those rights.
However, I cannot block you from seeing other sites on my hosting provider. I can’t block you from seeing other sites on the Internet. All of these are outside of my rights. You can follow a train of authority all the way up to every expanding rights.
The DOI clearly states that the highest level, according to those that left England and were our founders, that they believe that God was the highest level. He has complete ownership, responsibility and authority and government derives its authority from Him. This is foundational.
You can certainly say that there are secular reasons for laws, but not secular origins. You cannot prove that the Biblical laws were in any way influenced by the code of Hammaurabi. You can do comparative analysis of the time, but similarity does not equal causation. For all we know, Moses had a copy of Hammaurabi’s law, or he wrote it with God without Hammaurabi (since Hammaurabi was nearer to modern day Iraq and Moses was in Israel/Egypt it’s more likely that if Moses borrowed anything he would have taken it from his Egyptian upbringing).
But, and I made this point over at my site as well, the point is that the Bible was core to the founding of this country and laws. It’s foundational to the rule of law in this country, and there’s no way that the founders were all sitting about how they could reason a secular means to justify premeditated murder vs. self defense.
Your argument is silly. They were impacted by the Bible, the country’s founded on the Bible.
Min,
no one is saying there isn’t biblical influence in american law. There is. The point is it isn’t the sole source for any of our laws. It has been an evolutionary process. So attributing any of it to the bible is the same as attributing much of it to Roman political structure, or hammurabian code, or any of the multitude of other influences.
Its further important, more important in fact to recognize that the bible is a totally outdated document by which to try to extract any legislative meaning out of. Science to moving far far to fast to use that tired old book. Clashes between cultures in a global society is another reason to throw away a book the promote intolerance. The only way to provide continuity and security in a world like this is to recognize what is good and make it godless. It is the only way to debate christian perspectives versus muslim ones versus hindo ones. There is no one ‘winner’ when you do this. There is only a requirement of coming up with logical reasons for why you are doing what you are doing. “becuase God said so” or “because its in this book” is useless.
If you are going to quote Blackstone, shall I quote Jefferson? I notice a lot of use of the phrase “at the time”. and I agree. at the time american society mostly interacted with other christian societies, and wher it did not conflict erupted, every single time. superior technolgy and man power lead to great wins. so what?
we now are in a place where a relatively small group muslim fundamentalists can put the greatest military force in all of human history into a deadlocked quagmire. Why in the world would we continue to try to adhere to an old book for completely new circumstances? we can’t be smart until we cast off those ropes.
I dont understand your idea about who gave people rights or freewill. you are presuming, in the face of no evidence, that the sky daddy is there.
the answer to your question is, we did. We are a community of poeple. This community has evolved over millenia to find a system that works best. One that values free will above all (and sadly recently this has been cut down). Who gave me the right to free will? you did, everyone reading this did. Who gave them the right to give that right out? You did. Everyone reading this did.
Just becuase the bible influenced some of US law doesn’t mean it should stay that way if it become counter productive. Which is what we continue to experience.
You should stay away from absolutes, tech. Tell me, which of Hammurabi’s laws or Roman laws had Sunday blue laws? Which of them had laws against witchcraft? How
about the laws that people could not hold an office in certain states unless they confessed belief in the Old and New Testaments?
Since when do we base our laws on science? Ethics and morality are not a part of science. Science tells us how things happen, but not why. It also has no guidance into how people should live their lives. It has nothing to do with the difference between styles of murder– unless you’re saying what you actually think: that Science isn’t Science, but a religion. In that case, please differentiate Science the religion or moral entity from Science the rational, factual exposition into how the world works.
So, we should probably throw away Darwin’s Origin of the Species, since it caused the genocide of Hilter trying to create a master race? Can’t base any science or laws on that tired old thing.
And why is a book that promotes justice, gives us laws that are still in effect today, encourages love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, self-control something that’s outdated? Are any of these virtues wrong? Is it wrong to give real people hope?
Oh, because that’s worked every other time it’s been tried– Hitler’s Germany, USSR, Mao’s China. They were the epitome of liberty, they allowed everyone the privilege of believing what they wanted to, and they certainly excelled all the way around.