Login Here
I’m not surprised that Michael Gerson, who reportedly coined Bush's Axis of Evil framing, would conclude that atheists are inherently incapable of answering the more interesting moral questions merely because they lack an objective basis for discerning good from evil, whereas those who believe in a God have the advantage of knowing that God handed them the only objectively correct answers. After all, Gerson believes that the self-righteous religious fundamentalist who initiated aggressive war against a nation that never attacked or threatened us, a war in which hundreds of thousands have been killed or maimed and millions more turned into stateless refugees, was acting for moral reasons and sincere when he claimed that God had ordained him to do this.
But it strikes me as odd to claim as a moral advantage the inability to see that what his President has done (and Gerson has justified) in his God’s name is, on moral grounds, only barely distinguishable from the acts of the crazed religious zealots who, in Allah’s name, flew airplanes into the Twin Towers, except for the fact that the Christian had enough firepower to kill 100 times more people than the Islamists. Both slaughtered innocents while claiming to have objective, divine truth on their sides, although admittedly neither of them checked with the Pope to make sure they were answering to the true faith. Perhaps we should start a 30-year war to settle this.
It shouldn't take a confirmed non-believer to call out Gerson's argument for the dangerous nonsense it is. And on that point, what was the Washington Post thinking? Are we now to conduct religious wars in the nation's media? If it's okay to argue on WaPo's editorial pages that atheists have a shaky moral foundation, why not have a no-holds barred battle between the Methodists and Mormons about what Jesus was doing after the resurrection, or perhaps we should resolve, once and for all, the question of Jesus' or Mary's divinity or the chemistry of transubstantiation, with Fred Hiatt as referee?
Gerson is right in noting that religious beliefs were important to many of the theistic founding fathers. But unlike Gerson's Presidential hero, they understood clearly the critical importance of this . . .
Congress shall make no law . . . respecting the establishment of religion.
. . . whereas Mr. Bush is anxious to use the White House to fund his favorite sects if he thinks it will help Republicans win elections.
Photo: Picasso's Guernica, from Wikipedia.
Share This 
Spotlight
zed?
Good morning, Scarecrow & Firepups!
Bob in WI (temporarily)
Some of these people do not even have a concept of what being a good citizen is.
Honest, upright, Honorary Citizen
Good morning everyone, and for the record, I loved The DaVinci Code — book better than movie, but it was the idea I thought was fun.
Anybody seen the United States of America lately? It was just here seven years ago.
I miss it so.
The atheist’s ONE commandment
Treat people the way you’d like to be treated…
Simple, we don’t need preachers and bibles and gods to TELL us how to behave.
What this thread is about is not just the establishment clause, but True Believers of any sort. The psychodynamics are the same whether we’re concerned with religion or with, say, Aryanism or any general panacea (like the virtues of unregulated capitalism), isn’t it?
Bob in WI
On target.
Beware of armed ideologues everywhere.
Great post, Scarecrow.
There’s an interesting phenomenon that I started noticing in a Digby post the other day (though it wasn’t what she was talking about — yes, “she”, it’s so much easier than constructing some convoluted gender-neutral sentence like we used to).
Anyway the fundies charge out and do some really awful, hate-filled crap and then rather than being challenged by “traditional” Christian “centrists” those people turn around and accuse “liberals” (or “Democrats”) of being inhospitable to Christians. Meanwhile, the fundies are trying to crush those traditionalists (this was the subject of Digby’s post). I realize they are engaging in a bit of wagon circling but I don’t think there’s a tremendous amount of awareness that the fundies think they’re a bunch of heathens, too, because they do.
OT-This got EPU’ed but I thought I’d bring it upstairs.
Only been able to lurk lately, but a quick question…
If Al Qaeda is back to pre-9/11 levels, wtf has 3600 American lives and over 500 billion dollars bought us?
In essence they’re telling us a bunch of guys running around from cave to cave (one dragging around a hand cranked dialysis machine) have proven to be infinitely more resourceful than the dwindling “coalition of the willing” with all of it’s money, firepower & technology.
And don’t get me started on Pakistan and the billions we’ve been throwing down that black hole while it’s been serving as the backdrop for Al Qaeda’s “reconstitution”. (That’s a Darth term, isn’t it?)
A winner agin Scarecrow.
So..
It seems we already have, doesn’t it?
Now that you have thrown down the gauntlet of love for The DaVinci Code, I’ve got your back.
Withering analysis on religions’ “moral” authority. Here’s our problem: in their views, you and I are going to hell or whatever. We have no standing to interpret their righteous actions.
I’ve noticed that Bush has toned down his religious bull lately. I guess he doesn’t care about them anymore now that he doesn’t need their votes. When I think of all the disgusting things he did on the back of their pro-life vote, it makes me sick.
All that is required in a human to have morals is a brain and the ability to reason. The rest follows naturally. As Phylter at 6 said, the golden rule is all you need. I’d trust a athiest over a christian any day.
This may get moderated into oblivion but it needs to be said. I am reading Ibn Warriq’s Why I am Not a Muslim. It’s an astonishing description of the fact that militant Islamo-Fascism is at war with us. Whether we choose to recognize it or not is up to us and our peril, but the fact is we may be not in a 30-Year-War, but another 200-Year-War against a monstrous collection of pagan, Zorastrian, and militant melange of Judaism, Christianity, and Bedoin/pagan Sword Play, but Militant Islam is DANGEROUS to the Western way of life. And we ignore it to our detriment. They Will Destroy FDL believers as well as Conservative Republicans. We had better wake up because they are at war with AMERICA, not Left or Right, but America.
OT:
The NYT calls bullshit:
“Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07.....mp;emc=rss
Jane Hamsher @ 9
Jane, each fundamentalist sect has received the only true inspired “word of God”; their duty is to come out of the “world” and come out of the daughters of Babylon (organized maninstream religion).
Excellent, Scarecrow. Gerson is such a wanker with his “we’re holier than you are, because we say so” perspective. He couldn’t see the hypocrisy if it smacked him upside the head…
Jane Hamsher @ 9
I’m astonished (but shouldn’t be) that CNN and others are giving so much play to religious issues; this is a very dangerous game, and Romney’s Mormonism is going to bring a lot of nastiness out — not from him, but from non-Mormons. Fortunately, the Pope is reminding us who’s your Daddy.
Ironic that each religion’s standard of “objectivity” varies from belief to belief, each is the “final truth” and while expressing (on the face), toleration for their sister belief systems hold nothing but scorn for atheists.
Yet atheism/agnosticism truly is objective, by its very nature!
(*sigh*) I love organized religion so…
-MS
Another home run, Scarecrow. This is something I think about not only for the reasons you cite, but also because it’s exploited for its members’ sense of belonging. I think that we vastly underrate how much that means - on ideology buy-in, in votes, in MSM slant, and in carrying the water for the Repubs without end.
When the message is that only a few are the chosen, and the rest are damned, there isn’t much motivation for tolerance, generosity, civil discourse, universal health, etc.
I’d like to see the Dems use the classic virtues to frame all policy. Quit using the term “values” which is a code for religious tenet, and use the terms of the Founders, which I think are based on the classic virtues.
Go back to Kennedy speeches and read the framing, and the language.
Sorry - too much rambling - really need coffee.
Jane Hamsher @ 9
What Jane said.
Except that I’d qualify it a bit and say “many” (not the unstated “all”) “traditional” Christians fit into this description.
But some of us are trying to adjust matters a bit.
Gerson needs to be careful about what he’s asking for. For instance, if Gerson and BushCo wants to get all religous on us, how about tackling this one: “As you did it to the least of these, my brothers and sisters,” said Jesus, “you did it to me.” So, Michael, let’s take a look at the moral religious aspects of the budget of the United States, or the health care policies of this nation . . .
Give me a break.
Great post, scarecrow — but I’ve got to run for a plane, and can’t stick around to chat!
Great post scarecrow. We ought to start calling your posts the Morning Smackdown.
From this morning TimesPicayune (New Orleans newspaper):
. . . . . . .
Lolis Eric Elie can be reached at lelie@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3330.”
We need to get this all over the MSM to counter this:
This was printed in the Monroe News Star World, in Monroe, La.
[Mod Note; Edited by Mod for length. To help keep the FDL servers running smoothly and to avoid any copyright issues, please do not post entire articles — include a link (or links) instead. Thank you. ]
1) Vitter has decided his own fate
2) Lots of hypocrisy, but all around
Scarecrow-righteous post! *g*
Seriously, in light of what the 3 fundies did the other day in the Senate when a Hindu cleric tried to lead the opening prayer, a national discussion addressing the role of religion and government must take place.
Otherwise,the American taliban will shut down free speech in this country.
Nequals1 @ 20
I like that distinction — virtues, not values, and I’m more comfortable if politicians speak of civic virtues of public service, fairness, due process, etc.
You know, this is a fairly commonly held opinion, that if you’re not religious you must not be able to make moral decisions, that you can’t tell right from wrong. It’s bunk of course, there are many philosophical arguments that lead to making moral decisions without injecting religion into the mix.
Here’s one that works for me. A distinguishing characteristic of human beings is our ability to remember the past and understand how past actions led to our present condition. Using that knowledge, we are able to project the consequences of present actions into the future and make value judgements as to which outcomes we consider good, and which we consider bad. From there, things get more complicated as people naturally have different opinions about the worth of different oucomes.
In this way of looking at it “good” and “bad” are not separate concepts in and of themselves, but are the natural consequence of a need to make value judgements about the decisions we make and the actions we take. Human beings being what they are, there is a vast amount of opinions and structured arguments that attempt to do just that. As individuals, we have to either struggle with history and our own past in order to make those judgements, or rely on the opinions and beliefs of others. Religion is a way of both giving people a way of making those judgements and a guide to which judgements they should make. But as much as religious people would like to believe otherwise, in the end you have to make your own decisions as to what constitutes good and bad, or resign yourself to letting others make those decisions for you, whether or not they claim to have a message from god.
Well, that’s probably a bit much for a Friday morning, the result, no doubt of too much early morning caffeine and too many college courses in moral philosophy. But it always irks me when people claim that only the religious have a moral sense, and this is the best argument I’ve ever come up with to show them that it just ain’t so.
Gerson is flat wrong in his statement that athiests have no solid basis in discerning right from wrong. watch this:
What is the most valuable thing we possess? Life.
What does life want? To continue.
Ergo, Thou Shalt Not Kill.
No popes, no gods, no strings required.
Shorter Popomo @ 26: Morality should be reason-based rather than belief-based.
-MS
Evil is a religious concept and presumes that you accept the lexicon of religion.
However there are other means test for behaviors aside from “good nand evil”… how about right and wrong… leaving god out of it?
War is wrong because it destroys innocent life and despoils the envirnoment etc.
I am so weary of the religionists… ALL OF THEM. Even the gentle liberation theologists need to do the good without their god. God is a myth and we need to be more reality based.
Oops, I meant reason-based…
My response to Gerson in WaPo comments:
Quoting Gerson- “Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. Many get away with it their whole lives. By exercising the will to power, they are maximizing one element of their human nature. In a purely material universe, what possible moral basis could exist to condemn them?”
As an atheist, I find innumerable moral bases to condemn VP Cheney. Space here does not suffice.
Come on now, we all know war is terrorism with a bigger budget.
Michael in Park Slope @ 27
Thank you. We need another age of enlightenment. It’s been much too dark for much too long. A mini dark ages, if you will.
Life doesn’t want to do anything.
Our survival instinct is nothing more than a higher level of genetic behavior. We are the survival machines for genes.
The appearance of consciousness and the ability to transform the environment is also a more sophisticated survival “strategy” for genes.
Read some Dawkins… He lays it out pretty well. He’s an aetheist, of course, and thinks religion is bunk.
The thing that always drives me batsh*t crazy about the fundies is the belief by many that the King James bible is the absolute true word of Dog and is to be believed explicitly and without question.
My response:
We speak English, the same language of Shakespeare, a contemporary of King James. Even the most well read and erudite of us generally need to use the little cheat sheets that accompany most of the plays in order to truly gain an understanding of what is being said. And this is the same language over a four hundred year period.
So I’m expected to believe that a bunch of English translators, sitting in London or Glasgow in the early 1600s, working from non-original source documents (i.e., translations of translations, most likely Latin or Greek translations of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic), in languages not their birth languages 1600 to 4000 years after the words are first written - I’m expected to believe that these people are in anyway able to fully and accurately translate the bible as the original word of Dog.
To say nothing about the selective choices of which books of the Old and New Testaments are included, going all the way back.
To say nothing of the fact that King James was a pederast (just thought to throw that one in for sh*ts and grins).
Old joke: Dog says to Pope at the Pearly Gates, “I said celebrate not celibate.
lisadawn82 @ 22
I was being gentle.
Phylter @ 6
Funnily enough, Jesus said the same thing.
Michael in Park Slope:
Thanks for the translation into a few good words. It works for me.
if somebody already mentioned this i apologize for the redundancy:
the founders were, mostly, NOT ‘theists.’
they were ‘deists’, to the extent that they were ‘believers’ at all (and Franklin, for example, was not even that).
via Wikipedia: “Deism”“
Morning Scarecrow and everypup
Thank you for this crucial post, and now that it’s in his mailbox, I hope Mr. Gerson takes the time to read and consider it, even if it was written by a pagan scarecrow.
for the record, my goddess is bigger than his
I know right from wrong because I was brought up right and taught right from wrong. While I know and respect many people who are religious, being told that the only way to learn morals is from religion by people who have done so much evil in the name of religion is beyond insulting.
dakine01 @ 35
Yes. I use a similar point: if the Bible is the literal word of g*d, who made the transcription? Men? Well aren’t all med imperfect? How, then, can the transcript be considered perfect? Other point: those who demand literal interpretation of the Bible are themselves interpreting, and ergo, are sinning. You believe in an all powerful G*d. Why then, can’t G*d have evolution, for instance? Why can’t G*d have different ways of knowing about itself?
mc @ 23
watching the youtube was so heartbreaking. and almost as bad (or maybe worse) was the the person calling for sergeant-at-arms to restore order. he just stepped in front of the cleric giving the prayer and interrupted him without any acknowledgement or apology.
SanderO @ 33
Actually, I think genes are survival machines for memes.
And religion is memetic, as is all culture. One meme will war on another for resources and fertile genes in which to propagate like viruses.
I don’t think it’s a successful meme that says, “You are inherently BAD; you must be assimilated,” like the hive-mind.
The whole notion of being subsumed is so fear inducing that we should use it.
There are no permanent, universal, trans-cultural, trans-temporal ‘values’.
Everything, somewhere, sometime, was a sacrament.
Dakine01 35: Beautifully, beautifully put!
-MS
Elliott @ 39
I don’t think scarecrows are pagans. We don’t attend rituals. Barn dances are okay.
this occurred to me in about 6th grade.
i asked the nuns.
they said god had interceded with the mortals transcribing his word, to ensure they got it right.
no problem, see???
i think the experiment is still in progress… it’s not yet known if “intelligence” is an adaptive trait.
let’s first see if we can avoid inducing a climate catastrophe or a nuclear holocaust…
selise @ 42
that was Senator Bob Casey (D-PA)
I honestly don’t think he meant any disrespect, selise.
Boston1775 @ 12
A-a-rgh!!! The DaVinci Code may be good fiction, but it’s bad history! It’s not just Christian fundies who think the DaVinci Code is bunk– it’s most of secular critical scholarship!
Our founding fathers got it right on separation of Church and State. It is another one of those areas in which BushCo has launched an attack on our Constitution.
I do have one bone to pick with last night’s post on the Constitution. Yes, it is not a perfect document– That’s why it has been amended 13 times. But it is the best thing we or anyone else has going.
One of the things that most impressed me, living through Watergate, was the triumph of Constitutionalism (yes, its an -ism!) over presidential excess. At the time, there was a very strong public opinion that our Constitution had been violated, and that things must be put to rights.
One of the things that upsets me most about the current national politics is the fecklessness of Democrats in refusing to use its Constitutional powers (i.e., impeachment) when it is their Civic Duty to use those powers (there’s a very good diary on this subject over on DailyKos about a month or so ago.) If we fail to use those Constitutional powers, then the fault is with us, and not the Constitution. And please, no crap about “we haven’t got the votes.” Impeachment was not meant to be a partisan power; it was meant to be a Congressional power. If 40 Republican Senators vote against well-drafted Articles of Impeachment, then they have signed the warrant for their own political deaths, because they will be vulnerable in their next election. THEY know it. The Feckless Democrats don’t seem to have grasped this yet.
Bob in WI
Scarecrow @ 46
I think scarecrows are the ultimate in conservation - stuffed with gleanings, clothed with rags, and standing sentry silently, courageously, gently - armed with fierce looks and shiny objects, and rife with tolerance and patience.
selise @ 48
“humanity” is a cosmic experiment, testing whether “Life” can survive “intelligence”.
so far, the ‘nul hypothesis’ seems to be winning.
wgg: tokin lib’rul @ 44
I respectfully disagree. There are universal ethics and values — or morals, if you will. They underpin most human religions and the actions of most societies with or without religion. We don’t need to specify a religion to understand their importance. Here is a reasonably good framework:
Personal ethics
Concern for the well-being of others
Respect for the autonomy of others
Trustworthiness & honesty
Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience)
Basic justice; being fair
Refusing to take unfair advantage
Benevolence: doing good
Preventing harm
Professional/Business ethics
Impartiality; objectivity
Openness; full disclosure
Confidentiality
Due diligence / duty of care
Fidelity to professional responsibilities
Avoiding potential or apparent conflict of interest
Global ethics
Global justice (as reflected in international laws)
Society before self / social responsibility
Environmental stewardship
Interdependence & responsibility for the ‘whole’
Reverence for place
(Some of you will recognize this list from another thread post-Scarecrow essay…)
wgg: tokin lib’rul @ 45
I would take exception to that. I believe that there are “good” and “evil.” I differ with the religionists in only how these would be defined. I say that logic will always show the way.
Besides, it plays into the religionist’s hands to not be able to posit the existence of any sort of values. That way they can say: “Look, it’s what I said about the DFH’s: they don’t know right from wrong.”
-MS
Help, Mods, please - I garbled ul code. Thankee. [Mod: fixed]
Is lying to start a war, something a Christian would do?
Michael Gerson was born on May 15, 1964. He was eligible to enlist in the military until he turned 43 last May. So he cannot fight in the war he help start as part of the White House Iraq Group. Gerson was part of the Libby coverup. He knew the Niger documents were forgeries but continued to use the “mushroom cloud” threat.
Nequals1 @ 53
It’s good story, but how do we explain all the crows?
Scarecrow @ 46
I apologize to scarecrows everywhere.
But still anyway, you knocked the stuffing out of him.
and what? no Caw-CAW yet!
Caw-CAW!
George,
What part of “Thou shalt not kill” do you not understand?
God
Michael in Park Slope @ 54
i disagree.
“right” and “wrong” are socio-culturally determined.
always.
Reasons change but Desire remains the same and if your desires are justified by your beliefs then you don’t ever have to think again… even about why you fail. Because Hope tells you your being tested by God. Desire should work with reason if at first you don’t succeed and keep on failing to succeed then try an other approach to get what you want.
God made us rational beings for a reason pretending that all your actions regarding the Iraq war for example are justifed as the will of God is hurbris. The Gods punish hurbris and bring low the Prideful who claim to but DO NOT ACT IN HIS NAME!
To claim that you and yours have the one true path for everyone is hurbris. Trying to force others to live,think,feel as we do is just the insecurity of wanting everyone to feel the same. Accepting difference is accepting our place. Everyone has a piece of the truth if they really listen and to claim that your truth is greater than everyone else’s is to deny God! It is to deny what we can learn from each other. It is to deny their difference. It is to deny their Piece of God.
wqq: tokin lib’rul @ 61 says:
“i disagree.
“right” and “wrong” are socio-culturally determined.
always.”
Unprovoked pre-meditated murder is ethical when? Just saying…
-MS
Gromit picks this out: “Some people are very good at the self-centered exploitation of others. “
One of Hitchens’ key points is that religion enables people who are very good at self-centered exploitation of others. And in response to the claim that Stalin was an atheist, so it’s not just religion, Hitchens says that Stalin used all the trappings of a religion to engage in self-centered exploitation of others–a personality cult, absolutist decrees, even his the dismissal of biological science in favor his preferred system.
Glenn Greenwald writes up this–the Manicheanism of the Bush administration as captured by the axis of evil frame would not be possible without the underlying basis of godly authorization of the Good.
And what in heavens name is this guy doing at the council of foreign relations?
bobschacht — I expressed similar views wrt to the Constitution last night, but didn’t want to push the issue too far.
However . . . wrt to this:
A-a-rgh!!! The DaVinci Code may be good fiction, but it’s bad history! It’s not just Christian fundies who think the DaVinci Code is bunk– it’s most of secular critical scholarship!
. . . you may start a religious war. it is really a valid criticism to say that a piece of literature that is admittedly “fiction” is not historically accurate? That one gets me. I read DVC the same way I watch Star Wars — allegory and metaphor. The message can be true even if none of the scenes ever happened.
Late with things, as usual, but
Jane: You were soooo cool on CNN. And you did not seem fazed a bit by the Rudy question. Too bad you had to share the stage with that stuffed heritage foundation suit though — what a caricature that guy was.
Redshift: Very impressed by your Politico piece.
proud ta know y’all and everyone else here.
dopey-o @ 26
This is blind moralism. At its core is a belief in the individual life, against the collective life of a people when it is threatened with extinction. Ergo, the individual who sacrifices his life to attack infidels who occupy your country is morally justifiable.
If what you say is true, then war of any kind is immoral, because it involves intentional killing. Self-defense is also immoral if it involves taking the life of the person who is trying to kill you (I am referring here to the immediacy of an actual physical attack, not the hypothetical speculations of neo-cons).
Some of morality is, as you suggest, wired into our sociobiology (what “life wants”)– but how much is debatable.
Bob in WI
Elliott @ 49
thanks for the identification of casey for me.
whatever he meant by his actions - that he interupted the prayer (which was being given by request of the senate), without even an ‘excuse me’, was, i thought, disturbing.
i wonder… would he have done the same to his own priest?
wgg: tokin lib’rul @ 49
Yeah, I’ve been told “They prayed over it” like Dog was gonna send them the proper translations in a vision.
Kinda like The Chimpenfuhrer hearing voices in his head.
Bad religion drives out good,* as in “I am holier than thou.” There is a natural tendency toward extremism in religion, because in its absence, relgion dies out, as is the case for the mainstream Christian relgions.
*If there is such a thing as “good” relgion.
Michael in Park Slope @ 62
Human sacrifice to the gods is “Unprovoked pre-meditated murder,” n’est pas?
non-believers are actually some of the most sincerely moral people there are… because they do right solely because it’s the right thing to do, not because they fear consequences in the afterlife…
Michael in Park Slope @ 27
***
Exactly.
I’m an atheist, but I make donations and volunteer for clean-up and transportation for kids at my son’s church more than most of the parents who claim to be Christian. I do this because it’s the right thing to do. I want to be involved in my son’s life, and though his beliefs are different from mine, I respect him and appreciate all the youth pastor does for the kids. Almost all the regular kids there call me “Mom”, and many have stayed at my house and/or eaten at my table.
The sad part is, from past experience with fundies, I have no doubt that if some of the parents find out I’m atheist (I don’t make a secret of it), they most likely won’t let their kids come over here anymore. Suddenly, in their eyes, I’ll be someone they don’t want their kids to be around.
It makes no sense to me.
Elliott @ 60
Thank you! I was afraid no one would show up. ;)
The challenge we’re faced with is that we are dealing with people who do not understand or refuse to understand our language.
They can point to anything in what they perceive as our culture that is separate from theirs, and label it something inappropriate.
Here’s an example (which may or may not work in this room): how do you feel about eating snails?
Many cultures, including the French, find them delectable. But many Americans find the notion of eating them disgusting. How would you persuade these people to try just one snail?
There is a point at which we have to chuck the towel in on these folks and ignore them — right up to the point where they infringe on one’s right to eat snails. How do we defend the right to eat snails against people who reject that such a right exists?
Scarecrow @ 46
***
But no tiki torches, right?
Good Morning Scarecrow and Dawgs.
Pretty impressive pack in the kennel this morning!
Thank you for another wonderful post, Scarecrow.
I am so sick and tired of these know-it-alls who dare to separate people as “religious” (if they happen to share the same beliefs) or “evil” (if they happen to describe reverence, awe, sense of responsibility, or whatever in different terms, or even not at all). I would call the former rotten souls, but then that would be succumbing to temptation and playing their stupid game.
If a “heathen” respects and treats those around him well, is he not as worthy as the unrepentent “religious” person responsible for the killing of thousands?
I’m still stunned by the protest in the Senate yesterday when a Hindu read the morning prayer. I wonder how many Senators were inwardly cheering them on.
We. Are. Not. A. Theocracy.
I want my country back!
/rant
sorry. i’ll go lurk like a proper pup.
As a mainstream Christian [Presbyterian elder] I feel besieged in my faith from both sides. I am well aware that the fundamentalists think we are heathens, as did the Catholic Church before them.
I also cringe when hearing religion and religious belief ridiculed by progressives.
We need to build an enormous coalition of people to restore constitutional government and end the war, and a majority of those people are at least nominally religious. I think that making fun of our deeply held beliefs is counterproductive to creating this coalition.
Screw all these fundies and their blasphemy. The Catholic Church is the one true Christian representation of Christ on earth, ya’ know!
What is the good why is it good is a question Philosophers have been asking for a while but just Because God says so does not cut any ice with me. Argue if you want but listen and Respect my opinion in return if you want to have any hope of me respecting yours. If history has taught us anything its that even the bible can be ignored. Notice I don’t see Bush telling anybody to respect the Sabath which is one of the big Ten Comandments. But he feels free to get all bothered about gay marriage. If he can choose willy nilly which parts of the bible he wants to enforce then so can I choose for myself. His abilty to force people does not make it right.
OT, but WaPoo-related:
Sometimes it’s worth it to open the Dead Tree edition of the WaPoo — the one you obligingly pick up in your neighbor’s driveway while they’re on vacation since you don’t have one any more, having canceled it 17 or more times in protest.
On p. A5 you find a picture that they’re too embarrassed to put in the on-line edition [so I could link it here]. It relates to the “Summer of Stalemate” story on p. A1, and shows “Senators [aka stalematers] preparing to talk to reporters” — Lindsey Graham, Holy Joe, Kay Bailey Hutchison & Trent Lott.
If this doesn’t say it all for Harry Reid’s benefit, I don’t know what does!!
Pete Bogs @ 72
I don’t claim any morally superior status for being a nonbeliever, nor accept it for a believer. I look for people who make worthy moral choices, regardless — and I certainly do not intend my post or this thread as a hit on believers of any type, except the most egregiously hypocritical.
Good morning from L.A., & an excellent a.m. post again, Scarecrow. Plus Guernica- if you’re lucky enought to ever see the original, you’ll never forget the feelings it evokes. As moving an experience as gazing up @ the Sistine Chapel ceiling, slightly different set of feelings, though…
How about a little Mark Twain on religion:
“Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven….The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.”
- The Lowest Animal
Benny @ 80
and that Church wants to “beatify” the fascist murderers who aided and abetted Franco repress freedom and democracy in Spain…
I reckon ‘christ’ on earth might notta approved.
egregious @ 79
Won’t happen as long as extremists are in charge. Clean your house first, then we atheists will go back into hibernation like we were before. The last thing atheists want to talk about is religion–it’s such a waste of time. But if we must, we can be quite persuasive.
wgg: tokin lib’rul @ 72
But doesn’t this just prove my point that TRUE morality should have NOTHING but a RATIONAL basis. Surely you don’t defend human sacrifice as an example of a GOOD action (anymore than burning witches at the stake or, for that matter, burning abortion clinics). Yet these are societally or religiously sanctioned.
My point is simply that religion (or society) is not a very accurate barometer of morality.
-MS
Benny @ 80
fixed
Should have guessed; the spinning refresh indicates new threadage upstairs.