An unexpected religious conversation...

10/29/2009 05:28:10 PM · #926

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Louis:
You can't be an atheist and not have Christian friends, and more than likely family. It's impossible.

...except in the Middle East, Asia, and most of Africa. ;-)

China potentially has more Christians than the US and only northern Africa is muslim. As far as the middle east, well, you could live in Lebanon... :)

10/29/2009 05:36:58 PM · #927

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, what I'm saying is that there's something sad about a worldview that takes sincere believers in anything and holds them up to ridicule and mockery because they cannot "prove" the integrity of their faith. That's just *wrong* in so many ways it drives me batty.

It isn't wrong in context. The "god hates fags" people are deserving of ridicule and mockery. They should have no expectation of being taken seriously, or of having furrow-browed respect granted to them simply because they believe something. We all know that a man no less than Jefferson said that ridiculous claims deserve ridicule.

But this issue you bring up is personal for me, and brings me to something related. Often I'm accused of not having a light enough touch when talking amongst people of faith. My use of words like "delusion" and so on is called tasteless and hurtful. There is always, always a confusion of personal attack with objective observation when no such attack is implied.

The only way I can turn this around is to point out the opposite position, that of the Christian believer. An atheist is de facto damned to eternal suffering for being what he is, and there is no recourse other than to accept the faith of the believer. The believer thinks the atheist is deluded by his non-belief. That they--generally--don't vocalize this in polite conversation makes this no less a hallmark of their faith.

I probably resent being called tactless when I point out what I honestly think about religious faith as much as I resent being included in the ethos of the faithful. We both with our respective sets of beliefs hold the same view, it would seem. The difference seems only that I don't mind sharing mine.

We're discussing ideas here, not individuals. You can't be an atheist and not have Christian friends, and more than likely family. It's impossible. If I think my friends are deluded for their beliefs, are they any less my friends, and is the totality of their intersection with my life diminished? If I think a particular belief is a kind of delusion, that says nothing about what I think of a person who holds that belief, or what other kinds of things we can share.

We should be able to discuss ideas without the worry of causing offense every five minutes. It's disheartening. If I think you look terrible with that purple hair and those black spandex leotards, I'll tell you, but that doesn't mean I love you less! (Mother.)

I hear what you have to say Louis and I'll tell you where I run into trouble. Not necessarily with what you are saying, but along the lines of how these two worldviews live side by side. My faith is central to my life. Everything else operates through the lens of my faith. More and more people like myself feel marginalized because the unspoken feeling among the "educated" is that I should not be allowed to advocate my position when it comes to interacting with others (ie. politics and law). Only non-religious moral systems can/should be applied to society. All others are verboten. Now I understand the pushback and that atheists are finally feeling like they have a voice, but "pushback" will naturally meet with "resistance". I have as much right to advocate for my beliefs as the next guy in crafting laws or voting for representatives that do. And while people complain that my system forces views upon other people, the reverse is also true. Secular systems do not respect or agree with my views about certain things, so why can I not advocate against them?

Maybe that came out of left field and has nothing to do with what you were saying. I guess I just had to get it off my chest.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

10/29/2009 05:46:36 PM · #928

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But why shouldn't there be a separation between church and state?

You cannot agree which church is the right one amongst yourselves, yet you want people who belong to no church to abide your rules and regulations?

That is neither right nor reasonable.

This isn't a case of pushback, it's high time everyone was on a equal footing socially without the stigma of religion thrown into the mix.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

10/29/2009 05:48:12 PM · #929

deleted and post as new topic

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 17:50:48.

10/29/2009 05:49:47 PM · #930

Tell you what, Jason......meet me in the middle. Let's both embrace Judaism.

Fair & equitable?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

10/29/2009 05:52:14 PM · #931

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

More and more people like myself feel marginalized because the unspoken feeling among the "educated" is that I should not be allowed to advocate my position when it comes to interacting with others (ie. politics and law). Only non-religious moral systems can/should be applied to society. All others are verboten.

Separating religion from politics and law is a founding principle of the constitution. Were it not so, then Mormons could petition for laws endorsing polygamy, the Amish might want laws forbidding machinery, and laws would differ radically wherever such groups form local majorities.

10/29/2009 05:56:01 PM · #932

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Separation of church and state means there is no state sponsored religion. The state doesn't force you to worship a particular God or attend a particular church. Separation of church and state does not mean issues that come up for legislation cannot be advocated for or against based on whether you are a religious person. Everyone IS on an equal footing and while I'm sure someone will quickly start mentioning the tyranny of the majority I do not think suddenly switching to a tyranny of the minority will be any better.

I see this applies to Shannon's post too and just goes to show that my paragraph is quite true about what the "educated" think...

There is nothing preventing the Amish from petitioning for laws banning machinery. I doubt they would pass, but if they did I highly doubt the reason they would be struck down would be because of separation of church and state.

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 17:58:41.

10/29/2009 06:01:24 PM · #933

[

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

No, everybody is not on an equal footing. We're supposed to be, but it doesn't quite shake down that way.

As long as people want to equate how they live to their faith, and advocate for it, as opposed to hashing out means of peaceful coexistence based solely on society's interaction, there will be problems.

10/29/2009 06:03:28 PM · #934

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

There is nothing preventing the Amish from petitioning for laws banning machinery. I doubt they would pass, but if they did I highly doubt the reason they would be struck down would be because of separation of church and state.

The Amish are a much more pragmatic lot in so many ways than other religions.

They have, and will continue to adapt as the world around them changes.

10/29/2009 06:03:34 PM · #935

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

As long as people want to equate how they live to their faith, and advocate for it, as opposed to hashing out means of peaceful coexistence based solely on society's interaction, there will be problems.

Frankly Jeb you are living in a dream world if you think Lennon's imagined world without religion would be any better...

Everybody is on an equal footing. There just happen to still be more people who feel one way about things than another. That state is always going to exist one way or another.

10/29/2009 06:05:51 PM · #936

When you say we are not on an equal footing, tell me, practically, what you mean. Is it just that people disagree with you? or you really think your representatives do not listen to you? or what?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

10/29/2009 06:09:33 PM · #937

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You'd lose that bet. The Mormons held a vast local majority in Utah that could easily pass whatever laws they wanted, but laws based on religion can and have been struck down because of the separation of church and state. "The Supreme Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom."

Individuals have voted against gay rights, abolition, lifting blue laws, and women's rights according to personal faith, but any bill introduced today on the basis of "what the Bible says" would be declared unconstitutional.

10/29/2009 06:15:00 PM · #938

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

When you say we are not on an equal footing, tell me, practically, what you mean. Is it just that people disagree with you? or you really think your representatives do not listen to you? or what?

This isn't about me, it's about social mores that need to be changed. The righteous entitlement that people of faith have that their wishes and rights are to be rerspected above all others is what pisses me off if you want the truth.

I just see too much old school "God, Guns, & Guts, What Made America PROUD" kind of attitude, too much hatred and bigotry, and for as far evolved as we're supposed to be, too much struggle over faith and religion's part in society.

Who the hell are you to tell me how to live based on your faith in a country that's supposed to be free from the influence of religion over others?

Why am I wrong, insensitive, or disrespectful because I don't want it pressed onto my daughter in her school?

Why is it okay for you, but not for me to have my beliefs respected?

10/29/2009 06:16:49 PM · #939

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is nothing preventing the Amish from petitioning for laws banning machinery. I doubt they would pass, but if they did I highly doubt the reason they would be struck down would be because of separation of church and state.

You'd lose that bet. The Mormons held a vast local majority in Utah that could easily pass whatever laws they wanted, but laws based on religion can and have been struck down because of the separation of church and state. "The Supreme Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom."

Individuals have voted against gay rights, abolition, lifting blue laws, and women's rights according to personal faith, but any bill introduced today on the basis of "what the Bible says" would be declared unconstitutional.

I think you are confusing "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state". The mormon ruling seems to tell me there are limitations to the former but has nothing to do with the latter. If there really was separation, then how could the state then meddle in the church's affairs? If this is a separation issue, why can the state rule that Mormons can't practice polygamy? That doesn't sound like separation to me.

But I'm afraid that moral issues to which the Bible speaks are open game. The most I agree with you would be laws such as Sabbath laws preventing businesses from operating on Sunday. Those haven't flown and obviously there IS some line between what is state sponsored religion and what is merely a moral issue to which religion speaks. But far too often the opinion is that religious people should have zero say. To this, I disagree.

10/29/2009 06:18:58 PM · #940

Has it ever occurred to any of you who would have your "Word" passed along that after some 5000 years or so of killing one another in the name of whatever God you have that it just isn't working?

Why not let each and every person deal with their faith, beliefs, and God in their own way, and leave others alone.....

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/29/2009 06:24:01 PM · #941

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But I'm afraid that moral issues to which the Bible speaks are open game. The most I agree with you would be laws such as Sabbath laws preventing businesses from operating on Sunday. Those haven't flown and obviously there IS some line between what is state sponsored religion and what is merely a moral issue to which religion speaks.

Yes......around here, most farm stores do not have Sunday sales.....that's their right & privilege. BUT......Target & Wal-Mart have no religious views as such so why shouldn't they be open Sundays?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But far too often the opinion is that religious people should have zero say. To this, I disagree.

I don't believe that's the case.......the objection is when religious people want to make across the board rules & regs based solely on their beliefs......like Sunday blue laws.

Louis

Nikon D800

10/29/2009 06:24:10 PM · #942

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But far too often the opinion is that religious people should have zero say. To this, I disagree.

Religious people should have their say. But they should not have their religious beliefs form law. When that happens, the rights of others are always compromised.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

10/29/2009 06:27:46 PM · #943

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Why is it okay for you, but not for me to have my beliefs respected?

So assuming there are some real differences in beliefs that aren't just going to be rectified, and assuming that suddenly you had the upper hand, how are we in any different position? Wouldn't I, according to you, now have the right to bitch just as loudly? This is my point.

You assert that "social mores need to be changed", but this statement cannot be based on anything other than your opinion and your opinion is, according to your own assertion, no better or worse than anybody else's. So maybe social mores do NOT need to be changed. Actually we probably all agree they need to be changed, we'd just disagree over what specifically that means.

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 18:29:59.

Apple iPhone 5

10/29/2009 06:29:39 PM · #944

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But far too often the opinion is that religious people should have zero say. To this, I disagree.

Religious people should have their say. But they should not have their religious beliefs form law. When that happens, the rights of others are always compromised.

I'm not so sure that allowing religious believers to 'have their say' is entirely healthy to society either.

Too often we read about parents who allow their child to die from simple illnesses because they placed faith in 'god' that he would heal them. And what gives parents the right to mutilate their children's genitals in the name of their religion? - In fact, what gives parents the right to indoctrinate their child into their religion at an age when the child is incapable of making their own decision?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/29/2009 06:31:16 PM · #945

So let's just all go back to my original paragraph and assume that my feelings are based on reality. You all clearly do not feel I have a right to advocate my own position when it comes to politics and law. Fine, you can hold that position, but I can disagree about it and push back when confronted by it.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/29/2009 06:33:46 PM · #946

Originally posted by Louis:

Right. To use abortion as an example, if you are going to push for a law banning it then you need a constitutional basis not a religious one. I say this even though I consider myself prolife (across the board).

Message edited by author 2009-10-29 18:36:41.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

10/29/2009 06:36:42 PM · #947

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ironically, that's because you are confusing "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state." The government can't mandate who you worship (the former), and the church can't enact laws on religious grounds (the latter). Since marriage is governed by the state, a religious group can't override civil laws against polygamy.

10/29/2009 06:40:42 PM · #948

Originally posted by yanko:

I think this is a perfect example, though I reach a different conclusion. The central issue of abortion involves when a human becomes a person. That is, when they are given the rights that come along with being a human being. The answer is largely arbitrary and it would be my contention that if someone wants to say, "I personally believe personhood is granted at conception because my faith says so." then they have every right to advocate that position. Just as much as someone who says, "I believe personhood is granted at viability." or "I believe personhood is granted at birth." even if the latter are based on some non-religious moral code. This doesn't amount to state sponsored religion but is rather a law affected by moral positions and religion has an equal ground in coming up with those.