| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/05/2011 05:21:28 PM · #901 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
We can all agree it's bad to murder another person. |
Apparently not quite everyone ...
Originally posted by cited article:
Klan members adopted masks and robes that hid their identities and added to the drama of their night rides, their chosen time for attacks. Many of them operated in small towns and rural areas where people otherwise knew each other's faces, and sometimes still recognized the attackers. "The kind of thing that men are afraid or ashamed to do openly, and by day, they accomplish secretly, masked, and at night." With this method both the high and the low could be attacked.[39] The Ku Klux Klan night riders "sometimes claimed to be ghosts of Confederate soldiers so, as they claimed, to frighten superstitious blacks. Few freedmen took such nonsense seriously."
The Klan attacked black members of the Loyal Leagues and intimidated southern Republicans and Freedmen's Bureau workers. When they killed black political leaders, they also took heads of families, along with the leaders of churches and community groups, because people had many roles. Agents of the Freedmen's Bureau reported weekly assaults and murders of blacks. "Armed guerrilla warfare killed thousands of Negroes; political riots were staged; their causes or occasions were always obscure, their results always certain: ten to one hundred times as many Negroes were killed as whites." Masked men shot into houses and burned them, sometimes with the occupants still inside. They drove successful black farmers off their land. "Generally, it can be reported that in North and South Carolina, in 18 months ending in June 1867, there were 197 murders and 548 cases of aggravated assault."
...
The second Klan adopted a burning Latin cross as its symbol. No such crosses had been used by the first Klan, but the burning cross became a symbol of intimidation by the second Klan. The burning of the cross was also used during the second Klan as a symbol of Christian fellowship, and its lighting during meetings was steeped in Christian prayer, the singing of hymns, and other overtly religious symbolism.
 Rally, 12/31/1922:  [/url] |
|
|
|
|
05/05/2011 05:37:36 PM · #902 |
Haha. It looks like Zuckerman lives about a half an hour away from me. Maybe I'll have to pay him a visit...
Nullix brought up another excellent criticism for the paper which a) did not cite anything and b) implied causal links when we have no idea what sort of control measures were accounted for. Societal research is rife with bad studies. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 06:04:52 PM · #903 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Sorry, I forgot about natural law. We can all agree it's bad to murder another person. |
the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics, answered: "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" ΓΆ€“ "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his"
Killing in God's name has a long and glorious history. Ask Bin Ladden...oh, wait, too late for him.
The difficulty many believers have with humanism is the expectation that a particular tract or thinker will stand for all humanists. This is not the case. It is not a creed handed down to us, but a philosophy which we draw from human experience. There is no central text.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2011 06:13:39 PM · #904 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The difficulty many believers have with humanism is the expectation that a particular tract or thinker will stand for all humanists. This is not the case. It is not a creed handed down to us, but a philosophy which we draw from human experience. There is no central text. |
Could this be a large part of the answer to the editorialist's question? Maybe the average person who answers that they distrust atheists doesn't know what they are getting with a generic atheist whereas there is a more developed impression for a generic theist (or in this country that probably means a generic Christian).
OTOH, it is pretty clear that human nature distrusts "other" in general. If you ask the same question about Mormons, for example, you will get a higher level of distrust than when asked about Christians (see Mitt Romney). Mormons are quite religious, but they are also viewed as "other" by many.
Message edited by author 2011-05-05 18:15:03. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 07:16:49 PM · #905 |
| I thought about jumping back in, but I really don't have it in me to debate on this stuff anymore. I will just say this though, as an atheist I do have a "book" so to speak. It's called "the law". I follow the laws because I would never want to end up in jail. I would not intentionally break any laws. Murder is against the law. Therefore, murder is wrong. But if it was legal, maybe I wouldn't feel that way. Who knows. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 07:26:27 PM · #906 |
| I think we're all losing energy for these conversations Kelli. :) I've been reading some great books, but there's no way I feel like discussing them... :) |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 07:27:46 PM · #907 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think we're all losing energy for these conversations Kelli. :) I've been reading some great books, but there's no way I feel like discussing them... :) |
;P |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 07:56:09 PM · #908 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I thought about jumping back in, but I really don't have it in me to debate on this stuff anymore. I will just say this though, as an atheist I do have a "book" so to speak. It's called "the law". I follow the laws because I would never want to end up in jail. I would not intentionally break any laws. Murder is against the law. Therefore, murder is wrong. But if it was legal, maybe I wouldn't feel that way. Who knows. |
I'd break laws and go to jail for them if I felt them unjust. |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 08:43:38 PM · #909 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Haha. It looks like Zuckerman lives about a half an hour away from me. Maybe I'll have to pay him a visit...
Nullix brought up another excellent criticism for the paper which a) did not cite anything and b) implied causal links when we have no idea what sort of control measures were accounted for. Societal research is rife with bad studies. |
So you're saying the author made some claims and didn't back them up? What was that word thrown around earlier? Oh yeah, it was hypocrisy. Gotta love rant.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2011 09:36:28 PM · #910 |
| Ah Richard, you're good for at least one thing... |
|
|
|
05/05/2011 10:19:42 PM · #911 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ah Richard, you're good for at least one thing... |
Now all I need is to turn my DrAchoo summary writing skills into a cash cow... Still working on that part.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 09:09:34 AM · #912 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...Maybe the average person who answers that they distrust atheists doesn't know what they are getting with a generic atheist whereas there is a more developed impression for a generic theist (or in this country that probably means a generic Christian). |
Gee Doc, other than the fact that generic Christians believe in God and Christ, what other generalities do they share? Most people could not tell you what differences exist between the various groups and a lot would be hard pressed to name more than two groups.
I guess this is where the "Best the devil you know" expression comes from huh?
Ray |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 12:18:37 PM · #913 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...Maybe the average person who answers that they distrust atheists doesn't know what they are getting with a generic atheist whereas there is a more developed impression for a generic theist (or in this country that probably means a generic Christian). |
Gee Doc, other than the fact that generic Christians believe in God and Christ, what other generalities do they share? Most people could not tell you what differences exist between the various groups and a lot would be hard pressed to name more than two groups.
Ray |
Frankly I knew this to be the answer I would get, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Brennan points out that atheists are different than theists because they have no central creed (and thus a wide variety of positions), but you argue that they are the same as theists because there is a wide variety of positions among Christians? Which is it? Same? or Different?
But the important thing in this is the IMPRESSION a poll taker has of a generic Christian and a generic atheist. The reality doesn't matter in an opinion poll. If a person feels they understand a generic theist better than a generic atheists they will likely tend to distrust the atheist. That's basic human nature and may go a long way to explain the question asked by the editorialist.
I've never heard that expression in my life. What does it mean? |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 12:46:26 PM · #914 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But the important thing in this is the IMPRESSION a poll taker has of a generic Christian and a generic atheist. The reality doesn't matter in an opinion poll. If a person feels they understand a generic theist better than a generic atheists they will likely tend to distrust the atheist. That's basic human nature and may go a long way to explain the question asked by the editorialist.
|
The cited paper seems a bit light on original research, a slight gloss of facts over an opinion piece. It's central impression is that titular theists are the majority in this country, and they distrust atheists. The fact that most people are less trusting of those who are different than they are is hardly a new observation. The majority in any pole will always be more trusted than the minority. The less they understand about the minority, the more they distrust them.
As an agnostic I find the religious pandering in popular and political life rather grating. When every speech out of a politician's mouth end's with "God bless America" and "In God we trust" is on our currency. Our use of a national vague faith as some sort of defensive reflex it is both demeaning to our secular state, and to the real faith of the deeply religious. To use religion as some sort of protective clear coat cheapens belief, in the same was as the ubiquitous lapel flag pin cheapens patriotism.
"We trust, sir, that God is on our side.
It is more important to know that
we are on God's side."
Abraham Lincoln |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 01:27:48 PM · #915 |
Nicely put, Brennan. I agree with almost everything you say. One caveat is that within the "clear coat" of religious display are examples of real, sincere belief. I'm just as cynical as you about the throwaway tributes to God, but I try to remind myself that when I do that I'm judging the motivations and inner beliefs of someone and I have no real information to make that judgement. As an example, as much as I disliked GWB, I'm pretty sure his "God bless Americas" or other religious displays are the surface of deeply held convictions.
I can understand why such things it may grate on an agnostic, but that's part of living in a free country. People are going to hold and display opinions that you may not hold. If you happen to hold a minority opinion, you are going to see the opposing opinion quite a bit. This doesn't invalidate your feelings, but it reveals that it's probably just the way it is and will be. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:01:13 PM · #916 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can understand why such things it may grate on an agnostic, but that's part of living in a free country. People are going to hold and display opinions that you may not hold. If you happen to hold a minority opinion, you are going to see the opposing opinion quite a bit. This doesn't invalidate your feelings, but it reveals that it's probably just the way it is and will be. |
Frankly the only one that really grates on me is the insertion of God's name onto mandated governmental positions. On our money (on U.S. coins since 1864 and on paper currency since 1957.), into the Pledge of Allegiance (1954), and the assumption that you need to swear before God on a Bible to give witness at a trail or get a passport (you don't have to, but it is the standard which can be deviated from).
I have a great respect for true faith, but I am a great believer in the idea of separate magisteria, not just in faith and science, but faith and governance as well. Each ought to inform the other, but none ought to be able use the other as proof positive. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:26:18 PM · #917 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can understand why such things it may grate on an agnostic, but that's part of living in a free country. People are going to hold and display opinions that you may not hold. If you happen to hold a minority opinion, you are going to see the opposing opinion quite a bit. This doesn't invalidate your feelings, but it reveals that it's probably just the way it is and will be. |
Frankly the only one that really grates on me is the insertion of God's name onto mandated governmental positions. On our money (on U.S. coins since 1864 and on paper currency since 1957.), into the Pledge of Allegiance (1954), and the assumption that you need to swear before God on a Bible to give witness at a trail or get a passport (you don't have to, but it is the standard which can be deviated from).
I have a great respect for true faith, but I am a great believer in the idea of separate magisteria, not just in faith and science, but faith and governance as well. Each ought to inform the other, but none ought to be able use the other as proof positive. |
I appreciate that position, but I would counter that it plays right into an agnostic's hand. You feel this way because, to you, these beliefs don't carry much meaning. To someone with deeply held convictions (relgious, or even atheistic), it is impossible to divorce one part of them from another. If I were an elected official, I could not try to put on my "secular" hat while at work and then, only when I get home, put on the real me hat.
I understand the tension between this reality and the "separation of church and state", but I, for one, feel completely comfortable with not requiring "secular" hats in government (natch). |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 02:50:21 PM · #918 |
Do you really feel that your worship of God is served by having "in God we trust" on a five dollar bill?
Its a bit like some friends who use the word "love" a bit too casually. I love that car, I love that team, I love your new hat. When you spray the word out over everything you see, when you tell your wife that you love her, it just doesn't carry the same weight.
When every breath is a prayer, when no action one can take does not demand God's attention and intercession, then calling on God as a witness just doesn't carry the same weight.
The tablets said "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." Exodus 20:7
The word vain is the Hebrew word shav. It has a variety of translations including emptiness, vanity, falsehood, nothingness, emptiness of speech, lying, and worthlessness. To misuse God's name means literally, "to lift it up to or attach it to emptiness."
No one is to use the Lord's name in this manner.
And if printing God's name on a nickel isn't and empty use of his name, I don't know what is. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 03:10:55 PM · #919 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I were an elected official, I could not try to put on my "secular" hat while at work and then, only when I get home, put on the real me hat. |
I am responding to that quote. An elected official's job is to represent all people, not just him or herself. You said you couldn't do that so I asked if that was an issue in other jobs as well. There's a difference between setting aside one's beliefs and abandoning them all together. One can do the latter while still being the person he is. We wouldn't have the society we have today if that wasn't possible.
Message edited by author 2011-05-06 20:21:51.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 03:49:39 PM · #920 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To someone with deeply held convictions (relgious, or even atheistic), it is impossible to divorce one part of them from another. If I were an elected official, I could not try to put on my "secular" hat while at work and then, only when I get home, put on the real me hat.
I understand the tension between this reality and the "separation of church and state", but I, for one, feel completely comfortable with not requiring "secular" hats in government (natch). |
Does this inability spill over into other things as well? As a scientist are you unable to do science work without having it pass your religious filters? |
How can I not be who I am in anything? Your questions is poorly phrased and I would object on many fronts. Carrying out an experiment, or diagnosing a patient offers little room for religious input, but knowing when the experiment results ought to be utilized or how to deal with the patient's diagnosis offers much room for religious input. Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Gentleness. Self-control. All can be helpful as a scientist and in my case all those are part of my "religious filter" (a phrase I'm not very fond of).
Brennan, I agree with you. It's not that big a deal, it doesn't mean much for me to see "In God we Trust" on a coin, it would irk me to have it gone. Probably a traditon thing. Just my opinion.
Message edited by author 2011-05-06 15:50:11. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 04:12:11 PM · #921 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The word vain is the Hebrew word shav. It has a variety of translations including emptiness, vanity, falsehood, nothingness, emptiness of speech, lying, and worthlessness. |
In Yiddish (I guess) shav/schav is sorrel soup, usually served cold. :-)
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
And if printing God's name on a nickel isn't and empty use of his name, I don't know what is. |
It's not entirely in vain, as singer/comedian Louis Gottlieb demonstrated when he attempted to shield his ranch/commune from the governement and developers with an attempted tax strategy unknown to even the most creative accountants:
Originally posted by Cited Article:
... he moved to Morning Star Ranch, his 30-acre (120,000 m2) ranch in Sonoma County, in 1966. Folk singer Malvina Reynolds and her husband Bud had alerted him to the property. Many people will remember fondly "The Digger Farm," as it came to be called, and the impact Lou had as the "resident piano player," as he referred to himself. Gottlieb attempted to leave the land he owned to God. A series of court appeals culminated in the 9th district court ruling that he could not. The ruling centered around the fact that if God was named owner on a quit claim deed, there would be no recourse for the collection of property taxes. The finding, therefore, was that God has no property rights in the state of California. |
When he attempted to register the quit-claim deed, he was told by the county official that the government didn't recognize God as an entity. In response, he reached in his pocket, took out a quarter, pointed to the motto and said "I mean this one."
Of course the wonderful irony is that, for all his irreverence, his name means "Lover of God" ... |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 05:43:39 PM · #922 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Gentleness. Self-control. All can be helpful as a scientist and in my case all those are part of my "religious filter" (a phrase I'm not very fond of).
|
... and I for one applaud you for all of these fine qualities my dear friend and would be so bold as to suggest that a good number of us non-religious types exhibit very similar traits... something we are equality fond and proud of.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 06:14:47 PM · #923 |
| Never said you didn't Ray. Just said that for me that's part of my religion. |
|
|
|
05/06/2011 07:00:33 PM · #924 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Carrying out an experiment, or diagnosing a patient offers little room for religious input, but knowing when the experiment results ought to be utilized or how to deal with the patient's diagnosis offers much room for religious input. |
What would be a good example?
|
|
|
|
05/06/2011 07:22:57 PM · #925 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Never said you didn't Ray. Just said that for me that's part of my religion. |
Well you've actually said more than just that or at least that's the impression. You repeatedly question the source of the non-believer's morality and every time you do about a dozen different people give you their own personal take and you usually just dismiss them because they don't fit your crystallized world view.
Message edited by author 2011-05-06 19:23:16.
|
|
Rally, 12/31/1922: 
[/url]
