Separation between Church and State: Allows religion to flourish...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 14 2007, 02:17 PM) [snapback]525476[/snapback]</div>

I was confused by your citing of historical precedents over a century old when the original post was phrased in a manner both acknowledging the precedent of religion in government and suggesting a discussion of contemporary politics (which I, somewhat egotistically, take to mean within my lifetime). Rather than debate English comprehension, do you have any comparisons from the past 50 years of religious influence of government comparable to that which has been implemented in the past 8 years (see my previous citation of direct government funding of religious entities)?

One contemporary religion-in-government example I find interesting is the growth of abstinence-only education funding, a cause unsupported by scientific studies but a darling of the religious majority. This funding has grown exponentially in the last 8 years (even as states opt out as its failings are becoming painfully clear), but it really started picking up steam in the 80's under Reagan and continued to grow regardless of the party in control of Congress or the Whitehouse.

I am interested in the actions, the billions of dollars in direct funding, rather than religious pronouncements that are to be expected in a nation with a 99.9%* religious (about 99.7% Christian) leadership and free speech.

(As a side note, polls suggest that criticizing the current administration and Congress can hardly be considered partisan at this point.)

*I did not heavily research these numbers, but base them on the $1000 prize that led to Rep Stark coming forward as the only atheist serving in the house and the recent first-ever election of Rep Ellison (OK, there is a reasonable Jewish contingent too). I would be very surprised if they are far off, but would love to see more exhaust research. I find them relevant to put into context claims of religious oppression perpetrated by godless atheists (who hold one tiny lever of power) in the US.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 15 2007, 12:55 AM) [snapback]525754[/snapback]</div>

OK. I accept that you have explanations. But these things all happened before anyone could offer reasonable explanations. And still, there is no explanation for the "why" quetsion.

"Reality is the stuff that isn't affected by what we think it is." I like that. I think that's probably true, but, then, what I think about it doesn't have any effect on the truth of it if the statement is correct. Even more reason to like your statement.

With that said -- Does it matter what you or I think "reality" is? I think people do care about that, and this is why there is a burning desire in most of us to find out why we are here, and whether there is any purpose in our lives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a priori @ Oct 15 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]525916[/snapback]</div>

That we can ask such a question does not make it a meaningful question, or one that has an answer. And the more we learn about the universe, the more meaningless that question becomes, because behind that question is an unspoken assumption that we are the product of some deliberative process, and NOTHING yet observed in nature does anything but weaken that assumption to the point of absurdity.

You may WISH that assumption were true, wish it with all your heart, but strong wishing can't make things so. You want to know "why" we're here, and for what "purpose", ask FIRST whether the assumption is warranted.

Meanwhile, if you're having trouble finding some "purpose" to your existence, look around. Opportunities to give life true "purpose" are limitless, without having it somehow matter to an incorporeal ghost. Personally, I believe people who devote themselves to "god's purpose" are wasting their opportunity to achieve meaningful purpose, even impeding purpose. They can be like Abraham, ready willing and able to murder their own children if they believe it's "god's purpose", and in the process making the world a hell on earth.

How about making your "purpose" doing your best to make the world a better place for your having been in it? That ought to be plenty of challenge to fully occupy an entire lifetime, don't you think?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Oct 15 2007, 01:01 AM) [snapback]525760[/snapback]</div>

Relevant to my point? Well, I suppose most anything could be relevant to the point. What I appreciate is the answer and the honesty of it, so: Thank you!

Science cannot give us the Ultimate Answer. Not because it couldn't be an objective of a scientist, but because proof and repeatability seem to stand in the way. Theorems abound, but not all of them are really subject to proof. This is the same with philosophical theorems, I suppose. This is why I am asking the question "What do you believe in?"

There is no way to get to proven fact on the "Why" questions. As to the answers to the "Why" questions, I think we need to take hold of the reason we possess and apply it to an analysis of the "proven" facts, the empirical findings and the "self-evident" aspects of human nature we see around us. If nothing else, we will find something bigger than ourselves exists and we have to account for it in a way science doesn't allow.

Whether the answers to the "Why" questions are anyone's guess, it seems to me there really is an answer to those questions. And if there is an answer, there can be only one that contains the entire truth. People don't need religiion to find that answer or the final truth, but we certainly do need a large helping of humility during the search.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 15 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]525968[/snapback]</div>

What should I say to you, then? You may WISH all you say is true, but that doesn't make it so. I absolutely agree with you. If the question you believe I am asking has no value to you, then I would rather you simply say that and wish me well. I don't find that a response insulting me (or billions of people before me or after me who seek value and purpose while contemplating transcendent concepts) one that engenders valuable reparte. It appears to me you don't really care what I think, as you are ready to dismiss me with rhetorical questions.

The question underlying my post is this: In what do you believe that informs your moral sense? The OP asked if we felt the separation between Church and State allowed religion to flourish. Following posts led into discussion about whether people with "religious" views should be allowed to force those views on others by using their moral understanding to develop laws. As the laws are subject to the people (at least we hope they are), I wondered whether the OP or others had suggestions about which people had the "correct" morals to be writing laws.

I find it hard to believe (no pun intended here) that people can believe in nothing. We can deny all we want, but eventually there has to be something to believe in. So an outgrowth of the question just posed is this: Do you believe there is anything bigger than yourself that should inform your moral sense? If not, then each person's views would have to be considered more important than any other's point of view. This doesn't seem to lead us in any better direction than a dictatorship.

No religion should dictate the beliefs or actions of a governed people. No belief system should dictate the beliefs or actions of a governed people. Neither should any group of people who espouse no belief be able to dictate such a lack of belief. By the consent of the people there should be freedom of religious belief, but this doesn't mean there should be freedom from religion, religious belief or religious expression.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a priori @ Oct 15 2007, 05:19 PM) [snapback]526084[/snapback]</div>

I assume this was the offending remark: Personally, I believe people who devote themselves to "god's purpose" are wasting their opportunity to achieve meaningful purpose, even impeding purpose. They can be like Abraham, ready willing and able to murder their own children if they believe it's "god's purpose", and in the process making the world a hell on earth. If so, no personal insult was intended, albeit it can be taken as an insult, if one chooses to regard it that way. It is my honest opinion, based on observation, and it would be dishonest for me to sugarcoat it, or dilute it, or somehow make it "inoffensive". Anyone claiming they're out to fulfill "god's purpose" I watch with a wary eye, because their interest is no longer what's best for humanity, but some charlatan's notion of nirvana, global destruction prominent and central to many visions of whatever that "nirvana" is. Do the religious murder their kids for "god?" Damn straight they do, sending them to war, or packing them off as suicide bombers, or witholding medical treatment, or denying them sex education in countries with AIDS pandemics, the list of lethal crimes against children in doing "god's work" is long and frightening.

Thus, this statement: How about making your "purpose" doing your best to make the world a better place for your having been in it? That ought to be plenty of challenge to fully occupy an entire lifetime, don't you think? is hardly rhetorical: I mean every word of it. Your saying
It appears to me you don't really care what I think, as you are ready to dismiss me with rhetorical questions. strikes me as evading that question. It's not a rhetorical question; you could try to answer it.

You again: The question underlying my post is this: In what do you believe that informs your moral sense?
That's a long way from "Why are we here and what's our purpose?" The first is a simple existential ponder, the second is a very specific inquiry into what informs how we get along with each other - they're completely different ideas.

With respect to the second question, you wonder which people had the "correct" morals to be writing laws. Now that's a question with some teeth, one that can be answered without metaphysics or witch doctors or priests or (especially) politicians. Many anthropological studies of cultures around the world and throughout history consistently identify a moral idea common to all people across all time, extending as far back as records can be deciphered, thousand of years before self styled prophets (like Jesus) plagiarized the idea as if it originated with them: it's known as "The Golden Rule." Treat other human beings as you would have them treat you. Distill nine tenths of every law that emerged from the people, not as some despot's edict, and you'll find the golden rule at its heart. As a guiding moral principle it's unbeatable for elegance, for nobility, for what's best for humanity. And it's 100% untainted with the stain of religion; it can be practised by anyone without the slightest need for a "god".

So when you say I find it hard to believe that people can believe in nothing. you are committing an error. Not believing in some "god" is NOT the same as believing in "nothing." As human beings we all have beliefs, intellectual life would be impossible without them. But not ALL belief involves "gods". I believe strongly in the efficacy of science. As a method for getting a grip on the world that puts much of my fate into my own hands, science has no peer. It has its costs, as does any belief; belief in science means letting go of delusions, accepting as true things that hurt my feelings, or bruise my self importance, or defy what I thought of as common sense. Science is not comforting in the classic sense of a coddling parent. But is IS comforting to those who seek understanding. It is science, through the mechanism of anthropological investigation, that PROVES the idea of the golden rule, and that reveals the very basic sociological survival benefits of such noble traits as altruism, friendship, and love.

When you say No religion should dictate the beliefs or actions of a governed people. you are denying the very heart and core and PURPOSE of religion, which is to do precisely what you say it shouldn't. Every religion seeks absolute authoritarian dominion over not just its immediate subjects, but seeks to indoctrinate the whole of humanity. Strip religion of its ability to dictate what to believe and you've killed it as a religion. Would that we COULD do that!

Finally, By the consent of the people there should be freedom of religious belief, but this doesn't mean there should be freedom from religion is spoken in the same breath you just said religion should NOT dictate belief. I have a dim view of people who tell me I cannot have freedom FROM religion. Who are they to presume what I can or cannot believe? Huh? What color "god" to believe in is optional, just make sure at least one "god" is believed in? You can go to hell if that's your attitude.

I'll argue as strong a case as I can for science over religious delusion, but I won't presume to FORCE your belief one way or the other. You want to hold tight to the infant security blanket of religious belief, that's your privilege. Just don't try to FORCE me to "believe."

Unfortunately for religion, it isn't religion unless that's EXACTLY what it tries to do.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a priori @ Oct 15 2007, 07:27 PM) [snapback]526069[/snapback]</div>

it depends on what the Ultimate Answer is, from your perspective. we are all looking for different things. maybe you're looking for the subjective why rather than the objective. if it's objective, it can be tested. if it can be tested, it can be sorted out if we throw enough brain power at the results.

we tend not to look so much at "proof" so to speak, as proof is a rare thing in my corner of the world. "proof" consists of me hypothesizing something and the answer indicating the exact opposite. that proves that my hypothesis was wrong. i can "prove" small things but the significant stuff is a collection of clues, pieced carefully together to reach a conclusion. the caveat is that this conclusion is subject to review and criticism from people with similar training.

agreed that we need to use our own reasoning, but i will assert that since we have wildly different life experiences, our viewpoints will lead to very different conclusions. in order for something to make sense to us, it has to follow our own logic. which is why we will never see everyone in complete agreement.
i will disagree with you on that last sentence. i don't think the logical conclusion is that there HAS to be something bigger. but i do agree that science does not address the non-physical realm.

again, i disagree and agree with parts of your discussion here. me, i don't know if there is an answer. maybe there is, but who's to say how many variations there are? but back to agreement, humility is key regardless of what path you choose to seek your answer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 15 2007, 11:13 PM) [snapback]526184[/snapback]</div>

I appreciate the fact that you intended no personal insult with that comment. I will also say much of the insult comes from your use of dismissive adjectives when describing thoughts, actions or beliefs you attribute to religion or religious persons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 15 2007, 11:13 PM) [snapback]526184[/snapback]</div>

I can hardly believe you didn't intend a slight by the remark, given your expressed views on "purpose" in people's lives, but I will accept your proffer that your question was not rhetorical. Certainly, one could make a lifetime's work of trying to make the world a better place. It hardly is a question to be avoided. Still, does it really matter to you what I think?

I think you answered quite clearly that what informs your view of the world, at least as far as questions of moral acts and determining laws may be concerned, is science. Your belief is in science -- or, as you say, the efficacy of science. This is a very direct answer to my question.

I enjoyed reading your response to my question about which people would have the "correct" morals. I assume from your response you mean to say those who would accept "The Golden Rule" and use that as a measure or sounding board for laws or regulations they intend to pass and impose on their societies. It is a wonderful rule. Is is, as you say, elegant and noble. I'm not certain why you insist on separating it from any religion by noting "And it's 100% untainted with the stain of religion; it can be practised by anyone without the slightest need for a 'god'." Is it a rule written on the hearts (or brains) of people? Given the human history of wars and depravations that may be hard to accept. Perhaps it is more common to those cultures who had persons given to contemplative lives or transcendent experiences.

By the way, I'd appreciate a reference to some of the better-known (or better-accepted) anthropological studies you described. I think it would be a valuable read to see how various cultures have developed or distilled this common moral code.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 15 2007, 11:13 PM) [snapback]526184[/snapback]</div>

Whew! I think we agree but you seem to refuse to accept it. If I've committed an error, we must be sharing in it. I think I've taken great pains to say that, like it or not, we believe in something. You believe in science. You don't believe in gods or in a God. But you believe in something, because "intellectual life would be impossible" otherwise. You don't have to believe in a god to have a belief or to believe in something. Fair enough?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 15 2007, 11:13 PM) [snapback]526184[/snapback]</div>

I'm no anthropologist, and it probably isn't fair to say I'm a practicing scientist of any sort. Still, this PROOF seems rather difficult to believe. How does one prove an idea like this. It seems then there must be a corollary that says altruism, friendship and love can't exist without the Golden Rule. Or, that there can't be sociological survival without the Golden Rule. Or even that there can't be a society without finding the main expression of moral thought being that which is expressed in the Golden Rule. Even if this proof were true and incontrovertible, it seems to me that the wonder of it all is not that Science has uncovered it or allowed it to be proven. The very wonder is that people of all sorts and from all places could have found that the Golden Rule is the appropriate foundation for proper and peaceful cohabitation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 15 2007, 11:13 PM) [snapback]526184[/snapback]</div>

Wow! There is some hurt in those words. What you describe is not a religion of belief and devotion, but an authoritarian regime where non-conformance results in death and destruction. You are describing a political state imposing its will on the people already under its thumb. Your words evoke images of national socialism. If this is the experience you've had with religion, I can understand the vehemence in your rejection of it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 15 2007, 11:13 PM) [snapback]526184[/snapback]</div>

Well, you've clearly taken a dim view of me. If I'm looking for insults, I don't have to go far from these words. Unfortunately, I think you have inferred something I have neither stated nor implied. In our country, there is freedom of religious belief and freedom of belief. Believe in what you will, and the state will not be able to use that to deprive you of life or property (unless your belief creates a threat to the state). The state, however, does not have the power or authority to deny people the right to religious belief or expression. Hence, my statement that there should not be a government-sponsored freedom from religion. The state should not (ours cannot) deprive you or me of life or property simply because we choose to hold our espouse belief systems.

How should I respond to your villification of all religion? Tell you to take your belief in science and shove it? Hardly. How about asking you to take a step back from ascribing such horrific intent to all things "religion" and further asking you to look for the value of systems of belief held to with ardor, passion and faith -- much as you hold to the value of science? If you won't -- then to anti-matter with you.

You have a wonderfully sound mind with the ability to reason and understand. You can think, reason, ponder, investigate and consider multiple views within one thought. Does this make you or your beliefs better than or superior to anyone else's? Of course not. Neither your thoughts nor my wishes can change what truly exists.

That's enough on this subject, I suppose. Thank you for the exchange.

Please, don't forget to provide me with the references to the anthropologic studies about the common moral code of the Golden Rule.

 

Burritos~

We sent you a shorter TROLLING line this time. The last one was 150' the new one is 20' .. :mellow: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 12 2007, 05:22 PM) [snapback]524872[/snapback]</div>

It's always beneficial to understand more about someone, or a group of people. Even those who aren't like us.

Because sometimes we find out that we are like them, after all.

That works in the study of Christianity, too!
[laughing]

-------------------------

I think that straight America could definitely benefit by trying to understand some aspects of homosexuality more clearly. For example:

(1) Weight loss/personal fitness
(2) Fashion sense 101

Seriously, when I travel overseas, I can't help but be embarrassed for us. Cargo pants, flip flops, and a logo tee shirt are *not* big-person clothes, and should not leave the hotel room. Ditto shrunken fashion for the ladies...especially if you've not yet taken sufficient time to...ummmm...understand certain aspects of homosexuality (see above).

The good news is, just 'cause one appears as if one has a mirror in one's bathroom, doesn't necessarily mean that one is queer.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 15 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]525968[/snapback]</div>

[sigh]
At this point, I'm simply hoping for enlightened introspection.
[wistful smile]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a priori @ Oct 15 2007, 10:57 PM) [snapback]526218[/snapback]</div>

A Priori thanks for sticking to your guns even with as prickly an opinionated burr as me, and thank you also for the kind compliment. I appreciate your thought processes too, and ability to remain polite and respectful as I empty Gatling guns into the flank of something you hold dear.

We agree more than my argumentative style might imply. But there are ---

--- whoops -gotta go ---- more later ----

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jweale @ Oct 15 2007, 07:55 AM) [snapback]525826[/snapback]</div>

IIRC, that cite was to the Bush Administration's policy of giving money to sectarian charities, right? (Can't recall the name of the program). Bush did expand it, but it is nothing new. Catholic Charities, the largest non-governmental charity working with AIDS patients in the early years of the illness, received quite a bit of government funding. See http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_how_..._charities.html for one person's lament that Catholic Charities was receiving 25% of its operating capital from governmental sources in the 1960s, and how that has grown to a much larger percentage today. But that growth was incremental and not a result of Bush's policies per se. In fact, when Bush made such a big deal of his program, I was extremely underwhelmed; as with most politicians, he was taking credit for something starting in the 1850's in this country.

As far as abstinence only education, that is not really a support of religion; it is a policy that appeals to religious people, but it isn't church-directed. However, I think any federal interference with local schools is bad, even if its just "giving" them money. DC always has strings attached to its money, and national legislators are not as responsive to the local parents as a local school board is. I would love to see all national programs and monies suspended, and refuse any participation by anyone other than parents and the local legislative bodies. But you would have to do that without regard to who the outside party is, and that means Planned Parenthood, PITA, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and all the rest would have to stay away.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jweale @ Oct 15 2007, 07:55 AM) [snapback]525826[/snapback]</div>

The Census collects data on how people identify themselves. The 2000 Census data is online at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/religion/

Out of 208 million adults, 159 million (76%) identify themselves as Christian, 8 million (3.8%) as another religion (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Unitarian-Universalist, etc.) and 29 million (14%) in the category of "no religion" that includes under a million atheists and under a million agnostics. The largest group in that category evidently considers atheism and agnosticism "religious", because they refuse those labels for the "no religion" label.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a priori @ 2007 10 15 11:05) [snapback]525916[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it matters very much. Our cranial capacity for determining reality is the definition of sanity. Things go right on happening while we - as individuals and as a species - struggle to make sense of it all. As we learn, explanations that seemed perfectly reasonable at the time are later regarded as nonsense. Nobody worships weather gods anymore. Yet, as vital a tool as the scientific method is, I hope we never lose the essence of our inner five-year-olds, for then we will have lost our sense of wonder. No matter how far we progress, and how close we come to the ever-elusive 'truth', there will always be more questions than answers. 'Whys' and wiser, forever more.