Because if it weren’t for religion, no one would help other people, besides for tax-payed government programs that rarely actually ever help people anyway.
Because if it weren’t for religion, no one would help other people, besides for tax-payed government programs that rarely actually ever help people anyway.[/quote]
Maybe you’re joking. But just in case you’re not, you may want to rethink that.
A lot of help is provided to people in the world not linked to religion. You can do a brief Internet search and turn up philanthropic or humanitarian agnostic (and yes, even atheist) organizations. The one that seems to surprise the “only religious people are any good” crowd is the AAPL
Because if it weren’t for religion, no one would help other people, besides for tax-payed government programs that rarely actually ever help people anyway.[/quote]
Maybe you’re joking. But just in case you’re not, you may want to rethink that.
A lot of help is provided to people in the world not linked to religion. You can do a brief Internet search and turn up philanthropic or humanitarian agnostic (and yes, even atheist) organizations. The one that seems to surprise the “only religious people are any good” crowd is the AAPL
Pinesay - All human beings wish to be happy and avoid suffering. Happiness for each of us is dependent, directly or indirectly, upon the happiness of all of us. By helping you to become happy and avoid suffering I increase the chances of finding happiness myself. These facts (and I would suggest perhaps none other) are the basis of ethical behaviour. Who needs God? She just confuses the issue.
Can we stop with the right wing Christian fantasy history? The Anglo-Saxon concept of rights is a descendent of a variety of ancient beliefs, none of which had much to do with religion, except negatively – the idea that government should be secular, for example, came after our Founding Fathers had witnessed 1700 years of Christians butchering each other, and setting up hopeless authoritarian hells. So yes, faith was an important spur for our Founding Fathers, who viewed Europe’s butchery, and set a new course for the US.
That sincerity is appealing but it is really a form of dangerous naivete. I have a new fixed policy, though. I always invite them in my house, serve them juice, and talk about politics with them. Usually they are young, and don’t know anything. But I’ve decided to become a one-man mission to the Mormons, because they are allied to the Christian Reich, and yet, if the Reich ever really comes to power in the US, it will destroy the Mormons, because the Reich is part of a Christianity that is intolerant of difference, especially of Christian difference. Mormons attack the ACLU, atheists like myself, and other minority religious stances, but they are simply following a policy that, if successful, will result in their own destruction. It’s my belief that Mormons by rights should be my ally, not my enemy. Hopefully I can get some to realize that.
Vorkosigan
The basis of ethical behavior dictates that you would will kill me to save your own life.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Thank you for agreeing with me.[/quote]
You wrote that rights were given by god. The reality is more complex than that. Rights have a long historical pedigree, very little of which has much to do with religion, and certainly nothing to do with non-existent Sky Daddies. If you want to say that rights were given by some deity, you’ll have to demonstrate the whole chain of reasoning, showing that said godling actually does exist and have the attributes you impute to it, and that rights actually came from it.
The idea that religion and politics should be separated was invented by religious people, who wisely tired of the religious killing that Europe had inflicted on itself. Except for perhaps Ben Franklin, there were no atheists among the founding fathers, and no one we would recognize as a “leftist.”
What you are proffering is a fantasy version of history in which one posits than one has been especially victimized, in order to create group solidarity and grounds for action to redress the imagined slight (sort of like China’s constructions of its own authoritarian history, eh? Not a coincidence that two authority systems pursue the same strategy to rally the faithful). You will note that your hysterical, breathless complaint conflates two different ideas, “people of faith” and “faith” and commits an English error when it says that “people of faith” are “something.” You are so ardent in your belief that you as a “person of faith” have been a victim of nefarious “leftists” that you cannot even think coherently about the issue, but instead must spew error-filled fantasy.
Finally, every one of us has faith. Progressives, regardless of their particular religious beliefs, are united by a tendency to put their faith in other human beings who exist in the here and now. Other types imagine a giant Santa Claus for adults, and put their faith in divine fictions instead of their fellow humans. They are not people of faith, but the opposite: people of no faith at all – in their fellow men. Authoritarian Christianity is a form of anti-human nihilism. As your own negation of both history and human effort to create human rights shows.
Vorkosigan
You wrote that rights were given by god. The reality is more complex than that. Rights have a long historical pedigree, very little of which has much to do with religion, and certainly nothing to do with non-existent Sky Daddies. If you want to say that rights were given by some deity, you’ll have to demonstrate the whole chain of reasoning, showing that said godling actually does exist and have the attributes you impute to it, and that rights actually came from it.
The idea that religion and politics should be separated was invented by religious people, who wisely tired of the religious killing that Europe had inflicted on itself. Except for perhaps Ben Franklin, there were no atheists among the founding fathers, and no one we would recognize as a “leftist.”
What you are proffering is a fantasy version of history in which one posits than one has been especially victimized, in order to create group solidarity and grounds for action to redress the imagined slight (sort of like China’s constructions of its own authoritarian history, eh? Not a coincidence that two authority systems pursue the same strategy to rally the faithful). You will note that your hysterical, breathless complaint conflates two different ideas, “people of faith” and “faith” and commits an English error when it says that “people of faith” are “something.” You are so ardent in your belief that you as a “person of faith” have been a victim of nefarious “leftists” that you cannot even think coherently about the issue, but instead must spew error-filled fantasy.
Finally, every one of us has faith. Progressives, regardless of their particular religious beliefs, are united by a tendency to put their faith in other human beings who exist in the here and now. Other types imagine a giant Santa Claus for adults, and put their faith in divine fictions instead of their fellow humans. They are not people of faith, but the opposite: people of no faith at all – in their fellow men. Authoritarian Christianity is a form of anti-human nihilism. As your own negation of both history and human effort to create human rights shows.
Vorkosigan[/quote]
I’ll forgive the personal attacks, and address the more substantive parts of your post.
The spearation of church and state was not meant to prohibit people with religious beliefts from being poltical persons and letting those religious beliefs guide their decisions, espcially if those beliefs are represented in the constituents they serve. That’s called a representative democracy.
The concept of separation of church and state was strictly confined to setting up a state religion.
However, that is exactly what has been demonstrated in this American election season. There is sooooo much hate for Bush because he is clearly a man that prays and looks to God for guidance in decisions. I’ve heard over and over on this board that this is so danergrous and should almost be made “illegal”. One leftist poster on this board indicated that the real terroism was in the Bible Belt and that we should declare war on them. There is sheer liquid hate oozing from the pores of so many secularists and atheists on this board.
Why? Aren’t humanists supposed to be more “loving” and “kind” and “englightened” than barbaric and igorant “Christians”? Why so much angst? Why so much bitterness? Why so much doom and gloom?
My views tend towards letting secularists and people of faith both serve in politics. It’s call freedom of speech and … liberty. But soo many leftists would as soon as turn back the tables on freedom by instituting religious discrimination and persecution.
Yes, that’s what I support, what all leftists support. But your idea that nefarious “leftists” wish to prevent religious types from serving in government is strictly fantasy history.
Clinton was as religious as Bush; more so, for his religion had a depth and self-reflection that Bush’s does not. The problem is not that Bush prays; the problem is that the God he prays to is not love but Power, in its most authoritarian and imperialist forms. He is simply the most dangerous and destructive man we have ever had as President. That is why so many of us hate him and want him gone – for the same reason we hated Chiang, and Stalin, and Hitler, and Franco, and Peron, and all other manifestations of authoritarianism.
Who is being doom and gloom? You’re the one spouting about victimization that doesn’t exist and raving about how leftists are full of hate!
See? Nobody is doing that. You guys on the Christian Right live in a world of fantasy victimization, wherein you find rationalization for your own worship of power.
BTW, the metaphor is “turn back the clock.” See what I mean about how confused your thinking is?
Vorkosigan
Yes, that’s what I support, what all leftists support. But your idea that nefarious “leftists” wish to prevent religious types from serving in government is strictly fantasy history.
Clinton was as religious as Bush; more so, for his religion had a depth and self-reflection that Bush’s does not. The problem is not that Bush prays; the problem is that the God he prays to is not love but Power, in its most authoritarian and imperialist forms. He is simply the most dangerous and destructive man we have ever had as President. That is why so many of us hate him and want him gone – for the same reason we hated Chiang, and Stalin, and Hitler, and Franco, and Peron, and all other manifestations of authoritarianism.
Who is being doom and gloom? You’re the one spouting about victimization that doesn’t exist and raving about how leftists are full of hate!
See? Nobody is doing that. You guys on the Christian Right live in a world of fantasy victimization, wherein you find rationalization for your own worship of power.
BTW, the metaphor is “turn back the clock.” See what I mean about how confused your thinking is?
Vorkosigan[/quote]
I don’t know. It is not possible to disucss things with you. In your post above you cling to the word, “fantasy” history … However, you claim the following:
Bush = Stalin
I hate Bush, but you are the one doom and gloom.
I can see in the soul of Clinton and Bush and make a faith reading.
I believe in freedom, but not yours to create your own metaphors.
Whoa tiger! Not going on with this one.
Why does this not exactly fill me with faith in God 
:)
pinesay, anytime you want to back up your absurd claim that rights come from god(s) with actual evidence and argument, let me know. In the meantime I am going to go with mainstream histories, which argue that the development of human rights was a long process with many roots. Your claim that separation of church and state is some kind of leftist plot is also not supportable from history, as the founding fathers were neither atheists nor leftists; and further, historically American protestant religious groups, such as the Southern Baptists, have been strong supporters of separation of church and state. Finally, in a country that is 85% Christian and 90% religious, where in 8 states the constitution forbids atheists to hold office, the idea that Christians are being driven from government can only be fantasy. In the US nearly everyone in high public office is a Christian; the highest ranking public atheist is/was Jesse Ventura, and we have had only one atheist President (Lincoln) although we have had several non-Christian Deist Presidents.
Who said Bush = Stalin? All authoritarians are not the same. But if you want to know why so many progressives hate Bush, it is because he is an authoritarian who is busy gutting our traditional freedoms, driving a truck through our relationships with the outside world, nuking our economy, and generally turning America into a giant version of Argentina under Peron.
Vorkosigan
Pinesay - You are right I would kill you to save my own life but that would not make me happy or help either of us to avoid suffering. For both of us the greatest happiness would result from avoiding conflicts that would require either of us to kill the other.
Conflict comes from “selfishness” which is part of the human condition, not something that has a “cure”. What you are saying is that through trail and error and social engineering … or whatever it is … humans will be able to erradicate “selfishness” … that which would drive you or me to kill someone else to save “ourselves”.
This was an extreme example. But not really. Murder and genocide goes on all over the world for much less than survival, sometimes over a matter of NT$200 … or face … or reputation …
The more we glorify what makes us human, the more human we will be.
I can’t believe some of this stuff. I’m ROFLMAO
This is BS and you know it. Clinton as religious as GWB. 
I don’t think so. More like Al Sharpton maybe or Jessi Jackson the philandering extortionist fraudster that “counselled” Clinton after the Lewinski fiasco. Shame, he(Jessi) failed to mention that he was also cheating on his wife, fathered an illegitamite child and stuck the mistress on the NAACP payroll for being his love ho. Don’t even get me started on Sharpton, the fact that he is the “moral conscious” of the democrats(Kerry’s own words) just shows me how bankrupt intellectually and morally they are. Why we even have this quote from CLinton about Bush at a NYC church.
[quote]“I believe President Bush is a good Christian,” he said. "I believe that his faith in Jesus gave him new purpose and direction to his life but that doesn
[quote=“Okami”]I’m sure that if we just let you intellectual eggheads be in charge everything would be great as you would go about changing the world and helping your fellow man, working together and making others understand that real power comes from the people directed by an educational elite.
[/quote]
“Egghead”. What’s wrong with having brains? America would be a nicer place if anti-intellectualism wasn’t such a widespread part of our culture. Who wants to live in a society dominated by high school bullies sniggering at “nerds” who crack open a book once in a while? Americans give lip service to valuing education, but in practice, social rank is decided primarily by $$. “If yer so smart, howcum you ain’t rich?”
Mod Lang,
Considering that they are now trying in the US to push through an academic bill of rights to present diversity of opinion and to protect students from vindictive professors, I think my point has some merit.
There’s nothing wrong with being smart and I never said there was. There is something wrong with being smart and using your “expertise” to force your domination on society for the betterment of a few versus to the detriment of the majority.
Can you understand that?
Okami,
There’s nothing wrong with being rich and I never said there was. There is something wrong with being rich and using your “campaign contributions” to force your domination on society for the betterment of a few versus to the detriment of the majority.
Can you understand that?
I never mentioned Sharpton, whom I detest. If you have issues with him, that’s your affair. Clinton cheating on his wife is nothing compared to Bush cheating an entire nation into war.
If you think Clinton was less religious than Bush, put up the evidence. Your prejudices don’t count as evidence. As far as I can see, both were religious men, one deeply considered, the other believes the way a drowning man grabs a life preserver.
Quite a bit. Let’s see…trashed our rep in the world, gutted our environmental laws, grieviously damaged our army and our people in a pointless and illegal invasion of a nation that was no threat to the US, lined his cronies’ pockets, savaged a couple of faraway nations, etc, etc. etc. The list is long and well known.
How is this sentence logically related to the last?
Okami, the only person who compared Bush to Hussein was you. I never mentioned him.
It is obvious what Bush’s real religion is from his attitude toward the world. The Patriot Act is a revelation, if you will only listen to what it says.
Wow, we really have issues…
When you elected Bush, did you think you were getting a man of the people or somethig? He comes from a wealthy New England elite family with many generations of membership in the NE power class! His father and grandfather were highly educated and intelligent men.
…really have issues…
Vorkosigan