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.



175 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
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.
Rayne @ 53
but how do you explain people who have a different list? (i’m not saying i think their list is as good as yours*)
if values are so universal, why do we spend so much time arguing over them? i don’t see that they’re shared at all – even within our own culture.
* i like your list and wish everyone shared them.
New Scarecrow upstairs on the Darkness
egregious @ 79
I don’t disagree with any of this. But do I have the right to ridicule — or even the duty to push back against — a deeply held belief that I am a cyborg without moral compass?
Jane Hamsher @ 9
They have their game plan down pat. The bigger question is why do the liberals and dems keep falling into the trap?
Good morning all.
Just yesterday, there was a group of true Christians shouting out in the Senate against a Hindu who had been invited to say the prayer. Such people leave me speechless. I have, however, written to the small Nevada organization from where the Indian man came, and have apologized for the disturbance, saying that I feel ashamed that this is possible. It was a beautiful prayer, invoking the glory of the transcendence.
I am at a loss for arguments against such zealots, and I have not figured out what is psychologically wrong with them.
selise at 90
Again I’m going to paraphrase Hitchens. He says, to give an example, that the hebrews didn’t believe theft and murder were okay the day before Moses brought down the tablet. The list is actually pretty damned similar across cultures.
But there is one thing that Gerson says that is true–there is tension between doing what’s right and doing what we want. However, it is still the case that when you get away with something–whether it’s a nine-year-old raiding the cookie jar or Henry Kravis demanding that his tax rate be capped at 15%–you FEEL like you’re getting away with something.
To my mind, one of the dangers of fundamentalist religious belief is that it is easily substituted for that innate sense of right and wrong–so you end up with people killing innocents in train stations and abortion clinics because their religious beliefs trump their innate moral sense.
The real danger is not atheists. The real danger is fundamentalist Christians for at least two reasons.
First, their theology downplays the importance of works over faith, weakening any influence of the religious teachings on actual behavior.
Second, and even worse, many of them think and act like Scooter Libbies with get out of jail free cards. Many of them believe that they get instant pardons from Jesus just for sincerely asking.
egregious @ 79
Making fun of Bush and his false prophets abusing religon to justify their actions is fair game. I think your right we should draw back from broad attacks on religion. Otherwise we are as guilty of being intolerant as Bush. Narrowing our attacks to the false prophet Fundi/Bushies is something we should do. But it would help if Religious types would start condemming Bush in religious terms.
mulligatawny @ 94
Is there a text of the prayer available? I’d like to see it. Thanks.
Say, what is “blasphemy”* anyway?
After watching those hearings, I can’t even remember what I had for breakfast.
oh yeah. haven’t had it yet. well, yestidie then.
Seriously, definitions are shifting under this administration. I wonder if they can feel anything at all in the tremors. After all, they are toppling over on a regular basis.
But I’m too impatient for this. Remember Kramer’s board game with Newman on the subway? That’s what I want. Pugs flyin’ off the board & into the unswept grunge under the seats. Yeah. That’s the ticket.
*please don’t go draggin’ Wiki out on me.
eCAHNomics @ 86
I am working to clean my house by speaking the truth with love to people in my church and community; working together with Russian Orthodox believers in reconstructing children’s heart surgery in St. Petersburg; and teaching my children to love all people regardless of belief. It is not enough, I am looking for ways to do better.
Scarecrow @ 59
Tolerance, scarecrow – tolerance! And crows are protecting scarecrows across the nation. They guard you whilst enjoying a few morsels from your sentry position. :)
Though an atheist, I’m dismissive of but not hostile to religion per se. However, religions are only a force for good when they operate in adversity, deprived of temporal power. They are particularly useful in national resistance movements, when the precepts of any given faith are broad enough to unify. The “religious” did relatively little evil in the last century, when atheistic totalitarianisms prevailed.
But when a man privy to power, like Gerson, talks God, then you know violence and thievery are being justified.
Live and learn ~ “Conversations with GOD” ~ Audio Book
egregious @ 79
I can respect your right to practice your beliefs without having to respect the belief itself. I won’t pretend to accept what I perceive to be a cultlike, fable-based belief system just to soothe your feelings (especially when such a belief system is being used as a tool to harm this country). You need to be a bit more realistic about your expectations from nonbelievers…we don’t owe you anything.
Is God telling Rudy Giuliani and the rest of the Republikans that no-bid contracts on crappy contractors (who are most likely crony friends of friends of friends) is a good and holy thing? Former CT Gov. Rowland went to jail for this kind of thing. And amen to that. But I now think he got his ideas from the national party.
BTW, it’s an establishment of religion, not the establishment.
Scarecrow, have transcribed it:
“Let us pray, we meditate on the transcendental glory of the deity supreme, who is inside the heart of the earth, inside the light of the sky, and inside the soul of the heaven. May he stimulate and illuminate our minds. Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light.”
The whole ugly incident can be seen at rawstory, via TPM video.
Scarecrow @ 92
I don’t think religion is a bad thing. I was brought up to believe that it is a private thing and not appropriate in the public sphere at all. That is probably a New England thing.
I was watching Jeebus Camp some time ago and was struck how the kids were indoctrinated to call other denominations(not evangelical) “dead churches.” I was struck how the kids thought people who did not respond to their proselytizing–black folks in one instance–were probably “Muslim.”
This evangelical demagoguery has really brought attacks on other denominations, faiths etc that needs to be addressed. I believe atheism and religious folks must respect one another mutually in order to fend off the Talibangicals.
jayackroyd @ 96
i agree that there are similarities… and perhaps that is why we argue about values – some part of us does think that everyone ought to share our values.
but i’ve met people who’ve explained their values to me – and i find them abhorent.
it just seems a bit complicated to me… i don’t see any easy answers (yet)… that is all.
Fresh thread for everyone, up and running…
Phylter @ 6
The Golden Rule is actually a remarkably widespread guideline. All major religions and many minor religions include some variation of it.
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary.”
(Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a)
egregious @ 79
Thank you egregious. I’m with you and I’m getting kind of weary of having to defend the fact that being religious does not mean being bigoted, intolerant, exclusive or moralistic.
Religion has to do with systems of binding people together with a shared set of values. There is a whole rainbow of religions and some of us religious folks are fighting the progressive battles on the front lines. Please don’t discount us as irrelevant. We all need to be in this together.
I hang out at FDL rather than at Street Prophets or Talk2Action because I I feel the need to be in the middle of the progressive blogisphere to defend religion rather than hang out with the liberal faithful to talk among ourselves. Sad that I feel that need. In a way I kind of resent having to do that, but here I am. And there are a whole lot like me who act in behalf of progressive principles BECAUSE of our faith.
Back to Jane’s earlier comment.
The dems have yet to learn that trying to play the religion game by the rules set up by the right wing nuts will get them no where. Bill Bradley had it right when he said that his religion was his own private business. He didn’t pander. He didn’t fall into the holiness trap that the high priced pundits are unfortunately successfully goading the dem candidates at all levels to do.
It’s Lucy and the football over and over and over. . . .
well seems Liberty Lee at #15 is totally mental
“decide to ignore it at our own peril”, … what a paranoid dellusion it takes to over reach and over react
So called ‘Christian fundamentalists’ have been at war with everyone for seemingly ever
we dont live in a “christian country”, we live in a society of laws that forbids just exactly what the Bushs have done … take the opportunity in a crisis of seizing power and twist it beyond recognition
No one but no one is ignoring the constant threat of immeasurably macabre acts, that not only someone who calls them a muslim or islamist may find themselves doing but any other denomination or belief other criminals will cling to, then use said belief to justify the unjustifiable. They are well known as crimes! And they have consequences. What Monica Goodling and Alberto Gonzales, Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay and all the other characters of this sad sad scene have done are CRIMES. And for crimes we have laws and to uphold the laws we have justice systems. Bible Thumpers dont hold the market on jumpin’ around saying and thinking “Okay now that things are chaotic we’re switching to “God Pilot Glide Gear”, so anything goes in an apocalypse.” Screw that. The same people that slaughter over there would gladly select some unfavorite focus in this country as well and attempt to nail everyone to the floor for their phony beliefs. Those beliefs are not mine.
[Mod Note; In order to promote civil discourse, please refrain from insulting or attacking fellow commenters. Thank you.
]
SilenceIris @ 104
No we don’t owe but we do want their support. Disagree all you want about God or the lack of God that is the freedom we fight for. Now if some jerk questions my morals I’ll rip em. Egregious is not questioning my morals like Michael Gerson is Egregious fights the good fight against Bush and that is all that I could ask for. I can understand that Michael Gerson has got us all mad. I can understand why we are all digging our AntiGod arguments/knives out combining anger and intelect. I wish Congress could be as intelectul and as passionate as us. But we can’t turn on each other in Anger. Everyone has a right to believe what they want we cannot become like the people we fight in our anger. If we do we have already lost.
“But unlike Gerson’s Presidential hero, they understood clearly the critical importance of this . . .
‘Congress shall make no law . . . respecting the establishment of religion.’ “
And let’s also not forget this:
“[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
I’d venture that those two admonishments pretty much sum up the Founders’ views on religion in the new government. The fact that an atheist (or a Buddhist or a Hindu or anything else not demonstrably Christian) would have as much chance as my cat of being elected president does not speak well of us in the 21st century.
things come undone @ 113
I don’t think anyone is questioning the right of people to believe what they choose. I will not allow myself to be silenced because believers think they should be above criticism, though, which is what egregious seems to be saying.
Unbelievers DON’T think all you believer folk are Jerry Falwell or this Gerson guy. Many of us DO think organized religion as an institution is harmful and we have a right to say so. If you think we don’t have that right or if you think we can’t work together because we freely express such opinions than so be it, but it’s everyone’s loss if you think so.
SilenceIris @ 115
I don’t think egregious is saying that at all. I can’t speak for her. I think she is saying that persons of various religions, whether Presbyterian or Buddhist, are between a rock and a hard place sometimes in the progressive sphere. I sympathize and agree that I don’t think that is necessary. I however don’t think religion is appropriate mixed with politics. We are too diverse a group and Republikans have shown very well that it can be used as a wedge issue.
mulligatawny @ 107
Thanks. Seems universal.
Excellent post and interesting points.
Lehrer News Hour covered a story on Iraq refugees in Syria and other neighboring countries who are forced to put their daughters into prostitution (some are children) because there are too many of them to find work. Professional parents have to sell their own daughters. Many of these young women are hurt, abused, and raped. One young woman commented how they hate the US for taking away their Iraq dignity. On top of the innocent people being killed IN Iraq, the religious right seems to be oblivious to everything…
Everyday it’s like I want to cry.
SilenceIris @115 say anything you want about religon I just think there is a big difference between Gerson/Bush and Egregious’s version of religon. As a kinda fellow unbeliver I think organized religon is a bad idea myself. Criticize the idea is what I should have said, if I was religous I would feel bad if people linked me to Bush too! Bush is preverting religon to his ends justify the means morality. If anything I think religon needs to say No Mr President not in my Name! I’m sorry I didn’t want to sound harsh I just wanted to focus the Blog’s anger back on Gerson and Bush.
Objective and Religion are incompatible. Religion has little or nothing to offer in terms of objective, substantiated, and repeatable evidence to support its beliefs and testaments.
Morality is a human decision based upon empathy, common sense, and respect. These are not exclusive to ‘religion’ by any means.
By Michael Gerson’s logic, then, religious fanatic terrorist have the moral high ground over atheists. The only real question is whether the terrorists or Bush are more moral. I’d like to Gerson explain what makes Bush’s Guernica-like atrocities more moral than terrorist attacks.
Living in the Bible belt means being whacked over the head continuously with religion, particularly the Southern Baptist version. I’ve seen some of the best AND some of the worst behavior blamed on Christianity.
I think all of us know there is a distinct difference between those who genuinely try to follow what the Bible says are Jesus’s teachings of kindness and tolerance, and those who use religion as an excuse for bigotry and hate and murder.
The former deserve respect.
I call the latter “Christianists” and “salvation terrorists” – they are delusional and dangerous.
It’s up to the Christians to regain the respect lost because of the extreme fundamentalists, to stand and say, as often as possible, “Those people do not speak for me or my faith”
Scarecrow @ 64
Then you are reading the DVC correctly. However, thousands of people do not read it that way. They read it as revisionist history.
The dividing line between history and fiction is actually quite artificial. Historical fiction especially muddies the waters. In fact, from a post-Modernist perspective, there can be no dividing line because even “pure” history is subjective and fictionalized in one way or another.
With the DVC, especially, people who have an agenda against the historical church like to take the DVC as a better representation of what “really” happened.
In a curious way, the Ron Suskind report of WH officials who claimed that the Republicans would create a new imperial reality, and Democrats would only analyze it and whine about it gets it exactly backwards. It is actually the story tellers who write the historical stories that create the ‘historical realities’ that govern our perception of history.
BTW, thanks for an excellent thread that has stirred up much thought-provoking commentary.
Bob in WI
Religion, to me, is the church bells pealing and reminding that we have common interests and aesthetic appreciation, the magnificent buildings and stained glass windows representing the best of humanity, the glorious music that inspired masters could create. Too often, however, the ministers are simply not educated up to this standard and sink to the lowest common denominator. This was the beginning of what now is a huge concern about religion. Well, in part, anyway.
KestrelBrighteyes @ 123
Tell me about it. As a non-Christian, I often felt wacked over the head in the bible belt. A friend of mine who’s Buddhist felt the same. A friend of mine who’s Catholic felt the same. I don’t understand the idea where certain folks in the South even get the idea that Catholics are not Christian.
If religion is a group of shared beliefs, than atheism is a religion also. The enemy in this debate is not religion or non religion. It is dogma, and deviation from the other golden rule: moderation in all things – in order for civilization to continue we must all follow this rule.
sumpls at 119
Welcome to my world.
***
SilenceIris at 116
SilenceIris, I definitely do not think believers are above criticism. Quite the opposite. We try to examine our beliefs and our behavior and try to be open to criticism.
It is not my intent to silence anyone. It is my intent to build a large coalition of Americans to reclaim our government and to stop the war. That is going to take a lot of tolerance on the part of everyone.
My primary point is that we need an enormous number of people to join us in this coalition, and a majority of them are likely to be people of faith. Hence our ridiculing faith is interfering with our own stated goals.
I sent this email to Michael Gerson in response to his article:
Atheist here.
Your article espouses religion as the moral choice. Which religion do you endorse? Islam? Bhuddism? Mormanism? Scientology? Assuming you are a Christian, then which stripe? Catholic? Protestant? Pentecostal? Baptist?
Which religion is most moral? I want to know. Since you’ve made the first cut: Religion Good, Atheism Bad. You can’t stop there. Your readers will need to know what to choose for themselves. Your article neglects to mention why Christianity is better than Bhuddism, or why choose to be a Baptist and not a Catholic.
I disagree with your conclusion. Atheism has never caused a war. Ever. I’ve never killed anyone, or caused anyone to be killed. Unlike our ultra-Christian administration causing deaths in Iraq. Atheists are rarely criminals. Look at the stats for convicted prisoners. How many murderers are atheists? Thieves? Rapists? I challenge you to report on the statistics. You are a reporter right? Or are you a salesman for the religious right….. Get the facts.
boxer @ 127
That is totally wrong. Atheism is the absence of belief in god/s, nothing more.
If I don’t collect stamps, does that make me a member of a non-stamp collecting religion?
If that’s all you want to do, why drag supernatural beings into it? Build a community of human beings, on earth, that agree on their consensus values; promote those values; you may need to punish those who violate them. (I personally believe that it’s better if you don’t *enjoy* punishing evildoers, because someone who enjoys punishing evildoers will look for them so assiduously that they will find them even where none exist. But others may disagree – I don’t claim that my own standards are objective universal laws.)
Gods, souls and afterlives are not required for any part of this. Agreeing that your community’s morals come from God doesn’t make it so – they come from your community, which decides which parts of your holy book to observe and which to overlook. (The book itself was written by one or more humans anyway, so it’s not any more objective than its authors.)
The consensus of a community is not “objective”. But neither is someone’s vision of God. This is the crucial point that Gerson totally misses – religion is not, and never has been, an objective guide to anything, because religion by its nature is totally subjective.
As for the list of moral values upthread – everyone is in favor of fairness and justice, but they all mean different things by it, so it’s not all that objective really. Even doing good to others isn’t universally agreed on – which others? Lots of societies, probably even most, have some enemies that they actively want to do harm to; some also have internal outcasts that it’s widely agreed deserve their place of inferiority and suffering. Clearly *their* idea of fairness includes “Xs are in the slums/slave quarters where they belong”.
All this disagreement between different people’s and societies’ moral compasses leads to one point: If there’s an objective set of “true” moral laws, how do you know when you find it? If you’re just saying “well, MY moral beliefs are objectively true and everyone else’s are objectively false except when they agree with me”… then I don’t think you know what “objective” means.
egregious- I’m with you
Phylter @ 130
It might, it depends on the reason why you don’t collect stamps. If the reason you don’t collect stamps is shared in common between you and others to point that it is the basis for your world view, than yes it could be a religion.
lower tiberius @ 113
If you look at all the acts of unprovoked terrorism in the last 30 years, they have been provoked in the name of Allah. From Beirut to Lisbon, London, Paris, Bali, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, 9/11, almost all have been attacks by Jihadists. If THEY are not the fundamentalists deserving of your opproprium, if they are not the ones who sacrifice their children by strapping bombs on those innocents, I don’t know how you can conflate that with mere domestic politics.
boxer @ 133
Atheism is a belief system, religion has been spliced to mean belief in a God- based system, therefore atheist are irreligious … according to me, this is an invalid statement, altough I understand the basis for it.
God exists because of homosapien’s ability/tendency to wonder (chicken and egg argument with “god’s image” popping up). Atheists wonder without getting frightened.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 18
Haven’t read through all the comments, just noticed the first line of this post. David Frum is actually the guy who gets the credit for the axis of evil creation (The Right Man, 2003), although Gerson inserted it into the SOTU.
Frum also noted in his 2003 book, The Right Man, that in an interview with Bush in February, 2001, Bush was already planning on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq through regime change. How anyone can say with a straight face that from day one this wasn’t this administration’s goal with evidence like this in the public domain is beyond me.
Petrocelli @ 134
I’m not sure that’s a fair definition of religion. Religion is a shared belief that is the framwork for one’s world-view; e.g., Dick Cheney’s religion is to himself and others just like him at the expense of anyone else, he’s religious, but not Christian.
boxer @ 138
We’re discussing ‘religion’ as it is defined by Scarecrow’s thread.
Religion is BIG business! It’s about political power and money.
People choose their god. Their god is a reflection of who they are and nothing more. You want to know something about a person, ask him about his/her beliefs and observe their practices.
The Puritans wanted religious freedom for themselves but oppressed everyone else around them if they differed. Not unusual, really. This is true throughout recorded history. It is a means to dominate and oppress.
As I look back through history, I know of nothing more violent than the use of religion to exterminate another people, steal their homes and lands, marginalize them, sacrifice them, frighten them into submission, and any other heinous crime within human capability.
And, I’m not an atheist.
Phylter @ 130
I agree. Whether or not we belong to any religion, most of us tend to have moral, ethical, philosophical beliefs. That is not religion. That is ethics. And atheists tend to have ethics. Confucianism is an ethical belief system as well and not a religion and held China pretty well for thousands of years. (20th C. aside).
mui @ 141
China (pre 20th century) was held together by yoga principles … I have to explain many times a day, the difference between religion and spirituality. Someone can be spiritual – adhering to ethics and values that represent love, compassion and equal rights – whether they are religious or not.
First Year Philosophy for Gerson:
Euthyphro
Petrocelli @ 142
No China was not held together by yoga principles. Let me quote a little from Simon Leys at the risk of sounding pedantic.
It was no mystical yoga-ism.
A Hermit @ 143
Wow!!! The Euthyphro (”On Piety”) — one of my very favorite Platonic dialogues. Wherein Plato shows that, much to his reader’s (listener’s) amazement, no one really knows what piety is. Should be required reading for all religionists.
-MS
Once you have a group of people living together you have to have some kind of agreement about order, thus we are civil towards each other so we are all able to co-exist. It makes simple survival sense.
Once we turn to “god” the discussion gets all muddled up. Personally, I dropped that gender specific ethnocentric word and use “light”. It is.
Light doesn’t fit into any of my preconceived notions of “god” that creeps into my argument. It is interesting what happens when language is changed.
Try removing “God” from the discussion and replacing it with “Light”.
No, I’m not talking about a light bulb. A neon sigh. I mean light as illumination, an opening, higher awareness.
Two comments:
Liberty Lee- feeding the trolls may be unwise, but I have to point out that militant Islam is only at war with us becaue we are hanging around in their countries appropriating their natural resources and arming different religious factions, thus altering their balance of power. They just want us out and they do not care how we lead our infidel lives here in the West if we leave their lands.
Second – athiests can still believe in people – that we are basically good. Laws, criminal punishments and civil punishments serve to keep society together. Potential criminals do not decide to avoid crime bacause they fear the afterlife. You can sometimes keep an underclass from rebelling by making them believe that they’ll get their rewards in the next life, tho.
boxer @ 127
I would disagree with this. The word religion implies a supernatural element and there is nothing supernatural about atheism. Also, there are differing opinions even within the atheism community (though the differences are too minute to bother with trying to explain to someone outside of that group).
Again, you can respect the believer and respect their right to believe what they choose. That does NOT mean you have to respect what they believe (and you are not disrespecting them as people if you think their religion is hogwash and choose to voice that opinion, whether they choose to take it personally or not).
mui @ 144
I have to tend to my guests or I would pull out substantiative arguments to show that the guiding principle in China was Chen … which is the Chinese interpretation of Dhyan(sanskrit for meditation), which has guided all Asian societies for thousands of years. The Japanese word for Dhyan is Zen …
Famous quote from the Government of China:- “India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border!”
I would argue that they understand their own history better than Simon Leys, as intelligent as he might be.
Theists like Gerson love to quote George Washington doubting that “morality can be maintained without religion.” They never mention that he kept those opinions to himself throughout all his years in office. He said that in his final speech as President, before returning to Mount Vernon and private life.
That says a lot about what role he thought his religious beliefs should play in his role as a public official: none.
boxer @ 133
The reason I don’t collect stamps is that I have no interest in it, so, using your logic, I belong to the “not interested in stamps” religion.
My world view is “peace on earth, goodwill to all people”
Does that make me religious, because christians say it? Of course not, it is simply an ethic. Sadly, one that is sorely lacking in some people.
Petrocelli @ 149
Chan Buddhism strikes me as rare and not exactly widespread. You are referring to a country where Taoist/Buddhist and Confucinism with other localisms were mixed. These did not hold the empire together. The bureacracy did. You are arguing against a scholarly consensus.
Petrocelli @ 149
And who is this “they” you refer to and in what context? The gov. says a lot of stupid stuff.
“only barely distinguishable from the acts of the crazed religious zealots who, in Allah’s name, flew airplanes into the Twin Towers,”
Where Is the any video of these Allah warriors hitting the Pentagon? Maybe they did not have any cameras filming the building. So we might as we’ll assume the official 9/11 story is true. Like everything else we hear abuot these days is true. Like brownie did a heck of a job. was that true too?
I understand the point you were making, and it is a good one. Still, let’s not feed the beast. Once we get to what happened on 9/11, only then will we live in reality. Please never stop asking about the pentagon videos. They have them.
Mui @ 8:35
It was no mystical yoga-ism.
You might want to read this guy to understand yoga’s impact on world culture, including Chinese culture … Albert Einstein: “We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made.”
From the earliest ability to count and understand existence in mathematical equations to the Digital age, yogic wisdom has been the guiding principle.
Thanks for the great ideas and discussions , may we be friends always …
Petrocelli
George W. Likes the Pope’s World Peace Message
George W calls out to Rove and Cheney. Hey, did hear that ‘Top Robe’ said if your not Catholic, you suck?
Now that’s my kind of Uniter.
TMander@147: Militant Islam has been attacking Christianity since there WAS militant Islam. First the Byzantines. They invaded half of Spain and made it to the midpoint of modern Yugoslavia. The Europeans were asked to assist on behalf of their various sponsors in WWI. To honour their promises, they promised the Zionists a State (Israel) and the Palestinians a partitioned country. When The Europeans kept their promises, the Muslims not in on the deal attacked Israel from all sides. Sadly, the only answer modern Islam leaves the West is to militarily dominate them until they leave us alone.
I sent this email to Gerson this morning before reading this blog:
Michael in Park Slope @ 29
IIRC when it is reason based, it is called ETHICS
Morality is always belief based and is associated with religon.
Sociology 101
Important diary, and well said!
So few people appreciate what might have been remembered with the taste of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil:
Like sweet and sour, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are not opposites. The opposite of ‘good’ is ‘bad’. The opposite of ‘evil’ is ‘gracious’. There are instructive consequences to removing ‘gracious’ from the play of concepts here. It allows for the ungracious manipulation of the uninformed for purposes of power, as with the President and the Pope, two of the least gracious men to hold their respective offices. Their ungracious choices shall generate instructive consequences that they shall describe as ‘unintended’. No consequence is unintended. Sadly, those who have empowered these ungracious men shall bear the brunt of their choices.
I think distinctions should be made.
There are atheists who are certain there is no god. They are religious, because they believe they know how the universe runs.
There are atheists who don’t think there is a God. That’s not a religious belief.
Then there are the agnostics, who don’t know whether there is a god.
I’m what’s called a militant agnostic, whose position is I don’t know AND NEITHER DO YOU.
Given the way the world is, I believe certainty is suspect, whether it’s theist or atheist.
Gerson’s article is pointless. He says no atheist can answer his question, yet he veers around trying to avoid answering it. He sees that our instincts produce ‘conflicted’ results, but he ascribes the good to our ‘better angels’ and our failures to our lack of living up to our own standards. He cant just say that moral people act morally and sometimes they don’t. Its called human nature.
LibertyLee @ 157
This is not true. I have been in Spain last year walking the Camino, about which Shirley McLaine talks in her book of the same name. This was a continuous history lesson. The Moors and Christians lived peacefully side by side, with the Moors contributing most of science.
Isabelle entered into a power agreement with the Catholic Church, and the Moors were murdered/driven out. Everywhere in Spain you can feel the Reconquista, which you can google. All of a sudden, neighbors against neighbors, thanks to the zealotry of the Catholic Church and its business partners.
mulligatawny @ 164
As this link makes clear, the Muslims conquered Visigothic Spain through stealth, taking advantage of the weakness of the post-Roman government. Christians and Jews were regarded as Dhmimmis and forced to pay extortionate taxes which ultimately went into funding mosques in Damascus. That Spain was weak there is no doubt. That there is “tolerance” reflects about the tolerance that the Nazi regime gave to Jews.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall…..spain.html
Maybe when Bush says ’sects’ he isn’t saying what we think.
Anyway, the thing about Christianity which was debated most heavily before 1600 and fundamentalists want to relive today is the question of whether we’re all Evil from the moment of conception because we’re “fallen” or if it’s possible, just possible that good and bad aren’t inborn.
Maybe, as Forrest Gump’s mama once said, “Evil is as Evil does, Forrest.”
Phylter @ 130
Religion is not just shared beliefs, like people who enjoy Star Wars. Religion comes from ‘re-ligate’, to reconnect with, to re-attach. In my opinion, it’s profoundly a Christian idea based on the idea that we are inherently ‘fallen’ and we need to do something to reconnect with God.
Therefore, there is civil, moral and spiritual behavior or belief.
Buddhism, on the other hand, isn’t about reconnecting, but realizing, awakening to, understanding the reality as it Truly Is and that Compassion for your fellow man who is in the dark is necessary for us to all get along in this strange strange world. At least that’s the way I understand Buddhism.
Take for example Zen meditation, the study of koans or of yoga. All these are designed to help us understand how everything is in some way One, whole and without parts. You could call that religion except that they wouldn’t accept your characterization that there is a separateness to begin with. It’s the Realization of Oneness, not the manufacturing of it which they seek.
Hinduism, with it’s many deities, is a mystery to me. They seem, unlike Buddhists, to revel in multiplicity and in dualities (at least superficially).
Taoism is more spiritual and mystical in presentation. I don’t know if there’s a Taoist god, but the belief in Life Force and of Flow of spiritual force seems to be related to some extent to Confucianism and how one is to relate to the world, rather than how one is to Be oneself. Religion? No, I’d say they are closer to Buddhism in asserting there is always Oneness and your task is to realize it and live in harmony with everything and everyone.
Does that lead us to Shamanism of the Western Hemisphere?
Not today. I’m already going on far too much.
Time to relegate the floor…
Athiesm is not a belief system.
It is disbelief — which is by no means and is in no way sytematic.
My e-mail to Gerson.
We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them.
Wow. Funny then how so many believers all over the world and throughout history have hated and argued and fought and had contempt for others. Talk about intentions going awry. But no problem for God — he just turns around and blames the believers because somehow they weren’t faithful enough or they are sinners.
George Bush believes in God. So does Osama bin Laden. I’m not seeing their actions as in any way compatible with a search for love, harmony and sympathy. Yet both believe that God directs their actions.
Maybe you are actually wrong about human beings and the framers of the constitution got it right (and the authors of religious texts from every tradition including the Christian tradition) — maybe we really long for power and money and ego-gratification. Because God created us that way. And what kind of a God would do that and then expect us to achieve love, harmony and sympathy?
Not a God who valued love or harmony or sympathy.
AJ
LibertyLee @ 157
The Turks went to the gates of Vienna Austria, Poland lost its king in the battle, Hungary lost its king and I believe most of its kingdom. However Moses Maimonides the Jewish Philosoher got an education in Spain under Muslim Almoravid rule rule. The Almohads however a Fundementalist bunch from Africa took over and drove Moses to Saladin’s kingdom not the Christian Kingdoms. It seems the Christians had become like their fundemenatlist Muslim enemies and begun demanding like the fundementalist Muslims that Jews convert or die.
David Ehrenstein @ 168
No, it’s the BELIEF that there is no god. Athiesm is just another religion with a another set of beliefs
The answer is obvious to me: everyone has their own value judgments and everyone makes moralistic judgments of others based on these values. Christian denominations hold wildly different value judgments on issues–community, sexuality, and environmentalism, to name a few–and based on these values they make wildly different moralistic judgments about people, even though they all believe in a Christian God!
Take the Evangelical and the Missouri-Synod wings of American Lutheranism as an example–they both support Lutheranism, and yet they have come to different value judgments , and therefore make different moral judgments on people.
In my opinion, theism really ends up in the same place as atheism–you organize a subset of the population that share common value judgments.
Thoughts?
sumpls @ 119
In 8th grade science I learned about basic psychology, including Skinner and principles of behavior modification, and I realized that Heaven and Hell, reward and punishment, were simply religion’s way of making people behave. Religion lost all power for me then since I felt I was smart enough to manage my own behavior without a religion telling me what to do. Reason trumps religion and morality is easy: help, don’t hurt.
Hey, just a side note… “the Christian had enough firepower to kill 100 times more people than the Islamists.” I think they are called Muslims. Unless we call Bush a Christianist… I happen to think Talibangelist works quite well.