Ralph Sevush, all around good guy, wrote the following short essay which he calls “The Cultural Divide.” I thought it was an interesting take on the current status of things and decided to close out political blog entries for a bit with it:
Regarding the cultural divide
This morning, I woke up thinking…
… that, as Spalding Gray observed, I live on an island off the coast
of America;
… that we should have just let the south secede when they wanted to;
… that perhaps we could consider a new form of secession, a Northern
secession;
… that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a “Freedom Trail”
with an “underground railroad” that connected the northwestern corner of
Minnesota to the northeastern corner of Washington state, thus creating
an independent, contiguous nation consisting of the Northeast, the Great
Lake region, the northern midwest, and the westcoast (plus Hawaii) with
full autonomy from the United States;
… that we could then forge a union with Canada, and become the
Federation of North American States (FONAS);
… that we would then be Fonasians, with access to Canada’s national
health care, with religious and ethnic diversity and tolerance,
relationships with the rest of the world, economic justice, individual
freedoms, and great hockey teams;
… that we would then have a nation composed of the cultural, financial
and industrial centers of the former US, and have Canada as our farmland
and ranch, and still have great vacation spots in the south pacific;
… that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall
along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;
… that I should just roll over and go back to sleep. Perhaps I’ll
dream of Fonasia, in repose on my island off the coast of America.
But when I wake up, I’ll still be here.
Shìŧ.
Did you ever have one of those mornings?
– by Ralph Sevush, Esq.
(a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the MMMS)
• 
Thomas Jefferson, inventor, author of the Declaration of Independence, and 3rd President of the United States, weighs in…
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.”
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
“It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read.”
“Difference of opinion is helpful in religion.”
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
And two of my favorites:
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
“I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.”
“But if there is an objective spiritual reality (not saying we can “prove” it by physical means since by definition that would take it out of the spiritual realm)…”
And there in lies the problem. Your beliefs or PAD’s beliefs or my beliefs can’t be proven. Physically, or spiritually. If they could, everyone would agree. Basically, you have no proof that you are right, but you behave as if you were, which is what people like myself take issue with. I don’t care about what you believe, what your morales and values are (and by the way, I am an atheist and I share many of the same values as, say, a christian, like not stealing, not killing, helping people, being nice and all that jazz.), I don’t care until you try to impose your beliefs and will on me. Many religious types will claim to be respectful of everyone else’s beliefs, but will “pray” for their souls so that they might find the “right path”. It’s essentially a slap in the face. Then they don’t understand why those other people have a hard time taking them seriously or making an effort to understand them. It’s one thing to say you are right about something when you have facts and proof, it’s just obnoxious to say so when you have none or as much as anyone else.
And no, I’m not saying I’m right either. I don’t try to convince people to give up their religions, I don’t hope that they “come to their senses”. Whatever gets you through the day and keeps you (in general you, not you specifically) from interfering with my life or stepping on my rights as a living being.
Monkeys.
then you cannot treat religion as meaningless to daily life as whether you root for the Yankees or the Red Sox.
What a silly statement. Everybody knows that Yankees fans worship the devil. 🙂
If you read many of the posts on this site, you will find a strong and real disdain for Christian values.
No, and this is where people like you continue to fail to see the arguments we are presenting.
On the contrary, there are very few “arguments” being used. Being called a “bigot” because I believe an action/behavior (engaging in sex with someone of the same gender) is wrong is not an argument, it is a judgment. Being called an idiot because I believe in prayer is not an argument, it is a judgment. There are some who have engaged me on the idea and argued their case, but I stated I was refering to those who simply dismissed me with disdain because they feel I am wrong.
A) Values are NOT exclusive to Christianity, contrary to popular belief. I’ve had to put up with this same garbage on another forum – not only have Christians “claimed” marriage, they’ve now claimed moral values as well.
I agree, which is why I specified “Christian” values. The Bible very clearly and explicitly says homosexual actions are wrong. You may disagree. You may say the Bible was wrong, out of date, didn’t understand contemporary gay monogamy, whatever. But there is over 3,000 years of clear biblical teaching and understanding that having gáÿ šëx is wrong.
In regards to who is “moral,” that is the essence of the debate. If you feel it is bigotry that I believe gay sexual behavior is wrong, then by definition you believe you are on the moral high ground. The same is true if I feel gáÿ šëx or gay marriage is wrong. Each side is doing the same thing: claiming their moral viewpoint is correct. This is not exclusively a Christian way of arguing. What is valid to say is that the current definition of a number of values is different than what it was in the past. Go back 100 years and you will not find the number of people openly living together rather than getting married as exist today. That is a marked change in a moral value. Go back 100 years and you will find, among some, an acceptance of racism. That has also changed (at least to some degree). In the case of living together, I would say it is immoral to do so. In the case of rascism, I would say it was wrong back then, and that we are correct today to despise racism.
What I despise is the notion that, while you claim to be of some higher moral value, Christianity still allows for discrimination and bigotry, only now instead of directly at women and blacks, it’s at gays.
Here is where we strongly disagree. There is a fundamental difference in your examples. Women and blacks are that way from the point of birth. Discrimination is solely a matter of skin color or gender. Even if you believe someone is gay from birth, it is still a “trait” that is only exhibited through behavior later in life. There is a behaviorial component in homosexuality. You cannot go through a nursery and put all of the “gay” babies on one side and the “straight” babies on another.
My oposition to homosexuality is based on behavior. Furthermore, it is an established fact that it is possible for at least some who have a gay orientation to change and be very happily married to someone of the opposite sex.
We discriminate against behavior all of the time. That is an expression of moral values, not a sign of a lack of values.
That people are so blasted hypocritical when it comes to quoting the Bible – take what you want, leave the rest behind.
That was the case for some in the case of slavery and racism. However, you can find very strong and vocal opponents of both throughout Christian history. It is an historical fact that many Christians opposed slavery since the time of the Roman Empire. It is an historical fact that the abolition of slavery in England was driven by a large number of Christians. It is an historical fact that many Christians have opposed racism. You do not find that kind of record for gay marriage or for engaging in homosexual acts. Christianity has been overwhelmingly clear in its opposition to gay actions, at least until the liberal churches in the last century. My point? There is NOTHING in the Bible that says gáÿ šëx is ok. We are not leaving part of the Bible behind to say gay marriage is wrong. You can disagree with what the Bible teaches, but you cannot find any support for the idea when you honestly look at what the Bible actually says about the issue.
Jim in Iowa
Remember, you suggested that people who don’t vote should be drafted to remind them what their vote is about. My point is that, for some, not voting is in fact voicing your opinion. Basically stating that the parties are putting forth candidates that are not worthy of the office of president, and this not worth voting for.
Go back and read my entire comment. I said that it doesn’t matter what people who choose not to vote think because they’ve given up the one point where there voice really counts.
You seem to think that voting is an obligation, not a right. Go check the Constitution: People have the RIGHT to vote. We aren’t REQUIRED to.
Wow. We’re just making things up now, aren’t we? I never said that voting was a requirement, only that I THOUGHT it SHOULD be.
Reading comprehension, look into it.
Chastising people because they choose note to vote makes no sense.
I only chastise people who whine and complain about the government and yet can’t get off their áššëš to vote.
And I’m not responding to your comment about forced partial birth abortions (which was YOU changing the subject first) because there’s no point.
Again, you’re rewriting history. I made my initial comment in response to others who were debating whether or not people who didn’t vote supported the president or not. Again, my opinion is, it doesn’t matter since they refused to make their voices known.
I’ve spent enough time trying to “debate” a subject which pretty clearly has no room for debate or conversation with a lot of people that I’m not going to continune it with you.
I see. After throwing up a couple of strawmen, you’re taking your bat and ball home?
Buh-bye.
Jim, I appreciate the attempt to put forth your reasons for opposing homosexuality, being that it is a behavior not condoned by your religion (can I assume that means that it is alright to be gay, as long as you don’t show it or practice it?). I guess my question, or point, would be to wonder, since no one can prove your religion is “right”, what basis do you or other Christians have for imposing that belief on other people, especially non-christians? If gays were running around trying to have sex with straights, or maybe with christians, I suppose you could say they were violating others’ rights. But that isn’t the case.
How is your life, or anyone’s life so negatively impacted by something like homosexuality that you (again, general you)(and not General You) feel there should be enforcible laws concerning it? (and if you don’t feel that way, I apologize for assuming and ask you to disregard the question).
Monkeys.
And there in lies the problem. Your beliefs or PAD’s beliefs or my beliefs can’t be proven. Physically, or spiritually. If they could, everyone would agree. Basically, you have no proof that you are right, but you behave as if you were, which is what people like myself take issue with. I don’t care about what you believe, what your morales and values are (and by the way, I am an atheist and I share many of the same values as, say, a christian, like not stealing, not killing, helping people, being nice and all that jazz.), I don’t care until you try to impose your beliefs and will on me. Many religious types will claim to be respectful of everyone else’s beliefs, but will “pray” for their souls so that they might find the “right path”. It’s essentially a slap in the face. Then they don’t understand why those other people have a hard time taking them seriously or making an effort to understand them. It’s one thing to say you are right about something when you have facts and proof, it’s just obnoxious to say so when you have none or as much as anyone else.
You raise a very good point. Can anything supernatural be proven? If, as you suggest, you cannot, then your point if valid.
I would suggest that while there is faith involved, it is not blind faith. If you come on a crime scene, one of the things you do is dust for fingerprints. It is evidence that someone was there. I would suggest that while the spiritual realm is not “proveable” since (by definition) it is not something we can touch, taste, see, hear, or smell with our 5 senses, we can see the “fingerprints” that it exists. There is evidence for God and for the spiritual realm, but we must add up that evidence to see where it leads us.
Here are some of the fingerprints that I see:
Creation — I believe nature strongly suggests and intelligent designer, not just random chance. That is not just the idea of Christians. There are people who see a designer who belong to no particular faith.
Morality — Whether you agree or disagree with traditional Christian morality, the very fact that morals exist suggests something. Evolutionary theory falls short in explaining how we developed morality.
The human mind — I find this particularly compelling. We are not just “computers” made out of flesh and blood. The mind is more than just the working of the brain. If someone has an operation and 1/4 of their brain is removed, they don’t become 1/4 of a person. Evolutionary theory has no adequate explanation of how the human mind with its ability to reason and think outside of itself came about. That is not just my opinion. That is the belief of evolutionists who admit they are still trying to figure it out.
The Bible — Whether you agree with it or not, it is a remarkable piece of literature. The stories it contains give many examples of where the supernatural intersected with the natural. If the miracles it records are true, then there is reason to believe in the supernatural. If they are true, then it gives me reason to believe the other teachings are true as well.
Jesus Christ — No other historical figure has had the impact of Jesus Christ. The evidence for his existence is quite strong. If he did indeed die and rise again, then I have the clearest proof of my beliefs.
My beliefs are not based on a flight of fancy or on mere tradition. I have spent time studying the evidence. My faith rests not on wishful thinking but on the conviction that the evidence points towards the existence of the God of the Bible.
You may disagree, but try for a second to look at life through the worldview of a Christian. It is not a “slap in the face” to try to persuade you to my position. I do have facts and evidence, you just choose to reject it. I am not arguing for the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. I am arguing for something that does have a historical basis and reality.
I don’t care until you try to impose your beliefs and will on me.
One last thought: It is impossible to have any laws without someone imposing their morality on someone else. More importantly, no one person is imposing their morality on someone else. No one religion is doing so. As a democratic country, it is done by a vote. And in a democratic country, all views (even religiously held ones) have the freedom to try to persuade others to agree with them.
Jim in Iowa
Bladestar,
You’ve reached the point of diminishing returns.
This thread has actually devolved into a fairly solid reason why PAD should consider posting LOTS of political entries; without some new topic it ends up getting really lame really fast, someone strats preaching, Bladestar loses his mind, and it all ends up like a sad group therapy session.
Some of the folks here must have had some real interesting childhoods.
Karen wrote: I have a couple of questions for the consevative Christians. I am not trying to be sarcastic, I am truly interested.
Here are my thoughts.
1. How will you find new converts when you seem to be so exclusionary? Examples: If you are gay, and will not live a lie for your religion; or if you believe in a woman’s right to choose, but get denied communion.
Good question. Bottom line, I don’t try to convince people of either issue. I don’t mean this arrogantly, but that is God’s job.
In conservative Christianity, there is one central issue that we try to “convert” people to believe: That Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. If they put their faith in Christ, they are a Christian (a convert).
Once someone is a Christian, her or she is encouraged to live according to what the Bible teaches. More imporantly, we teach that God’s Spirit is at work transforming someone from the inside out. I know very personally of 3 people who were actively gay. It was a process, not an overnight change, but they now are very happily married. They are not living a lie. They believe they have found something greater and better in their current state of being married.
I have “conservative Christian” friends who voted for Kerry and who are more liberal on other issues. We debate those issues. But the basis for being a Christian is not whether someone is a Republican (or Democrat) but whether they have put their faith in Jesus alone as their Savior.
2. What side of the gun control issue would Jesus lean toward? By extension, while we are on the issue of violence, what would he think of going to war with Iraq?
I would offer a few ideas in response. First, Jesus never told Roman soldiers to give up their sword, nor told them to quit their profession. Furthermore, Jesus gave some of his harshest words in warning to those who harmed children. Jesus did preach turning the other cheek, but in the context of serving others.
I would suggest, too, that Jesus endorsed the Old Testament. In it, God clearly said some wars are justified.
Now to your question: In regards to gun control, I would suggest that Jesus would not even deal with the issue itself, but would deal with why people carry guns. I think there are some circumstances where it is justified. I think in others it is a sign of ego or false security. For anyone to leave a gun where a child could shoot herself or someone else would be worthy of harsh judgment.
Jesus would say that the problem is not the gun, it is the person who has the gun. Gun control does not change human nature. People will just use knives, bats, etc., to harm someone else. I don’t think he would back gun control, but I also don’t think he would argue we have a “right” to bear arms. Not because he was being a good “politician” but because he sees things from a much bigger picture.
In regards to Iraq, that is a harder topic. As God, he would know the truth of whether Saddam had WMD’s, and he would also know the truth of how many died due to Saddam’s brutality. He would know the true motives of Bush and his cabinet, as well as the motives of countries who opposed the war. Since I don’t know all of those things, I freely admit I can’t say with certainty.
I do think it is safe to say that Jesus would not condemn all war. There are times when war is justified. The teaching of the Bible as a whole makes this clear. I personally feel the war with Iraq was justified, but respect those who say it was not — as long as they are honest about the evidence (as I attempt to be).
Let me take just one issue: Current evidence points to Saddam stealing over $20 billion dollars while a number of his people suffered and starved or were brutally tortured and killed. It does not matter if this was a reason Bush gave for going to war, since we are talking here about Jesus and what he would have done. Saddam was clearly an evil person, and would have been under the wrath and condemnation of God. Of course, as God, he had the abililty to strike Saddam down directly. But the Bible records the fact that God frequently chooses to work through human choices. For example, God did not strike down Pharoah in the story in Exodus. The whole nation of Egypt suffered and many died due to Pharaoh’s disobedience and unwillingness to release the Israelites. In the same way, it is possible that innoncent people could suffer in a war to remove Saddam.
Is that fair? Perhaps that is the wrong question. If God directly judged each person immediately for his or her “sins,” then at least by Christian tradition, we all would be judged. If God is to allow us the opportunity to make moral choices and the opportunity to repent of wrong choices, then it opens the door that others will suffer due to those choices. You can’t have it both ways.
Because of these factors, my personal feeling is that the war in Iraq was justified. I can’t claim with certainty that Jesus would approve, but neither is it clear that he would not provided the war was done for justifiable reasons.
Jim in Iowa
Ok, now my turn to ask a question. I am not interested in debating you on why you believe it or whether or not you are right. I just would like to hear what you think. Here is my question:
A couple of you have made the valid point that the “left” also has moral values. There are some that both sides might include (such as to not lie, not kill, not steal, etc.). Leaving aside the common ground morals, I would be curious to see a list of 5 or 10 of the most important moral values that those of you on the left hold as important. It would help if you were more specific than just saying “love for others” since both sides might say the same thing.
As I said, I am just curious and will not respond to debate what you believe. I am curious to see what you all would list.
Jim in Iowa
But Jim, America is NOT a democracy, it it s a representative republic. (I’m sick of Bush and his idiot friends touting how America has sucha great “democracy”)
When less than 1/3 of the eligible populaion votes for Bush, he is NOT representing a majority of Americans, same with the congress critters, of whom are elected by a MUCH smaller percentage of the population over all.
Besides LAWS have absolutely NOTHING to do with “convincing” anyone. LAWS deal with limiting rights and freedoms. LAWS FORCE beliefs on the whole nation. Not very democratic or free…
Jim,
That’s the thing about morals. They are not “Christian”, but have a basis in all religions and governments since the begining of those things. The only differences in our world-views on morals that I can think of would be that I think it is a moral value to allow freedom to choose and live your life without violating others rights to do the same. You think it is important that you spread your ideal lifestyle and religion to others. I think the death penalty is morally wrong, while abortion is not, as I do not believe at that point it is taking life. I believe war is not moral. Self defense and defense of others IS moral, which covers Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Guns used for hunting, as long as the hunters use their kills for food not just trophys are fine. Any other use, besides law enforcement, is wrong. You bring up other weapons that can’t do as much damage as quickly. The primary purpose for those other weapons is not to inflict harm on another. The gun has no purpose except to do as much harm as possible.
Oh, and you say he did not tell the Romans to get rid of their swords, but wasn’t there something about turning swords into plowshares? (Not very conversant on the New Testament)
But Jim, America is NOT a democracy, it it s a representative republic. (I’m sick of Bush and his idiot friends touting how America has sucha great “democracy”)
I agree, we are a representative republic. But that does not mean we are not a democracy. This is just the “form” of democracy we have chosen. Within that form, there are many things we DO vote on directly. For example, whether you are agree or not, the ammendment banning gay marriage is being voted on directly by people, not just by our representatives. California as individuals just voted to allow funding for embryonic stem cell research. So while your statement is basically true, it is not complete. We do offer ways to vote directly if we so choose.
When less than 1/3 of the eligible populaion votes for Bush, he is NOT representing a majority of Americans, same with the congress critters, of whom are elected by a MUCH smaller percentage of the population over all.
The problem with your logic is that most of the 2/3 who do not vote are making a choice not to vote. Even if you accept that there is some voter intimidation, etc., it does not account for so few going to the polls in the first place. Whether 50% of those eligible to vote actually vote for a person in office, at least 99.9% have the opportunity to do so.
As you noted, we are a representative republic. As such, by definition, Bush (and members of congress) DO represent 100% of the population. That is how the system works. Because of that fact, there are checks and balances put in place. Even with full control of both houses by Republicans, Bush cannot do anything he wants. But whatever Congress writes as law and Bush approves applies to everyone.
According to the rules of the game, Clinton was my president for 8 years. He did represent me, even though he won by less than 50% of even those who did bother to vote. The same is true now with Bush. That does not mean we are not a democracy. That is just the rules we set up to run our democracy. In another 4 years, because of the term limits the PEOPLE put in place, Bush is done. We are a democracy, just not a perfect one (since a perfect one does not exist).
What would you suggest as an alternative? How would yous suggest changing the rules to make it more fair? What should we have done 12 years ago when Clinton barely got something like 42% of the vote? What should we do now?
Besides LAWS have absolutely NOTHING to do with “convincing” anyone. LAWS deal with limiting rights and freedoms. LAWS FORCE beliefs on the whole nation. Not very democratic or free…
You make a good point as far as it goes. I would add that laws are there to protect everyone one. That is why they limit certain freedom and rights. While the process may not seem very “free,” that does not mean it is not democratic.
If we were truly “free,” then we could not stop Bill Gates from truly being a monopoly and taking over the entire software industry. If we were truly “free,” then if someone could afford to buy up a forest, they could cut down a whole rain forest if they desired. Good laws seek to protect the community. There will be times when we will disagree on what that means (as the debate on gay marriage demonstrates — both sides are convinced they are trying to protect the community as a whole).
My premise goes a step further. Take racism. Is it enough to have a law protecting black people? Or is it even better to convince people that racism is wrong? Is it enough to ban slavery? Or is it better to convince people that slavery is wrong? Let’s suggest, for the sake of argument, that gay marriage should be allowed. It is clear from many on this site that it would be even better if people like me agreed that it was right, not just that it was “legal.” And that is fine. That is the battle for ideas. Making a law is pointless if people’s convictions cause them to do something different when the law is not there to stop them. Should we not steal because it is against the law, or because it is morally wrong? As some would say about another topic, we would just be “living a lie” if we merely did it because we were forced to do so.
Jim in Iowa
See, whereas I see it as an act of supreme arrogance, of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, snot-faced, wrong-headed, purblind, where-the-hëll-do-you-get-off-you-Bible-thumping-yahoo, biased, prejudiced, anti-Semitic chowder-headed, lame-brained jáçkášš intolerance.
But I only say this because I care.
And I really appreciate the fact that you care. 🙂
Jim in Iowa
Oh, and you say he did not tell the Romans to get rid of their swords, but wasn’t there something about turning swords into plowshares? (Not very conversant on the New Testament)
Isaiah wrote about that as a prophecy of a coming time of peace. It followed a prediction of a time when plowshares are turned into swords.
Jesus in Matthew 10 said: “”Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
In Luke 22, he said: “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. “
He later also said: “”Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” in Matthew 26
As with everything, it depends on the context. There is neither an endorsement that the sword is always right to use, while there is neither a condemnation that the sword is always wrong. As Ecclesiastes says, there is an appropriate time and place for everything.
Jim in Iowa
But Jim, America is NOT a democracy, it it s a representative republic. (I’m sick of Bush and his idiot friends touting how America has sucha great “democracy”)
This is hardly just Bush-43. Every President in recent memory does this. Here’s a sampling just from the various State of the Union addresses:
And why does this make you sick, anyway? It’s something to be proud of.
“Morality — Whether you agree or disagree with traditional Christian morality, the very fact that morals exist suggests something. Evolutionary theory falls short in explaining how we developed morality.”
Okay, I’ve gotta throw the bullstuff flag on this one.
Meerkats are small, weasel-like creatures native to South Africa, who live in large underground colonies. Posted outside the colony entrance is a watcher, whose duty is to sit there, and sound the alarm when a predator approaches. The rest of the colony then runs inside. This behavior was long thought inexplicable in evolutionary terms, as the watcher cannot hunt for seeds and insects, and must wait outside until the rest of the colony is safe. Closer examination over the last couple of centuries, though, has shown that the watcher is fed by the others, and those who have recently had watch duty are actually preferred by mating females – thus spreading their genes more rapidly. In other words, among meerkats, seemingly selfless, moral behavior is rewarded evolutionarily.
Similarly, it is easier for a human male to attract a mate if he displays qualities which, at base, indicate that he will help care for the young. Courage, self-sacrifice, honor – all come into play in shared child care. Therefore, those with “morality” will tend to father more children than those without, and will tend to teach even those who don’t carry their genes, thus perpetuating the meme. As we can see, then, evolution does indeed favor “morailty”, with or without deity involved.
This point is now moot. Next evidence, please…
If we were truly free, Bill Gates would be penniless as there’d be no copyright laws either…
Besides LAWS have absolutely NOTHING to do with “convincing” anyone. LAWS deal with limiting rights and freedoms. LAWS FORCE beliefs on the whole nation. Not very democratic or free…
I think we’ve actually reached a breakthrough in explaining Bladestar. He is an anarchist, which makes a lot of his political statements much more internally consistent than I would have expected. I actually believe Bladestar now when he “spews” (as he called my last post) “I’m not the one trying to pass laws forcing people to do anything or banning them from anything. You áššhølëš are trying to legislate your religion,, you ARE the Taliban.” If he
Mark, it makes me sick because it’s a LIE!
America is not a democracy. If we were, there would be no president, no congress. The people would vote on everything, not on representatives crafted by extreme gerrymandering and the ridiculous electoral college. Not to mention that the entire process is bought and owned by the rich….
Because David,
I fûçkìņg hate these religious fascists!
I see no reaon not to be rude to them. They are Nazis, The Taliban, The Ayatollah, Osama Bin Laden, and Jim Jones all rolled into one.
“Give us the power we need to “Protect” you. You aren’t smart enough to handle your lives, so let us, god’s frontmen & the government take care of everything. You don’t need rights and freedom, let us guide and protect you. You safety is more important than your rights, right?”
Fûçkìņg fascists… they don’t deserve respect because they are sub-human…
Blade,
I agree with you. I wish our politicians would remind us more about our republic, not our “democracy”. The reason I was curious was that you singled out Bush-43. If you’re telling me that you dislike all the politicians doing it, I understand it.
Fûçkìņg fascists… they don’t deserve respect because they are sub-human…
That’s odd, usually the fascists are the one saying people are actually sub-human.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Jim, I don’t seek to change your mind about your faith. Whatever gets you through your day is cool with me. But I have to admit your “fingerprints” aren’t something I’d be comfortable using for a reason to believe anything. I’m seriously not trying to be rude (so I wonder why I’m saying anything at all), but I think you don’t fully understand evolution. Many of your other reasonings contain quite a few “ifs”. You choose to see intelligent design, which is fine. That’s cool.
“You may disagree, but try for a second to look at life through the worldview of a Christian. It is not a “slap in the face” to try to persuade you to my position.”-
Just because you don’t think I should see it as a slap in the face to completely disregard my own beliefs in an attempt to pursuade me of yours doesn’t mean it isn’t a slap in the face. Just because you think you are doing the right thing, or want to be doing the right thing, doesn’t mean you are.
“I do have facts and evidence, you just choose to reject it.”
You did not present facts or evidence, just your rationalizations, and how you interpret the world. Again, which is fine, you can believe what you want to believe.
“I am not arguing for the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. I am arguing for something that does have a historical basis and reality.”
Religion, belief, and faith have an historical basis. The existence of god does not.
I hope I didn’t come off as snippy. If I did, I apologize and chalk it up to the frustrations and exhaustion of stay-at-home-dad-dom.
Monkeys.
David,
Specifically, I noted Karen write, “The only differences in our world-views on morals that I can think of would be that I think it is a moral value to allow freedom to choose and live your life without violating others rights to do the same. You think it is important that you spread your ideal lifestyle and religion to others.” Karen, do you consider yourself a libertarian? That statement, if taken literally, precludes you from supporting anti-discrimination, minimum wage, and environmental protection laws.
I actually did look into the libertarian party at one time and rejected it because of my belief that we need rules and the government is there to fill in the gaps of our society. My statement doesn’t preclude the laws you cite because each protect all of our rights to live and choose. Which is what government should be for. If one is discriminated against it violates his rights, not being able to feed, clothe, and house your family because the minimum wage is too low violates ones ability to live life in freedom from want, and environmental laws keep those who would destroy nature from allowing us to enjoy it.
Far from libertarian views, I think we absolutly need government to step in. It is human nature for those with power to abuse it, so government should be a check and balance. I bought into the Reagan policy of smaller government for quite awhile until I realized that it meant giving up some of the programs that give aid and dignity to those in need. Government should not be run like a business, but like a government. Your post was very thoughtful, though. In the example of trying to convert someone to my religion; the religious person I admire most on a local level is a friend who lives a very Christian life. He and I had many long discussions about religion. His view is to be an example and show how fulfilling his life is based on his religion. Showing people instead of trying to push his views on me. I respect him more than I can say because he truly tried to live a Christian life every day, but did not feel the need to force others to his way of thinking. So I won’t be trying to convert anyone, I just wanted Jim to understand the flip side of his proselytizing. How would he feel if we were doing the same to him?
“Karen asked, And if I compassionatly reached out to you by telling you that you are going the wrong way and should convert to Judaism?”
“Go for it. In my opinion you have every right to do that, and depending on the specific content of your religious beliefs, you might have a moral imperative to at least try to get the message out to save people.”
Actually, if Karen is Jewish, then not only does she NOT have that moral imperative, but she would in fact be acting in violation of Jewish law.
See, that’s what separates Judaism from the zealots, the yahoos, the Bible thumpers and the schmucks who believe they must, absolutely MUST tell you that you are on the wrong path for your own good, dammit…and are oblivious to the sheer arrogant condescension that point of view entails.
Judaism specifically prohibits prostel…prostyli…pros…trying to convert someone to our religion. As a matter of fact, would-be converts are supposed to be actively discouraged from doing so. Part of it stems from feeling it’s not our place to foist our beliefs on others, and part of it stems from the awareness that Jews are despised and targeted by…well, condescending yahoos, for one…and figure that anyone who wants in should really have some idea of what they’re letting themselves in for.
That’s why, if you’ve ever been approached by one of the Lubuvitch with their Mitzvah Mobile, the first thing they’ll say is, “Excuse me, are you Jewish?” If you say “No,” they will simply say “Thank you” and turn away.
That’s the great divide between the smug bible-thumper mentality, with its blinkered “We are absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong and it’s our obligation to help those poor idiots who just don’t get it” attitude, and any other religion (such as mine) which just says, “I have my religion, you have yours, let’s just leave it at that.”
It’s a mindset that informs all aspects of the zealot. It’s probably why Bush is so determined in his international dealings: He desires to foist Democracy on others, whether they want it or not, with the same singleminded “I”m right, you’re wrong, and I’m going to hammer that home to you no matter what it takes” attitude that informs everything from missionairies to the Spanish Inquisition to…well…Jim from Iowa.
PAD
I’m seriously not trying to be rude (so I wonder why I’m saying anything at all), but I think you don’t fully understand evolution. Many of your other reasonings contain quite a few “ifs”. You choose to see intelligent design, which is fine. That’s cool.
I have read quite extensively on evolution. I just am lazy and have not gone to do research to present my ideas as clearly as I should. Which is my fault, and I will do some research to better state my point in the future.
I am trying to not tie up this site with whole chapters of my beliefs. To do it justice would take more space than most here want to read. So I hear the objections to my arguments but choose not to prolong the discussion. They were summaries, not well defended points, so I will bow out of the debate.
Religion, belief, and faith have an historical basis. The existence of god does not.
Actually, I would disagree, at least according to the Christian world view. Creation itself is an historical basis. Even if you think evolution explains the process, it does not explain the “big bang” in the first place. Did something really come from nothing?
Second, the life and death and resurrection of Jesus would be an historical basis. It is a historical event which can be researched and studied. Disproving it does not conclusively prove God does not exist, since I could be wrong and another god or gods could exist. But if it is true, then it is strong evidence that the God of the Bible is real. It is a way to know God exists.
For what it is worth, Chuck Colson and others suggest that it is this historical fact that keeps Christianity from being a circular argument. God does not exist just because the Bible says so. I believe God exists because he actually entered into human history in a way that is unique and tangible and subject to verification. Obviously I am not an eyewitness, but there is a lot of evidence to consider before quickly dismissing it as a myth or legend.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I find it challenging.
Jim in Iowa
PAD wrote: Judaism specifically prohibits prostel…prostyli…pros…trying to convert someone to our religion.
PAD, I have heard this before, but don’t understand the source of this belief. Is it based in the Jewish (Old Testament) scriptures or a tradition or what? I agree that the command to “go and make disciples” found in the New Testament is not stated as such in the Jewish Scriptures. I am not trying to debate you on this, just honestly want to know the source for this belief.
Jim in Iowa
Mark L, not just Bush and not just the president, but yes, I disagree when anyone touts America as a democracy, because we are FAR from it…
Dave Boring, how typical, but I’m not the one trying to pass laws restricting anyone’s rights or freedom. Enjoy your fascist ways…
PAD… so it’s not just selective memory or my mind playing tricks on me. I’ve never had Jewish people make the total áššëš of themselves that Jim and his ilk do…
I actually did look into the libertarian party at one time and rejected it because of my belief that we need rules and the government is there to fill in the gaps of our society. My statement doesn’t preclude the laws you cite because each protect all of our rights to live and choose. Which is what government should be for. If one is discriminated against it violates his rights, not being able to feed, clothe, and house your family because the minimum wage is too low violates ones ability to live life in freedom from want, and environmental laws keep those who would destroy nature from allowing us to enjoy it.
All of those are moral judgments, though. You’re making the judgment that a person’s right to not be the subject of discrimination trumps the right of the bigot to associate with and do business with the people of his choice. You are making the judgment that a person has a right to material support, which trumps the employee and employer’s exclusive rights to negotiate the terms of their arrangement. (There were actual cases debating that in the early part of the last century, e.g. Lochner.) And you’re making the judgment that your right to enjoy nature trumps the right of Brazilian landowners to slash and burn their property. For you to act on your judgments, you HAVE to accept that it is morally valid to try to give your judgments the force of law. I think you’re right about that, even if I don’t always agree on your specific judgments. But I think we should all be clear on the point. Legislation ALWAYS involves the majority forcing its will on a minority. The Constitution is designed to prevent a majority from enforcing its will unjustly, not to prohibit the practice altogether. It would be all but impossible to have any sort of government that really, genuinely, embraced moral relativism.
Karen said 1. How will you find new converts when you seem to be so exclusionary? Examples: If you are gay, and will not live a lie for your religion; or if you believe in a woman’s right to choose, but get denied communion.
If you believe that the Bible comes from God’s word, then I would say look to the Bible. If it says it’s OK to be gay in the Bible, then so be it. If it says a woman has the right to choose if her baby lives or dies in the Bible, then so be it.
and 2. What side of the gun control issue would Jesus lean toward? By extension, while we are on the issue of violence, what would he think of going to war with Iraq?
Who are we to say what Jesus would or wouldn’t do?
You can debate Big Bang, evolution, creation, Genesis, the World Tree all day long. However, at some point people have to try to come to a conclusion: was there an intent in the creation of the Universe, or was it all a big cosmic accident? If it was an accident, then you’re stuck with evolution as your means of growth. If there was intent, then evolution can still be a part of the means of creation, but so can intervention and design – they are not mutually exclusive. Many people take the either/or approach without realizing the middle ground.
Marvel obviously believes in Evolution. Look at what happened to Peter Parker recently. He gave birth to himself (spiders now produce a-sexually ~ another evolutionary spike), gets enhanced perceptions, and organic web shooters that amazingly come out of the same place that his mechanical web shooters used to come from instead of his áršë. Talk about coincidence.
Thank goodness that John Kerry wasn’t writing the book. Peter Parker probably would have given himself a partial birth abortion, thus killing his self, or his baby whichever way you want to look at it. Then, Marvel would have to bring back Peter’s clone again.
See, that’s what separates Judaism from the zealots, the yahoos, the Bible thumpers and the schmucks who believe they must, absolutely MUST tell you that you are on the wrong path for your own good, dammit…and are oblivious to the sheer arrogant condescension that point of view entails.
Whereas, if hypothetically someone were to spend hours trying to explain to such people that they are in fact zealots, schmucks, yahoos, that wouldn’t involve arrogant condescension at all. Seriously, what makes your contempt for them superior to their self-righteous but well-intentioned efforts? I’m neither an evangelical Christian nor, obviously, you. From my perspective, all I see is two factions trying to convince others that they’re right, and the only difference is you’re being a lot ruder than Jim in Iowa. He thinks he’s trying to save souls. I have no idea what you think you’re doing, if not engaging in “an act of supreme arrogance, of self-righteous, holier-than-thou, snot-faced, wrong-headed, purblind… biased, prejudiced… chowder-headed, lame-brained jáçkášš intolerance.” Do you tolerate everyone but evangelicals? Is Christianity OK as long as you keep it to yourself, and don’t frighten the children and horses? How about if the Gideons just hand out Bibles? Must they wear gags as they do it? Or are we to allow the Nazis to march in Skokie, but disallow nonviolent ministries entirely? I know, Bladestar maintains they’re the same thing, but he maintains that everyone who disagrees with his form of anarchism is a fascist (“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”) so I don’t really care what he thinks, either.
But I’m befuddled to see you, PAD, being so irrationally abusive. You are taking the precise position you decry: you are proclaiming the superiority of your faith, when by your own logic you should be taking a page from the other team and turning the other cheek. You are certainly not saying “I have my religion, you have yours, let’s just leave it at that.” You’re lambasting someone who DARED to state his beliefs, and claim that he believes his beliefs to be true (which should be axiomatic; who claims false beliefs?) and suggesting that such truth is universal. That is his only crime: claiming that his belief is empirically true. For all that you’re comparing him to the Spanish Inquisition (or at least claiming he shares their attitude), he attacked no one, employed no instruments of torture, did nothing but state his beliefs in a public forum and claim that he’s right. For some reason you’re attacking Jim, who has done absolutely nothing to you.
Bladestar: PAD… so it’s not just selective memory or my mind playing tricks on me. I’ve never had Jewish people make the total áššëš of themselves that Jim and his ilk do…
Give him time. He’s working on it.
I said Correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t Kerry vote against additional funding for the troops.
to which Roger Tang said Yes, you are wrong. He supported a version of the bill that included funding mechanisms for the Iraq venture. That he voted against a version he did not like should not be construed that he was against proper funding of troops in Iraq.
You have a Yeah or Nay vote in the Senate. He chose Nay when it came down to supplying extra funding needed for our troops. So, no, I was not wrong in my assertion. You are wrong as was Kerry.
No means no. You can psychoanalyze it all night long if you want. The fact is, he voted NO to funding the troops. So if the troops are missing anything, he was as much responsible for it as Bush was. In fact, he was more responsible for it since he voted NO.
There is no Maybe vote in the Senate is there? I don’t care if his version of the bill didn’t pass. He stated himself on TV that it would be irresponsible for anyone in the Senate to vote No for supporting the troops with extra funding. Then he votes NO. Good grief man. If you tell someone you’re going to do something, especially if you tell a live tv audience, then you better darned well do it or you lose face with the public.
David said For some reason you’re attacking Jim, who has done absolutely nothing to you.
Christian’s are always persecuted for expressing their beliefs.
Great post David. I for one am glad that Jim posts here. I enjoy reading what he has to say.
kingbobb said Looking around in my posts…hmm, don’t see anything about WANTING Bush to fail. Nope, mostly just stuff about how I don’t care for the job he’s doing.
I specifically remember saying that the post you are replying to was intended for liberals in general, not you specifically. I never said you personally wanted Bush to fail.
Additionally, kingbobb said This, also from Novafan: “How about all of the Kerry supporters get their girls pregnant and have them get a partial birth abortion. Fair’s fair right?” Heh, there’s logic for you. I could go into how this is just SO not a logical application of wanting the Bush supporters to enlist…I COULD, but I have to make myself stupider to do so…
Obviously you missed the intent of my response to yours. I was trying to show you by example how rediculous your post was by using your logic on people who voted for Kerry. It’s called reverse Psychology.
Do you get it now?
Bladestar said Because David, I fûçkìņg hate these religious fascists! I see no reaon not to be rude to them. They are Nazis, The Taliban, The Ayatollah, Osama Bin Laden, and Jim Jones all rolled into one.
Serious Issues, meet Bladestar. Bladestar, meet Serious Issues.
Now that you’ve met each other, lay down and get some counseling please.
Novafan, first of all… WHAT? (I stopped reading comics back in 2001, but Spidey-titles were always my favorites, they’ve done WHAT to the character?)
2nd. Voting yeah or Nay in congress isn’t that simple, theanks to the stupid practice of putting riders on bills. Each bill voted on should deal with only one thing, no riders. None of this “Well, the primary bill is for funding troops, but by voting for it, you also are accepting the rider that makes cannabalism legal.”
3rd.. BÙLLSHÍT, just the facts. Anyone who wants their religious ignorance made law is a fascist, bent on depriving others of their beliefs and rights. Pure and simple.
Sorry you can’t see that.
Anyone who wants their religious ignorance made law is a fascist, bent on depriving others of their beliefs and rights. Pure and simple.
But isn’t that what the ACLU is doing? They insist that all references to God be purged from public places. Isn’t that just as fascist towards those who have a belief?
We walk a very fine line in the US. Our founders and Declaration of Independence acknowledged that our rights come not from man, but from God. Our Constitution makes no such claim, and is the framework of our laws. The Constitution does not say that government cannot acknowledge religion, just that it cannot establish one.
At what point is the forcing of non-religion in schools, currency, public buildings an infringement on those who hold those beliefs? 90%+ of Americans belief in some sort of God/Creator/Goddess/Spirit that is beyond ourselves. How does “In God We Trust” on the currency or an acknowledgement of God in a city logo infringe on a right? No one is forced into any state-run religious activity by these things.
Anyway, I’m rambling a bit off-topic, because the issues like gay marriage that people are discussing have a bit more direct impact than mottos. I just don’t think this issue is as black-and-white as it is sometimes portrayed.
Republicans were responsible for abolishing slavery
Yeah, and if Republicans of 150 years ago had any resemblence to Republicans of today, that might actually be a valid statement.
Even if you think evolution explains the process, it does not explain the “big bang” in the first place.
Ahh, so, now, god didn’t just create the Earth in six days, he created the Universe in six days as well?
I’d love to see the Biblical rewrite on that.
Religion has no place in the public/government eye exactly because it’s so strictly personal.
A school is there to teach read, writing, and arithmetic (notice how only 1 of “the 3 R’s” starts with “R”, rinign endorsement of the american education system). NOT religion. There are too many religious beliefs out theere, many extremely contradictory to allow it in schools and the like. Keep your religion to yourself, the rest of us don’t want or need to hear about it. If we’re interested in ignoring reality, we’ll go to your church and ask for the blinders to be put on…
By having all that “G”od šhìŧ on money & the like, the governement IS endorsing a religion. What about “In Allah we Trust”? “In Buddha we trust”? “In Zues we Trust”?
And why do they swear you in ON A BIBLE in court and at the presidential inaugaration ceremonies?
Back around Lincoln’s time, the Democrats were the Republicans and vice versa….
“Even if you think evolution explains the process, it does not explain the “big bang” in the first place.”
The big bang is more realistic and believable than an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful controls-all-matter-and-energey supposedly-intelligent life form who created the world in 6 days and aged all the dinosaur bones…
The bible (and the equivalents of other faiths) was written to help the greedy control the weak-willed and weak-minded and keep them under the way of the “interpreters” and “priests” of “god’s” word…
You have a Yeah or Nay vote in the Senate. He chose Nay when it came down to supplying extra funding needed for our troops. So, no, I was not wrong in my assertion. You are wrong as was Kerry.
Nope.
You can debate Big Bang, evolution, creation, Genesis, the World Tree all day long. However, at some point people have to try to come to a conclusion: was there an intent in the creation of the Universe, or was it all a big cosmic accident?
Well, not quite. If you do that, you’re mixing mechanisms and purpose/intent.
That’s not the point of studies into evolution and cosmology (which are separate scientific disciplines; one should not try to mix them together). Those areas of science are inquiries into mechanisms (i.e., the “hows”). Trying to make them into moral or spiritual justifications is just confused; that’s the province of philosophy and religion (the “whys” and “should bes”).
“But I’m befuddled to see you, PAD, being so irrationally abusive.”
I disagree. I’m not being irrationally abusive. I’m being quite rational in my abuse.
This business that “Christians are always being persecuted for their beliefs” is bûllšhìŧ on a gargantuan scale. JEWS are persecuted for their beliefs. By contrast, Jesus has had more people killed in his name than possibly any other religious figure in the history of mankind.
And I am sick of it. I am sick of the people who come to my door trying to foist their beliefs upon me. I am sick of the people coming here explaining to me why I’m going to Hëll, and it’s only because they care that they’re telling me this. Here’s an idea. How about they go up to every morbidly obese person they see and say, “You’re eating yourself into an early grave. I’m only telling you this because I’m concerned.” How about they walk up to every pair of men they see holding hands and tell them they’re hellbound as well…oh. Wait. They do that. It’s called “gay bashing.” But I’m sure they only beat the crap out of them because they care.
Understand, I really, really don’t care about people’s individual religions. As others noted, whatever gets you through the day. I do not remotely feel it’s my place to say there’s something wrong with someone else because they do not share my worldview. What infuriates me is that not only do Bible-thumpers feel it’s their place to tell me there’s something WRONG with ME in not sharing THEIRS, but their viewpoint is in the process of informing every aspect of American decision making, from a woman’s right to choose to a gay’s right to marry, and they’re just helped re-elect a leader who approaches world politics with the sort of narrow-minded, blinkered religious zeal that those who shove “Embrace Jesus or burn” pamphlets in my face approach me.
Misplaced zeal ruins lives (just ask the victims of McCarthyism, in pursuit of the “godless communists.) Misplaced zeal destroys lives (just ask any of the families of the thousand-plus soldiers dead in Iraq.) This is the mindset that we have running our country. This is the mindset that we have allowing it to happen.
This self-image that some Christians have of benevolent shepherds in a land of sinners, and oh, how they’re just misunderstood, is delusional. They’re not misunderstood. We understand it perfectly. And our response is, “We get it. You think we’re going to hëll. We think we’re not. Now shut up about it.” And when we say “shut up about it,” the response isn’t, “Gee, maybe we should rethink our point of view because people find us personally offensive,” it’s “Woe is me, it’s our lot in life to have people take offense against our good works.”
Honest sentiment is not an excuse. Fourteen hijackers, none of them Iraqis (despite what the current administration led people to think) honestly felt that killing thousands of people was in the best interests of the commonweal and was what their god wanted them to do. Didn’t make it right.
The only place I’ve seen anyone fervently saying, “We must do as Moses would want us to do” was on “South Park,” and even then all they did was make macaroni pictures.
Short answer to Jim: Talmud.
PAD
Well said Peter, well said…
Well, not quite. If you do that, you’re mixing mechanisms and purpose/intent.
You’re right, the scientific study of evolution makes no analysis of the cause of it, just the effect.
However, to my mind the evolution/creation discussion hinges on the cause as well. Pure science and logic makes no judgement about it, but as emotional humans, we must discuss it. To paraphrase Spock: logic and reason are not enough.
You’re right, the scientific study of evolution makes no analysis of the cause of it, just the effect.
However, to my mind the evolution/creation discussion hinges on the cause as well. Pure science and logic makes no judgement about it, but as emotional humans, we must discuss it. To paraphrase Spock: logic and reason are not enough.
That really muddies the water, if you’re not careful. I can perfectly well accept that you can’t discuss origins wihout purpose and intent, but you have to make crystal clear that science (as an enterprise, as opposed to scientists) is only concerned with mechanisms and the how. Far too many people naturally assume that evolution is intimately concerned with they why, when it is far from the case it is.
I hear “Evolution is Godless”…which is true–but it’s in the same way that “quantum mechanics is Godless”. And it would be extremely silly to challenge quantum mechanics in textbooks.
Not that it’s stopping some people…
By having all that “G”od šhìŧ on money & the like, the governement IS endorsing a religion.
You know, I had read that “In God we trust” was added to our currency in 1957.
Wasn’t that the same year those crazy wáņkërš added “Under god” to the Pledge?
I was just thinking about this reply, and then PAD brought up McCarthy, who had a direct impact upon all the anti-Communist BS that lead to forcing religion back into government.