During the last season of "West Wing," reporters tried to pin down candidate Arnie Vinnick (Alan Alda) on the subject of his religious beliefs. Vinnick--who wanted to keep the fact that he'd lost faith in God under wraps--stated that his personal views on God were off limits, he'd never discuss them, that they weren't relevant to the job he was to do as president, and that as far as he was concerned that was the end of it. To all intents and purposes it was. It never came up again in the series.
I commented at the time that in the real world, that would never happen. That such an assertion would only be the beginning of the story, not the end of it.
Now it seems that we're seeing the scenario played out in real life as Rudy Giuliani asserts that his personal religious beliefs are just that--personal--and should have no bearing on his campaign.
This promptly became front page news on "Newsday" and now we'll see just how fast the question goes away. I suspect it won't anytime soon.
The ironic thing is that Giuliani is both right and wrong. The fact is that his personal beliefs *shouldn't* be a factor. If he doesn't want to discuss them, he should be entitled to that. The problem becomes that the automatic assumption is that he is either agnostic or atheist, and in a society where the vast majority of people assert a belief in SOME sort of divine spirit, that's not going to go over very well.
On the other hand it really IS a relevant question because look who we've got running the country now: A man who believes that he's operating at the personal behest of God. Bush doesn't simply believe in God; he KNOWS there's a God and that he and God are tight. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, too much "knowledge" can be a lethal thing.
If Giuliani is an atheist and doesn't want to discuss that beause he figures it's nobody's business and that it might cost him votes, I can understand both viewpoints. Still, knowing that a candidate will not run this country and world affairs under the belief that he's taking his marching orders from God might not be such a bad thing.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at June 6, 2007 08:58 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingHowever it is bad business for the religious right that has taken over the Republican party and turned it into nearly a modern version of the KKK based not on your skin color but your religious beliefs. Actually strike that, did anyone see McCain on O'Riley's show, "the white man is under attack"...
I seriously hope that Ruddy pulls out the nomination, it'd serve the religious idiots right to get saddled with a moderate social.
Oh man, I hope this doesn't cost Giuliani the nomination. I was really looking forward to the first election where I would vote FOR somebody rather than against somebody.
This is probably going to be another issue for Mayor Rudy that just get blown out of proportion. I agree with PAD on this one, his personal religious view is personal, but the Religious Right 'could' begin having seizures because of this. (At this point I think the Religious Right is waiting for either Senator Thompson or Representative Gingrich to get into the race. And as rumors are getting more rampant that Fred is getting in around July 4th, I think that Rudy is in trouble unless he finds 'religion' fast.
did anyone see McCain on O'Riley's show, "the white man is under attack"...
Actually what was said, by both McCain & O'Reilly was "The white Christian power structure"
It'll be interesting to see how the right explains how that isn't racist.
I think in Bush's case he's always yapping about his close personal (working) relationship with God because he's a nutjob and a fanatic.
I cant imagine him ever saying that his religious beliefs are no one's business because people like that believe HIS beliefs SHOULD BE everyone's business.
The fact that Rudy is telling people his beliefs are irrelevant is a point in the plus column in my book.
Half the time I think that Bush isn't really all that religious, he just plays one on TV. The other half I think that maybe he really is just like he appears. I don't know which is really right, just like I don't really know anything about anyone outside my house. Heck, outside my HEAD. But, in the times when I think Bush really is as religious as he claims, it seems that he doesn't think his beliefs should be everyone's business. He thinks that everyone's beliefs should be HIS business.
Sorry about the dingoes.
Unfortunately, America has spent many years indoctrinating people into thinking that "Godless Atheism" was the ultimate evil, a symbol of communism, socialism, and other evil -ism's that didn't gel with the American way.
There's no such thing as "personal" or "off-limits" when you're talking about the most important job interview on the planet. We all have a period of time to pick this person who will for four years have a HUGE impact on our lives... his or her opinions and beliefs on every facet of our world gives us insight as to whether he or she deserves the job or not.
I just watched "American President" again over the weekend, and am reminded of the Michael J Fox blow-up in the Oval Office...
"A. J. MacInerney: The President doesn't answer to you Louis!
Lewis Rothschild: Oh, yes he does A.J. I'm a citizen, this is my President. And in this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders it's our responsibility! "
We're supposed to ask about everything that might at all be relevant... and our current administration is a great example of why it's relevant. In 1959, the fact that JFK was a Catholic, and thus in some way had some degree of fealty to the Pope, was a cause of great concern... he got asked about it, answered it to the satisfaction of the American people, and got elected. It wasn't off-limits then, it's not off-limits now, to understand the belief system of the person running for office.
However it is bad business for the religious right that has taken over the Republican party and turned it into nearly a modern version of the KKK based not on your skin color but your religious beliefs. Actually strike that, did anyone see McCain on O'Riley's show, "the white man is under attack"...
I seriously hope that Ruddy pulls out the nomination, it'd serve the religious idiots right to get saddled with a moderate social.
If the religious right has taken over the Republican party yadda yadda, how is it possible that Rudy is the front runner?
Meanwhile, the Democratic candidtes are being very very explicit in talking about their faith. I have no real problem with that but I can imagine some of my friends on the left having a hard time swallowing Hillary talking about her "prayer warriors" which is a phrase I usually associate with Frank E. Peretti novels.
My take on it (and it's only my opinion and therefore worth about as much as anything else offered for free) is that Rudy's the frontrunner solely due to his noteriety/name rocognition. The only onther Repub currently in the race who matches him is McCain, who much of the Right has spent years smearing, and who isn't helping himself by shredding his credibility in an attempt to win over the hardcore Right.
It's also why Fred Thompson has such buzz without even entering the race, despite his history of being a quite mediocre senator. He's been on TV, people recognize him, etc. And he's also positioning himself as the actual conservative in the race, which helps with those for whom support for Rudy comes with a 'holding thier nose' quality to it.
Where did all these "christians" decide that "thou shalt not kill" was just a suggestion in the bible? Of course, I guess if you pick and choose what you like about the Constitution, it's hard to draw lines where to stop. As we've learned in this age of fast as light media, there are many out there who wave the banner of God, while serving their own interests. I think in Bush's case, it's that he has no conscience. It's not his fault he must have been born that way. He really believes that people should die (so long as not his family members) to put "his people" in power (it may not be the office, but we all know what large sums of money can do for you). In case any of you missed it, for a good look on the world today check out Kurt Vonnegut's A Man Without a Country...great, fast, reading!
I'm gonna disagree with you on one minor point, PAD. I don't think that Bush would be any better if he was an atheist.
Bush believes that he's right and God is simply his justification for it. Atheists are just as capable of feeling a moral imperative, they'll just use different buzzwords to justify it.
Did you see the Micheal Bolton interview on the Daily Show? He took the attitude that because Bush was elected president, he not only had the right to do whatever he wanted, he had an *obligation* to ignore everyone else's opinion and do exactly what he wanted. That was an "I'm always right" justification that had nothing to do with religion.
Bush's actions aren't about God and they never were. He's just an egotist who uses God as a justification.
Living in an area where there are homemade yard signs "FRED T in 08", I can see the groundswell first-hand for Thompson.
Meanwhile (to digress wildly) did anyone else hear Sen Reid refer to "illegal aliens" under the newly minted euphemism, "undocumented Americans?" Why not just say "yet-to-be-registered voters for me?"
I always loved the "Undocumented workers" line--in my experience, they have documents out the wazoo. My wife worked at an insurance place for a bit and the law required them to provide insurance to anyone with an id, obviously fake or not. With that they could get a license. Our immigration policy is nuts; with one hand we push them away, with the other we beckon them in. And then we blame them! "Don't come here but if you do and have a kid everyone can stay!" "Don't come here but if you do you can make lots of money and we almost never check!"
When my uncle ran a speakeasy during prohibition the cops would tell them when they were going to "raid" the bar. That way they could make sure that the relatives of the Governor would not be caught in an embarrassing situation delivering the booze. Everyone knew it, everyone was in on it. I used to wonder how things could get that way but it's much the same now. The immigration laws should be abandoned, changed or enforced. This current "policy" is doing nobody any good.
If the religious right has taken over the Republican party yadda yadda, how is it possible that Rudy is the front runner?
He hasn't won the nomination yet.
The idea of anybody being a 'front runner' when the election is well over a year away is an invention of the media so people will pay attention to the media as well as the attention-craving candidates.
I always loved the "Undocumented workers" line
I always loved the whole "they haven't broken any laws" bs more.
Where did all these "christians" decide that "thou shalt not kill" was just a suggestion in the bible
Actually it's "Thou shalt not murder "
It's okay to kill in defense of self, family, &/or country. So if you can justify killing in one of these 3 categories then everything is honky-dory.
It's sad that the Republican party has determined a lockstep, "you must tow the party line" policy in so many areas. You had to support the Presidentr on Iraq (except once public opinion became overwhelming negative). You have to support the war on terror (even if this means government intrusion into the lives of citizens is greater than ever). And now you not only have to be religious, you have to have the *same* interpretation of religion: no abortion rights, no gay rights (how many candidates were fine with an employer firing an employee just for being gay?), and now you have to go to church every Sunday. (But executing people is still fine.)
Giuliani's stance on abortion seems perfectly rational: He personally opposes abortion but recognizes that the law supports it. This is like the status of free speech: You don't have to agree with what someone is saying to support their right to say it.
Yes, but the problem with a rational position is that one cannot get the votes of the irrational while holding it...
The idea of anybody being a 'front runner' when the election is well over a year away is an invention of the media so people will pay attention to the media as well as the attention-craving candidates.
Well, perhaps, but there is no denying that some folks have way more support than others. It's hard to argue that among the announced candidates (and two others--Gore and Thompson) we are looking at the next president of the United States. Polls may not mean everything but they mean something and right now Rudy is in a good position.
It's sad that the Republican party has determined a lockstep, "you must tow the party line" policy in so many areas.
As opposed to the free for all that is the Democratic Party, where 100 flowers bloom? That's the way parties are--you have to expect a certain level of agreement on certain principles. Actually, I'd say a party that can have Romney, Guilliani and McCaine as frontrunners has a certain tolerance for difference. There is certainly more difference on, say, abortion, among the Republicans than among the Democratic candidates.
NOt that the Democratic candidates are always in lockstep either. Hillary has certainly established herself as considerably more hawkish than Edwards. Obama is still the biggest question mark in the race--it remans to be seen if he can keep his so far impressive momentum going or if his inexperience will begin to tell. I have to say, so far he has been amazing on the stump but less so in the debates (Hillary won the last one handily). But then again, the "winner" is in the eye of the voter; some folks will cntinue to insist that their candidate "won" a debate even when their support drops after it's over. A strange definition of victory...
End of the day, if you want to keep things 'personal', don't run for 'public' office.
The problem with conspicuously saying nothing is that it usually leads people to suspect things infinitely worse than anything you could have said...
That's not to say that there shouldn't be some degree of "OK, he's answered, let's move on now" in the mix somewhere.
Or am I making the mistake of trying to bring common sense into the equation again?
Cheers.
"There's no such thing as "personal" or "off-limits" when you're talking about the most important job interview on the planet."
Here's the thing: However one phrases the question about faith, the answer tells you jack-all in terms of determining what one can expect. If the choice is--for instance--between an atheist and someone who speaks of their deep faith in the Almighty, the majority of people in this country will instantly hew to the latter. But if the choice is presented between voting for someone who is careful with the lives of our young soldiers because he believes in personal responsibility as opposed to someone who sends thousands of people to their deaths because he firmly believes that God told him to, he's doing God's work, and it's his responsibility to spread his religious ideals to the world...
You see the problem.
PAD
>He's been on TV, people recognize him, etc.
I'm selfish. I hope he loses because it otherwise would mean he's off the show. And he's one of the best things in it.
Jason M. Bryant: Bush believes that he's right and God is simply his justification for it. Atheists are just as capable of feeling a moral imperative, they'll just use different buzzwords to justify it.
Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far.
I'm sure Mit Romney also wishes people would stop asking the "faith" question. (At least he came out on top in the attack from Sharpton after Glenn Beck -- also Mormon -- pursued the matter.)
Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far.
Which sums up Islamo-facism as much as it does Bush's "been to the mountaintop" attitude.
I'm selfish. I hope he loses because it otherwise would mean he's off the show. And he's one of the best things in it.
I believe that he's already off the show. He would pretty much have to have quit by now to let NBC find a new person in time to start filming. They may have been the first people to know for sure that he's running.
"In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far."
Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 02:33 PM
Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years.
You are aware of a little thing called the Crusades, are you not?
Also, what do you mean by "atheistic" government? I ask because many people abuse the term. The official doctrine of the Soviet Union was atheism, and therefore that was truly an atheistic government. On the other hand, many people wrongly refer to any secular government as "atheistic." For instance, many religionists have complained bitterly about attempts to bring our government into line with the wording of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and referred to that as a movement towards "atheistic government." But there is a world of difference between prohibiting the government from respecting an establishment of religion and restricting the establishment of same (both of which are actually prohibited by the Consitution, something that is ignored by a vocal and intellectually dishonest segment of religionists).
Hank Driskill wrote:
We're supposed to ask about everything that might at all be relevant... and our current administration is a great example of why it's relevant. In 1959, the fact that JFK was a Catholic, and thus in some way had some degree of fealty to the Pope, was a cause of great concern... he got asked about it, answered it to the satisfaction of the American people, and got elected. It wasn't off-limits then, it's not off-limits now, to understand the belief system of the person running for office.
Except that Kennedy essentially denied any belief system in his speech in Houston. It was easy for him to assuage any concerns because he had no fealty to the Pope. He went throught the motions of attending Mass but he was a very poor Catholic. And of course, abortion wasn't even legal then. Does anyone consider Edward Kennedy to be a Catholic?
"Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it's derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that's the derivation of one's actions, atheists can't compare. Not by far."
To some degree I agree with that. I think that atheists look at personal responsibility differently than religious people.
But I don't think that religion is the cause of Bush's beliefs, not even in the slightest. I think he's a very broken person looking for justification for his actions. So I think he does what he wants and then says that "God made me do it." I believe he has used religion to fire up his people in this country, so he's used it as a tool to achieve what he wants.
But I don't believe that he actually got his values from what he learned about religion in his life. I think he's just a bigger version of the guy who tries to con me by saying that his car broke down on the side of the road but Jesus made me drive by him so I could loan him money.
Regarding the argument made that atheistic governments have killed more people than Christian, I would like to argue that most of these governments were not killing people in the name of atheism (Convert to atheism or I will kill you!). I think that in most cases, atheism was merely a means of undermining the belief systems of the people they wished to subjugate to make that task easier. I might also opine that Communism, Maoism, Kim Jong Il-ism, etc. have most of the attributes of a religion, the only difference being that the Godhead is an actual person.
Keep up the comments, guys. I still come to this site for my daily mental stimulation.
Regards, the Rev.
But you could also argue that many, if not most of the "religious" wars were actually fought over something other than religion--land grabs for the most part.
Neither of the extreme factions in Northern Ireland, for example, could possibly believe they are going to heaven for killing innocents.
I believe that he's already off the show. He would pretty much have to have quit by now to let NBC find a new person in time to start filming. They may have been the first people to know for sure that he's running.
As I understand it, he has indeed asked to be released from his contract (and the request has been granted). Meanwhile, CNN.com had a story earlier today that Sam Waterston is negotiating to have Jack McCoy bumped up to the position of DA for next season.
(We now end this portion of thread drift, and return to the real discussion already in progress.)
I would have more regard for Giuliani on this matter if he actually had a history of keeping his religious background out of public matters. Anyone who remembers the flap over Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary" back in '99 should be aware that's not the case (or at least that Giuliani isn't above using public power to score points with a specific religious community).
(Looking for information on the controversy using Google, I was struck by an interesting pattern: In general, those who'd actually seen the painting in person said it was beautiful and not disrespectful, while those who hadn't seen it but were against it anyway said it was a travesty (and often used highly-charge but inaccurate terms to describe it). Guess which category Giuliani fell into?)
Bill, don't patronize me. Of course I am aware of the Crusades. I could point out that I said Christian GOVERNMENTS not Christian ARMIES, many operating free of governments. But that doesn't matter because I am more than willing to throw them in the mix. The death toll of all the crusades is supposed to total about one million. Stalin or Mao killed more people in the average year. Both were atheist governments.
Bill Mulligan already answered the reverend's first point. Although regarding his second I might add that atheism itself had those same attributes (dogmatism, etc.) that communism and religion share in common. Agnosticism is a different matter.
Bush is an arrogant SOB who probably has never admitted to an mistake in his life, even before he found religion. That's just his current justification for being always right.
Here's the deal the American people are a religious people. 80% of the country self-identifies as Christian and over 90% believe in some form of higher power. However, the religious right has worked steadily over the past 30 years to equate being a religious people with having a religious government.
The founding fathers knew that Americans were a religious people, but they also knew that we were a diversely religious people (and we're even moreso today that we were 220 years ago). They knew that only a secular government could be truly neutral in regards to all faiths. But that isn't what the far religious right, hence why people like Bill O'Reilly are soiling their pants over the fear of the "white Christian power structure" losing their influence.
The religious right wants government to be a religious conservative only club and thanks to minions of Pat Robertson like Monica Goodling, they're well on their way. Now even the Democrats are convinced they can't win unles they fall over themselves to proclaim how religious they are.
Didn't some longhair guy say something about not being like the hypocrites who loudly proclaim their faith in the streets.
Ben Lesar: Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years.
Luigi Novi: No, even taking that into account they still don't compare.
The problem with this analogy is that in atheist societies like the Soviet Union, atheism was incidental. Those pogroms were not carried out in the name of atheism. By contrast, things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, jihads, fatwas, etc. were indeed carried out in the name of religion, in whole or in part.
Stalin and Pol Pot didn't murder people because they were atheists. They murdered people because they were dictators. As such, they did not possess the sentiments of empathy, due process, or civil rights that those in free societies do. That they happened to be atheists is completely irrelevant to that point, and indeed, the religious persuasion of their victims was not the reason why they were targeted; they were targeted for reasons of nationalism/ethnicity, culture, and politics. While Stalin did ban religions and raze churches, again, this was because of the dictator mentality: He wanted to make over the country according to his personal tastes and worldview. There was no atheist "doctrine" that he claimed to follow, since atheism is not a belief or theory, but simply a lack of a belief in gods, and does not prescribe any action. This does not hold true with things like jihads or the Crusades, which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Bill, don't patronize me.
No one was patronizing you. Don't be so sensitive.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Of course I am aware of the Crusades. I could point out that I said Christian GOVERNMENTS not Christian ARMIES, many operating free of governments. But that doesn't matter because I am more than willing to throw them in the mix. The death toll of all the crusades is supposed to total about one million. Stalin or Mao killed more people in the average year. Both were atheist governments.
Your argument is nevertheless fatally flawed. First, its very premise presupposes a false dilemma: that Christianity and atheism are the only alternatives. Christianity is but one of many religions upon which governments have been founded and in the name of which armies have spilled blood.
Second, it bears mentioning that there has been an historical trend towards secular governments since the birth of Christianity. Theocracies governed the minority of the globe's population at the time that Mao and Stalin went on their rampages.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Bill Mulligan already answered the reverend's first point.
Yes, yes, the actions of theocratic governments are sometimes motivated by things other than religious fervor. At the same time, religion also informs secular governments' decisions. Anyone remember that famous cry of "Godless commies!" from the Cold War days? Or how about President Bush, who believes his ascendancy to the presidency was part of God's Plan? Or how about the Republican party, whose presidential candidates must bow and scrape before the Religious Right if they are to have any hope of winning the nomination?
(Bill Mulligan, put your torch and pitchfork down. I'm well aware that the Democratic party has an extreme liberal base to which its presidential candidates must pander. But the influence exerted by the Religious Right over the Republican party is undeniable and shows how religion can be a factor even in an ostensibly secular government.)
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Although regarding his second I might add that atheism itself had those same attributes (dogmatism, etc.) that communism and religion share in common.
Communism is a relatively recent historical phenomenon, though. And it is ironic that Christianity and Communism are so at odds. Atheism aside, communism as an economic system is far more compatible with the teachings of the New Testament than is capitalism, yet Christianity has nevertheless embraced capitalism. Strange freakin' planet we live on.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 6, 2007 07:51 PM
There was no atheist "doctrine" that he claimed to follow, since atheism is not a belief or theory, but simply a lack of a belief in gods, and does not prescribe any action.
Not so. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, said the following about religion: "Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class."
That Marxist/Leninist doctrine informed the actions of the Soviet government for decades; the official stance of the Soviet Union was atheism, and it actively worked to stamp out religion through propagandizing, indoctrinating, and using force. Mao was equally suppressive of religion, which he blamed for China's "backwardness." Atheism can indeed be a foundation for, or component of, doctrine.
"Ben Lesar: Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years."
1) Neither the belief or the lack of belief in religion has prevented people from killing and brutalizing each other in very large numbers in the name of ideology and/or the persuit of power. Christianity is one ideology that has been used to justify brutality or has been held by people and governments that brutalized others. Communism is another. We can discuss the ideologies, we can discuss the people who followed or used these ideologies, but there is no point in pretending that religious or non-religious governments and organizations are somehow more or less responsible than the others for brutality.
2) The mathematical claim that the governments that held atheistic ideologies were responsible for more deaths than the totality of governments that held Christian ideologies is probably not true, especially if we take into consideration to movements of colonialism and imperialism in the last 500 years.
3) This argument also fails to take into acount the historical context of the rise of communism in an era where more people lived with more governmental power, with more powerful weapons (and other ways of causing death) than before.
4) All this discussion is simply a multiplication of the basic misconception at the heart of this thread: that atheists are somehow moraly deficient compared to religious (or vise versa).
Atheism itself is not an ideology. Communism, which is a very dogmatic ideology, contains atheism, but it hasn't been to the best of my knowledge one of the major rallying cries of Communism compared to others.
Posted by: Micha at June 6, 2007 09:24 PM
All this discussion is simply a multiplication of the basic misconception at the heart of this thread: that atheists are somehow moraly deficient compared to religious (or vise versa).
Bingo. Atheists can be just as capable of extremism as religionists -- and both can be just as capable of living with their "opponents" harmoniously. It's like a hammer: you can use it to build a house, or to hit one over the head. It all depends on who is using it.
Posted by: Micha at June 6, 2007 09:24 PM
Atheism itself is not an ideology. Communism, which is a very dogmatic ideology, contains atheism, but it hasn't been to the best of my knowledge one of the major rallying cries of Communism compared to others.
Well, given how the Soviets and the Maoists did their level best to squelch religion, I'd have to disagree. Atheism was a component of their doctrine, and both feared it as a threat to their hegemony.
Bill Mulligan, put your torch and pitchfork down.
I prefer those rake-like things the villagers are always carrying...what the hell were they? And what were they going to do with them? Groom the monster's lawn?
Seems to me, in my vast experience of, well, nothing, that most people are all for diversity until they find out that there's someone with some authority that (GASP!) thinks something besides what THEY think. "If yer gonna be in charge of ME and my Life, yer gonna have ta think just like I do. Or at least claim you are. Yer a Repub/ocrat? Yer okay with me. Who are you, now?" Now, this also translates badly for anyone who thinks differently. "You are DIFFERENT, you must be vanquished!" Hence, something that shouldn't be Mount Crashyourcampaigninto is built by several really energetic moles. BUt, have you guys noticed that some of these extremists don't want to talk about any problem other than the small one they're focusing on?
Oh, and before I forget--
Simple, Bill, the answer is simple.
They were going to tell him to--
Wait for it---
Fork off.
“By contrast, things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, jihads, fatwas, etc. were indeed carried out in the name of religion, in whole or in part.”
There is no real evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.
“That they happened to be atheists is completely irrelevant to that point”
Considering that it just so happens that the governments that killed the most (by far) in the twentieth century were atheist, I am going to have to disagree. Either this is a startling coincidence or you have to admit that there is a connection of some sort between atheistic governments and genocide.
“This does not hold true with things like jihads or the Crusades, which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.”
Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades.
“Christianity is but one of many religions upon which governments have been founded and in the name of which armies have spilled blood.”
So is it fair to group all religions together? Christians governments existed for far longer than atheist ones and yet killed far fewer. Yet you think you need to bring more religions into this in an attempt to even the odds. Yet even including all religions atheist governments killed significantly more in the 20th century than did religious ones.
“Second, it bears mentioning that there has been an historical trend towards secular governments since the birth of Christianity. Theocracies governed the minority of the globe's population at the time that Mao and Stalin went on their rampages.”
When I say Christian governments I do mean governments were Christianity is the official religion, such as England. When I say atheist governments I do not mean merely secular ones, such as the United States, but officially atheist governments such as the Soviet Union. There were no fewer Christian governments than atheist ones during that period.
“Or how about the Republican party, whose presidential candidates must bow and scrape before the Religious Right if they are to have any hope of winning the nomination?”
And how many genocides is the Religious Right responsible for?
“Atheism aside, communism as an economic system is far more compatible with the teachings of the New Testament than is capitalism, yet Christianity has nevertheless embraced capitalism.”
Not in the least. The Bible teaches free will, self-determination, and Charity; not coercive government redistribution of wealth and property.
Does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that there seems to be a debate to the effect that theism is better/worse than atheism because fewer millions were killed in its name? Humanity is immensely effective at killing other members of humanity in great quantities. Is it really better that we commit such slaughter in the name of (fill in deity of your choice) than in the name of (fill in atheist/atheistic philosophy of your choice)? Perhaps the question should be: How do we stop the damn killing?
Regards, The Rev
By-the-way, Bill Mulligan, you are quite right about the basis of the Irish situation. I believe someone once opined that the problem with Ireland was too much religion and not enough Christianity.
“By contrast, things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, jihads, fatwas, etc. were indeed carried out in the name of religion, in whole or in part.”
There is no real evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated."
Well, German Jews were targeted as convenient scapegoats to distract from Hitler's spiralling economy, and since they were already despised as the alleged killers of Christ, that made them easy targets. So there's that aspect.
And not for nothing, but it should be pointed out that Hitler was, to the best of my knowledge, a practicing Roman Catholic, which kind of goes back to the whole notion of how dubious it is to ascribe importance to a leader being someone of faith.
PAD
PAD
So is it fair to group all religions together? Christians governments existed for far longer than atheist ones and yet killed far fewer.
Well, you clearly don't mind grouping all atheists together. Leaving aside the gross generalizations, I should also point out that genocide figures are a lot higher in the 20th century because a) the population is a lot higher, so there are more people to kill and they're easier to find, and b) technology made it a lot more efficient. This has nothing to do with ideology, just opportunity.
Ah, that's one thing I love about Canadian politics. Except for some mostly fringe candidates (like the christian family party, who have no chance of ever electing someone), most candidates don't talk about religion. Gay sex was decriminalized in the sixties by a catholic justice minister (later prime minister Trudeau), and gay marriage was legalized under a catholic prime minister (Jean Chretien). If anything, a lot of voters *distrust* candidates that insist on bringning their religion into things.
And, as an additional point, Canada has *no* laws about separation of church and state; it just isn't an issue.
And not for nothing, but it should be pointed out that Hitler was, to the best of my knowledge, a practicing Roman Catholic, which kind of goes back to the whole notion of how dubious it is to ascribe importance to a leader being someone of faith.
There's always been some controversy on Hitler's beliefs, actual and professed.
Publically at least he calimed to be Catholic "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." but privately he was contemptuous of Christianity in general and Catholisism in particular. Speer and others who knew him said he never attended church and his only admiration for the Catholic church was in it's use of pomp and spectacle. He blamed Christianity for the fall of the Roman empire and expressed the wish that Germany had been fortunate enough to have developed a more militaristic religion like Islam or the Shinto of Japan. “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
While it's of little use in trying to make rational sense of a madman's thoughts, his hatred of Jews seems also to have been more of a racial thing than of a religious one. The Nazi laws regarding Jewish heritage did not seem to have any apartheid laws; they were based on how much "Jewish blood" one had. A devout Jew who had just one Jewish grandparent might be safer than an atheist who had two Jewish granparents, that sort of insanity.
What amazes me is not that Hitler used Jews as scapegoats but that he actually seemed to believe in what he was doing which is what helps elevate Hitler from just another corrupt politician into the true evil.
If I were taking orders from a voice speaking directly to me, which no one else can hear, I'd wind up in the looney bin. Unless I were President.
But how do we know for sure that he's not taking his orders from God?
He does work in mysterious ways, just ask Gideon.
>If I were taking orders from a voice speaking directly to me, which no one else can hear, I'd wind up in the looney bin. Unless I were President.
Or Pope?
"But how do we know for sure that he's not taking his orders from God?
He does work in mysterious ways, just ask Gideon."
The 'God' of the Bible was likely the nastiest character in all of literature. From telling Abraham to kill his son to wiping basically everyone out in a flood because we displeased him (the first religious terrorist and most successful). Then you get to the New Testament and he finds a way to torture us after we die. What a nice guy.
So if you do read the Bible, yeah the stuff Bush does could easily fall under 'orders from God', but then a god that acts like that I wouldn't want to follow.
That Marxist/Leninist doctrine informed the actions of the Soviet government for decades; the official stance of the Soviet Union was atheism, and it actively worked to stamp out religion through propagandizing, indoctrinating, and using force. Mao was equally suppressive of religion, which he blamed for China's "backwardness." Atheism can indeed be a foundation for, or component of, doctrine.
I notice though that real religious suppression (and the mass killings) came during the early years of the Russian and Chinese communist regimes, but lightened up somewhat afterwards. The corallation I see is at the time, the societies were ruled by dictators who actively developed a personality cult (Stalinism, Maoism).
No god wants competition for worship.
It's not so much that atheist governments have killed so many people as it is a single atheist who decides to play God.
I have to disagree with many here who seem to want to automatically equate the concept of an atheist government with mass murders, genocide and tyranny. There have been more tyrannies throughout history that were lead by religious leaders then by atheist leaders. The fact that modern technology has allowed modern tyrants running atheist governments to kill more people then they could have a few centuries ago says more about mankind's ever growing capacity to kill each other then it does anything else.
It's also not the atheistic beliefs that make the tyrant. Most tyrants have seen forced atheism as a tool, and then only one of many tools, to try and break the spirit of the masses. If a decent person who was an atheist with the intention of doing the best for the people were to ascend to the leadership of a country it would be nothing like a genocidal dictatorship.
Beyond that, the number of deaths being attributed to "Christian" governments may be slightly undercounted by some here. Most people are discussing the obvious characters in history while passing over the multitude of less flashy forms of religious tyranny. How many kings and queens of olden day Europe outlawed at pain of death any religion other then their own? How many deaths were caused by starvation and/or poverty when the Church and the Crown was a little overly oppressive about what the peopled "owed" them? How many died when the Church and the Crown sanctioned exploration to expand the Empire to fulfill God's chosen destiny for "his" people and then sanctioned the "peaceful" conversion of the locals?
I'd also question placing Hitler in the "atheist government" category. Hitler invoked God and God's greater plans for "his" people (the Germans) in a number of speeches as he rose to power. Hitler used religion as a tool to empower and then control the German people in a number of areas of his overall power structure and plans. There were evn references to this in Mein Kampf if I remember correctly (it's been a while since I read it.) The "fact" that his was an atheistic government and that he squashed religious practices under his rule is more a result of people being taught the wartime propaganda as fact.
“And not for nothing, but it should be pointed out that Hitler was, to the best of my knowledge, a practicing Roman Catholic, which kind of goes back to the whole notion of how dubious it is to ascribe importance to a leader being someone of faith.”
He was RAISED a Roman Catholic. He was also, however, a fan of Nietzsche, Teutonic paganism, and at times replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf. Not to mention that several of his top ministers, such as Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann were all atheists. He also didn’t treat the pope very well. Some say he planned to have him killed...
“There have been more tyrannies throughout history that were lead by religious leaders then by atheist leaders.”
I doubt this, but even if so one should take into account the number of Christian governments and the length of their existence versus atheist ones.
“I'd also question placing Hitler in the "atheist government" category.”
No one that I am aware of did so. Luigi Novi said the opposite though.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
So is it fair to group all religions together?
Insofar as you are trying to create a comparison with atheism, which is an extremely broad category, then, yes, it is logical to look at religion as an equally broad category.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
Yet you think you need to bring more religions into this in an attempt to even the odds.
It's not about "evening the odds" or what I "need," it's about the dictates of logic. If you are going to compare atheism to its alternative, that alternative is the broad category of religion. Christianity is not the only alternative to atheism.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
Yet even including all religions atheist governments killed significantly more in the 20th century than did religious ones.
The 20th century is only a narrow slice of human history, and it has already been pointed out by another poster that the "atheistic" governments of that era possessed weaponry far more potent than that possessed by, say, the Holy Roman Empire. So it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
I'm afraid you'll find that history rarely accommodates a desire to put everything into neat little boxes.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
When I say Christian governments I do mean governments were Christianity is the official religion, such as England. When I say atheist governments I do not mean merely secular ones, such as the United States, but officially atheist governments such as the Soviet Union. There were no fewer Christian governments than atheist ones during that period.
Great Britain has been responsible for quite a few deaths in the last two millenia. Of course, not all of those killings were in the name of "Christianity," but then again most of the killings at the hands of the Nazi, Soviet, and Maoist armies weren't in the name of "atheism" either.
Again, reality is not kind to those who need to put everything in neat little boxes.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
And how many genocides is the Religious Right responsible for?
Oh, settle down. I was simply trying to point out how difficult it is to separate "Christian" governments from atheistic governments. Ours is ostensibly a secular government and yet we were founded largely by Christians and have had a predominantly Christian-oriented culture. So which are we? A Christian government? An atheistic government? Unforunately, there's often no way to draw a neat little dividing line between the two.
And if you're going to keep bringing up genocide perpetrated by atheistic governments, then you must also consider that predominantly Christian nations like the U.S. and Great Britain participated in the slave trade, another societal evil. If you're going to link genocide with atheism, then you must also link slavery with Christianity. Or you could view things more logically, and recognize that slavery and genocide are practices that cross religious and ideological boundaries.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
The Bible teaches free will, self-determination, and Charity; not coercive government redistribution of wealth and property.
The Bible teaches a lot of things, including the teaching that the apostles lived a very communist lifestyle, abandoning the idea of "personal property" when they chose to follow Jesus. That's not dissimilar to one of the core tenets of Marxism: "to each one according to his need, from each one according to his ability."
Marxist theory, by the by, held that government control should soon be ceded to the people, who would run things in the form of collectives. Obviously, it didn't work out: governments don't like to give up power once they have it. But the fact remains that communism and Christianity have much in common.
I have no truck with atheist-bashers, and I have no truck with Christian-bashers. Atheism, Christianity, and all other religious and ideological movements have inspired people to do great things and have also been the inspiration for great evils. Anyone can hide behind a symbol and claim that they embody all that that symbol represents. But as we've seen throughout history, deeds often contradict words.
Circling back to Peter's initial point: history has indeed shown that it is foolish to vote for individuals based on the labels they choose to hide behind. Religion is no more an accurate predictor of an individual's moral fiber than any other outward characteristic. Individuals can only be judged by their actions.
Sasha -- good point about the correlation between the "cult of personality" and religious suppression in China and the Soviet Union. Don't forget, however, that Marxist theory explicitly included atheism.
Posted by: The Rev. Mr. Black at June 7, 2007 01:36 AM
Perhaps the question should be: How do we stop the damn killing?
Rev., while I've been going on at length, you hit the nail on the head in just a few words. Well said.
Not that long ago you told us you post infrequently because you feel that a certain group of posters, myself included, express ourselves more eloquently than you could. You know what I say? Bullshit. Post more often, Rev. People like me -- who tend to drown in the details -- often need the life preserver that can only be offered by clearer thinkers like yourself.
I was just at the supermarket. Saw people buying lots and lots of stuff. Looked at the cold medicine I was buying. Saw the ingredients, the symptoms it treats, the dosage. Then it hit me in the side of the head. People want to have supermarket politicians. They want aestethically pleasing packages that'll do most of what they say they will. That box of Cocoa Puffs start your day right. That soda quench your thirst. That polical candidate supports only the things you want him/her/it to, and nothing that the nasty other side doesn't like. And without any artificial sweeteners. Unfortunately, that's the atmosphere these candidates find themselves in, akin to juggling chainsaws on ice skates going down the frozen stairs. Because they have to have Wide Appeal, they have to cater to groups, even when the groups are miniscule.
I think I'll go with the Cap'n Crunch/Dig 'Em ticket.
Is it possible to use zombies as foot soldiers in a fantasy setting?
Someone once told me that life is like a box of chocolates, with a color-coded chart on the back telling you exactly what's inside each one. I think that's kinda how politics work too.
The fact is, the public wants to know what a candidates religion is simply because they want the easy drawn out picture of what he's like. We want to be able to vote down party lines and know where the people who's names we don't know stand on issues like abortion or stem cell research or environmental protection simply because of their political party. And that's why the Repubs have it, or did, so strong. We know what they're about. The Dems? A good portion of their votes came from running as "not a Republican".
So although personally I feel like religion amounts to a hill of beans in one's personality, of course the public wants to know what his faith is, it's so much easier than actually researching his stance on hot button issues.
How do we stop the damn killing?
You don't, until people are willing to get informed and start questioning authority! The average person most of the times abdicates their right to think for themselves and follows a heard mentality. We have witnessed this ourselves quite painfully since 9/11. Most of the population quit thinking for themselves and let George Bush lead us down the path of utter stupidity. Congress abdicated their right of oversight of a war mongering prick and the general populace abdicated their ability to think for themselves over the fears of mushroom clouds and airplanes flying out of sky.
As long as the majority is willing to abdicate their thought processes and allow a third party to decide for them the killing will continue in any name.
Is it possible to use zombies as foot soldiers in a fantasy setting?
Micha, it's way too early in the thread to bring up zombies. We do that when the grownups have moved and we are more or less left on our own.
I think a lot of the commentary in this thread has been defensive and it's pointless. It isn't the sane believers or non-believers who should be duking it out. The fanatics of all persuasions are the enemy of us all.
There has been a belief among many atheists I know that goes something like "if only there were no religion there would be peace and the world would be as one". Well, they're kidding themselves. And it only pisses off decent folks who are religious, to the point where, amazingly, more people would vote for a gay candidate than for an atheist one.
Which is ridiculous. I can sort of see where someone might get the idea that it is a good thing for a person not to be given the power of life and death over the world if they don't believe in God since you have then made them literally the most powerful being in the known universe, at least in their mind. But it just as equally likely that a carelessly chosen believer will see himself as under God's protection, able to throw the missiles without fear, protected by His Mighty Hand (some of what has come out of Iran sounds like this--the idea that Israel would not be able to respond due to the intervention of Allah. Which amazes me since the history of the last 60 years or so indicates that Allah has chosen sides and...it ain't Iran's.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
Is it possible to use zombies as foot soldiers in a fantasy setting?
"Micha, it's way too early in the thread to bring up zombies."
Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread. Or maybe not. This is the political thread isn't it?
Anyway, I would appreciate a reply on the other thread.
-----------------------
"I think a lot of the commentary in this thread has been defensive and it's pointless. It isn't the sane believers or non-believers who should be duking it out. The fanatics of all persuasions are the enemy of us all.
There has been a belief among many atheists I know that goes something like "if only there were no religion there would be peace and the world would be as one". Well, they're kidding themselves."
Very true. Fanatic atheists caricaturize al religion as hate mongering and intolerant, while the fanatic religious caricature all atheism as immoral and untrustworthy. Both are wrong. I'm so sick of fanatics. We have a bumpersticker that says: 'Death to the Zealots.'
-----------------------
On the relation between the Holocaust and Christianity:
Racism in general and Antisemitism in particular go through different permutations at different times and different places. There are different strains, if you will. During the 18 to 20th centuries the good old Christianity based antisemitism was joined by other strains, including a 'scientific' one based on race, which was the one adopted by the Nazi ideology. Nevertheless, there is no use pretending that this strain is not related to the antisemitism that derived from Christian ideology. So it doesn't really matter if one Nazi hated Jews because of what he heard in Church, another because Jews were the wrong race, a third because they were capitalists, a fourth because they were communists, or because they kept to themselves, or assimilated to much, or were too rich, or too poor, or too traditionalists, or too modern and liberal, or all of above. Christianity made its contribution to the mix, as did other ideologies.
-------------------
"Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades."
Show me where communism calls for Genocide.
The article in wikipedia on Genocides in history presents an interesting and complex picture. And this list doesn't seem to include the religious wars of the reformation as well as massive killings at earlier times. In any case, Christian government seem to have had a nice share in genocides and other acts of brutality over the years.
-----------------
"The Bible teaches a lot of things, including the teaching that the apostles lived a very communist lifestyle, abandoning the idea of "personal property" when they chose to follow Jesus. That's not dissimilar to one of the core tenets of Marxism: "to each one according to his need, from each one according to his ability.""
"And distribution was made to every man according as he had need" (Acts 4:35).
I think there is a better quotation somewhere in the Rule of St. Benedict. Something that sounds positively communist. I wrote it down once and wanted to show it to my commie aquiaintances. But I can't find it now.
-----------------------
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 7, 2007 03:05 PM
"People want to have supermarket politicians. They want aestethically pleasing packages that'll do most of what they say they will. That box of Cocoa Puffs start your day right. That soda quench your thirst. That polical candidate supports only the things you want him/her/it to, and nothing that the nasty other side doesn't like. And without any artificial sweeteners. Unfortunately, that's the atmosphere these candidates find themselves in, akin to juggling chainsaws on ice skates going down the frozen stairs. Because they have to have Wide Appeal, they have to cater to groups, even when the groups are miniscule."
Very good point. Maybe part of the reason for the leadership crisis I see in several countries today is also, among other things, the result of this attitude.
"Which amazes me since the history of the last 60 years or so indicates that Allah has chosen sides and...it ain't Iran's."
The whole point of Islamic fundamentalism (and too a certain degree other fundementalisms) is that Muslims are in bad shape because they moved away from Islam, and that only return to Islam will fix their problems. 'Islam is the Answer.'
Soviet-style Communism had many (if not most) of the characteristics of a crusading religion. They had their dogma, they had their prophet (Marx), they had their Chosen People (the Proletariat), they had their infidels (the Bourgeois Capitalists), they had their martyrs and saints (Che Guevara), they had their Bible (Das Kapital), they had their paradise (the Workers' Ideal Society), they had their schisms (Lenin x Stalin, China x USSR), above all they had the belief in the historical inevitability of their victory in exactly the same way many Christians and Islamists just know that they're right and all the rest of us decadent Secularist Liberals are wrong.
It seems to me that if you want to recreate the world using fire and blood, you need to have a powerful ideology with which to rally people. Such an ideology must be of the sort that will fire-up your followers and appeal to emotion instead of reason, even though you can use the outer trappings of reason.
You can call it Christianism or you can call it Communism, but it's mostly the same thing, it has always been. It's all about Us x Them, it's about Salvation, and the Only Right Way, and about how you should "just read this one book and every answer you need is in there".
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
I think a lot of the commentary in this thread has been defensive and it's pointless.
Bill, we've had far worse here. And it's never pointless to air out points of view so that they can be examined.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
It isn't the sane believers or non-believers who should be duking it out. The fanatics of all persuasions are the enemy of us all.
I wish it were that simple, Bill, but it's not. Intolerance doesn't always wear a white hood.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
There has been a belief among many atheists I know that goes something like "if only there were no religion there would be peace and the world would be as one". Well, they're kidding themselves.
And I think you're kidding yourself if you believe you're being any more objective than the rest of us. We all tend to read the worst into the views of those with whom we disagree, while unconsciously turning a blind eye to the gaps in our own logic. My guess is that you can, at times, be as tone-deaf to the finer points of atheism as I can be to the finer points of Catholicism, or any other religion for that matter.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
And it only pisses off decent folks who are religious, to the point where, amazingly, more people would vote for a gay candidate than for an atheist one.
Okay, bear with me because at first it's going to seem like I've gone off the deep end. But there's a point to what follows, and I beg your indulgence for a moment:
Political correctness has gotten out of control in this country. There are groups who wear their victimhood on their sleeve, who use claims of oppression as a weapon, who want special treatment under the law merely because of their affiliation with a particular group.
They're called Christians.
I'm constantly hearing Christians complain about how their holidays aren't officially recognized anymore. I'm constantly hearing Christians complain because their values are no longer enshrined into law as they once were. I'm constantly hearing Christians complain because our government has the temerity to contemplate taking "God" out of the pledge (he wasn't there originally, by the way). I haven't yet met a Christian who doesn't feel as though their values are "under attack" -- in a nation that is predominantly Christian!!!
Are you pissed off yet, Bill? Is your blood pressure rising? If so, then welcome to my world. I believe in God but reject religion in a world where most people consider atheism and religion to be an either-or proposition. People who would raise a stink if I dare to question their beliefs have no problem ostentatiously saying Christian grace before meals IN MY HOUSE -- and expect me to STAND THERE AND SMILE because, well, they're Christian and that excuses anything. And these aren't fanatics, Bill! These are your everyday, garden-variety folk. LIKE MY OWN PARENTS, who won't come over to my house because I'm "living in sin" with my girlfriend.
Christians aren't actually under attack, by the way. No, it's just that the playing field that was tilted in your favor has now been leveled, and y'all don't like it. Suddenly Christianity is just one amongst many valid belief systems and sometimes you get drowned out in the same way that you used to drown others out. Well, if Christianity is all that, then quit your whining and SHOW me that your belief system is as good as you SAY it is.
Blood boiling yet? Thinking that the above is just a diatribe, an irrational screed, nothing but raw, primitive emotion vomited onto the computer screen?
If so, then you and I are in complete agreement.
Have no doubt, what I've written here reflects how I sometimes feel about Christians. Because I've been pushed and pushed and PUSHED by people who, according to their own rhetoric, are supposed to be charitable and tolerant!
Then again, I often fall short of my own ideals. I often preach civility here but frequently engage in uncivil behavior. In my calmer moments, I realize I have no right to condemn Christians for having the exact failings that I myself possess.
Bill, I'm sure I have prejudices toward religion that I don't even recognize. By the same token, I'm asking you to consider that you may have prejudices towards the non-religious that you may not recognize.
You are correct that atheism is not the cure-all for the world's ills, nor is religion the cause of them all. By the same token, the reverse is true: atheists are not the devil and religionists are not always angels. That's all I'm trying to say. To paraphrase the Bible, we need to stop criticizing the speck in the other guy's eye and start paying attention to the plank in our own. If we can do that, we might be able to drop some of our barriers down and start understanding each other.
Thus endeth my sermon. 'Night all!
A couple of people have touched on it, but I'd like to chime in with something that should irk a couple folks. The problem with arguing Christian governments vs. Atheist governments is that, when it comes right down to socio-political brass tacks, there's no appreciable difference between the two once religion becomes merely a tool used to control thought and justify the worst excesses of a government, which it almost inevitably does in cases of official state religions.
The danger is not Christianity, or Atheism. The danger is any state sponsored or enforced religion, period.
-Rex Hondo-
I guess I came off as harsher against atheists than I intended. The point I was trying to make was that it was pointless arguing over whether or not atheist nutcases or religious nutcases have killed more people in history because no matter what the truth is it would tell us little about the value of religion or non-religion.
My only gripe about some--some!--atheists is that they have learned the wrong lessons from fanatical believers and have fought back by being just as unpleasant, intolerant, and irrational. That isn't going to win any hearts and minds but I think a lot of what passes for "argument" on the internet these days is nothing more than a pissing contest with no real goal intended other than pissing.
This board is usually a very happy exception, despite occasional lapses. I know being here has made me more considerate about other people's point of view, not that I'm not capable of occasional insensitivity. But I'm getting better and at least ya'll get some insightful zombie knowledge which may pay off big one day.
Sasha -- good point about the correlation between the "cult of personality" and religious suppression in China and the Soviet Union. Don't forget, however, that Marxist theory explicitly included atheism.
Oh, I haven't forgotten. But I believe it is important to realize that communism's genocides has less to do with the theory's basis in atheism and more with individuals' attempts at playing divinity.
Oh, I haven't forgotten. But I believe it is important to realize that communism's genocides has less to do with the theory's basis in atheism and more with individuals' attempts at playing divinity.
It's worth remembering that atheism and nihilism rearely, if ever, occur in a vacuum when it comes to a basis of government. They just don't make for very good rallying cries. "Nothing matters, because we're all going to die, and that's it! But yay me, anyway!"
State enforced atheism merely "pulls down" the old god or gods in order to set the stage for the elevation of a new God-King or messianic figure, usually the leader of whichever political movement. Some of the creepiest footage I've ever seen was of German schoolchildren, in the early 40, praying to Hitler.
-Rex Hondo-
The Starwolf's comment
"I'm selfish. I hope he loses because it otherwise would mean he's off the show. And he's one of the best things in it."
leads me to ask---
When is Fox going to open the phone lines so we can start voting off the candidates on the Reality Debate Show?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
The point I was trying to make was that it was pointless arguing over whether or not atheist nutcases or religious nutcases have killed more people in history because no matter what the truth is it would tell us little about the value of religion or non-religion.
I wholeheartedly, unreservedly, and completely agree.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
My only gripe about some--some!--atheists is that they have learned the wrong lessons from fanatical believers and have fought back by being just as unpleasant, intolerant, and irrational.
Yep. "Battle not with monsters..." and all that.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
That isn't going to win any hearts and minds but I think a lot of what passes for "argument" on the internet these days is nothing more than a pissing contest with no real goal intended other than pissing.
I'm sorry, Bill, but I drank a whole damned bottle of water before writing my last post! When you've gotta go, you've gotta GO!
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
This board is usually a very happy exception, despite occasional lapses.
Go screw yourself.
Wait, that was me being a lapse, wasn't it?
That isn't going to win any hearts and minds but I think a lot of what passes for "argument" on the internet these days is nothing more than a pissing contest with no real goal intended other than pissing.
But, I like to pee.
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by: Rex Hondo at June 7, 2007 11:19 PM
It's worth remembering that atheism and nihilism rearely, if ever, occur in a vacuum when it comes to a basis of government. They just don't make for very good rallying cries. "Nothing matters, because we're all going to die, and that's it! But yay me, anyway!"
Thanks a LOT for ruining my rallying cry, you dumb jerk.
Wait, that was me being a lapse yet again, wasn't it? Crap. I totally suck.
Luigi Novi: There was no atheist "doctrine" that he claimed to follow, since atheism is not a belief or theory, but simply a lack of a belief in gods, and does not prescribe any action.
Bill Myers: Not so. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, said the following about religion:…That Marxist/Leninist doctrine informed the actions…
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about the Marxist or Leninist doctrines. We’re talking about atheism. Atheism doesn’t have a doctrine. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s). It is not a movement, organization, theory, or philosophy that was “founded”, it has not holy scriptures, books, rules, doctrines or dogmas, and there are no “authorities” that govern it. By bringing up Lenin or Marx, you’re underlying this very point. Again, crusades, holocausts, inquisitions, fatwas, jihads, forced circumcisions, etc., are not merely committed by theists. They’re derived directly from the holy texts and/or authorities that explicit instruct the followers of those religions. There is no such thing in atheism. There are no holy texts, priests, rabbis, or imams, or for that matter, any “followers”. Thus, if an atheist murders people, whether it be one or one million, and it is known that that murderer is an atheist, it isn’t atheism that “told” him to murder. The decision stemmed entirely from his own personality, and not any adherence to a doctrine that explicitly instructed him to do this. In this way, atheism’s relationship to the genocides committed by dictators that just so happened to be atheists is the same as the relationship between sexual criminals and pornography, which is anything but causal, and in turn, equivalent to the relationship between say, sexual criminals and the owning and driving of a motor vehicle. The same does not hold true for crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion, because in those cases, those crimes were carried out on the explicit instruction of those religions.
Bill Myers: Well, given how the Soviets and the Maoists did their level best to squelch religion, I'd have to disagree. Atheism was a component of their doctrine.
Luigi Novi: But not a doctrine itself. It is simply the lack of a doctrine. Lack of a doctrine is not a doctrine, any more than not eating ice cream because you’re allergic to it or lactose intolerant means that your favorite flavor of ice cream is “allergic” or “lactose intolerant”. Whether someone incorporates a point of view into a doctrine or ideology is the responsibility of that someone, and in no way means that therefore, ipso facto, that viewpoint is itself a “doctrine”. This holds true for atheism in the same way that it does for natural selection, which has also been accused of being a doctrine, or the basis of certain doctrines. The fact that some have used natural selection to justify every doctrine from Marxism to capitalism to Fascism does not mean that therefore, natural selection is a “doctrine”. It remains that if I am unconvinced of something because I accept the validity of and try to adhere to the Scientific Method, testability, falsification, the Peer Review Process, and in general, empirical methods of testing knowledge, whether that something be astrology, phrenology, chiropractic, psychic powers, alien abduction, feng shui, homeopathy, government conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination, the moon landing and 9/11, or for that matter, gods, that is not a “doctrine”. Not being convinced of something is not a “doctrine”.
Ben Lesar: There is no real evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.
Luigi Novi: First of all, there is the historic Anti-Semitism that Peter mentioned. But if you want something more explicit:
“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..” –Mein Kempf
Granted, Hitler also killed Gypsies, Poles, POW’s, homosexuals, the handicapped, etc., but since 6 million of the 10-12 million killed in the Holocaust were Jews, the above quote shows that religion accounted quite a bit of it.
Luigi Novi: That they happened to be atheists is completely irrelevant to that point.
Ben Lesar: Considering that it just so happens that the governments that killed the most (by far) in the twentieth century were atheist, I am going to have to disagree.
Luigi Novi: And your disagreement is completely irrelevant to the point, because the point is whether atheism is a causal factor or incidental to it, which is in no way determined by the number of people killed. Are you saying that if they killed few people, then you would agree that atheism was incidental, but because they killed a lot of people, then it’s causal? This is a non-sequitur. What does the amount of people killed have to do with whether the murders were derived from atheism? If you want to refute my point, then you have to show not that more people were killed by atheists, but that these acts were the direct result of atheism. If we were to take your theory to one logical permutation, it might look like this:
Atheist detonates a nuclear weapon that kills 1 million people.
Spectator: “Wow, it looks like atheism kills a lot of people.”
Theist detonate a nuclear weapon that kills 5 million people.
Spectator: “Whoa! It looks like theism is deadlier!”
Atheist detonates a nuclear weapon that kills 10 million people.
Spectator: “Oh shit! Atheism kills more people!”
Theist detonates a nuclear weapon that kills 20 million people.
Spectator: “Oh wait, no! It’s THEISM that kills more!”
Atheist kills 40 million people.
Spectator: “Whoops! Looks like I spoke too soon. Atheism has killed more!”
Thus, you’re basing your entire conclusion regarding causal effects on nothing more than numbers, which is arbitrary, subject to change within the contingencies of history, and logically flawed. The issue is not whose viewpoint’s adherents have killed more. The issue whether that viewpoint can be viewed as the causal basis of these acts. The fact remains that people like Stalin or Pol Pot murdered people because they were (gasp!) murderers. Not because they were atheists. Atheism does not cause people to murder people, nor is it even cited by those murderers as the source of instruction or inspiration for it, for they developed their own doctrines that merely incorporated it, as Bill Myers touched upon. The same does not hold true for religion, as I explained above.
Luigi Novi: This does not hold true with things like jihads or the Crusades, which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.
Ben Lesar: Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades.
Luigi Novi: Two points:
First, the above quote by me says “religion”. It doesn’t say “Bible.” Holy texts are one source of religious instruction, but they’re not the only one. The instructions by the authorities that govern those religions are another. The Crusades, for example, were sanctioned by the Pope. Even within the context of holy texts, the Bible is not the only one, so I don’t know why you single that one out.
But if you want examples of a Biblical passage that instructs persecution and genocide, here’s one in which Jesus speaks:
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.” –Mark 19:27
Ben Lesar: And how many genocides is the Religious Right responsible for?
Luigi Novi: Depends. How do we categorize “the Religious Right”? Are we talking, for example, of the Americans who were organized in the last decades of the 20th century, or do we group in their ideological ancestors and counterparts? And what counts as a “genocide”? How many deaths? Do deaths from back alley abortions count? Murders of doctors who perform abortions? How about a President sending our sons and brothers off to die in a war because he felt God told him to? How about a prominent religious public figure calling for the State Department to be bombed? And for that matter, why does genocide even have to be the sole criteria? Any attempt to inculcate religion by any form of coercion is despicable, and the Religious Right are certainly guilty of that.
Ben Lesar: Not in the least. The Bible teaches free will, self-determination, and Charity; not coercive government redistribution of wealth and property.
Luigi Novi: First of all, I do not know of where in the Bible it teaches free will or self-determination. It teaches that having any other gods other than the Judeo-Christian god is a sin, that saying his name in vain is a sin, and prescribes the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on one’s wedding night (if you’re female), being a rebellious child, wearing clothing made from two different threads, planting different crops side by side, being homosexual, etc. Where is the self-determination or free will in that? Can you tell me where in the Bible it preaches these things?
Second, the tenth commandment (of the set I was taught, at least), preaches against coveting, and Jesus preached against personal wealth. These are far more in line with communism than capitalism.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at June 7, 2007 11:54 PM
But, I like to pee.
God damn it, your pee-pee joke was funnier than my pee-pee joke, you pee-pee head!
Oops, lapsed again. I methinks I have gotten too punchy to be allowed to post for the rest of the night. I shall retire before I am dismevowelled.
Rex Hondo: It's worth remembering that atheism and nihilism rearely, if ever, occur in a vacuum when it comes to a basis of government. They just don't make for very good rallying cries. "Nothing matters, because we're all going to die, and that's it! But yay me, anyway!"
Luigi Novi: Atheists do not believe that "nothing matters". That's simply a bigoted statement.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 12:01 AM
Atheists do not believe that "nothing matters". That's simply a bigoted statement.
Luigi -- take a deep breath, okay? I'm pretty sure Rex made that "nothing matters" remark with tongue in cheek.
For someone who is carrying the banner of rationalism and logic, your posts seem to be carrying a much harder edge than usual. And frankly, as a former devout Catholic who left the faith because I believed it flew in the face of logic and reason, I can tell you that you are nevertheless distorting religion as badly as religionists distort the concept of atheism. Time to calm down and realize that we are not your enemies, okay? You're making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they're getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn't necessary.
Bill Myers: I'm pretty sure Rex made that "nothing matters" remark with tongue in cheek.
Luigi Novi: Sorry.
Bill Myers: For someone who is carrying the banner of rationalism and logic, your posts seem to be carrying a much harder edge than usual.
Luigi Novi: I will say what I said to you back when you told me that my MySpace posts seemed to be written in a totally different style from the posts I make in debates. When I debate on matters of fact, evidence, logic or reason, that is what I employ. It's always been that way, and you can look through some old threads on this blog to see this. I can even point them out to you. More and more over the years, I've strived to pare down my arguments/counterarguments so that they're free of sarcasm, reciprocated, insults, etc, so that they only thing that others can respond to is the quality of the reasoning I employ. When I post something personal on my blog, it tends to have more of a personal POV, and may be characterized, depending on the subject matter, by more humor, light-heartedness, stream of consciousness, etc. Since this is Peter's blog, I try not to treat it as my own.
Bill Myers: I can tell you that you are nevertheless distorting religion as badly as religionists distort the concept of atheism. Time to calm down and realize that we are not your enemies, okay? You're making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they're getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn't necessary.
Luigi Novi: Can you point out some that illustrate this? I went over my last post and couldn't find this.
In actuality, the "nothing matters" line was in reference to nihilism, which I mentioned alongside atheism, harkening back to a previous post which I hadn't taken the time to find and quote, and since the two do often go hand-in-hand.
-Rex Hondo-
Well, you don't see a whole lot of people who believe existence to be utterly devoid of meaning embracing the concept of a supreme being. Which is not to say, it should be noted, that it automatically works the other way around. There are still many, as you said, who don't necessarily believe in a higher being, but still find meaning. One often leads to the other, just not necessarily the way you may have thought I was saying.
From the socio-political, building a despotic empire angle, if one is going to impose one's own "religion" and purpose on a people one must first tear down the old gods (enforced atheism) then use that to remove their old sense of purpose (at least a pseudo-nihilism) before introducing new divine figures and purpose.
-Rex Hondo-
It should be pointed out that there are and were people who were religious and socialists.
"Bill Myers: I can tell you that you are nevertheless distorting religion as badly as religionists distort the concept of atheism. Time to calm down and realize that we are not your enemies, okay? You're making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they're getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn't necessary.
Luigi Novi: Can you point out some that illustrate this? I went over my last post and couldn't find this."
Micha: Yes.
Luigi Novi: "The same does not hold true for crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion, because in those cases, those crimes were carried out on the explicit instruction of those religions."
It should be noted that we are talking about a specific interpretation of religions. Religions are not necessarily promoting crimes against humanity, just certain interpretations of them. Which is also true of variations of socialism.
"Granted, Hitler also killed Gypsies, Poles, POW’s, homosexuals, the handicapped, etc., but since 6 million of the 10-12 million killed in the Holocaust were Jews, the above quote shows that religion accounted quite a bit of it."
The Nazi's killed many people. But the important thing is that they set out to eradicate the Jews, this was an key element of their ideology, and they built an industrial process to accomplish that. The targeting of Jews is derived from a tradition that is essentially Christian, even if it had aquired some secular aspects. (I am not discounting the gypsies, poles and homosexuals, but there story is slightly different).
It should be pointed out that there are and were people who were religious and socialists.
It was and is a very popular stance here in Latin America, by the way.
It's just in the US and parts of Europe that religion is mostly associated with the political right, maybe.
Here in Brazil, many times the socialists and the Christians have made common cause to (in their own words) defend the poor from Imperialist exploitation. And it is, rather, Capitalism that sometimes is painted as associated with "godless hedonism".
Do you guys know that Hugo Chavez sometimes uses Christian imagery in his speeches? The guy has said that Jesus is a role-model for Socialists, while Judas and his 30 coins of silver represents the Satan that is Capitalism...
Here's a statement that Rudy can have, free: "My religious beliefs are between me and my God."
Luigi, so you are one of the many people who prefer to believe what a politician (Hitler, no less) says rather than what he does? Certainly one should at least have his private words take precedence over his public ones.
“Thus, you’re basing your entire conclusion regarding causal effects on nothing more than numbers, which is arbitrary, subject to change within the contingencies of history, and logically flawed."
No, I am basing my argument on the fact that atheist governments CONSISTANTLY killed millions of people, and still do, whereas Christian ones did/do not.
“First, the above quote by me says “religion”. It doesn’t say “Bible.” Holy texts are one source of religious instruction, but they’re not the only one”
You said “(Crusades) which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.”
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
First, that is Luke 19:27. Second, you are being deceptive; it is part of a parable Jesus told and not to be taken literally.
Bill Myers: You're making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they're getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn't necessary.
Luigi Novi: Can you point out some that illustrate this? I went over my last post and couldn't find this.
Micha: Yes.
Luigi Novi: “The same does not hold true for crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion, because in those cases, those crimes were carried out on the explicit instruction of those religions."
It should be noted that we are talking about a specific interpretation of religions. Religions are not necessarily promoting crimes against humanity, just certain interpretations of them.
Luigi Novi: How can you have an “interpretation of religion”? A religion is an organized belief system. How can you have an interpretation of a belief a system? Do you mean to say an interpretation of a holy text? Yes, religions have promoted certain interpretations of their holy texts and doctrines, and as a result, we’ve had inquisitions, crusades, fatwas, jihads, terrorism, mass genocide, civil wars, hatred, various crimes against humanity, and so forth. If the holy texts of those religions promote violence, and those religions claim to follow the teachings of those texts, then yes, those religions are promoting crimes against humanity.
And how exactly does this answer my question about condescension? Where in that passage by me that you quoted is there condescension? That passage is a portion of a paragraph in which I pointed out the difference between genocide committed by atheist regimes and those committed by theist regimes, and I confined myself to using reason to make that explanation? Where in that is there condescension?
Micha: The Nazi's killed many people. But the important thing is that they set out to eradicate the Jews, this was an key element of their ideology, and they built an industrial process to accomplish that. The targeting of Jews is derived from a tradition that is essentially Christian, even if it had aquired some secular aspects. (I am not discounting the gypsies, poles and homosexuals, but there story is slightly different).
Luigi Novi: That’s what I said: That it was derived from religion, in response to Ben Lesar’s claim that there was no evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
Atheism doesn’t have a doctrine. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s).
Okay, I know I'm going to piss off Micha by going to the dictionary again, but...
The Microsoft Encarta Dictionary defines "doctrine" as:
1. a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy
2. a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct
3. something taught to people
It seems to me that the Soviet Union's adoption of atheism as its official government stance; and its attempt to spread atheism through classroom "education," propagandizing, and use of force; meets the definition of "doctrine." So, yeah, atheism can be a doctrine.
I'm sorry if this upsets you, but atheism and theism have this in common: neither of them are doctrines in and of themselves, but both can form the basis of doctrines. That said, I don't think atheism and communism are inextricably linked.
By the way, a friend of mine is an atheist, and his perspective is much the same as yours. He rejects faith in favor of science. I understand your point-of-view better than you seem to believe.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
Again, crusades, holocausts, inquisitions, fatwas, jihads, forced circumcisions, etc., are not merely committed by theists. They’re derived directly from the holy texts and/or authorities that explicit instruct the followers of those religions.
Actually, the Bible is rife with contradictions and open to wildly differing interpretations, as is the Koran. As Micha has pointed out, these acts are derived in some cases from specific interpretations of these dense and often confusing texts.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
There is no such thing in atheism.
When Soviet police arrested and/or killed people in order to suppress religion, those actions were clearly derived from an atheistic doctrine.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
[The Bible] teaches that... wearing clothing made from two different threads, planting different crops side by side, being homosexual, etc. [is a sin]."
Yes and no. In the new Testament, Jesus reportedly said that the "purity codes" in Leviticus were null and void, but that the laws against immorality were still in effect. He listed a number of offenses in that vein, including what is often translated as "lasciviousness." There is some disagreement about whether or not this applies to homosexuality.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
Where is the self-determination or free will in that? Can you tell me where in the Bible it preaches these things?
Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
P.S. Luigi, I'm not a Christian. I'm not pushing religion. In fact, I don't even push theism, even though I am a theist. I don't believe atheism is inherently evil, or that atheists are prone to be less moral than theists. At the same time, I do not believe the reverse is true. I believe you are being as unfair to religionists as you believe they are to atheists. As Bill Mulligan pointed out, there is just no sense in that.
Luigi Novi: Atheism doesn’t have a doctrine. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s).
Bill Myers: Okay, I know I'm going to piss off Micha by going to the dictionary again, but...
The Microsoft Encarta Dictionary defines "doctrine" as:
1. a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy
2. a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct
3. something taught to people
Luigi Novi: Again, these definitions prove my point, not yours, because atheism is not a rule or principle, it is not a body of ideas, and it is not “taught”. If we are generous, we could say that if you grow up in an atheist family, you would probably have an atheist viewpoint as a result of that through familial osmosis, but to my knowledge, atheists do not “teach” atheism. Atheists do not send their kids off to atheist school. They don’t go to atheist church every Sunday. They don’t make sure to observe the atheist high holidays. They don’t make sure they read from the atheist Bible. Even if some kid in an atheist family wanted to decide to follow a religion, his atheist parents, though possibly disappointed or troubled, would likely do nothing to stop him. To extend this hypothetical generosity, one can say that you can teach skepticism and critical thinking, and that a consistent adherence to those things might lead to atheism, as it did with me (though I learned those things on my own; they were not “taught” to me), but even then, that’s not a certainty, for there are skeptic believers. Martin Gardner, who is considered the founder of the modern skeptical movement, in fact, is a believer in God.
Bill Myers: It seems to me that the Soviet Union's adoption of atheism as its official government stance; and its attempt to spread atheism through classroom "education," propagandizing, and use of force; meets the definition of "doctrine." So, yeah, atheism can be a doctrine.
Luigi Novi: Again, adopting an idea or point of view as part of a doctrine does not mean therefore, ipso facto, that idea is a doctrine itself. Again, can you please explain to me how not believing in something is a “doctrine”? All you keep saying is that oh, the Soviet Union incorporated this as a basis into that, and so forth, but what I keep pointing out to you is that the only doctrine in question here is a government/political one. It remains that lack of belief in gods is not a doctrine. I’m sorry if this upsets you, but I explained this in detail above, and rather than refute it, you’re just repeating the same fallacy, deliberately ignoring the distinction between a doctrine and a mutually exclusive idea incorporated into one, instead of refuting it.
Bill Myers: I'm sorry if this upsets you, but atheism and theism have this in common: neither of them are doctrines in and of themselves, but both can form the basis of doctrines.
Luigi Novi: Which means that everything is a “doctrine”, because everything can be made the “basis” of one. Say some dictator comes to power (y’know, as opposed to those dictators that don’t come to power). One of his little pet hobbies/interests/whatever is botany. He LOVES botany. I mean, we’re talking a major league hard-on for the chlorophyll. So he institutes a policy requiring ten live plants in everyone’s homes. He rewrites the science curriculum to put emphasis on botany instead of biology and chemistry. Major monuments are made to seminal botanists. A giant greenhouse park in every city. His views have a major effect on industrial development, because he is loathe to clear rural areas in favor of building cities, towns, factories, etc. Thus, he has used botany as a basis of a doctrine.
Is botany a doctrine, Bill?
Or, in your words, Bill, can it be the basis of one?
And if that dictator murders millions of people, do you mention botany in the same breath as fundamentalist Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or whatever, by connoting botany to be just as culpable for instructing murder? The difference between the two is that the hypothetical botanist dictator did something with botany, because by itself, botany says nothing about killing its opponents. But genocides carried out by theist murderers does not require them to do anything with their religions, because their religions already prescribe those actions, and thus, these crimes are a faithful fulfillment of them, often without any “interpretation”, or the fulfillment of orders from those religions’ authorities.
I also used the non-hypothetical example of natural selection above, and you didn’t respond to that. Why is this?
The conclusion remains that whether something is the “basis” of a doctrine is irrelevant to the genocides committed by atheist dictators, because those crimes stem solely from the personality of the dictator. The crimes carried out in the name of religion, on the other hand, stem from the holy texts and religious authorities of those religions, which instruct those crimes. Atheism “instructs” nothing.
Bill Myers: Actually, the Bible is rife with contradictions and open to wildly differing interpretations, as is the Koran. As Micha has pointed out, these acts are derived in some cases from specific interpretations of these dense and often confusing texts.
Luigi Novi: This does not change the original point, which is that crimes committed by atheist regimes were not carried out in the name of atheism. The same does not hold true for theist regimes. Points of interpretation do not change this. The bottom line is that comparing that genocides of Stalin to those of say, the Crusades or Inquisition is a false analogy.
Bill Myers: When Soviet police arrested and/or killed people in order to suppress religion, those actions were clearly derived from an atheistic doctrine.
Luigi Novi: But atheism itself does not prescribe these things. It is the murdering dictators who did. The same does not hold true for crimes committed by religious dictators, for their holy texts do prescribe bigotry, violence, and genocide for those who do not believe.
Can you show me an example of an ancient atheist holy text? Or an authority on atheism that outlines its “rules”? Can you show me where, in the book of atheism, it says “Commandment #1: Destroy religion”? You can’t, because there’s no such thing.
Bill Myers: Yes and no. In the new Testament, Jesus reportedly said that the "purity codes" in Leviticus were null and void, but that the laws against immorality were still in effect. He listed a number of offenses in that vein, including what is often translated as "lasciviousness." There is some disagreement about whether or not this applies to homosexuality.
Luigi Novi: Where did Jesus say that they were null and void?
Throughout the New Testament, the reader is instructed to follow “scripture”, which means the Old Testament. Jesus said to follow the scripture, and that he and his father were one and the same, so it makes no sense for an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless being to change his mind over the course of a couple of thousand years on what rules are right and what rules are “null and void” (one of many proofs that the various books of the Bible originated in the minds of various different human authors, and not a god).
Bill Myers: Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Luigi Novi: And how does this square with all the other aspects of the Bible that are clearly against self-determination and free will? The Bible is a document of in-group love and out-group hostility. The passages that seem to preach love and freedom are not intended as universals, but only for God’s chosen. Those outside of this group are not given this consideration. Chapter 21 of Exodus, for example, gives explicit instructions on how to conduct slavery. How does this jibe with this passage about “freedom”? Even Jesus endorsed slavery, in Luke 12:47-48, rather than condemning it.
Bill Myers: P.S. Luigi, I'm not a Christian. I'm not pushing religion. In fact, I don't even push theism, even though I am a theist. I don't believe atheism is inherently evil, or that atheists are prone to be less moral than theists. At the same time, I do not believe the reverse is true.
Luigi Novi: Ditto.
Bill Myers: I believe you are being as unfair to religionists as you believe they are to atheists. As Bill Mulligan pointed out, there is just no sense in that.
Luigi Novi: Where have I been unfair to religionists? Can you point out a passage? I asked you to do this when you accused me of “condescension”, and you never responded to that point either. Can you illustrate these accusations?
Ben Lesar: Luigi, so you are one of the many people who prefer to believe what a politician (Hitler, no less) says rather than what he does?
Luigi Novi: What Hitler did was kill lots of people, including 6 million Jews. What he said was that he did it for religious reasons. I see no contradiction there, nor any reason to force an “Either/Or” question, as if the two are mutually exclusive.
Ben Lesar: Certainly one should at least have his private words take precedence over his public ones.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. There can reasons for the discrepancies that do not require one to take precedence over the other. There is much controversy on Hitler’s religiosity, and I see no reason to take his criticism of religion or Christianity to mean that he himself wasn’t religious or a believer in God. Many Christians, for example, criticize Christianity, and the Vatican. I did when I was a Christian. Bottom line: Was Hitler or was he not an anti-Semite? The answer is yes. And where does that anti-Semitism originate from? Simple. Religion. Whether he adheres to all the dogmas of that religion, or has respect for any particular denomination is beside the point. He hated entire swaths of people and murdered them, a viewpoint and act that originated with religious belief. But if you can show me how his anti-Semitism did not originate with religion, please let me know.
Luigi Novi: Thus, you’re basing your entire conclusion regarding causal effects on nothing more than numbers, which is arbitrary, subject to change within the contingencies of history, and logically flawed.
Ben Lesar: No, I am basing my argument on the fact that atheist governments CONSISTANTLY killed millions of people, and still do, whereas Christian ones did/do not.
Luigi Novi: You’re basing your argument on that now . But in your prior statement you said:
“…the governments that killed the most (by far) in the twentieth century were atheist…”
Thus, you were appealing to numerical, or quantitative considerations to argue that there was some relevance that some murdering dictators like Stalin have been atheists. I correctly pointed out that this was non-sequitur, because the issue of whether atheism itself prescribed those actions is completely unrelated to how many were killed by adherents to each worldview. The issue I brought up is whether the actions in question are the direct fulfillment of instructions explicitly made by those religions’ doctrines, and the distinction that atheism has no such doctrine or instruction. You failed to refute this point.
The fact that you’ve leap-frogged onto a new concept—consistency—not only does not change the fact that you indeed made this appeal to numbers (and makes your “No, I’m not” response a transparent falsehood), but is itself just another kind of appeal to numbers itself: In what way is “consistency” at all pertinent? Are you saying that if crimes committed in the name of religion are sporadic, uneven, intermittent, or inconsistent, then somehow, that means that they were not committed in the name of religion? Or that they only were if these events occurred on some type of schedule? This is not simply untrue; it’s completely nonsensical gibberish.
Whether the crimes in question were “consistent” is irrelevant. The issue is whether the crimes were derived from a specific