April 05, 2005
The Looming American Theocracy
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…US CONT, amend 1.
The Founding Fathers have failed. They knew the dangers of allowing religion to invade the body politic and infect it with misplaced righteousness, and they attempted to separate the two, leaving politics to the Public Square and religion to the privacy of church and home. They attempted to enshrine the notion in the federal constitution, but their wording was too vague, their intent is lost on the often rudimentary and perfunctory understanding most Americans (including politicians) have of their own founding document. The Founding Fathers have failed, or is it we who have failed them?
There has been a new trend afoot across the landscape of American society. It arguably started with the election of Ronald Reagan and it continues apace today. That trend has taken religion out of the private sphere and thrust it - sometimes by force - into the Public Square with disastrous results to the fundamental rights of all Americans. Across this great land, the Religious Right populated by Christians of all stripes is making its voice heard, from pharmacists refusing to dispense medications, to the insistence by some that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public venues; from the new push to teach Intelligent Design alongside The Theory of Evolution, to the pervasion of religious rhetoric in the body politic; from the right to life movement to the enshrinement of discrimination in state constitutions in an attempt to deny homosexuals and lesbians the right to marry—in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Across this great land, secularism is under siege.
It is in my mind a dangerous trend that borders on fanaticism, the same extremism we are fighting in other parts of the world that seek our destruction. It is ironic that we seem to be accomplishing from within, what they seek to bring about from without; namely the collapse of American democracy, and the rise of Theocratic state, one based not on Islam, but on Christianity. It was faith, or more accurately, misplaced, and misrepresented faith that saw the Congress of the United States pass a law designed to help the one, and not the many; that saw the Congress cross the line and violate the separation of powers so vital to the continued well-being of our nation; that saw the President violate his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is this religious fanaticism and the pandering to thereof that increasingly pits the Legislative and Executive against the Judicial in an effort to discredit the latter in the eyes of the American public.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. US CONT, art. VI, clause 3.
The seminal 1947 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Everson vs. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing et al. laid the legal and Constitutional foundation for the Separation of Church and State Doctrine that is both embraced and rejected by the American populace. In it the Court ruled:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
The case itself, which I counsel all to read, is stimulating and illuminating reading in that the justices recount the history of religious persecution and the oft disastrous results of mixing religion and government. And the case points out that the Founding Fathers had solid reasons for erecting a wall between religion and government. Their reasoned arguments make sense to those who seek to keep religion private and prevent it from unduly influencing public law and policy. On the other hand their arguments seem to fall on the deaf ears of those who seek to make all citizens subject to the conservative dictates and confused morals of Christianity.
As we sail deeper into the bosom of the 21st century, America is ever morphing into a multi-cultural society, one in which peoples from diverse religious backgrounds increasingly interact both publicly and privately. Islam, by all accounts, is the nation's fastest growing religion; like it or no, the religion is here to stay and flourish. But so too is Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions of the Far East. Yes, we are a nation born of Christian people, but we can hardly lay claim to being a wholly Christian nation when so many religions are practiced freely within our borders.
The government (state and federal) must represent these Americans too; the message must not be sent through plaques and monuments erected on public property, or through political rhetoric, that other religions have no place in America; that Christianity is the favored religion. That is a direct affront to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Nor must the government seek to ban personal freedoms based on religious dogma as the Republicans seek to do by banning Gay Marriage and trying to enact an Amendment banning abortion. Nor must School Boards seek to force our public schools to teach religious dogma; we rail against this in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, how can we condone it here in America?
I am personally of no faith, I am an agnostic, and came by my position within myself, using logic, history, and the oft heinous behaviors of mankind towards one another as my guides. I do not prescribe to the belief that the Bible (which is full of glaring contradictions, wonderful poetry, spectacular fables, and is after all is said and done a great work of fiction) holds the answers to all of life's mysteries and problems, and I certainly do not believe that our government received its mandate from God as many of those in the Religious Right movement believe. Our government springs from the will of the people as embodied in the Constitution. It is the constitution politicians owe their "public" allegiance to, not the Holy Bible.
Not that I do not understand the need for religion in some people's lives. Indeed, religion can offer stability and focus in lives that suffer from a lack of both. It can offer moral grounding, and sound societal principles that can last a lifetime, but religion is not for everyone, and everyone does not need religion to live a happy and whole life. The government must represent ALL Americans on a fair and equal footing before the law, not just those Americans who clutch the Bible close to their breast. The government must not be seen to endorse any one religion over another in order to hold true to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment. To do otherwise is to invite the very melding of religion and government the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.
Ask yourself this question: is worship of the Devil a legitimate religious practice, and if so, if that religion seeks to have the Ten Commandments of Devil worship displayed on public grounds, on what basis could that be prevented if the Ten Commandment of God are also displayed therein? And if the answer is no, that Devil worship is not a valid form of religious worship, why not; what makes it any less legitimate than the worship of God? After all, the Devil is actually mentioned in the Bible, in the very first chapter. And what of worship of Witches, and Pagan worship, and the other myriad religions that now make up the American cultural landscape; should they be given equal footing and display rights in the public square that Christianity now enjoys? If the government were to hold true to the First Amendment, how could they be legally denied equal access and space? Remember the 1st Amendment proclamation: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
Religion and religious teaching and dogma have no place in the public arena, they should remain private. If Christians - who now claim by the way that they are being persecuted by not being allowed to insert Intelligent Design into public school curriculum—want to limit their personal freedoms that is their choice to make; do not seek to impose your beliefs on others. If you morally object to contraception, do not practice birth control, and do not become a pharmacist, where you can interfere in the (legitimate) health care of others; if you do not believe in pre-marital sex, don't engage in it; if you do not believe in Gay marriage, don’t practice it; if you do not believe that abortion is right; don't have one; if you believe in Intelligent Design, or Creationism, learn it in the church or at home, but do not seek to have it taught in the public schools.
Leave the rest of us alone; don't seek to have your misguided beliefs legislated into public laws that we all must follow. If you want to have a right to freedom of religion, then conversely, I - and others of like mind - have a right to freedom from religion.
History has shown that any society that sought to incorporate religious doctrine into the very fabric of public law, has suffered at the hands of those who would use such laws to oppress the populace, especially women and minorities. And one only has to look at modern-day Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and other countries where Islamic law holds sway to validate my assertions. In all of these countries, women and minorities are the ones being oppressed in the name of religion. Real human progress has stopped and whole segments of the population are valueless. Is this what we want for the U.S.; a Theocracy, a nightmarish script straight from the pages of A Handmaid’s Tale? Is this where the Grand Experiment in representative Democracy is leading us? Are we casting aside the Constitution in favor of the Holy Bible?
Posted by V. Edward Martin at April 5, 2005 10:12 AMA big problem for an with religion is the relentless government intrusion into all aspects of individual life. Government now regulates, subsides, taxes or owns almost everything. It is difficult to get government out of religion, because it is generally too big and too intrusive.
You mention one example: pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives. Liberals are outraged and want to enact regulations to remedy this problem. That itself is the problem. If a pharmacist does not want to dispense birth control, or anything else, that is his business. A private decision that he can make for whatever reason he wants. If he chooses not to make money in that way, it is his business. The same is true of insurance covering abortions. If a firm chooses not to cover such things, it is up to the customers to change carriers. The courts and government should stay out of it.
Aggressive policies that intrude into people’s lives have provoked this reaction. Christians sometimes feel that they and their faith are under siege. Some of the more aggressive among them respond by setting up laws to specifically promulgate their beliefs.
The best solution is for the power of the state to pull back. Certainly don’t enact laws to require religion, but just as certainly don’t enact rules that interfere with religion. Don’t require prayer or subsidize it, but don’t prohibit it. Don’t outlaw contraceptives, but don’t prohibit individuals from not selling them.
Some people think that democracy doesn’t only mean doing what you want; it also means getting other people to do what you want. This is wrong. The enemies of liberty sit on both right and left, religious and secular. The answer is to give neither the power. Leave people alone. Let people pray or not. Within the largest possible bounds, let them sell what they wish to whom they wish. Let them associate with whom they please. Keep the courts and the power of the state out of it. So the pharmacist doesn’t have to sell contraceptives and you don’t have to buy anything else from him.
VEM-
I’ve had a really difficult time fighting the notion (within my local church) that by not banning homosexual marriage, we are somehow condoning from a moral perspective. Most christians seem unable to grasp the separation of legality and rights from their sense of approving the moral aspect. Even the spiritual leaders seem to be sold on presenting the same misconceptions.
But, my point is this, you say: “Across this great land, secularism is under siege.” While most Christians I know would say the same of Christianity. Both sides, secular and Christian, view themselves as threatened by the other. What happens is members of both sides begin to create a sort of meme complex that continues and perhaps escalates the conflict. For instance, the homosexual rights issue, Christians have been taught that allowing them rights is the same as “condoning or encouraging the behaviour”. And secularists are anxious to fight the pharmacists who won’t fill prescriptions for birth control pills. A private establishment can decide what products they will and will not carry.
I don’t see why either of these two topics require all the attention which they are receiving, other than both sides feel as though they are at odds, and won’t give even when it makes legal sense to do so.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 11:46 AMI guess I didn’t quite wrap up my thought in that second paragraph. (I got interrupted…)
The commonality with these two examples is in the fact that from a legal standpoint, both sides should stand down. Homosexuals should have the same legal rights as married couples, and individuals should not be legally forced to carry and sell any particular product. But what happens is the sense of being at war makes both sides unwilling to back off, and in actuality they become more likely to create problems where there should be none, as in the two examples I gave. Both sides end up defending a rather ridiculous position; which, in turn, only furthers the distrust and animosity between the sides.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 11:52 AMBoth sides, secular and Christian, view themselves as threatened by the other.
Sure, but how many athiest presidents have we had?
The whole “I’m like Christ because I’m persecuted!” thing gets sorta old for us non-Christians when religion remains a litmus test for office in many places and positions around the country.
Posted by: ceejayoz at April 5, 2005 12:18 PMceejayoz
I’m sure your point would make a deeper impact if you resisted mocking them first.
You have a point, but it does not change the fact that both sides _feel_ threatened by each other.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 12:30 PMJack—
Please explain to me how and where the Christian religion is under siege or otherwise under pressure, and how the government (allegedly) intruding into people lives causing those in the Religious Right to react?
A. Parker—
Same question to you: Please explain to me how and where the Christian religion is under siege or otherwise under pressure, and or being persecuted? Where is the evidence of this? How is it being manifested? Are there laws that have limited the practice of religion, if so what are they?
A. PArker—
The problem I have with the Pharmacist is this: they have a duty to serve the public private or no. the big chain pharmacies like Walgreens, Osco, Rite-Aid are in the business of despising drugs; they are a vital part of the health care system, and it is not their prerogative to not dispense drugs; I find the practice reprehensible, and part of the religious activism that threatens all of our liberties.
While I certainly respect a pharmacists’ personal beliefs they have no place in the workplace and certainly no pharmacists has the right to impose those personal beliefs onto another person by refusing to fill a prescription! And while I am respecting his right to belief, he is disrespecting my right not to believe and to live my life as I see fit. Like I said I find the practice reprehensible. Drugstores are in the business of dispensing drugs; if they can’t do it fairly then they should get out of the business and sell trinkets and food items.
My idea on gay marriage: First, separate the idea of “marriage” from the government and make it completely a Church sanctioned matter. Second, make civil unions legal. Civil unions shall not be associated with marriage nor love and shall instead be merely a legal bond allowing two people certain legal expediencies. This way, all the legal “rights” granted to married couples right now will be available to anyone and everyone. Also, the sanctity of marriage shall not be infringed by homosexuals.
Everyone’s happy right?
(BTW, America is not supposed to be a democracy!)
Posted by: Zeek at April 5, 2005 01:55 PMZeek, no need to shout; what is America supposed to be? My take: Represenative Democracy…
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at April 5, 2005 02:43 PMVEM,
My opinion is that attacking Christians (although you are not doing that) is fairly pointless. The fact remains that Christianity is dying in the Western world. Christianity is growing in the sewers of the world such as Kenya. If this was 50 years ago, the Schiavo case would have been a done deal with the Christians but now; they don’t even have the influence to keep Terri Schiavo alive.
Ceejayoz,
One could make the case that Abraham Lincoln was an Atheist.
Eh hehe, sorry for “shouting” VEM ;P
We are supposed to be a Constitution based federal republic. You could argue that we are a 1/3 representative democracy, but we really are more of a republic even now.
Posted by: Zeek at April 5, 2005 03:02 PMVEM,
Why should the pharmacist be forced to sell a product? He has every right to deny the sale of any product from his pharmacy that he chooses. If he is part of a chain, it is the company’s choice to force him to sell the product or fire him.
Remember: the customer can always go somewhere else to fill their prescription.
Posted by: Tim at April 5, 2005 03:49 PMVEM-
The question is not ‘are Christians being persecuted by the law’ or ‘where is the evidence?’ Rather, it is a pervading mindset, a perceived reality. Feeling persecuted is exactly that… a feeling, and dismissing their feelings only escalates the situation. (Isn’t that where political correctness is supposed to help?)
As for pharmacists, if they work in their own pharmacy, they have the right not to sell any product they want, whether a doctor has requested it for them or not. Additional government interference into private business is wholly uncalled for.
And while I am respecting his right to belief, he is disrespecting my right not to believe and to live my life as I see fit.
Isn’t it equally disrespectful to expect someone to discard their beliefs to suit yours? Your only recourse is to force all Christians out of the Pharmacy business, and that is hardly reasonable. And that is exactly what legal intervention will do, in effect say ‘people with principles have no place doing business.’
In addition, the pharmacist is not preventing you from “living your life as you see fit.” You are simply being told that you may not fill that prescription here, you must find someplace else. While inconvenient, it is hardly insurmountable. So, it seems as though you are not only expecting them to contradict their principles, you are asking that they do so merely for your convenience.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 03:58 PMAs a side note, I’d like to hear the contradictions you’ve found in the Bible.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 04:14 PMWhat if I own a pharmacy and believe in White supremacy? I could refuse to fill the perscriptionn of African-Americans, Asians and other non-whites. Is this right? After all, it is my business and property.
Is this right? I don’t think so, and if we allow pharmacists to deny someone medicine because they believe it is against their religion, like the morning after pill, what is keeping them or any other business owners from denying service to minorities?
Remember: the customer can always go somewhere else to fill their prescription.
What if the customer is physically handicapped with limited transportation options and the neighborhood pharmacist won’t fill a prescription because of religious beliefs?
Today it’s birth control, but what if, tomorrow it’s insulin or heart medication?
Sorry, but I have to agree with V. Edward on this one. Pharmaceuticals are regulated and for good reason. A pharmacist is bound by law not to be able to dispense medications without a prescription, and I think the reverse holds true as well. It’s the doctor’s decision of what is right for the patient, not the pharmacist’s bible.
If the FDA approves a prescription treatment for anything (birth control, lipitor, ice cream, heroine, satan worship eyedrops), a pharmacist should be required to fill a legitimate prescription that a patient has been given by a doctor. If a pharmacist can’t get past their beliefs enough to do thier job, then they need to be fired.
Allowing free enterprise to solve the problem is a noble idea, but you have to remember not everyone who requires medical attention has access to the same options most of us might. Just driving to the next Walgreens isn’t always an option. That said, there has to be some standard. Birth control is NOT an illegal substance. If prescribed, any pharmacist should be required by law to dispense it.
Posted by: Taylor at April 5, 2005 04:50 PMI respect those who do not wish to see religion in the “public square”. However, I do not respect your revision of history, based on a misreading of an admittedly vague text.
If you look at the sum of the founding fathers’ statements and actions, you will see that they considered faith not anathema but integral to the functioning of the American federal republic.
John Adams: “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity? I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
Benjamin Franklin: “God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”
Alexander Hamilton: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”
Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
Thomas Jefferson (an avowed deist): “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever” and “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
James Madison: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We?ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity?to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
George Washington: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
These quotes (source) and actions are often too strong even for me, an avowed Christian conservative. And the left seeks to call these men in the service of secularism?
Jefferson’s famous “wall of separation” was in a letter written to a Connecticut Baptist group which was concerned that Jefferson would make Episcopalianism the national religion. Jefferson’s letter famously - and rightly - ruled that out entirely.
Posted by: Chops at April 5, 2005 05:20 PMJack, AParker, Tim, etc.,
With this pharmacy business, you folks are making one of the silliest arguments I’ve heard on this board in quite a while. (I’m attacking the message here.) Pharmacy is not just a business; it is a licensed profession. Just as there are certain things doctors can and can’t do, the same holds for pharmacists. The idea of keeping the government out of the pharmacy business is a non-starter, unless you want to go back to the bad old days of “patent medicine”.
The problem with letting people “follow their conscience” is that there are infinite varieties to the human conscience. How would you feel if a left-wing pharmacist decided that his conscience tells him that poor people and wealthy people should have access to the same medications, and decided that if Medicaid didn’t cover a drug he wouldn’t even give it to people who could pay?
Or suppose a pharmacist decides that society shouldn’t waste its medical resources on people over a certain age. Doesn’t that strike you as meddling in other peoples’ business? The same principle holds for birth control.
A practical reason to make pharmacies uniform is that no one everyone has access to a variety of pharmacies, especially if they live in a small town. (Not to mention, most people are tied down by their insurance.) A lot of people need to pick up drugs in the middle of the night. Letting pharmacists dispense at their whimsy would lead to chaos.
My opinion is that attacking Christians (although you are not doing that) is fairly pointless. The fact remains that Christianity is dying in the Western world. Christianity is growing in the sewers of the world such as Kenya. If this was 50 years ago, the Schiavo case would have been a done deal with the Christians but now; they don’t even have the influence to keep Terri Schiavo alive.
As much as it excites me to hear someone say that jesusdom is dying, I’m not sure it’s on the mark. The number of sheeple grazing on the green acres of America is still astonishingly high. I think we are still at least several generations, 2 armageddons, or 1 “legitimate world-broadcast visit from aliens” away from kicking the christianity addiction. It is wishful thinking Woody, but I wouldn’t recommend christian bookstore owners close up shop yet.
Posted by: Taylor at April 5, 2005 06:22 PMTaylor,
The thing you have to realize is that Christians may be huge in numbers in the US (although under 50% in England) but there influence is dying. Without true influence and high ignorance (as is my opinion of the masses), Christianity just will die by the majors in 50 years. People are getting smarter. Hell, I would never have became a Deist if I didn’t have the Internet to open my eyes that Nazareth didn’t even exist when Jesus was “alive.” When people research, a lot of previous theories die and most people who research Christianity will show that the religion itself is as credible as Ted Kennedy being the posterboy for MADD. The samething goes with Judaism and Islam. Islam is on the rise and Judaism will die as Jews die. In the end, as information spreads, people grow up. The Internet is the key to the next generation’s viewpoints and idealism.
Edward:
Great article. I disagree with your main premise however, that something “new” is happening. Religious liberty has always and will always be a struggle in a free society.
As Thomas Jefferson said on January 1, 1802, by Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
Obviously this was a problem in his day or he would not have said it!!!
As we have seen in France that Muslim school children are prohibited by federal law to wear traditional religious clothing, it is an issue predominantly secular societies.
In addition there has been some concern about letting Turkey into the EU because it is strongly muslim.
I think every generation will have to figure this out for themselves. The constitution is extremely well written. I believe from Divine Providence. It certainly is not perfect, or slavery would not have happened. (interesting how people who brag about our Christian heritage like to skip over slavery).
I also disagree with you about the pharmacy. In free enterprise, we do not need to take away this owners rights to sell what he prefers. He did not violate anyone’s rights. There are plenty of pharmacists ready to sell these products. You have the right to take your business elsewhere.
With Gay marriage, traditional marriage has been the norm for all of civilized society. How about a bit of patience before society starts accusing people of being bigotted or religious zealots. 6,000 years of history does not need to be change in a twinkling of an eye.
I have served as an elected official for 10 years as a religous conservative. (Well really I’m more moderate). I was on a school board with 11,000 students. Religious liberty was never a big deal. There is quite a bit of respect in our district. I can tell you how most educators feel about the debate over evolution verses “intelligent design”. They don’t have time to think about it, they are so focused on No Child Left Behind, and all the implications. Evolution is such a tiny subject in public education, and there are so many bigger fish to fry. I am not sure it is that big of a deal what either way. As a Christian is this issue were to of come before me, I would question the District as to why we are spending so much time here, instead of improving our students test scores!!
Thanks for the article,
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 5, 2005 08:13 PMThe ironic thing that I find is that for every pharmacist who does not want to sell contraceptives; there will be 5 that will. Sure, transportation may be a problem for the few but that is like saying that we should let 999 serial killers go if we convicted 1 who was really innocent. The analogy doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, I know but if you can see my point; businesses tend to what to make a profit so very few will seriously turn down the sell of contraceptives. Usually, educated people are smarter than that in terms of open-mindedness, free thought, and the social ramifications of such things.
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 5, 2005 08:21 PMTaylor,
We have a case of mistaken identity. I think Christianity is alive and well. In Arkansas, certainly.
Donny:
I would prefer to buy my drugs from a pharmacy that has values close to mine. I would think liberals would like that as well. Maybe education and discosure is more the point. I am sure that the doctor in the article of question now prescribes these medicines through a pharmacy that will fill them. It would seem to be a simple thing have a list of pharmacies that do, and those that don’t. We could call them “Red” or “Blue” pharmacies!!
Craig
We do it lots of other areas.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 5, 2005 09:35 PMTaylor:
Today it’s birth control, but what if, tomorrow it’s insulin or heart medication?
Please. This is ridiculous, we shouldn’t be quick to legislate future problems that don’t exist today. This type of thinking (legislating future ‘problems’) is what will make sure there are random searches of homes and vehicles to ensure future safety. Do you want that?
Just driving to the next Walgreens isn’t always an option.
We’re not talking about pharmacies within a large corporation, since they can fire any pharmacist they please.
Warren:
What if I own a pharmacy and believe in White supremacy?
You could refuse service to minorities, but don’t expect to do it without a lawsuit.
Your analogy isn’t close enough to the real situation for the simple fact that the refusal to fill the prescription has nothing to do with the person, and everything to do with not wanting to sell a specific product. I mean, if I ran a magazine stand in a large city, and I refused to sell porn magazines, should I legally be forced to do so?
Woody:
Or suppose a pharmacist decides that society shouldn’t waste its medical resources on people over a certain age. Doesn’t that strike you as meddling in other peoples’ business? The same principle holds for birth control.
Yes, that does seem like meddling, but you’re talking about a problem that doesn’t exist. I’ll tell you what I told Taylor, let’s not be in a rush to legislate problems before they arise. The point is that there is no threat posed by this whole thing, as it stands. Don’t get carried away by prevention, which sacrifices freedom for a false sense of security.
Posted by: AParker at April 5, 2005 10:22 PMAs far as I know, no shop carries every product and the government does not (and certainly should not) dictate inventory. I understand that pharmacists are specifically licensed, but surely not every pharmacy carries every drug that customers might demand. Birth control should be no different. Birth control is never an emergency situation. You won’t die without birth control; in the worst case scenario you can’t have sex.
The pharmacy is only one example of the intrusive government. It just is not their business. Most pharmacies will probably continue to sell birth control. If not, people who want it will have to make other arrangements. We don’t have a constitutional right not to be inconvenienced.
Anyway, the reason I pointed to this was not to argue the merits of this particular case, but rather to give an illustration of how and why Christians might feel that their faith was threatened by the secular world. If you force pharmacists to sell birth control, you are essentially saying that a person who holds contrary views cannot be a pharmacist or own a drug store. Would you force a shop run by PETA activists to sell leather or hamburgers?
Your rights mean that you are not prevented from doing what you think is right. It doesn’t mean that you should be able to make everyone else do what you think is right.
AParker: “This type of thinking (legislating future ‘problems’) is what will make sure there are random searches of homes and vehicles to ensure future safety. “
So, you’re saying we should wait for our problems to begin knocking on our door before we do anything`about them? Fine, let’s just leave Social Security as it is right now and see where that gets us in 20 years.
Chops, one cannot claim to divine the thoughts of those that have long been deceased through merely a few quotations, and certainly not for men as complex and sophisticated as the founding fathers. You do not know whether they would have wanted Christianity spread throughout America, or whether they merely wished for the IDEALS of Christianity to spread throughout America.
Of course, that just opens up a whole new can of worms. Since today there are many different interpretations of the Bible, how can one say just what the founding fathers intended when they said, “principles of Christianity?” I do not doubt that the founding fathers would have wanted Christianity to exist in America, as it does today, but I also believe they would not object to the existance of other religions or atheists/agnostics, nor would they attempt to stomp out those other beliefs by smothering them with Christianity. Therein lies the importance of separation of Church and State.
This sort of brings us back to the pharmaceutical deal. If the pharmacists have the prescription/drug and give it to some (married couples for instance) but not to others, that is a form of discrimination. If, however, the pharamcy simply does not carry the drug and gives it to no one, that’s fair game. So how we handle this issue varies from case to case.
Posted by: Zeek at April 5, 2005 11:10 PMZeek-
So, you’re saying we should wait for our problems to begin knocking on our door before we do anything`about them?
No, what I’m saying is that this problem isn’t even “knocking on our door”. Can you show me, in any way, that the supposed ‘future problems’ which people have given will actually become a reality? There is no indication that this will actually manifest itself and pharmacists will be denying life and death medications to those who need it, or that they will begin discriminating against certain sectors of society (to which there is already legal recourse).
If you look at how I brought this topic up, you will see that this is just one half of the example of both parts (secular and christian) feeling as though the other side is warring against them. Don’t lose the message in the details.
Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 12:38 AMThe pharmacy is only one example of the intrusive government. It just is not their business. Most pharmacies will probably continue to sell birth control. If not, people who want it will have to make other arrangements. We don?t have a constitutional right not to be inconvenienced.
We do have a constitutional right to buy birth control (Griswold vs. Connecticut). As to the larger point about government, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think that there are certain businesses that the government MUST be involved in for the public good, and pharmacies are one of them.
Funny thing about being “inconvenienced”: it’s always OK if it’s someone else. Tell a Christian they can’t have organized prayer in school and being “inconvenienced” is a big deal.
If you force pharmacists to sell birth control, you are essentially saying that a person who holds contrary views cannot be a pharmacist or own a drug store. Would you force a shop run by PETA activists to sell leather or hamburgers?
I think someone’s ethical beliefs could limit their career options in a lot of ways. Lawyers, for example, are supposed to zealously defend their clients even if they appear to be guilty as sin. If this is against your beliefs, you shouldn’t be a defense attorney. Similarly, doctors have to believe in modern medicine. A practicing Christian Scientist shouldn’t (and I would imagine, can’t) be an MD.
Your rights mean that you are not prevented from doing what you think is right. It doesn?t mean that you should be able to make everyone else do what you think is right.
That is a great argument for all pharmacists to dispense birth control. They don’t have to use it themselves.
This points to a problem I have with limited-government conservatism: under the guise of keeping government busybodies (like this guy?) out of my life, it often empowers the local busybodies. The other problem is, hardly anyone really believes in it when the local yokels do something that ticks them off. At least, hardly anyone with power.
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 6, 2005 07:50 AMOops, let’s try this again:
This points to a problem I have with limited-government conservatism: under the guise of keeping government busybodies (like this guy?) out of my life, it often empowers the local busybodies. The other problem is, hardly anyone really believes in it when the local yokels do something that ticks them off. At least, hardly anyone with power.
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 6, 2005 07:54 AMGrrr… those links were supposed to go to Bill Frist and Tom Delay.
Woody
We have many people making many diverse points.
Mine is less of a “should do” than a general principle. If you keep government rules in general to a minimum, people aren’t forced into the public debate about them. Most rights should be negative i.e. the government can’t make you do something. I don’t have much use for positive rights i.e. the government makes somebody do something for your benefit. These get to be too broad. A good example is the silly rules being promulgated because of a theoretically good law – the ADA. Many of societies disputes should stay disputes between individuals. If it is not completely fair or equitable, that is too bad. The cost (in liberty, time and money) is usually not worth getting the state involved.
I see how there could be different interpretation of my note on getting people to do what you want. However, I think it applies more to the defense of the pharmacist. If he gets his way, he does nothing and the person on the other side gets nothing. If the customer gets her way, she forces the pharmacist to do something that he wouldn’t normally do. I give the benefit of the doubt to the nothing case, unless there is a compelling reason. Convenience is not. I would object if the pharmacist provided birth control differentially, as I think you said.
A similar decision rule applies to Christian groups in public buildings. If groups generally use public buildings, the groups are asking for nothing special or positive. If the group asked for a special building to be constructed, it would be a different story.
VEM,
Very well put. I really liked it and agree with you 100%.
I do find it funny that christian America wishes to to make their beliefs a part of public teaching; for some reason we have to now need the idea of god in public school. If we were a truly religiously free country, any teaching associated with an old religious practice in a government setting would be illegal/unconstitutional. Why is it that we as a whole country are bound by the bible simply because the majority of Americans are bound by the bible? I know the majority rules but, what if the majority of americans are brainwashed.
What do you call it when people are made to think a certain way since birth? Do life long christians have a choice in whether or not they are saved or, is it God’s will to make sure everyone is the same? How are children that are forced to go to church and to beleive everything their pastor says not being brainwashed. Religion is a very powerful thing and should be used carefully.
Today it’s birth control, but what if, tomorrow it’s insulin or heart medication?Please. This is ridiculous, we shouldn’t be quick to legislate future problems that don’t exist today. This type of thinking (legislating future ‘problems’) is what will make sure there are random searches of homes and vehicles to ensure future safety. Do you want that?
It’s a licensed profession. And yes, I want it controlled. I guarantee you that if Phelps opened a pharmacy he would not make HIV medications available, because he believes all those people are sinners and the faster they go to hell, the better. I would consider those life saving drugs, wouldn’t you?
Or what if a paramedic, who happens to be an atheist, refuses to defibrillate you because you’re wearing a crucifix around your neck, and he believes your religious nature is harmful to society? From what you are saying, I presume you advocate this as acceptable behavior from a parmedic, yes?
By allowing pharmacists to make the decision of what they will and won’t dispense based on thier personal faith, you are advocating a variety of behavior that makes medical care quite unreliable.
There ARE certain professions, especially in the area of health related matters that require people to put aside their beliefs. It’s tough luck that someone may not be able to practice their beliefs every minute of every day, but for the good of the public, it must be that way. If people don’t like it, then don’t enlist in those types of professions.
I would much rather see the government keep it’s nose out of everything possible… but in these examples, someone has to enforce a standard, it’s not going to enforce itself.
Taylor-
Your comments would indicate that you want government regulation of situations where life and death are at stake. That situation is not a problem which we find ourselves faced with. As it stands right now, I’m sure that there are legal consequences for the situations which you have described, and certainly in the paramedic’s case.
How can you, in good conscience, say that people of faith (strong principles, whatever you want to call it) should be kept from certain professions? Because this is exactly what you are advocating:
It’s tough luck that someone may not be able to practice their beliefs every minute of every day, but for the good of the public, it must be that way. If people don’t like it, then don’t enlist in those types of professions.
As long as you have the mindset that this is an acceptable outcome, there is no way that this discussion can progress.
Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 11:05 AMThis paramedic/pharmacist debate is becoming ridiculous. The reality is that our government can, should, and does distinguish between shades of gray.
Should we say that anyone can do or refuse to do anything if their religious beliefs back it up? No. Should we say that nobody should be allowed any exemptions for religion? Again, no. Yet these arguments are being used here as straw men.
We all know how to detect b.s., and we should allow the government to do the same thing.
The best example of government moderation in a case like this was a few years ago when a Catholic soldier said he didn’t want his current job - doing graveyard shift guard duty in an enclosed space with a female. Rather than getting bent out of shape (as the liberal media did) or trying to turn it into a crusade (as the conservative media did), they simply transferred him as he had requested. Wow, that was easy.
With pharmacists, there could easily be a similar arrangement, like a referral to another pharmacist who does carry the med you want. Nobody should be forced to sell something - that’s a command economy. Just as a restaurant is allowed to keep kosher, a newsstand can refuse to sell pornography, or a hospital can choose not to perform abortions, a pharmacist has every right to refuse to carry any medication for any reason. As long as customers are given the right to patronize any pharmacy, there is no infringement on anyone’s rights.
It’s a free country.
Posted by: Chops at April 6, 2005 11:24 AMHow can you, in good conscience, say that people of faith (strong principles, whatever you want to call it) should be kept from certain professions? Because this is exactly what you are advocating
We are looking at this topic from 2 different spheres I suppose. There are simply times when I feel you either tuck your pride away and do your job, or go find another job. There are plenty of options in the job market.
For example, I’m an atheist, but for several years I was a church organist. I didn’t refuse to play certain hymns because I found them too offensive to my beliefs. I took the job, I sucked it up, and did my job. I found pride in the art and enjoyment in the instrument, I didn’t have to subscribe to the philosophy or content to get by. I had respect for the expectations of my trade. I elected to do the job, and that included all required tasks.
In the same breath, I could never be a soldier. I simply could not take another life under those circumstances. Hence, I’m not rushing out to enlist in the military. I understand why the military does what it does and have respect for those who are in it, but I’m sure I could not perform the tasks required of me if I found myself in that vocation, and I will not voluntarily put myself in a position of taking human life. But again, I’m not taking the job, and refusing to do part of it, I’m avoiding the job altogether because of my beliefs.
A belief system is important, and I’m not advocating that people abandon thier beliefs for sake of a job. There are such a multitude of positions and industries available, that I have to say, yes, in good conscience, I think if your beliefs get in the way of your ability to perform a job completely and wholy, then you should not chose that vocation. Maybe I simply have a different work ethic, I don’t know?
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 11:30 AMAs long as customers are given the right to patronize any pharmacy, there is no infringement on anyone’s rights.It’s a free country.
Part of what some of us are trying to convey here, is when it comes to healthcare… it is NOT necessarily a free country anymore. Thanks to HMO’s, someone may not be able to go to a different pharmacy or hospital. It could be many miles to the next hospital on your plan. There may be prohibitive factors like handicaps or transportation issues that make alternatives unavailable.
Quite honestly, if a woman living in the inner city with no car, and already on welfare with 3 kids, wants birth control… I’d prefer she get is as conveniently as possible, and not further burden the welfare system with more children. (I’d really prefer she also get help, get motivated, get off welfare and abstain from sex — but that’s a different discussion) We don’t all live in suburbia where we can drive our Hummer to the next Walgreens in the strip mall 3 miles up the way. Again, saying it’s the pharmacists right to put the bible before his vocation sets a very bad precident.
Restaurants/newsstands, different issue. These are not examples of licensed, regulated professions, which puts them in a class not applicable to this argument. I would deem them free to peddle whatever they choose, and let consumers dictate if they stay in business or not.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 11:59 AMThe topic is “The Looming American Theocracy”
There is a lot of protest about religion being taught in public schools. The principles taught in the Constitution of “Separation of Church and State”, have been taken to the extreme. What our founding fathers were trying to avoid were the state sponsored religions of Europe, considering most of the colonists had been persecuted by one religion or another before they came to America. The belief held by most is that the government has no right to impose any religion on us, especially in government or schools. It is the judicial who has pushed this agenda. The problem is, “we are closing the barn door after the horse got out”. At the same time religion (especially Christianity) is denied access, religion is being taught. It is the religion of humanism. Humanism teaches situation ethics. Whatever you do in any given situation is acceptable. This type of teaching goes against the very morals our Constitution was based upon. While the judicial absolutely forbids any teaching that would institute a good moral standing, it whole-heartedly supports teaching anything that is contrary to good morals.
What we have in the public schools are teachers, (who have now become priests) teaching their own theories, (which are their religious beliefs). The moral dilemma with our youth today is a direct result of this type of thinking. Those of us who are baby boomers are well aware of the problem.
In conclusion: for those who fear a looming American theocracy, it has already taken place. The judges are making sure the religion of humanism is being not only taught in the schools, but also an integrated part of our government. Why fear Christians, who vote their consciences, and not fear runaway judges who impose their own beliefs on all Americans, instead of the constitution?
Blaine,
Since when could Atheism (you didn’t mention that one) or Humanism be considered religion? I don’t even see that argument. Plus, you should do more research on Humanism because you are pretty off base with how you described it. If you know what it is, you are certainly trying your hardest to make Humanism look bad.
Donny Goodman said:
“My opinion is that attacking Christians (although you are not doing that) is fairly pointless. The fact remains that Christianity is dying in the Western world. Christianity is growing in the sewers of the world such as Kenya. If this was 50 years ago, the Schiavo case would have been a done deal with the Christians but now; they don’t even have the influence to keep Terri Schiavo alive.”
1. If Christianity is a dying religion, then why were right wing conservative Christians given so much credit for Bush’s re-election?
2. Not very tolerant of you to call 3rd world countries “sewers of the world”.
3. Fifty years ago, it would not have mattered who was a Christian. The populace would have been against starving Terri Schiavo to death. It would have been a moral issue and not a Christian issue.
“Christianity just will die by the majors in 50 years.”
That argument was made 2000 years ago, but Christianity is still alive and well on planet earth.
Does your hatred of Christians go back to your childhood? You have mentioned them in almost every post.
AParker:
“There is no indication that this will actually manifest itself and pharmacists will be denying life and death medications to those who need it, or that they will begin discriminating against certain sectors of society (to which there is already legal recourse).”
Actually pharmacists are already denying certain sectors of society birth control drugs. So, that means you’re completely wrong…
“No, what I’m saying is that this problem isn’t even “knocking on our door”. Can you show me, in any way, that the supposed ‘future problems’ which people have given will actually become a reality?”
I wasn’t talking about this particular instance, which is a mix of acceptable and not acceptable cases. I was saying that in general it is a good idea to fix problems before they happen.
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 03:01 PMDonny Goodman said:
Since when could Atheism (you didn’t mention that one) or Humanism be considered religion? I don’t even see that argument.
If we were talking about finances or organizational behavior, then you would be correct: neither atheism nor humanism is an organized religion. However, since the subject is education and the role of religion in society, then both atheism and humanism can be considered “religions” in the sense that they are large-scale worldviews into which the subscribers thereto fit the world they see and inasmuch as they are incompatible with other religious beliefs.
This is a sore spot for Christians: those who share the philosophical views of the liberal elite get a free pass to teach those views in school and advocate them on NPR, while those of us who hold an identifiable non-elite view are shut out in the name of religious freedom.
Posted by: Chops at April 6, 2005 03:04 PMThanks for the response Chops.
You have to understand the difference between Humanism and Christianity being thought in schools and why Christians do not get those special priviledges.
This example will sound extreme but in all honesty, I would think atleast 25% of the churches openly express this and 80% of Christians openly speak it.
Could you imagine a Christian teaching their faith? Here are a few examples of why they are thrown off and ridiculed.
“If you believe in Muhammed, you are the anti-Christ.”
“We are in the end times right now.”
“All faggots should die because they are an abomdination of God but I don’t hate homosexuals; I just hate the sin.”
“Let’s support wars before we might have a rapture.”
“Jesus died for you and you should covert people.”
I could go on and on but I hear that atleast once every three days, of the examples I have mentioned. Do you wonder why Christians are laughed at?
The difference between Humanism is that it is not ideaological, in that they discriminate against a class. They believe in equality, see the best in human potential (rather than the worst like a lot of Christians see), and so forth. Another difference, contrary to your claim, is that Humanism isn’t really thought in schools. It is but it is not taken seriously, in that it is not thought like a religion or ideaology. Christians are completely antithetical to that. They will teach their faith, keyword faith, as fact, are very idealogical, and will teach it like a religion rather than philosophy. If Christians only used the Jesus “love your neighbor as yourself” with suggestion rather than “you are going to Hell” then they would be given more credit. Heed my words, the more extreme Christians get, the more they will alienate people; thus die. Atheism isn’t thought in schools either. I have never ever heard my teacher speak about why Atheism is good or bad. Let’s face it. Atheism is still a relatively new ideaologue but also, Atheism doesn’t have much philosophy behind it; unless Humanism is thrown in the mix. Another thing that I got the impression in Blaine’s article is that Humanism emphasizes human selfishness so you can be happy and fulfilled. That is false. That is Astrology. You can get that impression through Humanism but it really isn’t that. It is more on satisfying the need to be loved, have fundamental needs and eventually, you will hit the hierarchy of five that Abraham Moslow describes. That is not being selfish or whatever. You can’t be a sake of crap and usually, usually, be a good person.
The Christians need to learn to evolve with the times. They did that decently in the 60’s and 70’s but right now, they are alienating people. When you have nutballs calling Mr. Schiavo and threatening to kill him; people will start to get the impression that Christians will justify God in horrible acts just like Al-Qaeda.
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 6, 2005 03:22 PMFifty years ago, it would not have mattered who was a Christian. The populace would have been against starving Terri Schiavo to death. It would have been a moral issue and not a Christian issue.
50 years ago Terri Schiavo would have been in the morgue the same day she collapsed from bulimia-induced heart failure. So that’s really a non-starter.
In conclusion: for those who fear a looming American theocracy, it has already taken place. The judges are making sure the religion of humanism is being not only taught in the schools, but also an integrated part of our government.
Yes, I’d also be interested in hearing how humanism is a religion.
Why fear Christians, who vote their consciences,
Christians don’t just vote with their consciences, but also kill with them, discriminate with them, oppress with them, segregate with them, molest with them and persecute with them. Please don’t try to sell the idea that christianity is without reproach.
and not fear runaway judges who impose their own beliefs on all Americans, instead of the constitution?
“Runaway”? Simply because judicial decisions don’t jive with your belief system they are runaway? Exactly what cases are you referring to where judges have passed unconstitutional rulings?
I Say:
Slavery was also the norm for all of civilized society until about 140 years ago. Should we tolerate slavery simply because it has a long history? Bigotry and religious persecution was also the norm until our country was founded in 1776. Should we scrap our constitution because it has a long history? That argument to deny rights to homosexuals doesn’t hold water. The same arguments were used in the South to deny rights to non-whites.
The argument that private business has to right to do what they will was also an argument used by segregationalists to keep blacks out of stores, shops, bathrooms, restraints etc. I don’t think it can be resurrected by religious groups. That argument has been settled.
Interesting though, that the same Catholics, that find religious foundation to deny birth control to their customers, seem to ignore the explicit biblical laws that prohibit lending money for interest. They should remove their money from banks since that money is propping up the current system of usury.
Johann
Zeek-
Actually pharmacists are already denying certain sectors of society birth control drugs. So, that means you’re completely wrong…
Please give a source for this, as I’ve heard nothing of the sort. All I’ve heard is the refusal of pharmacists to issue certain types of birthcontrol prescriptions.
I wasn’t talking about this particular instance, which is a mix of acceptable and not acceptable cases. I was saying that in general it is a good idea to fix problems before they happen.
To which I stand by my statement, that it is not good to solve problems which don’t have any indication of existing in the future.
Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 03:40 PMTaylor-
I completely understand your point. I myself could never be a soldier, nor do I wholeheartedly agree with everything coming out of my church.
However, this conclusion of essentially barring those who are unwilling to compromise their beliefs leads to the feeling of persecution (which was the original point), and all the more so if government means are used. Because it is exactly their beliefs which would make them ‘unfit’ for the given profession. My question is, what do you propose to do with those persons of faith who have dedicated so much time and money making careers in pharmacy, when suddenly the rug is pulled out and they are incapable of reconciling their beliefs and the law?
Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 04:46 PMTaylor said:
Christians don’t just vote with their consciences, but also kill with them, discriminate with them, oppress with them, segregate with them, molest with them and persecute with them. Please don’t try to sell the idea that christianity is without reproach.
Taylor: if you have any evidence of the above, please call your local police station. If not, please stop smearing me.
If this is your openminded humanist tolerance, color me unimpressed.
Posted by: Chops at April 6, 2005 04:51 PMDonny-
I can’t help but address this:
“If you believe in Muhammed, you are the anti-Christ.” “We are in the end times right now.” “All faggots should die because they are an abomdination of God but I don’t hate homosexuals; I just hate the sin.” “Let’s support wars before we might have a rapture.” “Jesus died for you and you should covert people.”
A) These can in no way be seen as majority viewpoints of any sect of Christianity (with the exception of the last one, which is hardly an excuse to ridicule). You see ‘big name evangelicals’ saying things like that in the media because its sensational and the masses eat it up.
B) You are giving these as reasons why Christians are laughed at. But aren’t we all supposed to be tolerant? Or is tolerance exclusive to those who will return the tolerance? It seems as though you are attempting to excuse the ridicule of an entire section of society based on what you hear from the few.
When you have nutballs calling Mr. Schiavo and threatening to kill him; people will start to get the impression that Christians will justify God in horrible acts just like Al-Qaeda.
Herein you make your asinine point. Are you incapable of distinguishing Al-Qaeda’s views from Islam? How can you then identify all Christians with the ‘nutballs’ threatening murder?
Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 05:03 PMAParker
“Please give a source for this, as I’ve heard nothing of the sort. All I’ve heard is the refusal of pharmacists to issue certain types of birthcontrol prescriptions.”
Did you read the original post? The link was right there…
“To which I stand by my statement, that it is not good to solve problems which don’t have any indication of existing in the future.”
If there was no indication of a problem existing in the future how would someone think of it in the first place? However, it is true that while some may interpret info in a certain way, others may not. So whether you see something as a possible future problem or not really counts for little; it’s more about how you came to that conclusion.
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 05:11 PMGreat post V. Edward,
And, obviously a spirited debate that should be addressed at WatchBlog. But, I’d like to touch on one aspect that is missing from the debate, so far.
It is a given that the Christian Conservatives driving this theocratic assault represent a small segment of the electorate, yet wield great power within the Republican Party. A good example, is that they stuck by Alan Keyes’ Senate bid here in Illinois, where he got 20% percent or 3.1 million votes.
However, that same force within this state’s GOP, is able to dictate who the Party slates in General Elections, all they way up to Governor and U.S. Senate.
In rural and small communities even in a Blue State like Illinois, they are able to elect state legislators who introduce such pharmacy bills and legislation to strip ‘sexual orientation’ from the state anti-discrimination statute, mere weeks after it was passed following a decade long fight.
James Dobson has threatened withholding his support if Bill Frist does not win on ‘the nuclear option’. And, the last desperate hope of preventing his Party from turning on him, has sent Tom DeLay begging the Evangelicals to protect him from ideological and religious persecution.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 6, 2005 05:39 PMTaylor: if you have any evidence of the above, please call your local police station. If not, please stop smearing me.
Chops:
How am I smearing you? I’m talking about christianity. It’s history is one big long scar of death, killing, intolerance and persecution. Anyone with access to a history book knows this. If you’d like more recent examples, search CNN for the string “Catholic priest sexual abuse”.
If this is your openminded humanist tolerance, color me unimpressed.
I don’t recall using those terms for myself, nor am I sure I’ve set out to impress you.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 05:46 PMZeek-
The value of my time is rapidly exceeding the merit of our discussion.
First off, none of your posts contain any links.
Secondly:
If there was no indication of a problem existing in the future how would someone think of it in the first place?Posted by: AParker at April 6, 2005 06:18 PMAre you suggesting that thinking of a problem indicates a reasonable chance that it will come into existence? Nonsense.
So whether you see something as a possible future problem or not really counts for little; it’s more about how you came to that conclusion.On the contrary, the probability of these wild excuses for government intervention actually occurring is of the utmost. Because if there is not sufficient cause to believe that the events we seek to discourage will actually come about, there is no reason to legislate it.
what do you propose to do with those persons of faith who have dedicated so much time and money making careers in pharmacy, when suddenly the rug is pulled out and they are incapable of reconciling their beliefs and the law?
Well, I think Illinois came up with an acceptable compromise, that another pharmacist had to fill the order in a timely fashion. I forget the exact language, but they indicate another pharmacist at the same facility.
Personally, I stick by my opinion that “if you can’t serve the time, don’t do the crime”. If you’re a hard core catholic and spend all that money becoming a pharmacist and get all pissy dispensing birth control and get fired, tough titties baby. Go get a job in an unrelated field like most college graduates today have to do, or go get “retrained” like Shrub suggests when consoling all of the IT people who’ve lost thier jobs to outsourcing. I spent 14 years in piano and organ lessons and ended up sitting behind an organ bench for a few years, listening to scripture and sermons I found offensive, and I didn’t shed a tear about it.
No one is forcing religious zealots to be pharmacists. They have lots of options and a wide open job market.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 06:30 PMA good example, is that they stuck by Alan Keyes’ Senate bid here in Illinois, where he got 20% percent or 3.1 million votes.
3.1 million down-staters. Chicago is the only reason Illinois is blue. Redraw the state line and put chicago in Indiana and Illinois goes red, Indiana goes blue =). Alan Keyes is a nutjob. BTW - Don’t you just think it’s DELICIOUS that Alan Keyes daughter came out of the closet nationally? That was just too rich for words.
In rural and small communities even in a Blue State like Illinois, they are able to elect state legislators who introduce such pharmacy bills and legislation to strip ‘sexual orientation’ from the state anti-discrimination statute, mere weeks after it was passed following a decade long fight.
I wasn’t aware of this, can’t say however I’m surprised. Again, down-staters. It’s very sad, but you’ve got a good point, a small portion of the electorate is yield a disproportionate amount of power. That’s why the rest of us need to stay on top of things. Else we will find outselves living in a theocracy where our voices will no longer be heard.
AParker
“First off, none of your posts contain any links.”
I wasn’t referring to my post; I was referring to VEM’s original post titled The Looming American Theocracy. The fact that you didn’t know this clearly shows that you didn’t even bother reading the initial post.
“Are you suggesting that thinking of a problem indicates a reasonable chance that it will come into existence?”
No. Whose posts are you reading?
“On the contrary, the probability of these wild excuses for government intervention actually occurring is of the utmost.”
Exactly. And how do you determine the probability of such interventions? Through a thought process… Which is what I’m saying is important. So why are you disagreeing with me here?
“Because if there is not sufficient cause to believe that the events we seek to discourage will actually come about, there is no reason to legislate it.”
See, when you say “sufficient cause to believe” you are implying that the thought process is what’s important. Which is exactly what I was saying. I’m beginning to think you’re just copy/pasting random quotes from me and responding capriciously.
Wow. There’s a whole lot of anger and invective here.
VEM -
Quite a while back, you asked if anyone could provide evidence of Christians being persecuted in this country. There is a book called Persecution on the subject, written by Rush Limbaugh’s brother, David Limbaugh. If you make me, I’ll go through the book and actually list instances, but I don’t really want to do that.
Taylor -
I’m talking about christianity. It’s history is one big long scar of death, killing, intolerance and persecution.
Don’t you understand how much words like that hurt? The history you refer to is the history of humanity … please, find a shining example of cultural goodness and truth. The Chinese? The Incas? The Arabs? The Mongols? The Indians? Christianity does not have a “long scar of death, killing, intolerance and persecution,” humanity does. And you know what? I have a reason for that - it’s called the doctrine of original sin. What’s your explanation?
Listen, if Christianity is for real, it’s not going to die. True, Christianity in America seems to be on the wane … but it’s growing by leaps and bounds in Africa, China, and Latin America. It’s not “a white man’s religion” anymore, praise God.
As you agitate for a country that has a place for atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Wiccans, and everyone else … please remember to save a place for Christians to live with the same dignity and respect you want for yourselves and for those other groups. When we Christians listen to you, the world you paint for us seems to have a place for everyone … except us. Where everyone is tolerated … except us. Where everyone’s beliefs are protected … except ours. To quote the beginning of this whole thread:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
My loyalty to my faith goes deeper than my loyalty to my country, my family, or even my life. Christianity is the light and hope for the world - that’s what I believe to be true, and I’ll never stop saying it. I’ll never stop trying to tell people the good news that their sins can be forgiven. If you want to try, you can. It’s been tried before. To quote Gamaliel, “And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)
To all of you who hate Christianity so much (or seem to, anyway) - thank you. Thanks to people like you, who won’t even realize what they’re doing, I and my children will have the priviledge of inheriting Christ’s promise:
Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persectued the prophets who were before you.Matthew 5:11-12
I know that most of the opprobrium of Christiany is deserved, so we do not automatically inherit this verse. But the day you persecute me because of some mistaken idea of what you think I believe, or because of hatred for what I believe, or because of the sins of my ancestors, I will inherit this verse. I just hope I’ll realize and remember to receive it as a blessing … and to pray that you, too, may be saved.
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 06:51 PMThe opinion has been repeatedly voiced that Christians who disagree with contraception shouldn’t become pharmacists. Let’s extend that, shall we?
I’m surprised we haven’t yet had an argument that a doctor shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to perform an abortion, so Christians shouldn’t be doctors.
I’m waiting for someone to say that if Christians can’t keep their religious opinions out of politics, then Christians shouldn’t become politicians.
And how long until we say that if Christians can’t keep their religious opinions out of education, they shouldn’t become teachers?
Or professors. Or diplomats. Or … anyone the government regulates. Which, seeing the creeping regulation of government on the private sector that many of you call for, is a steadily increasing sector of society.
Please just come to the point and say that Christians should keep their beliefs from influencing their public interactions. Which is the same as saying “That’s very nice that you have such antiquated beliefs. Shut up.” Which is exactly what you accuse us of saying to you … additionally, you seem to desire to enshrine this position in law … “a pharmacist can’t not dispense a perscription.”
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 07:36 PMV. Edward Martin,
You just made my day. Wonderful article!
I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and I am also concerned that Neocon Republicans are attempting to rewrite our government both politically and religiously to suit themselves.
You know, this stuff about the pharmacist being such a good Christian that he can’t abide dispensing birth control is outrageous.
What some of you advocating for the “religious rights” of the pharmacist don’t seem to realize is that birth control pills must be viewed like any other drugs out there. Indeed, there are many health reasons why women are prescribed birth control pills by their doctors — and some women could actually die if they became pregnant when they have other overriding health issues.
Since this pharmacist doesn’t know if there are other reasons why, besides contraception, that these woman would be taking birth control pills, what this actually boils down to is prejudice.
How about if a Devil Worshipper decided it was against his religion to keep Christians healthy and started switching out their prescribed medications with placebos?
That would be prejudice, right? That would be immoral, yes?
Well, I see no difference between these Christian and Devil Worshipping pharmacists, because how would either know anything about the background of the person standing on the other side of their counters? It is highly illogical and based entirely on personal speculation, and is therefore, pure prejudice.
It’s so laughable how some of the same folks who rail against abortion are now turning their attention to the denial of birth control.
To me it seems perfectly transparent what they are doing here. The topic of religious prejudice against birth control (as well as abortion, IMO) is often purely a case of men trying to take away a woman’s power over her own body. This latest pseudo-pious reason to dictate to women is just yet another way in an ages-old plan to discriminate against us.
Well, here’s a newsflash, it just isn’t going to work.
Bomb Planned Parenthoods, we’ll set up trailers. Enact laws based on religion, we’ll get what we need and procure these things in secret, (even go to jail, if need be) for the right to have autonomy over our lives and our futures.
To speak to the larger issue of religion, it seems obvious that so called “religious men” have always tried to take away ANY power women might have. And personally, I think this has always been based on FEAR.
After all, why else would men dream up for themselves a Creator, referred to as though he was male, who didn’t need a female to help him create the entire world and everything in it?
Even when I was a wide-eyed little girl, it made no bloody sense to me at all that in the bible it was only the men who ever did anything of true importance.
Where are the Gospels according to “the Virgin” Mary and/or Mary Magdalen? Were their thoughts not important, or were they Erased? Every where you look the role that has been imposed on females is to be the “weaker vessel” in our human drama, but what is truly weak is the reasoning that went into the very notion.
Right from the beginning God didn’t even create us for our own fabulous selves, but for Adam — and out of his spare parts? Yeah, sure.
Then of course, we went on to cause all the trouble starting with “original sin”, for letting “the serpent” whisper in our ears — getting all of mankind kicked out of the garden simply because we took a bite from the “tree of knowledge”. Now, there’s an interesting metaphor, one which supposedly gave them a reason to keep us uneducated, barefoot and pregnant, forever and ever, “Amen”.
Its all nothing but a misogynists fantasy - and the deepest tragedy of all is that so many women have bought into what is really a lesser definition of what it means to be a female human being.
Thankfully! though, there are also other kinds of men in the world. Real Men, who are able to respect an equal partner in life, and who can admire a woman who, with a bit of confidence and the ability to write her own script in our human drama, be just as strong as they themselves are capable of being — in mind and in heart, if not quite equally in muscles.
Okay, agnostic feminist rant complete. Carry on, gents.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 6, 2005 07:39 PMI’m talking about christianity. It’s history is one big long scar of death, killing, intolerance and persecution.Don’t you understand how much words like that hurt?
I had specifically in mind — the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, slavery, abortion clinic bombings and catholic priest pedophiles. Namely, the highlights of atrocities and crimes against humanity committed in the name of spreading christianity. I’m sorry if it hurts, but one cannot wholy evaluate it without mention of these. It’s the reality of the history of the faith with which you’ve aligned yourself. I’m sorry if you take my remarks at a personal level, as you seem to, but they are directed at the institution, not an individual.
The history you refer to is the history of humanity
No, I was referring specificially to christianity. On the same note, I never said humanity or any specific organization or religion was better. This wasn’t a comparison study. Humanity and other religions have some doosies too…. but that wasn’t the discussion point here.
The entire reason I brought the matter up was because of the statement from Chops:
Why fear Christians, who vote their consciences, and not fear runaway judges who impose their own beliefs on all Americans, instead of the constitution?
This statement assumes that:
1. Christians are morally superior.
2. Non-christians lack conscience.
3. Judges are not christian or not holding christian conscience.
4. Judges are passing unconstitutional judgementments.
I can’t say I agree with the implications made in that remark, and christianity certainly doesn’t smell like a rose, nor deserve to come out smelling like a rose just because people believe it to be.
But the day you persecute me because of some mistaken idea of what you think I believe, …… or because of the sins of my ancestors, I will inherit this verse.
I don’t believe I’m persecuting you, I’m talking about christianity, not you, as assaulting you would be in clear violation of the critic the message not the messenger policy on WB. You personally are not responsible for the sins of your ancestors, but the entity known as christianity is. In my perception there is a clear distinction between you, individually, and that entity.
…or because of hatred for what I believe …
It’s not my cup of tea, make no doubt about that. Hatred, that might be going a bit far, and I’d appreiate if if you’d retract that.
But the point of the matter, getting back to the message, is really about a small hardcore sector of the electorate yielding disproportionate power under the guise of a religious calling. They’ve gone too far. I don’t care what individual people believe, hell, you can worship your god, your dog or your pillowcase for all I care. When I started caring was when the religious zealots started pushing their ideas down the throat of my and my friends lives with all the events outlined in this thread.
They aren’t practicing religious freedom anymore, they are practicing religious DOMINANCE. And THAT is what this thread is about. Freedom does not equal Dominance over all in this country.
Oh Adrienne, why must you wait 60 some posts to join a discussion? =) Thank GOODNESS you’ve finally arrived.
Indeed, there are many health reasons why women are prescribed birth control pills by their doctors — and some women could actually die if they became pregnant when they have other overriding health issues.
GOOD POINT. Ummm, I’m not a woman and not up to par on all this, but isn’t birth control also prescribed for conditions that aren’t directly sexually related at all? Aren’t there some women who take it just to regulate menstrual or hormonal issues, even if they are celibate?
After all, why else would men dream up for themselves a Creator, referred to as though he was male, who didn’t need a female to help him create the entire world and everything in it?
Actually, I spoke to God last week. She told me to tell you keep being strong and to keep holding your chin high. =) /hugs
Adrienne, way to go!
Taylor,
Try not to generalize Christians here. I agree with most of your post. But I am a Catholic liberal, and I can tell you that there are many more where I come from, as I am sure than you know. While the Christians on the right may be trying to impose their views upon you as you write, don’t forget about the real Christians (those on the left) who care more about people than profit and more about peace than power. Those who while they might be pro-life, don’t go to the violent extremes of which you speak and don’t follow only their views on morality when voting.
Daniel:
“And you know what? I have a reason for that - it’s called the doctrine of original sin. What’s your explanation?”
Meh, you weren’t talking to me but I’ll respond. I call it human nature.
Adrienne:
“The topic of religious prejudice against birth control (as well as abortion, IMO) is often purely a case of men trying to take away a woman’s power over her own body.”
Perhaps this is true. However, whenever I hear all the “women’s body, women’s choice” chanting, I wonder what choices were made to come to such a decision. If you were raped or something, that’s a different story, but a majority of women made choices that lead to conception. So I see abortions etc. as more of a convenient way out of irresponsibility than a matter of “my body-my choice.”
“Even when I was a wide-eyed little girl, it made no bloody sense to me at all that in the bible it was only the men who ever did anything of true importance.”
Well, Mary gave birth to Jesus. That has to count for something doesn’t it? But seriously, Christianity is not alone in giving women inferior rights in society. Any ancient culture or religion has discriminated against women. It’s really more of a guy thing than a Christianity thing. (Damn those men!)
Taylor:
“Namely, the highlights of atrocities and crimes against humanity committed in the name of spreading christianity.”
You forgot the Holocaust.
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 08:10 PM3.1 million down-staters. Chicago is the only reason Illinois is blue. Redraw the state line and put chicago in Indiana and Illinois goes red, Indiana goes blue =).
For the most part Taylor, this is still true. However, if you compare the last four Presidential vote tallies in formerly Republican County strongholds across the state, you’ll see major inroads made by the Dems.
More good news, is that Obama carried all but 10 counties. Can you imagine the scenario of a Republican voting for Bush and Obama? (This was also the first time the Chicago Tribune did not endorse the GOP candidate for Senate.)
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 6, 2005 08:18 PMRyan:
don’t forget about the real Christians
Yes I know. It’s why I don’t hate the religion, there are good parts that go in there too.
Zeke:
If you were raped or something, that’s a different story, but a majority of women made choices that lead to conception.
Careful, you’re treading into delicate territory here. I’m not going to presume to speak for women, but I will say this much, I KNOW for a fact that we men, have no right to presume what it’s like to be a woman, unless we’ve had a sex change, lived in thier world and the whole gambit. There’s a LOT going on there. Society in general has put some shitty balls in their court from the dawn of time. Life is different on the other side of the 8 ball. (who the hell ever coined that expression anyhow?) Why the hell did Terri Schiavo feel she had to puke her way into a vegatative state anyhow?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m uncomfortable with people using abortion as birth control. But the world certainly isn’t black and white enough for ME to make THAT decision for anyone else. Be careful about pulling Adrienne down off her woman chant, she just might bite your head off for it =)
You forgot the Holocaust.
Article below this one has a Hitler thing going. Didn’t wanna go there twice, read up (or down).
More good news, is that Obama carried all but 10 counties. Can you imagine the scenario of a Republican voting for Bush and Obama? (This was also the first time the Chicago Tribune did not endorse the GOP candidate for Senate.)
Keyes is a nutjob
Nuff said.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 08:33 PMTaylor:
“I’m not going to presume to speak for women, but I will say this much, I KNOW for a fact that we men, have no right to presume what it’s like to be a woman, unless we’ve had a sex change, lived in thier world and the whole gambit.”
True, very true. Still, I believe that there is just as much irresponsibility going on over on the women’s side of the fence as with the men’s. As such, it is still a result of irresponsible choices that leads to a lot of unwanted pregnancies. I would like to get Adrienne’s opinion on this before going further with this train of thought.
“Why the hell did Terri Schiavo feel she had to puke her way into a vegatative state anyhow?”
I suppose it’s because our society fuels an image of women that almost requires them to be bulimic. So, I agree that it’s horrible that females in the US should be constantly bombarded with standards that no one can live up to without killing themselves. Still, we as society need to demand a change in that rather than in how we handle abortions.
“But the world certainly isn’t black and white enough for ME to make THAT decision for anyone else”
The world isn’t black and white enough to do anything these days…
“Be careful about pulling Adrienne down off her woman chant, she just might bite your head off for it =)”
Nah… Adrienne wouldn’t do that to me… would she? 8(
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 08:46 PMAParker,
Donny-
I can’t help but address this:
My quote:
“If you believe in Muhammed, you are the anti-Christ.” “We are in the end times right now.” “All faggots should die because they are an abomdination of God but I don’t hate homosexuals; I just hate the sin.” “Let’s support wars before we might have a rapture.” “Jesus died for you and you should covert people.”
AParker’s quote:
A) These can in no way be seen as majority viewpoints of any sect of Christianity (with the exception of the last one, which is hardly an excuse to ridicule). You see ‘big name evangelicals’ saying things like that in the media because its sensational and the masses eat it up.
My retort:
Are you kidding me Parker? I don’t know what planet you live on but I live in planet North Carolina. I suspect with you that you don’t know how to push a Christians button. That is your problem. I know how to. I invite you to support gay marriage, which you don’t, and tell me that the most hateful ideologue will spew out of their mouths. I guarantee it. You don’t push their buttons. Christians, in general, have this ability with putting on a front. They act like an angel, say hi as if they give a crap about you to begin with, talk about love, ectera. Once you push their buttons, their true nature comes out. They are, in general I emphasize, the most hateful group you will ever see. Tell me I am wrong. I debate Christians all the time. I don’t need to watch TBN to find out about their nature. I go off to colleges, churches, rallies and I will debate them. You’d be surprised but as long as you, Parker, are putting on a front and they are putting on a front; then you two will get along just fine. As a matter of fact, I would beg to differ and say that Christians are the most deceptive of people on the planet.
Your other response:
B) You are giving these as reasons why Christians are laughed at. But aren’t we all supposed to be tolerant? Or is tolerance exclusive to those who will return the tolerance? It seems as though you are attempting to excuse the ridicule of an entire section of society based on what you hear from the few.
My retort:
Obviously you couldn’t counter your ridiculous assertion that Humanism is some sort of powerhouse in society. That is another story. I see now that you don’t have much of a clue on Humanism or Atheism as far as influence goes; and when I informed you, you didn’t retort. That is a whole other story though. During campaign mode and even today, I have spoke with hundreds of Christians. Out of twenty, I might meet one, might now, who are somewhat sane. The people who go to church every Sunday generally are not sane. They are entrenched in this idealogue, groupthink, social conformity, and hate. Those are not just a few people. This speaks for the masses in NC. Do I make that point clear for you or are you just going to shrug it off?
My statement
“When you have nutballs calling Mr. Schiavo and threatening to kill him; people will start to get the impression that Christians will justify God in horrible acts just like Al-Qaeda.”
Your retort
Herein you make your asinine point. Are you incapable of distinguishing Al-Qaeda’s views from Islam? How can you then identify all Christians with the ‘nutballs’ threatening murder?
My response:
Of course, I can distinguish between Al-Qaeda and Islam. You should read my post again.
“people will start to get the IMPRESSION that Christians will justify God in horrible acts just like Al-Qaeda.”
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you overlooked that. If you didn’t and are just saying this, then you are being fairly deceptive yourself.
When I say in general, I mean in general; so all is not applicable in that when you say that I say “All Christians.” Most Christians, even by the masses hate Mr. Schiavo. Christians, in general now, have a tendency to be ignorant to other people’s problems as Mr. Schiavo’s case was complicated. Sure, only a few nutball Christians will threaten to kill him but a whole lot just don’t have the balls to do so; ergo, they talk, but don’t do anything. Actually, that describes to me, Christian behavior in general. “Love your neighbor as yourself” but it is okay to torture a non-convicted terrorist at Guantanamo Bay. Christians apply in brainwashing and groupthink. They tend to be a little bit too similar in views for brainwashed to not be dismissed; even down to their choice for an electoral candidate and complex cases like Schiavo. You just misread my quote or read too much into it. I am sure my tone has more to do with anything else though.
Taylor -
It’s somewhat unfair to list all the evil Christians have done without also mentioning Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa, Francis of Assissi, William Wilberforce, Hudson Taylor, the Reformation, to say nothing of all the good things done in this century by Christians. My point was that the things you accuse Christians of doing are human failures, common to all humanity, not distinct to Christians. Christians seem no worse than the average mean … in fact, I will say that cultures impacted by Christianity tend to come out a little better.
If you get to list the Crusades, the Inquisition, abortion clinic bombings, etc, I get to mention the Muslim invasion of Europe in the 700s, the caste system of India, “foot-binding” in China, human sacrifice among the Incas and Aztecs, the mass murder of people by Stalin, etc. Christians have not shown themselves to be worse than the human norm. Christian cultures have been enormously disappointing, not because they were worse than others, but because they should have been better. I honestly think Christianity has been, on the whole, a blessing to this world (it’s in the prophecies, after all), but I certainly acknowledge that Christians have been proud, selfish, arrogant, racist, brutal, cruel, vicious, intolerant … etc … just like everyone else.
As I’ve quoted before, “Christianity as an ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.” (Chesterton).
To insult Christianity as a faith insults me. I am a Christian. Your thought has roughly the same flavor as a racist saying “I dislike your race, but I like you.” Please, understand, I’m glad that you aren’t personally angry at me and that you can separate a faith from its adherents. But you don’t understand how much Christianity means to me. Christianity is not a hateful relgion - some Christians have been hateful people. I’m sorry for that.
Adrienne -
If it insults you to be told that women were made out of man’s spare parts, perhaps its some consolation men were made out of dirt :-).
Zeek -
The doctrine of originial sin states that human nature is warped and corrupted. Saying that your explanation for the evil humans have committed is “human nature” says the same thing.
And don’t bring the Nazis into this - you’ll just attract all the people who say that the Nazis were good Christians and that Nazism is a perfect example of what Christianity does to a nation, and I really don’t like debating those sort of people.
= Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 08:54 PMTo speak to the larger issue of religion, it seems obvious that so called “religious men” have always tried to take away ANY power women might have.
You know the other part of religious men that’s equally entertaining and predictable? They ALWAYS think about sex before most anything else. It must be a side affect of a respressive lifestyle. I put a post on a previous thread about rights that gays don’t get being unmarried, including death tax benefits, hospital visitation, rights to adopt / care for a partners child, and cohabitation in a nursing home room. And you know, the religious person homed right in on the nursing home cohabitation like a heat seeking jesus missile. Sex Slimy Sex Slippery Sex HOT PENETRATION STEAMY HUMPY HUMPY HUMPY HUMPY. Jeeez Louis! They really gotta relax. Like the first thing on people’s mind in a nursing home is SEX! LMFAO!
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 08:55 PMI certainly acknowledge that Christians have been proud, selfish, arrogant, racist, brutal, cruel, vicious, intolerant … etc … just like everyone else.
Thanks, that’s precisely what I wanted to hear. JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! You outta share that with the rest of the the millions of christians out there. Oh, but they might not have you over for ice cream social if you say that, best to keep your little secret between you and me.
=)
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 09:03 PMTaylor -
Heh, heh, heh … that was me. When I was reading your list, I missed the adoption part or I might have objected to that too (though I’m still uncertain of my position on that issue). You’re right - it is an unfortunate part of our “Christian” subculture that we are trained to home in on sexual sin as being “the worst” of all … instead of pride and hypocrisy, which are much subtler and far more deadly.
Even when you see the flaws in your own culture and mindset, you can’t completely escape them, eh?
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 09:03 PMDaniel,
I like you but you conflict me at times. If Christians aren’t any better than anyone else, why is it so important that your clique tries to push idealogical laws into our country? The logic is flawed.
Also, Christianity is not a White msn’s religion. You are right. It is growing in the third world countries. Who cares? That makes Christianity look worse. Who gives a crap about Christianity growing in Kenya or some toilet bowl country like that. Doesn’t the Bible say that nations prosper when with God? I highly doubt Kenya will become the world’s superpower. The ironic thing is that and this is not a statistic, rather it is true but the numbers are probably off: for every Kenyan who becomes a Christian, there are four that become a Muslim. Islam is growing.
I highly doubt Kenya will become the world’s superpower.
Actually, they might have a good shot at it. When the nukes start flying, they may, geographically speaking, miss the volley. =)
Ok, I’m just kidding for sake of interjecting my realist point of view on the outcome of the world.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 09:13 PMTaylor -
* rueful grin * I’m just wondering uneasily if some of my relatives are going to get a look at my posts and take me to task :-). Oh well.
But, in a more serious mood, I’m becoming increasingly concerned and appalled … mostly because attitudes like yours are very common … at least on the Internet. Growing up in the Christian subculture, I didn’t notice any flaws (maybe one or two, but not many) … but now I’m encountering a whole new world that seems to hate us … but as I listen to the outside world’s criticism, my own eyes start to open and I begin to see the cracks and flaws of the culture. Besides, I occasionally run across little flame posts from my own side that embarrass me and make me wonder where in the world do these people come from?
I hesitate to retreat into the common defense of my subculture that “the outside world hates us; don’t listen to them …” becuase I wonder to myself if it’s true. Is it true Christians are hypocritical? Intolerant? Is it true that they’re so … unChristian? I never saw that for myself … but so many people saying the same thing … there must be some truth to it. Besides, most of my wisest friends (who are, by the way, Christians) say the same thing. It’s part of my personality that I almost never see flaws in other people (I’m too focused on myself), so I tend to rely mostly on my friends to give me an accurate view of the weaknesses of others.
I’d go on, but it would be further off topic. I’ll probably just blog my thoughts on the issue … sorry for the rabbit trail
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 09:16 PMTaylor -Heh, heh, heh … that was me.
Shhhhhh! I wasn’t naming names! =) Actually, Daniel, I do like you, I’m glad your religion works for you, but I don’t like your your religion.
As I’ve said, I used to be a church organist, but life has changed very much for me since that time, and I’ll never do it again. From what I’ve seen from christians in the last couple years especially, I know I’ll never actively participate in contributing to the recruitment of more.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 09:19 PMI hesitate to retreat into the common defense of my subculture that “the outside world hates us; don’t listen to them …” becuase I wonder to myself if it’s true. Is it true Christians are hypocritical? Intolerant? Is it true that they’re so … unChristian? I never saw that for myself … but so many people saying the same thing … there must be some truth to it. Besides, most of my wisest friends (who are, by the way, Christians) say the same thing. It’s part of my personality that I almost never see flaws in other people (I’m too focused on myself), so I tend to rely mostly on my friends to give me an accurate view of the weaknesses of others.
Like I said, not for me, if it works for you, good for you. The christian church has spent a lot of energy in the last few years alienating themselves, and perhaps they should re-evaluate this. There have been many instances, like “voting for Kerry will send you to hell”, denial of visits from pro-choice politicians, denial of communion if your gay or pro-life, the whole uproar with the gay bishop (I forget what denomination that is in — episcopalian?) ….. and of course, gay marriage. Christians have plunged themselves into the political arena, and in my eyes, come out looking pretty stinky. It’s like the more they do, the worse they look, make sense? It’s a shame they don’t support more unity instead of divisiveness. You win more bees with honey than vinegar, ya know?
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 09:27 PMDonny -
I like you but you conflict me at times.
:-) - that’s probably because I conflict myself at times. I was raised and trained as hard a conservative fundamental evangelical as you’ll ever find (when you’re raised in a foreign country with few books and few people who speak your language, it’s possible to actually only get one point of view). But since returning to this country and going through college, I keep finding that there are so many shades of grey, so many uncertainties. Like the one you mentioned. Christianity, as I understand it (and I’ve read the Bible through four or five times by now), is a wonderful religion … but, if it’s true, why are so many Christians’ lives essentially no different than if they weren’t? How could Christians reading the same book justify slavery? Racism? Sexism (to some degree)? How could we go on the Crusades at all (actually, since almost nobody had the Bible at that point, it’s a little easier to understand). If Christianity is true, why doesn’t it change people?
Well, it does … but not very much, and not very far. One quote from a book I read, “The average lifespan of a Christian is two years” - basically meaning that most Christians, when they’re saved, do undergo a transformation … but it stops. They don’t go any farther. I know there are reasons for this (and I can argue them), but I’d rather do so elsewhere (it’s too much of a rabbit trail.
Suffice it to say that the reason I conflict you is that I am not sure of the truth. I’m not sure of the truth about homosexuals, or abortion (I’m pretty sure on that score), or the role of relgion in government, or … well, a lot of things. I’ve got a lot of contradictory data in my head that I haven’t worked through yet. I’m doing my best, though.
To some extent, I could be an ideal person for the left to convert … I’m a conservative who’s unsure of his faith and all its underpinnings. However, the left tends to be unremitting offensive (from my perspective) to my faith.
And I believe my faith. I do. I struggled with it, debated with it, visited a fair number of atheist and agnostic web sites, read their books, but I still believe. I know, at least, that it is true. I’m just working through what else is.
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 09:29 PMAdrienne -If it insults you to be told that women were made out of man’s spare parts, perhaps its some consolation men were made out of dirt :-).
OOOO! A consolation prize! Can’t wait for Adrienne’s response to this!
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 09:30 PMI could be an ideal person for the left to convert
Grrrrr! =) The left is not athiest for God’s sake!!!! I may be, and others might be, but we are the MINORITY. PLEASE dont make me have to shake you!!! =)
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 09:33 PMDonny:
Doesn’t the Bible say that nations prosper when with God?
I think America has prospered because of it’s Christian Heritage. When Jesus said “Give unto Caesar what is Caesars and give unto God what is God’s”. That has a definite ring of Separation of Church and State.
The Bible does say that a nation whose God is the Lord is blessed. It is pretty obvious that our country has been blessed maybe to our own harm. The Bible also teaches that when nations prosper they turn from God and become secular, or go after other gods. And that Christianity usually spreads through the poor and impoverished, or the persecuted. It has been that way since Biblical times, and probably always will be.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 6, 2005 09:40 PMTaylor -
I’m well aware of that; I appear to have used the wrong word (convert). I could say that I’m willing to be persuaded.
My training may be been one-sided, but it made a great deal of sense to me then and a fair degree of sense to me now. I believe in a free market (though I think that some regulation of that market is acceptable). I believe most of the “conservative” ideas - government should be small; it’s primary purpose to protect us from foreign invasion, not to provide for us. That the only real way out of poverty is through individual effort and initiative. Those beliefs are open to discussion, of course … but they make a great deal of sense. Conservatism, as far as I can see, is a well-put-together ideology.
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 09:42 PMIt is sad that words themselves can become so ill-reputed by corruption. Christianity and Communism, two ideologies with varying degrees of credibility are great examples of this tragedy of language use. Christianity was corrupted from the moment Christ died and left the future of the movement in the hands of mere humans. Christianity in its pure essence is very beneficial to both the individual and society, but as an institution, just like any other human organization, it has created perhaps as much bad as good. Communism, too, has been destroyed as a credible word. While the theory itself may be rather unattainable and hurtful to the individual, it is nevertheless a valid political theory. However, the word has been tainted by the USSR regime to the point that most Americans (probably not the informed people who are reading this) simply equate it with totalitarianism.
In this thread, the motto of Watchblog “Critique the Message, Not the Messenger” should not apply. The essential message of Christianity is great, in my opinion. The human messenger is the party in need of criticism.
Posted by: Ryan at April 6, 2005 10:14 PMRyan -
Christianity was corrupted the moment Christ died
No. Humanity was corrupted the moment Adam at the fruit, and Christianity was believed by these corrupt people. Instead of doing some form of complete personality transplant, God seems to have elected to show His power in His ability to use weak, sinful, normal people. Christians don’t automatically become little Jesuses. The faith can transform people … just as far as they’re willing to let it. The problem with people is that we really have fallen. As much as we say we want to be good, it isn’t true. We want to be God. And as long as we think we are good, the Christ is of no value to us, because He came to save sinners. He came for everyone, but only people who recognize they are sinners have any use for Him. I think that’s why Christians have historically only improved for a couple years. They improve to the point where they think they’re good - they don’t use bad language, they don’t drink, they don’t commit adultery (supposedly) … but the hardest sins to see in oneself are the ones Christians are most commonly accused of - pride and hypocrisy.
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 10:27 PMDonny Goodman said: “contrary to your claim, is that Humanism isn’t really thought in schools.”
Your opening sentence was, “You have to understand the difference between Humanism and Christianity being thought in schools and why Christians do not get those special priviledges.”
In the same post you said Humanism was not taught in the schools and then you said it was taught in the schools. Which is it? Then you said, “It is but it is not taken seriously, in that it is not thought like a religion or ideaology.” Do you actually know if it is taught or not?
Then you gave percentages (25% of churches and 80% of Christians) do something. Where is your proof of these percentages or did you pull them out of the air.
From that point you began to ramble about ideology, atheism, and astrology. Also something about the 60’s and 70’a, but I doubt you were around at that time.
Taylor:
Perhaps I should have written, “if the people who lived 50 years ago and the moral stand they took, if those same people were to have made the decision today about the fate of Terri Schaivo, she would not have been starved to death”.
There is a great deal of difference between “Christian” denominations:
1. Roman Catholicism has a bloody history down through the ages (Inquisition).
2. Amish, Quakers, and Mennonites are a passive people.
3. There are literally dozens of groups within the Baptists ranks. Sergeant York (famous Medal of Honor hero during WWII) was Baptist and yet tried to not fight on grounds of conscientious objector.
To make a blanket statement that all Christians are bloodthirsty simply is not true.
Daniel:
Thank you for your testimony.
Another book concerning Christians who were persecuted in Virginia until 1777 is “Imprisoned Preachers and Religious Liberty in Virginia”, by Lewis Peyton Little, printed in 1938.
I think Taylor’s problem is too much Humanistic teaching in school.
Taylor:
“Oh Adrienne, why must you wait 60 some posts to join a discussion?”
I’m busy lady. And I live in Calif., which means there is often a good bit of posting on here before I even log in to my ‘puter in the morning.
“Thank GOODNESS you’ve finally arrived.”
Better late than never, eh?
Btw, that’s very sweet.
“isn’t birth control also prescribed for conditions that aren’t directly sexually related at all?”
Yes.
“Aren’t there some women who take it just to regulate menstrual or hormonal issues, even if they are celibate?”
Yup, lots of women — for all kinds of reasons.
“Actually, I spoke to God last week. She told me to tell you keep being strong and to keep holding your chin high.”
Hey! does she look anything like Alanis Morrisette? ;^)
Tell her I’ll do my best.
“hugs”
Aww.
Real Men rule. Right back to you.
Ryan:
“Adrienne, way to go!
Thank you, sir.
“I am a Catholic liberal, and I can tell you that there are many more where I come from, as I am sure than you know.”
While the Christians on the right may be trying to impose their views upon you as you write, don’t forget about the real Christians (those on the left) who care more about people than profit and more about peace than power. Those who while they might be pro-life, don’t go to the violent extremes of which you speak and don’t follow only their views on morality when voting.”
You’re so right. I’m from a free-thinking Catholic family who is just like this — they agree with whatever seems to make decent sense, and just block out whatever doesn’t — and funniest of all, they still consider themselves “good Catholics”!
Zeek:
“whenever I hear all the “women’s body, women’s choice” chanting, I wonder what choices were made to come to such a decision.”
Well, whatever it is, it often isn’t an easy one. And it is their (and frequently their partners) decision to make, not yours, not mine, not anyone elses. That’s how I feel about it — because this is supposed to be a free country that guarantees us a separation of church and state, and so, wouldn’t withhold a safe medical procedure from those who want it for their own personal reasons.
“If you were raped or something, that’s a different story, but a majority of women made choices that lead to conception.”
So the condom never breaks? Sorry, but this has been known to happen — and sometimes it has quite a bit to do with Him, rather than Her — though it very often it is Her who must deal with the fact of an unwanted pregnancy. Also, I’ve known a few fertile women who have actually gotten pregnant while on the pill. Life is chock full of unpredictability — even for those who are responsible.
“So I see abortions etc. as more of a convenient way out of irresponsibility than a matter of “my body-my choice.”
And I’d have to respond as I always do: Is it more irresponsible to terminate a pregnancy when it is a bundle of cells (before the second trimester) without even a brain, or more irresponsible to have a child when you really don’t want one, and have to slide directly into poverty with them in tow?
“Well, Mary gave birth to Jesus. That has to count for something doesn’t it?”
Gave birth — and then what did she do or have to say? It seems, Nothing At All — something which I don’t believe for a minute.
“But seriously, Christianity is not alone in giving women inferior rights in society.”
And your point is? America is supposed to stand for progress and a more evolved sense of human rights, yes?
“Any ancient culture or religion has discriminated against women. It’s really more of a guy thing than a Christianity thing.”
It is both, in my opinion.
“(Damn those men!)”
Not all, just some.
I’m no militant. I really adore men, most especially the Real Ones. It’s the tight-assed controlling kind that leave me cold.
Taylor:
“Be careful about pulling Adrienne down off her woman chant, she just might bite your head off for it =)”
I’ve been doing a bit of that lately, I admit. But, I’m not always like that, really.
“Adrienne wouldn’t do that to me… would she? “
Nah, its only the really foolish posts that seem to bring out my head-biting ability.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 6, 2005 10:51 PMAdrienne -
And I’d have to respond as I always do: Is it more irresponsible to terminate a pregnancy when it is a bundle of cells (before the second trimester) without even a brain, or more irresponsible to have a child when you really don’t want one, and have to slide directly into poverty with them in tow?
That depends entirely on whether the “bundle of cells without a brain” is a human being or not. I think it is. That’s the one and only reason I’m pro-life on that issue.
There are other places where women get good press in the Bible. Ever heard of Ruth? Esther? Hannah? Abigail? Damaris? Various women mentioned in Paul’s letters?
The Bible certainly does have a historical context; it was written in a very patriarchal society. I also believe it was inspired, and that it isn’t a misogynist text. It defintely has some un-PC things to say about male headship and other things, but the book is not anti-woman. It has been used that way by chauvinistic men in the past. My own thoughts aren’t finished on the subject - I don’t claim to have a final word on what God’s position on men and women is. I have no patience for people who denigrate women, but also no patience for people who try to weasel around the hard passages in the Bible.
Posted by: Daniel at April 6, 2005 11:04 PMTo make a blanket statement that all Christians are bloodthirsty simply is not true.
I didn’t say that Blaine. Nice try tho.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 11:21 PMSeveral asked for proof that Humanism is a religion:
Humanist Manifesto I, the first paragraph states, “In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.”
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
The next 15 articles tell the beliefs of humanism and almost all 15 speak of humanism as a religion.
Another good site that explains Humanism as a religion:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~candst/sechum.htm
Another good article is “Can We Bridge The Great Divide?” by Paul Kurtz, found in the Free Inquiry Magazine, volume 25, Number 2. I do not have the web address. This article describes the goals of Secular Humanism and is a good article to read if you want to know how dangerous this movement has become.
The doctrines of Humanism have been fed to our children in public schools for years.
Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2005 11:24 PMBlaine:
Isn’t “secular” defined as essentially the opposite of “religious”? How, then, could Secular Humanism be called a religion?
Posted by: Ryan at April 6, 2005 11:33 PMTaylor: Sorry I mis-quoted you
“Christians don’t just vote with their consciences, but also kill with them, discriminate with them, oppress with them, segregate with them, molest with them and persecute with them. Please don’t try to sell the idea that christianity is without reproach.”
Can you explain what you mean in this statement?
Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2005 11:37 PMHeh, Donny, you’re going to turn this debate ugly if you keep talkin like that :P
Daniel:
“The doctrine of originial sin states that human nature is warped and corrupted. Saying that your explanation for the evil humans have committed is “human nature” says the same thing.”
Meh, you say tomatoe, I say tomato…
Adrienne:
“this is supposed to be a free country that guarantees us a separation of church and state, and so, wouldn’t withhold a safe medical procedure from those who want it for their own personal reasons.”
Wait, pharmacies are run by the government?
“So the condom never breaks? Sorry, but this has been known to happen — and sometimes it has quite a bit to do with Him, rather than Her — though it very often it is Her who must deal with the fact of an unwanted pregnancy.”
Guys are dumbasses. I have no idea why women want anything to do with our gender. BTW, the condom doesn’t break in abstinence. But I guess pre-marital sex is a must…
“Is it more irresponsible to terminate a pregnancy when it is a bundle of cells (before the second trimester) without even a brain, or more irresponsible to have a child when you really don’t want one, and have to slide directly into poverty with them in tow?”
Your making me forget why I was against abortions >:( Because now that I think about it, I usually argue on your side of the debate (lol!). Oh well, it’s fun to play devil’s advocate every now and then…
So, onto reality:
Abortions will happen whether or not we outlaw them, so there’s really no point in doing that. And, as Adrienne said, once you reach conception it’s just as pointless to force the birth of a child that will come into the world unloved and unwanted. The best we can do is limit the wanton promiscuity through a cultural shift.
Hm… or maybe we need better condoms…
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 11:38 PM“if the people who lived 50 years ago and the moral stand they took, if those same people were to have made the decision today about the fate of Terri Schaivo, she would not have been starved to death”.
So if people from the 1950’s were teleported here in this Back to the Future fantasy you’re having where thier perspectives and perceptions would hold relevancy in today’s world regarding our political landscape and technology, they’d scurry right up to the computer, log in to the internet, and hold a pro-life rally on some blog? Would they get past turning the computer on?
Jeeesh Blaine. Ok, fine, you can have this one. Yes, I agree, Mrs. Cleaver would have spoon-fed Terri applesauce until she burst at the seams. Of course, Terri probly would have puked it up.
Posted by: Taylor at April 6, 2005 11:39 PMRyan:
Quote the whole definition.
Secular: 1. worldly; not religious or sacred. 2. living in the world, not shut up in monasteries.
A secular priest would be a priest who lives in the world and not in a monastery. But, he is still a priest.
The word secular has nothing to do with religion, it merely means “worldly”. “Humanism” is related to religion, thus a “worldly religion” A religion that deals with nature of humans.
Besides, this is the name they call themselves. I didn’t name them. Read their manifesto.
Taylor:
Thank you. Now I can go to bed. 5:30 comes early out here in flyover country.
Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2005 11:53 PMI will back out of the debate because I might get booted then if I am turning this ugly. Thanks for the heads up Zeek.
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 7, 2005 12:11 AMAlmost missed this…
Daniel:
“If it insults you to be told that women were made out of man’s spare parts, perhaps its some consolation men were made out of dirt”
Consolation?! To think we were fashioned from the odd bits and clods that Adam didn’t need?
No. In Christianity we’ve always been made to view ourselves as an after-thought that came well after God made Adam… and Everything Else in the World.
What a ridiculous concept. I for one, never believed it for a minute.
I think that’s why as a kid I really enjoyed learning about my Celtic ancestry so much — because a good many of the Pagan traditions and symbols still live within the culture right alongside of all the Christianity that is there, too.
For instance, unlike many other cultures that were quickly converted to the faith, ancient Celtic crosses in Ireland and Scotland actually incorporate many pre-christian motifs within their patterns and symbols. The circle, which represents the feminine is, in fact, at the very apex of such crosses, reflecting a time in the past when women could be just as powerful and wise as their men — and were equally represented in their symbols of divinity.
Also, it really appeals to me that the Celts would just add on to their culture, rather than crushing out all traces of an earlier wisdom, especially since the old way had been more about the sacredness of nature and our place within it — something which has always seemed quite logical and sensible to me.
Adrienne -
Women an afterthought? Read the bloody book again! God makes Adam, says he needs a companion, has him search the entire animal world and come up empty, and makes a woman that makes humanity complete? An afterthought? You could argue humans were the afterthought - they came last. You’d be wrong, of course. Humans were the point - and God made the point that men simply aren’t complete without women. That there is nothing else on earth that can fulfill the role of a woman. (and that role is larger than procreation … Adam and Eve never had kids in the garden …)
By the way, I like the idea of keeping cultures intact. My dad, as a missionary, has always preached that. He fought hard to keep various other missionaries from imposing their own cultural preferences on the nascent Mongolian church, and to use old Mongolian customs (such as placing a rock on a pile at the top of mountains or hills as a good luck offering or throwing a portion of milk to the spirits) in new ways. The more any missionary can shed the cultural baggage he or she carries and bring just the gospel - no more and no less - the better.
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 12:46 AMDaniel:
“There are other places where women get good press in the Bible. Ever heard of Ruth? Esther? Hannah? Abigail? Damaris? Various women mentioned in Paul’s letters?”
Overall we caused more trouble than not, but yeah, occasionally we garner a mention for not being always completely worthless, morally bankrupt, or hopelessly flawed…
But, perhaps you should refresh my memory: What was those women’s view of the world, and what did they say, if anything?
Just how many books did they write? What was their opinion regarding the gospel that was being passed along through oral tradition, and/or being written down by all the men?
Who knows, right? And who ever seemed to care? Well, aside from a few curious women like me who tended to become pillars of salt when aroused to such sinful curiousity…
The truth is, the Bible is book that was made up after Constantine and his good buddies sat down over their wine and canapes, and decided to excise a whole lot of other stuff that didn’t conform to the way they wanted Their World and Their Church to work.
Hmmm, sounds a lot like current Neocon think tanks with our government doesn’t it…? :^/
What are fascinating though — well, to nerdy history and philosophy-loving agnostic’s like myself anyway, are the Dead Sea Scrolls, and those Nag Hammadi texts they found in Egypt - which seem to be telling quite a different story entirely. In those texts, it seems the women might well have played a much different role than “the good book” later allowed.
After looking at such new evidence and becoming aware of all the tampering and excising that must have been done throughout the bible’s history, it really does seem utterly crazy that fundamentalist Evangelical’s would still want to insist that the bible’s should be taken finally, literally, and completely word for word.
Oh, but don’t mind me — these are just my own outrageously heretical and un-church-ladylike opinions, and you must certainly feel free to believe anything you wish.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2005 02:40 AMAdrienne -
I wish to believe nothing but the truth. If you could give me some good links on looking up this “different story” that the Dead Sea scrolls claim, I wouldn’t mind reading up on it a little if I can. The few things I’ve read on the subject haven’t mentioned serious discrepancies - in fact, it’s generally cited as wonderful evidence that the Scriptures have changed little if at all in the past few thousand years.
I’m highly skeptical that “Constantine and his good buddies sat down over their wine and canapes, and decided to excise a whole lot of other stuff that didn’t conform to the way they wanted Their World and Their Church to work.” The Bible is too messy a book to have passed through such a careful hacking. Any decent person would have done a much better job of making the Bible conform to one viewpoint. If I was making my own Scriptures with a view to adding to my own power, I’d cut out most of the prophets (who are taking kings to task for doing that sort of thing), and make the Pharisees look a lot better, and I’d get rid of all those stupid annoying things Jesus said. I’d make it all look good. And the doctrine of the Trinity looks dumb, I’d cut that too … etc, etc.
Quite simply, the Bible is unsanitized … just like the truth tends to be.
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 02:53 AMDonny -
I invite you to support gay marriage, which you don’t, and tell me that the most hateful ideologue will spew out of their mouths.
Don’t tell me what I support. I voted just this week in a feeble attempt to prevent the state amendment to ban gay marriage. I had a lengthy discussion with my pastor, and it was not filled with the ‘standard gay hate-speech’ that you seem to think is a requirement from Christianity.
Everyone-
Christ said it well when he said, “by your fruit you shall know them.” I am in no position to judge, but the people of whom you speak, I would doubt their committment to christianity. It is truly sad to see such the strong draw of many on here to judge christians in general (and christianity as a religion, for some) based on the actions of those whose fruit would speak to their lack of faith in Christ and his teachings.
I suppose a lot of my responses may have been a little too defensive, but you must understand that there are christians out there who are truly dedicated to loving their neighbors, and who don’t buy into all the dogma and ‘brainwashing’. There are those who delve into christianity and the bible on their own, and don’t just accept everything some preacher spits out from the pulpit. Try looking at christianity through the efforts of these genuine individuals, don’t just accept the myopic view which is continually blasted through the media.
Posted by: AParker at April 7, 2005 09:26 AMDaniel-
I agree. That is what, as a liberal, attracted me to becoming a full Christian when I further studied the bible. This wasn’t a single coherent look at God, but rather a multi-angled look at a deity too infinite for us to appreciate from a finite, boiled down treatment of the divine.
The Bible is the living word, a human document as much as a divine one. There are calls to humility, forgiveness, and understanding in this work that many who call themselves Christians would do well to heed. It defies the easy pigeonholing that both its detractors and adherents would try to fit it, much like the God whose story it tells.
Blaine-
Secular Humanism is of that kind of enemy one invents when there is no clear opposition presented with any kind of power.
Truth is, secular society is not a hindrance to religious life. It’s a blessing. Faith is a choice. Morality is a choice. If you ensure that the government cannot interfere with or support private religion, it leaves a person free to be as secular or religious as they choose. Remove that freedom, and you sow the seeds of any number of enforced hypocrisy and atheisms. On their own, most Americans are churchgoers.
I am a product of both worlds, Blaine. Both sides operate with the best intentions. The Humanists mainly want to move past the mistakes of history and start over in these new times. The religious want to maintain the traditions of goodness passed down over the centuries. They would want us to be more forgiving, more tolerant, more true to our beliefs. What could hurt us to do that? And if they ask us not to believe? Well we tell them no, and accept the consequences. Simple as that. We need not deface our faith by becoming mean and nasty, shrill and judgmental. We need not usurp God’s role and judge those we do not know as well as he does. The people who started the Christian Church endured way worse treatment for their faith than we will ever likely suffer.
We are called upon to love our enemies, not fear them, nr mistreat them if they don’t see things our way. We are called to stand up for our faith, to turn the other cheek so that those who strike us must strike us next as their defiant equals. We are not called upon to strike the first blow or cast the first stone. We are centered on God’s grace, not on the approval, fear, or conformity of the rest of humanity.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 7, 2005 10:10 AMAdrienne said:
The truth is, the Bible is book that was made up after Constantine and his good buddies sat down over their wine and canapes, and decided to excise a whole lot of other stuff that didn’t conform to the way they wanted Their World and Their Church to work.
Adrienne, please don’t ever let me hear you championing science; the above is an unfounded statement based in your superstitious beliefs about religion, not in any kind of historical or scientific evidence.
The OT Dead Sea Scrolls are a few hundred years older than Constantine (source), and our earliest pieces (the “John Rylands MS” is the very earliest) of the New Testament date from a good 150 to 200 years before Constantine. Furthermore, we have 5,600 early copies/fragments of the New Testament, compared to 7 of Plato, 10 of Caesar, 49 of Sophocles, etc. (source).
The truth will set you free.
Posted by: Chops at April 7, 2005 10:21 AMPharmacists are licensed health care professionals. Drug dealers are not. Reducing a pharmacist to a drug salesman is the same as calling them a drug dealer. Drug dealers/salesmen have the choice of what to carry and dispense. Its dangerous territory when the public begins supporting healthcare providers who discriminate on any level. That’s what this is really about. Discrimination. Plenty of people in health care are required to do things they might not want to every day. I agree with the original post. If you don’t want to do your job of dispensing medications prescribed by physicians, don’t become a pharamcist and get out of health care.
Posted by: muppet at April 7, 2005 10:28 AMTaylor-
I would be perfectly alright with a government statute which went along the lines of, “if you won’t fill a prescription, you have X amount of time to forward it to the nearest pharmacy who will.”
Posted by: AParker at April 7, 2005 10:34 AMChops:
“Adrienne, please don’t ever let me hear you championing science;”
I am a champion of science! :^p
“the above is an unfounded statement based in your superstitious beliefs about religion, not in any kind of historical or scientific evidence.”
It is true. And do you really think I would dream that up out of whole cloth?
Exerpt from the wikipedia page on The First Council of Nicaea
“The First Council of Nicaea, which took place during the reign of the emperor Constantine in 325 AD, was the first ecumenical (from Greek oikumene, “worldwide”) conference of bishops of the Christian Church.
The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging.
The council, also called a synod, dealt with the problems raised by the Arian controversy, concerning the nature of Jesus, deciding against the Arians in favor of Trinitarianism. The new heresy of Arianism was causing intense controversy, and Constantine wanted to bring about peace. Essentially, the followers of Arius said that Christ was created by God the Father and that “there was a time when he was not.”“
Daniel:
“and God made the point that men simply aren’t complete without women. That there is nothing else on earth that can fulfill the role of a woman.”
Doesn’t that imply that the sole purpose of women, according to the bible, is to please men?
Posted by: Zeek at April 7, 2005 11:52 AMDaniel:
“If you could give me some good links on looking up this “different story” that the Dead Sea scrolls claim, I wouldn’t mind reading up on it a little if I can. The few things I’ve read on the subject haven’t mentioned serious discrepancies - in fact, it’s generally cited as wonderful evidence that the Scriptures have changed little if at all in the past few thousand years.”
It’s really the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts that change the whole story, making Jesus entirely human like the rest of us until he had a revelation from God.
Within these Gnostic texts, several which are among the oldest surviving scriptural documents ever discovered, there can even be found “The Book of Mary”. A gospel which claims that Mary Magdalen was the lover, or even the wife of Jesus, and that she was the most favored and most learned (which means she was never a prostitute, and that this was dreamed up by the early christian bishops to tarnish her image) of all Jesus’ disciples — and it was she who he believed should be in charge of directing the church when he realized that he was going to be put to death.
If you read the above quote I gave to Chops, you’ll see that at Constantine’s Council of Nicaea they decided to choose only the scriptures that would support the claim that Jesus had had a divine and virgin birth, and was resurrected after death, and they dumped many many other gospel works which differed from that ideology — such as the myriad among the Nag Hammadi documents that were found in 1945 in Egypt.
As for links to the Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls, I really wish I had been having this conversation with you about two years ago. I was obsessed for awhile with them and had weeded out a lot of what I considered the best websites to read from. Unfortunately, I dumped those bookmarks long ago after moving on to several other intellectual obsessions that still crowd my bookmarks file. But If you are truly interested in either the Nag Hammadi or the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are literally thousands of websites to choose from.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2005 11:53 AMTaylor: Sorry I mis-quoted you “Christians don’t just vote with their consciences, but also kill with them, discriminate with them, oppress with them, segregate with them, molest with them and persecute with them. Please don’t try to sell the idea that christianity is without reproach.”Can you explain what you mean in this statement?
Again, I never said “all”. I’ve explained this statement above if you read back.
The point of the matter is, the nature of christianity in power, based on it’s history, gives strong suggestion that if the neocons in the United States succeed in their power grab, regressing our government to a theocracy, much ugliness will follow. I’m not saying, nor have I ever said, all christians are evil.
I AM however saying that once in power, christianity will simply not be able to help itself from, once again, commiting horrible crimes against humanity. It is christianity’s very nature to limit, inhibit, repress, prohibit and persecute society for the very things that have led to the successes the United States has accomplished in the last 200 some years.
I’m certain that if we allow any book of mythology to govern us, whether its the Holy Bible, the Koran or the Illiad and the Odessey, we are just asking for grief and misery, and inhibiting our ability to advance the human race.
Posted by: Taylor at April 7, 2005 12:27 PMStephen:
Secular Humanism is not an invented enemy. It is an organized religion with articles of faith. Their beliefs are stated in the Humanist Manifesto I, II, and III.
I don’t know where you got the term Secular Society. I never mentioned that term. I talked about Secular Humanism. Secular Humanism is not a hindrance; it is a danger, not only to true Christianity, but also to mankind as a whole. Secular Humanism, contrary to an earlier writer, is an ideology that is being fed to the populace. I stated this earlier; Humanism is a feel good religion. Remember the old saying (60’s), “if it feels good, do it”. That is the basis of Humanism. Humanism crept into our schools in the 60’s. It promoted a promiscuous life style. Today we are paying the price for this ideology. We have schools that promote protected sex, (which Jack has stated, no sex outside of marriage is safe); abortion is promoted without parent’s knowledge. Then we are shocked when a student takes a gun to school and shoots people. We are equally shocked when a teenage girl gives birth to a child and throws it in a dumpster. They have been taught to have no respect for life. The premise of Humanism is situation ethics, by their own teachings. Whatever situation you are in, anything you do is ethical. If a teenage boy wants to rape his date, he drugs her and does it. Most professors in liberal universities today grew up with this diet of thinking and pass it on to their students.
You said, “The Humanists mainly want to move past the mistakes of history and start over in these new times. The religious want to maintain the traditions of goodness passed down over the centuries.
Christianity does not care about traditions, but Christianity does want to maintain truth. Jesus had more problems with the religious leaders in Israel than anyone else. He also said they were steeped in traditions. In fact they had replaced the Law (commandments) of God with the traditions of men. Tradition is the enemy of Christianity. Humanism does not want to move past mistakes. Humanism wants to erase the truth of Christianity. Humanism wants mankind to take his eyes off of God and focus on man. Man is the central thought of Humanism. “Whatever I do, how will it benefit me”.
Blaine,
That is so full of crap. If Humanism or Secularism is so horrible, why are the murder rates in Canada, France, England, Japan, Italy, ectera; so low, atleast murders by guns, when guns are in society.
The enemy of America is the constant fear that is pushed on people. I have always known this. Americans, in general, are not sane as they are driven by fear. This constant fear is used by the mainstream media and politicians.
The News tonight:
Terrorists have killed four Americans and they want to take away your freedumb.
If you drink more than 8 oz. of milk per day, you will get a 500% chance of lung cancer.
A Black man has robbed a gas station down the road. Fear the evil Black man.
(commercial)
Buy a new car.
Here is something to make you fatter.
Buy these drugs that give you muscles or else no women will want to screw you.
That is America and it happens every night. The countries with low murder rates I mentioned above are a hell of a lot more secular and “humanized” than the US and guess what; they don’t kill each other by the masses like people in America have a habit of doing.
With that being said, you have to ask yourself something. What is really destroying America? What can you do to make this country better? And, what is Jesus doing to help you out despite hours of prayer by Christians during the week?
Atleast with the last question, we already know Jesus is not doing anything because some of our statistics are embarrassing.
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 7, 2005 01:18 PMBlaine, what you’re describing as humanism sounds much more like hedonism.
Donny, it’s a good thing this is the green column and not the red or you’d be in trouble.
Posted by: Zeek at April 7, 2005 01:27 PMDonny -
You won’t hear any defense regarding modern commercials from me. It’s appalling and pathetic. I could never major in marketing or advertising - I simply can’t stomach manipulating people that way.
I’ve thought before that if I had sufficient money (both to produce the commericial and pay for the lawsuits that would ensue), I’d like to make my own commericial for a drug, based on the sappy commericals I see all the time. It would go something like this …
Happy children running across a meadow …
Bright blue sky, green grass …
Soft, soothing music …
A picture of an older couple walking across a beach …
A nice-sounding voiceover (probably deep) says …
“Ask your doctor about cyanide. Clinically proven to permanently remove all painful sensation within 24 hours for 99% of those who take it.
Then, very quickly, “cyanide is not for everyone; nausea, vomiting or death occur in some subjects.”
The really sad thing would be how many doctors might get calls asking about cyanide …
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 01:32 PMDonny -
Violent murder rates may be lower in more secularized countries, but, if I recall, suicide rates are a whole lot higher.
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 01:35 PMDaniel,
Possibly. But I am not talking about suicide. Suicide is not mentioned in the Bible either. Violent murder rates are retardedly high in the US compared to any secularized country like Canada, France or England.
Japan has a high suicide rate but I doubt France, Canada or England have a higher suicide rate than the US.
Happy children running across a meadow … Bright blue sky, green grass … Soft, soothing music … A picture of an older couple walking across a beach … A nice-sounding voiceover (probably deep) says … “Ask your doctor about cyanide. Clinically proven to permanently remove all painful sensation within 24 hours for 99% of those who take it. Then, very quickly, “cyanide is not for everyone; nausea, vomiting or death occur in some subjects.”
Daniel, that’s pretty cynical. =) I love it. You’ve got a good point however, and flared up one of my peevs about drug advertising. Why are prescription drug companies spending so much money on advertising only adding to the inflated price of drugs? This is a side effect of our capitalistic society, but not one I’m very fond of. Drugs are so expensive not everyone can afford treatment they need, but they can turn on the TV and watch a million dollar commercial about what it would be like if COULD afford it. Anyway, that’s a separate discussion, I’ll shut up now.
Posted by: Taylor at April 7, 2005 01:51 PMDonny -
Actually, suicide is mentioned a few times - or at least, some characters commit suicide. Abimelech (ordered his attendant to run him through so he wouldn’t have the disgrace of having been killed by a woman), Saul (asked his armor bearer to run him through so he wouldn’t be captured by the Philistines - the armor bearer refused, so Saul ran himself through), and Ahithophel (hanged himself when Absalom refused his counsel) … there may be others, but those are the ones that come to mind first. All of these are negative characters, though I wouldn’t make a theological doctrine from just those incidents.
But I can make a pretty strong theological case for suicide being sinful on other grounds. The one caveat might be that sacrificing your life for others could involve suicide.
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 01:55 PMWhatever I do, how will it benefit me?
You’re obviously deeply confused who you’re talking about. The quote above is the GOP mantra.
Posted by: Taylor at April 7, 2005 01:58 PMDaniel,
Yeah, you have a point. I was refering to “people who commit suicide are going to Hell” which really is not in there contrary to popular belief. The closest thing to it is, and it is a spin is in Israel [don’t know the verse though but paraphrased], “only the Lord thy God decides when you live or die.”
Something like that.
Christianity does not care about traditions
WHAT?! Are you still with us here?
You’ve just contradicted the NUMBER 1 defense for gay marriage opponents!
Posted by: Taylor at April 7, 2005 02:01 PMDonny:
Atleast with the last question, we already know Jesus is not doing anything because some of our statistics are embarrassing.
Our statistics are embarassing because God will not take away our free will, regardless of prayer. Mankind will choose what it will, and I would argue that true Christianity would not seek to prevent that choice. I know the response, about how we see lots of people claiming Christianity and yet seeking all sorts of cures for societies ails, but I believe they are misguided. True Christianity is a personal faith, not a group mentality. Unfortunately, that is the way that it is being represented/taught, and people accept whatever they are fed because they trust the hand that provides it. But the problem is that some of the providers are pretty easily identified as pederasts, etc, and are more like spiritual misleaders.
I would ask that people take time to discern, from the fruits of people claiming to be christians, the likelihood of their actually adhering to the christian faith. As I quoted from Christ before, “by their fruit, you shall know them”, (referring to his followers).
Posted by: AParker at April 7, 2005 02:05 PMTaylor -
It is christianity’s very nature to limit, inhibit, repress, prohibit and persecute society for the very things that have led to the successes the United States has accomplished in the last 200 some years.
I’ll say it again - it is not Christianity’s very nature to “limit, inhibit, repress, prohibit and persecute” - is humanity’s very nature to do those things. I’m willing to make a prophecy that if the left ever did win absolute power (in other words, had no significant opposition left) that they, too, would succumb to the tempation to “limit, inhibit, repress, prohibit and persecute.”
Please stop referring to human nature as if it is a direct consequence of Christianity.
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 02:05 PMThe closest thing to it is, and it is a spin is in Israel [don’t know the verse though but paraphrased], “only the Lord thy God decides when you live or die.”
I meant Isaiah not Israel.
Good observation Taylor!
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 7, 2005 02:07 PMDaniel:
“Violent murder rates may be lower in more secularized countries, but, if I recall, suicide rates are a whole lot higher.”
So, this tells us people in those “secularized countries” are more suicidal than homocidal. That’s good right? Actually, I disagree with the entire sentiment that religion has anything to do with “violent murder rates.”
Donny, continuing with the above thread of thought:
It’s probably the fact that many secular countries are not as affluent as the US. People that live in these countries are often more concerned with their day-to-day survival than what they can get by killing their neighbor. A Marxist idea, but it holds some truth.
Posted by: Zeek at April 7, 2005 02:07 PMZeek -
Don’t be silly - murder rates are highest in poor countries (or poor communities) where people struggle for survival. Suicide is, arguably, usually an “upper-class” phenomenon.
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 02:10 PMZeek,
It’s probably the fact that many secular countries are not as affluent as the US. People that live in these countries are often more concerned with their day-to-day survival than what they can get by killing their neighbor. A Marxist idea, but it holds some truth.
That premise is absolutely insane. They are supposedly worried about their survival yet they have free healthcare. Government’s provide subsides to people who have trouble paying their bills and are unemployed. They are not in poverty. In addition, doesn’t poverty have an effect on the increase in crime? United States poverty is worst than Canada and such. All you have to do is look at our statistics about infant mortality. We are just behind Mexico.
My premise as well had nothing to do with saying that Christianity causes a lot of violence and such in America. What causes it is the mainstream media and politicians who play on peoples fears. That was my thesis and the other thesis was that God or a Christian nation does nothing for a nation when crime is considered.
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 7, 2005 02:13 PMTaylor -
The reason pharmaceutical companies make those commericials is because they can make more money by promoting their product. The somewhat wealthy people who have the luxury of wanting all their aches and pains medicated away have more money than those who need medicine to survive.
Those commercials wouldn’t work at all if people weren’t so stupid … I dislike marketing and advertising, but I’m also starting to despise the “if it hurts, medicate it; if it ages, hide it” attitude that seems prevalent among the affluent. It’s not just a “evil corporations” problem - it’s a silly culture problem. Not the kind easily corrected, certainly not by government program.
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 02:15 PMDuring the Welsh Revival of 1904, prisons were closed for lack of occupants.
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 02:17 PMAParker,
I will give you credit, you are better than most Christians I meet. You have independent thought behind it and I am glad you are criticizing groupthink.
Our statistics are embarassing because God will not take away our free will, regardless of prayer.
My question is this and not so much to you but more to the wide majority of Christians. Why pray for a situation to be changed then? If God does not change anything and human destiny is in our hands, why pray? I can understand prayer for thanking God but why pray for an outcome to be changed? Pre-destination and free will are both contradictions in terms of apologetic excuses and the theology in general. I am not refering that to you, rather doctrine and the thinking behind it by the masses.
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 7, 2005 02:18 PMDonny-
That is an excellent theological question, which I promise to answer to the best of my ability, but I’m pressed for time at the moment.
Posted by: AParker at April 7, 2005 02:21 PM“and God made the point that men simply aren’t complete without women. That there is nothing else on earth that can fulfill the role of a woman.”Doesn’t that imply that the sole purpose of women, according to the bible, is to please men?
No, it implies that the sexes are interdependent, both needing one another. Men were incomplete without women, and women were fashioned out of men. Neither is independent.
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 02:23 PMDonny -
Until AParker can get back to you with a much better reply, (I have to go, myself), let me raise one thought from CS Lewis -
Prayer doesn’t change God. It changes the one praying. By submitting to God, we are changed and transformed into a better likeness of Him.
And, to throw a wrench in the gears, though the topic is in high dispute (and I’ll get into trouble with some of the orthodox), there is a case to be made for God “changing His mind,” as it were, because of prayer. (Just think Hezekiah…)
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 02:27 PM…the customer can always go somewhere else to fill their prescription…
…In addition, the pharmacist is not preventing you from “living your life as you see fit.” You are simply being told that you may not fill that prescription here, you must find someplace else…
Not true in these cases. Read the linked article:
Pharmacists are regulated by state laws and can face disciplinary action from licensing boards. But the only case that has gotten that far involves Neil T. Noesen, who in 2002 refused to fill a University of Wisconsin student’s birth control pill prescription at a Kmart in Menomonie, Wis., or transfer the prescription elsewhere. (emphasis mine)
The pharmacist decided that he wouldn’t fill the birth control prescription and prevented the woman from finding someone else who would do so!
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 7, 2005 02:29 PMAParker,
Thanks man.
Daniel,
Here are a few quotes about women’s rights in the Bible.
1 Cor.11:3 “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
1 Cor.14:34-36 “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
1 Pet.3:1 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.”
I can’t find the chapter now but I believe in Deuternomy, based on a sacrifice, it is difficult to ignore that God thinks that women are worth half as much as men.
The Bible is pretty sexist.
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 7, 2005 02:36 PMDaniel,
That still doesn’t answer the question. God may change us through prayer but when people pray “Dear God, please make the Denver Broncos win the Superbowl” they are praying as if God changes situations; thus, it contradicts free will.
Two other suicide mentioned in the Bible are, Samson and Judas.
Donny: Why do you attempt to quote the Bible? You don’t believe it.
Posted by: Blaine at April 7, 2005 02:41 PMDaniel & Donny,
I can’t easily explain my idea, nor am I willing to right the several paragraphs needed to express them. It’s really not that big a deal to me. If you want, I could email something to you guys when I have a chunk of spare time.
Daniel:
“both needing one another. Men were incomplete without women, and women were fashioned out of men. Neither is independent.”
Ok… so women need men because they were fashioned out of our spare parts? What kind of BS is this? Your interpretation of it doesn’t really hold water. If both genders are interdependent, why were women made with only men in mind, and not with the consideration of what their needs would be? When you get down to it, the Bible says Eve was created for Adam’s happiness, not hers.
I posted a couple of links to Humanism. Has anyone even read the sites? You continue the same argument and ignore any proof presented. You’re like a couple of kids when one says, “you’re a moron” and the other says, “I know you are, but what am I”. It is impossible to have a discussion with you. Donny has ranted and made statements through the whole page and yet backs nothing up with facts or proof. I offered proof for what I believe.
Posted by: Blaine at April 7, 2005 02:48 PMV. Edward, great article. I agree entirely with your premises and conclusions.
Jack, birth control is administered as a life saving medication to women whose menstrual flow never stops. They literally die of aenemia over time. I know, my sister had to be put on birth control at 13 years of age to stop her continual menstrual flow.
Donny, yep, you got it. That inconsistency and many others are why I changed from a Methodist to a Buddhist some 40 years ago. Buddhism has served my moral and ethical needs as well as my mid-life crisis over dying very well. I would no more want, however, the sayings of Siddhartha on granite in front of court houses than I would the 10 commandments.
The reason is very, very simple. One day, through no fault of my own, I may have to stand before a judge. I want the assurance of the separation of church and state that helps insure that judge leaves his religion outside the courtroom and judges me and my case on its own factual and legal merits, not some predeliction for determining if I am a Christian moral person or not. I should think Christains would want the same impartial assessment and treatment by a Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist judge.
Posted by: David R Remer at April 7, 2005 02:58 PMBlaine,
Don’t give me that. I back up when things need to be backed up. I hardly would constitute your links as anything more verifiable than what I presented.
I am still trying to figure out how to put in a URL. I think I will find out in a second.
The burden of proof is on you Blaine. I apologize if I give hardball questions but if you post here, you have to either answer it or not. You can’t just side step it because Taylor has a serious question about what you said earlier in regards to Christianity spitting on tradition and the logic behind gay marriage.
I can be trusted as far as facts go. I certainly don’t want to put anything out and then be made out of a fool later on. What I say, may not be 100% true even if I am being 100% honest with my feelings, but they hold water.
David,
That is very true. Laws and the justice system are supposed to be color blind and not subjected to this nonsense. Is Buddism difficult to practice?
Blaine,
I should add as well that what I said earlier is this and needs clarification. I apologize that I forgot. Humanism is taught in school but not really taught in school. Humanism is covered in an elective called Psychology in Chapter 12 in my school. Chapter 12! In ONE SECTION. You will review humanism for perhaps one day. I will take Psychology in my senior year. I have already read the book so its an easy credit. What I was saying is that the philosophy is not covered in depth. You are more likely to cover polynomials for a longer period of time being three days than humanism. That is what I mean. It is not taught as philosophy in school. I read your links and they are valid. Humanism can be turned into a religion but if anything, it is an organized form of Deism. You speak of Humanism as if it is Hedonism but you describe it like it is a Horoscope in the Astrological sense. Humanism will never be taken seriously as a religion without a central figure head like Jesus, Jehovah or Muhammed. I will still view Humanism as a philosophy over religion despite its Deistic implications because it will never be viewed as a massive religion. I am sure in 50 years, everything will become more spiritual but it won’t be organized like Christianity. It will be, do your own thing, go home, pray and get answers. You should look at Humanism with a more open mind as opposed to just puking at it because Jesus is not in. Morality is relative in the philosophical sense. You know that. That is why Humanism is good. Morality isn’t under some old wives tale Code of Honor rather it is based on the fundamental needs such as water; air, shelter; social needs such as being loved and loving and you reach “Self-Actualization” which is the end of Abraham Moslow’s “Hierarchy of Five.” If you think I am lying through my teeth as your last post indicated or I don’t have any facts, look it up yourself in a text book. It is right in there. Humanism is barely covered in schools and more so than that, is a part of Psychology in Chapter 12-4. There are five sections in Chapter 12. That is it. You couldn’t be on that section for more than one day. Out of 180 school days in the year, what makes you think that people are going to take this philosophy seriously or that public education is trying to brainwash a bunch of kids? You seem to look at it from a paranoid perspective. I understand that but it is not Satan’s ploy if that is what you are thinking.
Stephen-
Humanist Manifesto I, II, and III, right? Tell me something: how many supposed Secular Humanists actually know about these damned things? I’ve never heard of these things before, and I use to be a thoroughgoing secularist myself!
Can you show me the rites of this supposed religion, the organized dogmas accepted by all, the priesthood or pastors of this supposed faith? It seems to me an overextended metaphor. I know the dangers of lumping people together. Before I went to Baylor, I held rather strong grudges against religious conservatives.
Now I know that they aren’t all cut of the same cloth, and that these are often individuals with their own style of approaching the world. It is only prejudice to treat all secular liberals as being the same just as it is unfair to treat religious conservatives the same way.
You also confuse humanism and hedonism. Humanism is the effort to perfect man’s character by logic and reason, cultivation and education. It is not an immoral philosophy of life. On the contrary, it is very moral.
You allege that many of the evils of modern day are the result of secular, humanistic modes of thought. having dealt with your objections to humanism, let me say that I believe secular society is not uniquely prone to such violence or evil. “If it feels good, do it” has as much to do with our being a leisure society, with time and money one its hands, as with any lack of religion.
Truth is, schools are not promoting sex, unless you mean educating kids about it so they don’t get their information from their unreliable friends. Truth is, there are cases when parental consent for abortion is not a good idea. Like when the girl getting the abortion shares a father with her unborn child.
Humanism is not synonomous with situational ethics or violence, no more than religion is synonomous with hypocrisy and terrorism. After all, certain religious groups preach that it is permissable to murder, steal, and destroy in the name of God, and many defy in action what they profess in their words. So to do secular folk engage in tawdry games in terms of morality and unleash terrible harm on others.
The trick is that both sides have their share of fools doing all of the above. Do we judge those who resist temptations by those fail, those who live moral lives with out God by those who don’t, or do we see a person for who they are?
The reality of Christianity does not make enemies of those who take the secular path. If that were the case, I would never have found my way back into the fold It does not make an enemy of tradition, only on a reliance of traditions to the exception of divine grace. We are called upon to make peace with ourselves, our enemies, and God. We are called upon not to be avengers of the faith, handling God’s enemies for him, but bringers of the good news.
There are humanists that would like to remove God from the picture. We should not revile them, we should not slander them, speaking of what we do not know. We should show them the love and forgiveness God has shown us. Perhaps if enough of us did that, they might come to agree with us, instead of hardening their hearts in the face of our spite.
As it is, you speak like one of those people I used to talk myself blue disagreeing with, one of those folk who gave me the bad impression of Christianity in the first place. So please, take my advice: as pleasing as it is to lash out, resist the impulse.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 7, 2005 03:15 PMDonny-
First of all, I (personally) would not pose this question to the ‘wide majority of Christians’, if you expect a bibilical answer. Most will just repeat the sanitized soundbytes they hear, which castrate the bible’s truth.
Why pray for a situation to be changed then? If God does not change anything and human destiny is in our hands, why pray?
Bear with me, for some background:
Christianity, in a sense, views the Old Testament as the history of God desiring trust from his people. God consistently, throughout the OT, blesses the Hebrew nation when they trust in his strength to overcome their obstacles, and he consistently allows them to be overrun when they rely on their own strength to gain their own desires.
So, individually, I do not pray for a situation to be changed expressly. Rather, I pray that it might change, in accordance with what God would ultimately have in mind. We do not see on our own how all things interact, and God may intend for me, in my suffering (perhaps, just an example of some time I might pray to be relieved), to meet or influence someone in a way I might otherwise be unable.
However, there are times in our lives, where we may be affected by the decisions of others, perhaps adversely, which God does not really have any plan about. In these cases (not exclusively), requesting things from God can bring change. God is always dealing with humanity making up its own mind, as well, so God’s plan must be fluid, and thus he is able to respond to prayer. And at other times, God may answers prayers of a more selfish nature (sometimes) to show us that what we want is not always the best for us.
Pre-destination and free will are both contradictions in terms of apologetic excuses and the theology in general.
They are indeed contradictions, and thus Charles Wesley felt the need to distinguish himself from the standard Calvinist thoughts of his day. Let me interject here, that terms like pre-destination and its ilk in the bible are interpretations of a broader term in the original greek (for the New Testament). Charles Wesley is an example of someone who took Christianity personally, and did not accept the traditionalist church dogma. I would argue that this is the spirit of a true Christian. Not to praise myself, but I feel as though I am to be included, along with some other Christians that I regularly hang out with, for my efforts to dispel the myths of the necessity for regulation of moral issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage. I would also like to thank those members of WatchBlog who have discussed many topics with me, and helped me break the few remaining ties of church ‘groupthink’ I still possessed. It is exactly this type of thinking within Christianity which I wish to promote. I have been inspired not only from the Bible (of course), but also in reading the discourses of Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis among others. These guys really put it to your heart on following the message of Christianity on your own, and not just settling for the Sunday Homogenation Projects.
I hope this helps to answer your question, but really I find that in reading the Bible, God helps to open my mind to meaning in scriptures I’ve read many times before. It is truly amazing, and as such, I’d recommend it to everyone. Don’t accept what someone else tells you is in there. Read it for yourself, even if you don’t believe in God, at least you will know what it really says.
Posted by: AParker at April 7, 2005 03:30 PMDonny-
Who finds Jesus first after the Resurrection? In a number of Gospels: the women! Does Paul or Jesus say that women and men will be treated differently at the resurrection? No, Gender Distinctions will matter not at all in the world to come! Does Paul say women should be told to sit down and shut up? No! The authentic letters of Paul, properly read show the Apostle defending Women’s right to manifest the holy spirit just like anybody else, saying that God came to them with the same as they came to everybody else.
I will not tell you the Bible doesn’t contain other passages that are sexist, but to condemn the scriptures as a whole as sexist is not justified. Considering it is a work of its time, it must be considered rather progressive. There is in fact a part in The Acts of the Apostles where the Priscilla corrects a man on issues of scripture. If Christianity is inherently sexist, and that part of the letter is seen as authoritative, what is a woman doing teaching a man?
On the Nag Hammadi materials-
My reading of them was that they were rather bizarre, rather arcane, and very much out of step with the scriptures that preceded them. The thing to understand is that books that made it into the New Testament are all closer to the events and people they describe than much of the material that was left out.
They don’t contain a bunch of the greek mystery cult mumbo-jumbo, the absolute asceticism or libertinism that marks the later gospels. You don’t see Jesus walking six inches above the ground because he’s supposed just a spirit pretending to be human. You don’t hear about Jesus killing a kid who bothered him then, bringing him back to life. You don’t get Jesus whispering to an apostle some piece of secret knowledge, then having that apostle saying that the knowledge imparted would drop them dead or something like that.
I am really relieved much of the apocryphal works, especially the Nag Hammadi books, was left out. I believe that the canon as it was selected was in fact on inspired decision on both a literary and a divine level.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 7, 2005 03:50 PMI’ll say it again - it is not Christianity’s very nature to “limit, inhibit, repress, prohibit and persecute” - is humanity’s very nature to do those things.
Hogwash. The engine of Christianity is built around repression, prohibition and persecution. It took the catholic church some 300 years to pardon Galileo, did it not?
Unless you are trying to convince me that christianity is a fabrication solely by the hands of humanity, don’t try to sell me that the church’s history is excused merely by the fact they are human too.
Please stop referring to human nature as if it is a direct consequence of Christianity.
Quite to the contrary, I believe it to be the other way around. Christianity is a direct consequence of human nature. But I’m not glorifying human nature either.
Posted by: Taylor at April 7, 2005 03:52 PMTaylor, if Christianity is a consequence of human nature (and I believe it is), then it is not the fault of the Christianity that persecution of others occured, it is the fault of intrinsic human nature. Christianity is simply a medium through which humans can express themselves. As such, it is hardly deserving of such harsh ridicule from you.
Posted by: Zeek at April 7, 2005 04:17 PMStephen -
Thanks for your posts - they’ve been quite refreshing. It’s nice to know that genuine Christians inhabit the left as well as the right. Curious - ever read of (or heard of) a book called Speaking My Mind by Tony Campolo? It’s essentially a challenge to rethink our position from an evangelical on the left side of the fence to the majority on the right side of the fence. It’s quite a book.
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 04:24 PMDonny -
Just regarding the URL inclusion thing, there’s an example of how to do it just above the comment box. I’ll repeat it here:
<a href=”the full web address in quotes (just copy it from your address bar)”>the link title (anything you want)</a>
Posted by: Daniel at April 7, 2005 04:36 PMStephen:
“On the Nag Hammadi materials-
My reading of them was that they were rather bizarre, rather arcane, and very much out of step with the scriptures that preceded them.”
There are over well over 800 early christian documents that were found hidden in those caves — and not all of them are bizarre or arcane, I assure you.
Personally, it has always seemed much more logical to me that Jesus would have been born of a human mother and father, rather than from the idea of a “virgin birth”. And that he would have had a wife like any other Jewish man of his era, since it would have seemed really bizarre if he didn’t because of the emphasis placed upon early and arranged marriages in those days. And that he would have died a human death even though his words had the power to live on.
But that is just my own opinion — no one else has to agree.
You say gnosticism is out of step with the other scriptures which is true, but then, among Matthew, Mark Luke and John, three are believed to be derivative of each other, so that’s not really saying a whole lot.
I will admit that gnostics were out of step with the whole idea of creating a church hierarchy — which is what truly what motivated Constintine I when he called the Council of Nicaea — to nail down creed as well as which Gospels should be used for the bible.
One of the main things that was different about the Gnostics was that they claimed that Jesus’ said that God is “within all of us”, rather than “around all of us”. In this way they were more mystical —rather like the Kabbala. That being the case, they were also very much against the whole idea of authority figures ruling over the faith — they allowed all members to take turns at these things, including women.
Of course, Men seeking power wouldn’t have gone along with any of that, and neither did Constantine who, though he wasn’t even a Christian until a very short time before his death, thought it in his best interest to settle the matter with his stamp of approval or disapproval, rather than let the debate continue to rage on and on.
“The thing to understand is that books that made it into the New Testament are all closer to the events and people they describe than much of the material that was left out.”
No one really knows if that is true or not — because both before and after the Council of Nicaea there was a lot of scroll burning going on. We do know that Gnosticism was already a well established and widespread belief, and that gnostics were there at the Council, and that they were voted down and then branded as heretics — which is believed to be the reason that they hid all those Nag Hammadi documents. It was obviously done for preservations sake at a time of religious upheaval.
Btw, there are no surviving documents of the major Gospels — only notes.
“I am really relieved much of the apocryphal works, especially the Nag Hammadi books, was left out.”
I can’t agree, seeing as the gnostics had a much better attitude toward women. I am also very glad they survived for us to study them.
“I believe that the canon as it was selected was in fact on inspired decision on both a literary and a divine level.”
That’s nice that you can do that, I suppose. I’m afraid I’ve always been too much of a skeptic to have that kind of unquestioning belief.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 7, 2005 05:43 PMYet another blog successfully taken down an obscure and impertinent path! Yes! Go team! Special thanks to AParker, Adrienne, Taylor and Daniel!
(I’m kiddin you guys :P)
(No, really, I find this Nag Hammadi stuff titillating)
Posted by: Zeek at April 8, 2005 12:33 AMBlaine asked if Buddhism is difficult to practice.
Answer, well two or three actually.
1) It is no more difficult to practice than any other major religion - they all require that one reflect on the meanings of what it is to be a human being, what it is to be a very good human being, and offer rules of the road, so to speak, to keep in the lane of the good. That said, practicing any of the major relgions is very difficult in this modern world which is a great lead in to answer #2.
2. Buddhism is a very difficult religion to master, because, unlike Christianity, God is not an intervener in any strict sense of the meaning. One does not pray to God for an outcome, though it is no sin to do so. In Buddhism, the right path and redemption are entirely a self-responsible way of living. One cannot say, I accept Buddha and therefore I am saved regardless of what I have done. All Buddhism ultimately requires is that one seek and achieve enlightenment as to the nature of the relationship between God and Creation, which btw, are one (as a philosopher named Anselm, I believe pointed out about Christianity). If one does achieve enlightenment, the very knowledge of the experience of comprehending God will ensure right action, right living, and an end to the birth/life/death cycle for one’s soul. But the key here is that it is one’s own responsibility to get there. As Siddhartha pointed out, there is no map.
The correlary of course, is that there is only one sin, failing to achieve enlightenment, and that is not the kind of sin Buddhism chastises, convicts, or imprisons people for, since, none are born into this world once and enlightened. All are on the same road, but, at different mile markers along the way, and since all must experience the same path, tolerance and best wishes and even assistance are called for in dealing with others not as far along. And respect is called for in dealing with those further along. Folks on the road live in this world. Those who achieve enlightenment, have little need for this world save that it becomes a stage for guiding willing protege’s toward their own enlightenment.
So, one of the fundamental differences is the concept of good and evil. These are vital and integral concepts to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions, but, not so Buddhism. Hence, there is little self-fulfilling prophecy in Buddhism for becoming a bad person if one fails to act appropriately. One simply improves on wrong choices and actions the next time without the stigma of being branded condemned to hell or as an evil mignon of an evil fallen angel.
3) Buddhism is not a social relgion, like Christianity, Judaism or Islam are, strictly speaking. One need never visit a temple nor read holy books, or the story of Siddhartha to achieve enlightenment. One need not accept any saviors but oneself. Buddhism in practice, is a relatively solitary pursuit save that steps toward enlightenment often come from interaction and charity and understanding toward others. And what enlightenment means and portends of course, must be learned from others. But Buddhism puts the responsibility for experiencing the grace of God squarely on each individual, and that, more than anyting else, converted me to Buddhism.
War may be necessary, but, not for an enlightened Buddhist, because what happens in this life is transitory and of little consequence save for the opportunity it provides one to advance toward acting, thinking, and seeing in a more enlightened way. Money may be necessary, but not for an enlightened Buddhist who needs nothing of this life or world to be one with God. If a thing is right, just, and full of the grace of God, the enlightened Buddhist will let nothing in this life or world stand between him/her and that grace, except anything that would detour one from that grace.
So, yes, it is very difficult to practice Buddhism with earnestness and integrity. But, it is not anymore difficult than becoming a Christian who “actually” lives by Christ’s example, or Moses’ example, or Muhammad’s example.
One of the major problems today is the belief that because one affiliates oneself with a religion that one is religious. Nothing could be further from the truth and it applies to all religions and their followers. And that reason alone is sufficient to insure that religions and politics are separate. Democratic government leaders are elected (hired) to represent the welfare of the people, ALL of the people. And they are NOT or should NOT be hired to represent their view of what their religion dictates should be appropriate for the people whether some or most of the people desire it or not. That in fact becomes dictatorship where a politician’s view of religion dictates what is good for the people, rather than representing the will and objective best interests of all of the people of the nation.
I know it is simplistic, but, I still cling to the idea that the Congress and Executive Branch’s should be limited to action that potentially benefits all law abiding citizens without injuring any. If they want to act in a way that will injure certain segments of society while benefitting others, they should refrain from acting at all.
The courts on the other hand should be limited to resolving disputes where some benefit at the expense of injury to others. Simplistic, I know, but, with a little reflection it goes a very long way to resolving much of the litigiousness that plagues us these days.
I’m not really concerned about Buddhism. In my opinion, if I am allowed to have one, it is another cult that deceives mankind into believing a lie.
I believe it was Stephen who declared himself to be a Buddhist. Evidently, he has not reached the state of enlightenment yet. If I understand you correctly, once a person reaches enlightenment, the cares of the world no longer matter. Stephen is still concerned a lot about the world.
You said, “One of the major problems today is the belief that because one affiliates oneself with a religion that one is religious. Nothing could be further from the truth and it applies to all religions and their followers.”
I have to disagree with you. My Christian beliefs and those of most Evangelical Christians is that our religion is not necessarily something we believe or practice, it is a way of life. In other words, Christianity is not something we do. It is our lifestyle. Many on this site want to lump all Christians into the same mold. There is as much difference between Baptist (for example) and Catholics as between day and night. They both use the name “Christian”, but their doctrinal stand is totally opposite. I believe one of the problems those on the left have is understanding what and how we believe. For us to separate our Christian convictions from our actions would be like removing an arm or leg. Our beliefs are part of our makeup. I also understand there are many die-hard Democrats who also hold to the same Christian beliefs as conservatives and yet vote liberal. But judging from the attacks on Christians (by many on the left), it stands to reason most Evangelical Christians vote conservatively.
You said, “And that reason alone is sufficient to insure that religions and politics are separate.”
It is for this reason that our religion and our politics cannot be separated. What we believe affects everything we do. To a certain extent, a politician who is elected and is a Christian, his religion will intertwine with his political work. This may appear to be wrong in some people’s eyes, but to his constituents, there is not a problem. Especially if his voters believe as he does. An example is Zell Miller. He was from the Bible belt and his supporters felt the same way he did. I know not all, but the majority that voted for him did. To the eyes of the rest of the Democratic Party, he was a traitor, because they did not hold his convictions.
I opened a can of worms when I brought the term Humanism into the equation. I don’t think I made myself clear. Humanism is not an organized religion, but it is a religion. The principles of Humanism are not taught like you would teach a Bible class. The principles of Humanism are subtle and these principles are taught in schools, universities, and are in government. I was not talking about Humanism being taught in a school as an elective. On this very site, liberal and conservative principles are being taught. Some teaching is subtle and some is blatant, but the principles are still taught. There is not a class being taught. If you understand the principles or beliefs of Humanism, then you are able to see how these principles are injected into everyday life. The concern is that our government will become a theocracy and I say to you it is already a theocracy because the principles and beliefs of Humanism have already permeated our government and court system.
Donny-
(and everyone else…)
I have realized that perhaps I need to tie up some loose ends from my previous post. I have a tendency to get interrupted while writing, and thereby leave gaps in explaining myself.
This is from my previous response to Donny’s questions about the purpose of Christian prayer.
Christianity, in a sense, views the Old Testament as the history of God desiring trust from his people. God consistently, throughout the OT, blesses the Hebrew nation when they trust in his strength to overcome their obstacles, and he consistently allows them to be overrun when they rely on their own strength to gain their own desires.
The point of my mentioning the history of the Jewish nation is to illustrate how strongly God desires us to put aside our reliance in our own strength, and trust in him. There are many instances where Christ teaches not to worry about tomorrow because God takes care of those who will let him (strong paraphrasing there). So one of the main purposes of prayer, for myself at least, is to receive guidance, and request strength/wisdom or whatever other attributes I might need to see (and carry out) what God would have for me to do. Prayer is only in the most shallow sense an activity to beg for God to conform reality to our desires. Because when you truly trust him, you learn as Paul did ‘to be content in every situation.’ Whereby you do not need to request changes from God, you trust that his hand is at work, and you accept God’s promise that ‘all things work together for good to those who love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.’
So, I guess, to answer your question: Yes, human decisions are in our hands, but God asks that we give our will to him (as seen from the plight of the Jewish nation). Ultimately, the Christian believes, human destiny is in God’s hands, working through those who will serve him, and in ways which we do not even see.
I consider myself to have given my will over to him, although I am in no way perfect. There are times where I must check myself, and surrender my actions to God. That is not to say that I don’t do anything but read the bible and pray all day. Rather, I make sure that the things in which I involve myself are not so important to me that I wouldn’t drop them in an instant if God presented me with an urgent task. Nor do I feel as though I must stand on a street corner and quote scripture at passersby. I work on a really personal basis, which I feel is the only way that really works in our current society. Preaching fire and brimstone, and thumping the bible at people in the street may have worked in years past, but now, it takes a lot of personal attention and care to overcome the prevalent cynicism of our society. And I’m not talking about trying to fool these people into thinking I care, because I genuinely do. Its very difficult because there is a high level of investment required for each person, and I’m only one individual. But I believe that after the past few years, I’ve made an impression on a fair number of people. This is not to say that I’ve ‘made converts of them’ but rather I’ve shown them a side of Christianity which is not hypocritical and self-contradictory. I’m glad I could (hopefully) show you a little of the same.
Posted by: AParker at April 8, 2005 10:54 AMBlaine:
“In my opinion […] [Buddism] is another cult that deceives mankind into believing a lie.”
To which I respond, there is no such thing as the truth.
Posted by: Zeek at April 8, 2005 12:53 PMZeek -
To which I respond, there is no such thing as the truth.
Is that statement, itself, true?
Posted by: Daniel at April 8, 2005 01:55 PMBlaine, it is precisely your claim that Evangelical Christians have their convictions attached to them like a limb and yet they need not live it, conviction is enough, which is what is so bloody scary and will ultimately turn this nation against evangelicals in the end.
At the heart of it, is Evangelicals who would dictate laws governing how others live according to the Evangelical’s own convictions, regardless of whether the laws themselves are good for the nation and the majority or not, is the crux. When Evangelical Christains, fundamentalist Muslims, or dedicated hedonists dictate law, they spawn the seeds of revolution and civil strife. Religious freedom ultimately is antithetical to Evangelical or fundamentalist religions.
The psychology of what is happening today by fundamentalists, is simply that the world is outgrowing fundamentalist religion, and we are witnessing the last desperate attempts by fundamentalists around the globe to hold on to their anachronist modes of thinking, their moral certainty which elevates them above all others, and their defensive perceptions of where the world is headed.
But, if we don’t destroy humanity in the process, fundamentalism will go the way of the Hippies, ardent, defensive, and righteously certain they are right. In the end however, the world will pass them by in their little bastions and small hamlets to become extinct in a world driven by empiricism and its far more tolerant and accepting views which permit individual differences of thought and behavior and custom provided those differences do not threathen the empirical world’s progress.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2005 02:48 PMDavid,
That was me who asked but thanks for the response. I didn’t expect such a good answer. I might actually consider it.
Blaine,
Humanism isn’t taught anymore in schools and universities than what Christianity is so I don’t know why you have a gripe. Humanism itself is not an elective. Psychology is the elective. Humanism is covered for one day of a 90 day semester in Chapter 12-4 in my text book. Sigmund Freud will be covered about 30 times more than anything from Abraham Moslow and his philosophies.
Daniel
“Is that statement, itself, true?”
Meh, who cares?
Posted by: Zeek at April 8, 2005 03:57 PMDonny, and well Freud should be covered 30 times more. Not because all his body of work holds up today, much of it does not. But, he is up there with Einstein and Michaelangelo in the way he fathered an entirely (non-religious, non-Dickens type,) new and humane approach to dealing with emotional and behavioral disorders. He was the founder of a revolution in humanity that fostered hospitals and doctors instead of prisons and guards in response to aberrant behavior and mental stress.
Now if we could only get 65% of our politicians into a shrink, the country might be a helluva lot better off.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2005 04:38 PMAdrienne-
Well, Maybe I haven’t read that whole Nag Hammadi archive, but I’ve read enough of the Gnostic texts to have come to the conclusion that they are are highly overrated.
I do believe the Bible has something of a male-oriented bias, natural considering the cultures it came from. What I’ve read, though, is not mysogynist in comparison to some contemporary writings, and once you get past the subjective outlook of the people of that time, there’s a great deal of real-world applicable wisdom at work in the text.
I don’t have a problem with the supernatural elements of the text. While I’m quite a skeptic on Mysteries of the Unknown type stuff, having discovered just how malleable the human mind is, I do find a great deal compelling in the biblical portrait of God.
We know very little about Jesus’s life, between age 12, when he struck up the discussions with the Rabbis at temple, and Age 30, when he took that fateful dunk in the Jordan. He could have been married. Or he might have decided to become celibate. We have no clear idea of what kind of sexual values Jesus had, but we know that he wasn’t too bad about such matters.
We know this because he takes women into his ministry, preached to prostitutes, and saved a woman from stoning at the hands of her accusers. He may have said that to look at a woman in lust was to commit a sin, but I think he wasn’t so much saying you couldn’t look at a woman and find her beautiful or captivating, but rather that one shouldn’t covet her, treat her as an object that was rightfully yours.
The Messiah presented in Christ is a peacemaker in a time where many follow warrior messiahs, a person whose ministry managed to recover from the leader dying a tortured, cursed criminal’s death on a cross, a death the pre-Niceaean Gospels maintain he freely accepted. Freely accepted.
Mark, Matthew and Luke are very similar, but their differences are marked. Matthewpresents Jesus as the new Moses. Luke presents Jesus to the gentiles in terms they understand. Mark presents a mysterious savior whose nature is not fully understood in his lifetime.
John is fairly different, filled with long debates, deep symbolism and some of the most mystical language in the gospels. These gospels are much older, much closer to the source, and their antiquity is not guesswork on my part, but scientific fact. They are works of the early church, not works composed a century and a half later, like most of the Gnostic Gospels.
The Gnostics approach this world as the creation of an evil Godlike power, a demiurge, which has separated mankind from it’s true nature, and plunged it into a world of deceptions. The key to everlasting life, whether one indulges or becomes ascetic, is not whether somebody becomes a good person inside, forgiving and tolerant- it’s whether they learn the magic words, perform the magic rites. It’s cheap grace, and the rejection of a wonderful world. In regular Christianity, the world is flawed. In Gnostic Christianity, it’s actively evil. I don’t know about you, but I prefer a religion that says the world around us is the creation of a Good God, not an evil spirit. I prefer a God who asks us to redeem ourselves, instead of giving us heaven like some would give membership to a speakeasy.
While I will stipulate that males quickly pushed women out of the positions of authority, I would also say that if you read the bible, you’ll find plenty of wise, strong women, who acquitted themselves marvelously consider the prevailing sexism of the time. I think it is a moderate enough part of the work that the lessons of the bible can largely be applied today.
As for the matter of God’s presence, The holy spirit is common to all. God is within us all. He just doesn’t require you to become initiated into some cult to enable your salvation. The secrets available to a Christian are no different than the ones you can find just by opening a bible. That’s the beauty of not going the Gnostic path.
Blaine-
I’m sorry, David Remer’s the Buddhist. I’m a Roman Catholic. But in following our late great pope’s traditions, I respect the buddhist faith, especially the insights of Zen Buddhism. I think you underestimate the extent of God’s grace if you don’t think at least some of it filters through by other religions.
Religion should guide our actions and our votes, but we must be watchful for when the influence starts heading the other ways. I think the biggest trap that conservative evangelicals have fallen into is letting the conservative ideology overwhelm their Christian faith.
I mean, where is the forgiveness, the peace of Christ in the modern Republican party? Where is the peacemaking, the uprightness? I know these are attributes that both parties should possess, but the Republican party has made a point of presenting itself as following biblical mandates. They have set the terms by which they and their co-religionists are judged.
Zell Miller was a traitor not because he disagreed with us, but because he so thoroughly joined himself to those slandering us about our commitment to defend this country. It feels like getting stabbed in the back to have suffered and raged alongside my fellow citizens on 9/11, having called not only for the removal of the Taliban, but the use of our army in force to do so, only to find that the other party has decided to paint me, and those like me as weak-willed, lily-livered cowards and turncoats.
Do you understand the sinful nature of such slander? Of such defamation, short of the facts? We voted for the same wars, only now we have to face that one of those wars was not sold to us on an honest basis.
Is it not a sin to lead people to their death’s by deception? What good is the Republican’s support of Christian Culture, if it’s leaders do the most un-Christian things?
You can allege that humanism is to blame for all of socities ills, but I think that is at best a distraction from the individual trials of morality we are subject to. When we start blaming the worlds ills on a group safely distant from us, we are guaranteed to underestimate the evil we ourselves are capable of.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 8, 2005 09:15 PMBlaine-
An additional note on evangelism.
I was a student for my college career at one of the world’s leading evangelical colleges. I found it refreshing that many of the people who taught there could both confess religious faith, and act like the people I expected Christians to be: Kind, forgiving, understanding. As St. Francis Assisi once said, preach the gospel always- use words only when necessary.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 8, 2005 09:20 PM“preach the gospel always- use words only when necessary.”
That’s brilliant :)
Posted by: Zeek at April 9, 2005 01:05 AMStephen:
Sorry I got you and David mixed up. While was typing, I was thinking to myself, how could an Irishman with a name like Stephen Daugherty be anything but a Catholic?
I get the impression from you, David and others that evangelical Christians are an evil bunch. Blindly following the conservative ideology. There are many things in the conservative movement that are contrary to our beliefs. We tolerate some things and voice our opinion for change with others. I have tried to explain; we hold to certain convictions and beliefs. I have also tried to explain humanistic ideology changes to fit situations. It’s impossible to have set convictions when situations constantly change. Is there a problem having a set of standards in our lives? Almost all my friends and family are Christians and I personally have never met a better group of people. What some of you describe as Christians certainly does not fit in my situation. The Christians I know would do anything for any person. We personally support a mission that feeds and clothes inner city people. Many of us actually spend our free time working in the mission. We have literally sent tons of food and supplies to a pastor friend of ours in Haiti. He is a native of Haiti and not of our denomination, but that means nothing to us because they had a need and we tried to supply for the need. We support missionaries to many countries. I realize our purpose is to give them the Gospel, but we also provide medical, food, clothes, and personal needs. We send candy and toys to the children in Ukraine. This type of work takes place all over the country by thousands of evangelical churches. This is not the kind of people reported by those on the left. There are bad actors in every situation. I do not believe all on the left or the middle are consumed with hate, but there are some. Should I base my opinions of all on the actions of a few? Don’t base your opinions on the actions of a few either. Most I know are loving, forgiving, and understanding. You mistake convictions for intolerance. Many evangelical Christians on this site have repeatedly said they hate the sin, but love the sinner. Is that so hard to believe?
There is such hated for President Bush. Can you honestly tell me when it started? It is not the war, because the hatred was there before the war. Why is it others can vote and support according to their convictions but we are considered ignorant and ill informed when we do the same thing?
Blaine:
“evangelical Christians are an evil bunch. Blindly following the conservative ideology”
Yep, I’d have to agree with you there.
“Many evangelical Christians on this site have repeatedly said they hate the sin, but love the sinner. Is that so hard to believe?”
Considering how many evangelical Christians OFF the blog I have met who hate both the sin and the sinner, I’d have to say it is hard to believe.
“There is such hated for President Bush. Can you honestly tell me when it started?”
I’m pretty sure it’s for the same reason Republicans hate Clinton. No matter what they do, or how hard they try, they can’t seem to beat him.
Posted by: Zeek at April 9, 2005 03:19 PMIs there a problem having a set of standards in our lives?
Blaine,
You do have a set of standards in your life, which is admirable, but you have to learn to take other’s for who they are as well. You are not Jesus. You are not a judge. The fact is about evangelical Christians are that no matter how much they preach; they fail to follow their own doctrine for loving, understanding and the lack of judging.
Having missionaires are fine but are you doing this to feed the hungry or are you doing this to buy people out into conversion? For some reason, I smell a bribe going on.
You can point out all of the good qualities of someone, but if that person is a murderer; he is still a murderer. You can do all of this good but the whole “Muslims are evil”, “gays are going to hell”, “****scream bloody murder***** the world is going to end” makes your group look bad. Of course, you are going to argue that your friends are not like that but I have pushed so many buttons on so many Christians; even moderate Christians that when you see their true colors, you’d be surprised. How many times have you done that? If you have, you might have a different opinion of these “Evangelical Christians.”
Posted by: Donny Goodman at April 9, 2005 04:07 PMBlaine-
You’re not reading my posts closely enough. I’m a graduate of one of the most evangelical colleges there is: Baylor University. I know Religious conservatives, and one served as a mentor to me in college. I posted previously that they taught me a lot about how religious conservatives could be tolerant, kind, and good people.
Trouble is, you’re trying to tell other people what they’re thinking, and they have different (and far more accurate) ideas about what they believe. Maybe you need to spend a little time among some nice liberals. Then you would discovered what I did: most people are good, and concerned about avoiding evil in their lives.
Bush’s problems with us start with 9/11. It starts with him making a whole number of promises about tracking down and destroying the people who did this. Promising he would get Osama Bin Laden Dead or alive. Months later, having let him slip through our fingers, he goes on national television and tells us that finding him is no longer important, because he no longer has a secure sanctuary.
So he leaves us unavenged. Yes, he took out the Taliban. Hell, I would have had our soldiers do that job, fight that war, and administrate the place afterwards. I would have had us rebuild the country from the ground up. He not only failed to get our enemies, he mocked our concerns by saying he wasn’t important anymore. Never mind the Taliban and al-Qaeda’s rise went hand hand in hand. Bush would later say we fight in Iraq so we don’t have to fight terrorists here. Where was that attitude when the people who struck at us were on the run.
Then, in the 2002 elections, he campaigns on the old sort of Cold War recriminations about how Democrats are soft on defense. Never mind that it was a Democrat stronghold that got struck the worse, that we started the year in the spirit of unity. We liked not being the designated enemies of the state for once. We liked being united with our Republican brethren to take on a real threat to our national security. But they wanted a permanent Republican majority. They took Max Cleland, a war hero who lost three limbs in a grenade accident he wasn’t at fault for, and inaccurately portrayed him as a bumbling drunk who blew himself up, then tried to claim he lost his limbs in combat. This to elect a man who sat out vietnam with a bad knee.
I guess they felt they had to save America from half its Americans. That hurt. He didn’t destroy the enemy when he had the chance, and now he was turning us into the enemy.
But that isn’t it. The Iraq War sealed it. First, he decides to attack a country that is nowhere near the terrorist sponsor that even it’s immediate neighbors are. This, while a war in Afghanistan, a known terrorist haven, remains incomplete. Then, to get us over our natural skepticism, he present us with a dire case that on later examination turns out to be utter B.S. But that isn’t the end of it. He lets the country get out of control, after a brilliant victory, and refuses to do what it takes to assert control again, refuses to bring in more troops. The death toll mounts, and he continues to deny he’s done anything wrong. Then the Cities fall to the insurgents, to al-Sadr’s militias, and so on, and so forth.
How many times do we have to watch him make unfulfilled promises, screw up things, and beat us up for even discussing the problems out there before we get to be angry at this fellow? We’re not unjustified with our anger and our negative attitudes about him. He’s had his chances to redeem his behavior. He hasn’t taken them, and instead criticizes us for anger he stirred in our hearts.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2005 07:52 PMDonny-
Your cynicism about evangelicals undermines your point about not judging people. You’re dismissing an entire group needlessly. Yes, Evangelicals fall short of their principles. Why? Because they’re human, and human beings are fallible.
But are they redeemable? That is the question. A murderer is not merely a murderer, but also a human being who can decide differently next time, who can make new choices, and new efforts to redeem him or herself until the day they die. That is the notion underlying the Christian notion of forgiveness. You can choose your path in life, even to the last moment.
I’ve faced Evangelicals who were hostile, and those who were kind, and wise. But I didn’t go around trying to make trouble with them. You go out there to put people to the test, and with a mindset to ferret out their weakness, and you will find fault. But before you cast the first stone, ask yourself why you’re pushing these people’s buttons in the first place, and whether their anger is justified in the face of your button-pushing. It’s not a sin to lose your temper. Christians are not vulcans. It’s a sin to let that anger, that lack of forgiveness become the basis of your life. We can justify a lot of wrong by believing other people’s action justify our offenses against them.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 9, 2005 09:36 PMStephen
How many times do we have to watch him make unfulfilled promises, screw up things, and beat us up for even discussing the problems out there before we get to be angry at this fellow? We’re not unjustified with our anger and our negative attitudes about him. He’s had his chances to redeem his behavior. He hasn’t taken them, and instead criticizes us for anger he stirred in our hearts.
And in the end he may just be proven right if Democracy continues it’s march through the midddle east.
Craig
Craig,
Yah… Democracy in Iraq… whatever… Call me selfish, but I’m more concerned about the home front at this point in time.
Posted by: Zeek at April 10, 2005 12:14 AMCraig-
The cause of democracy means nothing if it is not fulfilled, or if it degenerates into chaos and/or tyranny.
Bush has put us in a weak position with this policy for a war that could not do what it what it was originally intended to do, and has put America at risk for leaving behind just the kind of threat we were supposed to eradicated by invading in the first place.
Regardless of whether Iraq succeeds, it has been a distraction, and has provided al-Qaeda with a chance to recover. It has committed our resources to situation where we are sitting ducks to a campaign of guerilla warfare.
It has exhausted much of the national will born of 9/11 for a war that will have mixed results at best, in relation to its original premises. Democracy will make the war a success only if you ignore the threat of terrorism. That’s why Bush insists on the patently stupid terrorist magnet theory. It lets conservatives think they haven’t failed by this war to lessen the threat.
We can’t recover the lost opportunities to fight terrorism, or bring back the lives lost. We can’t recover the moral high-ground we had as a country truly fighting in its own defense against a sworn enemy who had struck first. (at us, not some other country).
It’s not that I’m pessimistic about things getting better. I can’t help but think, though, that things could have been done better, and that we will pay a price for the incompetent choice and execution of this war. I would like to have reason to think that things might improve, that the pressures of this campaign might end up creating a diamond from this lump of coal.
But I have seen enough things go wrong under this president that didn’t have to, that I would feel foolish giving him the benefit of the doubt. He’s already had it! Additionally, I am not only worrying about this war.
His refusals to face the nature of his errors in this war may mean that he repeats his mistakes in the next. How can we trust him to justify his next war, if he hasn’t admitted fault in how he built the case for this one? How can we trust him to use sufficient force to win the next war, if he’s going to continue to say he fielded enough troops in this one? If he isn’t learning from his mistakes, or avoiding them in the first place, then the next time, regardless of our good intentions, we may end up fighting a losing war, or at least one that draws more blood and resources than it should.
Too many lives, and too much of our resources get put on the line when we go to war for us to take a negligent attitude to the mistakes that get made. More than anything else, it is this attitude that the errors of justifying an waging this war don’t matter that make us angry about this president. It should matter.
We should not tolerate being this wrong in our choice of war, or our manner of fighting it, merely because a good outcome is possible. We should strive for a higher standard of excellence and judgment, because our lives and our defense are at stake.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 10, 2005 09:01 AMI regret that I missed most of this very lively debate, but other pressing matter grabbed my attention soon after I posted this article. Sufficed to say there are a lot of varying views points on the issue of religion, and as time wears on I am drifting further and further away from the opinion that it serves any useful purpose absent the near-infallibility of its practitioners. I truly believe its time for mankind to throw off the shackles of fear of the unknown and unknowable and relegate religion to the waist-bin along with Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. At this point in our history it only serve to stop our logical progression as truly enlightened, free thinking, critical thinking beings
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at April 10, 2005 07:57 PM
