Mike Lux recently posed an ignorant laced self deluded question in the form of a post. In his Huffington Post piece, "What Bible Is Santorum Reading?", he counts up the various verses that lead him to assume there are few if any aspects of the Bible that can be used to justify a conservative political interpretation.
He fails to note one rather significant verse that can be seen to either cripple or outright negate his claims
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Mathew 5:17
In other words, the Christ figure claims to be in favor of all the laws contained in the Old Testament. If you haven't read or paid attention to what you read in that part of the Bible, it is by no means favorable to liberal positions. I am not trying to claim that Christ was a conservative. Rather, my point is that the Bible is highly subjective and can be interpreted to mean virtually anything you want it to mean. The same is true of Jesus. There are no verifiable facts about him. He never existed. As a mythical figure it is easy to shape what little information there is in the New Testament to suit any purpose you have in mind.
There should be little or no concern paid to Santorum's personal interpretation of an ancient work of fiction. What people should be concerned by is his insistence on making public policy based on it. Religion has no place in the governance and policies that effect all of us, period!
If people wish to shape their own lives around what may or may not be in the Bible they have every right to do so. Just leave the rest of us out of it.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Religious Liberty a la Bishops' Conference
"Among the challenges we see is a pattern in culture and law to treat religion merely as a private matter between an individual and his or her God.Instead of promoting toleration of differing religious views, certain laws, court decisions, and administrative regulations treat religion not as a contributor to our nation's common morality but rather as a divisive and disruptive force better kept out of public life. Some invoke the so-called doctrine of separation of church and state to exclude the Church from public policy, thus ignoring the historic role of churches in ending slavery, in securing civil rights, in promoting just labor practices, including the introduction of child labor laws."
from section "III. What We See" of Address on Religious Liberty
by US Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
I fail to see how treating faith as "a private matter between an individual and his or her God" is in anyway intolerant. In fact, I'd argue that that attitude is the corner stone of religious freedom. The moment you begin favoring the idea of religion's involvement in public policy it becomes inevitable that specific aspects of a particular religious sect gains dominance over others. Religions, even the sects/denomination of a single religion, are too contentious to all be given equal weight in public matters. Nothing would ever get accomplished since each would be pushing the policy in different directions.
It is also interesting to note the committee's denial of a long standing foundational concept of US democracy, separation of church and state. They refer to as "the so-called doctrine of separation of church and state." It is possible to argue that the church contributed to a number of social justice issues. However, there can be no argument to the contrary that the church helped to create and prolong all the above social problems referenced. Slavery is a good example. The Bible clearly supports slavery. The Bible was used to excuse and justify slavery. Believers who opposed slavery ended up having to do some creative interpretation or else focus on doctrines without the use of biblical allusions. Basically, the church's "historic role" is a poor foundation to make an argument about anything.
"This aids and abets the erosion of religious liberty, which is expressly recognized and protected by the First Amendment, by the imposition of court-mandated "rights" which have no textual basis in the Constitution such as those that pertain to abortion and same-sex marriage. Refusal to endorse the taking of innocent human life or to redefine marriage is now portrayed as discriminatory. As a result, the freedom of religious entities to provide services according to their own lights, to defend publicly their teachings, and even to choose and manage their own personnel is coming under increased attack."
also from section "III. What We See"
The Bishops use a rather blatant and self-serving double standard. There is nothing in the constitution that grants religious believer the right to dictate to anyone else what they should accept as right or wrong. They falsely claim they are forced to defend their views. From what are they defending against. There are no public policies that force anyone to have an abortion or to think it is moral to do so. The bishops are free to think that abortion is immoral just as the are still free to teach in every parish across the country that it is immoral. They do not have the right to insist that I agree with them or the right to prevent others from seeking abortions. That right is not in the constitution! It is the Bishops who are provoking others to attack their opinions.
I also find it the height of hypocrisy that this group of pampered individuals think they can take a morally superior position when they have not only failed to protect the well being of children but have continually aided and abetted sexual predators. Before lashing out at others for what they believe to be moral lapses they aught to take a long look at themselves. Enabling, concealing, and then refusing responsibility for the rape of countless children is truly despicable. Setting aside the hypocrisy and arrogance laced throughout the address, it is astonishing to me that anyone can view this group of men as having any legitimate moral authority. I have no doubt that if it were not for their Roman collars and miter hats they would all be under investigation if not already locked up for their crimes. Make no mistake, they have committed crimes. Bishop Dolan, who head the conference, among others has conspired to conceal the crimes of others and in so doing has not only committed multiple crimes but has behaved in ways that can not possibly be seen as anything other than immoral.
from section "III. What We See" of Address on Religious Liberty
by US Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty
I fail to see how treating faith as "a private matter between an individual and his or her God" is in anyway intolerant. In fact, I'd argue that that attitude is the corner stone of religious freedom. The moment you begin favoring the idea of religion's involvement in public policy it becomes inevitable that specific aspects of a particular religious sect gains dominance over others. Religions, even the sects/denomination of a single religion, are too contentious to all be given equal weight in public matters. Nothing would ever get accomplished since each would be pushing the policy in different directions.
It is also interesting to note the committee's denial of a long standing foundational concept of US democracy, separation of church and state. They refer to as "the so-called doctrine of separation of church and state." It is possible to argue that the church contributed to a number of social justice issues. However, there can be no argument to the contrary that the church helped to create and prolong all the above social problems referenced. Slavery is a good example. The Bible clearly supports slavery. The Bible was used to excuse and justify slavery. Believers who opposed slavery ended up having to do some creative interpretation or else focus on doctrines without the use of biblical allusions. Basically, the church's "historic role" is a poor foundation to make an argument about anything.
"This aids and abets the erosion of religious liberty, which is expressly recognized and protected by the First Amendment, by the imposition of court-mandated "rights" which have no textual basis in the Constitution such as those that pertain to abortion and same-sex marriage. Refusal to endorse the taking of innocent human life or to redefine marriage is now portrayed as discriminatory. As a result, the freedom of religious entities to provide services according to their own lights, to defend publicly their teachings, and even to choose and manage their own personnel is coming under increased attack."
also from section "III. What We See"
The Bishops use a rather blatant and self-serving double standard. There is nothing in the constitution that grants religious believer the right to dictate to anyone else what they should accept as right or wrong. They falsely claim they are forced to defend their views. From what are they defending against. There are no public policies that force anyone to have an abortion or to think it is moral to do so. The bishops are free to think that abortion is immoral just as the are still free to teach in every parish across the country that it is immoral. They do not have the right to insist that I agree with them or the right to prevent others from seeking abortions. That right is not in the constitution! It is the Bishops who are provoking others to attack their opinions.
I also find it the height of hypocrisy that this group of pampered individuals think they can take a morally superior position when they have not only failed to protect the well being of children but have continually aided and abetted sexual predators. Before lashing out at others for what they believe to be moral lapses they aught to take a long look at themselves. Enabling, concealing, and then refusing responsibility for the rape of countless children is truly despicable. Setting aside the hypocrisy and arrogance laced throughout the address, it is astonishing to me that anyone can view this group of men as having any legitimate moral authority. I have no doubt that if it were not for their Roman collars and miter hats they would all be under investigation if not already locked up for their crimes. Make no mistake, they have committed crimes. Bishop Dolan, who head the conference, among others has conspired to conceal the crimes of others and in so doing has not only committed multiple crimes but has behaved in ways that can not possibly be seen as anything other than immoral.
When expressions are seen as appeals....
... and subtitles trump substance, intelligent public discourse is in serious jeopardy!
"Oh,God!", "Jesus H. Christ!", "Holy Shit!",...
Does making such exclamations automatically make one religious? Does this mean that shit is holy whether I stub my toe or not?
Apparently, Giles Fraser, BBC Radio 4, and the Huffington Post think so. It also seems that forgetting the subtitle to a book indicates a lack of knowledge of what that book contains. Like most theistic critics of outspoken atheists Fraser wields a variety of long debunked myths and stereotypes as if they are some type of talisman. The Origin of the Species is an important book but not for the reasons he and other such ignorant fools think. It helped establish a new field of science, evolutionary biology, but is not the field in and of itself.
Giles can't help but call Dawkins "the high pope of Darwinism" thus exposing himself as a stupid bigot and an asshole as well. Atheism is not nor does it resemble a religion. Dawkins is not even a spokesman let alone a holy man for atheism. He is an outspoken atheist, period. While we are at it, Darwinism is not a synonym for evolution. There is no Darwinism except in the minds of those who can't quite figure out that the theory of evolution has progressed far beyond what Darwin was capable of in his time. He laid the early groundwork and deserves respect for what he did accomplish but evolution has evolved.
Dawkins momentary memory lapse over something as trivial as a subtitle probably would never have been noted if theists like Giles could actually construct a decent argument or provide anything resembling proof. He can't. Instead, he lashes out like a spoiled child. The feeble attempt to equate it with the questions of the survey that was suppose to be the point of the radio exchange fails miserably. You don't have to actually know what is in Origins of the Species to learn about the contemporary version of Evolutionary Theory. On the other hand, most major religions insist you must not only know but practice specific doctrines to be part of that faith. Giles insistence that it is "not fair to ask people these questions" is preposterous.
It is not those posing the questions who came up with the defining tenets of Christianity. They are simply noting that many self-described Christians don't live up to the standards set up by the doctrines and leadership of that religion. Don't blame us for your delusions, hypocrisies, and double standards. As I have stated in previous posts I am fine with people self-identifying with whatever they want so long as they accept responsibility for that identity. I do find it odd that people continue to identify with a system of beliefs they clearly do not believe.
So far as I can tell the survey is not about telling people they cannot self identify. It does expose the foolishness of linking oneself to group you tend to disagree with on a fundamental level. It also seems intend on taking away some of the authority religious leaders like to claim based on the number of their followers. I fail see anything wrong with such an approach.
"Oh,God!", "Jesus H. Christ!", "Holy Shit!",...
Does making such exclamations automatically make one religious? Does this mean that shit is holy whether I stub my toe or not?
Apparently, Giles Fraser, BBC Radio 4, and the Huffington Post think so. It also seems that forgetting the subtitle to a book indicates a lack of knowledge of what that book contains. Like most theistic critics of outspoken atheists Fraser wields a variety of long debunked myths and stereotypes as if they are some type of talisman. The Origin of the Species is an important book but not for the reasons he and other such ignorant fools think. It helped establish a new field of science, evolutionary biology, but is not the field in and of itself.
Giles can't help but call Dawkins "the high pope of Darwinism" thus exposing himself as a stupid bigot and an asshole as well. Atheism is not nor does it resemble a religion. Dawkins is not even a spokesman let alone a holy man for atheism. He is an outspoken atheist, period. While we are at it, Darwinism is not a synonym for evolution. There is no Darwinism except in the minds of those who can't quite figure out that the theory of evolution has progressed far beyond what Darwin was capable of in his time. He laid the early groundwork and deserves respect for what he did accomplish but evolution has evolved.
Dawkins momentary memory lapse over something as trivial as a subtitle probably would never have been noted if theists like Giles could actually construct a decent argument or provide anything resembling proof. He can't. Instead, he lashes out like a spoiled child. The feeble attempt to equate it with the questions of the survey that was suppose to be the point of the radio exchange fails miserably. You don't have to actually know what is in Origins of the Species to learn about the contemporary version of Evolutionary Theory. On the other hand, most major religions insist you must not only know but practice specific doctrines to be part of that faith. Giles insistence that it is "not fair to ask people these questions" is preposterous.
It is not those posing the questions who came up with the defining tenets of Christianity. They are simply noting that many self-described Christians don't live up to the standards set up by the doctrines and leadership of that religion. Don't blame us for your delusions, hypocrisies, and double standards. As I have stated in previous posts I am fine with people self-identifying with whatever they want so long as they accept responsibility for that identity. I do find it odd that people continue to identify with a system of beliefs they clearly do not believe.
So far as I can tell the survey is not about telling people they cannot self identify. It does expose the foolishness of linking oneself to group you tend to disagree with on a fundamental level. It also seems intend on taking away some of the authority religious leaders like to claim based on the number of their followers. I fail see anything wrong with such an approach.
Why the Controversy?
Why is it that a billboard with an atheistic message is automatically controversial but one with a Christian message is not?
African Americans for Humanism are starting a billboard campaign that is actually rather mild in tone. But tone never seems to matter when it comes to atheism. The most outspoken among atheists are always characterized as shrill, angry, and/or militant. It never matters how civil they are. Dawkins is a great example. He is often forceful in his speaking style but I have yet to see him lose his temper or behave in a rude uncivil manner yet that is how he tends to be described.
So what is going to be on the billboards?
"Doubts about your religion? You are one of many."
That is what the controversy is over. How pathetic are those who protest over such a simple question.
African Americans for Humanism are starting a billboard campaign that is actually rather mild in tone. But tone never seems to matter when it comes to atheism. The most outspoken among atheists are always characterized as shrill, angry, and/or militant. It never matters how civil they are. Dawkins is a great example. He is often forceful in his speaking style but I have yet to see him lose his temper or behave in a rude uncivil manner yet that is how he tends to be described.
So what is going to be on the billboards?
"Doubts about your religion? You are one of many."
That is what the controversy is over. How pathetic are those who protest over such a simple question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)