November 1, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:More fun from British journalists
I watch BBC America in the morning,because unlike American news, it acts like the world is actually, you know, round. This morning, however, I got an amusing shock during a segment on American evangelicals, in which the reporter asked some Republican something-or-other: "Can you be elected to higher office in America without being a Christian?"
I sure hope Senator Lieberman wasn't watching.
Posted by Jane Galt at November 1, 2006 8:13 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>But a minor variation of that -- "Can you be elected to higher office in America without being (or at least appearing) religious" would be a pretty reasonable question. And the answer seems to be no.
Posted by: Slocum on November 1, 2006 8:34 AMYou can win state-wide office in a few states if you're Jewish, but none if you are openly atheist.
You can not win the presidency if you are not a white, christian male. Nor can you win the American presidency if you are bald, very short, very tall, very overweight, have a large unsightly birth-mark etc. We are a shallow and easily manipulated people. You simply can not spot your opponent such a big lead out of the starting gate and expect to win.
Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are all deluding themselves that they can possibly be president. The best any of them could hope for is to shame us out of our superficiality after their spectacular failures.
Posted by: Njorl on November 1, 2006 9:42 AMNjori: you don't think you could win statewide office in Oregon or Vermont or Massachusetts if you were an open atheist? I think you could.
Posted by: Klug on November 1, 2006 10:12 AM"You can not win the presidency if you are not a white, christian male."
Didn't this used to be "You can not win the presidency if you are not a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male" until JFK came along? Since him there have been at least three presidents of partial Irish descent.
Posted by: Frank McGahon on November 1, 2006 10:16 AMNjorl,
Joe Liberman isn't running for President.
John Mcain will run for President but won't be selected because he doesn't have a broad enough appeal within his own party were he is widely regarded to be a RINO.
Hillary Clinton won't be President, not because she is a woman, but that she is almost universally seen in a negative light outside of liberal northeastern states.
Barack Obama won't be President, not in 2008 anyway, because despite being a darling to the media he is unknown outside of his home state.
Posted by: Tolbert on November 1, 2006 10:22 AMIsn't that like saying you can't be elected president unless you have two arms?
Yes, there were some evangelicals who were energized by W. running, but I don't know any that voted for Clinton because he was a Baptist. All the Catholics that I know voted against Kerry. Pat Robertson, OTOH is quite religious, and didn't get very far at all.
I run in extremely conservative religious circles and if I were to make a generalization about our feelings it would be support for the GWOT, not whether you go to church or not.
In an election between Joe Lieberman and John McCain, Lieberman wins hands down among the go to church three times a week, right wing, fundamentalist church where I go.
And in the much more likey election scenario between Hillary and Condi, we will have a woman president.
Posted by: Reagan Fan on November 1, 2006 10:23 AMNjorl,
Since when is John McCain not a white Christian male? Or did I just fail to notice a large unsightly birthmark?
You can not win the presidency if you are not a white, christian male.
Lieberman was up for Vice President. Just a heartbeat away, and all that, remember?
We are a shallow and easily manipulated people.
Remember, kiddies, whenever a writer uses "we" in this manner, he really means: "you".
Posted by: Angie Schultz on November 1, 2006 10:36 AM"Nor can you win the American presidency if you are bald, very short, very tall, very overweight, have a large unsightly birth-mark etc."
FDR ??
But I agree, in general. Al Gore won the female vote in 2000 by 10% - possibly because he was taller than Bush. He lost the male vote by the same 10%, possibly becuase he was anti-guns.
"Since when is John McCain not a white Christian male? Or did I just fail to notice a large unsightly birthmark?"
He is bald. I did include "bald" in the list of disqualifiers. I suppose I should have called us "a shallow and easily manipulated people with poor reading skills".
Posted by: Njorl on November 1, 2006 10:47 AMJohn Mcain will run for President but won't be selected because he doesn't have a broad enough appeal within his own party were he is widely regarded to be a RINO.
I’m not so sure how wide the “Senator McCain is a RINO (he’s not)” meme runs in the GOP. IMO I tend to see it more on the Internet where people are riled up about McCain-Feingold than I do among people who spend their time doing other things ;)
Seriously though, McCain has done quite a bit to help out GOP candidates in both the 2004 and 2006 elections and he has been met enthusiastically but grassroots supporters who love to have him at their rallies, GOTV efforts, and fundraisers. As someone who originally voted for Governor Bush in the primary as an “anti-McCain” vote in 2000 after my first choice Steve Forbes dropped out, I would have no problem supporting McCain for President in 2008 particularly if he remains true on spending issues (my biggest gripe with Republicans), entitlement reform, national security, and judicial nominees.
Martin Van Buren was bald and short, and both Adamses had baldness issues.
We just need to bring back the powdered wig. Solves some of these problems.
Posted by: mhallex on November 1, 2006 10:52 AM'Remember, kiddies, whenever a writer uses "we" in this manner, he really means: "you".'
I certainly would not exempt the people with whom I usually vote from this. I have witnessed shameful manipulation of those with whom I usually make common cause with regards to vaccination scares, nuclear power and depleted uranium munitions. Say the proper buzzwords and all thought ceases in a good chunk of the population, on the left or the right.
Posted by: Njorl on November 1, 2006 10:55 AM"Martin Van Buren was bald and short, and both Adamses had baldness issues."
Which networks televised the Van Buren/Harrison debates?
Posted by: Njorl on November 1, 2006 10:56 AMNjorl,
So THAT's why the base doesn't like McCain. All this time I thought it was because of campaign finance reform, bipartisanship, etc. It takes a superior intellect (and literacy) to realize that his problem is his hairline.
Posted by: Gabriel on November 1, 2006 11:00 AMHe is bald. I did include "bald" in the list of disqualifiers. I suppose I should have called us "a shallow and easily manipulated people with poor reading skills".
Balder than Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson?
Here’s one of those place where the left and the right part company – not that there is a shortage those places. The left immediately asserts that no one who is not a member in good standing in the white, male Christian patriarchy could be elected to national or, perhaps even state-wide office. The right considers that idea daft. The right evidences a great deal of support for Condi Rice as a prospective candidate, for example. Joe Lieberman is clearly more generally respected by the right than by the opinion drivers of the left. Colin Powell has had significant Republican support at various times, and it hasn’t fallen off because they only recently realized that he is black. I’ve heard no one on the right suggest that Hillary can not be elected because she is a woman, or suggest the campaign tactic of pointing out the fact of her sex to those who might not have noticed. Mitt Romney is considered a strong candidate for the Republican presidential nomination although he is a Mormon.
As for atheists, many tend not to be satisfied with keeping their own beliefs. They too often seem to want to smite believers upside the head every chance they get. Since I don’t recall any national or state-wide race in which the depth of a candidate’s faith has been an issue (unless being attacked from the left for being too religious), I suspect that most voters’ concern is less with the nature of a candidate’s faith (within reason) or lack thereof than with the perceived intolerance that typifies many atheists.
"Balder than Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson?"
Yes, actually, but that is immaterial. I'm talking about the age of massive television saturation.
Posted by: Njorl on November 1, 2006 11:33 AMBarack Obama won't be President, not in 2008 anyway, because despite being a darling to the media he is unknown outside of his home state.
It's too early to be able to hope to accurately predict what will transpire in 2008. My guess is Obama is a bit of a longshot at this point, primarily because of his lack of experience: four years in the Senate seems to me too paltry a foundation on which to build a credible quest for the White House. Still, it's just plain silly to say he's "unknown outside of his home state". Obama is now a national figure, and is on the verge of national fame (i.e, familiar even to non political-junkies and non-blog readers). I wouldn't like Obama's chances to win the nomination over Hillary Clinton, say, or Al Gore. But I'd never say never, and at a bare minimum Obama's a credible candidate. He certainly could win the nomination, and I'd say it's almost likely that he'll end up on the ticket (if only as the VP candidate) if he wants it.
By the way, I'm not discounting the existence of racism in the US -- it surely exists. My sense, though, is the number of white voters who would never vote for a black presidential candidate is now exceeded by the number of white voters who will go out of their way to do so.
Posted by: Jasper on November 1, 2006 11:46 AMObama certainly isn't unknown outside his home state. My wife, who has never lived in any state but California, thinks he walks on water. And she's about as close to a "typical American voter" as anyone I know.
you don't think you could win statewide office in Oregon or Vermont or Massachusetts if you were an open atheist? I think you could.
The only example I can think of off the top of my head is Jesse Ventura in Minnesota.
I think Hillary Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Condi Rice are all potentially electable as president. But an atheist, even one who kept his beliefs (or lack thereof) to himself? No way.
Since I don’t recall any national or state-wide race in which the depth of a candidate’s faith has been an issue...
Forgotten Howard Dean and his 'born again bike path' experience already, have we:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031229&s=foer122903
"A 2000 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 70 percent of Americans want their president to be a person of faith."
"As for atheists, many tend not to be satisfied with keeping their own beliefs. They too often seem to want to smite believers upside the head every chance they get."
It's really annoying how they knock on your door and try to explain the joys of atheism to you. I also hate how those atheists added "There is no god to trust" to all the money, or how they crammed "under no god" into the pledge of allegiance.
I have found that atheists are by far more tolerant than theists. However, I have found that secularists are every bit as intolerant of theocracy as theocrats are of secularism, for which I am grateful.
Posted by: Njorl on November 1, 2006 12:42 PMRex is right about name recognition. Obama's been on Oprah (several times?), and has performed well. I'd say that a huge number of American women know him from that. My wife and mother-in-law certainly do; indeed, it's quite fair to say that my wife (who is no political junkie) knows quite a bit more about him than I do.
And you can forget nationwide office in this country if you can't point out the church you attend. Some states, yes. Nationwide, no.
Posted by: Devilbunny on November 1, 2006 12:54 PMEvangelicals are now being hired and paid by the US government to work overseas in some agencies. There job is the religion, so why would a policitian choose this issue?
Posted by: kyg on November 1, 2006 12:55 PMJL,
I think the support for Rice and Powell you are talking about comes mostly from the Rupublican elite, libertarians who usually vote Republican, and conservative pundits in the media. My guess is that the support among white males in the South - a cruicial demographic for anyone on the Republican ticket - isn't quite the same.
As for Religion being a factor - I guess we will have a better idea of Rudy's run in '08. He probably has a chance at the presidency IF (and that is a big if) he can get the nomination. And note that Rudy isn't an atheist (at least outwardly).
Posted by: MS on November 1, 2006 12:56 PMI'm talking about the age of massive television saturation.
When would you define that as having begun? Because looking at Presidential candidates and winners I don't see a huge upswing in physical attractiveness in recent years. Or, for that matter, a huge number of outstandingly ugly/fat/short/tall/bald Presidents in the past. Some, like JFK and Clinton, were blessed with good looks. Some like Johnson, Nixon, and Carter were less attractive. Allowing for changing fashions and the steadily increasing height of the population most of our Presidents look pretty average to me.
Posted by: Bryan C on November 1, 2006 1:02 PMMent to say "we will have a better idea AFTER Rudy's run". If religion is not an important factor in electins, Giuliani should not have a big problem getting the nomination.
Posted by: MS on November 1, 2006 1:04 PMThe only example I can think of off the top of my head is Jesse Ventura in Minnesota.
I am not sure that former governor Ventura qualifies as someone who was elected as an open atheist. His hostility towards religion really did not manifest itself until AFTER he was elected. Before that the general public really did not know what he believed and his wife was known for being rather religious. It is worth nothing IMO though that after it became known that he was not merely an atheist but a militant one, he did not run for reelection nor even campaign much for any of the candidates of his party and left the State soon after the 2002 elections.
I'm talking about the age of massive television saturation.
Which has been around since at least the Johnson administration (if not earlier) as evidenced by the effects that television coverage of the Vietnam War and protests had on the Johnson administration and its policies.
I suppose the right retort would be 'we don't appoint Bishops to the Senate by default the way you do in the Lords, so we have to do it by voting'.
Posted by: Kevin Marks on November 1, 2006 1:09 PMKlug: I don't think an open atheist would win in Oregon, at least (I can't speak for Vermont or Massachussetts).
Oregon managed to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage by, IIRC, 60%, and I'm pretty sure that that number does not include a significant number of atheists.
Oregon's left-wing bent isn't so strong as to overcome the preference for most people - even those who vote Democrat, remember - for religious beliefs in their representatives or governors.
Heck, I'm an atheist, and if someone prominently mentioned "I'm an atheist, vote for me!" in their campaign, I'd probably count that against them. In my experience, people who wave atheism around tend to be, well, dicks.
(Now, someone who happened to be an atheist, and didn't bring it up particularly, but was attacked for it and then admitted it (and defended it)... that's not a negative for me. But I think it would be for a sufficient majority of Oregonians.)
kyg: What the heck are you talking about?
Posted by: Sigivald on November 1, 2006 1:19 PMMS,
I think that the idea that good old boys from the South are not going to vote for a black may not hold as much water as the media and liberals would like to think.
As I mentioned, I run in what readers of this blog would definitely call extreme right wing fundamental circles. Our senior group has a lot of southern whites who moved up north for work. Almost to a person, they have no problem with voting for Condi Rice.
Rice is described as "one of us" by the seniors. They often use the term "Southern gal" for her as well. They also know her history and support of gun ownership. Colin Powell's problem is his stance on the war in Iraq, not his skin color.
I realize my observations are not scientific. However, if Howard Dean is betting the election on the premise that there is no way white Southerns are going to vote for a minority, he may be in for a surprise come 2008.
Posted by: Reagan Fan on November 1, 2006 1:29 PMI agree that an atheist can't currently be elected president, but it's not true that only white males could be elected. Colin Powell could have won, or at least could have come close enough that nobody would have dismissed him out of hand. Hillary can't, but that's because she's Hillary, not because she's a woman. It's silly to say that women can be heads of state in the United Kingdom or Texas but the U.S. isn't ready for it.
Posted by: Kim Scarborough on November 1, 2006 1:36 PMNot exactly the definition of atheist, but Oregon has a large number of people who identify as "no religion". In terms of religious groups, they are the largest group.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist4.htm
And, based on this, Oregon still voted in favor of banning legal recognition of gay marriage, either the proportion of "no religion" voters to the rest is small, or those "no religion" voters are like Den Best and want the judges to stay out of the issue.
Posted by: Half Canadian on November 1, 2006 2:31 PMI wouldn't stereotype Southerners about voting for African Americans.
In 1987, Osborne Bell, (AA) sherrif of Marshall County, MS, was killed in the line of duty. There's a plaque in the country courthouse. If you're a sherrif in 1987, you had to be some kind of somebody, work your way up from dogcatcher, small town police chief, something, before that. So the system was allowing him to make something of himself not all that many years after the civil rights folks had done their thing.
Recently, NBC sent some ringers dressed as Muslims to a NASCAR event, looking for some bigotry. That's stereotyping. Didn't work.
The idea that southern men wouldn't vote for Condi depends, in addition, to who's running against her. What dem currently visible would impress the southern white men more favorably that Condi?
Posted by: Richard Aubrey on November 1, 2006 3:27 PMDevilbunny posted:
"And you can forget nationwide office in this country if you can't point out the church you attend. Some states, yes. Nationwide, no."
Ronald Reagan rarely attended church.
Posted by: James B. Shearer on November 1, 2006 3:35 PMYou can be an atheist and oppose gay marriage.
Posted by: James B. Shearer on November 1, 2006 3:37 PMSigivald: Yeah, maybe you're right. I think it is unlikely for (as you suggest) an evangelical atheist to garner votes. I DO think that someone who professes "no religion" would do just fine in Oregon politics.
Did John Kitzhaber go to church/profess a monotheistic religion? Dunno; don't care. I think Oregonians didn't care either; I could be wrong.
Posted by: Klug on November 1, 2006 3:50 PMWhen will people realize that it takes just as much faith for someone to proclaim there is no god as for someone else to proclaim there is a god? The only difference, for the god believing individual to have faith usually requires them to back that belief up with some kind of action, while the non-believer convienently lives their lives however they please.
It's very convienent to be atheist.
Posted by: faith on November 1, 2006 4:10 PMWhen will people realize that it takes just as much faith for someone to proclaim there is no god as for someone else to proclaim there is a god?
Since the underlying premise of your question is wrong (it does not in fact take as much “faith” not to believe something that is based entirely on “faith” as it does to believe in it), the answer is “probably never.”
Posted by: Thorley Winston on November 1, 2006 5:00 PMHalf Canadian, I saw an interesting study the other day (unfortunately I don't have a citation) in which the researcher claimed that the status of those people who respond to poll questions by saying "None" or "No religion" is widely misunderstood. There has been a dramatic growth in unaffiliated churches in the U.S. during the past 30 years. These churches usually have names like "Community Church of _______." They are certainly Christian, and basically evangelical, but not affiliated with any denomination. The article claimed that a significant portion of the people who answer "None" attend those churches; they answer "None" because they aren't told by their pastors "We're Catholic" or "We're Protestant" or anything of that sort, so they interpret the survey question as not applying to them.
Posted by: y81 on November 1, 2006 5:12 PM"It's very convienent to be atheist."
Quite the opposite is true. While I suppose it isn't really necessary, I and every atheist with whom I am familiar usually try to find a rational moral basis for the guidelines that direct our lives. It is much more convenient to have a book that says "Do this, don't do that". For one thing, most books like that can be twisted to justify anything. Without such books, one is forced to recognize their own selfishness more clearly. The worst though, are those people who have "a personal relationship with God". Those are the people whose every whim is justified by God's will. Our president falls into this catagory.
Posted by: Njorl on November 1, 2006 5:16 PMI see nothing wrong with the premise. You say there is a dollar undeath the box on the table, I say there is no dollar. If the box is glued to the table and we have no other way of checking how is either of us using a different amount of "faith"?
Now maybe this is where we mix things up with the relgious implications in the worth faith, but neither of us can prove we're right.
Now maybe you're not sure which is right and which is wrong. But to claim "there is no god" takes as much belief/faith as to claim "there is a god". I fail to see how anyone can claim otherwise?
Posted by: faith on November 1, 2006 5:21 PMNjorl,
Interesting perspective. However I disagree and here's why. You claiming to have to use some sort of moral code to think through a situation to arrive at the right conclusion provides just as much ability to distort reality as a religous person who reads the bible and says "thou shalt not kill". And I've never met a Christian who said that reason was not necessary.
Indeed the opposite is true, most religious people rely on reason and the problems/confrontations arise when people like you arrive on the scene and claim relious people are igornoant and just believe what they believe because the good book says so. Ignorance is abound, whether you're religous or not. That isn't a justifcation for disqualifying religion.
How is a person who is delusional and claims that God told them to invade Iraq (not that Bush said that, but nevermind) different from a person who's journey down the irrefutable path of reason as you might like to see it ends them up in Eugenics terrority. The usual strawmen apply...Hitler, Stalin, Mao, none of these people seemed to be claiming God told them so as a justification for their actions. Instead they used reason.
Unfortunately your "reason" requires some kind of leap of faith at the most basic level.
Posted by: faith on November 1, 2006 5:28 PMJeffery Dahmer was very good at reasoning...he took the "if it feels good, do it" philosphy so many love to live by and applied it to the extreme.
If you ever have the misfortune of reading some of his reasonings, you'll see how wrongly applied reasoning can end you up in bad terrority.
For the religious, the goal is to reason things out in our mind, and then apply that reasoning to what they know from the scriptures and other forms of spirtual evidence.
Naturally it's just as easy to end up with nutjobs who reason that god told them so as it is to have people reasoning that the Jews are bad for Germany. Of course, maybe you'd suggest otherwise, and that religious makes one more likely to be a nutjob. For your "faith" in that theory to be proven I suppose we'll have to wait for the next few hundred years to see how things turn out once more of the world abandons serve others and love thy neighbor as thyself for "if it feels good, do it".
Personally I think the path of 100% "personal reason as you conjure it up in your head, influenced by a million different factors and gradually erroding standards of society and the invisible constraints of culture without regard to a higher authority" will end society up in more trouble than "reason within the bounds of the Savior's teachings".
Posted by: faith on November 1, 2006 5:37 PMI suppose I should clarify my points on religion. Since I'm not muslim, hindu, or any number of other faiths I can't speak for them. I can speak for my belief that if everyone strived to live a Christ like life that mixed both reason and inspiration the world would be much better off. You may think otherwise, but I'll leave that "faith" to you and continue excerising my own.
Posted by: faith on November 1, 2006 5:43 PMI would think that, especially on the west coast, "no religion" could encompass all sorts of New Age sprituality that the typical athiest would consider claptrap of the first order.
faith: Sure it would take a lot of faith (or something) to believe that someone who glued a box to a table actually put money underneath it. Believing otherwise seems like the simple default position.
Posted by: Scott Wood on November 1, 2006 5:43 PMFaith,
Atheists dont necessarily make the claim "There is no god". Atheism can simply be a lack of belief in god.
Also not believing in something is usually the default position. For example it doesnt take much effort to believe there is no invisible pink unicorn in my room right now.
Posted by: MS on November 1, 2006 5:44 PMI was the National Field Director for Ambassador Alan Keyes' run for the GOP nomination in 2000, and was heavily involved in the primary campaign in South Carolina (we finished third). I am also a white Mormon from Utah (who is not sold on Mitt Romney, just in the interest of full disclosure). The vast majority of the campaign staff in SC was evangelical Christian and white. Not one person in the month I spent there said anything about Keyes's skin color except Keyes himself. I did not, however, reveal my religion to anyone, as it was judged by the campaign itself to be much more likely to be a problem in the South that I was a Mormon than that Keyes was black. I found this (later) to be absolutely spot-on accurate.
Fundamentalist Christians do not make up nearly as large a part of the voting populace as is commonly represented on CNN. I think an open atheist could absolutely get elected (we elect open homosexuals to the state legislature here in Utah, and I can promise you after someone declares himself gay here nobody cares much what church he goes to) as long as that atheist had a political philosophy that endeared him - or her - to a majority of the population.
My experience tells me that a Presidential candidate that really went to church every Sunday and believed that the things he professed there had useful things to tell him about his politics would have a harder time getting elected than one that never went to church except for funerals. IMO it is being TOO religious that causes political problems, rather more than not being religious enough. Most people are looking for a candidate that seems like them, and most people are just not that religious. They want a President that prays to God, then does whatever his brain tells him to do, because that's what they do. One that received angelic visitations would not do well at the ballot box, folks.
And that's really the bottom line. Of course an atheist could get elected, assuming the competition were sufficiently unattractive. If Giuliani gets the nomination, and the alternative is Hillary Clinton, I guarantee an atheist - if Rudy really is one - has a decent shot. If the Democrats nominated an open atheist (and it absolutely could happen), and the alternative were, say, Bill Frist (also a possibility, though a longshot), the atheist would probably win in a walk.
Posted by: Chris Jones on November 1, 2006 5:49 PMMS,
Interesting point. The subtle, but important difference, is the debate is not whether there is a pink unicorn in your room. If the question was, "is there a pink unicorn in your room" and we were both there, and I replied "yes" even though there wasn't, that wouldn't be me excercising faith. It would be me being dellusional. Which is what plenty of non religious people likely think of my beliefs anyway.
I can understand someone not believing in god. I'm not disputing that. But I think its silly for them to claim some kind of reasoning high ground, when in my opinion all they're doing is substituting one belief for another and convienently choosing the one that does not requirethem to answer to a higher authority than their personal concious and the governement of the United States.
My faith requires me to keep my personal actions and appetites in check within the bounds of Christ's teachings combined with reason. The "Pure Reasoners" faith merely requires them to come up with highly subjective and personal reasons why or why not to do something without looking to a higher authority than themself or the government.
We can debate the merits of either one, but I still maintain either alternative requires faith and since my reasoning friends of the englightenment have given me the wonderful concept of post modernism, I can choose to believe as I want :)
Posted by: faith on November 1, 2006 6:05 PMKlug posts: Njori: you don't think you could win statewide office in Oregon or Vermont or Massachusetts if you were an open atheist? I think you could.
Massachusetts is very unlikely. While it does have a large left-wing population, there's a huge sector of voting Catholics that the national media ignores but the polls don't. Hence why such a seemingly liberal state doesn't have a consistently pro-gay-marriage or pro-choice stance. As a Washingtonian, I have low low opinions of Oregonians who are flakes who can't pump their own gas, unlike Californians, who are flakes with money who can't drive. And above, Sigivald makes a strong case that Oregon's a bit like Mass.
Posted by: LAN3 on November 1, 2006 6:32 PMWhen will people realize that it takes just as much faith for someone to proclaim there is no god as for someone else to proclaim there is a god?
Thre might be magic portals to Fairyland on Earth. They would explain quite a few things, especially the disappearances of Benjamin Bathurst, the crew of the Mary Celeste, Dorothy Arnold, F. Lewis Clark, Joseph F. Crater, Joseph Rodriguez, Ettore Majorana, Richard Calvin Cox, the passengers and crew of the MV Joyita, Harold Holt, Jim Thompson, Jimmy Hoffa, Licorice McKechnie, Richey James Edwards, and Ray Gricar.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that magic portals to Fairyland exist. If someone can come up with some strong evidence of their existance, then of course I will change my mind, but I don't see my nonbelief as requiring "as much" faith as a belief in them would.
Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic on November 1, 2006 6:45 PMFaith, I think you missed the part about the unicorn being invisible. That makes it possible for it to actually be there. At least, there is no evidence against an invisible, undetectable unicorn exiting in my room. Still, most people would conclude that it is not there.
Posted by: MS on November 1, 2006 7:33 PMChris Jones wrote:
"If Giuliani gets the nomination, and the alternative is Hillary Clinton, I guarantee an atheist - if Rudy really is one - has a decent shot."
Spot on. The issue of the alternative is why I don't think Mitt Romney would have as much trouble with religious conservatives as many pundits think.
Regarding stereotypes, I understand that Dallas county has a lesbian hispanic sherrif, and that Salt Lake City has more gays than San Francisco.
Posted by: YetAnotherRick on November 1, 2006 9:00 PMChris Jones wrote:
"If Giuliani gets the nomination, and the alternative is Hillary Clinton, I guarantee an atheist - if Rudy really is one - has a decent shot."
Spot on. The issue of the alternative is why I don't think Mitt Romney would have as much trouble with religious conservatives as many pundits think.
Regarding stereotypes, I understand that Dallas county has a lesbian hispanic sherrif, and that Salt Lake City has more gays than San Francisco.
Posted by: YetAnotherRick on November 1, 2006 9:01 PMNjorl wrote:
“It's really annoying how they knock on your door and try to explain the joys of atheism to you. I also hate how those atheists added "There is no god to trust" to all the money, or how they crammed "under no god" into the pledge of allegiance.”
You’re lobbing softballs! First, somebody knocking on your door trying to share a message with you, regardless of how misguided, is irritating, not a threat. And atheists are trying to remove all references to God from the money, the pledge of allegiance, Christmas displays, high school football games, graduation ceremonies and anything else they can find. Is this is a series of daring attempts at tolerance? Or is it a crushing burden to have to see the word “God” written on a quarter?
I will grant that there is no more excuse for atheists to get upset at "In God We Trust" on the money as they would at "In Mickey Mouse We Trust". But there are lots of idiots in the world, and there doesn't seem to be any way of stopping some of them from becoming atheists.
As for atheism being less demanding than the alternative, eh. How many people actually take the genuinely hard parts of their religions seriously? As opposed to explaining away their disobedience by saying something wasn't practical or it's outdated, if they even notice they're not paying any attention to it?
Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic on November 1, 2006 10:52 PMFaith, I think you missed the part about the unicorn being invisible. That makes it possible for it to actually be there. At least, there is no evidence against an invisible, undetectable unicorn exiting in my room. Still, most people would conclude that it is not there.
Actually, if several dozen people, from peasants to kings, wrote a harmonious account of the the invisible unicorn over the course of a few thousand years, and gave numerous specifc prophecies predicting where and how the unicorn would appear in a man's form, AND a man then appeared in accordance with those prophecies, walking his talk to the letter...I'd say you have yourself a very credible invisible unicorn.
But meanwhile:
As for atheism being less demanding than the alternative, eh. How many people actually take the genuinely hard parts of their religions seriously? As opposed to explaining away their disobedience by saying something wasn't practical or it's outdated, if they even notice they're not paying any attention to it?
...and that, for better or worse, is one reason why people reject the existence of the invisible unicorn. After all, if he's so great, how come so many of his followers cease to act like it after a few weeks or centuries?
Posted by: anony-mouse on November 2, 2006 12:12 AMNo, God being mentioned on quarters isn't that irritating. A President of the United States saying, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." (Bush Sr) might be just a little offensive though. Imagine what would happen if he said that about Jews or Catholics or blacks. His son said that God wanted him to be President. Maybe God also told him there were WMDs in Iraq.
Majority of Americans thinking belief in God is necessary for a person to be moral is also a bit annoying. So is Christians teaching intelligent design in public schools and denying evolution, or removing Harry Potter books from libraries.
Posted by: MS on November 2, 2006 12:36 AM"How is a person who is delusional and claims that God told them to invade Iraq (not that Bush said that, but nevermind) different from a person who's journey down the irrefutable path of reason as you might like to see it ends them up in Eugenics terrority. The usual strawmen apply...Hitler, Stalin, Mao, none of these people seemed to be claiming God told them so as a justification for their actions."
The so-called logic a psychopath uses to justify their crimes is refutable. They are demonstrably wrong in their arguments. The religious justifications of a psychopath are not refutable.
Of course, all that is completely off-topic. I was simply defending myself from the inaccurate yet common impression that atheists live their lives doing whatever is convenient. I spent 26 years as a Catholic, 18 of them devout, and from experience, I can assure you that being an atheist is much less convenient.
Posted by: Njorl on November 2, 2006 8:44 AM"And atheists are trying to remove all references to God from the money, the pledge of allegiance, Christmas displays, high school football games, graduation ceremonies and anything else they can find. Is this is a series of daring attempts at tolerance? Or is it a crushing burden to have to see the word “God” written on a quarter?"
Actually, almost no atheists are trying to remove "In God we Trust" from money, or do any of the other things. Some are, but, believe it or not, we are not vast organized conspiracy acting in unison.
But just to give you some perspective, how tolerant would Christians be of money with "Don't trust in God" on it. How about a nice compromise? We're about 1% of the population, how about 1% of the currency gets the "Don't Trust in God" message stamped on it? It is an inspiring message that humans are responsible for what happens! Don't trust in God; do it yourself!
No, I wouldn't ask that in any seriousness. It would be intolerant. Putting "In God we Trust" on money is every bit as intolerant, but most atheists just shrug it off.
Now, as for the pledge of allegiance, keeping "under God" in it is intolerant. Whether it is Constitutional or not is for the Supreme Court to decide, but it is in there for no other reason but to poke atheists in the eye. It is bullying by the theist majority that serves no purpose whatsoever except to say that theists are powerful and atheists are weak. An atheist can not honestly say the damn thing! An atheist who recites the pledge of allegiance is lying. Can you not see why we would object to that? The harm in taking it out is - nothing. The benefit in keeping it in is that the majority get to feel good about slapping around the minority.
Posted by: Njorl on November 2, 2006 9:21 AM"If Giuliani gets the nomination, and the alternative is Hillary Clinton, I guarantee an atheist - if Rudy really is one - has a decent shot."
If we had some ham we could have some ham and eggs - if we had some eggs.
Giuliani might have a chance to get the nomination if the entire '08 Republican convention is destroyed in a terrorist attack while he is out of town.
Posted by: Njorl on November 2, 2006 9:29 AMBut to claim "there is no god" takes as much belief/faith as to claim "there is a god". I fail to see how anyone can claim otherwise?'
You do not understand atheism.
It is not a belief in no god existing. It is an acknowledgement of no reason to believe a god exists.
Many people make the mistake of thinking that the difference between atheism and agnosticism is that atheists positively affirm that no god exists while agnostics profess ignorance on the matter. This is wrong. Both profess ignorance on the matter. The difference is that agnostics live their lives as if god might exist, and atheists do not.
The reason atheists live their lives as if there is no god while maintaining ignorance of god's existance is not a matter of faith. We are not "betting" that there is no god. It is a matter of rationality to us.
The existance of a god of traditional divine nature would mean the existance of a being capable of altering human thought. Once I acknowledge the lack of integrity of my own thoughts, all rationality vanishes. If there is a God who can alter my thoughts, what difference do my beliefs make?
So, an atheist acknowledges the possibility of God, but maintains that such a possibility can not matter in any way.
Posted by: Njorl on November 2, 2006 9:54 AMUnicorns? Ridiculous mockery of those with faith? Check.
This clip about sums it up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH__8bpDAC0&eurl=
Posted by: unicorns? on November 2, 2006 12:53 PMHaven't we already elected a non-Christian as President? Without getting into whether the founders were Deists or Christians or something else, William Howard Taft (Unitatian) stated on several occasions that he did not believe in the Divinity of Christ. William Jennings Byran thought that would be the issue he could beat Taft in 1908 with.
Posted by: James B. on November 2, 2006 1:11 PMThe existance of a god of traditional divine nature would mean the existance of a being capable of altering human thought. Once I acknowledge the lack of integrity of my own thoughts, all rationality vanishes. If there is a God who can alter my thoughts, what difference do my beliefs make?
I think you have it precisely opposite. A benevolent God will ensure that you have proper cognitive function. By constrast, an atheistic worldview cannot do this. Evolution can only operate on actions, not on beliefs. Thus, all an atheistic worldview can guarantee is that our beliefs produce actions that are effective at passing on genes. It cannot guarantee that our beliefs are true.
Some tangible examples: we have lust and love rather than calculated decisions to pass on our genes. Similarly, we have a moral sense rather than make calculated decisions to advance our self-interest in the long run through cooperative behavior. These are false beliefs that produce evolutionarily good outcomes. Atheism cannot guarantee rationality, theism can.
Posted by: Justin on November 2, 2006 1:29 PMWell, that provoked quite the discussion, but what I'm actually wondering is what did the "Republican something-or-other" answer to that idiotic question?
Just to clarify, I wasnt mocking religion by comparing it to unicorns. I was merely pointing out that when lacking evidence, it is much easier to disbelieve something than to claim it exists.
A benevolent God will ensure that you have proper cognitive function
You mean like when God made the Pharaoh defiant and unwilling to let the Jews leave Egypt, and then unleashed plagues of genocidal proportions upon a whole country?
Posted by: MS on November 2, 2006 3:26 PMMmmmf...you might have noted that the account records Pharaoh as having hardened his own heart in some cases, AND records God as having hardened his heart in others -- in other words, once you have fixed your heart in refusal to believe, God might just keep it that way so that you don't waffle around uselessly and get in the way of His plans for others who have not yet fixed their hearts against him.
Posted by: anony-mouse on November 2, 2006 3:50 PMJustin,
Re; "...all an atheistic worldview can guarantee is that our beliefs produce actions that are effective at passing on genes. It cannot guarantee that our beliefs are true."
I agree that religion is an attempt satisfy the desire for truth, but it can't really accomplish it. The human mind is limited in space and time, and is therefore incapable of knowing the truth.
As for what the "atheistic worldview" produces - atheism is simply an expression of freedom. A declaration that one refuses to comply with social manipulation. If I do it or believe it, it is because it makes sense to me, and not because some authority figure has endorsed it.
Posted by: Randy on November 2, 2006 4:08 PMJG,
With this: "I watch BBC America in the morning,because unlike American news, it acts like the world is actually, you know, round."
You may, even in NYC, be better served by a Shortwave Radio ~ As well, as I'm sure you know there are many "radio stations", from around the World, available on the 'nets. Less portable though...
Posted by: Mark E Hoffer on November 2, 2006 4:25 PMMmmmf...you might have noted that the account records Pharaoh as having hardened his own heart in some cases, AND records God as having hardened his heart in others -- in other words, once you have fixed your heart in refusal to believe, God might just keep it that way so that you don't waffle around uselessly and get in the way of His plans for others who have not yet fixed their hearts against him.
How about the part in Kings 2:24 where God sends the bears to maul forty-two children for making fun of a bald priest? Were they getting in the way of His plans, too?
Posted by: Immoralist on November 2, 2006 4:44 PMAs for atheists, many tend not to be satisfied with keeping their own beliefs. They too often seem to want to smite believers upside the head every chance they get.
I have heard this a lot. What is cute is people have complained to me not knowing that I was an atheist.
For many atheists their lack of belief is not something they want to advertise. You have probably chatted up many atheists in the supermarket not knowing who they were.
Indeed, the only ones that you might recognize are the few who go out of there way to attack believers.
Posted by: atheist on November 2, 2006 4:54 PMAtheist,
Agreed. On blogs, I'm more than willing to discuss religion (or lack thereof) with anyone who's interested. But in my real life the subject just doesn't come up. I see the atheists on TV who want to ban christmas displays or whatever, and I think, "what's the point"? It seems to me that such interventionists are every bit as "religious" in their thinking as those they claim to oppose.
Posted by: Randy on November 2, 2006 5:07 PMI'd enthusiastically vote for a conservative atheist over a liberal Christian in any election.
Njorl,
Surely getting poked in the eye is worse than saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, even if you are an atheist. “Under God” is a pretty pathetic way for a majority to slap around a minority, when viewed in an historical context.
If you repeat it, you’re lying – and so what? You’re certainly not worried about your immortal soul, there being no evidence supporting its existence. Saying it, irrespective of belief, is a pretty good adaptation to the environment you find yourself in. It probably improves your chances in the gene pool. And saying it is not the same as believing it, although it is polite.
You live in a country that is alright with your being an atheist, but the majority of people kind of like having “In God We Trust” on the money. If you go to court and succeed in having it taken off, you irritate those folks who like it, while not enhancing your well-being, your chances for a non-existent salvation or your genetic code’s chances of survival in the least. So why bother?
When you go to someone’s house for dinner and they say grace, do you insist on leaving the room? Do you point out to everyone in attendance that you’re not going along with it? Or do you complain about having been poked in the eye or slapped around (metaphorically) by oppressive majority diners?
Atheists who insist on behaving this way, whether at dinner or in court, are not defending their right to not believe. They have that. They are demanding the attention of the majority. What they are lacking is not freedom, but humility.
"A benevolent God will ensure that you have proper cognitive function. "
This is observably nonsense. You seem to be suggesting that mental retardation and mental illness are non-existant. Please attempt some semblance of thought.
Posted by: Njorl on November 2, 2006 11:49 PMi watch the french news; they think that every one who voted for bush or supports the republicans is a bible thumping creationist - there coverage features revivalist meetings and they report that the funadamentalist Christian vote in the us is over 50%;
which is not what sites i have visited report/ their number is around 21% of which bush receivec 80%
Posted by: thomas on November 2, 2006 11:58 PMjl,
Coercing children to betray their parents' beliefs is not less than a poke in the eye, and is indeed a way for the majority to slap around the minority. Could it be done more effectively - of course. So what? Perhaps I should be grateful that I'm not burnt at the stake? Well, I'm not going to be.
While I certainly do not worry about my immortal soul, unlike most believers, I do not need the threat of damnation to recognize the value of honesty to society. You should read Kant on the subject, though I believe he goes a bit too far with it.
Does it not strike you as ironic that a segment of the population is required to either lie or abstain from reciting the pledge of allegiance? Implicit in this is that atheists can not be loyal citizens. Is the whole point of the pledge lost on you? Are the words of it just sounds to be made with no meaning, like the prayers of most theists?
I had stressed the importance of reading comprehension earlier. Please read more carefully, and you will note that I really don't care about the silly phrase on the money. I merely brought it up to illustrate that atheists are indeed very tolerant, and that theists would not be tolerant if the situation were reversed. And the bit about saying grace is simply ridiculous. Of course I wouldn't make a silly scene, because, like most atheists, I have learned to accomodate religious people the vast majority of the time, and come to realize that I can not expect them to accomodate me.
You also seem to be possessed of the bizarre notion that atheists are only concerned with our success in the gene pool. Evidently lack of belief in God renders life meaningless in your opinion. For this, I can only recommend that you get out more and observe humans enjoying themselves in a non-religious cenvironment. Enjoying aesthetic pleasure with no God in the context is indeed possible.
Posted by: Njorl on November 3, 2006 12:41 AMIf you repeat it, you’re lying – and so what? You’re certainly not worried about your immortal soul, there being no evidence supporting its existence.
The idea that this is "one nation, under God" is a lie whether you're an atheist or not. The United States doesn't recognize divine authority. God's law is subject to the laws of man in this country, not vice-versa.
If you go to court and succeed in having it taken off, you irritate those folks who like it, while not enhancing your well-being, your chances for a non-existent salvation or your genetic code’s chances of survival in the least. So why bother?
Hm. If the money said "In Satan We Trust" on it, removing it wouldn't improve a Christian's well-being, chances for salvation, or chances for survival, either. But I'm guessing they'd be happy to see it go. I'm also guessing they'd rediscover the first amendment clause forbidding establishment of religion, too. :)
Posted by: Dan on November 3, 2006 12:44 AM"A benevolent God will ensure that you have proper cognitive function."
This not nonsense Njorl, it's exactly what a benevolent god would do, but proper cognitive function is not usually observed in everyday life let alone in the mentally ill. I find it weird that theists would wanna bring this up.
Posted by: stuart on November 3, 2006 4:19 AMHow about the part in Kings 2:24 where God sends the bears to maul forty-two children for making fun of a bald priest? Were they getting in the way of His plans, too?
Was the priest balder than Eisenhower?
Posted by: triticale on November 3, 2006 7:48 AMNjorl,
Your statement one simply restates your initial position, again without support.
Your second statement suggests that having children recite the pledge is not even less than burning at the stake. That’s silly on its face.
Your third paragraph doesn’t help much either. It boils down to “Kant’s categorical imperative provides the philosophical foundation for an individual requirement of honesty…but not so much.”
Paragraph four is more interesting, but it implies an impossibly high hurdle for any shared cultural experience. If we all have to be in complete agreement with every connotation and denotation of each common experience, we may find that we never even talk to each other! For a cogent example, go back and read the rest of the Pledge of Allegiance and decide whether you think you could get unanimous agreement on it even if “under God” were removed.
Leaving aside the snide insult, the next paragraph strikes me as a confirmation of my original position, and a repudiation of the absolutist Kantian view for which you attempted to show some sort of support earlier.
Finally, Richard Dawkins said, “We are survival machines--robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” Enjoy things all you want. Enjoyment either furthers your survival and with it the preservation of your genetic code or it’s a neutral mutation. Thus spake the god of evolutionary biology.
Dan,
Conflating “In God We Trust” on the money with the establishment of religion strikes me as silly, but is a topic for another day. Your “In Satan We Trust” line is a form of argument I have trouble with – a type of big-time question begging. Let’s just say that, in order for “In Satan We Trust” to be on the money, Satanism would have to occupy a very different place in society than it does. Would a minority Christian community faced with a Satanist majority demand that the statement be removed from the money? Who knows what would happen in that world? And who cares?
Salt Lake City has more gays than San Francisco
What, did the Mormons marry all the available women?
Posted by: RMc on November 3, 2006 11:23 AMJL,
"Leaving aside the snide insult, the next paragraph strikes me as a confirmation of my original position, and a repudiation of the absolutist Kantian view for which you attempted to show some sort of support earlier."
You had a position? I know I have a position, that atheists are generally more tolerant than theists, but I am not aware that you have one. I suppose I could assume that you have a postion that I am wrong, but I haven't seen anything to that effect. What I have seen is gross misrepresentations of my position which are most likely intentional.
I tried correlating your response to my posts, but could see only tenuous connections. You might want to read what I wrote, rather that listening to the atheist strawman you keep in that dark closet of your mind as he barks "Dawkins" at you. Then again, you probably don't.
Posted by: Njorl on November 3, 2006 1:00 PMNjorl,
Re; "You might want to read what I wrote, rather that listening to the atheist strawman you keep in that dark closet of your mind as he barks "Dawkins" at you."
Great line :)
Posted by: Randy on November 3, 2006 1:19 PMWould a minority Christian community faced with a Satanist majority demand that the statement be removed from the money?
Yes.
Posted by: Dan on November 3, 2006 6:41 PM
I watch BBC America in the morning,because unlike American news, it acts like the world is actually, you know, round.
Very droll, very droll. Of course, living on a dinky island rather across 1/3 or so of a continent will provide a different perspective. So does BBC America have any newsreaders in burkhas, yet, or is that just for the domestic service? I personally find the difference between al-Jazeera and BBC world services to be shrinking rapidly...
Posted by: ellipsis on November 3, 2006 10:32 PM
Njori:
I must congratulate you. You're one of the least obnoxious "brights" I've seen in a long time.
I thought Giuliani was a lax Catholic like me, which I would support wholeheartedly. I don't care how many diamonds sparkle with holiness on Hillary's cross necklace.
I distrust earnest evangelical churchgoing types of whatever religion...it makes me suspicious, wondering what they're trying to sell.
Churchgoing blesses, organizes, and endorses female social aggression. Yuck. I prefer to live with authenticity and self-possession away from such desperate tactics.
I'm not an atheist but I respect those who have worked out their morality with reason and ethics. Not all have; some are just as lazy and selfish as the born-again saved type who's so convinced they're saved that it doesn't matter what they *do* so they sin boldly and Trust in the BloodTM.
These politicians selling their churchiness like Harold Ford Jr. are making a mistake. If I were a TN voter, I would be holding Ford's feet to the fire. I don't care where you park your butt on a Sunday morning. I care about the job you're going to do the rest of the week. Don't sell me what I'm not hiring you for.
Posted by: kentuckyliz on November 3, 2006 11:59 PMthe reporter asked some Republican something-or-other: "Can you be elected to higher office in America without being a Christian?"
At which point I would have asked a counterquestion: "How do the British people feel about their next King being Head of the Church of England having been taped describing how he wanted to be a tampon inside of his mistress?"
And/or: "Is it still illegal in England for the Queen or King to be Catholic?"
Posted by: kentuckyliz on November 4, 2006 12:03 AM"Are the words of it [the Pledge of Allegiance]just sounds to be made with no meaning, like the prayers of most theists?"
Well, yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good description. I grew up reciting the Pledge and the Lord's Prayer every morning in homeroom; none of it ever made a dent in my atheism or cynicism.
If you repeat it, you’re lying – and so what? You’re certainly not worried about your immortal soul, there being no evidence supporting its existence.
JL - Since you don't show any concern for forcing people to take false oaths, I'd ask about the state of your own soul.
Your second statement suggests that having children recite the pledge is not even less than burning at the stake. That’s silly on its face.
If a Christian made the same choice, refusing to recite what they didn't believe in, would that also be silly? Facts can be proven wrong. Values can only be shown to be inconsistant. The "God or genetic fitness" dichotomy is false, and Dawkins is a single individual, not an atheist pope. If you'd actually listen to a few atheists you'd quickly see that they do have values and that those values don't have to come from God. In other words, your description of atheists doesn't match reality and that's obvious to any atheist you argue with. Unless you correctly articulate your opponent's position, you're not going to convince anyone and it makes you look oblivious. That being said, I think that most people if actually given the choice of pledge vs. burning
would go with the pledge. So I'm skeptical that Njorl has honestly stated his priorities on that point. But I could be wrong.
Would a minority Christian community faced with a Satanist majority demand that the statement be removed from the money? Who knows what would happen in that world?
I'm guessing they'd say "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's." But attempts to put fake Gods up in a place of worship might elicit a different response.
Posted by: Ryan on November 4, 2006 3:07 PMNjorl,
Your position is that atheists are more tolerant than “theists”. My position is that Christians in the U.S. today are quite tolerant of atheists and that the basis for most atheist complaints of intolerance in the U.S. are, in fact, based on intolerance and a lack of humility.
In providing support for your position you have been scrupulous about not offering any rational argument. Let me recap:
You claim that the Pledge of Allegiance is akin to a poke in the eye. I suggest that saying the words “under God” is not so bad and observe that most shared cultural experience involves some level of compromise that entails less than absolute, unanimous agreement. You counter by asserting that it is really, REALLY like a poke in the eye and that you’re not grateful for not being burned at the stake. That is, you reassert your position, while providing no support and ignoring my counter-argument.
I suggest that you not worry about small lies like saying “under God” because, unlike Christians, you hold that there is no ultimate penalty to be paid for such transgressions, either in an afterlife or in a decreased probability of passing on your genetic code. You counter with a reference to Kant’s categorical imperative which you simultaneously disavow and by delivering the stunning revelation that atheists enjoy the enjoyable. The relevance of this tautology to the utility of small lies is not explained.
You see, I actually read every line you wrote. I also thought about them. You, apparently, did not.
Dan,
I understood your assertion the first time you made it. I eagerly await either supportive evidence or proof. Of course, by the nature of the assertion you can provide neither, which was the point I was making.
Nobody bothered parsing the question. "Can you be elected to higher office in America without being a Christian?"
Once a person has been elected to a minor office, they will be judged first of all on their performance, and only secondly on externals when they try to attain a higher office. A person who sets out to be elected to a high office right off the bat, as the Texas Jewboy is currently doing, will encounter more difficulty than a non-Christian who has proven his qualifications.
Posted by: triticale on November 4, 2006 10:58 PMHow about the part in Kings 2:24 where God sends the bears to maul forty-two children for making fun of a bald priest? Were they getting in the way of His plans, too?
That doesn't sound like something I said.
As for the particular incident you cite, bear in mind that you're reading English (King James translation?), whereas the original was written in Hebrew. The word sometimes translated to 'children' in that passage has the primary sense of 'youths'. The exact age is indeterminate (they may have been teenagers, the Hebrew word translated 'little' in 2:23 is somewhat ambiguous -- it IS a diminuitive, but it can also have reference to status or stature rather than height or age), but in any case, these were obviously old enough to know what they were saying.
And they were basically saying "drop dead, old man" to a prophet of God, in a society where respect for elders (and especially prophets) was both paramount, and legally ordained by God. That has consequences.
Posted by: anony-mouse on November 5, 2006 1:07 AManony: I must be misunderstanding your last post, since you seem to be defending killing 42 teenagers or young men for a verbal insult. Can you say, "disproportionate response"?
Posted by: markm on November 5, 2006 1:20 PManony: I must be misunderstanding your last post, since you seem to be defending killing 42 teenagers or young men for a verbal insult. Can you say, "disproportionate response"?
Posted by: markm on November 5, 2006 1:20 PMThat doesn't sound like something I said.
Well, I did extrapolate a bit. But not too much. Let's take a look at what you originally wrote:
in other words, once you have fixed your heart in refusal to believe, God might just keep it that way so that you don't waffle around uselessly and get in the way of His plans for others who have not yet fixed their hearts against him.
I took the part about "get in the way of His plans" as indicating that you feel that God is a Serious Dude who doesn't appreciate uppity mortals mucking around with His Plans. And I guess I can roll with that, although I'd prefer a little more patience and understanding from an all-knowing, all-powerful deity who already knows everything that's going to happen and therefore has no good reason to get surprised and upset when things don't go his way...oh, wait! I forgot--it's not POSSIBLE for things NOT to go God's way, because, you know, HE'S MOTHERFUCKING GOD ALREADY.
And they were basically saying "drop dead, old man" to a prophet of God, in a society where respect for elders (and especially prophets) was both paramount, and legally ordained by God. That has consequences.
Hardcore, dude! I admire a moral imagination that sanctions the live devouring of youths who sass their prophets. Wait 'till I tell my Islamist friends what pussies they are for only beheading those who insult Mohammed.
Seriously, though. Your god is a psychopathic asshole.
Posted by: Immoralist on November 5, 2006 4:23 PMmarkm: Accept or reject God at your own choice, but if He doesn't exist, then the story recorded in 2 Kings is merely an odd coincidence in which somebody cursed a bunch of young gang members, and a couple addled bears happened to be in the vicinity. That requires no justification because it was just something that happened, with a convenient dose of prejudice reinforcement thrown in for good measure. But, if God exists, then He by definition is above all things and has every right to expect a standard of behavior out of His creation, and call that creation into account if it rebels against His order. That requires no defense from me; He can speak for Himself on the matter.
And already has: "death came by sin, for all have sinned"; "the wages of sin is death; the free gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord"; and (Jesus speaking), "if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins".
Death comes to everyone, it's only a question of when. Again, believe these reasons or don't; but your reply suggests an odd hybrid of willingness to accept God's existence, but then fault Him for not operating in according to your personal priorities. In other words, a God made in your own image. What good is that?
Posted by: anony-mouse on November 5, 2006 6:33 PMjl - I suggest that you not worry about small lies like saying “under God” because, unlike Christians, you hold that there is no ultimate penalty to be paid for such transgressions, either in an afterlife or in a decreased probability of passing on your genetic code.
Do you find that dishonest atheists fit more readily into your preconceived notions? Are real atheists who believe in honesty without some external threat of penalty somehow threatening to you? If someone doesn't fit your preconceptions, why not try and understand them rather than demanding that they conform to your stereotypes. Just a thought.
Posted by: Ryan on November 5, 2006 6:38 PMAccept or reject God at your own choice, but if He doesn't exist, then the story recorded in 2 Kings is merely an odd coincidence in which somebody cursed a bunch of young gang members, and a couple addled bears happened to be in the vicinity.
Or, um, you know, someone might have just...made it all up.
Just throwing it out there.
Posted by: Immoralist on November 6, 2006 12:24 AMDan, I understood your assertion the first time you made it. I eagerly await either supportive evidence or proof. Of course, by the nature of the assertion you can provide neither, which was the point I was making
Obviously it is impossible to give a provable answer to you question, and in that sense it was stupid of you to ask it in the first place.
However, the two-thousand year history of Christians demanding that the majority stop doing things Christians think are morally wrong strongly suggests that the answer would obviously be "yes".
Posted by: Dan on November 6, 2006 8:14 PM