Question for the Christians on this board

[starroute]

The world we live in today came out of the dark days of the 16th and 17th centuries, when Europe was nearly torn apart by religious wars. What finally brought this period of turmoil to an end in the late 1600's was a sort of philosophical contract: Only matters that were susceptible of being addressed rationally would be allowed into the public discourse. Anyone was allowed to maintain their personal articles of faith, but if they were unwilling for those beliefs to be subjected to rational consideration or skepticism, they were advised to keep them private.

That philosophical contract has been the basis of Western civilization for the last 300 years. The United States, in particular, is founded on it. But the fundamentalists don't respect it. They attempt to make their private religious beliefs a source of public policy. At the same time, they claim persecution if those beliefs, having been brought into the public arena, are subjected to ordinary standards of rational argument. And they try to pretend that scientific theories like Darwinian evolution are merely matters of private faith no different from their own credos.

It is because the fundamentalists appear to be to be trying to undermine this great pillar of Western civilization that I distrust them so deeply. I understand that non-fundamentalist Christians should not be implicated in the subversive actions of the fundamentalists. However, some of the Christians on this board have displayed a touchiness about their own faith that makes me wonder where they stand on the issue. So I would like to ask them this set of questions:

Do you accept the distinction between public rationality and private faith? If you do, why should it seem like a personal insult when someone here describes Christian myths as fairy-tales? Haven't the fundamentalists made them fair game by trying to drag them into the public discourse? And if all matters of faith can only seem like fairy-tales from the public perspective, why should it bother you when somebody says so? Is your personal faith so weak that the disbelief of infidels can shake it?

Please understand that I'm not trying to offend anyone. Most of what I know about Christianity, I learned from reading Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, and though they might have shaken their heads ruefully over the attitudes of non-believers, I can't see them ever having felt insulted by them. Have things changed so much in the last generation that an equivalent degree of tolerance is no longer possible?

[Wonk]

1. kick

[robbedvoter]

2. Excellent points!

[TheReligiousLeft]

3. tolerance

I would think the "fairy-tale" comment breeches another part of this social contract. Just as Fundies shouldn't go out there and devolve public discourse over evolution people who think religion is a "fairy-tale" should not devolve public discourse over religion.
So I think beyond feeling insulted people of faith feel this sacred-secular contract has been broken, which feels about the same as a fundie saying evolution is a "fairy-tale."
Another thought just came to mind, if religion has been brought up in a conversation and it wasn't the religious person who initiated the conversation the religious person has every right to be a bit pissed off if someone attacks their faith. It would be like a "creationist" turning a conversation with an Anthropologist to evolution and then proceding to bash evolution, it just isn't polite.
So in total I do not think the adverse reaction of a person of faith to having their faith called a "fairytale" is caused by their belief crumbling it is more like they feel the secularsacred contract has been broken

[drdigi420]

5. What if you firmly believe

that the religious myths of others are dangerous because of the lack of earthly accountability and the presumption of a higher power?

I firmly believe that religion is a hinderance to the advancement of civilization at best, and an instrument of torture and terrorism at best.

Religion, by definition, at least the christian brand of it, IS terrorism. It is rule and control by threat of eternal torture and pain, therfore terrorizing the believers into tithing and evangelizing.

However, I do realize how closely some people cling to their myths, so I will try to give them the same respect I give anyone putting forth fantastical claims of hob-goblins and sorcery.

[knight_of_the_star]

16. That is innacurate

Wicca doesn't fit that definition you jsut put forth. We aren't a hinderance to society. Are you implying that religious people are a hinderance to progress? Keep in mind we have religion in general to thank for little things like honour and compassion and loyalty and patriotism. Besides, what if I put forth proof that the supernatural world which my faith has strong basis in exists? How would your mind, so entrenched in science as it seems, react to that?

[drdigi420]

29. I would welcome any proof

but proof is diametrically opposed to religion.

with proof, something ascends religion and becomes science.

[knight_of_the_star]

46. I'm not talking about proving my religion

I was talking about proving the supernatural and metaphysics in general, both of which are things most Wiccans I know take very seriously. As I said, would you like proof of that, maybe even some stuff that proves that MAYBE fairies and hobgoblins MIGHT have existed in some form or another at some point in history?

[shugah]

41. actually, i think we should keep in mind that

we have "...little things like honour and compassion and loyalty and patriotism" to thank for things like religion. if all the religions of the world practiced what they preached, i think the world would be a better place--not because i believe in any invisible, omnipotent being, but because i think that "GOD" was originally created to reflect what is best in people.

science is the mythology of a secular age. ;-)

[LS_Webmaster]

59. i dont know about that

as much as there are "some" good lessons to be learnt in religious texts, there is also some extremely bad lessons. Therefore, if everyone practiced what they preached, then i dont think the world would be a better place. Think of all the "good" that we saw in the crusades and the inquisition. Sure they were carried out by fanatical interpretors but the gist of their argument still existed in the texts. If religion was followed so diligently by everybody, think of all the wars that would occur. I just think that such a "better place" existing through religion is extremely unrealistic and due to human nature will never and would never be able to exist.

and please shoot me if that secular age ever comes, lol ;-)

[leftofthedial]

69. "science is the mythology of a secular age"

bullshit

[leesa]

67. Why is religion to thank for things like honour and compassion

and loyalty and patriotism?? What on earth do these things have to do with religion?? People that have never had religion can have these traits. That is nonsense.

[blondeatlast]

33. Santa skipped your house again this year, Dr?

;-)

[Dob Bole]

43. see post #40 nt

[sangha]

61. Then you are misinformed

Though your description of religion does apply to some religious people, it is not universal. For example, your description of Christianity as "rule and control by threat of eternal torture and pain" reveals a poor understanding of Christian philosophy vis-a-vis "heaven and hell". Did you know that according to the Vatican (as revealed by the Pope) hell is not a place where eternal fires torture the sinners, but is instead a "state of existence" characterized by a distancing of the person from God? Basically, the "eternal flames of Hell" are a metaphor that symbolizes the idea that actions have consequences.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Firm belief

I firmly believe that your beliefs represents blatant bigotry to call Christianity terrorism.

[maggrwaggr]

4. yes, the fundies are basically medeival

and want to take us back to the dark ages.

Most of them are completely ignorant of history, so they have no idea that this is where they're actually coming from.

I have them in my family, so I know all about them.

They just don't get it.

I don't know any fundies who have much of an education, or who are well travelled. Does anyone?

[jafap]

22. Yes, I do

Although I was an atheist, most of my college friends were Fundies. They made friends with a loner/geek who mostly argued with them. They were going to law school, majoring in engineering and vetrinary science, etc. In the summer of his junior year, my one-time Fundie roommate made a missionary trip to the Phillipines, a place I will likely never see.
Also, one of my Fundie friends was a history major.

[rasputin1952]

6. I am a Christian, but definately NOT a fundie...

In fact, I hold that the fundies have it all wrong.

I can take hits from people about my religious beliefs, but as soon as someone hears, "Christian", the tend to shy away or go into attack mode. Guess it is others that are not sure of themselves, and are afraid to try to understand what Christ was all about.

IMHO, Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, and a belief that he sacrificed himself for all of mankind. When one reads Christ's teachings, it is difficult to find fault with them. It has become almost natural for fundies to miss the bigger points, and find themselves in a dark world of derision.

The basic tenet of Christ is Love, Compassion and Understanding. For instance, for all of the sexual hangups that fundies have, Christ rarely mentions sex; but often mentions hypocrisy. In fact, he has a real animosity for hypocrites, (something that everyone should look at closely).

Now there are many who would take offense at the simplicity of the message, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself', but that line alone sums up much of what Christianity is all about. One need not be a Christian to follow that bit of advice, it is the simplicity of the message that frightens many away from it. "How can anything be so simple", is the usual question. But truth is often based in simplicity.

Let me take this just a hair further; Ask anyone, "Why do you get angry"? You most likely will receive a multitude of answers, some often conflicting; but the truth of the matter is simple. Once we strip away all of the excuses, we get angry because we didn't get our way. It is that simple. Once one understands that, life becomes much better, understanding is the key to wisdom.

Take away all of the facades, and all of the rituals that have grown up around Christianity, and you have a simple truth, Love and compassion are necessary for a full life.

[karlschneider]

9. Excellent post. I cannot speak for others, but I find your views honest

and refreshing. Although I have been an atheist for about 45 years, and admit to having quite a lot of contempt for people who feel the need to advise everyone how great a 'christian' they claim to be, and then by actions demonstrate the opposite, folks who believe and try to emulate the teachings of Jesus have my admiration. Sorry for the run-on sentence. ;-)

My observations have long been that the louder one proclaims (verbally or by bumper-sticker, etc.) their 'christianity', the more likely they are to be someone who will prove by their deeds to be hypocrites, bigots, liars, cheats and ...well, assholes in general.

It is unfortunate for those who really do behave as Jesus is said to have entreated - they get little notice. The squeakiest wheels are the Paulists who embrace the delusions of the Terrorist of Tarsus because, I suspect, it's easier to denigrate others than to love and accept them.
Not to mention the universal human tendency to like a feeling of superiority.

One of my own "pet peeves" is the fundy tendency to use one or other Bibles to support their discrimination against homosexual people. For some perverse reason, they fail to notice or admit that the very icon of their professed faith had exactly zero to say about the matter. Common sense would surely suggest that if he (if he actually existed, which is for our purpose here is neither here nor there) considered it to be of some importance, he would have had a bit of something to say about it.

Anyway, nice post.
:D

[rasputin1952]

27. Thanks for the compliment...

You mentioned homosexuality, and there was quite a bit mentioned about it in the Old Testament; but, the 'pick and choose Christians'
use that as a means to berate others., just as they choose other situations in the Bible to uphold some absurd thought they have about others. I am straight as an arrow, but I know that there are others out there that are not. Is it for me to judge them, if they leave me alone? I am not in this world to point out others 'sins', I am here to help where I can, with whatever tools I have. That, at least for me, is walking the walk, as opposed to merely spewing out banal Biblical references. The hell fire/brimstone type 'Christian' is but a fool in God's eye. You don't scare people to belief, you try to set the example of a better life.

I do not mean to sound sanctimonious, it is just something I believe in. Maybe, (God forbid), the hellfire/brimstone types are right. Guess I'll find out later.

Once again, thanks for the compliment.

[incontrovertible]

44. zing

Common sense would surely suggest that if he (if he actually existed, which is for our purpose here is neither here nor there) considered it to be of some importance, he would have had a bit of something to say about it.

Fundamentalist dogma, Catholic Cathecism and Greek Orthodoxy all hold to the belief that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that The Christ, being one of the Trinity of God, is therefore responsible for, and the "author" of, every word in the Old and New Testaments. Both "Dash Thy Little One's Heads Against Rocks" and "Cast In The Name Of God, Ye Not Guilty," - "Jesus" said them both, under this doctrine, along with every word of Isaiah, Elijah, Ezekiel, Shadrach, Meeshac, Obednigo, Moses, Ruth, and everything else written in "the Bible."

The distinction between the words spoken by The Christ (beautifully codified in the Jeffersonian Bible, by the way) and the balance of the Christian Bible is purely an intellectual excercise engaged in solely by non-fundamentalists. The fact that Jesus himself never personally condemned homosexuality, at least not in recorded form, holds no weight amongst fundamentalists and Christian orthodoxy, especially considering The Christ's repeated contentions to be the living fulfillment, validation and realization of the "old testament" law.

This is not to invalidate your frustration with the seeming contradiction, only to provide the benefit of understanding provided by many, many years arguing such issues.

[TheBigGuy]

21. Pretty good post...

that was a good concise statement of faith. Thanx.

[rasputin1952]

28. Thank you...

for taking the time to read it.

[blondeatlast]

32. Beautifully said. I had started a reply when my ISP crashed

but I couldn't have said it better than you did.

Thank you.

[rasputin1952]

36. Thank you...

and I'm glad to see you're back on-line!

:hi:

[Woodstock]

50. Yes, Jesus had a way of getting to what was important

and not bothering with the rest.

I had my worst freeper nightmare actually tell me that he can't understand the new testament, it doesn't make sense to him, so that is why the church is necessary to interpret Jesus for the people (like him, they would not be able to understand him without Paul and the Pope and the minister and all those other guys running interference.) Stunning, because the words of Jesus have rung crystal clear to me since I was a child - and I can tell from your words, you feel the same way.

The worst possible thing I can imagine is to pervert his teachings, yet I see Bush and Ashcroft and the religious right do it every day. Calling themselves Christian has about the same credibility as Bush calling giving our trees away for votes a "healthy forest initiative." Hypocrites, all. (Jesus could spot them a mile away, too.)

Back to the original question of the thread - I don't mind if someone doesn't believe and says so, but if something is special to someone, there's no need to go out of one's way to be disrespectful.

[rasputin1952]

52. One of the great misfortunes of Christianity is...

the idea that someone 'has to have the Bible interpreted for them'.

If one can't figure out that compassion is the basis of the teachings of Christ, they must be intellectually lazy, or just plain stupid.
What complicates the teachings of Christ are the so called, "preachers" that have little knowledge themselves of what Christ was teaching. They feel the message is too simple, and must be be compounded. These are the same people that fail see that forgiveness is total, there are no strings attached. Regardless of what they say about forgiveness, they still hold the 'sinner' in contempt.

Falwell, Robertson and so many others, fail to realize, that Christianity is a personal religion, as well as public. I ask forgiveness for my errors, and the wisdom to avoid making the same mistakes. I find it unfortunate that that simple notion is passed over. We are responsible for our own actions, and need to understand that. I am obliged to clean up my own act, before I can assume that I have the ability to help others; and I have a lot of cleaning to do.

My suggestion is to keep it simple, there is nothing really complicated about the basic teachings of Christ. There are some parts that are difficult to understand, but you need to get the base, before you can understand the rest.

[sangha]

55. 'we get angry because we didn't get our way"

The way I've thought about it "Anger is the way we punish ourselves for not being able to change the world (get our way)"

[rasputin1952]

68. I see your point...

but I think on a smaller scale than changing the world. Little pieces at a time for me.

If I can make someones life just a tad easier, I feel fulfilled. Random acts of kindness come easily. I can't change the world, but I can make the world a more livable place for those I come in contact with.

[Aristus]

7. I try not to get offended when someone calls my beliefs "fairy tales",

for the very reason that public discourse will sooner or later come 'round to one one person or group of people think of the beliefs of another person or group of people.

Personally, I try to separate my faith from the machinery of public discourse because the fundy "Christians" have so befouled the tenets of my faith by THEIR public discourse. I refuse to be a knee-jerk "offended Christian" because it just muddies the waters. I'd like to have a civil conversation with anyone, atheist, agnostic, or whatever, without the elephant in the room, so to speak. So I often say to agitators (they may not know they're agitating) "Fire away. You won't offend me."

Excellent post, starroute. Very well articulated.

[rasputin1952]

30. I agree...

and running around 'showing off your faith', is never a good idea.

There are many out there just waiting to pounce; I do not worry myself with them, I am made of some pretty strong stuff. Since I do not condemn others for what they believe, I am often amazed at how often I am 'condemned' by those that say they believe as I do. They try so hard to ensure the salvation of others, they seldom realize they are often condemning themselves.

[Woodstock]

51. agree with you there

definitely not cool

[LoZoccolo]

8. I think on DU...

...it's a matter of breaking a different social contract. There are rules here, in writing, against posting both anti-atheist and anti-religious messages because this is a forum for progressives and liberals to unite around common issues, and not bring the theological/anti-theological underpinnings of their philosophy into it to such a degree as to divide people, at least not on this board. This is not the same as arguing about how well the policies of this nation conform and/or should conform to our policy of not using the government to establish religion (which is there to protect religion as well as keep the government from being used as it's tool). We have a very well-funded, very organized, and very united enemy, who does not get into these types of arguments amongst themselves (just about every Republican I know is NOT very religious), and we might do well to be grateful for each others' support.

[JustJoe]

10. Eh?

"There are rules here, in writing, against posting both anti-atheist and anti-religious messages..."

[LoZoccolo]

12. When you sign up you see this...

"Do not post racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnic, anti-religious, or anti-atheist bigotry. Unambiguous expressions of bigotry will be deleted, and will often result in the immediate banning of the individual responsible."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=register

Before people start arguing about what constitutes "bigotry" and think of how close we can get to it without touching it, let's think about why we have these rules.

[JustJoe]

18. I'm not surprised at the rule

& I'm not surprised at how often DUers (liberals?)
express anti-religious bigotry. I was surprised
when someone claimed atheists were a minority
here.

[5thGenDemocrat]

35. Yeah, Joe

Not that they're ever actually enforced.
John
Bash a Muslim or an athiest, get banned. Bash a Catholic, get a 200-post thread. The hypocrisy here is astounding.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

71. Catholic bashing is the last acceptable bigotry in these here US's

oh and fat people bashing too ....also acceptable

[Dob Bole]

72. Don't forget "fellow Dem bashing"

That is very acceptable of late.

[Dem2dend]

11. Reply

Do you accept the distinction between public rationality and private faith?
yes
If you do, why should it seem like a personal insult when someone here describes Christian myths as fairy-tales?
Because it strentgthen the stereotype that all Christians are the same way. Much as I dislike the belief that all homosexuals prey on children and are going to burn in Hell. I don't like stereotypes
Haven't the fundamentalists made them fair game by trying to drag them into the public discourse?
Again a generalization
And if all matters of faith can only seem like fairy-tales from the public perspective, why should it bother you when somebody says so?
I don't think all matters of faith seem like fairy-tales from the "public perspective" It does to some while some people have not made up their minds completely.
Is your personal faith so weak that the disbelief of infidels can shake it?
My faith is not shaken by those who disbelieve. People choose to believe what they feel. The only generalization I can make is that "everyone" feels differently and each has a right to do so.

[Yupster]

13. This philosophical social contract?

Tell me more about it?

Was this something written, and agreed to by who? or organized through conferences through the catholic church or some other groups?

Or was it just some nebulous coming together of thought that a professor discovered recently?

I've never heard of it? Not that that means it didn't exist.

Anyway, it seems like the wars of the 1600's kept right on going through the 1700's, and then into the 1800's with the Napoleanic Wars and then the German Wars and the Italian wars of nation building, and then into the 1900's with the Great Wars.

[jafap]

25. I also have a problem with that historical analysis

I cannot remember alot of religious wars, but the one that comes to mind is the thirty years war 1618-1648. While it was partly motivated by religion, I also think it was very much about national power politics, with France, Austria, England and Sweden playing Empire in the German Empire. Lots of these so-called religious wars seem to me to be more about plunder than they are about religion.
I do notice that Holborn says about the Peace of Westphalia - "The participants completely disregarded the capacity of the papacy for contributing to the lasting stability of the new international order." That seems to me more about the Pope losing political power than it does about religion being removed from the public discourse. England did not get rid of the church of England, but the English model was more about the state controlling religion than the Catholic model of religion controlling the state. You can see some of that here as most of the churches I have seen have "support our troops" or "God bless America" messages on their signs, and after 911, singing "Battle Hymn of the Republic" became the thing to do.

[rasputin1952]

31. You forget the Crusades...,

and there were many other wars fought under the auspices of religion.

When all else fails, using people to fight a war of faith becomes a matter of proving ones faith. there are few that wish to be called 'consorts of the devil' by not 'proving their faith.

[jafap]

47. sdrawkcab

Calling it a "war of faith" becomes a way to lie to pious people so they will fight a war which is basically about plunder or Empire. Think of it as the WMD of the Middle Ages. I may have forgotten the crusades since the original post specified 16th and 17th centuries.

Then again, there were Jehovah's witnesses, quakers, Amish, etc. who were jailed and otherwise persecuted because they refused to support the wars of a secular state. Dragooning people into wars is not confined to religious wars, and, again, I think you can find many political and/or economic causes for wars which were nominally fought in the name of religion.

[starroute]

38. Wars of religion and the philosophical reaction

Here are the main religious wars that occur to me:

Conflicts in Germany immediately following the Protestant Reformation - temporarily ended by Peace of Augsburg, 1555
Rebellion of the Protestant Netherlands against Spain (1556-1609)
Catholic Spain vs. Protestant England (Spanish Armada, 1588)
Civil war in France - St. Bartholomew's Massacre carried out against the Huguenots (1572) - Henry of Navarre converts from Protestant to Catholic in order to become king and grants Protestants religious freedom (Edict of Nantes, 1598)
Thirty Years War (1618-48)
English Civil War (1648)

Wars among the great European powers continued after that time, but starting with the War of the League of Augsburg (1689), they were completely secular in character.

The philosophical contract to which I referred was never formally enacted, but it's nothing just invented by some professor either. People at the time were very aware of it. The most obvious example is the Royal Society, the first-ever scientific academy, founded in England in the 1600's: "They were forbidden to discuss such subjective (and explosive) matters as religion or politics, but were to concentrate on the 'natural world.' "

This shift was confirmed by the new empiricist philosophy of John Locke in the 1690's, which was based on the idea that it was impossible to have certain knowledge other than that conveyed through the senses. Even religious leaders of the time largely accepted this assumption, though with an exception for the revealed truths of the Bible.

(The Salem witch trials are an interesting example of people trying to apply the new standards of empirical proof to the old belief in witchcraft and making a complete mess of it. By a few years later, figures like Cotton Mather had gotten a clearer sense of things and were thoroughly embarrassed by the whole business.)

In the 18th century, the general attitude was that reasonable people could agree on the existence of a Supreme Being (atheists still being somewhat beyond the pale), but that trying to pin the matter down any more precisely was likely to cause bad feelings and was probably not possible in any case. That is the context out of which the American Revolution arose.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. the thing that most comes to mind is

Gee, your post is obnoxious.

[Astarho]

15. Not a Christian but

I agree with much you said. Public discourse and private faith are two separate things that should stay separate. Unfortunately this is no longer the case, and I personally blame the politicans rather then the fundies.

Do you accept the distinction between public rationality and private faith?

God and other aspects of faith cannot be proven rationally, this is true, because there is no evidence to support them, but there is no evidence to contradict them either. The smart and tolerant thing to do would be not to bring it up at all, since no one is going to win the argument.

If you do, why should it seem like a personal insult when someone here describes Christian myths as fairy-tales? Haven't the fundamentalists made them fair game by trying to drag them into the public discourse? And if all matters of faith can only seem like fairy-tales from the public perspective, why should it bother you when somebody says so? Is your personal faith so weak that the disbelief of infidels can shake it?

I fail to see how accepting the difference between public rationality and private faith should leave people open to insult. If they did not bring up the subject or even in they did in an aspect (if they talk about Catholic Church's policy on gay marriage for example) and you were to tell them their beliefs are fairy-tales it seems you would be the one crossing the line from public rationality and private faith.

Faith or concept of the universe (which is what religion is) like sexuality or ethnicity forms a core of someone's being and personal identity, so it is something one must be careful around.

To turn it around on you: Why should it seem like an insult when a fundie says atheists are going to hell? But if athiests don't believe in hell why should you care? You may laugh it off. I did when I (pagan here, BTW) was called a Satanist. I believe that you would be offended (and rightly so) if you heard it constantly and day after day. I sure got sick of it.

I guess it just comes down to mutual respect and tolerance.

[knight_of_the_star]

20. I'd have to agree

The politicians looked back on history and saw how totally the nobles of Europe ruled when the Church was on their side, so they made a devil's alliance with the clergy who were willing to sell their faith for power. The problem is when you mix the two, because people DON'T become clergy to gain power, but politics is a profession that is motivated and driven by personal ambition. When you mix religion and politics, you get a very deadly cocktail indeed.

[Astarho]

23. I saw it more like

politician goes to town and says:
POLITICIAN: Hi, I'm running for office
TOWNSPERSON: Jesus is our only king
POLITICIAN: Uh. well, I believe Jesus is our only king too.
TOWNSPERSON: Wow! Really, I'll vote for you then!

I know that's simplified, but that's basically how I think it happened in this country, politicians would adopt trappings of faith in order to win votes. And to win re-election they have to keep up their trappings of faith or loose their re-election

But I see your point bout an alliance with the clergy. The ones who are not in it for the power will leave the govt. alone, but those who are will get involved like Pat Robertson for example. He's a perfect example of a power-hungry clergyman trying to gain power in the government.

[knight_of_the_star]

48. Exactly

That and because of that alliance I mentioned you have people like Robertson and Falwell becoming "clergy" so that they could wield greater temporal power because of the supposed spiritual power the aura of being clergy grants. That kind of think also happened during the Middle Ages where nobles would send their excess offsrping into the clergy who would then end up being VERY potent players in European politics having the ties to the families they came from coupled with the power to excommunicate. While that does not have the same power it used to have, fake ministers who become that to gain power do have the power to "censure" their opponents and gain the support of their flocks with greater ease than a politician ever could.

[blondeatlast]

42. Thank you; thoughtful people on all sides of the theism issue are

far too rare on DU.

Amazing how a flame-baiting thread gets turned on its side when thoughtful people debate the issue.

[jagguy]

17. I don't think I accept your premice

there have always been kooks. IN the old days there was enough space where they could go somewhere else and be kooky.

We're outta space.

And we're FAR more tolerant these days. We used to torture and kill kooks. That was reason enough for them to hit the road even if that road was a tiny boat on a huge ocean and thousands of miles to cross.

[Blue_Chill]

19. response

Do you accept the distinction between public rationality and private faith?

Yes.

If you do, why should it seem like a personal insult when someone here describes Christian myths as fairy-tales?

Is it an insult when I call the socialism a pipe dream? To socialist it is. Is it an insult if I say liberal beliefs are nothing more then idealistic fantasy? To liberals it is.

When you insult the core beliefs of an individual you insult them.

Haven't the fundamentalists made them fair game by trying to drag them into the public discourse?

Dragged in? Why should it have ever been left out? It is the beleifs of a large majority of voters in America in different degrees. You don't get to choose how people think or what reasons they give for thinking that way.

Anti-Theists and Fundies together are responsible for the hijacking of Christianity. They both reinforce the notion that Christianity is about hatred and the media, always enjoying conflict, puts them all over the air waves.

And if all matters of faith can only seem like fairy-tales from the public perspective, why should it bother you when somebody says so?

From the public perspective religion is accepted. I'm sorry to inform you but the 'public perspective' by in large is *NOT* a secualr one.

Is your personal faith so weak that the disbelief of infidels can shake it?

There is a difference between insulting the person and shaking their faith. Some of us have grown tired of sitting on the sidelines while fundies and anti-theist redefine our faith.

Please understand that I'm not trying to offend anyone.

Not only understood, greatly appreciated. I have no problems with respectful questions or threads such as this one. Thank you.


Most of what I know about Christianity, I learned from reading Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, and though they might have shaken their heads ruefully over the attitudes of non-believers, I can't see them ever having felt insulted by them. Have things changed so much in the last generation that an equivalent degree of tolerance is no longer possible?

They didn't see their faith hijacked to the point where in the media, and thus the world, their faith was represented by two view points....

- Falwellian hate mongers
- Anti-theist pointing out that christianity is that which falwell preaches and thus should be rejecked.

If we continue to sit back and be tolerant our numbers will continue to dwindle as they have in the US. We have a growing number of Atheists in this nation because of this situation and while this may be great news to Atheists it is not to me. I hate to sit by and think that many young people are turning away from something because the only examples they see are negative.


Also I would like to add that the world nearly came to an end during the cold war and it had nothing to do with religion. Religion does not destroy man, the failure to understand a value human life combined with nationalism and greed, that is the problem.

[Character Assassin]

24. That is a historically inaccurate and unjustifiable contention

The world we live in today came out of the dark days of the 16th and 17th centuries, when Europe was nearly torn apart by religious wars. What finally brought this period of turmoil to an end in the late 1600's was a sort of philosophical contract: Only matters that were susceptible of being addressed rationally would be allowed into the public discourse. Anyone was allowed to maintain their personal articles of faith, but if they were unwilling for those beliefs to be subjected to rational consideration or skepticism, they were advised to keep them private.

Are you kidding me? There has never been anything even approaching what you describe as a philosophical contract of that nature until, at best, around the end of the 1950's in this country and roughly the turn of the 19th/20th century for Europe, and not everywhere there.

Where on earth did you get the idea that "Only matters that were susceptible of being addressed rationally would be allowed into the public discourse."?

All historical evidence points to quite a contrary position.

That philosophical contract has been the basis of Western civilization for the last 300 years.

See above. That is simply untenable.

The United States, in particular, is founded on it.

What? Have you ever read the letters, speeches, diaries or documents of the Founding Fathers and those that came after them? Chock full of non-rationally based subject matter, opinions and statements. Hell, support for slavery in the 19th century was often, but not always, based on religion and it was most definite not withheld from public discourse.

But the fundamentalists don't respect it. They attempt to make their private religious beliefs a source of public policy. At the same time, they claim persecution if those beliefs, having been brought into the public arena, are subjected to ordinary standards of rational argument. And they try to pretend that scientific theories like Darwinian evolution are merely matters of private faith no different from their own credos.

It is because the fundamentalists appear to be to be trying to undermine this great pillar of Western civilization that I distrust them so deeply.

The fundamental, pardon the pun, flaw in your arguement is that your premise is flawed: what you are describing has not been a 'great pillar of Western Civilzation', so it cannot be undermined.

[Blue_Chill]

37. well said

eom

[alaine]

39. I would have just gone with our constitutional right to

not have a government supported religion shoved down our throats and left out the enlightenment crap, but that's just me.
The cult of science and it's sense of entitlement to torture and exploit animals and destroy nature based on some ridiculous assertion of man's "favorite son" status because he has a big brain is just as superstitious to me as any creation myth.

[Character Assassin]

45. It would seem you and I have much to discuss......

I would have just gone with our constitutional right to not have a government supported religion shoved down our throats and left out the enlightenment crap, but that's just me.

Well, perhaps it is just you.

You and I are just anoymous posters here, but you've engaged me now, so I request just one thing: I'd like you to tell me, specifically and exactly about this right you mention.

This is not a challenge, friend. This is a heartfelt, respectful request.


The cult of science and it's sense of entitlement to torture and exploit animals and destroy nature based on some ridiculous assertion of man's "favorite son" status because he has a big brain is just as superstitious to me as any creation myth.

I do not intend this to be in the least presumptory, or insulting, but I would like to ask you one question, which you may interpret as you wish.

How old are you?

That is all.

[alaine]

49. 34.

My post was actually in defense of yours and in reaction to the thread authors.

Your tone is strange. I should tell you that I don't get into philosophical debates on D.U. because I'm plenty old enough to know what I believe and think and feel. I tend to express my opinion with regards to the original post and leave the thread. I especially don't argue with people that I am diametrically opposed to in philosophy because I know full well that nothing will be changed by debate except that two people will each have a new enemy

I have a bad habit of hitting reply right when an answer formulates in my head, and it has caused me problems in the past; I see I should have gone back up to the original post and hit reply.

edit: to answer your first question: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof."

[Character Assassin]

74. It was your term 'the cult of science' that got to me

Your tone is strange.

Sorry, it's just that 'the cult of science' actually sounds like something a fundamentalist-type would say, so the irony may have made me come off strange.

to answer your first question: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof."

While I am a proponent of the seperation of church and state, to my mind the above phrase has possibly been more abused than any other in the Constitution.

[maha]

66. History of Fundamentalism

Read Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism." She documents that it was not until the 18th century that the intelligensia began to think of rational, pragmatic, scientific thought (logos) as the only means to truth and myths as false and supersitious. Before that time, people honored mythos as the way to understand the meaning of things. Histories were deliberately written as myths for this reason. People didn't worry about whether the histories were factually true; that was not the point.

Fundamentalism is a warped reaction to the modern world, Armstrong says. Fundies have lost their appreciation for mythos and have accepted the modern notion of the supremacy of logos, which means that if the Bible is true it has to be FACTUALLY true. This is not 'old-time religion' but a newfangled idea that got going in the late 19th century.

It is true that since the eighteenth century there's been a growing consensus that matters of "logos" were for public consumption, but matters of "mythos" are private.

[youngred]

26. answers

Do you accept the distinction between public rationality and private faith?
Absolutely, I abhorr people who wear their faith on their sleeves, and I take my faith to be just for me, and what I believe need not extend to anyone beyond myself

If you do, why should it seem like a personal insult when someone here describes Christian myths as fairy-tales?
I would think this would be rather obvious why that is insulting. If someone believes in something (and here we get into questions of belief vs. proof which i don't want to go into) and it is insulted and parallels drawn in one's thinking comparing them to a child it is not generally taken well. Would you like me to say atheists are whiny cynics or immoral. I don't think they are and can realize that is insulting

Haven't the fundamentalists made them fair game by trying to drag them into the public discourse?
They deserve to have themselves drawn out, but since they don't represent all Christians, no they don't make it fair game.

And if all matters of faith can only seem like fairy-tales from the public perspective, why should it bother you when somebody says so?
I already adressed this, how would you like someone coming up and screaming your friend/father/SO whatever is an asshole. Someone/thing you love is being insulted by someone, and of course they're going to be rather prickly...It's just rude to debase someone like that

Is your personal faith so weak that the disbelief of infidels can shake it?
Who said you shook it? Why do atheists always feel they've got us shakin in our boots when they insult our beliefs? You don't challenege my belief by being insulting and calling it santa for grown-ups or fairy tales. You can challenge me to defend it, and we can have great discussions (as I have with many on this board) about atheism vs. theism and the ramifications, and whys and whatnots, without being rude.

[supernova]

34. Hard to believe

that even you starroute, take your post seriously. I don't.

[Dob Bole]

40. Religious wars still continue...

Remember Northern Ireland? Liberia? I don't know what sort of social contract you're talking about, but at any rate modernism is dead and we live in a postmodern world.

Religious wars are not waged by true Christians and are usually perpetuated by an underlying political reason, because Christianity, insofar as it means following Christ, has only one commandment: love your neighbor as yourself. In that regard, Christianity is not really religious at all.

Unfortunately, we now have fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a phenomenon in which people who are resistant to change try to control their surroundings through moralism. They effectively invent religion, or transform their beliefs into religion. Therefore, Christian fundamentalists ARE religious, whereas a mainstream Christian may not be.

Fundamentalism was brought about by the Industrial Revolution, scientific discoveries, and apparently a response to Bill Clinton's social policy.

[Rich Hunt]

53. religion, mythology and "fairy stories"

Here is what one "modern" twentieth-century figure had to say about modernism and religion:

So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

Originally, religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It's only gradually that it became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can live only to the detriment of society collectively.

Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.

But one must continue to pay attention to another aspect of the problem. It's possible to satisfy the needs of the inner life by an intimate communion with nature, or by knowledge of the past. Only a minority, however, at the present stage of the mind's development, can feel the respect inspired by the unknown, and thus satisfy the metaphysical needs of the soul. The average human being has the same needs, but can satisfy them only by elementary means. That's particularly true of women, as also of peasants who impotently watch the destruction of their crops. The person whose life tends to simplification is thirsty for belief, and he dimly clings to it with all his strength.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they've acquired others that are more reasonable. Indeed, it's most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

So much for the ideological purity of atheism.

And yes, I am an agnostic. But until I came here, I had no idea that it entailed feeling more enlightened than religious people.

[sangha]

54. Thank you, starroute

Disclosure note: I am not a Christian, but I am religious.

1) Do you accept the distinction between public rationality and private faith?

Definitely, yes. My religious beliefs do not decide my political positions and that's precisely because I recognize that my religious beliefs are personal, and therefore the only one bound by them is myself. Though I'm more than happy to describe and discuss them, I have no desire to impose my beliefs on others. In fact, I think it imposing my beliefs would be a betrayal of those very same beliefs.

2) If you do, why should it seem like a personal insult when someone here describes Christian myths as fairy-tales?

Because there is a huge difference between "myths" and "fairy tales". Myths speak about the deep truths concening our nature and the nature of the universe and existence. Fairy tales are just morality plays, and often loaded with cultural "baggage". Potraying "myths" as "fairy tales" is IMO an attempt (intentional or not) to discount the spiritual value of myth. (see Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth")

3) Haven't the fundamentalists made them fair game by trying to drag them into the public discourse?

I'm not sure what or who you mean by "them".

If you mean "Christians", then "No. The fundamentalists have made themselves "fair game". They haven't made anyone else but themselves "fair game"

If you mean those myths, then it depends on what you mean by "fair game" There's nothing wrong with challenging the biblical interpretations they offer. However, I don't think it's fair to misportray the stories themselves as "fairy tales"

4) And if all matters of faith can only seem like fairy-tales from the public perspective, why should it bother you when somebody says so?

I don't know what you mean by "the public perspective" Obviously, some members of the public think these stories are fairy tales, but many do not. They might even be a majority of the public. Either way, those who think they are fairy tales do have a right to express that opinion, but those who think otherwise have a right to explain why they think these stories are more than just fairy tales.

I don't think the idea that these stories are fairy tales is as offensive as the way some insist that they are. It's one thing to believe that they are fairy tales, while keeping your mind open to the possibility that they are more than that (as you seem to do with your questions) - It's another to assert with complete certainty that they are no more than fairy tales. It's reminiscent of the fundamentalists certainties.

5) Is your personal faith so weak that the disbelief of infidels can shake it?

No.

[Merlin]

73. Very well said, Sangha

I, too, found the original post confusing.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

56. Why don't you people go ask the fundies?

Why are you constantly bothering the liberal, tolerant, religious people on DU with your anti-religious frustrations? If we aren't the ones you have a problem with, why don't you go to freerepublic.com and ask the fundies?

What makes you think we have any idea what the fundies think?

[outinforce]

57. I Think You May Have A Distorted View of History

You say: "Only matters that were susceptible of being addressed rationally would be allowed into the
public discourse. Anyone was allowed to maintain their personal articles of faith, but if they were unwilling for those
beliefs to be subjected to rational consideration or skepticism, they were advised to keep them private.

That philosophical contract has been the basis of Western civilization for the last 300 years. The United States, in
particular, is founded on it. But the fundamentalists don't respect it. They attempt to make their private religious
beliefs a source of public policy."

But surely you know that two of the largest movements in the USA's history were based precisely on people of faith bringing their "private" and "non-rational" views into the public arena.

I am talking about the abolition of slavery in the 1800's and the abolition of segregation in the 1900's.

In BOTH cases, it was people of faith (men like Dr. Martin Luther King) who attempted to make their private religious beliefs a source of public policy.

Likewise, during the struggle against the War in Vietnam, it was men like Dr. William Sloane Coffin and the Berrigan Brothers (RC priests) who attempted to bring their own private religious views into the public arena and to make them the source of public policies.

[Judson39]

62. religious people indeed

Hardly think it was religious principals that pushed these people to disrupt the existing order, but more of their politicial inclinations persuaded them to agitate for change.

God had nothing to do with it.

[outinforce]

63. And You Have Come to This Conclusion of Yours

" Hardly think it was religious principals that pushed these people to disrupt the existing order, but more of their
politicial inclinations persuaded them to agitate for change.

God had nothing to do with it."

And you have come to this conclusionm of yours (concerning people like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., John Brown, the Berrigan Brothers, and Rev. William Sloane Coffin) how, exactly???????

[sangha]

65. If you'd like to learn why you are wrong

PM me and I can recommend some books for you to read. Religion had a great deal to do with it.

[drdigi420]

58. Why don't we just drop it.?

It's intellectually insulting to athiests and it just seems to stir up the holy-rollers.

Any chance the god squad can stop injecting their 'myths' into our discussions?

We have REAL problems to deal with. One of which is the current holy-rollers in office.

[Dob Bole]

70. Intellectually insulting?

First amendment rights are insulting to you? Or the fact that people can be Christians and use reason, therefore upsetting your expectations and disrupting your view of how the world is?

I, for one, do not need to be rescued from the "opiate of the people," my brain is quite intact, and I choose a life of peace and love, and for that I will not apologize.

[rasputin1952]

76. One of the more amusing situations that arises in DU...

is that those who insist on reading these threads, suddenly feel the need to interject their two-cents.

Rather than complain about the subject matter, it seems to me that it is just as easy to find something that is relevant to your tastes and intellectual propensity. I find it dis-ingenuous at best, to come into a thread with the distinct thought of disrupting that thread, for no other reason than to incite others to do so also.

For those that insist on this type of behavior, I welcome it, you have as much right to speak as others do. But remember, the subject line was to Christians, there was ample opportunity to bypass this thread. No one twisted your arm, or threatened to gouge out your eyes
if you made the decision to avoid this thread. I learn something from everyone that comes to a thread, and often I learn that some people are not happy with anything that can bring peace and love to others.


edited for: lousy spelling

:kick:

[noonwitch]

60. The faith isn't in the fairy tales(warning, long)...

The faith is based on individual feelings and practices. The fairy tales/Bible stories are not necessarily the word of God.
I can accept that evolution is the scientific theory of how life began. I can also accept that humanity was created by God. The Genesis creation story is an allegory with a truth in it that is not necessarily literal.
Some Bible stories are about real people and events. Much of the Old Testament is about the history of the jewish people, their traditions, laws and philosophy. The gospels are the story of Jesus, his life, death, teachings and ministry. Paul's(and others) letters are philosophical writings, and the Revelation is prophecy (or there were some really interesting mushrooms on the isle of Patmos). The problem with fundamentalism is that they accept it all as equally the word of God, and disagreeing with any item in it is disagreeing with God. "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" is their mentality. They are unwilling to accept that it is a divinely inspired collection of writings, written down by impefect humans who may of injected their own imperfections into the script. Paul is a good example of this-he obviously had issues with women. The kosher laws are also a positive example-put food safety rules into religious laws, and your people are healthier for following them.

[Merlin]

75. You need to appreciate the importance of religious beliefs to many.

Highly rational, intellectual minds often reject wholly the need of most people--who are not highly rational, intellectuals--for a human interpretation of the meaning of life. Religion, whether seen as faith or mythology, is nevertheless THE fundamental basis of the daily frame of reference of those who believe in it.

It is incumbent upon those with highly rational, intellectual minds to understand this imperative of human existence, and to permit its expression--so long as such expression does not interfere with the lives of others or the rational rules of the body politic.

It is incumbent upon believers to understand that their beliefs are not shared by all, and that using organized religion as a political force is a threat to the stability of any democracy.

We see this today not simply in fundamentalism, but also in the recent bent of the Vatican to force US Catholic politicians to support Vatican-approved positions on abortion and civil unions.

America is an areligious, not a non-religious state. The founding fathers set it up that way. (Many of them were non-Christians.) We were a nation conceived in the intellectual firmament of the enlightenment. The philosophy rejected the governance both of hereditary rulers and of organized religion in favor of the rule of common sense and reason. That is what gave us our strength. That is what we must cling to.