Of course, this is all a digression from the original question of “What the hell is Al Quie afraid of?” Also, we’ve already done this. Please reference our previous discussion on these boards, and feel free to resume discussing the original question at hand.

You say:

… Dawkins is one of the “unreasonable” people who battle to the death. He is on the same end of the spectrum of Scriptural interpretation as the fundamentalists – he reads the Bible literally. Of course, as a scientist, he reaches the conclusion that the Bible is not factual, which is the same conclusion that he would reach about Aesop’s fables.

Have you actually read Dawkins’s main screed, The God Delusion?

It’s certainly open to criticism on many scores, and I’m not here either to praise or bury it. But what’s above misses Dawkins’s point(s). Dawkins’s main concern is not with the Bible at all, literal or not. Dawkins is mainly on about the existence of God, for which he sees no evidence; belief in any God(s) is Dawkins’s eponymous “delusion”. Given this view, Dawkins isn’t concerned with what’s literal and what’s metaphorical in the Bible. For him (I’d guess), what’s valuable in the Bible is what reinforces universal truths, like treating each other well; what he rejects is what points to (what he sees as) unsupported beliefs about things divine.

“Your Own Personal…Denomination”
http://clayoglesbee.blogspot.com/2010/01/your-own-personaldenomination.html

At the other end of the spectrum are those who read the Bible (or Aesop’s fables) so figuratively that any or no interpretation is possible.

It seems that Quie is concerned that the ECLA is moving too far in the figurative direction in it interpretation of the Scriptures. I think he overstates his case. Interestingly, what the ECLA leadership did was give sanction to both literal and figurative interpretations of Scripture. According to them, Quie may be just as right as someone who believes the complete opposite.

Okay, here’s a shorter version (less verbiage, and the “painful” might cause problems)

Gay Marriage Resolution, Draft #2

Whereas people all across the nation have been voting “yes” to painful discrimination when they vote against gay marriage,

Whereas painful discrimination is wrong and unjust, and ultimately Unconstitutional

Whereas there should be a separation of church and state,

Whereas the church should be allowed to decide who they will marry,

Whereas marriage is an important concept and valued by many in the state of Minnesota

Whereas civil unions, if defined properly and used in the right manner, may help us to avoid a conflict between church and state while also simultaneously ending painful discrimination

Let it be resolved that the state of Minnesota recognize “civil unions”, use that term when it refers to its residents in legal description instead of the term “marriage”, and commence to consider marriage as equal to that of a civil union. No one entity shall be discriminated against as a result of being a part of a civil union.

“Civil union” shall be defined as a union between two individuals and shall commence upon consumation by ceremony as allowed by within the church or as consumated before a judge; or shall commence upon being a civil union that is of “habit and repute” and which has been in existence for seven years.
.-= (Holly Cairns is a blogger. See a recent post titled Oh, and Hey, Entenza! Minnesota Caucus Time!) =-.

In 21.13 you properly diss any literal interpretation of Aesop on talking ants and grasshoppers. As you say, the fables are obviously metaphorical, and so have moral or entertainment value, if any, in that spirit.

Less clear to me is your point on how all this relates to religion and religious belief. If you mean only that analogy and metaphor play some role in religion, fine — who could disagree?

The $64K question, IMO, is how literally or metaphorically the Bible or other religious texts should properly be read and assessed. On these scores (what I see as) reasonable people can and should disagree, while (what I see as) unreasonable people fight, sometimes to the death.

Dawkins may pick his fights too much for some tastes at one end of this spectrum. But the spectrum really exists, and it matters in practical ways, for religion. Nobody really puzzles over Aesop.

When I read Aesop’s fables, I realized that the ant and the grasshopper couldn’t really talk to each other, and I doubt that Aesop thought they could. I would consider someone reading it literally to be “unenlightened”. But, if someone told me that they wouldn’t read Aesop because some “believers” thought ants and grasshoppers could talk, I would think those people to be, at best, disingenuous, and, at worst, fools.

Some of Dawkins’ arguments are similar to the latter category. He mocks fringe Christian beliefs, and postulates that he couldn’t possibly become a “believer”. Fair enough. But, most Christians don’t think ants and grasshoppers can talk, or that God is a big bad meany, and it is unfair for Dawkins to take potshots at all Christians (no matter how fashionable or profitable it has become).

I’ll try to listen to some of the videos you referenced. But, from what I have heard to date, Dawkins is more about critiquing Aesop’s talking ant and grasshopper than he is about understanding Aesop’s fable.

“An evangelical pollster, George Barna, recently asked a sampling of Christians a list of questions, the answers to some of which demonstrated a fairly pervasive biblical illiteracy (only 40 percent of respondents could conjure up any five the Ten Commandments. A scant half of Americans can name any of the four Gospels. Twelve percent of Americans are confident that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.)”

-”Deep Economy” (p. 98) by Bill McKibben, self-proclaimed Christian

The idea that the so-called New Atheists have not engaged “intellectual heavyweights” is not accurate. I have more closely followed Sam Harris (one of Dawkins’ “ilk,” to use your word) than Dawkins, and he has engaged with Rick Warren, Martin Marty, Karen Armstrong, Andrew Sullivan, Chris Hedges, among others. See: http://www.samharris.org/site/debates/

Dawkins, too, regularly debates believers who are not exactly ignoramuses (including Francis Collins). A partial list: http://tinyurl.com/ydhrwbs

The question of “preference” (or “prejudice”) is what we are trying to avoid. Polygamous versus monogamous, gay versus straight, sexual versus asexual, and familial versus non-familial are the kinds of artificial distinctions we are trying to rid from the law. It is only a contract, what does monogamy, sexual preference, or even actual sex have to do with a contact? Aren’t monogamy, sexual complementarity, biology, loving, committed and sexual practices religious questions? Aren’t we trying to avoid the preferences of David Ludescher and Paul Zorn, and settle on a non-preferential system of regulating the personal contract called a marriage?

David has discussed his marriage ideas there in great detail.

We don’t have the luxury of ignoring them.

I think Dawkins is going to have to learn algebra before he can be taught calculus. Calculus notation looks like gibberish until you understand the context in which it was written.

Perhaps you can take a stab at it? I like my whereas this and that, and I like the idea of addressing currently existing discrimination. Also, we need to define civil union so it avoids potential problems.

Consummation was used to address common law marriage situation
painful was used to differentiate, but perhaps it isn’t needed in the legal context
.-= (Holly Cairns is a blogger. See a recent post titled Minnesota Senate District 26: Special Election 2010) =-.

I like the simplicity of David’s proposed new statute. It avoids vague language like “first and foremost”, “painful”, and “consummation”, all of which seem (for different reasons!) to invite variant readings.

Clear language is great, but it isn’t everything. I’d probably oppose a caucus resolution advocating for David’s new statute.

My main problem is that David’s statute explicitly recognizes—note the use of “among”— polygamous marriages. I wonder, too, whether it would also allow marriages between non-human “parties”, such as corporations … but I’d defer to David’s expertise there.

Whether polygamous and monogamous marriage should be treated equally before the law is a good question, but separable from the question of whether we personally prefer one option to the other. (Most of us around here, I suspect, have similar preferences in this matter.)

Maybe we can discuss sometime the pros and cons of polygamy. In the meantime, why conflate two questions, one hard and one (for me, anyway) easy? I just don’t buy David’s view (unless I misunderstand it) that the two have to go together.

May 25, 2007
One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible is Literally True
High inverse correlation between education and belief in a literal Bible
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ — About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

Given the prevalence of such a view, it appropriate for Dr. Dawkins to address the implications of such belief. And the God of the Old Testament really did act in some remarkably disturbing ways -- if we are to believe that what the bible says is true.

The substance of Dawkins’ argument is that if the Old Testament is read literally, which it is by some Christians, then God is really mean, and he doesn’t want to believe in that God. Fair enough. But, many, if not most, Christians read the Bible as one book. And, most Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth has explained the meaning of the Old Testament by his death on the cross.

My main complaint with Dawkins (and his ilk) is that he mocks all of Christianity by picking on the more fringe elements, and then proclaims victory. I’m not going to be able to take him seriously until he engages the intellectual heavyweights in his battle.

I am in favor a defining marriage or civil union in a way that is simple, fair, and clear, and that serves a legitimate government purpose. Talking about polygamy and familial relationships helps clarify the what the definition is going to be.

Presently, the statute reads, “Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting is essential”.

I propose the following, “Marriage, so far as its validity in the law is concerned, is a civil contract between or among consenting parties who are capable in law of contracting”.

I think that this is simple, fair, and clear. There is no need to interpret “painful discrimination”, no need to talk about church versus state, and no sexual components. It is stricly contract law. Anyone interested in loving and committed relationships can make their promises someplace else.

I don’t think David is trying to push polygamy. I think he’s muddling the field-- trying to kill the compromise, if there is one. Throwing a cog, throwing a fit, etc. David: It’s about ending painful discrimination. Have a heart.

Seriously, let’s carry this resolution with us to the caucus:

Whereas people all across the nation have been voting “yes” to painful discrimination when they vote against gay marriage,

Whereas painful discrimination is wrong and unjust, and ultimately Unconstitutional

Whereas there should be a separation of church and state,

Whereas the church should be allowed to decide who they will marry,

Whereas marriage is an important concept and valued by many in the state of Minnesota

Whereas civil unions, if defined properly and used in the right manner, may help us to avoid a conflict between church and state while also simultaneously ending painful discrimination

Let it be resolved that the state of Minnesota first and foremost recognize “civil unions”, use that term when it refers to its residents in legal description instead of the term “marriage”, and in effect commence to consider marriage as equal to that of a civil union. No one entity shall be discriminated against, in a manner that is painful, as a result of being a part of a civil union.

“Civil union” shall be defined as a union between two individuals and shall commence immediatly upon consumation by ceremony as allowed by within the church or as consumated before a judge; or shall commence upon being a civil union that is of “habit and repute” and which has been in existence for seven years.

(Maybe one of us can add a line about being mentally capable and of the age of 18, or 16 with parent consent….)
.-= (Holly Cairns is a blogger. See a recent post titled Minnesota Senate District 26: Special Election 2010) =-.