How atheist-friendly is Northfield? (also, religious vs. legal views on marital rights)

atheist bus President Barack Obama personally did me and other atheists a big favor in his inaugural speech this week when he said:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.  We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. (continued)

I’m not going to start a campaign to put signs on Northfield’s buses like they’re doing in the UK with the Atheist Bus project. But it has made me wonder (like I wondered back in May of 2007 with a How gay-friendly is Northfield? blog post): How atheist-friendly is Northfield?

1,517 Comments

  1. Anthony Pierre said:

    Northfield is pretty tolerant in everything, whether you are a republican, athiest or gay.

    January 23, 2009
  2. I’d say that the town is pretty open to atheists/agnostics. While a great deal of our social and cultural life is centered on the churches, and a lot of Northfielders are serious churchgoers, I’ve never experienced any surprise or dismay from anyone who learns I am – as Obama put it – a “non-believer.” I’d wager that this is an effect of the town’s colleges, especially the eastern one.

    January 23, 2009
  3. Tracy Davis said:

    Griff, I think the better, more pertinent question is: “How evangelical- or fundamentalist-friendly is Northfield?”

    I’ve seen more groupthink and intolerance about and toward conservative Christians than I’ve observed toward any other group in town.

    January 23, 2009
  4. Anthony Pierre said:

    Tracy, do you have any examples?

    January 23, 2009
  5. Kathy Blough said:

    My perception is that one is safer using phrases such as “non-believer” or “not religious.” The term “atheist” seems to have become synonymous with “anti-religion” to some people.

    January 23, 2009
  6. David Ludescher said:

    Anthony: I will give you an example: The “church ladies” who were praying for City government.

    January 23, 2009
  7. Jerry Friedman said:

    Kathy: I hope that “atheist” never becomes synonymous with “antitheist”. I encourage society to keep updating its terms, but not against the terms’ clear etymological roots. I am still annoyed that “decimate” changed meaning from “reduce by 1/10” to “nearly annihilate”. The “a” in “atheist” simply means “without”.

    January 23, 2009
  8. Tim Freeland said:

    Oh no you didn't. It's not a secret that Griff likes to rattle the hive. This topic is certainly volatile.

    So, to start on a light note. Here's a favorite one liner. "Did you hear about the dyslexic atheist that believe there was no dog?"

    January 24, 2009
  9. Paul Zorn said:

    David L: You cite the "church ladies" as an example of something. Could you say what they illustrate? Intolerance? Unfriendliness? Toward what?

    Everyone: Seems to me that the question of whether Northfield is atheist – or conservative Christian- or anything else-friendly depends sensitively on what "friendly" is taken to mean. If "friendliness" requires "general acceptance" then I'd say Northfield is an unfriendly place — and a good thing, too. If "friendliness" means tolerance of (or, better, respect for (or, even better, affirmation of (time to start digging out of parentheses))) difference, then I'd say we're tolerably friendly.

    Perhaps the question is ultimately unknowable, in which case we're all agnostics.

    January 24, 2009
  10. Jerry Friedman said:

    Tim: I think the joke goes, “Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic with insomnia?” — “He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog.”

    Paul: The question is knowable. The answer may not be. Do we *believe* we have an answer? Guiding your pun back on topic, theism relates to belief, not knowledge. Theism is an affirmative belief, atheism is everyone without the affirmative belief. Gnosticism is the affirmative knowing, agnosticism is everything else. So someone who believes there is a god but does not know is a theistic agnostic. Someone who knows there is no god is a gnostic atheist. You can mix and match the terms accordingly, but in no case does “agnostic” have anything to do with belief. I mean, if someone asks, “Do you believe in god?”, and someone answers, “I’m an agnostic,” the answer has nothing to do with the question.

    And this doesn’t begin to explain the antitheists.

    January 24, 2009
  11. john george said:

    Tracy- I agree with your perception. I think many comments last year regarding the “prayer ladies” pretty clearly defined an attitude that it is ok to believe in God but just don’t let it affect how you live or publicly display that faith. That is the antithesis of Christianity.

    Paul Z.- Which definition of tolerance/intolerance are you using here? Is it the classical one where a person chooses to live with those ideas/persons they do not agree with? Or, is it the new definition where to tolerate something is to embrace it as having equal validity with every other idea/doctrine out there? Just wondering.

    January 24, 2009
  12. Patrick Enders said:

    I thought the concern about the prayer ladies was merely one of preferential treatment. As in, “why is the administrator giving his office over to a private group for their meetings?” and, either: 1) a similar service should be available to any interested group, or 2) it should be available to none.

    Personally, I’d love to have an office to play board games in during city council meetings.

    And John, to your question, (speaking only for myself) I’m simply looking for “live and let live” tolerance. In Northfield, so far, I seem to have it.

    January 24, 2009
  13. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You asked:

    Which definition of tolerance/intolerance are you using here? Is it the classical one where a person chooses to live with those ideas/persons they do not agree with? Or, is it the new definition where to tolerate something is to embrace it as having equal validity with every other idea/doctrine out there? Just wondering.

    It was Tracy, I think, who first mentioned what she sees as “intolerance” directed against conservative Christians, so perhaps her view is more at issue than mine. But, since you ask, I’d say tolerance means something like what you call the “classical” definition. Is it unclear?

    I have *no* idea from where you conjured up your “new definition”. Whose new definition? Why on earth would you think I’d advocate such a far-fetched view?

    January 24, 2009
  14. Paul Zorn said:

    Jerry,

    Thanks for your notes on theism, gnosticism, and their a-versions. The distinction you draw between knowledge and belief is well taken, and one might wish (as I do) that public (or even academic) discourse were more precise in the matter. But, if Wikipedia is to be believed, “atheism” has been used since its invention, for better or worse, to mean either (i) an absence of belief in gods, or (ii) a belief in the nonexistence of gods.

    Here’s a different question, not necessarily for Jerry: Accepting that knowledge and belief have different linguistic meanings, does the difference actually arise in practice? Are there many people, in other words, who would say they believe in God but don’t know whether He/She/Hse/ exists?

    This if fun, but I digress. Griff’s original question was whether Northfield is friendly to atheists, and my question was about what various discussants mean by “friendly”. On this question I’m agnostic by any definition.

    January 25, 2009
  15. David Schlosser said:

    Patrick…

    Thank you for your “Prayer Ladies” comment. It was never about what kind of religion was being discussed in the private office, and it was never even about religion, as David L. still seems to think. It was, as you state, all about the fact that they had an opportunity to gather in a private office–an opportunity that then needed to be granted to every group.
    The exact same thing would have been brought before the council if a group of atheists were given the opportunity to gather in Roder’s office.

    January 25, 2009
  16. Tom Kotula said:

    Personally I find it somewhat objectionable when atheists and agnostics are lumped together as in atheist/agnostic. It would seem to me that atheists and theists have more in common in that they are dead certain about the God issue even though they have opposing views. As an agnostic I find myself in awe of being animated matter, to feel a humble sense of gratitude of just being alive; of tasting this gift of life.

    As far as the church ladies who felt compelled to pray for city government in city hall. Wasn’t there faith strong enough to pray from a differant location? Is there some sort of quantum mechanics involved with prayer that they have to be within a certain radius of the thing that is being prayed for? If there is some sort of godhead, surely the notion filled him with cosmic laughter.

    January 25, 2009
  17. Patrick Enders said:

    Tom,
    I think you are painting atheists with an overly broad brush there. Perhaps your confusion lies in the multiple meanings of the word “believe,” or perhaps in the distinction between “atheist” and “antitheist,” as described by Jerry, above.

    I am essentially an atheist, but I do not claim to be certain about anything regarding “the God issue.” In short: I don’t know if there is a God or not, but when I have to make my best guess (that is, when I decide what I believe to be true based on the best evidence at hand), I say that it seems much more likely that there isn’t one.

    There your go: atheist, as well as agnostic. Why do you find that objectionable?

    January 25, 2009
  18. Tom Kotula said:

    Patrick, Not that it’s my business to go around classifying people but you would be, by my definition, an agnostic who suspects there is no god. Most of the atheists I have met seem absolutely certain of their disbelief. My concern is that I do not wished to be lumped together with people who feel they have cornered the market on TRUTH. I understand, I believe, where your coming from, for I too strongly doubt the existence of a godhead; then of course we can start another discussion about what he, she, or it is being referred to when we use the word god. No need to limit it to the traditional definitions coming out of the middle east.

    January 25, 2009
  19. David Ludescher said:

    David S. I agree that the “church ladies” issue was all about access to City property. But, there were many who tried to make it into a state/church issue.

    January 26, 2009
  20. john george said:

    Paul Z.- My “definition” of “new tolerance” is simply my own words I use to describe an attitude I perceive in various remarks made to me. It most often centers around me expressing my convictions concerning my interpretation of the Bible. When I say that I base my opinions on the “truth” of the Bible, it seems I am many times accused of being “intolerant.” I was reacting to your first question to David L. and this comment, “…If “friendliness” means tolerance of (or, better, respect for (or, even better, affirmation of…” in your 01/24/09 post. I’m glad to see you adhere to the traditional definition. I have found that the same term can mean different things to different people. That is why I asked. I’m sorry if I offended you in any way. I certainly did not mean to do so.

    Pat- If you go back and review the comments posted on LGN concerning the “prayer ladies”, there was a strong opinion being expressed by many that this was a violation of the separation clause. I agree with you and David L. that the real issue was equal access.

    January 26, 2009
  21. Griff Wigley said:

    I didn’t put a lot of thought into using the word ‘friendly’ in the title of the blog post. My thinking was just that it’s rare to hear people publicly stating their non-belief, even in private settings like parties. The more I do it, the more surprised I am at the frequency that people respond with ‘so am I!’ or some such.

    I don’t ever hear disparaging remarks made about atheists here in Northfield like I sometimes do about Christian evangelicals, so Tracy’s question is a valid one.

    But few atheists are ‘out’ about their non-belief or are the anti-theist type. I’ve wondered whether an ‘avowed atheist’ could get elected to city council, school board or other public office. Someone would likely raise the issue about them saying or not saying ‘one nation, under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance and the candidate’s campaign would likely go down in flames.

    January 26, 2009
  22. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul: I disfavor Wiki on controversial subjects. Its ‘neutral point of view’ policy means that its articles stay in the middle-of-the-bell curve for popularity, and the ever-elusive truth is often found on the edges.

    Using the popular and Wiki definitions, a person who is an atheist because there is no evidence of god, also called a ‘weak atheist’, is more accurately called an agnostic atheist. Compare that to a person who is an atheist who affirms there is no god, also called a ‘strong atheist’, is more accurately called a gnostic atheist.

    Theist and atheist, gnostic and agnostic, are each true dichotomies. An “agnostic” is not a third option in the “theist/atheist” dichotomy, because as you know, dichotomies only ever get two options.

    I enjoy your proposed pronoun “hse” but I recommend “zhe” which is much easier to pronounce.

    Otherwise – The legal issue of the Prayer Ladies was clearly an access issue, but more than the black letter law, having a government official give preferential treatment to a group of theists does cause a religious stink. In many professions, not only must one act ethically, but one must give the appearance of acting ethically. David L. could remind us that judges can’t give preferential treatment to lawyers (an absolute requirement), but judges are also ethically forbidden from fraternizing with lawyers because of the appearance of preferential treatment even if the judges are faithfully neutral in court. Someone in Roder’s position has the ethical responsibility to be neutral and to appear neutral. It’s fine to focus on the black letter law, but dismissing the appearance of favoritism unfairly invalidates the concerns of people who want a religion-neutral government.

    January 26, 2009
  23. Paul Zorn said:

    Jerry,

    Thanks for the linguistic commentary. As a committed word-freak, I think we agree on the importance of using language carefully. Like you, I don’t use Wikipedia as a source of opinions on hot-button questions, like whether god(s) exist(s), or even on word-usage choices. That’s why I cited Wikipedia not as an arbiter on the correctness of usage, but to the effect that “atheism” has long been used, for better or worse, somewhat flexibly.

    (There’s an interesting discussion to be had on whether “correctness” of usage should be determined prescriptively or descriptively. I’m a heel-dragger. But now I’m risking thread drift, if not thread tsunami.)

    Griff’s question about whether an avowed atheist could get elected is a good one. I suspect it wouldn’t be much of a problem in Northfield. But how about giving it a try, Griff?

    Meanwhile, I kind of like one famous scientist’s description of himself as an “observant but non-believing” member of the C of E.

    January 27, 2009
  24. Northfield people might be tolerant, but it seems to me that many if not most people here have some kind religious affiliation. So, maybe atheists are tolerated, but it’s harder for them to find a fellow atheist to connect with?

    January 27, 2009
  25. Bruce Anderson said:

    I agree that Northfield is fairly non-believer-friendly, but I have my doubts that being a professed non-believer would have no effect on a candidate’s local electability. I don’t think there is any kind of electoral religious litmus test. It just seems that a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach is at work.

    An interesting survey (TIME Poll: Survey on Faith and the Presidential Election By Pulsar Research & Consulting, May 10-13, 2007) found that 74% of Republicans nationwide would be less likely to support an atheist candidate; 50% of Democrats would be less likely to do so. (Atheists fared worse than Muslims in both cases.) I’m not suggesting that the numbers would be the same here in Northfield, but I am quite sure that an avowed atheist would have a harder time getting elected.

    January 27, 2009
  26. Griff Wigley said:

    Ooooh, I just discovered an atheist’s route to electability in Northfield. Just say that one is a member of NAG (Northfield Atheists Group) without defining the acronym.

    January 27, 2009
  27. kiffi summa said:

    Just an anecdote: I was told some years ago by a lady wielding a wicked grocery cart in Econofoods one day, that neither Victor nor I could ever be elected in Northfield, because “EVERYONE KNOWS YOU DON”T GO TO CHURCH”!
    Needless to say, I restrained myself, and did not throw her to the ground and put my foot on her throat….

    January 27, 2009
  28. Obie Holmen said:

    As a Northfield newcomer, I don’t have an opinion whether Northfield is friendly to atheists, and I don’t have an opinion on the related question of whether it is more or less friendly to atheists than to conservative evangelicals. If is the case that atheists rank higher on the “friendly to” scale, I suggest that is more a cultural bias than a religious one based on the perception that atheism is more intellectual than evangelicalism, which is perceived as anti-intellectual.

    January 27, 2009
  29. Jerry Friedman said:

    Griff: There’s an organization, Atheists United, who gave its volunteers shirts designed with the term “Friendly Neighborhood Atheist”. With your suggestion, does that mean you’ll produce shirts that say “Friendly NAGger”?

    I heard that years ago, atheists and gays could not get elected. Now it seems that gays can get elected. I don’t know of any atheists in public office, but I don’t keep tabs.

    Many atheists use milder terms. One atheist friend of mine calls himself an agnostic so he can get dates. It seems most women he meets don’t like atheists. Some atheists call themselves “brights” (which I think is a horrible euphemism), others call themselves “freethinkers”. So perhaps atheists seeking public office can just call themselves “Bright” or another diluted term. Of course, that brings us back to your topic, about whether an atheist in Northfield can be elected, and Kiffi’s anecdote covers my assumption.

    January 27, 2009
  30. john george said:

    Griff- In response to yout comment dated 01/26, “…My thinking was just that it’s rare to hear people publicly stating their non-belief, even in private settings like parties…”, could it be that when you don’t believe there is anything to be had, then it isn’t worth sharing or trying to “convert” someone else to have nothing? When you believe you have something worth sharing, could it be that belief would be a motivation to share or “convert” someone else to your position? Then there are the people who are secure enough in their convictions that it really doesn’t matter to them what other people believe.

    Kiffi- Thanks for the warning about the “wicked grocery cart(s)” at Econofoods. I’ll certainly be circumspect in my selection of one when I go there.

    January 27, 2009
  31. David Ludescher said:

    Griff: Re-reading Obama’s inagural speech, I think that your question about Northfield being atheist-friendly is not the kind of reaction Obama was seeking.

    Will Healy had a great article in the Saturday paper. He stated that the great motto, “e pluribus unum” (out of many, one)stresses unum, not pluribus. Whether we are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or non-believers, courage, honesty, virtue, hard work, and all things good, will unite us, if we let those things unite us.

    January 27, 2009
  32. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: You might be surprised to learn that a great many atheists have a great deal to give and share. Dan Barker, formerly a preacher, wrote a book about his becoming an atheist and how liberating it was. I have learned a great deal about the transition from theist to atheist by reading his book, “Losing Faith in Faith.” (My religious upbringing was pretty mild so reading Barker’s story helped me understand how religious some theists are.)

    Mark Smith, formerly a zealous member of the Church of Christ, says that his change to atheism has made him happier. He didn’t change to become happier, but because he lost faith — faith was no longer the answer to Biblical things that didn’t make sense to him. When he adopted atheism as his affirmative belief, he found that he had a lot less stress. Smith writes about the benefits of atheism in his slightly tongue-in-cheek article, “The Good News of Atheism”.

    Ruth Green was a Christian who was suffering from a grave illness. While bed-ridden, she read the Bible cover-to-cover for the first time. Then she turned atheist and wrote “The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible.”

    Barker, Smith, Green and many former theists believe that, all other things being equal, atheism leads to a better society than theism. They would tell you that atheism can lead to very good things and very bad things, just like theism, but atheism’s historical record is better.

    January 28, 2009
  33. Jerry Friedman said:

    On electability, I found this from Sam Harris’s web site:

    “Only one of the 535 members of Congress, Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, publicly identifies as a nontheist, according to the Secular Coalition of America, a lobbying group based in Washington. […] As both presidential candidates ardently court religious voters, atheist support is considered so controversial that several Democrats writing on the atheist blog Petty Larseny quipped that the best way to hurt the Republicans was to form a group called Atheists for McCain.”

    January 29, 2009
  34. norman butler said:

    Though well-intentioned, it is disingenuous to characterize the prayer-ladies issue as one of equal access as opposed to the mixing of church and state. The former explanation may be how the issue legally interpreted and ‘defused’ but not how it was received and debated when it first emerged.
    There are plenty of offices in city hall to accommodate the various interest groups every other Monday night (including board games). I suppose quiet chanting could also occur in the council chamber itself (and, who knows, maybe prayers are said throughout the meetings by that person with the thousand-yard stare who always sits on the second chair from the left in the third row…(just kidding).
    Point is, all this various sincere, pious and absolutely well-meaning activity would be a bit distracting, even disconcerting, were it to occur during public policy making sessions given our Constitution.

    January 29, 2009
  35. David Ludescher said:

    Norman: I think you made my point about the prayer ladies. The legal and political issues were all about equal access. There never was a church/state issue involved.

    When it was intially received and debated, there were lots of people trying to make it into a church/state issue, or even a human rights issue. That misunderstanding could have had multiple roots, the worse being a hostility to religion in general.

    Some commentators have suggested that society has become so sanitized of any theistic beliefs that a new religion has developed. It is a religion without creed, sancity, morality, or community. It is a religion where every man develops his or her own creed and morality.

    One commentator has gone so far as to say that the Western world will not be able to institute Western ideas like democracy and liberty in Muslim countries until the Western world acknowledges that other cultures may be profoundly divine-centered, as opposed to profoundly science-centered. Only then can we enter into a dialogue about how best to serve those people.

    For example, there is a strange irony in Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The man devoted his life to God. I have a feeling that he would have been adamantly opposed to the idea that he, rather than God, should be worshipped on a “holi-day”.

    January 29, 2009
  36. Jerry Friedman said:

    Norm: There are the hard rules that gov’t must abide by and there is keeping its people happy above and beyond the rules. I think the people upset with what happened are arguing that the gov’t is not keeping its people happy, but they are using legal buzzwords to sound intimidating when the buzzwords don’t apply. This causes some confusion and it creates an easy excuse for gov’t and others to ignore the people who are upset.

    Person A: Roder violated the separation of church and state.

    Person B: Actually he didn’t, so I’m going to ignore the reason why you’re upset.

    I think that for Person A to be noticed, he or she should not use the legal buzzwords. From what I heard from the city council meeting where a lady at the open mic complained about this event, she used the buzzwords and was immediately discredited by the council from the legal perspective. Our city government should not have ignored her complaint, but because (I believe) they were not offended about what happened, they assumed the role of Person B.

    While I have great affinity for your position, I fear it’s easy for the majority of people to ignore it.

    January 29, 2009
  37. Jerry Friedman said:

    David L: I think you bend the term “worship” too far when saying that people worship MLK.

    I also recommend that you take a secular ethics class. This statement, “Some commentators have suggested that society has become so sanitized of any theistic beliefs that a new religion has developed. It is a religion without creed, sancity, morality, or community. It is a religion where every man develops his or her own creed and morality.” overlooks (1) secular ethics, and (2) how the emergence of secular ethics has brought morality to Christianity, e.g., there are no more stonings, witch burnings, inquisitions, etc., because secular society grew intolerant of these once Christian traditions.

    January 29, 2009
  38. Vicki Dennis said:

    There is also a question centering on whether freedom OF religion was intended by the framers of the Constitution to also include freedom FROM religion.

    The term I have most often (and in my opinion, most accurately) heard to describe atheists/agnostics/non-believers is “freethinkers.”

    January 30, 2009
  39. kiffi summa said:

    David L: Your statement:” It is a religion without creed, sanctity,morality or community. It is a religion where every man develops his or her own creed or morality” is so devoid of any tolerance for differing realms of thought, that for a moment I thought I was on the NFNews site, where every item devolves into irrational personal attack.

    How do you feel comfortable judging each person’s belief system?
    Is not the Catholic’s belief system different from the Presbyterians?
    How are you injured by anyone’s differing belief system, and if it does not affect you personally, how can you question its authenticity or even right to exist?

    You are sounding like a person who thinks they have a direct, personal, unassailable and verifiable line to “God”, and that you will direct what others think , believe, and that you have the right to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of the beliefs of others.

    Sorry if you find me “rude” , but I find your comments intolerant, arrogant, AND rude, BEYOND “belief”.

    January 30, 2009
  40. Jerry Friedman said:

    Vicki: I have met one Christian freethinker. That makes at least one out of two billion.

    I have met many atheists who are not freethinkers, those who don’t question authority or their own assumptions.

    January 30, 2009
  41. Patrick Enders said:

    David L,
    You wrote,

    Some commentators have suggested that society has become so sanitized of any theistic beliefs that a new religion has developed. It is a religion without creed, sancity, morality, or community. It is a religion where every man develops his or her own creed and morality.

    One commentator has gone so far as to say that…

    …For example, there is a strange irony in Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The man devoted his life to God. I have a feeling that he would have been adamantly opposed to the idea that he, rather than God, should be worshipped on a “holi-day”.

    Are these your suggestions, or just things that you seem to remember hearing someone say once?

    Whoever suggested these things doesn’t seem to have a very useful definition of “religion.”

    At the very least, a religion is commonly understood to:
    1) have a spiritual aspect, and
    2) be a collective activity.

    Your assertion that:

    It is a religion where every man develops his or her own creed and morality.

    seems to violate #2.

    This “it” of yours, whatever it is, is clearly not a religion. Why not call it “peaceful coexistence,” or even “civility”?

    (Assuming of course, that the participants in this “it” are not violating those laws required for maintaining public order, and are not causing harm to others.)

    p.s. Griff: that’s a very nice “Live Comment Preview” feature that you’ve added.

    January 30, 2009
  42. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: Incidentally, Christianity is an excellent example of “a religion where every man develops his or her own creed and morality.” According to the 1994 Catholic Encyclopedia, there are in excess of 20,000 denominations of Christianity. If David believes that Christianity today is (a) unchanged from Day One, or (b) unified under common creeds and morals, he is alone in his belief.

    January 30, 2009
  43. john george said:

    Pat- Just for perspective, this is the way I differentiate “religion” from “Christianity.” To me, and those I relate to, “religion” describes mans’ attempts to please God or “work” the person’s way into heaven. We esteem this as futile, based on our interpretation of various scriptures.

    We believe Christianity, on the other hand, is defined as a relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ (hence, “Christ”ianity). Out of this relationship, we see fruit, in a person’s life changes and behavior, as something worked by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is not passive but an active response to the revelation of His truth in our lives.

    Kiffi- Just my opinion on tolerance and “religions”. Both Islam and Christianity are mono-theistic religions, if you may. This being the case, they are mutually intolerant of polytheistic religions. They are also mutually intolerant of religions of other creeds, hence, each other. We both trace our origin to the same God, but through different lineages. If you use “tolerance” as a litmus test of credibility of a religion, you miss the whole point of the religion. All religions, aside from Hinduism and some other Eastern mysticisms, basically take the position that they are the only true way. Each believer has to sort this out for themselves. There are experiential evidences to support some claims, but not all. This is where faith comes in, as it is written: faith is the substance of things unseen. Therefore, I cannot say I am a follower of Jesus and a follower of Mohammad, even though they both trace their roots to the same God and father of faith, Abram, and have very similar tennets.

    January 30, 2009
  44. john george said:

    Jerry- I’m not sure your estimation of Christianity is complete. There is a difference between “developing” an individual “creed or morality” or choosing how to interpret or apply an existing “creed or morality” as presented in the Bible. The difference is subtle but important. The lie presented in Genesis 1 is that we can “become as God, determining good and evil.” The better translation of the Hebrew text here is “determining” rather than “knowing” good and evil. It is taking moral judgement into our own hands, rather than leaving it’s source with God, that we get ourselves into trouble.

    Paul F.- Just in case you are lurking, you know that I receive the Bible as the inspired word of God rather than just a collection of various men’s observations, so I am aware of the limb I am going out on in my post.

    January 30, 2009
  45. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    The various voices on this thread seem to be using many of the same words, but to various purposes, and with very different meanings.

    Your definition of religion seems a fairly specialized one. How many people do you consider to be Christians? And what would you call all those other self-described Christians?

    Perhaps Jerry is right when he suggests that Christianity is “a religion where every man develops his or her own creed and morality.” Apparently, David L’s “it” afflicts not only the secular, but also believers.

    January 30, 2009
  46. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You wrote (addressing Kiffi, who can certainly e-speak for herself, but I’d like to respond):

    Kiffi- Just my opinion on tolerance and “religions”. Both Islam and Christianity are mono-theistic religions, if you may. This being the case, they are mutually intolerant of polytheistic religions. They are also mutually intolerant of religions of other creeds, hence, each other.

    Here’s a good example of where definitions matter to clear conversation. By “tolerance” you seem to mean “agreement”. By that definition, indeed, polytheists don’t “tolerate” monotheists who don’t “tolerate” atheists and so on. But a more standard definition of “tolerance” would be something like “willingness to live amicably with difference” or just “live and let live”.

    Then you said:

    If you use “tolerance” as a litmus test of credibility of a religion, you miss the whole point of the religion.

    What you say may be correct as a general proposition, but I haven’t heard anybody using tolerance as a “litmus test of credibility of a religion”, so the point seems moot. Seems to me that a religion’s credibility or lack thereof is inherent in the religion itself, not in what its devotees do or don’t tolerate.

    [Most] religions … basically take the position that they are the only true way. [I paraphrased slightly.]

    I agree, and I think it’s just fine for people to be committed to their own religions, and — respectfully — to welcome and try to convince others to sign up (I’m a missionary kid) for one religion instead of another, just as we go freely door to door to harangue our neighbors on political subjects. But both can be done tolerantly and respectfully, and with awareness that one might be mistaken.

    January 30, 2009
  47. Patrick Enders said:

    Paul Z,
    You wrote,

    I think it’s just fine for people to be committed to their own religions, and — respectfully — to welcome and try to convince others to sign up (I’m a missionary kid) for one religion instead of another, just as we go freely door to door to harangue our neighbors on political subjects. But both can be done tolerantly and respectfully, and with awareness that one might be mistaken.

    Amen. 🙂

    January 30, 2009
  48. john george said:

    Paul Z.- In my post, I was responding to Kiffi’s remark to David L. specifically, “…Sorry if you find me “rude” , but I find your comments intolerant, arrogant, AND rude, BEYOND “belief”…” It just seemed to me that this statement was taking David to task for saying he thought his way was right. I wholeheartedly agree that we should be able to tolerate other religions. We have been doing it peacefully and without coercion in this country for a couple hundred years. This trait is not characteristic of many other cultures in the world, unfortunately, and I think we are very blessed to have this freedom. I have heard this gospel of tolerance from Kiffi many times before in her posts, so I felt I could address it here. Perhaps I have judged her wrongly, so I am open to her response. Your comment, “…Seems to me that a religion’s credibility or lack thereof is inherent in the religion itself, not in what its devotees do or don’t tolerate…” is exactly what I believe, also. I echo Pat’s “Amen!” 🙂

    January 30, 2009
  49. john george said:

    Pat- To answer your questions, “…Your definition of religion seems a fairly specialized one. How many people do you consider to be Christians? And what would you call all those other self-described Christians?…”, fortunately, this is not my responsibility. There is a scripture, which I can only paraphrase here, in which Jesus is telling His disciples, “…many will come to me in that day and say, ‘Lord! Lord!’, but I will say to them, ‘Depart from me you lawless ones (workers of iniquity), for I never knew you.'” There is another scripture in which He says that His sheep know his voice. This speaks of relationship, in my understanding, and that is how I try to apply it in my own life, and how I counsel others. He also says that we will “know them by their fruits,” so it appears there is some responsibility on our part to act according to His direction. We will each give acount for our own deeds. Hope you don’t feel I sidestepped your questions, but we can go into greater depth over coffee.

    January 30, 2009
  50. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Not only do different monotheistic religions oppose each other, don’t forget that they oppose themselves. The Catholics and Protestants have a bloody history, as do the Shi’ites and Sunnis.

    On knowing vs. determining good and evil, it sounds like you’re saying that all secular laws with a counterpart in the Bible are just, and all secular laws not in the Bible are either not just or perhaps anti-god. Is that correct? (I don’t mean contractual or regulatory laws, but moral laws, like the law against murder.)

    Because I try to be sensitive to definitions, in this sentence, “The better translation of the Hebrew text here is” do you mean “translation” or “interpretation”?

    January 30, 2009
  51. john george said:

    Jerry- I am meaning translation, here. As you know, there are many words in other languages that do not clearly translate well into English, and vice versa. It is difficult enough to deal with the English language and how words are defined in a particular context. That is the case here. I should say that “determining” seems to be a closer translation than “knowing”, given the context. But neither word is 100%. My Hispanic son-in-law has this problem all the time. There are some Spanish words that do not translate clearly into English and vice versa. So, a person has to do the best he can to communicate the particular concept given a particular setting.

    As far as the just/unjust concept, I’m not sure this can be completely black and white, much as I might like it to be. I can only take one example here, as whole books have been written on this subject. Take for example abortion. There is a commandment, thou shalt not murder, and a description of children as an inheritance of the Lord (Ps. 127). We have determined, through our laws, that if a baby is murdered in its mother’s womb by an assailant, the assailant can be charged with murder or manslaughter. If the mother chooses to abort this baby in the first 23 weeks, it is no longer considered a baby but a fetus. The “procedure” is legal because the woman has a “right” to her own reproductive life. The abortion relieves society of pressure to raise the child and there are more resources available for the rest of the population. I think this exemplifies what Isaiah wrote when he said that we “call evil good and good evil.” I know this is a volatile subject, and I don’t want to stir up a whole discussion on it, but it gets my point across in a short paragraph. 🙂

    As far as monotheistic religions opposing each other, I think we need to be honest that much of the blood has been spilled by radical extremist factions that don’t really represent the religion as a whole nor their founders. I have found no justification in the New Testament for the many “religious wars” that have been fought since the birth of Christ. In fact, Paul writes that it is better for us to be wronged by a brother than to go to court against him. The concept of forgiveness and reconciliation goes against human nature, but it is this ministry we believers have been commissioned to do.

    January 30, 2009
  52. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: OK, so we’re talking translation and not interpretation. What is your background for discerning Hebrew translation, and for that matter Greek translation? Could you translate — not interpret — Luke 14:26?

    Regarding the just/unjust paragraph, might I conclude that you believe laws written in the Bible are more important than laws written by legislatures? (I’ll skip over specifics of abortion, as it’s tangential to our conversation.)

    How do you determine which of Christianity’s 20,000 denominations are “radical extremist factions”? What is the test to determine which is radical extremist? For example, the following atrocities were committed by people who believed their translation of scripture was authentic. I am assuming that you’d consider some or all of them as radical extremists, but wouldn’t they consider you the radical extremist? I mean, how could an impartial observer tell whether the Roman Catholic Church is the better authority on scripture or if John George from Northfield is?

    From various references, I have discovered that 14 million people have died in the Thirty Years War; millions more in later religious wars including North Ireland; an unknown number in the eight Crusades; an unknown number in the three Inquisitions; millions of women were killed in witch hunts; six million Jews died under Hitler’s ambition to finish Christ’s work; an unknown number of blacks died from the Christian idea that they were an inferior, fungible race, that they were savages who needed to be converted or killed; an unknown number of native Americans (incl. Incas, Aztecs and Mayans) died for the same reason.

    With the above in mind, who are you referring to when you wrote, “much of the blood has been spilled by radical extremist factions”? Which factions are your referring to?

    January 31, 2009
  53. kiffi summa said:

    To tolerate is “to endure without repugnance” (Random House Dict.)
    Tolerance is “a liberal spirit toward opinions and practices that differ from ones own”. (Random House again)
    Those are good enough for me……

    Abortion should not be a religious concept, or precept; it is a medical procedure (unfortunately sometimes a quasi-medical procedure)

    I wish, John, that you could allow me to hold that view, with both a “liberal spirit” from you, as well as a lack of “repugnance”.

    January 31, 2009
  54. john george said:

    Kiffi- I have no problem with you holding your view. I would only appreciate the same “tolerance” from you. I have not always percieved that in past discussions with you, but perhaps my perceptions are incorrect. I would really like to set down over a cup od coffee with you sometime.

    Jerry- If it really matters, which I don’t think it does, I have had seminary studies in Greek. I’m a little rusty, as I do not regularly read the Greek texts. My understanding of the Hebrew texts I get from various sources, one of which is Dr. Michael Wies from Northwestern College. He is one of two of the world’s highest authorities on the Dead Sea scrolls. I was with him in the scroll museum in Jerusalem and stood next to him as he read directly from the copies displayed there. I don’t think can or I have to know everything about all these texts. I just need know a few people who know a lot more than I, and I trust them because of the integrity of their lives.

    As far as your listing of the various atrocities above, there have been many more over the ages. As I look at these, I have a hard time, as I stated, reconciling any of these against my understanding of the scriptures. Zeal is not necessarily a defense of actions. As I said, we will all give acount for our deeds.

    As far as your statement, “…I mean, how could an impartial observer tell whether the Roman Catholic Church is the better authority on scripture or if John George from Northfield is?…”, how do we determine an impartial observer? We all have our perceptions tainted by our past experiences. I will go back to the concept, you will know them by their fruits. If you don’t think I am fruitful or my life lines up with what I say about the scriptures (hypocracy), then don’t pay any attention to me. If I exhibit any reality in my life, then at least give some consideration to what I say and how I live. From there, you neeed to be responsible to God, not me or anyone else.

    January 31, 2009
  55. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Count me in for coffee.

    From my previous post, I am still hoping for your translation of Luke 14:26, which fortunately was written in Greek.

    From my previous post, “Regarding the just/unjust paragraph, might I conclude that you believe laws written in the Bible are more important than laws written by legislatures?”

    The Hebrew “authorities” I have consulted and read from over the years unanimously agree that the commandment against “murder” applies only to post-birth, not pre-birth. In my opinion, their language and cultural understanding of ancient Hebrews makes them authorities on ancient Jewish texts. How can the authority you trust and the authority I trust disagree with a single word? Isn’t it necessarily true that at least one of our authorities is “interpreting” and not “translating” — and if so, which one? How does anyone who does not understand the context of the original writings decide which translation or interpretation is faithful to the writers’ intention?

    This explains to me why there are 20,000 denominations. Did you know, again according to the 1994 Catholic Encyclopedia, that there are 3000 English versions of the Bible, each claiming to be the most accurate? Nonchristians must have a puzzling time deciding which denomination to join, and Christians must be keenly confident to claim that the other 19,999 denominations and 2999 translations are wrong.

    I am inclined to agree with you, that judging someone by their fruits is an intuitive and useful approach to judging their character. What then should I think when the fruits of Christianity are the mass killings and oppression that I previously posted? If I don’t judge Christianity by the text, but by its fruits, not by its words, but by its consequences, what am I to think?

    January 31, 2009
  56. john george said:

    Jerry- I realized I didn’t answer your question, “…Regarding the just/unjust paragraph, might I conclude that you believe laws written in the Bible are more important than laws written by legislatures?…” I will answer this with another question, should we obey God or man? I don’t know of any laws we have right now that would force me to disobey God by adhering to them, but I suppose it could be possible. I would use Daniel as an example.

    January 31, 2009
  57. David Ludescher said:

    My sense of Obama’s statement quoted by Griff is that Obama was not only acknowledging the existence of non-believers and other “faiths”, but calling them and all other religions “belief systems” to recognize what strengths they bring to America.

    In that sense, atheists have much to offer America (and Northfield), including assuring that particular religions don’t become “established”. But, Vicki is also right to suggest that society should never try to be free FROM all belief systems.

    My example is the Iraqi invasion. Pope John Paul II announced in no uncertain terms that the invasion did not even come close to meeting the Catholic doctrine of a just war. My guess is that his position was supported by the majority of atheists, probably for the same reasons. The Pope’s prophecy quickly proved true. But, little mention has been made of the unity of those beliefs.

    January 31, 2009
  58. Paul Zorn said:

    Jerry,

    Interesting discussion about how one evaluates religions. You wrote:

    I am inclined to agree with you, that judging someone by their fruits is an intuitive and useful approach to judging their character. What then should I think when the fruits of Christianity are the mass killings and oppression that I previously posted? …

    Nobody’s here to defend mass killings and oppression, and I agree that the historical bottom line on pros and cons of any religion — or of religion in general — is an interesting question.

    But I think the matter is a good deal more complicated than the discussion so far has suggested. Can one really judge confidently that a given event is a “fruit” of, say, Christianity, or Islam, or atheism?

    That Hitler was “working to finish Christ’s work”, for instance, seems to me a highly novel historical analysis. More conventional, I think, is the idea that Hitler and the Nazi ideology were godless, and hence a strike against atheism. (For the record, I don’t buy either argument … both seem simplistic to me.)

    Another problem with any balance sheet approach—good works in one column, bad works in the other—to (say) Christianity stems from the fact you cited about religions coming in a lot of different denominations/strains/substrains/etc. If an ELCA member robs a bank, for instant, does it count against Catholics? Against the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod? And is some tiny fraction of the guilt charged to the Unitarian account? The accounting problems boggle the mind.

    January 31, 2009
  59. Rob Hardy said:

    Does someone need a translation from Greek? I haven’t been following this discussion, but I happen to have a Ph.D. in classical languages, so here goes:

    “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and child and brothers and sisters and, furthermore, his own life, he is not able to be my pupil” (Luke 14:26).

    Translated from the Greek text (United Bible Societies, 1983).

    Any questions?

    January 31, 2009
  60. john george said:

    Rob- Thanks for the contribution. It just demonstrates my point that we need one another. Paul writes of this concept in his letter to the Corinthians, describing the church as the “body” of Christ. Now, how do we interpret “misei”. This could lead to volumes of debate, which I’m not sure are appropriate in this context.

    Jerry- Give me a call when you can get together for coffee. I’m usually around Mondays & Tuesdays. My profession does not allow my schedule to line up with anyone else’s it seems.

    January 31, 2009
  61. kiffi summa said:

    John: Without meaning to be rude, count me OUT for coffee! When someone says to me as you have in the past, that you will disagree with me on everything and I should just “get over it”……. I am not inclined to waste any of my remaining moments on this earth socializing with that POV.
    You and Jerry can argue/discuss until all the ‘contented cows’ come home.

    Again, I do not mean to be rude; just honest. Sorry.

    January 31, 2009
  62. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: You ask, “[S]hould we obey God or man?” This prompts at least this question, “How does one know what god wants?” That is the focus of our main discussion on translation and interpretation. Thus far, you use translation to deduce abortion is wrong, and you use interpretation to induce that Yeshua (often mistranslated as Jesus) does not really want his followers to hate their families despite his saying so. Can you understand why people like me are unnerved when others decide which terms to translate and which terms to interpret? How do you decide which terms god wants you to translate and which to interpret?

    If there are no secular laws that you disagree with, are there any Biblical? For example, “God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” [Mt.15:4]

    David: We agree that theists and atheists can have common goals.

    Paul: I take your question to heart, “Can one really judge confidently that a given event is a ‘fruit’ of, say, Christianity, or Islam, or atheism?”

    Admittedly there is no authority on this. For example, if Catholics proudly burn witches, can the Mormons confidently say that the Catholics are not true Christians, and if the Mormons practice polygamy, can the Catholics criticize their brand of Christianity? There is no universal way to determine exactly what is Christian behavior. Does that mean that Christianity is immune from criticism because we can say that radical extremists — who aren’t true Christians — are doing the bad thing? No. The fruit of Christianity includes everything that naturally flows from it. Even Yeshua said that he speaks in parables so people won’t understand him. [Mt. 13:10-15] Yeshua must have known what confusion would follow his parables. So we are left to judge based on the fruits, and the fruits aren’t good. Ask the Tasmanians why.

    As a classic example, it’s hard for some to say whether Christianity can be blamed for institutionalizing race-based slavery. It was the Portuguese Catholics who started it. Was it a Christian thing? Was it a Catholic thing? Was it a Portuguese thing? Or was it something different. My approach to answering this is determining whether Yeshua endorsed slavery, which he did, therefore I am forced to blame Christianity. Had Yeshusa specifically condemned slavery, one of the greatest crimes against humanity may not have happened. Compare this to the molestation of boys by some Catholic priests: I don’t blame Christians or Catholics because there is no source for such behavior in the Bible. There is ample source for slavery.

    Hitler’s intention on finishing Yeshua’s work was not novel last century, but I have heard many Christians state that Hitler was an atheist. You will find his position in Mein Kampf: “Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: “Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews … The work that Christ started but could not finish, I — Adolf Hitler — will conclude.” In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

    January 31, 2009
  63. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry,

    Can you provide one example of the teachings of Jesus with which you disagree?

    If you can’t, isn’t the problem of religion a human problem rather than a theological ambiguity?

    January 31, 2009
  64. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I posted a few immediately above your question. I find good and bad in what Yeshua purportedly said. The bad includes endorsement of slavery, hatred of family, intolerance of those who won’t listen to or believe in him, intolerance against gays, intolerance of non-Christians, no objections to the cruelties of the Old Testament, use of innocents for sacrifice, and many more things in Revelations.

    January 31, 2009
  65. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Modern Biblical exegesis does not support your analysis. In every one of the areas that you cite, the Jewish or Christian perspective was more compassionate than the prevailing societal view of the time.

    Judging Jews or Christians of 2 or 3,000 years ago by the standards of today is like judging atheists by the actions of Attilla the Hun. Further, judging modern Christian principles by the institutions, rather than the person of Jesus is also an error of judgment.

    Most modern criticisms against Christianity are lacking in merit. It is as G.K. Chesterton noted, “It is not that Christianity has been tried, and been found to be wanting, it is that it has never been tried.”

    As much as I wasn’t an Obama fan, he did an excellent job of conveying where there is an intersection of religion and politics. We are a patchwork nation. Yet, we all believe in courage, honesty, hard work, respect and integrity; we believe in our common humanity.

    The Bible, Torah, Koran and other sacred writings are not books written by ignorant men and women to suppress the people. Rather, they are the histories of the people who have lived and died before us, and have been selected for the truths that they contain.

    In my opinion, society suffers when this knowledge and information is not part of the public discussion. Where else can we receive our instruction on the meaning of human dignity, the sancity of life, unalienable rights, charity, and morality?

    January 31, 2009
  66. Rob Hardy said:

    David, I like the Chesterton quotation. I think it’s essentially right. Christianity, like the ideals of America’s founding documents, represents an ideal that we try to live up to, without ever yet perfectly succeeding. You also say: “Judging Jews or Christians of 2[,000] or 3,000 years ago by the standards of today is like judging atheists by the actions of Attila the Hun.” This implies that you recognize that the sacred texts are creations of a specific historical context, and that conditions change, and that what we might call “truth” also changes. Might not the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality, for example, be cultural artifacts, rather than expressions of a timeless truth?

    Meanwhile, I am not ready to call myself an atheist. I’m just someone whose spiritual needs are not currently met by institutional religion. If you want a full statement, check out my last sermon at the UCC, “In The Dark”.

    January 31, 2009
  67. john george said:

    Jerry- I don’t quite understand your differentiation between translation and interpretation. It seems to me that any language can be translated into another language, but either language can be interpreted by anyone who understands the particular language. What are you refering to here? Is it the particular contextual meanings of words? Just wondering.

    Rob- Regarding the hot-button of homosexuality, in my searching of the scriptures, I have not found any reference that says it is a lifestyle that is acceptable to God. I see no difference between this or drunkeness or murder or gluttony or gossip. They are all sins which, according to my understanding of scripture, separate us from fellowship with God. Just as these other sins have not been changed in acceptability with the passing of history, I don’t see how homosexuality would somehow change in acceptqability, either. I was born a sinner, but there is a new nature being produced in me that has its source in God, not my own exertions. This new nature grows in proportion to how much I die to my old nature. There is hope for everyone who believes.

    January 31, 2009
  68. Rob Hardy said:

    John, What if, contrary to the understanding of the ancients, homosexuality is not a “lifestyle,” but part of a person’s essence, created by God, a gift of God that it would be wrong to deny. The Bible is full of marvelous things, but I am not willing to let it invalidate lives lived faithfully and well. I will not let a few verses of St. Paul on a bad day trump the living faithfulness and goodness of people who have accepted themselves as God has made them.

    January 31, 2009
  69. Griff Wigley said:

    Just a moderator’s alert: I’d like to keep this comment thread focused on atheism. Only include homosexuality if doing so helps make a point about atheism.

    February 1, 2009
  70. kiffi summa said:

    Griff : what about Tracy’s initial question , in which she asks about attitudes toward evangelicals or fundamentalists?
    Is that part of this discussion?

    February 1, 2009
  71. Rob Hardy said:

    Here’s a point, Griff. It is often claimed that religion, and Christianity in particular, is the only solid basis for moral behavior. Or as David L. says, “Where else can we receive our instruction on the meaning of human dignity, the sanctity of life, unalienable rights, charity, and morality?” My point is that it is also the basis for much intolerance and unwarranted hatred. Perhaps for sociobiological and evolutionary reasons (this is speculation on my part), humans have some innate goodness and some innate fear and hatred of others unlike themselves. To impute all of this to something divine is perhaps more harmful than helpful. Why not just look for the good in others without looking for reasons to damn them?

    As I said, I’m not willing to say I’m an atheist, but I’m also can’t accept a God who created people only to damn them. I’m more inclined to think that “God” is something that happens when we rise above our prejudices, when we manage to live together more fully and graciously, when we are true to ourselves and faithful to each other.

    February 1, 2009
  72. David Ludescher said:

    Rob: The flip side of Christianity has many wonderful things to offer to the political discussion. The problem is that it generally gets ignored, or worse, misconstrued in an effort discredit the entire institution.

    As an example, Griff had a post telling the ELCA to wake up and smell the coffee on the issue of homosexuality. Turns out, Griff hadn’t read the document; he was relying on the AP’s version (the reporter probably didn’t read the document either). When called to task, Griff admitted his error. We never did have the discussion about the document, and struggle the ELCA has had balancing the prohibition against homosexuality with preserving the human dignity of the person.

    In that case, we have a church struggling to grapple with the issue, but no one on the other side willing to enter the discussion on neutral terms.

    February 1, 2009
  73. Jerry Friedman said:

    As a threshold issue, Christians often stymie me when they do not acknowledge the difficulties of the Bible. This relates to how atheist-friendly is Northfield because I find that Christians try to explain away apparent problems rather than acknowledge them. The appearance is that every Christian knows how to interpret the secret code of the New Testament, and anyone who does not understand the secret code is defective. I’d rather see Christians acknowledge the apparent problems of Yeshua’s commands of hating one’s family, etc., and then explain (as David has started) why what was written many generations ago was relevant then and irrelevant today.

    David: You state, “Modern Biblical exegesis does not support your analysis.” Whose modern Biblical exegesis are you referring to? Most recently I read Christian scholar Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” which has amplified my point-of-view.

    How do you overcome the inspired (i.e., infallible) verses and the immutable god who dictated them? I thought that the Bible’s fans claim it was perfect when it was first written and it is perfect today.

    I join Rob’s perspective, that if one believes that the Bible was written for people of that era, that is if it was written to be of superior moral character than prevailing views of that time, then the Bible needs to undergo substantial updating to be wholly relevant today. In the past 2000 years, the Bible has been repeatedly and popularly used to subjugate women, non-whites and non-Christians. Someone needs to fix its misanthropic verses.

    I am unaware that Attila the Hun was an atheist. Please cite.

    I am delighted at your perspective, that the Bible, etc., contain the truths of their societies’ eras. Even if I embrace your perspective, the Bible, etc., also contains vast superstitions, ignorances and cruelties. Where some Christians dilute Biblical ethics with secular ethics, such as equality of the sexes, too many Christians do not.

    You ask, “Where else can we receive our instruction on the meaning of human dignity, the sanctity of life, unalienable rights, charity, and morality?”, again, I recommend that you take a class in secular ethics. There is more than one source for discovering right from wrong. As Rob cites, the origins of ethics is in sociobiology. Why do mothers of all social species care for their young? Even ants and bees. It’s not because of the Bible, but because of biology. Biology created the social nature of humans, and to succeed as social animals, humans developed through biology and custom a framework of ethics. Now we have express (legislative) and implied (biological) ethics. We can use express ethics of Christians, secularists, mix and match, etc. There is no reason to believe that if we abandon one set of express ethics that we will be without morality. Implied ethics are always with us, and they will always compel humans to develop express ethics.

    John: I am looking for a means to determine which passages to translate and which to interpret. You take the Hebrew translation of “do not murder” and use it to mean “do not murder unborn babies.” You take the Greek translation of “hate your family” and interpret it to mean something entirely different. I don’t understand on what basis you take “murder” to mean “murder”, and “hate” to mean something different than “hate”. If then you add context, whose context do you add? My fear is that every person who reads the Bible will add whatever context they want in order to make the Bible say what they want it to say, i.e., 20,000 denominations, rather than what the authors intended it to say, i.e., 1 denomination.

    February 1, 2009
  74. Paul Zorn said:

    Jerry:

    Interesting stuff about Hitler’s public invocation of Christianity and Christian language … I hadn’t known.

    But Hitler’s private religious views seem (thanks, Wikipedia … granted not always an unimpeachable source …) to have been complicated, to say the least. And Nazism as a whole seems to have involved a rich stew of religious and anti-religious elements. The bottom line for me is that the Nazi project was not fundamentally Christian, and so isn’t usefully chalked up on the ledger as a strike against Christianity. Nor do I see Nazism as simply a “fruit” of paganism, or to rationalism, or to atheism, or to any other religious-like stance. Such isms are always the part of the background to any conflict, and might be adduced pro or con by adversaries on both sides.

    IMO, religion(s) and religious zeal are immensely powerful forces and so can and do play big roles, for better or worse, in public life. I just don’t see a clear call here as regards WWII.

    February 1, 2009
  75. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul:

    You wrote,

    Hitler’s private religious views seem to have been complicated, to say the least.

    Hitler was a Roman Catholic. “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” -Hitler. Adolf Hitler, John Toland, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507.

    It doesn’t matter much to me what any tyrant’s religion is unless the tyrant’s religion is part of what made the tyrant. Did Hitler hate Jews, and did he use Christianity to spread his hatred? Did Hitler consider Jews evil because of Jewish/Christian history? I can’t say definitively.

    I originally referenced Hitler when I listed several mass murders done in the name of Christianity. I might be wrong: I must admit that it’s possible that Hitler would have rallied the Nazis against Jews if Hitler himself was a Jew, was Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or an atheist. We’ll never know.

    As we’ve discussed earlier, I don’t know how easy we can separate the religion from its fruit. However, if time and time again, a “good” religion is the clarion call to commit gross atrocities, the religion is at least suspect of having a problem. After examining the hatred and intolerance written into the Old and New Testaments, I find ample material for Hitler’s hatred and intolerance. Hitler was not an example of ‘Bible interpretation gone wrong.’ If the other mass murders I cited never happened, we could write Hitler off as a Jim Jones kook. I regret that there are too many examples to do so, including Jim Jones. The KKK uses Biblical passages to justify their brand of hatred. How many more examples of bad fruit do we need before wanting a comprehensive overhaul of the religion? And why do Christians not understand non-Christians’ criticisms of Christianity when we look at the fruit Christians have brought in the name of their religion?

    Elizabeth Cady Stanton tried to edit the misogyny out of the Bible. Thomas Jefferson also undertook editing hate out of the Bible. Sadly, I have never heard of anyone using “The Women’s Bible” or “Jefferson’s Bible.” Imagine the world if either were successful.

    February 1, 2009
  76. john george said:

    Rob- Sorry for so long to get back to you. I had to work today. As far as homosexuality being an “essence” of a person, I believe this is true, and they are born that way. That essence, like the other sins I noted, is characteristic of what I and many I relate to term the fallen nature. The way you attribute God’s “creation” of each individual suggests a perspective that God is somewhere with various cookie cutters for humans, stamping out the various types at conception. It continues, then, that there is no hope for however you happened to be stamped out. If your “cutter” happened to be athist, then there would be no hope for change. What a fatalistic view.

    I don’t agree with this perspective. What I believe is that at creation, the reproductive process was spoken into existence and, like gravity, has continued unchanged ever since. With the advent of sin into the original creation, all the natural processes that were put into motion have been corrupted. That is why we Christians believe we must be redeemed, and that there is nothing we can do in our own strength to reverse this corruption. Just because we believe, we are not automatically made immune to sin, but we must recognize (confess) it in our own lives and turn from it (repent). God is not some puppeteer pulling our strings from somwhere in the heavens. There is hope in Christianity.

    Jerry- I think I understand, now, what you are responding to. In my earlier post, I said that our problem is how we interpret mesai. The translation is clear, and the original usage is clear. What you, and many others I have talked to, seem to get hung up on is what you call “inconsistencies” of the Bible. I respond to that in this way. God is a Spirit, not having physical attributes or limitaions. This being the case, we are left pretty ill-equiped to try to figure Him out. I have only come to understanding some (by no means, all) of the seeming inconsistencies through revelation by His Holy Spirit. And, because these have been shown to me, and not me only, but attested to and confirmed in many others, (something like peer review) I have no problem waiting for the understanding to come of those things that still confound me. I guess you might call it faith.

    Also, regarding your comment about equality of the sexes, inequality of the sexes is a cultural influence that actually carries over from paganism and sexual worship and bondage. When you search the teachings of the New Testament, you will find quite a bit of support for and demonstration of equality between men and women. Notwithstanding some of Paul’s writings, it is a Christian doctrine. I won’t go into the whole exegesis here.

    February 1, 2009
  77. john george said:

    Griff- I want to express my opinion on the church’s response to athiests. I really feel we have done a bad job of demonstrating the Love of God to anyone we feel disagrees with us, be it athiest or Muslim or Hindu or anamist, or whatever. I in no way want to present this as a blanket condemnation of every believer, for many do not live this way, but I think there are grounds for accusation that we haven’t done a very good job. Jesus did not separate himself from those who disagreed with or simply didn’t understand Him. He even put up with the hypocritical Pharases, althought He did not refrain from confronting them. Of course, they were misrepresenting the Kingdom of God, of which He is the King, so He probably let them off pretty easy. Jesus comands us to love our enemies and bless those who despitefully use us. I think it good that all of us who profess to follow Christ hold ourselves up to this mirror.

    February 1, 2009
  78. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul: I found a page on Harvard professor Steven Jay Gould’s unofficial web site (stevenjaygould.org) with several of Hitler’s quotes. Some I have already listed above, others are very revealing. Gould also lists some authors and other writers who have researched his religious views. From his site:

    “Was Hitler an atheist as some Christians say he was? Hitler’s own words make this claim rather dubious. Scholars are still unsure whether or not Adolf Hitler was a believing Christian or just a politically cunning theist, but what is certain however is there is no evidence he was an atheist. This page documents some of his religious views, as he personally described them. Articles which examine the evidence in further detail can be found at the bottom of the page.”

    February 1, 2009
  79. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I like you because I think you’d be a “good” person regardless of your religion. I mean that if you were a Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian, or even an atheist, that you would find the very best in your religion’s writings. I think I am the same. Whatever religion I might find comfort in, I’d be a “good” person.

    For almost one year, I participated in a philosophy professor’s extra-curricular theology discussions. Prof. Russ M. was a Christian and the discussions were mostly attended by Christians. We talked about a great diversity of Biblical things and no subject was taboo. I was always impressed by Russ’s warmth. My parents divorced when I was two. My father figure, Bob, is another devout Christian with a benevolent heart. I think that Christianity’s historical record would be a lot cleaner if the world’s Christians lived to your, Russ’s, and Bob’s standards.

    I see goodness in Christians. I hope that you understand that. It’s the badness in Christians that frightens me. I hope you understand that too.

    February 1, 2009
  80. Obie Holmen said:

    This has been a very interesting thread with many insightful comments. However, I find the apologia and generalizations at both extremes (Christian and atheist) to be unconvincing.

    May I suggest that all religion is false because all religion is a human construct, an attempt to define, quantify, and regulate that which is inherently other. According to rabbi Abraham Heschel, All conceptualization is symbolization, an act of accommodation of reality to the human mind. Rudolph Bultmann adds, Myths speak about gods and demons as powers on which man knows himself to be dependent, powers whose favors he needs, powers whose wrath he fears. Myths express the knowledge that man is not master of the world and his life, that the world within which he lives is full of riddles and mysteries and that human life also is full of riddles and mysteries … It may be said that myths give to the transcendent reality an immanent, this-worldly objectivity.

    While all religion may be false, it doesn’t necessarily follow that there is no other. I think it is equally false for the Christian apologist to accept the myths without question and for the atheist to deny the other simply because the myths are not literally true. While we humans may be capable of wonder and awe, hope and doubt, we are not able to know.

    February 2, 2009
  81. john george said:

    Jerry- It’s the badness in anyone that frightens me, also, and I don’t think it is necessarily driven by their particular creed. In fact, my own badness frightens me now and then.

    Obie- I agree with your comment, “…I think it is equally false for the Christian apologist to accept the myths without question…” In fact, I would go one step further and say it is dangerous to accept myths without question. A naive person can get into a lot of trouble this way. I think it interesting that the invitation from God is, “Come, let us reason together…” (Isa. 1:18). We have an intellect and reasoning capabilities for a reason.

    February 2, 2009
  82. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I have not been able to find a certain religion of the Huns, largely because everyone who claims to know about the Huns say that no one is certain.

    If you aren’t familiar with the story of Attila, he claimed to have found a magical sword (thereafter called the Sword of Attila) that made him unbeatable in battle. I can’t think of any atheists who would claim to have found a magical sword.

    I did find this passage. There are many like it all over Google:

    Although very little is known about the religion of the Huns it is safe to assume that it was closely related to that of the Turkish and Mongolian peoples of central Asia, they almost certainly used shamans and some sources mention that they also used female fortunetellers who predicted the future by looking at the entrails of animals, animism (the belief in spirits and life-containing objects in nature) was probably also a part of their religion.
    The Huns believed that they were the descendants of a wolf, this belief is of Turkish origin and is based on a legend about a boy who was saved by a she-wolf, this wolf raised the boy as her own and she also got pregnant of him, one day the humans found them and killed the boy, the wolf managed to escape and gave birth to 10 children, who were the ancestors of the Turkish peoples.

    So you might want to update your atheist references, and strike Attila from the list.

    Obie: I appreciate your moderation. If god can be described, people can divide themselves as believers of that particular god (theists) or nonbelievers (atheists). If your claim is that other has no description and might or might not exist, then of course I must admit that other is possible, but I’d also add that other is irrelevant. What is relevant are the descriptions of god that we have in ancient and modern writings. These are the writings that we’re debating. I have no problem admitting what I don’t know. I don’t know about other. I also have no problem admitting what I do know. Christianity has a frightening history. I am glad that I’m not Tasmanian.

    John: Do you think that if you were of another religion, that you’d be a “bad” person?

    February 2, 2009
  83. David Ludescher said:

    Obie: Could you describe the middle ground? Where does that middle ground lie where we can, in Obama’s words, make our patchwork a strength rather than a weakness?

    It seems to me that our America’s current approach to “tolerance” is wholly inadequate to make the patchwork a strength. It has resulted in undifferentiated pluralism rather than differentiated unity.

    February 2, 2009
  84. john george said:

    Jerry- Ah, a semantic differentiation. I do not believe that a person is “bad”, if I’m understanding you correctly, but people can do “bad things.” To say a person is “bad’ is to ascribe some moral definition upon their personhood aside from their actions. I really don’t like to use the term bad, (and I don’t remember using it in my posts. If I did, I did so in error.) as I feel it has a subjective nature that makes it difficult to come to agreement about its meaning or application. Each person has the capacity to do “good” or “bad” deeds, depending on their training and motivation. I prefer terms such as disobedience, as I believe it is more behavior specific. I think you are fishing around for my take on what we call the “sin nature”, although I am not completely sure. Am I getting warm? If that is the case, then I would have to approach it from a theological point of how we can please God. If that were possible in our own strength, then there would have been no need for Christ’s death and resurection. But since one of the foundational tennets of Christianity, the inherited fallen nature prevelant in every person and the need of redemption to be restored in our relationship with God, then we enter into an area that requires believing this to be true. This is a choice we must make for ourselves. It cannot be forced upon someone against their will, and, I can tell you from experience, it cannot be figured out with some sort of balance sheet approach. Since atheism denies the existence of God, then this is something that is not even on their radar as a concern. It is unfortunate that there has been so much animosity generated between the two in the past that it is really difficult to even discuss the subject.

    February 2, 2009
  85. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: That’s why I put “good” and “bad” in quotes, because whether a person is good or bad per se is a much more complicated discussion. I used quotes to skip that discussion.

    So do you surmise that if you were born from the same parents but raised by others, and the parents who raised you were of a non-Christian religion (theistic or atheistic), would you generally be inclined to do good things? Here, classic Buddhism would be an excellent sample religion, as classic Buddhists are very religious and very atheistic. What do you think?

    Separately, are you familiar with Divine Command Theory?

    February 3, 2009
  86. john george said:

    Jerry- This is all speculation. Who knows where I would be if I were raised by different parents. The fact is, I was not. And my relationship with God is not something I inherited from my parents. As far as being able to do “good” or “bad” things, as I said before, this capacity is within everyone. But, going back to my main tennet, Christianity is not a matter of doing “good things.” It is a matter of believing and living in a “redeemed” relationship with God. When we experience a change of heart, then out of that abundance we will be able to live a new life. We only have the present. The past cannot be re-lived, and none of us knows what tomorrow brings.

    I’m not familiar with your term “Divine Command Theory.” In a nutshell, what is it?

    February 4, 2009
  87. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: You said,

    But, going back to my main tennet, Christianity is not a matter of doing “good things.” It is a matter of believing and living in a “redeemed” relationship with God.

    I thought that James said a necessary part of Christianity is doing good deeds? [Jam. 2:17]

    I am probing how much Christianity has done to make you into a “good” person, or whether you’d do good things if you believed in the tenets of other religions. Are you so malleable to fit into any religion’s tenets, or do you have a goodness about you and you selected Christianity to express your goodness? Another approach is asking, “What is it about Christianity that had you select it?” If you had the opportunity to become a member of another religion, but you chose Christianity, what was your emotional reason for choosing Christianity.

    “Divine Command Theory” asks what foundation exists for morality, relating to god’s rules. For example, if morality is whatever god says it is, so that god could say “murder” is immoral today but tomorrow it is moral, then there is nothing about murder itself that is moral or immoral. It’s simply subject to an arbitrary standard of whatever god wants. If, however, there is something about murder that makes it always immoral, then god is subject to a morality that god cannot change. Do you have an opinion on this?

    February 4, 2009
  88. Anthony Pierre said:

    If jesus was alive right now, do you think he would give a crap about what you guys are fighting about? I didn’t think so.

    February 4, 2009
  89. David Ludescher said:

    Anthony: I don’t think that he would be an atheist, but I do think that he would be atheist-friendly.

    February 4, 2009
  90. Jerry Friedman said:

    Anthony: Who’s fighting?

    February 4, 2009
  91. Anthony Pierre said:

    maybe discussing is a better term

    February 4, 2009
  92. Jerry Friedman said:

    I hope Yeshua would join the discussion. I think he’d care about it too. Either we’re discussing whether he’s a myth, or if not, what is the extent of his moral authority. The peasants are talking about the king! Why wouldn’t the king want to join the discussion?

    February 4, 2009
  93. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: With which teachings of Jesus, real or mythical, do you disagree?

    February 4, 2009
  94. john george said:

    Jerry- James said that he showed his faith by his works. The faith comes first, and this is not from ourselves: it is a gift of God, then the works folow. Sanctification is a work of God that begins on the inside (change of heart) and is expressed on the outside in a changed life. Adhering to a bunch of commandments did (could) not change me, because I do not have the wherewithal within to please God . When God came to dwell in me through His Holy Spirit, the result was change both inside and out. I didn’t choose Christianity to change me. In fact, I was so arrogant as to claim that I did not need any changing.

    On your Divine Command theory, I first go back to God. God does not change. He is not some whimsical, all-powerful being that gets His kicks out of making life difficult for us. Your example of murder is something that has been considered illegal, if not immoral, through the ages. It appears that God did not change it. Nor has He changed gravity, or the sun, or the direction of rotation for our planet. In all this creation, there is evidence of decay. I believe this is not because of a flaw in the original creation. It is a result of the fall. Even our government officials are in subjection to the laws they create, except for a few from an unamed political party.

    Your next question, then, would be why God chose to anihilate whole people groups. I suggest you read Ex 34:6&7. God is first merciful, yet just. Because sinners are not immediately judged, but have the longsuffering of God as their portion to give them a chance to repent, then God appears to some as impotent at best, if not vasilating.

    February 4, 2009
  95. Obie Holmen said:

    To John G,

    Did you just say what I think you said?

    Although I have disagreed with most of your comments on this lengthening thread, it is your latest that appears to be way over the top.

    Your last paragraph references the Hebrew Scriptures as explanation for “why God chose to anihilate (sic) whole people groups”, to wit: “yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children, and the children’s children …”

    Did you just justify the holocaust?

    February 5, 2009
  96. Bruce Anderson said:

    I’m with Obie on this one, John. What DID you have in mind?:

    Exodus 34:6-7 (King James Version)

    6And the LORD passed by before him,
    and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD
    God, merciful and gracious,
    long-suffering, and abundant in
    goodness and truth,

    7Keeping mercy for thousands,
    forgiving iniquity and transgression
    and sin, and that will by no means
    clear the guilty; visiting the
    iniquity of the fathers upon the
    children, and upon the children’s
    children, unto the third and to the
    fourth generation.

    As a non-believer, I’m willing (and expect) to be held accountable for any iniquitous behavior I engage in, but I’d like to believe any punishment wouldn’t be visited upon my great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren.

    February 5, 2009
  97. john george said:

    Obie and Bruce- How you or anyone else could construe this scripture passage to be a justification of the holocaust is beyond me. How did you come to that conclusion out of my posts? Am I missing something here, or are you projecting some idea onto me? Sorry, I’m really puzzled with that reaction.

    I have visited the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem. This was a heart wrenching experience for me, because here was a people singled out for heinous anihilation simply because they believed in God a certain way. The thing I could not get out of my head as I went through it was that this same price may be exacted of me, my children and grandchildren someday just because of our faith in God. These things did not happen to the Jewish people because they did something wrong. It was because they did something right.

    Take a look at Luke 13:1-5. I think Jesus (Yeshua) makes it pretty clear how we each are accountable for our actions and what we need to do about it. I think you two error in your understanding of God’s character, for both of you missed the most important part of verse 7, that which was stated first, “…Keeping mercy for thousands,
    forgiving iniquity and transgression
    and sin…” This is the true heart of God. I would be glad to introduce you to Him someday.

    Jerry F.- Perhaps your hope is being fulfilled.

    February 5, 2009
  98. Obie Holmen said:

    John,

    You completely misunderstand my post. I am not in any way construing the Deut passage as justification for the holocaust; I am questioning your words to that effect.

    “why God chose to anihilate whole people groups. I suggest you read Ex 34:6&7. God is first merciful, yet just.” Your words, not mine.

    It is you who links God’s justice toward sinners and their progeny, according to verse 7, to annihilation of whole people groups, not me.

    Your present post indicates that was not your intention, and I will accept that. Perhaps you need to be a little more careful with your statements.

    Also, I resent your suggestion that you will be glad to introduce me to God someday. I have post graduate studies in theology and I have served as congregational president and adult ed instructor at my home church.

    You get yourself in trouble when you presume to judge the religiosity of others who disagree with you.

    February 5, 2009
  99. john george said:

    Obie- I’m sorry if I misjudged you. I only have a couple of your posts as insights into your thinking, and I did not perceive your heart in them. Perhaps, as we have further opportunity for discourse, I will gain a better understanding of you and how you think.

    As far as anihilating people groups, there is Biblical history, as you should know through your studies, of God commanding that a people be “utterly destroyed”, as in the flood and the Canaanites in Deut. 7, for just a couple examples. This is what I was refering to, because it is these scriptures (and others) that I have had thrown back at me as evidence that God is bipolar in His approach to murder. I have heard a theory before (in a post graduate seminary class) that the Holocaust was a judgement against the Jewish people for their rejection of Yeshua. Is this the position you thought I was aluding to? I’m still really puzzled as to how you are construing what I wrote in my post.

    Just a side note on your “religiosity” comment. I grew up in and was very active in both my home church and a few others, but I did not know God. I also believe that I can know God better than I now do, and I always welcome any invitation to do so. I did not mean to offend you in this invitation or put you down in any way. I echo the Apostle Paul’s quest in Phil. 3:12-16.

    February 5, 2009
  100. kiffi summa said:

    See…here’s the problem : “judging” a person.

    We should not ever be “judging” a person because of their beliefs/views/sexual orientation/whatever.

    John , you say you only have a few comments by which to “judge” Obie. I say you should not “judge” Obie by his comments on a specific issue; you should only discuss the points offered for discussion, without coming to a judgement about the ‘whole’ individual.

    You have made comments that imply you think homosexuals are less than worthwhile, whole people. What would you say if a person with whom you agreed on every point that turned up in the discussion, was revealed to be a homosexual?

    I would agree that this is all wrapped up in the ideas behind judging, tolerance, etc……..but there is where I find the constant conflict in your comments.

    Is it possible to say you are tolerant, but also to say that you “judge”?

    February 6, 2009
  101. john george said:

    Kiffi- In response to your question, “…Is it possible to say you are tolerant, but also to say that you “judge”?”, yes it is. You are aluding to Matt. 7:1. I don’t have the original Hebrew of this verse, for that is what it was written in, but the Greek word used for “judge” here is “krinete”, a derivative of “krinos”. Krinos is a legal term, used more as a discription of assessing or deciding or resolving something. The word krinete, used in the translation, has to do with condemning or looking unfavorably on something or someone. For a present day example, when I stop at a stop sign, I would “krinos” (judge) whether there is sufficient clearance between my position and approaching traffic to safely cross the intersection.

    In my post, I apologized to Obie for making a wrong krinos (assessment) of where he was coming from. In your post above, it appears you have made a krinete (condemnation) of my krinos (assessment) that I feel I have every right to make. Rob H., am I correct in my translation here? I may not be completely thorough, but I wanted to keep it short here. You are the one with the best credentials.

    As to your other question, “…What would you say if a person with whom you agreed on every point that turned up in the discussion, was revealed to be a homosexual?…”, then we would be in agreement on his need for forgiveness and clesansing of his sin just as much as I need forgiveness and cleansing for my sin.

    February 6, 2009
  102. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi, Obie, Jerry: Christian teaching “judges” actions, not people.

    When a church such as the Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality activity is “intrinsically disordered” it speaks to the action as being ordered to something (sexual urges) rather than its primary biological purpose, procreation. But, it does not regard homosexuals as lesser people. In fact, the Catechism of the Church specifically states that no one should be discriminated against because of their orientation.

    When atheists claim positions of theists that theists do not claim as their own, then atheists become unfairly hostile to the theists.

    February 6, 2009
  103. Anthony Pierre said:

    I wish they would judge the molesting priests. Oh wait. lol

    February 6, 2009
  104. Peter Millin said:

    Can I be tolerant of people but not agree with their beliefs?
    Or would that be an oxymoron?

    February 6, 2009
  105. kiffi summa said:

    Peter: yes, of course you can be tolerant of a person whose beliefs do not coincide with your own……..or at least, IMO, you should be able to accomplish that.

    John : no agreement that a homosexual needs to be forgiven and “cleansed of his sin”. I cannot agree with you that homosexuality is a sin needing to be forgiven and cleansed.

    I will disagree, but not “judge” you for that (IMO) wrong and intolerant opinion. Regardless of your Greek translations, and their specificity, I will use a modern understanding of the term.

    February 6, 2009
  106. john george said:

    Kiffi- I was just answering your question, and it isn’t my idea that homosexuality is a sin. That is the definition given it in the scriptures. You are the one who stated the condition of the discussion, that we agreed on all points, not me.

    Your statement, “…I will use a modern understanding of the term…” is not an argument with me. It is an argument with the intent of the original writer. It appears to me that this person had an intent with the “specificity” of the words they chose. Your approach, which you have every right to adhere to, if you want, would appear to be a revision of the meaning of the original text. Does this mean that all words are subjective and can only be defined by the current “understanding” of them? Do you think this makes “modern” understanding better than the original writer? Just wondering.

    Also, in your statement, “…I will disagree, but not “judge” you for that (IMO) wrong and intolerant opinion…”, what are the words “wrong” and “intolerant”, if not judgements? And the choice of these words and their context would appear to infer condemnation, even though I think you meant them to be “assessments”.

    February 6, 2009
  107. kiffi summa said:

    John: Too much contortion of “krinos”/”krinete”, and a lack of accepting what what I say is only IN MY OPINION a “wrong/intolerant” attitude of yours which I do disagree with, but do not judge you to be a person who has “sinned”, because you hold an opinion different than mine.

    You have said over and over that homosexuals are sinners; both your “krinos” and “krinete” are your opinion; and please don’t tell me that the Bible says this definitively……we all know that Bible verses, like statistics, can be used to make divergent cases.

    It is obvious, John, that you love your children; and you have stated many times how you have grown in your “Christian” life. I think it would be developmental for you to have a child who was a homosexual……then you could have the opportunity to come to a full personal maturation of Christian love and tolerance.

    February 7, 2009
  108. Rob Hardy said:

    Krino, in Greek, means “to distinguish, to choose,” as between alternatives, or “to decide, to judge.” It is used to mean “decide” or “judge” in a legal sense.

    It’s most famous appearance in the Bible, perhaps, is in Matthew 7:1: Me krinete, hina me krithete (“judge not, lest you be judged”).

    Griff should install a Greek font for these theological discussions.

    February 7, 2009
  109. Obie Holmen said:

    Like snappy dialogue in a novel, we are speaking past each other, each with a different agenda and each with a different starting point.

    At the forefront is a fundamental disagreement on Judeo-Christian scriptures as an institution. We will never agree on what they mean or how they are to interpreted unless there is common ground as to what the scriptures are (and I highly doubt whether we will reach consensus here in a blog forum).

    On one side are those who see scripture as inspired by God, infallible, inerrant, etc. The Word of God (a complicated theological construct) is reduced to the words of God, and brings to mind the movie image of Charlton Heston on Sinai watching as the moving finger of God writes commandments on stone tablets. Elements of the Islamic tradition similarly see the Prophet as receiving the Koran straight from the heavens.

    An unstated corollary to this view is that a particular interpretation is similarly cast in stone. Such a view leads to questionable assumptions such as a statement in an earlier post that homosexuality is a sin because “That is the definition given it in the scriptures.” Really. For many, the Bible is not nearly that clear, but if you start with the assumption that the Bible says so, the analysis becomes easier — and oversimplified circular reasoning in which the assumption is used to prove the assumption.

    I prefer a different view of the Bible as an institution. I think the approach of Christian professor Walter Brueggeman’s tome “Theology of the Old Testament” to be apropos. He proposes that the text should be read as a series of witness statements, akin to trial testimony, with cross examination to test for bias or context, and with rebuttal testimony from other witnesses still within the Biblical text. An essential element of such an approach is to recognize the cultural context of the witnesses.

    As to the particular issue of homosexuality, consideration of the cultural attitudes of the ancient Hebrew priests responsible for the “holiness code” of Leviticus, makes it considerably less clear that “that is the definition given it in the scriptures”. Similarly, for the NT Paul who claimed to be a Torah trained Pharisee, his negative attitude was based on his Torah assumptions.

    Neither the ancient Hebrews nor the first century Paul would have had the slightest cultural understanding of homosexuality as a biological condition capable of and in need of human love and fulfillment through same gender relationships.

    This thread has been replete with historical instances of misguided humans persecuting others based on perverse and judgmental interpretations of scripture. I submit that the present attitude of many churches and denominations towards gays is merely the latest example, but we can all be thankful that the tide is turning.

    February 7, 2009
  110. David Ludescher said:

    Obie: Name one church or denomination that is persecuting gays.

    February 7, 2009
  111. Obie Holmen said:

    David L,

    In a broad context, any church that doesn’t allow full and unqualified participation for gays in the life of that church is guilty of persecution. Not allowing gay clergy or requiring clergy to refrain from same gender relationships are obvious examples. If you think the word “persecution” is too strong, pick another. “Discrimination” comes to mind.

    February 7, 2009
  112. john george said:

    Obie- My ELCA Lutheran pastor brother-in-law summed up his struggle with the acceptance of gays in the ministry in this way. As long as the gay attraction is recognized as a conponent of the old sin nature, he has no problem with them carrying church authority. After all, we all struggle with many temptations of the old man, and to require complete freedom from these temptations as a prerequisite for ministry is unrealistic at best. What he has a problem with is saying the gay attraction is part of the new nature, Eph. 4:24, Col. 3:10. I agree with his assesment. If you don’t agree, that is ok with me. We both have to answer to God, not each other. I think Rom. 14:22 is an appropriate verse in this respect. But I feel I have a right to express my convictions here without being condemned, just as much as you have.

    Kiffi- If I understand you correctly, you are saying that my posts are condemning anyone who believes different from me. I do not agree with your assesment. I have had many discussions on this site with Jerry Friedman and Patrick Enders, both of whom openly say they believe differently from me. I have the utmost respect for these men, and I feel we have had very civil and non-comdemning discourses expressing our different convictions. I also feel I am free to discuss anything with either of them in the future, because we accept one another as human beings. I feel I have gained increased insights and understand of their points of view through these discussions. I wish I could say the same with you, but it has not transpired that way. That is just going to have to be the way it is for now, I guess. You have not dumped garbage on my driveway and I haven’t dumped garbage on yours. I feel I tolerate you fairly well, even though we do not agree. I don’t think tolerance requires either of us to give our stamp of approval on everything, or anything, for that matter, the other posts.

    February 7, 2009
  113. David Ludescher said:

    Obie: I can only speak for the Roman Catholic Church. I know the Catholic Church allows for full and unqualified participation for gays in the life of the Church.

    February 7, 2009
  114. john george said:

    Obie- Your comment, “…At the forefront is a fundamental disagreement on Judeo-Christian scriptures as an institution. We will never agree on what they mean or how they are to (be?) interpreted unless there is common ground as to what the scriptures are (and I highly doubt whether we will reach consensus here in a blog forum)…” is spot on, in my opinion. In fact, considering the debates that have raged for centuries and continue to rage, in both institutions and organizations, it is probably good evidence that consensus is an elusive goal.

    February 7, 2009
  115. David Ludescher said:

    John: I disagree. The Bible, and especially the Gospel, is intended for all men and women, so that all may come to know the truth of how to live and be truly human.

    I have never heard either atheist or theist disagree with any of Jesus’ teachings. That is the common ground.

    February 7, 2009
  116. Obie Holmen said:

    David L,

    You state, I know the Catholic Church allows for full and unqualified participation for gays in the life of the Church.

    May I remind you of Cardinal Arzine, head of the Vatican office of the Sacraments, who questioned St Paul archbishop Flynn’s practice of allowing the gay activist group, the Rainbow Sash Movement, to participate in the sacrament of communion.

    I also believe many RC seminaries are now screening candidates for the priesthood according to issues of sexuality, and excluding those with “deap seated homosexual tendencies” according to a 2005 policy document which flows from official RC policy that homosexuality is “objectively disordered”. While that screening policy is an understandable attempt at dealing with the issue of clergy abuse, it is a bludgeoning, dehumanizing approach.

    My own home is in the ELCA, and while I applaud its progress toward inclusion and full participation by gays, I also lament its pace. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    February 7, 2009
  117. john george said:

    David- I think you are probably correct on some teachings, but when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me,” I think most of them would object, as this is a strong exclusionary statement.

    Obie- I think it would be interesting to get Fredrick Guenther’s and Bavid Bidney’s perspective on the freedom of gay oriented priests in the Catholic Church. I think it is interesting that there is an organization called NAMBLA, which is an acrostic for North American Man/Boy Love Association. Their focus is to end the oppression of men and boys with same sex attraction. Perhaps the gay community as a whole does not support this organization, but I have not read any published accounts to that effect. Is this something that has been suppressed in the media?

    February 7, 2009
  118. john george said:

    Kiffi- Please let me try to extend an olive branch to you. In most of the posts you have addressed to me in the past, I have felt the opinions of my opinions you have expressed have been more inflamitory than conciliatory. I am open to correction on my interpretation of these. I think you and Victor are very good, involved citizens of Northfield. I esteem you as people of principle, not easily swayed in the face of opposition. Too many times, I have felt that this opposition has been unfair attacks on your personhood, but I have not spoken up on your behalf, if I am remebering correctly. Of this omission, I am both ashamed and ask your forgiveness. If I have in any way expressed my strong convictions in a way that has attacked your personhood, please forgive me. That is not my intention. I know I have blind spots, and I need others to be a mirror for me in this respect. Anyway, I feel no ill will toward you and your convictions.

    Just a response to your comment, “…I think it would be developmental for you to have a child who was a homosexual…”, you are correct. None of my children have had to fight this battle. When we first moved to Northfield, we opened up our home to a young man who did fight this battle. When he graduated from high school, his step-mother gave him 30 days to get out of the house. We provided a home for him, free of charge, for a few years so he would be able to take advantage of a scholarship to go to a school in the cities and then get established in a good job. He is now a suscessful IT manager and is married and very active in an evangelical church in the cities that reaches out to gays, among others. It is interesting that the wife he found had a specific desire in her heart to marry a man who had struggles with homosexuality. I think this experience of accepting and ministering to a young person and seeing them find their place in God gives me just a little understanding of the gay struggle.

    February 7, 2009
  119. Obie Holmen said:

    John,

    I can’t speak for the gay community, but NAMBLA was a real fringe that was concerned with intergenerational relationships. It is hardly representative of anything except its limited fringe group, and I think is largely out of existence. I am not sure where you are coming from by bringing up such a fringe group except to buy into false stereotypes of gay men.

    February 7, 2009
  120. john george said:

    Obie- Thanks for the update. They still have a web site, but there are fringe groups in every organization, as we know. They used to show up occasionally as a group lobbying for various gay related issues. I hope they are not indicative of the gay community as a whole.

    February 7, 2009
  121. john george said:

    Obie- I didn’t answer your last question in my post as to where I was coming from. Sorry. The men I refered to are in an article in the Feb. 6 Strib, front page center, about a lawsuit against a Catholic religious order involving homosexual molestation of some teens. I saw a connection between the intergenerational aspect of this lawsuit and NAMBLA, that is all.

    February 7, 2009
  122. kiffi summa said:

    John: Thank you for the offer of the olive branch, but I hesitate……into every thread eventually comes either a discussion of abortion or homosexuality and your perception of their relationship to “sins” , and “sinners”.

    It is only the concept of doubt that allows faith to become faith.
    It is only the concept of faith, and perhaps trust, that allows one to believe what cannot be proven.
    But if doubt is too strong, and trust is not present, one must believe what can be proven by the words and deeds of others, as well as the known physical laws of our world, and space, in time.

    February 8, 2009
  123. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: It is not the concept of doubt, that results in faith. It is the reality of doubt that creates the opportunity for faith.

    Faith is the rational ordering of doubt and uncertainty into meaningful systems of belief. Paul Tillich notes that we have no choice but to adopt some faith because life is full of so many uncertainties that we have to order these uncertainties somehow.

    When Obama stated that we are a patchwork nation and that is our strength, I don’t think he had in mind what Griff proposed – namely the recognition of another faith – of non-believers. I think that he was calling forth our common American faith that is recognized by all is being in the common interest, and not trying to create another division of the people.

    February 8, 2009
  124. Bright Spencer said:

    Bruce Anderson wrote Feb 5, As a non-believer, I’m willing (and expect) to be held accountable for any iniquitous behavior I engage in, but I’d like to believe any punishment wouldn’t be visited upon my great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren.

    I think the sins of the fathers are indeed pressed upon the sons, as in the conflict of Iraq where US infringed upon sacred lands in the past, as in children of alcoholics and/or violent abusers suffer and often bring those sufferings onto their children and so on.

    February 8, 2009
  125. john george said:

    Kiffi- I can understand your hesitation. I make a differentiation between agreement and understanding. I don’t require you to agree with me. I just wanted you to know that I recieve you just where you are. You have an open door to me anytime you want to knock on it.

    February 8, 2009
  126. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I had posted several of Yeshua’s teaching that I disagree with, for example, several verses that tell disciples to hate their families.

    I would also press Yeshua, as a moral leader, to condemn the cruelties in the Old Testament. He gave no such condemnation. Rather, he said that he is here not to change it, but to fulfill the Old Testament.

    I would also press Yeshua to condemn slavery. He did not. He endorses slavery.

    I would also press Yeshua to defend the equal treatment of the sexes. He did not. He and his disciples subjugated women.

    John: I’ll save the Divine Command Theory discussion for our pending in-person meeting. You have asked that I call you, but I am not clairvoyant.

    February 8, 2009
  127. john george said:

    Jerry- I’m in the phone book, but my number is 507-663-0976. All you lurking telemarketers, just forget you ever saw that!

    February 8, 2009
  128. Peter Millin said:

    A church is a “private organization” and has the right to let whatever members they want in to their church.
    It is up to us to judge if this is right or not and up to us if we want to attend the church or not.

    February 9, 2009
  129. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: That’s normally the way it works. For examples, the Boy Scouts of America have been successful in excluding gays, and now I hear their membership is suffering because of their anti-gay policy. I was in the Cub Scouts back in the day. I am happy, in retrospect, that I never joined the Boy Scouts.

    February 9, 2009
  130. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,

    Looks like the “market” has spoken. That’s the way it should be, right?

    February 9, 2009
  131. john george said:

    Jerry- In your response to David dated 02/08, you listed a few issues you have with Yeshua. I’m not sure what translation you happened to read, or why you happened to interpret what you read in the way you did, but some of your interpretations do not appear to be correct relative to what the pertinent texts actually say. We may have more to discuss than just Divine Command Theory.

    February 9, 2009
  132. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry wrote,

    the Boy Scouts of America have been successful in excluding gays, and now I hear their membership is suffering because of their anti-gay policy.

    My participation in Boy Scouts was one of my most valuable and cherished childhood activities. It both surprised me and broke my heart when the Boy Scouts of America declared, in 2000, that discrimination against homosexuality was a central tenet of their organization.

    Remarkably, there is no mention of it in the 576 pages of my 1981 Boy Scout Handbook.

    Good riddance to them.

    February 9, 2009
  133. Patrick Enders said:

    Remarkably, the following organizations are all more welcoming of agnostics, atheists, homosexuals:

    Girl Scouts of the USA, Scouts Canada, The United Kingdom Scout Association, Scouts of Australia, most European Scouts organizations, 4-H, and Campfire USA.

    All of those organizations even welcome girls!

    Anyone interested in starting a branch of Scouts Canada in Northfield?

    (source: wikipedia. The address, however, Can Not Be Posted – due to the usual LGN bug)

    February 9, 2009
  134. Jerry Friedman said:

    I fear Canadians after too much Southpark. But for anyone without my cartoon-induced fear, I think that’s a great idea.

    February 9, 2009
  135. Peter Millin said:

    I am glad the boy scouts took a stand.I am very familiar with the gay lifestyle, and I certainly wouldn’t want SOME gays around my sons.
    Most of them are great guys, but they do look at boys differently then straight men do.
    This again is my personal experience and not meant as a generalization.

    February 9, 2009
  136. john george said:

    I think it fair to point out that not all athiests are homosexuals and not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Also, not all Christians are homophobes, and expressing one’s understanding of certain tennets of his faith is not hate speech. Also, discussing percieved misunderstandings between the factions does not have to be devisive.

    February 9, 2009
  137. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: You indict yourself. Again.

    February 9, 2009
  138. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry and Patrick: You both seem to be making a judgment and showing little tolerance for the Boy Scouts. By whose standard are you judging them?

    What makes your opinion better or more valuable than the Boy Scout’s opinion? When you judge them as being wrong, do you have a system of beliefs to which a neutral third party could use as a measurement?

    By the way, you both have the facts wrong on the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts do not exclude gays. It only excluded openly gay leaders. The concern was that gay leaders were trying to make their leadership into a political cause, i.e. their own personal agenda, rather than focusing on the boys. Any openingly sexual person is excluded.

    February 9, 2009
  139. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,

    Indict?

    February 9, 2009
  140. Jerry Friedman said:

    David L: The Boy Scouts exclude gays. The Scouts’ mission opposes homosexuality.

    The Supreme Court ruled today by a 5-to-4 vote that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gay members because opposition to homosexuality is part of the organization’s “expressive message.” […] [Chief Justice Rehnquist] said “Dale’s presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.”

    -New York Times, June 29, 2000

    You ask,

    What makes your opinion better or more valuable than the Boy Scout’s opinion? When you judge them as being wrong, do you have a system of beliefs to which a neutral third party could use as a measurement?

    (1) Oppression is wrong. Acting on arbitrary discrimination is oppression. It is arbitrary to discriminate against people because they are gay. Removing a person solely for being gay is an oppressive action.

    (2) See (1).

    Generally, if a gay or non-gay person harms a child, sure, kick ‘m out. Because someone is gay or non-gay does not make them prone to harming children of either gender.

    This is surprising coming from your recent remark that the Bible (or Christians) hate the sin, not the sinner. What is a gay mentor’s or a gay scout’s sin? If their being gay is nothing to hate, why would you defend the Scouts’ oppression of gays?

    February 9, 2009
  141. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,

    The supreme court disagrees with you and rightly so.

    February 9, 2009
  142. Peter Millin said:

    I disagree with Roe vs Wade.Yet I accept the law and all the rights that go with it.

    February 9, 2009
  143. Patrick Enders said:

    David L,
    I accept that the Boy Scouts exist, but that its current leadership espouses a philosophy of which I disapprove.

    I would be very hesitant to allow a child of mine to participate in such an organization, as presently constituted.

    I have not called for the Boy Scouts, as presently constituted, to be banned or persecuted. I have simply expressed my opinion of the organization.

    What’s your problem with that?

    February 9, 2009
  144. Patrick Enders said:

    David L,
    According to Wikipedia,

    In countries where homosexuality is legal, there is usually at least one Scouting association that does not restrict homosexual people from membership or leadership positions. An exception is the United States where “avowed homosexuals” are not allowed to be adult leaders or youth members.

    (Again, I am unable to post the link, due to the LGN glitch.)

    February 9, 2009
  145. john george said:

    Jerry- Is your comment, “…Oppression is wrong…” perhaps a little broad? I don’t mean to be argumentative, here, but someone in an earlier post observed that some posters were “talking past each other” with the particular terms they were using. In the NAMBLA manefesto, (which someone said was a non-entity now, but the idea, and the web site, is still out there) their purpose was to end oppression of consensual (really?) intergenerational (man/boy) relationships. Is this an instance where oppression, or perhaps suppression, at least, would be desireable? This is homosexual pedophilia, not a universal homosexual trait. Just wondering.

    February 9, 2009
  146. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Good question. I offer that it’s OK to oppress other oppressors within a certain scope. If NAMBLA oppresses boys, then it’s OK to oppress NAMBLA to the extent necessary to protect the boys.

    Gay Scout leaders and gay scouts oppress no one, therefore it’s wrong to oppress them.

    Also, appealing to Godwin’s Rule, I have no problem oppressing Nazis.

    Exceptions to the principle against oppression can be further defined, but that’s where I’m going with it.

    February 9, 2009
  147. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: The Supreme Court based its decision on the rights of private organizations to have a select membership. I agree that the State should not force a private organization to have members contrary to its principles. (Note however that there are some exceptions to this law that don’t apply with the Boy Scouts.)

    Removed from the State interference with private organizations, the Boy Scouts of Am. is wrong to exclude people based on arbitrary criteria.

    You’re using a court decision, rooted in law, to further your anti-gay position, rooted in fear.

    February 9, 2009
  148. Patrick Enders said:

    David L, …which seems to contradict your assertion that

    By the way, you both have the facts wrong on the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts do not exclude gays. It only excluded openly gay leaders.

    And this assertion is patently false:

    The concern was that gay leaders were trying to make their leadership into a political cause, i.e. their own personal agenda, rather than focusing on the boys. Any openingly sexual person is excluded.

    One of the test cases involved a leader who was not openly gay, but was outed when a copy of his receipt for a stay at a gay-focused resort was obtained by the BSA.

    see the Wikipedia page titled:
    Boy Scouts of America controversies (again, I can’t post the actual address)

    If your premise was true, your principle would seem to be equally applicable (even more so) to any married man with children.

    February 9, 2009
  149. Peter Millin said:

    I don’t have an anti gay position or am I afraid of gay people.
    Quiet to the contrary. In my first business venture in Pittsburgh my business partner happened to be gay.
    He was a great guy and friend of mine, so were many of his other friends. Neither did I feel intimidated or threatened in my own sexuality.

    I do accept gays for what they are, but I certainly don’t approve of their lifestyle, and certainly don’t want them to be around boys.
    Don’t I have that right too?

    February 9, 2009
  150. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: These two statements are contradictory:

    1. I don’t have an anti gay position or am I afraid of gay people.

    2. I certainly don’t approve of their lifestyle, and certainly don’t want them to be around boys.

    February 9, 2009
  151. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,
    Not really.
    Personally I can live with that.

    February 9, 2009
  152. john george said:

    Jerry- I think Peter is being tolerant, at least the way I understand tolerance. I can tolerate homosexuals living in my neighborhood but not approve of their practices. They are welcome in my church any time they would like to come, but I am not going to bend my beliefs just because they don’t agree with them.

    Peter- Your phrase, “…and certainly don’t want them to be around boys…” describes homosexual pedophiles, not every homosexual out there. I wouldn’t have been comfortable leaving my daughters in the care of a heterosexual pedophile.

    February 9, 2009
  153. john george said:

    I’ll just throw this out as an opinion- I don’t think predatory behavior is gender specific. I think we are talking about two different things, here, and predatory behavior is, I think we all would agree, a social deviance. Homosexuality was looked upon that way for years in this culture, but that is changing now. The merits of this could, and have, for that matter, take up volumes of discourse.

    February 9, 2009
  154. Patrick Enders said:

    John (and Peter),
    I think tolerance can exist up to the point where one moves beyond one’s own choices – as guaranteed under freedom of association – and moves into the universal rights of the person you don’t want to associate with.

    That is, it would be fine (well within one’s rights, that is) to say “I don’t want them to be around my boys,” and then to choose to remove yourself and your children from association with those people you disapprove of – in your private life.

    However, if one tries to use that personal choice, under freedom of association, to restrict the freedoms of others, then you’re out of the realm of tolerance, and into the realm of discrimination.

    It would be discriminatory, and illegal, to ban homosexuals from being teachers. It would also be illegal to ban homosexuals from “being around boys.”

    February 9, 2009
  155. john george said:

    Patrick- I think your post is a good clarification. I read an article about two churches in San Francisco and their reactions to the gay issues in that city. One church openly opposed gays, ridiculed them and banned them from their congregations. The other church sought out ways to help them out, by visiting those afflicted with AIDS, even providing housing, transportation and helping pay for treatments, and opened up their sanctuary to them. Both churches professed the same Biblical interpretation of the homosexual lifestyle. Which do you suppose really exhibited the Love of Christ? I think it is interesting that the one church found acceptance within the gay community without compromising their beliefs. It was because they understood the bigger picture of Christianity and were not afraid to live it.

    February 9, 2009
  156. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    You’ve stated that very well.

    February 9, 2009
  157. Patrick Enders said:

    So I’ve been catching up on a few years of Boy Scouts history tonight – as well as trying to figure out the local Boy Scout organizations.

    I was happy to discover that the local Northern Star Council has a fairly well-written and somewhat reassuring “Statement of Inclusion”:

    Northern Star Council does not teach any program dealing with human sexuality, other than to encourage members to be sexually responsible to themselves and others. Programmatically, it places other issues of human sexuality, including heterosexual and homosexual sexuality, outside of its program.

    Northern Star Council believes that issues or questions of human sexuality arising among its adolescent members are the province of a member’s family, religious leaders, doctors or other qualified advisors.

    Northern Star Council does not initiate inquiry into the sexual orientation of existing or prospective members. Northern Star Council asks its members or those who seek to become members to subscribe to its programs, policies, principles and standards in support of Scouting’s mission.

    If the following is interpreted by them the same way I read it, then I am glad to see that the local policy is far more inclusive than the National BSA’s policies.

    Northern Star Council reserves the right to exclude a member if his or her behavior becomes publicly inappropriate, as reflected by local community values.

    Northern Star Council does not permit its organization to be used as a vehicle to promote any personal, political, social or other agenda that is inconsistent with Scouting’s mission or attaining its goals to foster the development of youth.

    Nowhere in the local policy is the mere fact of homosexuality a bar against participation in Boy Scouts. It’s all about behaviors, and what you talk about. If any of my Scoutmasters back in my days in Scouts had been gay, they never would’ve run afoul of this policy – because it was clear in our Troop that nothing even remotely related to dating was ever going to be discussed, in any way, shape, or form. Ever.

    Note, of course, that this local policy differs substantially from the National BSA policy.

    Also, any homosexual persons participating in Boy Scouts within the Northern Star Council would forever be at risk of being “outed” to the National BSA – which does have a track record of ousting and banning persons for the mere fact of being homosexual.

    That is to say: if you think “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has worked well for the military, then you should like the way homosexuals (and atheists) are treated in the Minnesota Boy Scouts of America.

    http://www.northernstarbsa.org/AboutUs/Leadership/Inclusiveness.aspx

    February 9, 2009
  158. Patrick Enders said:

    Finally, I have a quick question that I’d appreciate help with:

    What organization or church is Troop 337 affiliated with? I found info on the other two Troops in town, but not much on this one.

    Thanks to anyone who can let me know.

    February 9, 2009
  159. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: I am also comforted by the local Scout’s policy. Is there any reason to believe their practice is different?

    February 10, 2009
  160. Griff Wigley said:

    Hey, if we’re going to talk about Boy Scouts in this message thread, how about we shift it away from the gay theme and back to the non-believer theme, eg, should the Scouts embrace non-believers? What about the Pledge of Allegiance?

    February 10, 2009
  161. Patrick Enders said:

    Griff,
    On the should-they-admit-atheists-and-agnostics question, that all depends upon what kind of organization the Boy Scouts strives to be. If the Boy Scouts want to be a religious group with a narrowly-defined conservative membership and mission, then they should continue along the path that the national BSA leadership has charted over the last two decades.

    If the Boy Scouts strives to be a mainstream, generally-accepted organization focused on civic duty, responsibility, leadership and service, then I think it would behoove them to adopt policies more in line with those of their international Scouting brethren.

    …which is to some extent why I’m curious as to who sponsors the third Boy Scout Troop in town? The first two are sponsored by Lutheran churches. Joe Gasior – sometime visitor to these boards, and a fairly conservative Christian as far as I can tell from his words here – is listed as a board member for one of them.

    When I was a child, there were Boy Scout Troops associated with many of the churches in my town, of all denominations. There were also many troops associated with the Public Schools. (I was a member of a Methodist-affiliated Troop, even though I was never a Methodist.)

    Now, even before the Scouts declared their homosexual-exclusion policy in 1991, the total number of Boy Scouts and Troops was already shrinking in my home town. I’m curious whether this contraction was hastened by the increasingly narrow mission that the Boy Scouts have declared for themselves?

    Were the Boy Scouts once more numerous, and more diverse, in Northfield? If so, what changed?

    February 10, 2009
  162. Adam Elg said:

    I think this topic has been poorly moderated. It certainly has strayed far from the original question. I think it should be put to bed.

    February 11, 2009
  163. Anthony Pierre said:

    I would rather my kids be around gays than republicans. At least the gays don’t hate certain groups of people.

    February 11, 2009
  164. Griff Wigley said:

    Adam, as the moderator, I have to agree. My apologies.

    February 11, 2009
  165. Patrick, Troop 337 in Northfield is chartered by Carleton College.

    You can find this infor by going to http://www.thescoutzone.com and using the troop locator for the zip code 55057 (and generally ignore the leading ‘9’ for four-digit troop numbers).

    February 11, 2009
  166. Patrick Enders said:

    Brian,
    Thanks! It’s good to know that there’s a Troop available in Northfield – if not for strict atheists – at least for persons of somewhat less strictly constructed religious beliefs. Depending upon the day and my mood, I sometimes consider myself in, or at least near, that camp. (Such is the nature of uncertainty.)

    This thread, as well some other things I’ve been discussing in the real world, has also piqued my curiosity slightly about Northfield’s Unitarian Universalist church.

    I wasn’t surprised to discover that agnostics were welcome at the UU church, but I was somewhat surprised that atheists are also welcome.

    Does anyone have any insight into this, particularly relating to Northfield’s UU church?

    February 11, 2009
  167. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: The UU’s are the most inclusive denomination I know of from any theism. I think their only requirement is that you come voluntarily and they don’t try to convert you to their brand of thinking.

    I enjoyed a Hare Krishna Thanksgiving a few years back. They were politely distant with me, but they were all over my 11-year old niece, trying to lure her in. None of that at the UU’s.

    February 11, 2009
  168. john george said:

    Anthony- Just (semi)tongue in cheek, here, but is it because the gays hate the same groups you do? As I think has been suggested in earlier posts, no matter what group you come across, there will be fringe extreemists wrapped up in hatred. Seems that emotion is a common human trait, no matter what group you address. It is this trait that makes anyone who it is focused on feel unwelcome. Perhaps atheism, or gays, or Christians are not the problem. The problem lies in not being able to handle disagreements without being hateful.

    February 11, 2009
  169. Anthony Pierre said:

    john, do you really think there are groups that gays hate as a group?

    February 11, 2009
  170. Adam Elg said:

    Patrick,
    I belonged to the UU Fellowship for many years when I lived in Northfield. Anyone interested shouldgo to http://www.uunorthfield.org and watch the video on the home page. It will provide the answer to your inquiry.

    February 11, 2009
  171. David Ludescher said:

    I thnk that we have established that Northfield is atheist-friendly. Maybe we should discuss whether Northfield is theist-friendly.

    I agree with Tracy’s contention in the third comment: There is more groupthink and intolerance toward fundamental Christian groups than any other group in town.

    Atheist thinking, not secular thinking, has come to dominate our social and political discourse. Even human rights has come to be regarded as something that man gives to man, and not as given to us by the (a)Creator(s). Sound secular principles are being abandoned simply because they have sprung out of religous communities.

    We have come to honor the man Martin Luther King, and yet deny the existence of his God. So, we hold godless ceremonies in King’s honor. We dismiss Pope Paul II when he declares the Iraqi war unjust for the simple reason that we don’t want to apply his and the Catholic Church’s same logic to abortion.

    The name for much of this silly atheistic thinking is political correctness.

    February 11, 2009
  172. Anthony Pierre said:

    How about we talk about what jesus would think about fundamental christian groups.

    February 11, 2009
  173. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Those are some awfully broad accusations you have offered there. Care to support any of them with actual evidence?

    As for MLK, we all agree that he existed. Many of us honor his accomplishments. Who is this God of his? Can you prove that his God existed? Can you prove that his God has accomplished anything? Can you prove that the God of the Muslims, or the gods of the Hindus, are not the real divine rulers of the universe, and that your Christian vision of God is not a deeply mistaken misinterpretation of the real ruler of the Universe?

    Since these are matters of faith, and not of proof, I would expect that you cannot. So honor your traditions in your faith community, and let the rest of us follow our own paths in matters of faith, as well.

    February 11, 2009
  174. Jerry Friedman said:

    Anthony: Yeshua would probably think today’s fundies are too liberal. Have you read the New Testament?

    February 11, 2009
  175. Paul Zorn said:

    David L:

    You wrote:

    Sound secular principles are being abandoned simply because they have sprung out of religous communities.

    Could you give an example?

    February 11, 2009
  176. john george said:

    Anthony- I was just responding to your comment, “…At least the gays don’t hate certain groups of people…” in my post. My point here is that defining gays as a homogonous group that responds enmass to other groups is too broad a brush stroke. Your inference here is that all Republicans hate the same groups. My differentiation is that no “ideology”, for lack of a better term, responds enmass to anything, especially in the USA. We are all too independent to really be that united. Besides, there are groups within the Rebublican party that embrace the gay lifestyle. That is why I addressed the emotion of hate as being a common human trait, not a trait of any particular political or religious ideology. A case in point is the vitriol aimed at former president Bush by some Democrats. I do not believe this behavior defines Democrats as a whole. See my point?

    February 11, 2009
  177. john george said:

    Jerry- Your evaluation of what Yeshua would think of today’s “fundies” (?) reminds me of the story of Joshua just before the Israelites went up against Jericho (Josh 5:13 & 14). He saw a man in the wilderness, so he asked him, “Are you for us or for our adversaries?” So the man answers, “No…” I love this passage, because I think it gives us insight into the way God thinks. Joshua asks him an either/or question, but he gets a yes/no answer. The question really isn’t whether He is for us or them, but rather, are we for God? Most often we evaluate circumstances on a temporal level only, but there is a spiritual level we miss that is really important. I don’t think Yeshua evaluates us as to whether we are liberal or conservative, but are we faithful in aligning our lives to His image?

    February 11, 2009
  178. kiffi summa said:

    How does one ‘square’ what I was taught about the New Testament, which focussed on the love of fellow ‘man’ as expressed by the example of Jesus, with attitudes in fundamentalist churches which decide who is and is not ‘equal’, ‘worthwhile’, or a ‘sinner’.

    The almost 23 million $$ spent in CA, by the Mormon and Evangelicals led by Rick Warren to support Prop 8, could have been used for 7+ MILLION malaria kits at $3.00 a piece.

    Which choice would have ben more beneficial to the world of ‘man’, the planet we live on? 7 million malaria kits for children in Malaysia or Africa, or the denial of equal civil rights to a relatively few, by comparison, committed same-sex partners?

    February 12, 2009
  179. Randy Jennings said:

    David,

    I’ve been reluctant to join this conversation because the original question is so subjective as to be pointless, and because the presumption of christianity is prevalent in Northfield. I guess when you can deride “silly atheist thinking,” then you’ve shown just how far we still have to go to be “atheist-friendly” (whatever that means).

    But taking your last post seriously for a moment, perhaps one reason “atheist” thinking dominates social and political discourse (aside from the wisdom of the framers of the constitution who deliberately set out to establish a secular system of government) is that any person or group’s theism by definition privileges its adherents over those who don’t share the same beliefs. In a multicultural, increasingly secular society, there is no place in the public commons for the establishment of any particular religion, nor of capital R religion, in general. There is, in my opinion, an absolute place in every person’s private life to believe in whatever he or she finds useful. The public commons has a tremendous incentive to protect the private religious beliefs and practices of its citizens, as long as those beliefs and practices don’t impede the rights of others to think, believe and act.

    I’d suggest that this may be one reason fundamentalists of any stripe feel less tolerated. Whether it’s christian parents seeking to ban books from school or public libraries or muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis not wanting to transport people with alcohol, to the extent that fundamentalist believers attempt to impose their religious beliefs in the public sphere, they should not be tolerated.

    I’ll know we’ve reached theistic equilibrium when religious adherents acknowledge the subjectivity of their beliefs and stand up to defend the rights of others to believe differently, or to not believe at all.

    February 12, 2009
  180. Randy Jennings said:

    For those interested in Unitarian Universalism (an intellectual/religious tradition shared by many of the founders of our country), this link to the Unitarian Universalist Association may be of interest.

    There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

    * The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
    * Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
    * Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
    * A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
    * The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
    * The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
    * Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

    Unitarian Universalism (UU) draws from many sources:

    * Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
    * Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
    * Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
    * Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
    * Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
    * Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

    February 12, 2009
  181. Paul Zorn said:

    Today is the bicentennial anniversary of Darwin’s birth.

    Is there any connection to this thread?

    February 12, 2009
  182. john george said:

    Paul Z.- This thread is surely evidence of how things can evolve!

    February 12, 2009
  183. Griff Wigley said:

    Paul, I think there is. I’ve blogged it:
    https://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/8885/

    Randy wrote:

    The public commons has a tremendous
    incentive to protect the private
    religious beliefs and practices of its
    citizens…

    Well-said, Randy. (The rest of that comment, too.)

    I’ve been learning about a group at Carleton which publishes a periodical called Unashamed.

    Although Unashamed has its roots in
    the Christian community, our intention
    is to create a campus-wide platform
    for discussing all issues related to
    faith. It is our hope that people of
    any background will be able to freely
    express their doubts, questions,
    personal stories, and any
    faith-related thoughts in a public
    forum of understanding, dialogue, and
    soul-searching. By doing so, we hope
    Carls will feel encouraged to actively
    pursue the quintessential questions of
    life and existence.

    Like conservatives, I guess believers don’t always feel comfortable at Carleton.

    February 12, 2009
  184. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: You said,

    I don’t think Yeshua evaluates us as to whether we are liberal or conservative, but are we faithful in aligning our lives to His image?

    Reflecting on what I answered David L., I have some confusion as to exactly what his image is. Plucking out one’s eye, amputating one’s hand, so one does not covet another’s spouse and therefore commit adultery? Hating one’s family. Here’s a big one:

    “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” [Matthew 10:34]

    February 12, 2009
  185. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: I was with you all the way until the last 2 paragraphs.

    I think that much of what is labelled Christian thinking is also silly. Much of it lacks both reason and revelation.

    That said, what are we to do in a pluralistic society when different belief systems clash in the public sphere? Which system are we to adopt? Ideally, we should adopt the better system, regardless of its origin.

    You cite the example of the Muslim cab driver not permitting alcohol in his cab as being a situation where we can’t tolerate personal beliefs in the public sphere. You don’t have the “right” to a taxicab. To force a Muslim to violate his deeply-held belief for your personal convenience strikes me as being very intolerant.

    There are many and weighty reasons for wanting to not allow alcohol. In our society, it continues to be highly regulated. At best, its use is tolerated. I can see good reasons why a devout Muslim wouldn’t want to be around the stuff. I have no problem honoring his belief.

    To claim that your “rights” are being violated is “silly” thinking. You don’t have the right to have a taxicab, let alone the right to a taxicab driver who (dis)believes as you do.

    February 12, 2009
  186. Randy Jennings said:

    David,

    Of course I have a right to the services of a licensed cab driver. When he or she seeks that license, it comes with an obligation to convey the public, not just the subset of the public the driver chooses. Are you seriously arguing for that sort of discrimination? Where would you stop?

    Last time I checked, a six-pack of beer in the hands of someone over 21 is a legal product. If transporting someone who is not engaged in illegal behavior will conflict with an individual’s religious beliefs, he or she should not seek, nor be granted, the license. In my view, the burden of accommodation in the public sphere should always be on the religious adherent to limit his or her behavior to practices that do not impede the rights of others. You have a limitless right to the private practice of religion — no one is making the taxi driver consume the alcohol, just as no one makes a library patron read books they find objectionable — but no right to impose your beliefs on others.

    February 12, 2009
  187. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    What if a taxi driver is opposed to homosexuality? Should they be allowed to refuse to transport a pair of persons that he suspected of being homosexuals? What if the driver dislikes Jews?

    Those dislikes could easily be justified on religious grounds.

    February 12, 2009
  188. john george said:

    Jerry- You skipped my comment, “…Most often we evaluate circumstances on a temporal level only, but there is a spiritual level we miss that is really important…” I don’t belive we can evaluate the Kingdom of God on this level, plucking out eyes, etc. As the Apostle Paul (not Paul Z.) wrote, the Kingdom is spiritually discerned. I found out years ago that my intellect gets in the way of my understanding of the Kingdom when I rely on it alone. It is a little like trying to describe the beauty of a sunset to a person who has been blind all their life. There is simply nothing in their past experience with which to associate the discription.

    February 12, 2009
  189. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: So, let’s assume that someone wants to pay the regular rate in the Northfield News to publish something (porn) that offends the general public, but is legal?

    Can the newspaper discriminate?

    February 12, 2009
  190. Anthony Pierre said:

    why wouldn’t it be legal?

    February 12, 2009
  191. Randy Jennings said:

    So, David, you’ve given up the taxi issue? I was hoping you’d say more about when discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs is permissible. I honestly don’t know where the legal lines are drawn, but I hope they fall on the side of protecting the public from such discriminatory behavior.

    As an attorney, you would be more conversant with the legal protections we afford speech than I am. Your choice of porn is an interesting example, since we seem to have a strong societal consensus that pornography involving children is clearly illegal, while porn involving adults is a matter of taste. I hope you’ll agree that community standards about what is or is not acceptable varies from place to place and time to time. The “pornographic” material Grove Press published in the late 1950s and 1960s (D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, etc.), which raised formidable legal issues at the time, would not cause even a ripple today.

    No, I don’t think that the Northfield News (which is, after all, a private, unregulated business) is obligated to publish material it believes would violate the standards of the community it serves, or is simply material that would not interest a sufficient number of subscribers and advertisers. I don’t see this as discriminating against the porn purveyor. He or she is free to buy a printing press or set up a blog and publish the material, and you are free to read or view it, or not. Neither the purveyor nor the consumer forces any other person to view material he or she would find offensive. If you think you’ll be offended, don’t look.

    February 12, 2009
  192. Jerry Friedman said:

    David, Patrick and Randy: I’m pressed for time but I wanted to jump in briefly. I’ll say more later.

    I am inclined to agree with David on the narrow issue of a business operator (taxicab driver) who discriminates against someone because of something they find deeply offensive, so long as the something does not offend public policy (like discrimination against gays), and as long as it doesn’t put the customer in peril, like a doctor refusing to give essential medical care. I would, for example, support a Jewish taxicab driver who refused to give a ride someone dressed in a Hitler costume, or a black who refuses to give a ride to someone in a white, hooded sheet, even if the costumes were obviously costumes.

    OK, I really have to go. More later!

    February 12, 2009
  193. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: I don’t see the regulated/unregulated as a significant factor. That is simply a legal requirement established by the politically powerful.

    Nor do I see the “religious” belief being a deciding factor. All “belief” is religious in the sense in that it makes a statement about reality based upon upon incomplete, unverified, or unverifiable evidence. Aren’t you really claiming that your “right” to a alcohol-permitting taxicab comes from the government’s coercive force?

    A right in the American secular tradition is the freedom to be free from the government and its coercive power. That concept has become perverted to reflect a new kind of “right” – the government’s ability to impose its own belief concepts on the people.

    From some of the comments that I read above, I hear people saying that the only thing they can’t tolerate is intolerance. What that really means to me is that they want to discriminate against anyone with whom they disagree. No need to look into the Boy Scouts or the ECLA policies; no need to judge the policies based upon their own internal consistencies; no need to look at the larger human struggles and the centuries of thought and experience that went into those value systems.

    Atheism’s great value to a secular society is to sift, strain, and critique religious concepts, science, and the wealth of human experience into a coherent secular system of rules. I fear that what atheism is developing into what it claims it is does not want to be – an intolerant system of rigid and inflexible rules – in other words, just another religion.

    February 12, 2009
  194. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    What does porn have to do with atheism, or religious-based discrimination? I’d really like to hear you flesh out your ideas on that one, rather than chasing what seems to be a red herring.

    February 12, 2009
  195. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    On a cold night in February, securing a taxi ride off a cold street corner is essential to prevent medical emergency, or even death.

    February 12, 2009
  196. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Again, you speak of atheism in sweeping generalities.

    Tell us more about taxis, or some other examples that might give evidence to support your grand thesis.

    February 12, 2009
  197. Jerry Friedman said:

    David, Patrick and Randy: I see a narrow scope of “good” discrimination, like not allowing sex offenders work at day care. I see a narrow scope of “bad” discrimination, like racism, ageism, and sexism. In between is a breadth of discrimination that is OK or not OK depending on the circumstances.

    It’s my position to let people discriminate so long as it isn’t “bad” discrimination. In the same breath, I would challenge them not to discriminate. If I was carrying a closed-can beer and a taxi driver did not want to transport me, I would not want to force him to (force him by law or in any other way). If I met a taxi driver at a park and we talked about such a subject, I would explain my point-of-view, I would challenge him not to discriminate, but I would not think cruelly about his profoundly held beliefs.

    I considered this scenario in several different ways. Should a person from any religion be required to violate their beliefs, or to offend their beliefs, simply because they are offering their services to the public? I can’t imagine requiring them to do so. Let another taxi driver pick up the fare.

    As I articulated, under some circumstances I would expect services. I would expect a taxi driver to give someone a ride under harsh weather conditions. I would expect a Catholic doctor to give important medical care to a patient who had an abortion. But in normal, daily, routine circumstances, even if I think someone’s beliefs are irrational, I can’t bring myself to demand that they do something against their profoundly held beliefs.

    February 12, 2009
  198. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Just a technical note. Atheism can never be a religion, but types of atheism can, just like theism can never be a religion, but types of theism can.

    Again, my oft-cited example are Classic Buddhists, who are thoroughly atheistic and thoroughly religious.

    February 12, 2009
  199. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    I’ll assume- based on your example – that your “good” discrimination is based on safety issues, and more importantly, on limiting the freedoms of those who have a proven track record of causing harm to others – let me know if I’m mistaken.

    So how do you draw the line between “bad” discrimination and “other” discrimination?

    You might be opposed to a “Whites Only” restaurant on Division St (you mentioned racism). What about a “Christians Only” restaurant, or a “No Hasidic Jews” coffee shop? What about a “No Muslims” or “No Gays” airline? How, legally, would you sort these into categories of illegal vs. merely distasteful?

    February 12, 2009
  200. john george said:

    Patrick & Jerry- Just a question for you both, would you liken your examples of performance to be, “What can I get away with and still be ‘good,'” or “What is the best way I can live and demonstrate ‘good?'” Just wondering.

    February 12, 2009
  201. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I don’t understand your question.

    February 12, 2009
  202. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: We’re on the same track relating to “good” discrimination, and probably with “bad” discrimination.

    The reason why the fabled taxi driver doesn’t bother me is because there is no “bad” discrimination. There is no historical, pervasive oppression against people who carry alcohol. Instead, there is a businessman who provides a service, and in a particular situation, rational or irrational, he decides not to want to serve someone. Would we have the same reaction if he didn’t want to give rides to people with tattoos, not for a Muslim reason but because he thinks people who mutilate themselves are disgusting? In my view, he should be allowed to be selective in his customers.

    It’s no secret that I have my profoundly held political beliefs. Should I be obligated to take a client whose business is destroying the Earth, such as turning rain forest into cattle pastures?

    If there is a restaurant that has a ‘no alcohol’ policy, not because of regulation but because they are Muslims or Mormons, should we object? Are we privileged to drink alcohol in a Muslim restaurant? You understand that this is a far cry from “Whites Only” etc.

    I would like to live in a society that reasons, that someone carrying a closed can of beer can hire any taxi. I engage my community to abandon prejudice. But, as David L. reasons, I would also like to live in a society that accepts people’s varying beliefs, even the irrational, to the extent where no one is harmed. I am prepared to change the rules to guard against harm, but until harm enters the scenario, let the business owner choose.

    As a contributing factor, I’ll add that the personal service and close proximity among a taxi driver, his taxi, and his passenger. Even if they never exchange a polite word, it is a close relationship compared to a bus driver or a commercial plane pilot. Taxis are typically leased, but they may be owned by the driver. This close relationship is another reason I accept “other” discrimination. As the relationship becomes more distant, more anonymous, like on a commercial plane, I would begrudge the pilot who practices “other” discrimination.

    February 13, 2009
  203. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: If your question is “Upon what principle do you determine what is ethical?”, I use Utilitarianism in the great majority of circumstances. Utilitarianism says that the choice that maximizes happiness is the best choice.

    Many people over-simplify Utilitarianism by saying that “the ends justifies the means”. Utilitarianism agrees with that principle, but that principle is merely one component of Utilitarianism. For example, if bringing democracy to Iraq would maximize happiness, the means can maximize happiness (cultural exchange) or minimize happiness (bombing and occupying). Since Utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness, the means should maximize happiness as well as the ends. Bombing Iraq is not Utilitarian.

    Between your choices, “What can I get away with and still be ‘good,’” or “What is the best way I can live and demonstrate ‘good?’”, Utilitarianism would choose #2.

    February 13, 2009
  204. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Sorry, I just saw this comment of yours,

    …Most often we evaluate circumstances on a temporal level only, but there is a spiritual level we miss that is really important…

    Yeshua admits that he speaks in parables to confuse people, and later he gets upset that his disciples don’t understand him. I recognize that artful speakers will often use artful language. I, too, enjoy poetry. If his antisocial verses are intended to be spiritual, I certainly understand why his own disciples were confused. In fact, I think there is no worse way for a “wise man” to speak if his own students are confused and people generations later create 20,000 denominations and brutal wars because of the wise man’s hard-to-correctly-interpret speech. Did I mention Luke 14:26?

    Much of Yeshua’s poetry paints a frightening picture. When I think of psychologically redeeming poetry, I think of Buddha, Gandhi, Voltaire and King. Yeshua has a few diamonds, but he has so many terrors.

    “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” [Matthew 10:21]

    Yeshua says things like this repeatedly, talking about those who reject his teachings. “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” [Mtt. 10:37] I find this jealousy intolerable. You said much earlier that you found no inspiration for war or intolerance in the Bible. I don’t understand your optimism.

    February 13, 2009
  205. Randy Jennings said:

    Jerry and David,
    A straight-up question: how is a commercial taxi refusing to transport a passenger carrying a closed six-pack any different than a lunch counter in Birmingham refusing to serve a sandwich to a black person?

    If, after a tremendous struggle, we’ve finally begun to make progress unraveling racial discrimination, why would we backslide on the basis of religion?

    To those following at home, I apologize for the thread drift. We’ll return to the regularly schedule program on atheism shortly…

    February 13, 2009
  206. Jerry Friedman said:

    Randy: Fundamentally, because nothing about carrying a beer has anything to do with the person. In theory, a beer carrier can discard the beer, but people cannot discard their genes, their age, their disability. Our public policy stemming from centuries of oppression prohibits discrimination against immutable personal characteristics. We cannot (and should not) discriminate against one’s “race”, gender, age, physical disability, and so on.

    As I attempted to illustrate, if I was a taxi driver and was hailed by someone who hacked down forests, should I be obligated (by law or by societal standards) to give him a ride? I hope not. One’s profession is not an immutable characteristic. If I remember, you’re a professor. Assuming you are, you are under legal or contractual obligations to teach your class of students regardless of their characteristics. But if you decide to tutor students in a private business transaction, and if you don’t like people who mutilate themselves, should you be obligated to tutor students who have pierced ears? I think you should be able to select your students in such business transactions regardless of your reason for rejection, including irrational reasons.

    Again, I’d rather people not discriminate (except against those who destroy our planet), but I can’t imagine a “free” society that obligates people to do things that rub against their profoundly held beliefs.

    If beer carriers become a class of persons who suffer institutional discrimination, oppression, or they risk injury (like being on a street corner in harsh weather), I’d change my analysis.

    February 13, 2009
  207. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    How do you feel about this one:
    “Some [Minneapolis taxi drivers] also have refused to transport dogs, both pets and guide dogs, saying they are unclean.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601563.html

    Do the blind have a right to a taxi? Perhaps they could just get their own cars – or their own separate but equal taxi service- to get them home.

    As for the alcohol issue, we are not necessarily talking about public intoxication. We are talking about people arriving as MSP Int’l Airport.

    As the above article notes,
    “Since January 2002, the commission said in announcing the new rules, there have been about 4,800 instances where cab drivers refused to pick up people with alcohol in their possession. Travelers arriving from international destinations often bring back duty-free alcoholic beverages many in easily identifiable packages.”

    February 13, 2009
  208. Patrick Enders said:

    Here’s another example from our nearby metropolis:
    “In Minneapolis, Muslim taxi drivers have repeatedly refused to transport Paula Hare, who is transgendered, KMSP-TV, Channel 9, reported this month.”
    (Sorry, didn’t find the original).

    http://www.startribune.com/local/11585696.html

    February 13, 2009
  209. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: The difference is that the taxi cab driver is discriminating on the basis of what the person is doing. For the lunch counter scenario, the discriminating is on the basis of who the person is.

    I’m not suggesting that the taxi cab driver’s discrimination is “right”; but, I also don’t think that it is “wrong”. I just think that it should be tolerable in a pluralistic society.

    Further, I firmly believe that government should not try to use its coercive powers to force “right” belief. We run the danger of being so intolerant that we become like the Danes, who are prosecuting a filmmaker for suggesting that the Holocaust didn’t happen. How silly is that?

    February 13, 2009
  210. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    How do you feel about refusing transportation to the transgendered person?

    February 13, 2009
  211. john george said:

    Jerry- Yep, you understood my question corectly. I thought that was where you would be, and I also. Probably, the difference between us is how we would define our motivations. For utilitarianism, it is your responsibility to figure our what to do in each situation. I come from the position of two scriptures that come to mind- (and I paraphrase) Thou shalt guide me with Thy counsel and from behind a voice sounding in your ear, this is the way, walk in it. For me, there is security in knowing Someone who is spiritual and directs me from the complete perspective.

    As far as your other comments, I feel you are still only evaluating things from the temporal side only. I understand that this is the only perspective you have to come from, as did I before I was renewed in my spirit, so I don’t condemn you for it. I’m only saying there is more.

    February 13, 2009
  212. Randy Jennings said:

    Jerry, let’s tease this out: if religious beliefs are not “immutable” personal characteristics (and I agree they are not), then to privilege any such beliefs will result in arbitrary discrimination against those who hold different beliefs or no beliefs. In a previous post David thought a distinction between regulated and unregulated business was not relevant; how about distinguishing between public and private conduct?

    I’d suggest that the public sphere must operate on the broadest and least invasive common denominators of behaviors necessary for society to function. To me, that means constraining religious beliefs to one’s private life and to voluntary communities of interest, like a church, synagogue, mosque or coven. Once one leaves this private sphere, one is not obliged to stop believing, but rather is simply constrained from imposing one’s beliefs on others. In a perfect world, this constraint would be self-initiated; sadly, that’s not the world in which we live.

    February 13, 2009
  213. Jerry Friedman said:

    Randy: Insofar as my personal ethics, I agree with you. I would like that society if it was created by mass consent. My problem is that I value our free society so much that I accept that others may discriminate against me, because being free is more important than being free-from-discrimination.

    In the (dare I say) Utopian society you describe, prohibited discrimination will be concealed and it will fester, eventually to cause terrible results.

    February 13, 2009
  214. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: I am OK with all the discrimination you posted except for the transgendered and blind people.

    I see this as an opportunity for other taxi drivers to make more business. If the Muslim taxi drivers are morally wrong (I assert that they are), I’d rather they be boycotted. They can refuse business as business owners/operators, and customers can refuse business too. In the “free” society, we can select with whom we want to do business.

    Perhaps I should start a taxi service that advertises “closed alcohol containers, clean and unclean companion animals welcome!” As David writes, I would not want the law to force compliance in these circumstances. I’d rather market forces play out, and let undiscriminating taxi drivers make more money.

    I take issue with the transgendered person because she is discriminated against because of who she is. Similarly, blind people with seeing-eye dogs should be given rides. I give a lot of weight to the policies behind the laws preventing discrimination against these groups.

    February 13, 2009
  215. Patrick Enders said:

    Jeryy,
    When you say that you are “OK with all the discrimination you posted except for the transgendered and blind people,” does that mean only the discrimination against persons carrying alcohol, or with pets? I assume, unless you state otherwise, that you are not talking about the hypothetical restaurants I mentioned earlier.

    What kind of laws, and what kind of punishments, would you implement to enforce these rules regarding bad-vs.-okay discrimination in providing a fairly essential public service, such as transportation provided to those who cannot afford cars of their own, and do not live on a major public transit network line?

    If you were a licensing board, seeking to provide taxis to service passengers coming and going from the MSP Intl Airport, and you could license only a finite number of drivers to service the airport (given that there is only so much available curb space), would you give preference to allocating those licenses to non-discriminating drivers who promised to transport all persons (including those with closed containers of alcohol, and/or pets), or would you distribute the licenses based on some other principle?

    February 13, 2009
  216. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrikk: Correct on your assumption. As I have stated repeatedly, discrimination based on traditionally oppressed groups is never OK. Discrimination on other aspects is or isn’t OK based on the situation.

    What kind of laws, and what kind of punishments, would you implement to enforce these rules regarding bad-vs.-okay discrimination in providing a fairly essential public service, such as transportation provided to those who cannot afford cars of their own, and do not live on a major public transit network line?

    I’d want to know more specifically what’s going on. I wouldn’t expect that someone who cannot afford a car would need to transport a closed beer in a taxi. If there was such a person, that person could call another taxi and specify, “Send someone who is OK transporting beer,” or that person could ditch their beer. I don’t see a problem here. So maybe I need another example.

    If you were a licensing board, seeking to provide taxis to service passengers coming and going from the MSP Intl Airport[…]

    If I was on a governmental agency, such as a taxi licensing board, I have an obligation to the public trust. I would work to develop policies that benefit the public. Taxi drivers who want to be licensed for airport access would have to agree to the policies. In this way, a Muslim or Mormon taxi driver could keep their profoundly held views and seek other customers, or they can decide that their views aren’t all that profoundly held and get an airport license.

    February 13, 2009
  217. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    So it looks like we are in pretty close agreement, after all. In seeking to provide services to the general public, the airport board has a vested interest in giving preference to non-discriminating taxi drivers over discriminating ones.

    Other people may continue to call themselves taxi drivers, and provide some ad hoc services in some locations, but they will likely be excluded from servicing the general public at the airport.

    Sounds about the same as the policy that the airport has decided upon.

    So David,

    Where do you stand on this question of discriminating taxi drivers? Who can they discriminate against, and should non-discriminating drivers be given licenses in preference over discriminating ones?

    February 13, 2009
  218. Felicity Enders said:

    Remember, the taxi driver thing is an issue of discrimination in both directions.

    February 13, 2009
  219. Patrick Enders said:

    John, you wrote,

    Patrick & Jerry- Just a question for you both, would you liken your examples of performance to be, “What can I get away with and still be ‘good,’” or “What is the best way I can live and demonstrate ‘good?’” Just wondering.

    Getting back to your question – which I think I follow better now than I did in the hazy hours of last night:

    I believe in trying to be “good” in my actions for a variety of reasons. First, I believe in the principle that you should act towards others in a manner consistent with what you would expect (or hope for) from others.

    I think that the largest number of persons tends to benefit from such an arrangement. I think that both Utilitarian and Kantian philosophies have some merit in considering this, but each of course has its limitations.

    Second, I do believe that most of us have an innate compulsion to tend to be good to those around us whom we consider to be part of our ‘tribe’ (to use a non-specific term, since people are always sorting others into different groups of ‘us’ and ‘them.’) I try to think of that tribe of commonality as broadly constructed as possible. I hope that by doing so, I will encourage others to act similarly.

    I share this compulsion. I want to be good because I also like myself better (that is, I come closer to achieving my own high expectations for myself) when I am being “good.” My hunch is that this compulsion is biologically-driven, but I’m fine with persons who would prefer to attribute it to some kind of divine force. It’s possible that they may be right.

    In short, I think that acting “good” is good for me, is good for the recipient of my good acts, and is good as a model for other observers to see, and perhaps to emulate. To what degree I achieve this ideal, of course, is another matter.

    You’re asking a big question there, and I don’t think that there is one single answer that can explain all of human behaviors – including my own. Hope these quick jottings help a bit, though.

    February 13, 2009
  220. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: I think your explanation is too simplistic about belief systems.

    Calling a belief “religious” doesn’t help us discern its truth or its value. Hence, dismissing a belief just because it is religious (or atheist) impoverishes the dialogue needed for “e pluribus unum” (out of many – one).

    We don’t have a choice about bringing belief systems into our social dealings. So, when a taxicab driver doesn’t want you in his cab because you have booze, the question for society is, which is more important – your freedom to have booze or his freedom to exclude you?

    Minnesota faced a freedom question when dealing with the smoking issue. People can’t smoke in a private establishment even if everyone there wants to smoke. Why restrict someone’s freedom just because you don’t like the activity?

    The one characteristic that we all have in common for building a just society is reason. To not use reason to reflect upon concepts learned or borrowed from religions is to unnecessarily restrict reason to only the empirically verifiable. This idea that we can’t discuss things because “that is what I believe is ridiculous”.

    In the end, I agree with you that Griff’s question is an odd one. I don’t think think that Obama’s intention was to try and recognize another special interest group, who every other special interest group dare not offend.

    I would hope that atheists could stand up and say, “Now that Martin Luther King, Jr. is a Christian with whom I can agree wholeheartedly. I want to know his God.” I would also hope that Christians can say, “Christian do not hate homosexuals, abortion providers, or atheists.”

    February 13, 2009
  221. David Ludescher said:

    Correction: This idea that we can’t discuss things because, “that is what I believe” is ridiculous.

    February 13, 2009
  222. john george said:

    Patrick- Your comment, “…You’re asking a big question there, and I don’t think that there is one single answer that can explain all of human behaviors – including my own…” is what I believe, also. We all may have similar motivations to do certain actions, depending on our common experiences, but I don’t think we can make universal judgements of every specific action. There are the autonomic and instinctive reactions, but I’m not sure we are discussing those types of things. The thing my wife always refers to when things don’t go right is that there is sin in the world. I believe this is true, and does affect certain behaviors, but I also believe in the perversity of inanimate objects.

    February 13, 2009
  223. kiffi summa said:

    Ok..this piqued my interest to the point of re-entry into this discussion: John wrote: “I also believe in the perversity of inanimate objects”…….

    What does that mean? For example: is the sidewalk ice that makes you lose your footing, fall and break your arm, a perverse inanimate object?

    February 14, 2009
  224. Randy Jennings said:

    David,
    we are in agreement on much of the substance of your last post. I don’t think the smoking example is a particularly strong one for you, since the issue wasn’t an individual’s right to smoke, but rather a smoker’s right to expose others to the detrimental consequences of his or her action in the public sphere. Since nearly everyone but the tobacco companies has agreed that the chemicals in cigarettes cause cancer, and since everyone in society pays the increased cost of health care for smoking related illness and disease, there is a compelling public interest in restricting exposure to cigarette smoke. I’d say that example falls more on my side of the argument than yours. You can still buy cigarettes, you can still smoke them in the privacy of your own home without reprisal (other than higher insurance premiums, which is simply a market response to a smoker’s increased risk that you should be pleased with). Your right to smoke still stands.

    I agree wholeheartedly with your defense of reason. What does your governor, Tim Pawlenty, say? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. I’d say reason (facts) is one element of the boundary we draw around the exercise of beliefs (opinion) in the public sphere.

    I’d make one friendly amendment to your closing paragraph. I’d be interested in knowing about how MLK’s beliefs motivated his work. That may be only subtly different than “knowing his God,” but I am more interested in the thinking of the human than the specifics of the myth(s) he believed.

    February 14, 2009
  225. Jerry Friedman said:

    Randy: You said

    I’d be interested in knowing about how MLK’s beliefs motivated his work. That may be only subtly different than “knowing his God,” but I am more interested in the thinking of the human than the specifics of the myth(s) he believed.

    It’s not subtle.

    Christians tend to idolize only Christians. For example, much of King’s inspiration was Gandhi. David didn’t suggest that we try to understand Gandhi’s gods. Much of Gandhi’s inspiration was Thoreau. While Thoreau was probably not an atheist, he certainly was not a Christian. Without Gandhi and Thoreau, King would have lost two vital historical lessons on nonviolence and civil disobedience. King also drew important distinctions from Malcolm X — who was a Muslim.

    I suggest, that if you want to understand King, start with Thoreau.

    David’s suggestion to understand King’s beliefs had little to do with King and everything to do with Yeshua.

    I agree with David that if someone wants to understand a person, their religion is part of the person. I think that if you want to understand where King was coming from, you should inquire about King’s concept of Christianity but not Christianity generally. Just like if you want to know where Pope Sixtus IV got the gumption to approve the Spanish Inquisition, you should inquire about his concept of Christianity.

    February 14, 2009
  226. Jerry Friedman said:

    Kiffi: I don’t know if John meant vibrators when he commented on the perversity of inanimate objects (John, can you clarify?), but it reminded me of the vibrator ban in Alabama:

    Last month, the Supreme Court refused to hear the “Alabama sex-toy case,” ending an almost 10-year battle since the law’s enactment in 1998, which banned the [sale] of sex toys. Sherri Williams, a plaintiff and Alabama sex shop owner, refuses to give up hope. “They are going to have to pry this vibrator from my cold, dead hand,” she told The Associated Press.

    http://media.www.vanderbiltorbis.com/media/storage/paper983/news/2007/11/07/Newsfeatures/SexToy.Hysteria.In.Alabama-3087245.shtml

    February 14, 2009
  227. john george said:

    Kiffi & Jerry- Uh, how did you take this turn? I’ve always heard the terminology, perversity of inanimate objects, used to refer to any piece of mechanical equipment that will not function properly at the time it is most needed. For instance, having the snowblower not start when it first snows; having the key break off in the lock; having a flat tire on your car on the morning you happen to oversleep, etc. These things occur in anyone’s life no matter what his moral condition is. If you two want to use it some other way, it is your definition, not mine, and I’m not going down that direction. There is probably no term in the English language that has not been sullied in some way to make it offensive to someone. Remember, in Spanish, the word for the color black is negros. If you want to twist that around to be a racial epiteth, then you may, I suppose, but you’ll have a hard time south of the Texas border.

    February 14, 2009
  228. kiffi summa said:

    John: I never heard the term, and it’s obvious from my comment I wasn’t thinking along the same line as Jerry.
    Excuse me, but I find no relationship between snowblowers that won’t start( your example of a “perverse inanimate object) and atheists.

    February 15, 2009
  229. john george said:

    Kiffi- Sorry I connected you with that comment. It was pretty late last night and I had worked a 60+ hour week. When I started it, I was just going to answer you both in one post.

    Of course the snowblower does not have any connection with an athiest, nor does it have any connection to a Christian if it does start. I was just interacting with Patrick on the line of human behaviors and their outcomes.

    February 15, 2009
  230. Jerry Friedman said:

    John (and Kiffi): Ditto what Kiffi said. I’m not familiar with the term you used but it reminded me of the Alabama story. I suppose like the term “gay”, it means one thing to one generation and then the next generation changes it.

    February 15, 2009
  231. Bright Spencer said:

    Every time humans do too much of anything, and that includes smoking, eating, drinking, sunbathing, driving, believing, kissing, running, jumping, singing, or hating we hurt ourselves and/or others. Can I get an AMEN on that?

    February 15, 2009
  232. Bruce Anderson said:

    I’d like to return, and add to, the comments of

    -David L:

    The one characteristic that we all
    have in common for building a just
    society is reason. To not use reason
    to reflect upon concepts learned or
    borrowed from religions is to
    unnecessarily restrict reason to only
    the empirically verifiable.

    with which I couldn’t agree more,

    • Randy:

    I’d say reason (facts) is one element
    of the boundary we draw around the
    exercise of beliefs (opinion) in the
    public sphere.

    I’d make one friendly amendment to
    your closing paragraph. I’d be
    interested in knowing about how MLK’s
    beliefs motivated his work. That may
    be only subtly different than “knowing
    his God,” but I am more interested in
    the thinking of the human than the
    specifics of the myth(s) he believed.

    with which I also completely agree, with the addition of

    • Jerry’s caveat that:

    It’s not subtle.

    Christians tend to idolize only
    Christians. For example, much of
    King’s inspiration was Gandhi. David
    didn’t suggest that we try to
    understand Gandhi’s gods. Much of
    Gandhi’s inspiration was Thoreau.
    While Thoreau was probably not an
    atheist, he certainly was not a
    Christian. Without Gandhi and Thoreau,
    King would have lost two vital
    historical lessons on nonviolence and
    civil disobedience. King also drew
    important distinctions from Malcolm X
    — who was a Muslim.

    I suggest, that if you want to
    understand King, start with Thoreau…

    …I agree with David that if someone
    wants to understand a person, their
    religion is part of the person. I
    think that if you want to understand
    where King was coming from, you should
    inquire about King’s concept of
    Christianity but not Christianity
    generally.

    I think this has been a really useful, respectful, exchange of ideas among individuals with clearly stated, differing points of view. As a religious non-believer myself, I always strive to respect and understand the beliefs of others, and would hope that believers, of whatever description, could also respect my religious “non-belief” as a deeply examined and worthy position. (Please note: I am not an atheist. I do not claim to know that God/god(s) does/do not exist; I simply acknowledge that I do not know, and am unlikely to ever do so.)

    I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that humans have been grappling with the issues of our place in the cosmos, the known, the unknown, the perhaps unknowable, and what it all means in terms of how we live our lives on this planet, for a long time. Surely, we’ve been at it at least since anatomically modern humans emerged some 50,000 years ago. Our ancestors probably gazed at the stars and contemplated these issues for far longer than that, perhaps going back to the point when Archaic Homo sapiens emerged at least 160,000 years ago, maybe even as far back as the time when the genus Homo differentiated from the australopithecines about two million years ago.

    We stand, intellectually, on the shoulders of all the thinkers who came before us over this deep well of human history. Surely there is deep wisdom in all of the world’s faith systems. Just as surely, in my mind, no one of them has a corner on the truth market. Some of us, myself included, have concluded that the best path forward for humanity is to not only tolerate, but to celebrate, diverse religious belief systems (including non-belief) as part of the rich tapestry of ever-evolving humanity, but to keep them separate from the public sphere as completely as possible. Everywhere and always throughout history, to do otherwise leads to privileging of one group over others, and acts of inhumanity.

    February 15, 2009
  233. kiffi summa said:

    Bruce : I’d vote for that last statement of yours to be the end of this thread…
    What about it, Griff?

    February 15, 2009
  234. David Ludescher said:

    Bruce: How does one tolerate and celebrate the rich tapestry of ever-evolving humanity by keeping belief systems separate from the public sphere?

    Do we tolerate and celebrate a Muslim’s beliefs by telling him that he must allow us to carry alcohol in his cab? Do we tolerate and celebrate when we tell him to take his silly beliefs home?

    The Constitution wisely states that the government should not establish nor prevent the free exercise of beliefs. This means that, as much as possible, common beliefs should be integrated into society, not excluded from society.

    By excluding as many belief systems as possible from the public sphere as possible, America has inadvertently created a privileged class of empiricists. Morality has been reduced to a vote. People have lost confidence in the truth. Good and right have become arbitrary terms, rather than merely elusive goals. Rights have become possessions passed out by governments, rather than freedoms from government. This is the new religion that has developed in Western cultures. It is essentially a religion of non-beliefs because everyone, including atheists have been excluded from discussing the issues that face mankind.

    February 16, 2009
  235. Bright Spencer said:

    David L, I agree. Repression of expression leads to eruptions and corruption.

    February 16, 2009
  236. Bruce Anderson said:

    David L: You ask

    How does one tolerate and celebrate
    the rich tapestry of ever-evolving
    humanity by keeping belief systems
    separate from the public sphere?

    It’s obviously not easy, as no society (ours included), has ever been able to turn the trick. Every society of which I am aware has had internecine struggles centering on differing belief systems, from the slaughters of the Old Testament to the persecution of Jews and Christians by the Roman Empire to the Edict of Expulsion sending hundreds of thousands of Jews into exile from Spain in 1492 to the (at least partially religiously justified/motivated) genocide of Native Americans resulting from American Manifest Destiny to the horrific ethnic cleansing of the Partition of India in 1947 creating primarily Muslim Pakistan and primarily Hindu India to the de facto anti-Semitism and anti-all-non-Christian sects of the 18th through 20th century US (significantly reduced in recent years, thankfully) to sectarian violence played out in Iraq in the past six years…violent conflict at least partially based on differences in belief systems is everywhere you look in human history

    That being said, I didn’t mean to imply that religious beliefs should play no role whatsoever in the public realm. And I most emphatically don’t mean “Repression of expression” as Bright just commented. Express to your hearts content! That’s what we’re doing here; that’s what happened when Judy Dirks objected to the prayer ladies having privileged unsupervised access to Al Roder’s office during city council meetings.

    All of us who engage in civic/public activity are obviously bringing our whole set of values, religiously-informed or otherwise, to the table. That is as it should be. However, like it or not, we live in a tremendously pluralistic society, and not everyone shares your worldview completely, David.

    I don’t know how any objective observer could conclude that “America has inadvertently created a privileged class of empiricists,” as you put it. That’s certainly not the America that I’ve lived 50 years in. The America I live in is one in which the laws, customs, and mores are still overwhelmingly Christian. For the most part, I have no problem with that, as our population is primarily Judeo-Christian in background. I just think it’s clear that the Constitution, and a review of the too-frequent tragic episodes in human history, indicate that in the public realm, we must be willing to work toward accommodation of differing belief systems, not imposition of one belief system. It’s hard work, and it’s messy, but there it is.

    February 16, 2009
  237. David Ludescher said:

    Bruce: I wish that I could agree with you. My experience has been that political correctness, not consistent and thoughtful belief systems dominate much of society today.

    I was recently asked to join an ethics committee. When I asked what system of thought was being used, or how something was determined to be “ethical”, I got all kinds of strange looks.

    Apparently, “ethical” to this committee was simply a vote on what each individual person thought. That is not tolerance; that is democracy masquerading as ethics. Furthermore, I have been taught that ethics is about fairness; morals are about love of neighbor.

    My point – beliefs are increasingly becoming about the law, or individual beliefs guided by no particular larger frame of reference.

    February 16, 2009
  238. Randy Jennings said:

    David, you wrote that:

    The Constitution wisely states that the government should not establish nor prevent the free exercise of beliefs. This means that, as much as possible, common beliefs should be integrated into society, not excluded from society.

    Actually, doesn’t the establishment clause (wisely) speak about religion, and not beliefs? The constitutional issue is protection from the coercive influence of government’s endorsement of any religion, in any way. It a political issue, not a restriction on or encouragement of any person’s right to believe in whatever they want to believe, and to express his or her beliefs freely. We simply (and reasonably) restrict religious adherents from imposing their beliefs on others, not from expressing those beliefs in private or in public.

    I agree that common beliefs should be (and are) the basis of society. Although much of the language we use today to describe things draws on the judeo-christian traditions, the underlying values are found in many religions and traditions that pre-date christianity. So, accumulated human wisdom is apparently empirically valuable. Can you supply an example of an explicitly religious belief that is held in common?

    February 16, 2009
  239. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: I was using the term beliefs or belief systems to be a more encompassing term than “religion” so as to avoid the discounting of a belief system just because its roots were embodied in a theistic system, or create the impression that an atheist system is “better”.

    I would also agree that the underlying values of different traditions are important as they contain the collective wisdom of empirical experience. But, that wisdom was not created in a vacuum, and its origins cannot be ignored without losing some of the wisdom.

    An example of an explicitly religious belief that we all seem to hold in common is the idea of inalienable rights. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that we hold some truths to be self-evident. These truths include that we are endowed by our Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    An inalienable right has to come from something or someone other than man himself if those rights are to be inalienable. Implicitly, we all know that there is an “other”. Some people choose to name this other – “God”, “Allah” or “Yahweh”. Others choose to not name the other, or believe that the other is chaos, incapable of being known, or impractical in today’s world.

    Politically, this Other expresses itself by being the guiding force for our relationships with each other. When the Other is reduced to the god called “Me” then we have huge troubles. When the Other is money, power, or sex, then we have problems. Lastly, even when the Other gets reduced to “pure reason” we end up losing all of the empirical wisdom that we have accumulated over so many years.

    To squeeze the Other out of our political debates is a mistake.

    February 16, 2009
  240. Patrick Enders said:

    David L,

    Implicitly, we all know that there is an “other”…..
    …To squeeze the Other out of our political debates is a mistake.

    I don’t know that there is an “other.” Especially based upon your description of such a thing.

    If you are choosing to define this “other” you speak of in such a way that it could be “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “chaos,” “Me”, “money,” “power,” “sex,” or “pure reason”, then it sounds like a fairly meaningless concept.

    February 16, 2009
  241. john george said:

    David L.- I think it is interesting that your quote from the Bill of Rights, “…These truths include that we are endowed by our Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” is not a concept that can be directly quoted from the New Testament. The writers threw in the term “Creator,” but that does not make these things Christian, per se. In fact, the whole concept of rights and entitlements is really not grounded in NT teachings. We Christians are challenged by Jesus’ life and death to lay down our lives for our convictions, the Just slain for the unjust. This is a surrendering of “rights”, it would seem to me, just as Jesus demonstrated. Now don’t get me wrong, I am very happy and previleged to live in a country that allows me those “rights”, although I consider them previleges. In fact, there is a good disertation on this concept in Paul’s letter to the Philipians, ch. 2.

    That being the case, I see it as my responsibility to live peacefully with those who dissagree with me, be they Atheist or whatever. I desire to treat them in the same fashion that I want to be treated in return. If we could chose to live according to this pattern, no matter what we believe, then I think there are many relationship ills that would disappear.

    February 16, 2009
  242. kiffi summa said:

    Randy: I think your comment, #237, is a very important one , in that it separates religion and belief systems.
    As far as what happens when an organized religion (first group) inserts itself into the political process BECAUSE they feel THEIR rights are being violated by those with differing religions, belief systems (second group)…….or laws(government) that support other belief systems which are interpreted as violating the first group’s Religious Beliefs ( and that use of the word beliefs is important here) … as Shakespeare said, “Ah, there’s the rub!”

    We must be able to separate a religious group’s push for legal changes from criticism of beliefs; i.e. if one enters the political arena for a change of laws, then it is fair to fight as hard as you can for what you believe to be best for society, and you cannot be held to an evaluation of religious ‘persecution’ or discrimination. More specifically … if the Mormon Church and Rick Warren/ Saddleback Church wish to fight the civil rights of same sex couples, then it is a political fight, and they are in for all the disagreement they may, or may not have to take, without being able to fall back on their presumption that they are being religiously discriminated against. It is, in that arena, a Political, not a Religious fight.

    They may make the argument of “discrimination against a religion” if they please; then the next step is the discussion of what is a more basic set of rights….Human, Civil, or the preference of a religious persuasion? If you could choose only one of those three rights, ONLY ONE that you would have control of for yourself and all you care about, which would you choose as the most important to your continued existence ?

    P.S. Would it be ‘flip’ to say martyrs need not respond?

    February 17, 2009
  243. David Ludescher said:

    Randy and Kiffi: I don’t see how the distinction between belief systems and religion is helpful, either from an intellectual or political standpoint.

    In my opinion, those who disagree with particular positions of a religious group (such as Rick Warren or the Mormom Church) often dismiss the group’s thinking as religious to avoid political discourse on the merits.

    Griff and Obie: I will pick on you for a paragraph. When the two of you declared that the ECLA needed to wake up and smell the coffee on homosexuality (Griff), and get with the times (Obie) did either of you read the ECLA’s official statment? It was very well reasoned and compassionate. What about the statment did you disagree with and why?

    Politically, we seem to have trouble separating the religious concept of marriage from the political concept. Under current law, marriage is a contract. It does not involve loving or committed relationships. It is a contract that can be broken without cause or impunity. So, to hear arguments that say that gays or lesbians are in loving and committed relationships means nothing politically; its significance is religious. Religions tell us that all of our relationships should be loving and committed; religion also tells us that a relationship which is capable of producing children is the most special of all relationships.

    There is no “civil right” to marry; the law defines marriage. People are free to marry in their own faith traditions; the government does not and never could prevent that marriage.

    Justice is what demands that gays and lesbians should be able to get a civil marriage. But, that same justice would also seem to require that polygamy and other “married” relationships have to be sanctioned by the government. After all, where should the discrimination end?

    This is a predicament for governments and churches. Right now, the political debate taking place over what is essentially a religious concept. These are the kind of debates that atheists are particularly well-suited to resolve given their emphasis on reason over revelation. Why they have not chosen to take up this challenge, and instead have opted to choose sides appears to have more to do with their disdain for the “religious right” than informed reason.

    February 17, 2009
  244. Obie Holmen said:

    David L,

    I must admit, I am unable to follow your thinking on your latest entry as well as numerous others.

    You state: those who disagree with particular positions of a religious group (such as Rick Warren or the Mormom Church) often dismiss the group’s thinking as religious to avoid political discourse on the merits. So, the Mormon opposition to gay marriage in CA was not based on their religious beliefs???? Good to know. Did they get the idea from a matchbook cover?

    I must admit that I have not read the latest ELCA sexuality statement. My concern is that the ELCA has not taken action in assembly to allow gay clergy or to recognize gay marriage. Statements are statements but official policy as enacted by duly constituted assemblies is something else. In any case, you misquote me in your post. What I actually said was: My own home is in the ELCA, and while I applaud its progress toward inclusion and full participation by gays, I also lament its pace. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    I agree that marriage is a contract under state laws and may also be an institution in the marriage partner’s religion, and the overlapping of the two is problematic. But then your arguments get a little muddy: first, you correctly point out that marriage is a civil contract; later, you suggest it is essentially a religious concept; and finally, you conclude that atheists are particularly well-suited for debating such religious concepts. Thanks for clearing that up.

    BTW, I am still awaiting your response to our earlier exchange in which you claimed the RC church allowed “full and unqualified participation for gays in the life of the church”, and I pointed out a few quick examples to the contrary.

    Ah, there I go again, bringing up the facts, damned empericist that I am.

    February 17, 2009
  245. David Ludescher said:

    Obie: The Rick Warren and Mormon philosophies are actually empirically and religiously based. A man/woman relationship has the capability to create children. That one inescapable and biological fact creates what many religions rightly regard as a sacred relationship. From society’s standpoint offering greater protection to these relationships makes also makes sense.

    The idea that gays and lesbians in “loving and committed” relationships should be able to marry doesn’t square with the law, which requires neither love nor commitment to marry.

    Justice is the reason gays and lesbians should be able to civilly marry. If a man and a woman can form a contract, why shouldn’t two men or two women have the same privilege? That is a fairly strong argument. However, that also means that marriage shouldn’t have to be restricted to two people nor should it have to be restricted to strangers. After all, marriage is only a contract. On what basis or by what principle does government draw the line? Does it get its principle off of a matchbook cover?

    The “religious”, such as Warren and the Mormons can give us some insight if we don’t immediately dismiss their beliefs as religious. It makes sense to draft marriage laws so that the laws offer incentives for people to have children in marriage and stay married. It makes sense to offer the disadvantaged spouse protection from unanticipated broken contracts. It makes sense to require some level of commitment to marriage both from the spouse’s and the children’s viewpoint.

    I think that atheists are particularly well-suited to distill religious concepts into what Randy refers to as the “collective human wisdom” because they shouldn’t have any bias from their traditions to lead them astray. But, if atheists or well-meaning Christians or anyone else don’t take the time to read, reflect, and understand serious religious and philosophical thinkers it will be impossible to have an informed discussion on the true merits of issues such as civil unions.

    So, I would encourage you to read the ECLA document before lamenting the pace of progress. I don’t know how you can disagree if you haven’t read the document.

    February 18, 2009
  246. Randy Jennings said:

    Kiffi, re: 241, I’d be satisfied with the inalienable rights named in the constitution, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but they leave a lot of room for interpretation. Maybe that’s what the framers had in mind.

    David, how are the inalienable rights addressed in the constitution explicitly religious in nature? Jefferson’s invocation of “the Creator” is a more metaphorical than literal acknowledgment of an unknown, perhaps unknowable beginning of existence, rather than a religious entity. To believe that rights are “inalienable” doesn’t necessarily mean they are literally conferred by an “other,” but rather that they are innate to each human being and cannot be surrendered or taken (a relatively subversive new idea back in the late 18th century, and still a challenge to humanity given the way our history is littered with attempts to do just that, often in the name of religion).

    I’m not arguing against belief. I simply think that religious beliefs are not a valid basis for governing a pluralistic, multicultural society, and that religions should not be granted political power. I think that’s what our far-sighted framers had in mind.

    On the marriage theme, if we have some measure of social consensus that society benefits from stable familial relationships, why would it not be in our interest to encourage the formation of as many forms of civil unions as consenting adults wish to enter into? My rights are not infringed nor my family rendered in any way less valid, if other people choose to live in a different family structure. Similarly, the legal structure of my marriage, entered into under the watchful eye of a county judge, is in no way harmed if someone else chooses to create a more elaborate ritual that invokes religious elements that have meaning to them.

    February 18, 2009
  247. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: We are in agreement on inalienable rights except the “metaphorical” aspect of Jefferson’s Creator. I think Jefferson meant it literally, in the same sense that you explained it.

    The rights are alienable not because we want to believe so (opinion), because man has made it so (law), but because it is so (fact). Alienability is anchored in an “Other” (whether an atheist Other or a theist God) from which or from whom no man or consensus of men can change. That is the logical explanation.

    The short theological explanation is that God is the Creator; man is the created. God has created everyone, regardless of belief, with free will and equal dignity. Only God, not man, can take away when has been given as our birthright.

    Regarding civil unions, you are right except that today’s marriage and/or civil unions does not do anything to create stable relationships. If it did, I would be in favor of moving further in the “civil union” direction. But, we are moving down the path of making marriage so inclusive as to be meaningless except for the government benefits that go along with such a label.

    Sen. Neuville had a proposal that we create three classes of “marriage”. The highest order would be relationships involving children. The government has a special interest in those relationships for the protection of the children (and in many cases, a disadvantaged spouse). At the lowest end, would be “personal corporations” which would contain as many people as desired. Sex and sexuality would be removed from the definition entirely. While not perfect, it would restore some measure of sanity and fairness to the system, especially for children.

    February 18, 2009
  248. Patrick Enders said:

    David,

    In your vision of relationship law, how is my relationship to Felicity any different from the relationship between two loving men, or two loving women?

    Simple observation, experimentation, and the best that medical science has to offer has demonstrated that the two of us are, for all practical purposes, incapable of producing children. Not our intent, just reality.

    We are intending to adopt. Homosexual couples are also capable of adopting, and providing care to their children that is every bit as loving and skillful as that we might offer.

    Would you (and former Sen. Neuville) punish us for our failure to reproduce, by demoting us to some lower, less highly regarded level of contract – based upon our reproductive failure? Or, would you prefer to elevate a homosexual couple – who adopt and lovingly raise children – to your more-highly-regarded level of sanctioned social contract?

    If you could this time, I would greatly appreciate your answer to this question, explaining how you would distinguish between these two couples. Thank you in advance.

    February 18, 2009
  249. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: A couple of qualifiers.

    First, the “relationship” levels of which I am now speaking are entirely political constructs. These constructs would not be based upon either love or sexuality. Present law does not require either love nor commitment. So, no one should make the argument that they should be allowed to get married because they “love” each other.

    Second, atheists could contribute greatly to the discussion of a “marriage” system. But, they have to purge themselves of the idea that marriage should be based on “love”. That is a religious idea that is impossible for the government to know or regulate. Atheists need to focus upon data, outcomes, and measurable testing. That is what they insist upon and that is what they know best.

    That leaves us with the question of the government’s purpose in marriage and relationship law. (That is essentially the same problem Moses faced 3400 years ago; but, that is for another discussion.)

    So, before I get to your question, to what extent do you think that government should enter into and regulate the people’s relationships? And, to what extent should the government protect the children who don’t have a vote in the relationship?

    February 19, 2009
  250. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: The likely origins of marriage among Europeans were political and economic. Perhaps you could make your case to Sen. Neuville that effectively sterile heterosexual couples and homosexuals should be allowed the “highest order” of marriage when they unite tribes, like Democrats and Republicans, or Iowans and Minnesotans.

    In the 4th century, Romans made same-sex marriage illegal. This is what I suspect to be the origin of modern prejudice against same-sex marriages. It boggles me when we discover modern institutions based on Roman law. We don’t crucify people any more. Nonetheless some other Roman customs remain.

    David’s reference to the benefit of heterosexual couples does stem from the assumption that such couples form a stable family unit. It reasons that for a marriage to succeed, the man is domesticated and works (an economic benefit to society), the woman is domesticated and either raises children, works, or does both. The children repeat the process. And society benefits as a whole. This assumption guides many gov’t policies.

    The assumption does not contemplate other types of opposite-sex marriages, such as the couple who will not or cannot make children. Or the couple that marries, makes too many children, divorces, and the one parent draws welfare from the state to raise the children.

    As you’re revealing, there is no rational reason to respect opposite-sex marriage more than same-sex marriage. Every attempt I’ve heard of crumbles under the rules of logic.

    I also disfavor Sen. Neuville’s attempts at stratifying marriage. Suppose Americans made several strata of citizens many years ago in order to integrate freed slaves and native Americans into white society. Doesn’t that translate one bad system into another bad system? Should we ask survivors of the Civil Rights movement how well segregation worked? I would rather that we simply abolish the bad system, which means in this case not discriminating in marriage on the basis of gender.

    February 19, 2009
  251. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I believe you are mistaken when you assert that atheists “have to purge themselves of the idea that marriage should be based on “love.”” I also believe that you are mistaken when you assert that marriage-for-love is a “religious idea.” Partnering with the person one loves is quite clearly a biological tendency.

    Here’s one atheist’s interpretation of marriage, as it relates to both heterosexual and homosexual couples:

    Marriage is a legal codification of the relationships that derive from the innate biological drive to be attracted to, and love/’know-in-the-biblical-sense,” other persons. This bond has tended to be a union between two individuals (although there are examples in history and religious texts in which it was not). By codifying these common practices in law, societies have attempted to strengthen these bonds and formalize them, to serve as a stabilizing influence within the society as a whole – even the fundamental unit of those societies. Certainly, the most common form of biological attraction between humans is heterosexual attraction, and this is the manner in which marriage has traditionally been defined.

    I agree with you that the founding fathers were right when they declared that “all men are created equal.” Of course, I believe they were only half-right, and that it would be more accurate to say that it is now a core principle of our nation that “all persons are created equal.”

    (I admit that my definition of “created” would probably differ from yours, and I agree with John George that “inalienable rights” are not derived from the Christian Bible, but rather, as Randy – and most historians – state, that they are rooted in the humanistic philosophies of the Enlightenment. Enough digression on that.)

    There is strong evidence that homosexuality is in an inherent, common, biological trait that exists not only in humans, but also in many other species. (Let me know if you want to argue that point.) Many homosexual partners form permanent, committed monogamous relationships, just as heterosexual partners do. (And, in some cases, don’t. Just like heterosexuals.) There is ample evidence that these relationships are in most cases indistinguishable from those between most hererosexual partners – with the sole exception that the partners are of the same sex. There is very little evidence to support the notions that homosexuality is a “choice,” or that homosexual relationships are in any way fundamentally disordered.

    Given that:
    – All persons are “created equal,”
    – Homosexual partnerships are grounded in biology, and are fundamentally similar to heterosexual ones
    – There is a vested social interest in codifying loving, committed relationships between individuals.

    It seems very logical to conclude that homosexual partners should be allowed to enter into the same social contract that heterosexual couples are allowed to enter.

    The downside is negligible: no one is forced to participate in any partnership that they personally disapprove of.

    The only real problem I see is this:

    Everything I have discussed above applies to the civil, legal contract of marriage. The shame is, it has exactly the same name as the religious concept/sacrament of marriage. The two have distinct meanings.

    I am perfectly amenable to changing the name of the legal contract currently called “marriage,” simply for the sake of distinguishing the secular/legal concept from the religious one.

    I’m interested in rights, not names, and I am not personally interested in the sacraments of any particular religion. (I’ll let the members of those religions argue those out for themselves.)

    February 19, 2009
  252. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: The reason why someone is homosexual is irrelevant. If Chico is gay for a conscious, deliberate reason, if Harpo is gay for a subconscious, unknown-to-Harpo reason, and if Groucho is gay for a biological reason, they should be treated identically to each other and identically to heterosexuals. I think that including “biology” as a factor dilutes or confuses your point.

    February 19, 2009
  253. Patrick,
    Thank you for your thoughtful, detailed comments (#250). Count me as one agnostic heterosexual: who has been married to the same woman for 26 years, six months, and five days; has raised two children to near-adulthood in that time; recognizes that the institution of marriage has the socially stabilizing influence you mention; who is 100% in agreement with your reasoning; and is baffled by those who fail to see the social benefits of codifying similar relationships for all persons regardless of sexual orientation or interest in producing or raising children.

    February 19, 2009
  254. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Jerry is right. Let’s not talk about homosexuality as right or wrong, sinful or not, biological or choice. Let’s just talk about what preferences we want to give to one relationship or another.

    I like the idea of changing the terminology also. Civil unions is OK, but it carries the assumption of two people, which may or may not be a good assumption. I would prefer “personal corporations” or “PCorps”.

    For the sake of this discussion, I think that we can also assume that we need to develop the definition of a “PCorp”.

    Is this a good place to start with a discussion of how we could develop the present concept of marriage? If not, why not? If you want to use “love” or “biology” or “commitment”, please define it, say how to measure it, and explain why government should support it, or prevent it.

    February 19, 2009
  255. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: My sole criterion for marriage is whether two people want to form a family. A family can be simply the two married people forming a two-person family.

    I think that the gov’t has no right to encourage marriage, but that doesn’t persuade the gov’t not to. If two people want to marry, it’s their business and no one else’s. I understand why gov’t does, but I believe it’s interference with marriage has more to do with theism and prejudice (assuming that married couples are more productive than unmarried but committed individuals).

    The gov’t should discourage oppressive relationships, including oppressive marriages, so some regulations are welcome. I think the gov’t has an interest and obligation to protect people from oppression, so a minimum-age-to-marry law is good. Somewhere in the anti-oppression realm I expect to find laws against polygamy and intrafamily marriages, but I’m sure these could be debated.

    As you stated, the gov’t can’t test for nor regulate “love”, and child-bearing seems like a silly if not arbitrary criterion.

    I am unfamiliar with your idea of a personal corporation. Compared to an individual, the term seems redundant with person, and compared to two people, the term seems redundant with marriage. Why not just use either well-established term?

    February 19, 2009
  256. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry, you wrote,

    Patrick: The reason why someone is homosexual is irrelevant. If Chico is gay for a conscious, deliberate reason, if Harpo is gay for a subconscious, unknown-to-Harpo reason, and if Groucho is gay for a biological reason, they should be treated identically to each other and identically to heterosexuals. I think that including “biology” as a factor dilutes or confuses your point.

    I’m not concerned about ‘why’ people are gay, but I know that many conservatives are. Since “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,” the biological naturalness of same-sex romantic attachments seems relevant to discussing the inalienable rights of persons in homosexual relationships.

    Also, I’m only emphasizing ‘homosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuality’ in order to contrast these loving, somewhat-biologically-driven, intimate relationships from David’s odd notion of love-free, sex-free corporations, which don’t seem to relate to the way in which people naturally tend to form loving bonds.

    February 19, 2009
  257. Patrick Enders said:

    David, you wrote,

    For the sake of this discussion, I think that we can also assume that we need to develop the definition of a “PCorp”.

    As you have done often in this thread, you state something in the universal sense – saying that we should all agree that it is true – when I dont see that anyone actually agree with you.

    Plainly spoken: your idea is silly.

    February 19, 2009
  258. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: My approach would be to grant my adversary’s position especially if it’s irrelevant to the discussion. By granting their irrelevant arguments, we would hopefully find more common ground to discuss the real issues.

    So I’d grant to a “conservative” that homosexuality is a deliberate choice. Given that, they should still be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

    February 19, 2009
  259. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    That works, too.

    February 19, 2009
  260. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick and Jerry: I will try to get this back to the atheist-friendly theme.

    The government isn’t preventing anyone from forming loving and committed relationships. What the government has chosen to do (perhaps unintentionally) is to erase any meaningful criteria, except heterosexuality. Why it continues to maintain this criteria has more to do with what marriage has lost then intentional discrimination. I think that society can go two directions; the direction appears to have been largely decided by the homosexual community.

    Under present law, marriage is just a contract. It is also a contract that can be violated without fault or impunity. Why do we even have the secular marriage? Does it make sense to open it up further to more people? Where does society draw the line?

    This is the point where an atheist can better inform the government than a theist. An atheist should be able to see that the current definition is “unfair” to everyone who is not in a man/woman marriage relationship. It is unfair to homosexuals, polygamists, and even some heterosexuals. An atheist should see that the government can’t open up marriage on a “loving and committed” basis. Are we going to screen people to see if they are in a loving and committed relationship? That “loving and committed” thing is a religious concept, which while having a substantial and persuasive effect on nearly everyone, is really just another “belief”.

    Jerry – I don’t think that the “oppressive” standard works much better. It works for children because of an age standard. But, oppressive is an arbitrary standard also. And, Jerry, why two? Why shouldn’t two women have the liberty to marry one man if they all agreed? Where is the dividing line? Is it Jerry’s definition of what he thinks is oppressive?

    Here is where a theist perspective can be helpful. A number of religious concepts can easily be converted to secular concepts to establish some meaningful distinctions in relationships.

    First, is the question of children. Laws that encourage a child’s parents to live together are good and necessary, as are adoptive relationships.

    Second, committed relationships are good. Committment involves being responsible for the other party(ies) so that the other parties don’t become the burden of the government. Til death do us part should be encouraged.

    Third, contractual relationships that lessen government’s potential burden should also be encouraged.

    February 19, 2009
  261. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Perhaps a longer reply tomorrow, but why do you think “That “loving and committed” thing is a religious concept”?

    It sounds more like human nature to me.

    February 19, 2009
  262. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick,

    Judging by my divorce clients, I don’t think loving and committed comes naturally to humans. It seems to take a lot of focused effort.

    February 19, 2009
  263. Patrick Enders said:

    Ah. You subscribe to the “human nature is flawed, and only God can raise us up” theory? Or have you just been spending too much time with your non-representative sample of the population?

    Mercifully, most of my family and friends (atheist and otherwise) seem to be pretty good at the relationship thing, so that probably colors my optimistic view of human relationships.

    February 19, 2009
  264. Patrick Enders said:

    But again, David, why do you think “That “loving and committed” thing is a religious concept”?

    I look it as a commonly-rooted desire and aspiration. Again, human nature. Much like the love that many animals show for their mates and kin – if a bit more layered and complex.

    The fact that individuals don’t always get it right doesn’t change that fact that most people seem to aspire to achieving it. Even the irreligious.

    February 19, 2009
  265. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I said already that polygamy can be debated as oppressive or not. Polygamy is normally oppressive so the gov’t policy should be to oppose it, and thankfully it is. If there are exceptions, we can debate them. Might there be exceptions to marrying minors always being oppressive? Maybe, and we can debate them too. In the meantime, thankfully the gov’t policy is to prohibit them.

    It seems to me that laws prohibiting certain types of marriage should parallel the laws that guard against the same types of crimes. All states have statutory rape laws to protect minors, and all states have minimum-age marriage laws also to protect minors. This seems to be the only rational basis to prohibit marriage, if there is a parallel crime. In this vein, same-sex relationships are not against the law in any state, and therefore same-sex marriage should not be either. The gov’t should not care and should not inquire what a bride’s and bride’s, or groom’s and groom’s gender is.

    So that answers your question, if it’s a bad marriage when it’s oppressive in Jerry’s opinion. Check the penal code instead.

    The only criterion I care about is whether the couple wants to form a family. They can love each other or not. They can be zealously committed or barely committed. There is presently no requirement for either and I don’t see why there should be. If bride and bride want to be married, let them. If groom and groom, let them.

    If sects have a problem with that, they can have their own marriage rules that are wholly separate from state standards and state benefits.

    February 19, 2009
  266. john george said:

    I think the direction of the discussion about dividing the secular definition of marriage and the religious definition is good. Jerry, your idea, “…If sects have a problem with that, they can have their own marriage rules that are wholly separate from state standards and state benefits…” may have merit. As I have read and pondered both sides, there seems to be a fear in both camps that the other’s perspective will be forced upon the opposite. Right now, that is the case relative to the homosexual community. They are being forced to conform to the religious perspective because this is presently the “official” government position. The question is whether that can change without government interference in the inner workings of the various religious sects. That would be a sticky wicket.

    Another question I have not been able to find an answer to is how two people living together without a marriage contract, be they two women, two men or a man and a woman, are having their rights to treatments, visitation or inheritance violated. Jerry, do you know the statistics on cases in the last 5 years where this has happened? And is the trend growing or diminishing? If there is truely an advantage to having this marriage contract, then why are there so many couples, irregardless of gender, cohabiting without it? I also feel that religious affiliation is not thwarting disolutions of marriage, since the divorce rate among “confessing” Christians seems to be about the same rate as the non-churched.

    This leads me to the question, what is the big fight over, if not to impose a set of beliefs upon an opposing view? Since marriage seems to be a threatened institution irregardless of gender attraction, then are we as a society throwing in the towel on it in general? I know that my wife and I have not drifted along passively for the last 41 years. There was a lot of work put into this relationship, and there is more to be done. There are a lot of things cited as holding a marriage together: children, fear of disapproval, religious requirements, etc., but without commitment, the relationship is shallow, if not hollow. I know I would not be where I am today without my wife by my side, and we are really looking forward to our years ahead. This type of commitment does not necessarily need the official stamp of the government to work, but it must be lived on a daily basis. Can this type of commitment form between same sex couples? I don’t know, because my wife and I did not come by it naturally, in spite of your opinion, Patrick. It is something that our God has worked in us.

    February 19, 2009
  267. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: OK. Let me change that wording. “Loving and committed” is a very poorly defined secular concept. If we are going to institute same-sex marriages, then let’s change the law to incorporate “loving and committed” into the definition for both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. And, let’s make it clear why it has to be limited to two biologically diverse individuals.

    If same-sex marriages should be governmentally endorsed (they are already permitted under the law; they are not however endorsed) because those individuals love each other and are committed, and then not make that a requirement of the marriage is silly. And to not allow others in different relationships to not marry is discriminatory – without cause.

    Jerry, I think that you are on to something with the idea of “forming a family”. But, give me an empirical definition of what “forming a family” means.

    February 20, 2009
  268. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Checking its etymology, “family” derives from “household”. I offer that a “family” in this context is two unrelated people who have affection for each other, who share or intend to share a home together, and who share or intend to share their lives together, all for an indefinite amount of time. I’d add the policy against polygamy, to say that the two people are exclusive.

    I think that the gov’t should be prohibited from testing these factors, unless other laws are implicated (such as immigration fraud). If two people assert, “We want to be married,” then it should be conclusively presumed that they meet the criteria above.

    Other factors that are often associated with marriages may make them even more clearly a family, but these factors aren’t necessary, such as do they closely associate with each other’s ascendants and descendants, do they share incomes and expenses, and do they want to create or adopt children.

    February 20, 2009
  269. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Over the years, I’ve heard of instances where same-sex couples have been denied some rights given only to married couples, where the same-sex couples had the equivalent of a marriage. These especially include rights of family to visit a person in the hospital and to authorize treatment on the person if they’re unconscious, and familial inheritance rights. I’m sure I’m missing others. I don’t have any statistics on how many of which type of rights are given to married couples that same-sex couples would want. In my opinion, even if there were no rights being denied, it’s still an unjust law based on arbitrary discrimination against homosexuals.

    I don’t know if same-sex couples can or can’t be compared to opposite-sex couples. I know that the ancient Greeks endorsed homosexuals in the military. It was believed that Greek soldiers would fight more fiercely if their boyfriend was on the same battlefield. I know that many heterosexual couples have a flimsy commitment, but no law prevents them from marriage. There have been stories of high-profile homosexual activists who have deeply committed relationships, and there have been no shortage of divorce stories among celebrities.

    I don’t think that we should inquire into the minds of couples. If they want to marry, let them marry.

    February 20, 2009
  270. Felicity Enders said:

    David L (259) said: “Laws that encourage a child’s parents to live together are good and necessary.”

    As the child of divorced parents, I can testify that had such laws kept my parents together, that would not have been in my best interests. Laws that favor marriage can make it very difficult for couples that need to separate to do so. Let’s whip off those rose-colored glasses, please.

    February 20, 2009
  271. kiffi summa said:

    I just can’t imagine that anyone, ANYONE, thinks that the quality of a relationship can, or should , be evaluated by the government!

    And as far as whether marriages are secular or religious, let’s all remember that you must have a license from the local government regulating unit, to get married, whether it is by a judge or a religious functionary. If there are religious groups that ‘marry’ people without a gov’t license, it may be viewed as valid by the participants, but what is the legal point of view?

    As far as promoting/evaluating/encouraging/enforcing “loving and committed”, well, we can’t even control our banking practices, and those are, or should be, a lot more finite than relationships between human beings.

    The quality of the environment of a ‘household’ in which a child is being raised has nothing to do with anything, except the quality of the environment created by the adults in that household. The household could consist of two men, two women, two grandparents and an unmarried aunt, three neighbors , total strangers or adoptive parents(related or unrelated) ……..the possibilities are endless. I don’t understand the blind fixation of staying with one regulatory model of perfection; that kind of uniformity doesn’t exist in nature, and especially not in human nature.

    February 20, 2009
  272. john george said:

    Jerry- I have heard of many instances in the past, but the studies I have seen, this trend has changed over the last 5-10 years. It is written in most hospital documents I have seen that visitation rights cannot be denied along lines of sexual attraction. Also, insurance beneficiaries cannot be denied along these lines. The reason I bring it up is bacause the gay community is using this line of discrimination to support their push for legalization of same sex marriage. It appears to me that the only benefit they could obtain from this legalization is being able to divorce, rather than just disolve their relationship, and be able to settle joint ownership issues in court. This seems a little negative, given the general direction of shared relationships in our present society. Even the income tax formulas have a negative slant toward married couples rather than individuals when it comes to deductions.

    February 20, 2009
  273. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: Are you advocating that we abandon the “legal” marriage model completely?

    February 20, 2009
  274. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry, Patrick, or other avowed atheists: From where does an atheist get his or her starting point on an issue like this? Is there any truth or principle that you can point to?

    February 20, 2009
  275. Anthony Pierre said:

    The Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts” from the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

    I’d really rather you didn’t act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don’t believe in me, that’s okay. Really, I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn’t about them so don’t change the subject.

    I’d really rather you didn’t use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don’t require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.

    I’d really rather you didn’t judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we’re talking about fashion and I’m sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.

    I’d really rather you didn’t indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is “go fuck yourself,” unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.

    I’d really rather you didn’t challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitches.

    I’d really rather you didn’t build multi million-dollar synagogues / churches / temples / mosques / shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):

    * Ending poverty
    * Curing diseases
    * Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable

    I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.

    I’d really rather you didn’t go around telling people I talk to you. You’re not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can’t you take a hint?

    I’d really rather you didn’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/vaseline. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it’s a piece of rubber. If I didn’t want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

    February 20, 2009
  276. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I can’t speak for atheists. There are too many denominations.

    Personally, I fancy 1 Corinthians 7:27 as the basis of marriage. Otherwise, I fancy convention with ample portions of modern sensibility.

    February 20, 2009
  277. Britt Ackerman said:

    Isn’t it interesting how a thread asking how atheist-friendly Northfield is turned into a dialogue on same-sex marriage rights?

    Like, atheists clearly must be OK with gays since atheists don’t believe that homosexuality is a “sin”.

    So, by analyzing how gay-friendly Northfield is, can we, by digression, determine how athiest-friendly the town is?

    I’d say no…there’s correlation but no causation between the issues.

    But look at how many comments (100% popularity, if we believe Griff’s programming) are on this thread. Everyone is discussing and defending the big questions and answers that have historically been the basis and reason for organized religion.

    It’s neat how asking and answering these questions has taken the form of secular debate on a thread purportedly about atheism.

    Although I’m not an atheist, I’ll respond to David L’s last question because my answer is probably the same as the atheists’.

    First, I’ll define the issue. Seems like the issue in this thread is now “How should we define ‘marriage’, what is the purpose of marriage, and who should be able to marry and why?”

    Everyone’s answer to this question would obviously be different, depending on their perspectives.

    To answer David L, I think the “starting point” on the issue is to see if the concept of marriage is an exclusive or inclusive one. I would posit that marriage as we know it is exclusive, as only straight people can marry. Making civil unions between same sex individuals legal but calling it something besides marriage (like a personal corporation) is similarly exclusive.

    Marriage as a concept becomes offensive when employed selectively by the government. If marriage was a purely religious endeavor that wasn’t supported, encouraged, and protected by the government, then no problem. But because marriage (in many states) requires a license, therefore the blessing of the State, and is exclusive, we have a problem.

    Pointing to a “truth” or “principle” outside of theological doctrine is hard, but I really like the 21 affirmation of the Humanists. They can be found here. If we employ the Humanist affirmations as a model for finding the “answer” to the “issue”, we see that the answer is not finite or absolute. That’s what’s really interesting….using what we see as “truths” and “principles” as a philosophy for forming an opinion, without being so arrogant to presume that there is a finite, and right, answer.

    February 20, 2009
  278. kiffi summa said:

    Britt: in the cplloquial sense, AMEN!

    Somehow, thread after thread gets perverted to abortion or homosexuality; how does that happen , Griff?

    David: How in the ho-tel did you jump to that conclusion? What I thought I was saying is that marriage is basically, first and foremost, a legal procedure, and therefor its rights must be applied equally to all persons.

    February 20, 2009
  279. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    A small point: I don’t consider myself an “avowed” atheist. I’ll leave the bold declarations to true believers with personal pipelines to The Truth.

    As Jerry said,

    a person who is an atheist because there is no evidence of god, …is more accurately called an agnostic atheist. Compare that to a person who is an atheist who affirms there is no god, … is more accurately called a gnostic atheist.

    I’d be in that first camp, if I needed to be labeled as an atheist at all. I don’t know The Truth of how the world is organized, therefore I don’t consider myself an avowed, or gnostic, Atheist. I’m just an agnostic knows that there is much that I don’t know, and much that I will never know.

    However, my best assessment of the available evidence leads me to conclude that there is remarkable lack of evidence supporting the Christian notion of an actively-involved, anthropomorphic deity, who occasionally takes human form, and personally intervenes in the lives of his/her devotees.

    If there is a God, my assessment of the evidence is that it’s probably something very different from that which people worship in most Christian churches.

    But I don’t Know that, or Avow that. That’s just my best guess.

    Therefore, like Jerry, I can’t speak for atheists.

    For myself, I like much of what I find in humanistic enlightenment philosophies, and I think that this nation’s founding principle of equality for all persons (minus its original, and unfortunate, asterisks) is a pretty good place to start.

    February 21, 2009
  280. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    …Following from that principle:

    Marriage is a contract that the government offers to two consenting adults. (Jerry has already covered why children and 3+ partners are excluded from civil marriage contracts.)

    If the two adults are opposite-gender or same gender, they should be allowed to enter into this contract.

    While I believe that marriages are a formalization and recognition of the loving bonds that people naturally tend to form, I agree with Jerry and you that the government is not capable of administering a “love” test. So, like Jerry, I believe the government should grant this contract to any two competent, consenting adults who want to form such a legal partnership.

    February 21, 2009
  281. David Henson said:

    Love has nothing to do with the historical legal construct of marriage. The purpose is to define the relationship between two partners for the purpose of “breeding.” Further the government’s involvement in offering a standard format is so that courts would not have to sort out a hundred different religious oaths and what was or was not agreed. If the potential to procreate was not at issue then its likely no standard format would be adopted and all marriages would be civil unions. Saying gays are being “excluded” is silly unless one can show the issue was even considered when these laws developed 100s of years ago. This is like saying armed robbers are excluded from from shop lifting laws – the laws just were not written for them. The marriage contract works so poorly now that maybe the argument should be just be to not offer a standardized agreement for anyone.

    February 21, 2009
  282. David Ludescher said:

    David H: That’s my point. The current definition of “civil” marriage has so lost its meaning that we should either abandon it altogether (and leave it up to the faith communities to decide on their own standard) or we should let anyone and everyone get “married”.

    The third way, which I don’t think will ever happen, is to reexamine the government’s interest in “civil unions”. The government should be able to create varying degrees of contractual relationships between individuals if the government can establish a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.

    I just don’t understand why such a large portion of the population is unwilling to listen to the arguments of people such as Rick Warren. Who cares if he is a religious right? The most important question is does he make sense? To dismiss him as a religious fanatic is just plain intolerance. Its no different than dismissing someone just because she is an atheist, or a lesbian.

    February 21, 2009
  283. David Henson said:

    David L, the governments interest was probably avoiding violence that occurred when one found that he was raising someone else’s tomatoes rather than his carrots. Birth control and DNA testing makes much of the laws nuanced purpose archaic – effectively putting government in a sort of religious-sentimental practice where it does not belong.

    February 21, 2009
  284. Jerry Friedman said:

    Davids: The origins of marriage were not related to love nor theism.

    Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. In medieval Europe, everyone from the lord of the manor to the village locals had a say in deciding who should wed. Love was considered an absurdly flimsy reason for a match. Even during the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, adultery and friendship were often more passionate than marriage. These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate.

    “Psychology Today” Magazine, May/Jun 2005
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050506-000006.html

    February 21, 2009
  285. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    If Rick Warren can form a convincing argument based upon premises that I accept, then his words might be of interest to me. (Obviously, quoting scripture would hold little weight.)

    …but for now, I think I’ve heard/said enough on the topic of gay marriage.

    Perhaps we could return to discussing how welcome atheists are (or are not) in Northfield? I think I can summarize what’s been covered so far as follows:

    Northfielders are generally polite to atheists – as they are to most people.

    Atheists are welcome in the Unitarian Church.

    Atheists are not welcome in the Boy Scouts of America. However, they might slip in unnoticed under a local “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The Carleton-sponsored Troop might be a better place to do so than would be either of the Lutheran Troops.

    Atheists might be welcome to serve in public office, but “You don’t attend church” has been cited as a reason why a candidate might never be elected to city office.

    Atheists are allowed to shop and travel, but might be refused a taxi ride if their uncleanliness violates the religious beliefs of the driver.

    Atheists are allowed to marry – but not if they wish to marry a partner of the same sex.

    …I think that about covers it.

    February 21, 2009
  286. john george said:

    Patrick- Great sumation, as always. Perhaps our penchant, be it American or just human, to have to have a label for everything causes more division than unity. I am still amazed that we live together as Americans as peacefully as we actually do, considering how much emphasis we as a society put on individualism.

    Did we actually have any comments submitted by anyone who claims to be an atheist? Anthony, is that your claim? I can’t remember after 286 contributions. It would be interesting to hear an opinion on Norhtfield’s friendliness from someone who claims to be atheist.

    February 21, 2009
  287. Anthony Pierre said:

    Agnostic.

    and I am one of the first ones to post on this thread 🙂

    February 21, 2009
  288. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: I brought up the “gay marriage” issue to help us frame how we can or should incorporate atheistic and theistic thinking together to form a common pluralistic and secular system of beliefs.

    February 22, 2009
  289. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: I share the sentiments of Obama that our differences can be a strength. On divisive issues, even small ones, like carrying alcohol in a cab, we should be able to come to a consensus that results in liberty and justice for all that is atheist-friendly and theist-friendly.

    February 23, 2009
  290. kiffi summa said:

    I don’t know about Sean Penn’s religious persuasion, but when accepting his Oscar last night for his lead role in “Milk” he spoke to the presence of the anti-gay protesters lining the car approach to the awards ceremony……protesters that once again attack the basic civil, and human rights of persons who are not allowed to have their free will, or free choice, over their lives because of the interference of some religious groups into this secular issue.

    This thread started with a question about atheism, quickly became a supposedly linked position with homosexuality, and then even ventured into some really egregious extrapolations/ connections.

    Once again, keep the religious POV’s in the religious community…….and keep civil and human rights equal to ALL.

    Hooray for Harvey Milk! and Hooray for Sean Penn! … who had the courage and principle to portray an important figure in America’s social scene as not a saint, not a sinner, but a fully complex human being who fought for what he believed in were not only his rights, but those of many others who are equally DIS-enfranchised of a portion of their personal rights. And regardless of what anyone thinks personally of Harvey Milk, he thought our country deserved a better world image than one presented by those who would wage a political fight to narrow the basic human rights of one segment of society, based on the religious views of another segment of that society.

    February 23, 2009
  291. john george said:

    Kiffi- How does a person “…keep the religious POV’s in the religious community…” when a person has no differentiation between their religious and secular life? Perhaps it helps to be bi-polar. And the issue we are facing here in the US is what Canada is struggling with right now with their court decisions- the secular POV is being forced onto the religious. Just like Chuck Colson said years ago, “The gay community is not asking for my permission. They can do what they like. What they are asking for is my praise, and that I cannot give.”

    February 23, 2009
  292. Jerry Friedman said:

    Kiffi: I embrace your idealism

    Once again, keep the religious POV’s in the religious community…….and keep civil and human rights equal to ALL.

    In my experience, religious POVs, such as the morality of homosexuality, never stay hermetically sealed in their religions. It’s my policy, therefore, not to push them back in and wait for another leak, but to address them when they leak out.

    You’re right, that the subjects of this thread have not always strictly adhered to Northfield being “atheist-friendly.” I see a slightly bigger application of “atheist-friendly” to Northfield, not simply to atheist persons but atheist policies as well. That’s where the subjects of marriage and homosexuality fit into this thread, in my opinion.

    Sometimes conversations drift to similar subjects. I am grateful that John George and I have enjoyed a in-person meeting where topics drifted. I don’t have that luxury with many of you. So if this thread drifts, slightly, then it has my blessings.

    Finally, I am reminded of some dialogs that Plato wrote between Socrates and some of his intellectual prey. When Socrates wanted to prove a point, sometimes he’d meander a ways before coming back to the point.

    I humbly submit that thread drift should be welcomed within a larger scope. A narrower scope for conversation, I think, is too authoritarian for a blog. It might be important for public meetings when time is a factor, but we have no such factors here.

    February 23, 2009
  293. Obie Holmen said:

    To John,

    Your comment What they [gay community] are asking for is my praise, and that I cannot give strikes me as egocentric and selfish. Gays who want the same civil marriage rights as straights aren’t asking for your praise. This isn’t about you; it’s about non-discrimination, equal rights, and other lofty ideals of the American dream. The notion that gays seeking equal rights is somehow an infringment of your rights is narcissistic.

    February 23, 2009
  294. john george said:

    Obie- That quote was from Chuck Colson. Why do you say that it is egocentric? Just because I say I will not praise their way of life? I’m not asking them to praise my way of life if they do not agree with it. As Colson said, they can do what they like. See my posts 266 and 272 for my perspective of the push for gay rights. I don’t think I have to restate it here. The conversations I have had with some on this blog attack me for saying I believe what I read in the Bible rather than current secular definitions of relationships. That is fine, I am always glad to defend what I believe, but the foundation for my defense of my beliefs is Biblical. If someone does not agree with the efficacy of that foundation, then we will not be able to come to agreement. That is ok, also, as long as we do not take up arms in defense of our positions. We have been living peacefully together for a couple centuries, which I think gives credence to our foundation of government. I see no reason that cannot continue. What is happening in Canada is the imposition upon pastors to not literally define the scriptures, because they are being redefined as hate speech. I have friends and relatives living there, and they are warning me that the same thing is headed our way. So, I will take advantage of my freedom of speech while I have it, because it may not always be there.

    February 23, 2009
  295. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: I don’t think that it helpful to label points of view religious or non-religious. That is why I have avoided stating either that an atheistic or theistic viewpoint is “right”.

    Civil unions should be a good topic for discussion. It is relevant to what is happening, and the subject needs strong, rational minds to sort out the principles leading to what the government proposes to do.

    Obie: I agree on the fairness issue. It is not fair that gay and lesbian couples cannot enjoy the same government benefits under the present law. But, the gay and lesbian community is advocating that they be included in the privileged group, and that everyone else still be excluded.

    So long as the law continues to allow only heterosexual couples to marry without defining why the government promotes that relationship, and without requiring any love or commitment, any exclusion is going to be just an extension of discrimination.

    One of my hopes is that the gay and lesbian community can restore the idea of commitment into the definition of civil marriage. Another hope is that they can restore the idea of protection and support of children into civil marriage. We badly need both.

    February 23, 2009
  296. kiffi summa said:

    John: Whether or not you live your life that way, there IS a difference for most people in how they live…under the rule of law……….between their religious and secular life……. when their religious and secular views may differ and the person chooses to honor their religious perspective BUT also honor the law.

    You say: “secular POV being forced onto the religious”……. No one is forcing YOU to engage in activities which would violate your religious perspective. All that is being asked is that you consider your actions too be an expression of your free will (as long as it does not violate the law) and that you allow all others to have that same basic right.

    You seem not to be able to separate the layers between what you perceive as something being forced upon you, and what some feel is your need to enforce your personal perception of governing life rules, on others.

    You have expressed strong commitment to the principles which you choose to govern your life; can’t you allow others to do the same?

    No matter how many times you say it, you cannot prove how any gay rights activist or practitioner is forcing you personally into behavior that you think is wrong.

    If you cannot separate out the layers of personal principle, personal religious tenets, and law, you just continue to conflate all into one big messy pot, over which you would prefer your personal religious/secular perspective to rule supreme.

    February 24, 2009
  297. Obie Holmen said:

    To John:

    I realize the statement was originally Colson’s but you quoted it with approval. You also mischaracterize my point. No one is asking you to “praise their way of life”. You are the one who equates affording equal rights to gays with your personal “praise”, and that is why I say it is a narcissistic position. It is not about you, but you make it about you and your beliefs.

    I don’t think people are attacking you personally in this blog, but when you offer an opinion, your opinion becomes fair game.

    By the way, I also disagree with your view that the Bible supports your position. It is my opinion that reading the Bible as a whole and reading the various parts in their historical and cultural context suggests that the issue is a lot murkier than you would acknowledge. Yours is not the only Christian view. I think you have suggested that you consider the Bible to be infallible. Does it follow that a literalist, judgmental interpretation is infallible?

    Finally, you really sound paranoid when you equate criticism of your opinions to a threat to your free speech.

    To David:

    I am totally confused by your statement the gay and lesbian community is advocating that they be included in the privileged group, and that everyone else still be excluded. What is the exclusionary attitude of the GLBT community?

    February 24, 2009
  298. Randy Jennings said:

    Mr. George, some years ago I found and clipped this quote. Unfortunately, I can’t find the source. I find it quite applicable to your comments on this thread:

    Interfaith dialogue is only possible among people interested in the idea of religion, rather than the practice of a specific faith. A true believer of a particular religion cannot conceive of the validity of another’s chosen religion nor of the fallibility of his or her own, much less an accommodation in which many religions — or no religion at all — are equally valid. The true believer is, therefore, unsuited to dialogue.

    So, when you write, as you did in post 295: “If someone does not agree with the efficacy of that foundation [your belief in the Bible], then we will not be able to come to agreement”, you are clearly a true believer.

    I am an atheist in matters of religion, but I am not without some beliefs. One thing in which I believe deeply is in the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the US constitution. I’d stand that up with any religious dogma. So, I absolutely support your right to think and speak whatever you choose to believe. If religious beliefs help you make sense of the world and your place in it, you are fortunate. I draw the line, as described in many comments above, when you or any believer of any religion attempt to restrict or deny others’ rights based on whether or not they conform to your beliefs.

    Your choice of a quote from Colson is indicative. Colson (and you) are wrong: gay and lesbian people actually can’t “do what they like.” Among other things, “they” can’t form the same legally sanctioned relationships that the law allows heterosexual couples to form. This discrimination is perpetuated largely because of the influence of religiously motivated people. (Fortunately, this discrimination is also strongly opposed by many people whose religious faith compels them to confront injustice.) “They” aren’t asking for Colson’s (or your) praise; “they” are asking Colson (and you) to mind your own business and stop imposing your religious ideology on others.

    February 24, 2009
  299. David Henson said:

    A society that holds masturbatory relationships in the same regard as those bearing offspring is destined for chaos. And unless a scientist can create a human life from hamburgers and carrot juice then I have to hang with Mr George’s God explanation of human life – at the very least it defines how much we don’t know.

    February 24, 2009
  300. john george said:

    Obie- The request I have heard from the gay community is that their lifestyle be considered an acceptable alternative. This is what I object to and drives my opinion. Their lifestyle is an alternative, but for me to say it is acceptable would be to deny my convictions. I will say to you the same thing I say to Kiffi- There is a movement to have certain of the Biblical interpretations of the gay lifestyle considered hate speech. It is already happening in Canada. It is this movement that I am trying to expose. Whether it will do any good is debatable, but I will still try.

    Kiffi- I know you do not percieve the subtle change coming in this country. I really don’t expect you to. See my comment to Obie above.

    Randy- Thank you for calling me a true believer. That is probably the best indictment I could recieve. As far as the interfaith dialogue, what is the goal? Can there be understanding between two views without them being “equally valid?” I think so, and that is why I participate here. I think it is called tolerance. I’m not looking for affirmation or agreement, just understanding. And I don’t want to force my views off on anyone. That is not my intent when I state them.

    Your comment, “…I am an atheist in matters of religion, but I am not without some beliefs…” is, in my opinion, the most concise differentiation of atheists I have seen yet in this thread. As far as where the gay community is today, I posted this comment in #266: “…They are being forced to conform to the religious perspective because this is presently the “official” government position…”, so I agree with some of your assesments in your post above. I also opined this, “…The question is whether that can change without government interference in the inner workings of the various religious sects…” That is what we need to figure out.

    I will make this observation in general- people who are comfortable really don’t like having their boat rocked, me included. But sometimes, the only way to scrape some barnacles off your boat is to tip it. This is always a little disconcerting, especially while you are still in the boat. Thanks for rocking my boat, folks. Hopefully, I have been able to rid it of a few barnacles, whether it is evident to any of you others or not.

    February 24, 2009
  301. Jerry Friedman said:

    David H: You have come up with some of the very best quotes ever. “A society that holds masturbatory relationships in the same regard as those bearing offspring is destined for chaos.” I’m keeping this one!

    February 25, 2009
  302. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    You’ve written above (in two separate postings):

    the governments interest was probably avoiding violence that occurred when one found that he was raising someone else’s tomatoes rather than his carrots. Birth control and DNA testing makes much of the laws nuanced purpose archaic – effectively putting government in a sort of religious-sentimental practice where it does not belong.

    and

    A society that holds masturbatory relationships in the same regard as those bearing offspring is destined for chaos. And unless a scientist can create a human life from hamburgers and carrot juice then I have to hang with Mr George’s God explanation of human life – at the very least it defines how much we don’t know.

    Sorry, you lost me somewhere in the produce aisle. Could you say clearly what you’re getting at here, perhaps sans vegetables?

    February 25, 2009
  303. David Henson said:

    Paul, I think the purpose, perhaps lost, of marriage is to celebrate the relationships which lead to future progeny. So if lobbyists win the day and gain “gay marriage” then I can guarantee you a new class and celebration will be created for relationships likely to produce future generations … this is absolutely necessary as every culture has a variation of this ritual. I don’t think it is ‘anti-gay’ to draw this distinction.

    February 25, 2009
  304. Obie Holmen said:

    David H,

    And logically, another category for heterosexual couples unable to have children, another for heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, and a really, really special category for the woman in Cal who just gave birth to 8!

    Really, you seriously diminish the institution of marriage if you reduce it to mere childbearing.

    February 25, 2009
  305. David Ludescher said:

    Obie and Randy: Under current law where marriage is just a contract, justice seems to demand that either everyone or no one can get married. The idea that homosexual couples should be treated like heterosexual couples make sense. But, I don’t understand why it has to be a couple, or that they have to be strangers. It is just a contract! Contract law doesn’t limit who can enter into contracts (with a few limited exceptions).

    I see the gay and lesbian movement as an attempt to move that community into the “favored” status while leaving a lot of other loving and committed people outside of the marriage contract.

    I see two reasons for the gay and lesbian community to want to marry. The first is that they want the same government benefits that go to the heterosexual community. I can’t say that I blame them. But, that position is for selfish political reasons.

    The second reason is religious or belief-based, and where I suspect that most of the confusion is occurring. Randi Reitan and the Rainbow Sash Coalition have been involved in disrupting Catholic Masses and demanding that the Church change its position on the value and appropriateness of homosexual behavior. It has nothing to do with the homosexual person, only the intrinsic value of different sexual activities.

    The Church doesn’t teach these things to oppress people. It teaches so that people can know what it has learned from 4,000 years of experience.

    February 25, 2009
  306. Peter Millin said:

    Not sure about te fascination of gay people with marriage, especially when you consider that 2/3 of marriages fail???

    From a legal perspective I would agree with the notion that gays and lesbians should be able to marry. However I do respect the right of any church not to do so if it doesnt want to. Churches are private organizations and have the right to deny the sacrament of marriage with in their own organization.

    From the perspective of a legal bond we should treat gay marriage the same as other marriages., if there is a public consensus to grant that privillege.
    Marriage in itself is not a right it’s a privillege established by society.If we want to extend the privilege to others so be it.
    The question is, should we allow marriage bewteen family emebers? Or allow multiple wifes/husbands? Why not?

    From a biological point of view gay marriage makes no sense. It will always take two members of the opposite sex, in one form or another to procreate.

    February 25, 2009
  307. Randy Jennings said:

    Peter, do you not read the tabloids in the grocery check-out aisles? The idea that it takes “two members of the opposite sex…to procreate” is just so… biblical. As we’ve just seen in California, the “octomom” (gotta love those tabloid headlines!) has shown just how unnecessary biological pairings have become.

    David L, I don’t understand your “favored” status argument at all. If we could let all adults have access to the same legal prerogatives in the public sphere, I would bet you’d find little or no objection to religious sects conducting whatever additional marriage rituals or ceremonies and impose whatever social sanctions they wish to in the privacy of their homes and sanctuaries (short of stoning adulterers, of course, as called for in Deut. 22:22).

    February 25, 2009
  308. Paul Zorn said:

    David L:

    You wrote:

    I see two reasons for the gay and lesbian community to want to marry. The first is that they want the same government benefits that go to the heterosexual community. I can’t say that I blame them. But, that position is for selfish political reasons.

    Do you mean “selfish” in a pejorative sense? Was it “selfish” for women to demand the vote? Was our civil rights movement “selfish”?

    And then this, in reference to the Church’s
    “position on the value and appropriateness of homosexual behavior”

    The Church doesn’t teach these things to oppress people. It teaches so that people can know what it has learned from 4,000 years of experience.

    4000 years? What “Church” are we talking about here?

    February 25, 2009
  309. Patrick Enders said:

    Obie wrote,

    Really, you seriously diminish the institution of marriage if you reduce it to mere childbearing.

    Indeed.

    David L, you never weighed in on what you would do with the marriage of Felicity and myself. When we married, we intended to go forth and multiply. Biology has not allowed us to do so. Would you now demand that our marriage be demoted to some lower level?

    Would you then promote us back to that original, higher level of marriage at a future date, once we have adopted children?

    I’d love to hear your answer.

    February 25, 2009
  310. Peter Millin said:

    Randy,

    So the eggs and sperm for the octo gang was created out of thin air?
    Hardly they still needed a donor, last time I checked.

    February 25, 2009
  311. Jerry Friedman said:

    Similarly, I am engaged to be married. I’d sooner adopt children but I won’t create children. Since I refuse to create children, should I call the wedding off?

    February 25, 2009
  312. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul: I think David L means “selfish” in the way that it’s selfish for same-sex couples to want the same rights as opp’-sex couples. He did not mean that it’s selfish for some heterosexuals to deny them the rights that the opp’-sex couples enjoy.

    February 25, 2009
  313. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: You said,

    Not sure about te fascination of gay people with marriage, especially when you consider that 2/3 of marriages fail???

    That’s why I believe that divorce is a greater threat to the institution of marriage than making marriage inclusive for same-sex couples. I would rather the “haves” work on their own troubles before shutting out the “have nots”.

    You said,

    However I do respect the right of any church not to do so if it doesnt want to.

    We agree. Like the Boy Scouts, prejudicial private organizations are free to arbitrarily discriminate in their membership, and those orgs that we find offensive should be boycotted.

    You said,

    The question is, should we allow marriage bewteen family emebers? Or allow multiple wifes/husbands? Why not?

    The question is actually about same-sex marriages. Diverting us to another issue does not help us resolve the one in front of us. Nonetheless, when there is a cry of oppression from any group who wants to be married, but is denied the right, I’m happy to contemplate it. Since same-sex couples are complaining now, we are contemplating their plea now.

    You said,

    From a biological point of view gay marriage makes no sense. It will always take two members of the opposite sex, in one form or another to procreate.

    Why do so many people believe in this myth? Making babies never was and never is a prerequisite for marriage. No couple in the U.S. was ever granted a marriage after promising to make babies, and no marriage was ever revoked for failing to do so. This myth is oppressive. Please stop perpetuating it.

    Further, you’re wrong about “from a biological point of view”. Whose biology? Emotions are biological, and love is an emotion, so a loving couple who wants to be married is responding to a biological point of view.

    February 25, 2009
  314. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: Marriage is a “right” in the sense that government can’t prevent two people from getting married. Generally, when we speak of rights, what we really mean is freedom. The right of speech doesn’t mean that government gives us the right to speak; it means that the government can’t prevent us from speaking (within certain rules of course).

    So, when gays and lesbians speak of the “civil right” to marry, they are talking gibberish. In constitutional law, we had two semesters – government power and individual liberties.

    The real argument is that it is unfair. To that argument, I agree. I don’t understand how it is fair to exclude gays and lesbians from civil marriage.

    But, if gays and lesbians are permitted to enter the current “privileged” status of married, it has to be fair to everyone else who is not included, and the legal standard has to be rational and enforceable. If we go from favoring only hetersexuals, to only favoring certain unrelated twosomes, I don’t understand why other groups, such as polygamists should be excluded. At least heterosexual relationships have a rational relation to biology and the production of life.

    Paul Z. Yes, I did mean it in the pejorative, political sense of wanting what others have without thinking about how they are leaving polygamists and others behind.

    By “Church” I mean the collective body of people who have been trying to make sense of and learn from the last 4,000 years of history. In my specific case, I understand the Roman Catholic Church the best.

    Patrick: Politically, I don’t know if it is of value to retain the term marriage or even the concept. It has been so distorted from its religious meaning, and people are so opposed to having “religious” ideas infiltrate secular relationships that I would be more inclined to base the government’s support of particular relationships on measurable, and quanitifiable characteristics that relationships bring.

    So, for you and Felicity, you would get some points for having the potential to produce a child, but not as many points as having one. You would get more points if you committed to a lifelong, non-divorceable status. Then again, a homosexual couple, committed for life and raising a child would probably get more points than you because they are actually caring for a child. Children who agree to taking care of their aged parents could qualify as could polygamists, especially polygamists who are willing to care for another family.

    It would depend somewhat on what society sees as the added value created by the marriage, and governmental burdens are lessened as a result. It would be a completely rational and utilitarian system. Religions (and atheists, humanists etc.) could develop their own definitions of marriage, and form their own communities and ideas of marriage should be.

    February 25, 2009
  315. Randy Jennings said:

    David, I don’t mean to be more than my usual level of dense, but in all but a few places, government currently does prohibit anyone other than a heterosexual couple from marrying. In what world do you think this isn’t the case?

    Also, didn’t your church open its doors sometime after 33 a.d.? That is a couple millennia short of 4,000 years…

    February 25, 2009
  316. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: The government doesn’t prevent people from forming loving and committed relationships. What it doesn’t do is provide benefits or official sanction for anything other than heterosexual relationships. I think that this is unfair. But, I am not convinced that the best or only solution is to allow only homosexual couples to be “married”.

    Regarding the Christian Church, it traces its heritage back to the beginning of time; considers Abram as a father of the religion (about 4,000 years ago); and considers that the Word of God became Flesh with the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

    February 25, 2009
  317. Randy Jennings said:

    David, thanks for clarifying. I’m still not sure I can follow all of your fine distinctions between love and law, but we’ll let it go.

    February 25, 2009
  318. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: Do you see any method that we can instill the concept of “love” into the “law of marriage” without the debate becoming an atheist/theist debate over what marriage means? On the broader scale, how does one draw the line where religious concepts don’t overlap secular concepts and secular concepts don’t invade religious tenents?

    February 26, 2009
  319. Randy Jennings said:

    A big “nope” on the question of whether gov’t can instill love in the laws governing marriage. That’s hard enough for the individuals involved, without inviting anyone or everyone else to pass judgment.

    On the line between religious and secular life, I think I’ve been pretty clear about where I draw it: when your religious beliefs don’t violate laws (say, for example, against child abuse or stoning adulterers), then you are free to act on your beliefs in your home or place of worship. In the public sphere (anywhere outside your home or place of worship), secular laws prevail.

    Period.

    That seems pretty clear and easy for followers of any religion to understand. In the US, this separation between church and state doesn’t restrict your right to stand on a soapbox and proclaim your faith, or create ceremonies and rituals that add meaning to your life, but it will clearly restrict your right to impose your personal beliefs on others.

    February 26, 2009
  320. kiffi summa said:

    Once again, the tautology of this thread is deadening……..
    If I wasn’t an atheist when it began, and had read it all through, I sure as heck would be now!
    And why would that be? because if there is a god, and “his eye is on the sparrow” after this conversation, he has a seriously misguided sense of direction.

    February 26, 2009
  321. Peter Millin said:

    Not sure about te fascination of gay
    people with marriage, especially when
    you consider that 2/3 of marriages
    fail???

    Jerry, this was tongue in cheek.

    Why do so many people believe in this
    myth? Making babies never was and
    never is a prerequisite for marriage.
    No couple in the U.S. was ever granted
    a marriage after promising to make
    babies, and no marriage was ever
    revoked for failing to do so. This
    myth is oppressive. Please stop
    perpetuating it.

    Further, you’re wrong about “from a
    biological point of view”. Whose
    biology? Emotions are biological, and
    love is an emotion, so a loving couple
    who wants to be married is responding
    to a biological point of view.

    Jerry, my point here is that biologically it will take a female egg and a male sperm to create life.
    Which puts gays and lesbian relationships in to a dead end when it comes to evolution.

    February 26, 2009
  322. Anne Bretts said:

    I think the issue of gay marriage can be resolved the way we deal with other life changes. We register a birth certificate with the state, but let people decide whether and how to handle baptisms or christenings. Some churches do it at birth, others require the person to make such a commitment as an adult. We register a death certificate, but leave funeral arrangements up to the family.
    There is no debate over which funeral traditions are acceptable, and no question that someone isn’t really born if he isn’t baptized. In the same way, civil marriage should be no threat to religious groups, who can refuse to marry gays, or ban intermarriage between Swedes and Norwegians if they wish.
    I find it interesting that most people who are so bound up in the religious limitations of heterosexual marriage are perfectly OK with government handling of divorce. Yes, I understand the debatable Catholic system of annulments, but aside from that churches rarely have rituals for divorce or requirements for the care of children suffering through such trauma. If Christian marriage is so important, why is divorce so inconsequential?
    There is no reason we can’t register all civil marriages at city hall and let the people involved determine whether they wish to take on any additional religious commitments as well. I think this is the direction civil unions will take, eventually. It’s a natural progression as young people grow up and reject the limitations of earlier generations.
    Personally, I thought the end of the television series Boston Legal tackled the issue in a very moving way when the wealthy older law partner, who was headed into dementia, decided to enter into marriage with his best friend and law partner so he could pass on his wealth and his friend could care for him in his final years. They were straight and the arrangement was done for practical and financial reasons, but there was more love in that room than there is in a year of Vegas wedding chapel ceremonies.

    February 26, 2009
  323. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Your system sounds needlessly complex.

    What rights or privileges would you grant to couples, or take away from them, as they slide up and down your point scale?

    February 26, 2009
  324. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter:

    You said,

    …biologically it will take a female egg and a male sperm to create life. Which puts gays and lesbian relationships in to a dead end when it comes to evolution.

    I still don’t see the relevance of this to marriage. If there is relevance, then all menopausal women should divorce or should not be allowed to marry, along with sterile men and women of any age, couples who don’t want to create babies, etc. Am I wrong?

    Peter, you are creating an elite class of individuals who may marry, and who will get special recognition from the state and society for doing so. I thought that you were against elitism. Am I wrong?

    February 26, 2009
  325. john george said:

    Randy- Back to the original question Griff asked, and since you seem to have the best definition of an atheist (if we must use that label), what do you think of Northfield’s attitudes toward people of your persuasion? I don’t think atheism and sexual attraction have anything to do with one another, but the thread has veered that way. Do you think you could converse with me, since I seem to express the most fundamental Christian convictions here, without feeling outcast? And if not, what could I do to open better dialogue? I certainly don’t feel threatened by you. In fact, I would like to get to know you better. Just wondering.

    As far as a foundation for marriage, try this one on. Now, I am going to cite Biblical precidence here, so please bear with me. In Genesis, God says that it is not good for man to be alone, so he made a helper appropriate for him. The concept is that the original intent of marriage was to have a relationship on the creation level that mirrored the relationship within the Godhead between the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. We as a Christian community are far from living up to that ideal, as is evidence in the divorce rate among Evangelical Christians, but I believe that was the original intent. This validates the marriage commitment irregardless of the ability to procreate. Whole books have been written about this concept, and I am not intending to write one here. Just wondering what you all think.

    February 26, 2009
  326. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: If only the secular laws prevail, then there won’t be any change in the law allowing gay marriage. I think that there is even a federal law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriages.

    Certainly, you are not advocating that people with a religious bent or even crazy people can not participate in democracy, and convince their legislators to ban gay marriage. In the absence of a constitutional right to get married, gays and lesbians only have the same democratic process.

    February 26, 2009
  327. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Good question.

    My original purpose is bringing up particular issue was to meet atheists on their own turf (be atheist-friendly), and to see where pure reason leads us as we develop this concept of marriage. It is an issue that is laden with religious overtones, and charges of religious bigotry. It is an issue that needs resolution in our society. And, it is not an issue that we can “agree to disagree” (whatever that means) because it will remain there until it is “solved”.

    I am willing to accept a definition of marriage that makes no reference to God, or God’s purpose. However, I am unwilling to accept a new definition which just extends the current bigotry to a whole new group of people, especially when it is based upon concepts that are legally nebulous, such as “loving and committed”.

    February 26, 2009
  328. Randy Jennings said:

    John, on the whole, I don’t think Northfield thinks much about atheism. Absent some racial cue that someone might not come from around here, there’s a presumption of judeo-christian beliefs, if not membership. This is historically logical, if not particularly forward-looking, in my view. We live in a small corner of a world in which any number of religions claim to be the one true religion; none can prove the claim, but many have among their faithful individuals willing to inflict great pain on people who do not share their beliefs. The crusades, the holocaust, the troubles in Northern Ireland, suicide bombers in the middle east, family planning clinic bombings here… these strike me as pretty good evidence that there is no supreme being keeping a watchful eye over creation. Taken as a whole, religion seems to be an equal opportunity destroyer. So, for better or worse, I think we all have to deal with our human capacities for good and evil in the here and now.

    Meaning no disrespect, I doubt you and I could have a fruitful dialogue about anything that veers toward beliefs. There might be a kernel of an interesting intellectual argument, but I would take no pleasure in challenging the tenets by which you have so clearly defined yourself here. That just seems mean-spirited, when there’s no possibility of a reasoned meeting of minds. While I admire the language of the King James version, and appreciate the metaphors that help explain the many mysteries of the natural world and human nature, the bible’s internal inconsistencies render it useless as resource for governance in a pluralistic society. As a resource for personal conduct, perhaps… but then all religions have texts that offer useful and inspiring guidance for how to make sense of and live in the world. And they are all equally valid as metaphors and equally limited as governing documents.

    February 26, 2009
  329. Randy Jennings said:

    David, I really can’t follow your arguments. The status quo is discriminatory, and (it seems to me) perpetuatated in law through the influence of people with a religiously motivated agenda. Think of the involvement of the Mormon church in the prop 8 referendum in California.

    Are you defending discrimination because to do otherwise would challenge the influence of religion in public life? I can’t tell.

    February 26, 2009
  330. Patrick Enders said:

    David L,

    I am unwilling to accept a new definition which just extends the current bigotry to a whole new group of people, especially when it is based upon concepts that are legally nebulous, such as “loving and committed”

    You lost me at ‘extends the current bigotry.’

    It seems that the simplest, most practical legal arrangement is Jerry’s – to simply offer the current legal contract of ‘civil marriage’ to any two adults who want it – with all the privileges and responsibilities it entails. No need to worry about your definition of love vs. mine, and no tests of capability (or incapability) to reproduce.

    If two people want to be joined in such a compact, it’s a pretty good bet they love each other, and most of them are committed to each other to the extent that they are capable of being committed.

    If not, well, where’s the harm to anyone, except perhaps the two entering the contract?

    Heck, any two consenting adults of opposite gender are already able to enter this contract without any tests or any assigning of grades, and their marriages don’t seem to be causing any harm to any bystanders.

    February 26, 2009
  331. john george said:

    Randy- Just a response to a couple things in your post above. You said, “…these strike me as pretty good evidence that there is no supreme being keeping a watchful eye over creation…” This is the concept of God being some puppeteer up above pulling everyone’s strings. That is a concept I also had before I had a personal encounter with Him, so I understand where you are coming from. Even though I believe there is a Divine course in world affairs, I will be the first to admit that I don’t always understand it.

    Your comment, “…Taken as a whole, religion seems to be an equal opportunity destroyer…” is, in my opinion, an accurate estimation of religion per se, but not an accurate estimation of what God had in mind for His followers. I agree with you. The unfortunate thing is that God is blamed for the misconceptions of many who profess to follow Him.

    In this comment, “…That just seems mean-spirited, when there’s no possibility of a reasoned meeting of minds…”, I appreciate yout honesty and respect. Even though we do not agree on some basic things, I think we can live in the same town together without creating a rift. That is what President Obama is talking about in his patchwork analogy, and I think it is a demonstration of tolerance of one another.

    February 26, 2009
  332. David Henson said:

    Randy, Not that anyone worries about me getting the front pew but this statement

    Taken as a whole, religion seems to be an equal opportunity destroyer

    is not well reasoned at all. You would have to show some non-religious place where life is all hunky-dory. My estimate would be if one took a long range rational view of history that in fact the positive checks against human negative behavior enforced by monotheistic religion would far outweigh the negative shortcomings.

    February 26, 2009
  333. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: The status quo is discriminatory; extending it to include gays and lesbians ends the discrimination against gays and lesbians. But, such an extension still leaves many people without the “benefit” of marriage, and makes the government’s purpose in marriage even murkier than it already is.

    Furthermore, we have to allow the “religious” influences in the public life. The Mormon Church, through its members, has every right to try to influence the political process, just as atheists have that right.

    February 26, 2009
  334. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Wouldn’t it be even simpler to abandon the idea of civil marriage altogether? What is society gaining right now, and what is going to be gained by adding homosexual relationships?

    Government could just let people contract with each other for whatever relationship they want as long as they can meet the general criteria for competency to enter into a contract – no discrimination, no judgments.

    February 26, 2009
  335. Jerry Friedman said:

    David L: I think it’s simpler to end discrimination than to end an institution.

    Humans have a genetic/psycho tendency to congregate. We have lived in small communities for the whole of human history. In the last 5000 or more years, communities have grown in size. Within communities, humans tend to form families.

    Marriage is a society-recognized family, and sometimes it carries state benefits. Rather than abolish the institution, which has a genetic/psycho basis (i.e., good luck trying to abolish it), we can abolish the discrimination.

    It’s much simpler.

    February 27, 2009
  336. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: The discrimination won’t end. It will just shift to a smaller group, who won’t be able to marry.

    Besides, discrimination is not a bad thing. If it has a rational basis in a legitimate government purpose, discrimination can be a good thing. Only if it is an inalienable right, can there be no discrimination.

    Give me your definition of what marriage should be, and why.

    February 27, 2009
  337. Patrick Enders said:

    David, you wrote,

    Patrick: Wouldn’t it be even simpler to abandon the idea of civil marriage altogether? What is society gaining right now, and what is going to be gained by adding homosexual relationships?

    No, of course not. As I have already discussed, humans have a strong, innate natural compulsion to “pair up”, and form lasting, loving bonds with their partner. For a majority of persons, these are opposite-sex relationships, but for a sizable minority, these relationships are same sex. (Can you imagine any other possible combination of two consenting adults? I can’t.)

    We define ourselves by these intimate, family relationships. The institution of marriage legally recognizes these bonds, allowing these partners to share in decisions of life, health, and death

    Government could just let people contract with each other for whatever relationship they want as long as they can meet the general criteria for competency to enter into a contract – no discrimination, no judgments.

    Yes. Such a contract, entered into freely by any two consenting adults, can most easily be referred to as a “civil marriage.”

    February 27, 2009
  338. Patrick Enders said:

    Hey! Didn’t we all just agree on a solution that’ll work for 99.5% of the population?

    Well, I’m glad that’s solved.

    So David – I guess that all we have left to discuss is why you feel that groups of three or more consenting adults should be offered the same civil marriage contract that any two consenting adults should be offered?

    February 27, 2009
  339. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Why not? What’s the magic of two? And what is the magic of being non-related?

    And if parties are free to contract outside of the government, what does the government gain when it sanctions these relationships?

    Why isn’t what you and Jerry proposing just another arbitrary standard for defining marriage? What about the others that are excluded? It’s also “natural” for men to want to copulate with as many women as possible. Should we encourage that behavior?

    February 27, 2009
  340. Jerry Friedman said:

    David:

    You said,

    The discrimination won’t end. It will just shift to a smaller group, who won’t be able to marry.

    This alone is an argument in favor of same-sex marriage, to reduce the discrimination.

    Besides, discrimination is not a bad thing. If it has a rational basis in a legitimate government purpose, discrimination can be a good thing. Only if it is an inalienable right, can there be no discrimination.

    This is not correct. I agree that discrimination can be good or bad, as I said much earlier. We should discriminate against sex offenders babysitting children. That’s not the discrimination we’re talking about.

    The right to marry is an inalienable right. It’s a form of the right to associate, it easily fits into the Ninth Amendment recognizing natural rights, and it’s encapsulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Give me your definition of what marriage should be, and why.

    I did this in my posts 255, 265, 268 and 336.

    February 27, 2009
  341. Jerry Friedman said:

    David:

    The tendency of polygamy is to be exploitative/oppressive. If there are exceptions, the aggrieved people should start a movement.

    The tendency of close-interfamily marriages is exploitative/oppressive. If there are exceptions, the aggrieved people should start a movement.

    The tendency of minority-age marriages is exploitative/oppressive. If there are exceptions, the aggrieved people should start a movement.

    State policy recognizes the tendencies of these relationships to be exploitative/oppressive, as do I. The state also prevents or discourages other relationships that tend to be exploitative/oppressive, like statutory rape, attorney-client sexual relations, etc., even if they are in fact not exploitative/oppressive.

    There is no tendency of same-sex marriages being exploitative/oppressive. You cannot compare same-sex relationships to these other relationships that have a long history of being harmful to one of the partners.

    February 27, 2009
  342. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Jerry’s argument for the case that 3 does not equal 2 is a good place to start.

    February 27, 2009
  343. john george said:

    Jerry – The unfortunate characteristic of exploitative/oppressive relationships is that they follow no gender/socio-economic pattern. Since these must be evaluated on a case by case approach, how can this be used as a standard for any contractural relationship? It seems to me that there must be a simpler definition not based on subjective criteria that could be implemented by the state. Since there are only two sexes, this seems like the simplest approach. When we go beyond that, in my opinion, we are getting into subjective evaluations rather than objective, but I may be missing something in all this.

    February 27, 2009
  344. john george said:

    Patrick- What with this new math, perhaps 3 does equal two! Actually, 1+1=3, when it comes to child bearing.

    February 27, 2009
  345. Anthony Pierre said:

    well you could say 1 = 8 too, john.

    February 27, 2009
  346. Obie Holmen said:

    Isn’t it curious that the two frequent bloggers to this thread with an acknowledged religious bias against gay marriage (John G and David L), nevertheless persist with the oddest convolutions of logic to try to convince the rest of us.

    It is even more curious that the rest of us bother to respond.

    February 27, 2009
  347. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: With the prohibition of attorney-client sexual relations as an example, I imagine that there aren’t any faithful statistics of how many attorney-client relationships that are in fact exploitative/oppressive and how many aren’t. There is, however, a history of these relationships being bad and now there is a state policy against them. It’s the same for polygamy, incest, etc. However, there is no reason to believe that same-sex or opposite-sex couples are any more or less exploitative/oppressive than aren’t. In a sense, I see coupling as “buyer beware”, freewill, and whatnot. This is entirely different from the stereotypical man who seeks to control and oppress several women.

    Again, if there are polygamists who are wholly voluntary and feel oppressed, I welcome their stirring the pot. But this is a tangent. What’s before us is the easy-to-show arbitrary discrimination against same-sex couples.

    Obie: I almost agree. So long as anyone comes up with a good faith argument, I’ll likely respond. When it slips into absurdity, I’ll move on. I believe that, even with their reasons, David, John and others are arguing in good faith.

    February 27, 2009
  348. kiffi summa said:

    Obie: I agree that it is curious that those of us who object to some of john and david’s rhetoric which is posited as fact continue to respond.
    I must admit…. I consider it a moral obligation to respond.

    John speaks of the coming ‘prejudicial’ POV of some ‘church talk’ being considered ‘hate speech’; he warns of this trend in Canada.

    It is acceptance of speech that identifies other non-harming individuals as “other”, no matter if it occurs on the street or in a ‘church’, that is toleration of what is in actuality ‘hate speech’.

    Two days ago at the Key, during the Youth Board meeting the kids had a discussion of hate speech, and the fact that it will not be tolerated on their premises. The reasoning centered around the fact that the Key is intended to be a SAFE place for youth, and hate speech does not support a safe environment.

    We fight because we must…….

    February 27, 2009
  349. john george said:

    Anthony- Yep. I thought of that after I hit the submit button. Isn’t that new math great? The answer can be whatever you want as long as you feel good about it (tongue-in-cheek).

    February 27, 2009
  350. David Ludescher said:

    Obie: I have a religious bias; but, I have no secular bias. I think that justice demands that gays and lesbians be granted the same rights as others. Please tell me where my logic is convoluted. I am seriously and sincerely trying to make the arguments using logic only.

    Jerry: The right to marry is NOT an inalienable right. The government is making no attempt to prevent religions from marrying whomever they want. There is no inalienable right, let alone even a right, to force the government to provide benefits to any two strangers who want to get gov’t benefits.

    Furthermore, historically gay (but not lesbian) relationships have been very oppressive. Inter-familial relationships have been made criminal not because of their oppression but because of the tendency of harm to the offspring. In many societies, polygamy was a duty imposed upon a man so that the widowed family was not without a man, and the social status.

    Patrick: If 2 doesn’t equal 3 (2 =/ 3), why does penis and penis equal penis and vagina (PAP = PAV?).

    February 27, 2009
  351. john george said:

    Kiffi- The refernces I made to what is going on in Canada deal specifically with how the translations of Rom. 1:26-27 & 1 Cor. 6:9 read, not just “church talk”. That is your term. I don’t subscribe to Rick Warren’s position of “other”, so it is hard to lump us into one basket. I know you really get your hackels up when I refer to homosexuality as a sin, but that is not my determination. It is determioned in the scriptures I refered to, and I happen to believe they are true. If you don’t want to believe that, it is not my problem. You don’t have to answer to me.

    Obie- I’m not sure what you mean by “oddest convolutions of logic”. Rom. 1:26&27 and 1 Cor. 6:9 are pretty clear in what they actually say. If you don’t like that, then that is your choice, but I have a hard time believing anyone who says these scriptures say something else. There is an antidote available for sin, though.

    Jerry- I have no problem with the restrictions on relationships you listed above. I think they are just wise. All I’m trying to come up with is a simple standard that can be applied by law without having reams of paper defining specific individual situations.

    February 27, 2009
  352. Nathan E. Kuhlman said:

    I suspect strongly that the lament against the establishment of ‘secularism’ as a state religion is a thinly-veiled attack on the principle of separation of Church and State. I cannot understand why anybody would ever argue against the separation of Church and State, unless they had designs on using the power of the State to enforce their religious preferences on others. The establishment clause protects your great-grandchildren from having sharia law enforced on them by the Moslem Majority.

    Very well. For the Christianists who want to use the State to force their religious beliefs on others, (both evangelicals and high-churchers,) I’d like to ask that you first clarify amongst yourselves the proper role of the Most Holy, Pure, Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Please figure out exactly what beliefs you want to force on others, because it gets confusing for the laity. Get back to us in thirty years or so.

    February 27, 2009
  353. Obie Holmen said:

    To Jerry,

    I agree that John and David argue in good faith, albeit from a religious bias. You suggest that you will continue to respond until their arguments slip into absurdity. I think that point is near.

    To Kiffi,

    I agree that this is a fight worth fighting, but my point is that it is impossible to respond to their illogical arguments.

    To David,

    I’ll grant that you are trying to argue from a rational viewpoint, but the problem is that your religious bias makes that nigh impossible. Your attempt to equate gay relationships with a whole host of others such as polygamous is both irrational and demeaning.

    To John,

    You have just proved my point. As soon as rational argumentation hits close to home, you wrap your gay bashing in your infallible Bible. By the way, as a Pauline scholar, allow me to suggest that your reliance on Pauline statements is misguided. A critical interpretation of what Paul said and why is more nuanced than your literalist interpretation would allow.

    February 27, 2009
  354. john george said:

    Obie- As far as I know, the final test is on the book, not the class discussion. Your “logical arguments” are based on what you believe, just as mine are. The point here is that neither one of us has scientific evidence to support either of our arguments. I can live just fine with you and Kiffi and what you believe are “facts”. I don’t have to be the judge of them. James exhorts us concerning teachers, that they incure a greater judgement. And, as I said above, the test is on the book, not the class discussion.

    February 27, 2009
  355. David Ludescher said:

    Obie: I don’t understand your accusation. I am arguing FOR gay (civil) marriage. How is advocating for others to join in civil marriage going to affect gays who are also allowed to get married? A polygamist who is allowed to get married isn’t going to have any effect upon my marriage.

    As far as demeaning and irrational – demeaning is not a rational term to which I can respond. I don’t know even know who you are suggesting is being demeaned. That sounds like a Rick Warren argument against allowing gays to marry.

    What is my religious argument? I am arguing that EVERYONE should be treated equally. How does that show a religious bias? Calling it “irrational” without identifying the irrationality leaves me puzzled. If the argument is irrational, explaining the irrationality should be easy. (Randy, it is I, not you, that is the more dense.)

    I am not willing to accept the statement that that what I am saying is a “religious” argument any more than I buy Rick Warren’s or other fundamentalists arguments about “atheists”.

    February 27, 2009
  356. kiffi summa said:

    As offensive as it may be to some. in my estimation the ” book” doesn’t pass the test …..i.e. love thy neighbor ( unless he’s a homosexual).

    February 27, 2009
  357. john george said:

    Kiffi- Now you are bringing up something I can respond to. How is allowing your neighbor to continue in sin without applying for the antidote an expression of “love”? That is why I do not differentiate between “sins” as some do, for they all separate us from God. And just because a person struggles with a “sin” does not negate his confession of it. The point is not that we are “sin free”, but that we agree with God’s definition of it. With that agreement comes grace to help in the time of need.

    February 27, 2009
  358. john george said:

    Kiffi- One more thing, it really doesn’t matter what your estimation of the “book” is, at least not to me. I still don’t understand how repressing or redefining Biblical truth is an expression of love. Is it just because it might make the person feel bad? I just don’t think that is true love.

    February 27, 2009
  359. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Leaving apart the finer distinctions of which particular boy parts and girl parts derive from which particular embryological precursors, I would say from a legal point of view:

    girl parts = boy parts.

    If girl parts = boy parts, then
    girl parts + girl parts = boy parts + girl parts.

    Similarly,
    girl parts + girl parts + boy parts = boy parts + girl parts + boy parts.

    However,
    girl parts + girl parts + boy parts =/= boy parts + girl parts (unless boy parts = 0).

    February 27, 2009
  360. Jane Moline said:

    Patrick–I do not quite follow either your math or your genetic modeling, and I can’t really tell which is which. Could you make a word problem?

    David L.: Your comments have a continuing undercurrent-while you claim that they should be “legally equivalent” you also infer that same-sex marriages are the equivalent of polygamy or some other exploitive relationship (you almost say bestiality.) I wish I could put my finger on it, but you somehow skirt right at the edge of being insulting.

    John G, I take great offense at your labeling of activities as “sin” as it is indicative of a negative judgement, and your description of a “lifestyle” is similarly pejoritive.

    Claiming same-sex couples are “sinners” is a form of prejudice akin to racism. (Some religions claimed that blacks were not human; slavery is endorsed in the Christian Bible.) You are welcome to your deep-held religious convictions–just don’t spread your homophobia around. I feel the same toward the religious right and it’s sexual bias as I do toward southern slave-holders–your convictions are a deterrent to a strong United States of America–because they are morally impotent. Your beliefs breed violence and hate, by endorsing intolerance.

    I am an atheist happy not to have to deal with your organized religion or mean-spirited God.

    February 27, 2009
  361. john george said:

    Jane- Hhmmmmm! Spread homophobia around? Are you saying I can believe what I like but I cannot speak about it?

    February 27, 2009
  362. Patrick Enders said:

    Jane,

    Sure.

    All persons are created equal.
    Boys are persons. Girls are persons.
    From that, boys are equal to girls.
    If that’s true, then boy and boy equals boy and girl.

    February 27, 2009
  363. David Henson said:

    Nearly two millennia ago, Jewish Rabbis created the ketubah, the premarital
    contract in which the husband and the wife spelled out the terms and
    conditions of their relationship before, during, and after the marriage, and
    the rights and duties of husband, wife, and child in the event of marital
    dissolution or death of one of the parties. The Talmudic Rabbis regarded
    these marriage contracts as essential protections for wives and children who
    were otherwise subject to the unilateral right of divorce granted to men by
    the Mosaic law.22 UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL

    The origins of marriage really revolve around children or the potential of children. If you were to write a contract now from scratch for a young heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple the issues they might face and the obligations would be quite different. The purpose of a contract is to dfine this. The heterosexual contract has traditionally been called “marriage.” Oddly, I find myself in agreement with Rick Warren – “just call it something else.”

    February 27, 2009
  364. Mike Paulsen said:

    In 266 john george says:

    “Another question I have not been able
    to find an answer to is how two people
    living together without a marriage
    contract, be they two women, two men
    or a man and a woman, are having their
    rights to treatments, visitation or
    inheritance violated.”

    http://www.miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html
    Hospital denied woman access to her dying partner, who she’d been together with for 17 years. Access was limited to immediate family and spouses.

    And we Minnesotans have our own infamous case. Hard to believe it’s been 20 years. http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Sharon-Kowalski-Come-Home/dp/0933216467
    (Selco has it if you’re interested.)

    February 28, 2009
  365. Patrick Enders said:

    Mike,
    Thanks for that evidence.

    February 28, 2009
  366. john george said:

    Mike- Thanks for the links. I could not find any cases newer than about 5 years, but I didn’t check into all 89,000 references on Google. It is evidently still happening, at least 2 years ago, but the trend I found in the dates of the articles I checked was that this type of discrimination is deminishing in frequency. It is interesting that we fought a civil war about slavery 150 years ago, but we are still fighting racial discrimination. Says something about human nature, I guess.

    Patrick- On your analogy of boys and girls, does this mean that “equal” and “same” have the same meaning when it comes to people? Seems there is physical evidence that boys and girls are not the same, even though they are equal in other respects.

    David H.- You might have something there. Perhaps our penchant to have to have a term for everything/person is what is getting in our way. Perhaps there is a way to establish equal rights without using the same term. As I said before, if there is a way to do this without having it imposed onto religious sects whose conscience it would violate, then we need to find it. My greatest concern is that our society as a whole is moving in the direction of factions and their specific “rights” rather than toward a sense of nationalism, hence the need to choose English or Spanish on most computerized phone systems.

    February 28, 2009
  367. Jerry Friedman said:

    David H: You said,

    “Nearly two millennia ago” … The origins of marriage really revolve around children or the potential of children.

    What was marriage like before two millennia ago, and outside of Judaism? The Hebrews did not begin the institution of marriage, but you imply they did.

    February 28, 2009
  368. David Henson said:

    Jerry, I was simply quoting a legal document. I think much confusion is over the issue of marriage as a ‘written’ contract as opposed to a ceremony or expression of love. I can see a very strong argument for the state to simply not offer a preformatted marriage ‘contract’ (which has religious covenant origins) based on the massive failure of this contract to be honored. A free-form civil union contract that really made people think through what they were agreeing to and future issues (as used in business) would probably make for stronger marriages. Expanding the scope of a preformatted state written marriage contract to cover same sex relationships will further weaken the agreement. The fact is relationships ending with no kids to consider would be much better off with a specific contract as opposed to a universal preformatted contract – far less likely to tie up court time.

    February 28, 2009
  369. Jerry Friedman said:

    David H:

    Expanding the scope of a preformatted state written marriage contract to cover same sex relationships will further weaken the agreement.

    Why? My parents had three kids. They married each other twice and divorced each other twice. Children help glue some couples together, help divide other couples, and have no effect on others. There is no rational basis to claim that opp’-sex or children-bearing couples are superior than any other couples. And even if there was an irrefutable statistic, it still would not stand as a reason to deprive nonconforming couples from marrying, for the same reason that an irrefutable statistic that shows Davids are smarter than any other name is a basis to deprive non-Davids from an Ivy League education. Statistics don’t matter here, prejudice does.

    The courts are not as concerned about their time being tied up as they are about not fulfilling their mission. Courts are supposed to administer justice. So I offer that we should not fret about their time management when the need for justice comes knocking.

    As I said to Peter, I’d rather there not be an elite class of opp’-sex couples who can marry and same-sex couples who cannot, when their only difference is immutable biology. The history, purpose and goal of marriage IS NOT baby-making. Therefore, depriving some couples of society- and state-recognized marriage for any baby-making reason is irrational at best, oppressive at worst.

    February 28, 2009
  370. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: Who are you suggesting that I am insulting? How can an argument be insulting? So far I have heard that I am “demeaning”, “irrational”, and “insulting” just for suggesting that polygamists should also be entitled to marriage.

    February 28, 2009
  371. David Henson said:

    Jerry – you are throwing in the words “superior” not me. I assume you would agree the legal contracts that actually reflect the circumstance of those entering the agreement are more effective. If kids in the future are a factor then one would want to address that in an agreement.

    I think the real issue is that an underlying religious covenant still lingers in the marriage contract and gays want the government to grant them religious equality when some churches will not. I think the clear solution is to remove the religious aspect by making all legal pairing civil unions rather than marriages. Then people would be equal under the law.

    February 28, 2009
  372. john george said:

    David H.- I agree. What seems to be the issue with the gay community is that they cannot get certain tangible benefits, medical treatments, visitation rights, etc. It seems we could have a civil designation giving these rights without calling it marriage.

    February 28, 2009
  373. Jane Moline said:

    John George-yes. Just as racists should remain unheard so should those spouting their “religious” defense of homophobia/sexism.

    David L–yes. The continual “defense” of marriage by claiming that same sex marriages are the equivalent to polygamy or bestiality or any other perversion/oppressive use of marriage is insulting because even dunder-heads can figure out that equating something to a perversion is suggesting that it is perverted.

    I do not believe that homosexual sex is perverted. (Gay or Lesbian.) I do not believe it is a sin. The continual judgement of gays by some organized religions is the equivalent of any disenfranchisement of any group by organized religions throughout history, and the basic problem of organized religion–the break with biblical teaching of love, tolerance and acceptance. This kind of disenfranchisement is unhealthy for a civil society.

    It is terribly harmful to all homosexuals and their families and their communities to teach that it is a sin to be who they are. The claim that who they are is not homosexual (a physiological outcome) but a “sinner” and that it is some kind of “lifestyle choice” is simply a way to propagandize the message to the community so the church can endorse the communities’ prejudices and give them permission to spread their message of hate and intolerance. Homosexuality is not a choice. To “cure” a homosexual is equivalent of trying to “cure” a woman from being female.

    Once again, orgainized religion is encouraging hate, intorlerance, and divisiveness in families and society. Go ahead and claim the Bible as your source for this message. It just makes the case for rejecting organized religions for the destructive force they can and have become.

    February 28, 2009
  374. Jerry Friedman said:

    John:

    It seems we could have a civil designation giving these rights without calling it marriage.

    Or just call it marriage and be done with it.

    February 28, 2009
  375. john george said:

    Jane- Yes, you have your beliefs and your right to express them, even though, in my opinion, it comes across as hateful and accusatory against Christians. Calling us homophobes is not really conciliatory language. I have a right to my opinions, and so far, I have a right to express them. I have tried to do so in an honest and non-accusatory way. You have not interpreted it that way, and that is your perogative. You have essentially told me to be quiet and go to my corner. Sorry, I am under no obligation to do that. I would prefer to discuss these issues openly and candidly. I am reminded of a scripture out of Isaiah- come, let us reason together… If I am not allowed do that, then I would have to say my rights are being violated.

    February 28, 2009
  376. john george said:

    Jerry- Yes, we could call it that, but what I’m asking, is there a way to distribute equal access without forcing everyone into one mold? It seems that that is the sticky wicket we are bandying about. I surely don’t speak for the whole Christian community, but I personally do not have a problem with granting to the gay community the rights they are seeking. Just call it something besides marriage. Would this allow peace in the community?

    February 28, 2009
  377. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: That’s the same question asked several decades ago, about “separate but equal” education. Would separate but equal civil unions lead to peace? Maybe.

    Assuming peace is the goal, if we can remove the “separate” and just have “equal” instead, then artificial, arbitrary barriers can be removed and peace will be the most likely result.

    If there is another goal, something besides peace, I think that goal should be re-evaluated.

    February 28, 2009
  378. kiffi summa said:

    John: re:#s 373 and 377…….. How does it hurt you, defame your position or beliefs, demean your religion, or damage your ‘world’ to allow the same civil rights to a same-sex couple as to an opp-sex couple. You keep saying ‘can’t they just have something less’ (i.e.not equal)?
    Can you just answer how this affects you or your religion to the point where you would deny basic rights?
    You steadfastly refuse to answer that question…….

    February 28, 2009
  379. Randy Jennings said:

    Nathan, your comment back in 353 seems to have dropped under the radar (you have to address some aspect of marriage to get much response on this hijacked conversation), but it was spot on.

    February 28, 2009
  380. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: The current definition of marriage is just contractual. We can do remove all discrimination by dissolving civil marriage. This is fair to everyone. I don’t understand the objection.

    What is at issue is not what religions think, or how foolish their rules are, but what is a fair secular way to structure marriage. Design marriage however you want it. Just make sure it is fair to everyone.

    I am not trying to be demeaning, irrational, insulting, or a dunder-head, but I am not following your reasoning. I am offering homosexual couples what they want – equal rights. Either everyone or no one gets the same treatment. What could be more fair?

    February 28, 2009
  381. Obie Holmen said:

    To David L,

    You have repeatedly made the erroneous claim that marriage is a mere contract. While it is a contract with rights and obligations between the parties, it is also an institution that is carefully regulated by the government, especially state but also federal (see joint income tax filings, social security survivor benefits, etc.). Rights, benefits, and status are conferred and obligations imposed on the parties to a marriage contract — by the government and not merely according to the contract between the parties. The government’s interest in the institution includes prohibition of certain parties from marrying based on their status (polygamy, incest, youth, etc.).

    Thus, your argument that we should simply do away with all civil marriages because marriage is meaningless is patently absurd. (You can add “absurd” to your list that already includes demeaning, irrational, etc.).

    While you have acknowledged a religious bias against gay marriage, you claim to be for civil gay marriage. Based on the silly argument you raise, me thinks me smells a rat.

    February 28, 2009
  382. john george said:

    Kiffi- Your comment, which youi attribute to me, “…‘can’t they just have something less’ …” is your words, not mine. If you look objectively at what I am saying, you will find that I am advocating equal rights irregardless of sexual attraction. “Equal” and same” are not synonymis. What I understand in your words, and perhaps I am not reading them correctly, is that you want me to embrace the idea that the only way to be “equal” is to be the “same”. I have said repeatedly that you and the others can conform to whatever you want, but I reserve the right to an opinion about that relationship and the right to express it, just as you have a right to your opinion of my definition and the right to express it. This argument is not going to get us any closer to a solution, IMO. If the issue is just getting equal rights, then why is a solution allowing that not satisfactory?

    February 28, 2009
  383. john george said:

    Sorry- I misspelled “synonymous” in that last post.

    February 28, 2009
  384. Obie Holmen said:

    To John G,

    In many of your posts, you make a statement like, “I don’t mean to judge you,” and then you proceed to judgment. When you are called on your sanctimonious attitude toward gays, you retreat into the shell of your infallible Bible. When you are called on your Biblical interpretation, you imply that your critic will face God’s judgment. When your hurtful words are questioned, you whine that your free speech and freedom of religion rights are threatened.

    There is an oft repeated assertion that free speech doesn’t mean that one can yell fire in a crowded theater. I suggest that the right to free speech also carries an obligation to refrain from hurtful words — not a legal obligation but a moral one.

    You may claim that your admonition to gays is based on love; it sure sounds like hate to the ears of the recipient.

    February 28, 2009
  385. Bruce Anderson said:

    Nathan and Randy,
    I couldn’t agree more with both of your comments (353 and 380). Amen, brothers!

    I’ve been occasionally checking in on this thread and watching in amazement at the bizarre direction it’s taken. The only qualifier I would add to your hilarious comment, Nathan, is that, based on the past 3,000 years or so of Judeo-Christian and, subsequently, Islamic splintering of factions, we can only expect our religious brethren and sistren to generate more controversy and heat, and precious little light, when they get back to us in 30 years.

    February 28, 2009
  386. john george said:

    Nathan- Where did your comment, “…I suspect strongly that the lament against the establishment of ‘secularism’ as a state religion is a thinly-veiled attack on the principle of separation of Church and State…” come from? Perhaps I missed something, but I am more concerned that this clause is going to be thrown by the wayside through the government forcing churches to accept same sex marriages and stop preaching that these relationships are sin. The separation clause is our protection.

    February 28, 2009
  387. john george said:

    Obie- I would posite that you are not the only one to interpret the Bible, either, and there are other positions than yours on the interpretation of scripture, also. Now, this comment “sanctimonious attitude” is not hurtful? Hmmmm.

    February 28, 2009
  388. David Ludescher said:

    An apology may be in order. I brought up the issue of gay marriage only to use as an example of how we should be able to come together in this “patchwork nation” to arrive at a consensus of belief that is “friendly” to all “believer” and “non-believer” groups.

    I am convinced that this is what Obama was talking about in his address. I don’t think that Obama was recognizing one more political faction – atheists. I don’t think his attempt was to divide the nation, but rather, it was to unite the nation.

    I am also convinced that Northfielders can arrive at a political consensus that will be fair to everyone. I’m not sure why we are having such a difficult time with this issue.

    February 28, 2009
  389. kiffi summa said:

    We are having a difficult time with this issue because POLITICAL THEOLOGY keeps rearing its inappropriate head, takes a religious stance on a basic human rights issue, and then cries foul if anyone says keep your religion in your church and off the bodies who do not function within your belief system!

    February 28, 2009
  390. kiffi summa said:

    John : re #s 383 ……… obviously the words ‘ can’t they just have something less’ is a paraphrase of your position, since it does not have quotes around it in my original comment to you (379) and you still did not answer my very basic question to you in that comment……..
    I would appreciate an answer, and then maybe that would put some of this to rest.

    and #384………. if you’re going to apologize for a misspelling, then I guess it’s fair game to remind you that “irregardless” is ‘nonstandard’ because the ir prefix is redundant with the use of the less suffix……. but then again, this whole thread has become the essence of redundancy.

    February 28, 2009
  391. john george said:

    Friendliness toward athiests in Northfield?! From some of the things being posted here, I’m wondering if there is any “friendliness” at all! Obie, Kiffi, Jane, et al- I am just fine with you folks and your opinions. They are different than mine, but I would help any of you out with any hardship to the utmost of my ability in a heartbeat. You are still people, and as such, I respect you. If my actions offend you, then I can change my behavior. If my beliefs offend you, then that is a different matter. I have worked with about every kind of belief system expressed here and have never had any problems. As much as it is within my power, I try to be at peace with all men. Is it possible for us to agree to disagree without being offended by that disagreement? I would hope so.

    David L.- I forgive you. But then, I hadn’t taken offense with you in the first place, but since you asked, I forgive you.

    February 28, 2009
  392. john george said:

    Kiffi- I thought I had answered your question, “…Can you just answer how this affects you or your religion to the point where you would deny basic rights?…”, but I will try again. Do you agree with me that equal and same are not synonymous? (sp 🙂 ) I have proposed that all the benefits the gay community is demanding because of their inability to call themselves “married” be granted using a secular term. The fact that in Canada at this time, recognition of gay marriages is being imposed upon Christian churches is indicative of the intent behind this agenda. Fortunately, we do have the separation clause in our constitution, which, if I was informed correctly, the Canadians do not. But I have a concern that this protection may be lifted through legal caveat in the courts. Have I answered sufficiently or did I miss something?

    February 28, 2009
  393. Obie Holmen said:

    To John,

    I have not offered an interpretation of Scripture in this blog other than to criticize a literalist, infallible point of view and to suggest that interpreting Paul is difficult and nuanced. Having said that, I accept and agree with your premise that my interpretations are subject to error.

    Precisely because Scriptural interpretations are varied, nuanced, and difficult, we need to tread lightly when using the Bible to condemn a class of persons who have done the public no ill and who merely want to be able to love the one they love, free of bias and with dignity and equality under the law.

    As to your concern that the government will somehow force your church into marrying gay persons, let me say that I will be right there with you on the barricades. But, that will never happen. It is true that churches or denominations that offer services in the public arena, such as hospitals, may be prevented from discriminating against gay spouses in the services they provide, but the government will never attempt to interfere with the rituals, sacraments, ordinations, etc of the churches. That’s why we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Finally, as to my comment in which I criticized your “sanctimonious attitude”, I acknowledge that I meant to jar you because I don’t think you understand how offensive and hurtful your comments are to some of your readers. To excuse your comments as reflecting God’s will as revealed in Scripture is not only pompous and self-righteous, but also makes the hurt deeper.

    February 28, 2009
  394. David Ludescher said:

    Obie or Kiffi: Isn’t equal if:
    1. We do away with marriage entirely or ,
    2. Grant everyone the right to marry?

    Gays are free to marry right now; they aren’t getting a government endorsement.

    What I hear the two of you saying is, “No, that is not OK. We (Gays) want the same status as heterosexuals have now under the law.”. That is clearly not equal for all.

    What does my position have to do with religious beliefs or “political theology”?

    March 1, 2009
  395. kiffi summa said:

    David: Your marriage centric arguments are difficult for me to follow; perhaps it is my insufficient attention to them , but they seem convoluted……and frankly, in equating voluntary same-sex partnerships in ANY way with what CAN be , and often have been , very oppressive/exploitive polygamous ‘marriages’, taints rather than elevates your argument. Again possibly my personal read, substantiating my personal information base.
    My use of the term “political theology” was more directed to John’s use of his ‘christian’ rhetoric on the subject of gays, and the back and forth over religious and political lines, all the while attacking others’ rights to ‘rights’, while defending his version of ‘christianity’.
    The very notion of exclusivity that the ‘christian’ right exemplifies in their hijacking of the word christian, which had come in the last 2000 years to have cultural as well as religious meanings, to me speaks for itself in its offensive (to me) notion of self-satisfied righteousness.

    March 1, 2009
  396. David Henson said:

    I assume David L is suggesting that if marriage and benefits are to be distributed equally then why would two male heterosexual friends not be able to ‘marry’ and share benefits? Do they have to “love” each other or engage in sexual acts to share these benefits? Does anyone object to just expanding the definition of marriage to include any pair of people who choose to share health benefits, etc? Or if the two people are same sex do they have to say “we are gay” to get the legal benefits?

    March 1, 2009
  397. john george said:

    Obie- Your last post is easy to recieve, and I agree, there are nuances in many of the transcripts. Part of this just lies in the difficulty of cultural context of certain words. My Hispanic son-in-law runs across this all the time in trying to translate a Spanish word to English. As verbose as the English language is, there is still difficulty trying to communicate some of the concepts in another language.

    As far as the concept of sin, perhaps I should explain my understanding of redemption. I must deal with my own sin nature before God. To do this, and receive the substitution of Christ for my sin, I must first agree that what God says about me is true. This is what I call the acknowledgement of sin. If all a person gets out of the scripture is condemnation, then they haven’t taken the next step. Once we agree with God’s evaluation of our actions, there is grace released for turning from that, and the promise in I John is for God to cleanse us from sin. That is the hope I offer to anyone caught in their fallen condition. It is not that we do not have struggles with this old nature, but there is a way through it. I’m not trying to be sanctimonious or condemning. I’m just trying to present what I understand in the scriptures, and I certainly do not have complete understanding of them. I hope not to make the way of salvation exclusive or difficult, for I believe God offered it to us simply enough that even a child can understand it.

    March 1, 2009
  398. john george said:

    Kiffi- You bring up an interesting historical note on the term “Christian.” It was first used in Antioch about 2000 years ago, and it was originally meant to be an insult to the believers. The early church called themselves “the way”, refering more to the way they lived. I don’t know that the Right has highjacked it, but I will certainly agree that many use the term with little resemblence in their lives to “the way” of the early church.

    March 1, 2009
  399. Jerry Friedman said:

    David H: The same way works with opp’-sex couples. Presently, a man and woman who don’t love each other can marry and get marital benefits. This is common in immigration fraud.

    Since there is no test of “love”, “commitment”, “baby-making”, or anything else of the sort among opp’-sex couples, there is no precedent or reason to do so for same-sex couples.

    As far as I am concerned, if the couple proclaims that they want to establish a family, and there is no ‘red flag’ that a law is being broken (i.e., one partner is under age, immigration fraud, etc.) then their proclamation is as good as gold. This protects opp’-sex and same-sex couples from invasive government probings into our private lives.

    I still haven’t heard any discussion on Paul’s admonition not to marry. 1 Corinthians 7:25-31

    March 1, 2009
  400. David Henson said:

    Jerry, so you are suggesting any plantonic relationship, parent and an adult child, next door neighbor, drinking buddies at the bar? A sort of buddy system for benefits, might be expensive.

    March 1, 2009
  401. David Henson said:

    Want to read about the wonderful society produced by atheism and socialism then get the book Harvest of Sorrow

    Ukrainian nation had always been seen by Stalin as enemies. By “dekulakization,” which sent millions of peasants to the Arctic and sure death, and collectivization, which effectively abolished private property, step one was in place. It remained for Stalin to inflict the famine on the already collectivized peasants by setting grain quotas for them far above what was possible. This resulted in the state confiscating almost all home-grown food, leaving the peasants starving. Peasants who balked were accused of nationalism and duly punished, i.e., killed.

    March 1, 2009
  402. john george said:

    David H.- With all due respect, I’m not sure we can place the blame for the Stalin era attrocities squarely on the athiests and socilists. Granted, Stalin had an open disdain for religions, but I think the blame could be better placed upon the totalitarian form of government that Stalin adopted. At least in this country, government leaders are still accountable to the voting public. This was not the case in the Soviet government. It is hard for me to imagine Patrick, Jerry, Nathan, Randy, et. al. rounding up us believers and shipping us off to North Dakota.

    I think that the fall of the socialist economic form of Stalin and the change to the present day capitalist form is evident that the Soviet form of socialism was not necessarily successful. With the corruption going on there right now, I think there is evidence that capitalism is not a panacia, either. I think what has allowed our form of capitalism to function as long as it has is the moral base built into our society, and our refusal to allow government officials to run along unchecked. The source of that moral base is perhaps debatable, but much of it is found in the religious teachings of the various sects that are free to form in our society.

    March 1, 2009
  403. Jerry Friedman said:

    David H.: No, I am not suggesting that any “buddy system” is suitable for a marriage. I am suggesting that the government accept any proclamation of a couple who wants to be recognized as a family as sufficient to be sanctioned by the state, so long as there is no evidence of a crime. I don’t know about you, but considering the rights bestowed to spouses, I don’t expect a flood of marriage fraud. If my drinking buddy and I marry, he’ll be first in line for inheritance if my will is defective. Why would I, or anyone, want my meager possessions to go to my drinking buddy? Why would I want him to have medical decision making authority over me if I’m incapacitated? When you argue with such absurdity, I wonder why I bother responding, except to set the record straight.

    There are no safeguards to keep opp’sex people from marrying their neighbor or drinking buddy. The same standard should be set for same-sex couples. Some day, I hope you understand what “equal treatment” means.

    I join John’s criticism of your peculiar reference to Stalin. As I have said repeatedly, not all theisms are alike, nor are all atheisms. Stalin’s brand of atheism is not universal, just like Hitler’s brand of Catholicism isn’t. Some day, I hope you understand that.

    If you’d like a contest to count the worst theist leaders against the worst atheist leaders, count me in. Disparaging atheism by the dread few atheist leaders is actually good marketing for atheism. Bring it on!

    March 2, 2009
  404. David Henson said:

    John, my post 403 was simply a reply those suggesting religion was the cause of all wars etc which did not seem to upset Jerry. Clearly I agree the atheism was not the main issue any more or less than religion in other instances. Generally the cause is always giving up human freedom to dogmatic people for ‘bread’, ‘jobs’, ‘the environment,’ ‘security’, ‘any cause they can get away with.’

    March 2, 2009
  405. David Henson said:

    Jerry, why in the world would society grant two able bodied adult males the rights to each other social security and health benefits because they are having relations? And if society does that why in world would we care if they “say they are a family” vs being friends. This position is beyond absurd and falls into the waste time while the economy crumbles.

    March 2, 2009
  406. john george said:

    David H.- Thanks for the clarification in post 405. I understand where you are coming from, now, and I agree. In this format, if we tried to present every caveat to every idea we posted, Griff’s server would be overloaded.

    March 2, 2009
  407. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: The current definition of marriage is a “buddy” system. That is what I don’t like about it.

    When the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Mpls. wanted Catholics to advocate for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, I wrote to the Catholic Spirit in opposition. I think that it is time for a clean break with theology on the definition of marriage.

    Gays and lesbians are offerring a wonderful opportunity to look at the institution of civil marriage from a new approach – an approach that puts an emphasis on marriage as something “additional” to the two people involved. Atheists can offer the assurances that the system is free from “beliefs” and focuses only on outcomes.

    We have to do it; it is our future.

    March 2, 2009
  408. Jerry Friedman said:

    David L: The institution of marriage is more than a “buddy” system. It’s the creation of a family, even if the family is simply two people. The state recognizes marriage as a contract, but the institution is more than state recognition.

    I suppose that those who commit marriage fraud would marry as “buddies”, but I don’t think that those who commit the fraud should be used as the example of defining the institution. This is what David H and I have been discussing.

    I am delighted to remove all theology from “marriage”, and have a state marriage instead, subject to all the constitutional safeguards. In addition, if theisms want their own marriage standard, they can do so without state recognition, and without constitutional safeguards.

    March 2, 2009
  409. john george said:

    Jerry- When we were in Siberia, we learned that there are two marriage ceremonies, if you want to call them that, if the participants are members of a church. The civil contract is a formal signing of the state papers done before our equivalent of a justice of the peace. The couple then will have a ceremony in their particular church. The churches we were working with recognized the civil ceremony and did not require an additional ceremony, although they were allowed to do so if they desired. If I remember correctly, the state did not recognize a religious ceremony. In the US right now, the whole event is tied together, with the officiating pastor having authority to sign papers that give the couple legal status with the state. If we are going to go the direction of a civil ceremony, then I think we may end up with an arrangement similar to the Russians.

    March 2, 2009
  410. john george said:

    Here is a quick list of the countries/states allowing same sex marriage, for what it is worth:
    Denmark, 1989.
    Norway, 1993.
    Sweden, 1996.
    Iceland, 1996.
    France, 1999.
    Vermont, USA, 2000.
    Germany, 2001.
    Finland, 2002.
    Luxembourg, 2004.
    New Zealand, 2004.
    Connecticut, USA, 2005.
    Britain, 2005.
    New Jersey, USA, 2006.
    New Hampshire, USA, 2008.
    Oregon, USA, 2008.
    Maine, USA.
    California, USA.
    Washington, USA.
    Hawaii, USA.
    and the years in which they were legalized.

    March 2, 2009
  411. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: It seems to me that if a theism has the same marital policy as the state (such as nondiscrimination, monogamy, etc.), that the state can recognize a theism’s marriage out of courtesy.

    If a theism’s marital policy is discriminatory, polygamous, etc., it should be separate and not recognized by the state. And if the marriage is criminal, such as polygamous, it should be prosecuted by the state.

    March 2, 2009
  412. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I have been working as a divorce attorney for 20 years. I can assure you that there is no consideration of “family” in today’s marriage or divorce.

    There is no “fraud” in marrying as buddies. The law currently provides: “Marriage, so far as its validity is concerned, is a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential.” Minn. Stat. 517.01.

    The one thing that I like about the movement for gays and lesbians to marry is that the gays and lesbians are talking about the religious aspects of marriage as validation for what they are asking. That is, they are talking about how they love each other and are committed.

    However, as Randy noted, we can’t measure love, and it shouldn’t be included in a secular definition of marriage. Commitment could be included, but it is not now part of the definition. Furthermore, it seems like a reasonable requrirement that a person doesn’t get the benefit of “marriage” unless he/she makes a commitment that is enforceable.

    I think that you and I are arguing for the same result – for gays and lesbians to have a fair system of government benefits. What we shouldn’t be arguing in the secular world is whether they are morally equivalent. It doesn’t matter if they are morally equivalent, because the law can not operate on moral principles, regardless of whether those principles are theistic, atheistic, or from the Flying Pasta Monster. The law has to operate on clearly defined rules.

    March 2, 2009
  413. David Henson said:

    David L, I don’t see how you can separate the “commitment” from religion. In a sense “commitment” involves contracting away your individual rights in a way that is impossible for the state to enforce constitutionally. Like ‘you have a right to free assembly but if you sign this you can’t go dancing with the boys.’ I would think the state should get rid of the nebulous aspects of the commitment and leave that to religion. Have the law deal only with the material asset obligations via contracts. This way anyone who wants to enter a contract can but the state is not favoring any specific arrangement. Are three people even prohibited from a civil union (if its not called marriage)?

    March 2, 2009
  414. john george said:

    Jerry- I think you are correct in your assumption. In Russia, there is no formal or courteous recognition of religious institutions of marriage. The churches are not coerced to recognize the civil ceremony, because there is probably the most absolute separation of church and state in Russia as anywhere in the world. The churches we associated with recognize the civil unions out of courteousy. The big question is whether recognition of civil same sex unions would be forced upon American churches if we as a country decided to go that direction, or if there could actually be separation of church and state in this regard.

    As far as your comment, “…a theism’s marital policy is discriminatory…” would need some more detailed clarification, I think. There are some local congregations in about every denomination that will not open their sanctuary to any couple that is not a part of the local congregation or the national denomination. This is quite within their legal rights under current law, and the state recognizes the marriages performed there.

    March 2, 2009
  415. Randy Jennings said:

    Griff, will you please re-label this thread to something like “religious vs. legal views on marital rights,” or “christian perspectives on lots of social issues,” or something more indicative of the direction the conversation has taken. The atheists have left the room.

    March 2, 2009
  416. Griff Wigley said:

    As per Randy’s suggestion, I’ve edited the title of this blog post. It now reads:

    How atheist-friendly is Northfield? (also, religious vs. legal views on marital rights)

    I’ve also (sssshhhhhhhh) flipped on the threading feature so that those of you who want to respond to a something related to atheism can ‘attach’ it to a specific. Each comment now has a ‘reply’ link at the bottom which allows for ‘threaded’ conversations, not just chronological conversations. We discussed this feature over in the New look to Locally Grown discussion but several who chimed in suggested we turn it off. Now I’m seeing that there might be a real advantage to it, so let’s experiment here.

    Notice how now this comment of mine, since it’s attached to Randy’s, is now number 415.1.

    March 3, 2009
  417. Randy Jennings said:

    Thanks, Griff.

    March 3, 2009
  418. David Ludescher said:

    Randy: I don’t understand your critique. I picked the subject of marriage so that the conversation could proceed in the concrete on a subject that tests our unity. I have tried hard to keep the conversation secular/legal.

    What, if any, is the atheist view on marital rights? What, if any, is the atheist perspective on lots of social issues?

    March 3, 2009
  419. Jerry Friedman said:

    David L: If all persons may marry and receive the identical state benefits, in accordance with state authority and policy, then we are arguing for the same thing.

    I hear that the only lawyer’s job more dangerous than a criminal defense attorney (who works with murderers and robbers) is a divorce attorney. I don’t discredit your opinion because of the generally negative attitudes of people in divorce, but in the same breath I am saddened that in your view, there is no consideration of “family” in marriage or divorce.

    I am engaged to be married to Natalie. The only reason I seek marriage with her is to formally create a family. We already have a loving and nurturing relation that a marriage per se cannot improve upon. (Remember, we intend not to create children, albeit we may adopt a child, so children is not part of my definition of “family”.)

    If marriage does not create a family, why do people marry? Just for state benefits? I don’t think so. There is a societal, psychological/emotional joy in marriage. There are of course exceptions, but I’d rather discuss the rule.

    Changing one’s status from single to married is a psychological change as well as legal. Other contracts are generally just legal changes. Reducing marriage to a legal contract is missing the psychology of family.

    Like you, I don’t necessarily include “love” or “commitment” in marriage. Remember that marriages were originally political, and those types of marriages were/are probably loveless, and with questionable commitment.

    (By buddies marrying in “fraud”, I especially mean immigration fraud. I also mean fraud in a non-legal context when two people who don’t want to create a family marry for state benefits.)

    March 3, 2009
  420. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: It is not my view that marriage doesn’t consider family. It is the law.

    Because you are an atheist, I think that you and others could help fashion the law to be religiously neutral. Including homosexual couples in marriage is politically correct, but is it fair to others who are in even more unconventional “families”?

    March 3, 2009
  421. Randy Jennings said:

    David, I couldn’t possibly presume to speak for any atheist but myself, and I’ve said my piece on marriage and several other social issues above. My sense is that the christian perspective in this conversation has plenty of voices, and little interest in any resolution that limits the imposition of religious beliefs (separate and distinct from speech rights) to the privacy of one’s home and worship community.

    My point to Griff was simply that the original question about Northfield’s athiest-friendliness became moot two or three hundred comments ago. If you and others want to go on defining marriage, that’s great, but it has little to do with the original topic. The heading of the post has become mesleading. That’s all.

    March 3, 2009
  422. Griff Wigley said:

    Richard Dawkins was just on MPR’s Midmorning. MPR News Cut blogger Bob Collins was live-blogging it.

    Dawkins is speaking tonight at Northrup at the U of MN.

    PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris and he has a very popular blog called Pharyngula: Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal. He briefly blogged Dawkins’ appearance on MPR.

    As Bob Collins noted, Myers and Dawkins caused a stir last year here in MN at the screening of the movie “Expelled”. See this NY Times article: No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film.

    March 4, 2009
  423. David Ludescher said:

    The Dawkins interview is enlightening. Personally, I would call Dawkins an empiricist rather than an atheist. He doesn’t make any positive statements about atheism. His focus is upon an empirical criticism of his version of Christianity. Many of his criticisms, like his criticism of creationism, don’t apply to most organized branches of Christianity.

    Perhaps my interpretation of atheism has been too narrow. I’m starting to believe that there is such a thing as christian Atheists and atheist Christians.

    March 5, 2009
  424. Jerry Friedman said:

    David L: I’m jealous that I missed the interview.

    Remember that theism/atheism is a true dichotomy. As Dawkins is not a theist, he is an atheist by definition. He is also an empiricist.

    Not making “any positive statements about atheism” is a philosophical approach and a debate approach. In philosophy and in debate, just like in law, whomever affirms must prove. Claiming god exists is an affirmation, so the burden of proof is on believers. The “neutral” position is to challenge those affirmations.

    While Dawkins may be an empiricist, it has nothing to do with his being called an atheist.

    Some people take a different approach, such as to describe god (classically: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, etc.) and then to look for internal contradictions. For example, being omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously creates a contradiction, so any god who is described as omnipotent and omniscient cannot exist. People who take this approach make positive statements about atheism.

    March 5, 2009
  425. Bruce Anderson said:

    Jerry,
    You can listen to the very interesting archived interview (I did last night) at http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/03/04/midmorning1/. On Dawkins’ scale of 1 (I am positive there is a God) to 7 (I am positive there is no God), Dawkins describes himself as a 6.5. I’m somewhere around there myself.

    March 5, 2009
  426. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Griff has the link in 416.

    March 5, 2009
  427. Griff Wigley said:

    Yep, MPR has the audio of the Dawkins interview. But they also make the embed code available so here it is:

    March 5, 2009
  428. Jerry Friedman said:

    Bruce: Thank you for the link.

    I can’t rate my position on the 1 to 7 scale or any other scale because I don’t understand what “god” means, particularly that “god” means different things to different people. When I understand what someone means by “god”, I can rate my belief.

    My mother, for example, makes some reference to the universe or nature being “god”, so I rate myself a 1 per her description. Relating to Biblegod, I have been a 7 on Dawkins’s scale since 1987.

    March 5, 2009
  429. kiffi summa said:

    Ken Starr….yes, that Ken Starr, is arguing today before the CA supreme court that gay couples (18,000) in CA who married before the Prop 8 ban should be FORCIBLY DIVORCED “for the sake of the children” living in those households.
    If you want to read more about this, or sign petitions, go to the HUman Rights Campaign website; while you’re there check out the “End the Lies” website also.

    “For the sake of the children”…….it would be laughable if it were not so sad.

    March 5, 2009
  430. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Dawkins claims that he doesn’t know if God exists. Dawkins’s God is an empirical “thing” that occupies time and space. Based upon what I have been taught, this concept of God is not the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim God.

    As Kant proved in Critique of Pure Reason, there is a third way which is neither “atheist” nor “theist”. The third way suggests that reason cannot come to an empirical conclusion about God because there is not an empirical way to test the hypothesis of God.

    When you talk about Biblegod, I assume that you are talking about God as a thing, as you understand, related through the Bible.

    The most recent defintions of “God” by religions have advanced far beyond these simplier descriptions to include metaphysically and philosophically deep concepts that require intuition and courageous reasoning. For example, Pope Benedict’s first major writing, called an encylical, was entitled (as translated) “God is Love”.

    That God is a god that even Dawkins would have to admit exists.

    March 5, 2009
  431. Anthony Pierre said:

    Why not just throw the bible out, since no one seems to follow it. They just have their own ideas of what god is.

    no one seems to listen to each other, because everyone thinks they are right, when in actuality, if you do the math, it is very likely no one is.

    March 5, 2009
  432. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: With respect to Kant, he misses the point (note that I have not read his “Critique of Pure Reason” so I am relying on your representation). By lingual construction, theists have a common quality and everyone who is not a theist is an atheist. Theism is not about empirical proof, but about belief.

    Biblegod is the god(s) represented in the Bible.

    If “God is love”, then there are a great many gods. I should introduce you to my loving dog Maya. Some people argue that “God is war” and other things. I would rate the “love” and “war” gods a 1 on Dawkins’s scale, because I am certain that they both exist. When we move beyond equivocations and non-sequiters, I am vastly more critical.

    March 5, 2009
  433. Jerry Friedman said:

    Some Christians suggested that a copy of the Bible be sent to the moon in case of catastrophe here on Earth. Perhaps, in theme with “throw[ing] the bible out”, we could send all of the Bibles to the moon.

    March 5, 2009
  434. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: The Pope asserts that if you know “love”, then you know God. Pure unconditional love is the closest empirical representation that we have to knowing and experiencing the God of the Christians. Further, Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated as pure and unconditional love of his fellow man as anyone who has ever walked the earth. He even died a criminal’s death on the cross so that we would know what he said was true.

    You will notice that this God is not the God that Dawkins condemns. Dawkins condemns virgin births, resurrections, and other concepts that he doesn’t understand any better than I understand quantum physics. You notice that he doesn’t condemn the core commandment of Christianity – love your neighbor as you love yourself.

    The skeptic in me says that Dawkins just wants to sell books, just like Limbaugh wants to sell ads – same cloth, different colors.

    March 5, 2009
  435. Patrick Enders said:

    Well then, I guess I’m a Christian, too. And so are an awful lot of Buddhists. Who knew?

    To heck with proselytizing… the easiest way to achieve a universal, catholic church is to redefine ‘God’ into something that everyone can agree on.

    As Lennon said, “All we need is love.”

    March 5, 2009
  436. Patrick Enders said:

    Enough talk, it’s time to sharpen those pencils and start writing letters to your State Senator:

    Same-sex marriage back at the Legislature

    The next round of the perennial battle over same-sex marriage in Minnesota was officially joined today.

    A bill that would define marriage as a civil contract between “two persons,” rather than a man and a woman, was introduced in the state Senate, sponsored by five DFL members.

    http://www.startribune.com/ (the specific link keeps getting refused by LGN)

    March 5, 2009
  437. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: As odd as it may sound, I think your analysis is accurate.

    March 5, 2009
  438. Patrick Enders said:

    David,

    Interesting.

    I assert that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is Love. Therefore, we are all devotees of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    March 5, 2009
  439. john george said:

    If I’m understanding “emperical proof” correctly, then there must be some observable characteristics before a God encounter and then some observable characteristics after the encounter, to demonstrate some type of effect as the result of the encounter. Am I correct? It is too bad none of you knew me in my college days. The before and after evidence is observable. Actually, I’m glad you folks didn’t know me in my college days. They were a shameful time in my life. I think it interesting that in Peter’s defense before the Sanhedron, he said, “I can only tell of what I have seen and heard.” This seems to indicate observable phenomina. I see it no differently today. The greatest witness of God is a changed life.

    March 5, 2009
  440. john george said:

    Anthony- Unfortunately, your generalization is not correct. My whole family patterns our lives around the Bible. This isn’t a question of who is “right”, so much as how well do we live up to the image in the Scriptures. This is not some level of performance to which we attain, or even believe we could attain it in our own strength, but we press on toward the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

    March 5, 2009
  441. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: As I stated, some people equate god with war. Does that mean that anyone who knows war also knows god?

    There is a process of philosophical discovery and argument; statements like “god is love” are meaningless to both. They equivocate the meaning of “love” and they are a non-sequiter for determining any god’s existence.

    The pope uses the rhetoric used by ‘cult’ leaders, to lure emotionally vulnerable people into their religion. Such a statement has nothing to do with empiricism and everything to do with recruitment. Why would you or the pope use the rhetoric of Jim Jones and David Koresh, and not see the rhetoric for what it is?

    Yeshua did not demonstrate unconditional love. Let’s start with Luke 14:26, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” If Yeshua did not love unconditionally, how can Yeshua be god according to you and the pope? If he did love unconditionally, we have a very different understanding of love. In any context, I would not shun a disciple because he didn’t hate his family. What an arrogant and loveless thing to say.

    Yours is a dishonest assessment of Dawkins’s interview on MPR and his ideas. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. Of course he would not deny that love exists. But you bring love and god together through equivocation — through a false claim that the two things are equal. You take something not controversial, love exists, then you take something controversial, god exists, then you equate the two and claim that Dawkins would agree.

    Dawkins has no reason to condemn a few moral theories in the Bible. There are plenty others that he condemns.

    You might be right, that Dawkins has a profit motive. That does not mean what he says is right or wrong. So are you trying to discredit Dawkins, for possibly being a capitalist, because you cannot discredit him for his ideas? I mean, if you wrote your ideas and sold them in a book, should I tell people that you are just trying to sell books?

    I wish we’d move past fallacies and into meaningful discussion. No more equivocation. No more non-sequiters. No more ad hominem.

    March 5, 2009
  442. john george said:

    Here’s an interesting link for anyone who would like to read it.

    http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000009553.cfm

    As I’ve said before, I don’t think intolerance follows any specific creed, race or profession. It is, unfortunately, a common human trait.

    March 6, 2009
  443. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not a theologian or philosopher. Nevertheless, I am sure that Dawkins would believe in “love”. But, let him prove love’s existence. You can’t see, hear, feel, taste, or smell “love”. Love, like God or the number 2, doesn’t exist as a thing occupying time and space.

    Love, God, the number 2 have no direct empirical reality. The fact they are generally believed to exist doesn’t prove their existence.

    Love exists as a concept existing only in the human mind and heart. Any description of “love” has to necessarily resort to what we consider to be empirical manifestations of the concept.

    To the extent that “love”, “God” or the number “2” clearly and completely describe an empirical concept, they are said to be “true”, not “existing”. To the extent anything occupies time and space, it is said to “exist”.

    March 6, 2009
  444. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: If being a devotee of love requires being a devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then count me as devotee of both.

    As I understand Islam, Allah has 95 names. Each name is insufficient, and complete.

    March 6, 2009
  445. Paul Zorn said:

    John:

    In reference to #424 and the National Day of Prayer.

    What’s your point?

    I’m fine with anyone praying at any time, and with the prayerful trying mightily to convince others to join in.

    But why does the process require governmental endorsement? I find this even more puzzling in light of conservatives’ usual opposition to big government … can government get any bigger than this?

    From the website:

    “The National Day of Prayer is one more reminder to the enemy that we are not willing to give up our nation,” Toon said.

    What “enemy” are we talking about here? Are atheists really seeking to steal “our nation”? Are these your views, John?

    And, while we’re at it, would you support a governmentally endorsed National Day of Puja, for our Hindu fellow citizens?

    March 6, 2009
  446. Patrick Enders said:

    Enough talk, it’s time to sharpen those pencils and start writing letters to your State Senator:

    Same-sex marriage back at the Legislature

    The next round of the perennial battle over same-sex marriage in Minnesota was officially joined today.

    A bill that would define marriage as a civil contract between “two persons,” rather than a man and a woman, was introduced in the state Senate, sponsored by five DFL members.

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/40780102.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU

    March 7, 2009
  447. john george said:

    Paul Z.- The enemy of our souls is a common enemy, Satan. He is after both the atheist and the Christian, because both are made in the image of God. Our weapons of warfare are not carnal, relying on the strength of our bodies, but might through the Spirit, to the tearing down of strong holds. These strong holds are in people’s lives, a place where our enemy tries to drag us down. The movement to remove the recognition of this day seems more mean spirited than conciliatory. This is not a holiday. The mail is still delivered and government offices are still open, so I don’t understand the opposition to it.

    As far as recognizing other religion’s particular celebrations, this is done now, so I don’t quite understand your point here. There is more and more freedom being allowed in the workplace for particular religious garb. There are separate rooms being set aside for daily religious activities. I think our country is moving closer to a religious freedom we have not necessarily had in times past. Why does a group of people now want to begin to take away recognition of Christian events only?

    March 7, 2009
  448. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    I don’t personally have much of a dog in any fight over a governmentally proclaimed national day of prayer — as long as “prayer” is construed broadly enough to encompass everything any religion might mean by the term. (Whether “atheist prayer” make sense is an interesting argument for another day. Meanwhile, perhaps the government could recommend that atheists spend the day denying, and agnostics doubting.)

    So construed, a national day of prayer seems no more controversial than, say, Arbor Day, when we all get together to appreciate trees.

    What caught my eye about your posting #424, and the site it links to, was the (in my view) overheated rhetoric about enemies and giving up the nation:

    “The National Day of Prayer is one more reminder to the enemy that we are not willing to give up our nation,” Toon said.

    You, John, identify this “enemy” as Satan, but I respectfully doubt that Mr Toon’s views are so theological. (I think he’s on about liberals.) If indeed the National Day of Prayer is, as you seem to imply, a distinctively Christian strike against a distinctively Christian Satan, then maybe the idea is more divisive and sectarian than I thought.

    Again, it’s perfectly possible — and not “intoleran” — to support and praise any particular religion’s practice of its best ideals while also opposing governmental involvement in sectarian matters.

    March 7, 2009
  449. john george said:

    Paul Z.- I can’t speak for Mr. Toon fully, as I don’t personally know him, but the intercession groups I am associated with recognize that there is a spirit behind anti-christian activities. We only desire to see the defeast of this “enemy”, for he is the enemy of all people, no matter their particular religious affiliation. When we stand in the gap, we stand for all those behind us, even those who detract us. If you are concerned about government involvement in sectarian affairs, so am I. This is why I advocate recognition of the various sects without endorsement. When people of these various sects hold government positions, which they are free to do, then I expect them to have the freedom to exercise their beliefs. That is why Rep. Elingson had the freedom to be sworn in on a copy of the Koran, even though I think it raised an uncessary flap.

    March 7, 2009
  450. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: A National Day of Prayer is divisive and offensive. People of whatever theism can pray on their own day, but there is no reason to seek governmental endorsement of it. Doing so offends people of all religions who don’t want government involved with any religion – theist and atheist.

    In my view, you can eat your cake but keep it out of government.

    March 7, 2009
  451. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I have no soul so I’m not worried about Pan (who early Christians plagiarized into Satan), and being without a soul, Pan wouldn’t want me either.

    1. There is no evidence of souls.

    2. The whole of evolution contradicts that souls can exist. Talk about irreducible complexity, the Creationists are right here. Souls could not have evolved.

    March 7, 2009
  452. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: All cognitive humans are philosophers. Some humans are professional philosophers, the rest are less than professional. You and Dawkins are philosophers, as are all members of Locally Grown.

    Love can be proven just as easily as all intangible things. Music, for example, cannot be proven by your standard. Sound can be proven, but when does sound become music? Music cannot be seen, felt, or tasted. But it can be proven. It’s proven, at least indirectly, by the reaction that some individuals make when hearing certain sounds. Love can be proven, at least indirectly, by the behaviors that some people make when experiencing different feelings. (Feelings in turn are proven psychologically, and then chemically.) While things like music and love are not physical things, there is a world of evidence that they exist.

    Even you offer that love exists in the human mind. The mind, in turn, exists in the brain. Here is the source of the empirical evidence of love, and music, but not god.

    There is no evidence that god exists, unless god is solely an emotional experience. That emotional experience exists in the brain of some people, just like love and music, but the emotional experience does not offer any evidence of god.

    March 7, 2009
  453. kiffi summa said:

    John: re: #428…You say: “the intercession group I am associated with recognizes there is a spirit behind anti-christian activities”.
    What “intercession” group? How and why do you presume to ‘intercede’ for those who feel no need of ‘intercession’?
    What ‘spirit’ behind anti-christian activities? Just a differing group of opinions or an evil sprit, what you might call a Satanic spirit? How can you continue to hide behind ‘intercession’ of your ‘good works/ thoughts’ for those who do not welcome your belief set?
    Every time you agree with a freedom principle( Keith Ellison/ Koran) you then knock it back by qualifying that it caused an “unnecessary flap”. Unnecessary in whose POV? Yours, obviously.In mine a step forward.

    The most offensive thing you constantly put forward, is not your beliefs, but your unrelenting need to oppress others with your beliefs, even though you insist it is for their own good, whether welcomed or not.
    Practice your beliefs any way you want that does not intrude on others’ free will, but keep your ‘intercessions’ within your belief system, when others have said they believe differently.
    Do you wish to convert to my belief system? I am sure the answer is a resounding “NO”. Then quit proselytizing here…even the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses leave the porch after 10 minutes.

    March 7, 2009
  454. john george said:

    Kiffi- What are you meaning by this statement, “…The most offensive thing you constantly put forward, is not your beliefs, but your unrelenting need to oppress others with your beliefs, even though you insist it is for their own good, whether welcomed or not…”? When I say I pray for you, is this in someway oppressing you? Sorry, I just don’t get it. If I practice my beliefs behind closed doors, which you advocate, you are still upset with me. If it is offensive to you that I even say I practice this, then I can’t do anything about your reactions. You are free to blast me all you want as long as it is not libelous, but I will still pray for you. I have the freedom in this country to do that.

    There are a number of groups of intercessors who are loosely connected across the country. Our call to intercession has no connection with anyone’s perceived need or not. We look at it as fulfilling a call from God. I know all this is foreign to you, and that is ok. I have no responsibility to “convert” you. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.

    Re.: the “unnecessary flap”, I’m refering to the reactions of some in the Christian community. I don’t have a priblem with Elingson taking an oath on something he believes in. I think it would be hypocritical to ask him to swear on something he does not believe in. Now, concerning those athiests who are sworn in on a Bible, I have no answer. The important thing is the commitment they make to the government and the constitution. Since there seems to be no fear of God in this country anymore, it seems a little presumptious to me to belive the person will do any differently in office whether they take an oath on a Bible or a comic book.

    March 7, 2009
  455. john george said:

    Jerry- The concept of Satan has Jewish roots, not Christian per se. I think the early artists’ renderings of Pan are incorrect and just artistic expression. If you don’t believe you have a soul, that is your perogative. There have been endless dissertations over the ages of what actually gives a body life and intellect and is somehow not there after the body dies, so I don’t have any presumptions of us getting any farther along on this in this thread. This is a whole area that is difficult to discuss emperically. Sorry if I opened a can of worms.

    March 7, 2009
  456. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Cans of worms are OK.

    Understand that with a lack of evidence, people can sure believe whatever they want to believe. I err on the side of disbelief. With contrary evidence, we ought not to believe. There being no reason for souls to evolve means that souls should not exist.

    When presenting souls and Satans to atheists is a losing approach. My first criteria for accepting the Bible is for it to be authenticated. My understanding is that it’s a marmalade of an unknowable number of writers. If I can’t determine who wrote it, then I can’t begin to determine any claim of divine inspiration. I can’t distinguish the Bible from any other book with claims of grandeur. So I offer that distinguishing the original “inspired” Bible from everything tacked onto it in the last 2000 years would be a good approach to present your beliefs to atheists.

    March 7, 2009
  457. Jane Moline said:

    John George: Poppy-cock about Satan. It is one of the big reasons that there are atheists–the absolutely ridiculous idea that a God of love could condemn any one of his children to everlasting damnation. I get mad at my kids but they don’t deserve everlasting punishment-no matter what they do.

    But you are right on regarding being “atheist friendly.” Christians who constantly see “anti-Christian” activities in the secular world are paranoid and causing much grief to others, especially atheists. It is devisive. I can’t believe how many times I have heard FALSE reports of stores banning “Christmas” greetings.

    Imposing religious laws on the general population is wrong. Witness all you want, but don’t think that you should get any support from those you are condemning and claiming to be sinners with your radical interpretations of the bible. (Just because everybody in your church agrees with you does not make you right.)

    David L, I am a moral being without being religious. I do not need the Pope to tell me what is right and wrong, and I certainly do not need a corrupted church to dictate to me that I am lesser in the eyes of the church. The treatment of women in the Catholic church is an embarassment, and because it has gone on for thousands of years, it is a thousand times worse than the pedophile priests.

    The development of radical monotheism in the modern world is an interesting study on the psychological needs of humans. The ability to transcend and develop beyond those needs is the path to enlightenment.

    All you Christians out there–are you being/doing good so that you can get into heaven? Please God? Follow the rules and laws of your religion? Or could you possibly try to be good because it is right? How will you ever know? Organized religion is great for people who cannot figure out what is right from wrong, and even then its benefits are mostly social. Otherwise, it is limiting your ability to have any “relationship” with “God.”

    March 7, 2009
  458. john george said:

    Jerry- I would never try to convince you heaven or hell, as I’m not convinced that is my responsibility. In my answer to Paul Z., since he said he is a PK, I thought he would understand where I was coming from. I err on the side of belief.

    March 7, 2009
  459. kiffi summa said:

    John: I don’t understand how you can NOT understand that your ‘intercession’ on the behalf of others whom you perceive to need it is unwanted and unwarranted. The very fact that you judge who needs it is an insult.

    What kind of arrogance assumes that you can affect another person’s life by your ‘intercession’?

    I am truly sick of the ostentatious rhetoric….. do some good…… leave other people’s lives alone lest you be guilty of judging their lives as being in need of your ‘help’……….
    Pray for World Peace…..in the broadest sense.

    March 7, 2009
  460. john george said:

    Kiffi- If you do not believe there is a God, then what effect can any of my pleadings with Him have on you? When we pray for the peace of our world, nation, state & city, we pray for everyone in it, including you. I think it would be arrogant to pray for the well being of us Christians and no one else. It rains on the just and the unjust alike.

    March 7, 2009
  461. Jerry Friedman said:

    Jane: Do you mean that the idea of Hitler, a Catholic, being in heaven, and Gandhi, a heathen, being in hell, is not a selling a point for Christianity?

    One of my friends often said that he’d rather be in hell, to join the likes of Mark Twain and Albert Einstein, rather than to go to heaven, to join King Edward I and Ted Bundy.

    The idea of Satan never made sense to me. If Satan wanted to compete with Biblegod, wouldn’t hell be even more luxurious than heaven? Instead, if Satan wanted to aid Biblegod, Satan would surely make hell a place of misery. It only makes sense to me that Biblegod and Satan are in cahoots.

    March 7, 2009
  462. Jane Moline said:

    Jerry, you would have to assume that Satan and Biblegod exist to make the logical leap that they are in cahoots.

    I believe religion is the natural evolution of a psychological need to explain our world and some of the terrible events in it. How can we even stand to live after the death of a child or other loved one if we don’t believe in a higher purpose or after life or whatever. (This is not a question–but a statement of how the religious “prove” that there is a god.) As we evolved our need for God became more complex. I don’t believe in a religious god, and find such discussions trivalize our purpose on earth. (This is really going to get all those “Purpose driven life” folks going, I know.) I think it is truly silly to discuss Hitler in heaven and Gandhi in hell when there is no heaven or hell, so I guess I missed your point.

    March 7, 2009
  463. Jane Moline said:

    John: I don’t mind if you pray for me and even appreciate it. I believe that we do have a power when we are united, and as long as you are not cursing me I appreciate your (good) wishes. Please continue to keep me in your prayers. I only see good will in such actions. You will have to live and die with your choices. If you are judging others, I think there are consequences that you face in this life, including the astrocizing of a portion of society that would enrich your life. I also think worrying about judging others is a waste of time, and a futile exercise that is bad karma for the judge.

    March 7, 2009
  464. Jerry Friedman said:

    Jane: Indeed, it’s difficult for an atheist to believe that Biblegod and Satan are in cahoots. Sometimes, to find truth, I grant another’s point of view. Assuming Biblegod and Satan exist, they are more likely doing the “good cop, bad cop” routine. They work for the same side. The same goes for very terrible Christians and very good non-Christians after life. Granting another’s point of view shows how unjust their system is.

    I agree, that theism comes from an ancient desire to explain the world without scientific methods to do so. Theism also has an element of crowd control, for better or for worse.

    March 7, 2009
  465. kiffi summa said:

    John: You said:'”I think it would be arrogant to pray for the well being of us christians and no one else. I rains on the just and the unjust alike”.

    So you are just, and others are unjust? That is the position you relentlessly espouse, that you are the just and there are others that are unjust. You give with one hand and take away with the other.
    Unless of course you would like to assume the position of the unjust……and then we can all get out our umbrellas at the same time….equally.

    And there you go again, self identifying you and yours as the only ‘christians’ !

    March 7, 2009
  466. john george said:

    Tracy- I love that link you posted. I especially like this statement by the author, “…I’m sure I’ll repeat obvious points made by thousands of biblical commentators before; I’ll misunderstand some passages and distort others—hey, that’ll be part of the fun…” Now, here’s a guy I can relate to. He is pretty transparent. That is an admirable quality in anyone, and I agree with him- digging into these writings is fun.

    March 7, 2009
  467. john george said:

    Kiffi- I’ll be under the umbrella with you. The statement about the rain is a Biblical reference, and just an observation about the world we live in. I have no justification aside from what God has done in my life, so I consider myself in need all the time.

    March 7, 2009
  468. john george said:

    Jane- Thank you. Your whole post is great, and I agree about the judgement, especially this comment, “…I also think worrying about judging others is a waste of time, and a futile exercise that is bad karma for the judge…” I try to leave that up to my Father, but we don’t have to go down that street. As it is written, blessed are the peace makers, for they shall inherit the earth.

    March 7, 2009
  469. David Ludescher said:

    420 – Jerry: Dawkins comments are confined to the narrow limits of science. He essentially defines God as an empirical thing capable of being perceived directly by the human senses. Then, he states that the thing cannot be proven to exist. With that definition of “God”, of course, God doesn’t exist.

    But, with a definition limited to the senses, “Love” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” don’t exist either.

    But, suppose I define “My God” by saying that “My God is Love”. If you admit that Love exists, then you admit that My God exists, without admitting that Dawkins’ God exists.

    March 8, 2009
  470. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: I am not suggesting that you HAVE to listen to the Pope or any other “religious” leader. In fact, in the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church are two methods to form the individual’s conscience so that the individual can make the final decision.

    The Church admits that she has been wrong before, and will continue to be wrong in the future. She is a human institution. But, through her wisdom, we can often see what is not obvious.

    For example, when 70-80% of the population was in favor of invading Iraq she spoke, through Pope John Paul II, to say that the war did not meet the Church’s requirements of a just war.

    March 8, 2009
  471. Anne Bretts said:

    Tracy, if you can’t wait to read the book, or don’t have time, you can go to Slate’s archives and read the individual entries he made during his year-long series on blogging the Bible. The entries, each of which tackles a specific book, are sometimes hilarious but always interesting — and relentless in asking the hard questions about the contradictions, inconsistencies and frustrations of an ordinary person trying to understand this extraordinary volume. Whether you believe or not, it’s a fascinating basis for conversation or reflection.

    March 9, 2009
  472. David Ludescher said:

    I have to admit that after 474 posts, I am befuddled as to what an atheist is, especially in the political context referred to by Obama.

    I have read a lot of mockery of Christianity, but I haven’t read much about all the good things that theism has inspired, such as the Catholic Church starting schools, hospitals, and charities. Nor have I read about the inspired social values, such as abhorrence of war, opposition to capital punishment, sensitivity to immigrants, and relentless pursuit of human freedoms, especially against the oppressions of communism and totalitarian regimes.

    Certainly, atheist-friendly does not have to mean anti-Christian. One reading this thread might think that that characteristic is the most important atheistic value. Further, I don’t accept the premise that atheist-friendly means that religious groups can’t campaign against or for particular secular laws.

    Obviously, from the comments herein, the issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the legal principles of marriage, and everything to do with the imposition of a particular, albeit perhaps correct, belief system. I’m fine with the imposition of a same-sex marriage law, if that is what the majority of the people desire; this is, after all, a democracy. But, it is neither rational nor fair, and is certainly not atheistic.

    March 10, 2009
  473. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Such a query is sure to inspire responses.

    After 474 posts and a hearty dictionary, I hoped that you’d understand that an atheist is everyone who is not a theist. I have told you several times that there is no single atheistic system, just as there is no single theistic system.

    Different forms (or denominations) of atheism have inspired many fine things. Siddhartha, an atheist, launched a religion based on compassion, nonviolence, and philanthropy. Atheism has beaten back the Dark Ages and the superstitions of the religious, especially once presumed claims of white superiority. Atheism has developed schools, such as Cornell Univ., founded by an atheist. Atheism has propelled science. Atheism has defended free speech. All these and other socially important things that atheism has done, were done by atheists.

    As you could surely deduce, atheism has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, except that atheism opposes the theistic oppression of homosexuals.

    While atheism per se is not against war (it depends on context), atheism is certainly opposed to theistic war. My recall of history is that most wars are directly or indirectly theistic, so that implies that atheism is against most wars, and some atheists individually are against all, some, or no wars. Classic Buddhists, naturally, are against all wars per their belief in nonviolence.

    Communism is not oppressive. Totalitarianism is.

    Are you really so hurt that some atheists mock Christianity? If you consider the horrors committed by Christians and Christian institutions over the last 2000 years, don’t you understand the source of the mockery? Christianity is much more docile now than in its past, yet we still get stories about people killed in exorcisms, abortion doctors being murdered, and anti-Jewish people killing Jews. There was even a Christian, anti-science theory being bounced around called Intelligent Design. If the Christians want to be immune from mockery, they should understand their history and atone for it.

    After 474 posts, I don’t know what you’ve learned. If you really don’t want to understand why people deny Biblegod, does that meet the definition of being atheist-unfriendly?

    March 11, 2009
  474. Jane Moline said:

    David: The atheist is natuarally opposed to religious law being imposed on others. You say you would go along with same-sex marriage being “imposed” on you–how is it “imposed” on you?

    The imposition of religious laws on the population is NOT democratic and is exactly what the Taliban has done and what some Catholics and many Christians want to do–impose their religious beliefs on society as a whole by making them into law. Same-sex marriage is just one example. Another is reproductive rights and access–especially birth control. These are emotionally-charged issues because the theists make them so.

    Keep your religious laws off my body. And my kids. And my car, dog, house, education, city government, and anything else I forgot.

    March 11, 2009
  475. David Henson said:

    Jane, there where do you stand on laws regarding incest (between adults)?

    March 11, 2009
  476. Anne Bretts said:

    The Daily Mail has an interesting story about scientists discovering what they call “the God spot” in the brain that causes faith…link text

    March 11, 2009
  477. john george said:

    Jerry F. & Jane M.- Does it really matter what particular philosophy or religious affiliation or not a particular person is affiliated with when they bring about freedom & greater liberty for all mankind? I think it interesting where William Wilberforce was coming from in his quest to abolish slavery. See this link- http://home.comcast.net/~pegbowman/BritishSaints/WilburforceWilliam.htm.
    It is not Wikipedia, either. Also, I think it is interesting that the person credited with finishing the work that Wilberforce started was the Reverend Martin Luther King. I don’t think either theists or atheists have a monopoly on positive or negative social contributions.

    March 11, 2009
  478. john george said:

    Jerry- Jesus was mocked for His stance, also. Re. your comment, “…If the Christians want to be immune from mockery, they should understand their history and atone for it…”, we believe that Jesus death and resurection was the atonement for all our sins, and also the sins of the whole world. This is the Gospel message. I can only speak for myself, here, but I do not deny the atrocities that many professed followers of Jesus have committed. I don’t deny the sins I commit in my own life, either, but I look to the One who atoned for my sins.

    Re. your comment, “…I’m fine with the imposition of a same-sex marriage law, if that is what the majority of the people desire; this is, after all, a democracy…”, it sounds similar to the passive opinion in ’30’s Germany. See what this sounds like when I just change a concept, …I’m fine with the imposition of an Arian Nation, if that is what the majority of the people desire; this is, after all, a democracy… See what can happen if no one speaks up? I think it is evident throughout history that the majority is not always right, especially if they abandon their moral roots. I believe this definition of deception- it is truth misapplied. I have been accused of doing just this in some of my posts, but I still believe I am correct.

    March 11, 2009
  479. Jane Moline said:

    Incest between adults? Is this a trick question? I don’t know–would this be a man who abandoned his family and does not know his daughter but hits on her when she is an adult and they have sex but don’t know they are related? Disgusting. Or is this a brother and sister that REALLY like each other? Disgusting. I guess it could be kind of fun to think about the scenarios but I think the answer is still DISGUSTING. What do you think about it? What does this have to do with atheism?

    March 11, 2009
  480. john george said:

    Jane- Perhaps it is like the really bad red-neck joke I heard. If a red-neck couple gets divorced, will they still be cousins? And I agree- what does this have to do with atheism?

    David- Were you responding to Jane’s last comment, “…Keep your religious laws off my body. And my kids. And my car, dog, house, education, city government, and anything else I forgot…”? This seems more Libertarian than atheist.

    March 11, 2009
  481. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: While I understand the Christian position of Yeshua dying for sins, it does not make Christianity immune from being mocked. The stereotype being Mafia hit-men murdering, then confessing their crime to be forgiven, is itself plenty of material to mock. Spanning Christianity’s doctrines and history provides even more material. Andrew White wrote a treatise called “A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.” Pick a page and you’ll find mock-worth material. There are published histories of the several popes, including the single female pope who posed as a man, the pope who like to masturbate horses, or the pope who exhumed a deceased pope to put his corpse on trial. In the last 2000 years, so many crimes and so many absurdities have come from Christianity. Surely a pious Christian can understand why Christianity is mocked.

    This must be the case, because I regularly hear Christians mocking other Christians, especially Mormons, Branch Davidians, Catholics, Lutherans, Cathars, JWs, and the rest. I hear Christians mocking Jews and Muslims, pagans and pantheists, and atheists. David mocks atheism, and that’s fine. It’s just peculiar that he complains when Christianity is mocked.

    You wrote,

    Re. your comment, “…I’m fine with the imposition of a same-sex marriage law, if that is what the majority of the people desire; this is, after all, a democracy…”, it sounds similar to the passive opinion in ’30’s Germany. See what this sounds like when I just change a concept, …I’m fine with the imposition of an Arian Nation, if that is what the majority of the people desire; this is, after all, a democracy… See what can happen if no one speaks up?

    That was David L’s comment, not mine.

    I agree with you, ‘democracy’ is not enough. We must also guard against tyranny by the majority. In a pure democracy, 51% can oppress 49%. Our civil rights are one safeguard against tyranny by the majority, so for example 99% of Minnesotans cannot oppress 1% if the oppression related to civil rights.

    March 11, 2009
  482. Jerry Friedman said:

    David and Jane: Don’t forget that several Christian denominations believe in “celestial wives”, where a man and woman are destined to be husband and wife. There is no rule against intrafamily marriage, incest, statutory rape, etc., with celestial wives. Ask Elizabeth Smart. Hence, intrafamily marriage can be found among Christians who hold this belief.

    March 11, 2009
  483. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I am delighted at contributions to “freedom & greater liberty for all [people]” regardless of the individual’s brand of theism or atheism.

    Unfortunately, Wilberforce and King had to overcome great resistance from other Christians because of pro-slavery passages in the Bible. Imagine the world if Yeshua said unequivocally that slavery is wrong. Instead, he said,

    Luke 12:45-48: “[…] And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”

    Ephesians 6:5-9: “Servants, be obedient to […] your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, […]”

    And there’s more!

    I don’t praise Christianity for the work of some Christians in abolishing race-based slavery when Christianity is largely responsible for instituting race-based slavery. I don’t credit Nazism for the few Nazis who tried to assassinate Hitler.

    March 11, 2009
  484. David Ludescher said:

    John and Jerry: I am the one who made the quote about being OK with the imposition of same-sex marriages. I majority’s will.

    It is not rational because it is not based upon any don’t think that doing so is rational or fair as it doesn’t involve a fundamental right to be free from gov’t interference, I couldn’t argue with it as a certain and measurable principle. (Two loving and committed people is a non-scientific, i.e. religious, belief.) It is not fair because it excludes certain people. At least the principle of one man and one woman has some rationality to it even if it is unfair.

    Jerry: I’m not hurt that Christianity is mocked by some. But, why do atheists feel the need to stereotype all Christians by the actions of a few? Christianity has an impeccable history over the last 2000 years.

    Your accusations against Christians could be made against any group. What about the abuses of Americans over the last 200 years? Americans have killed and enslaved Native Americans, created a slavery system with 2 of our “greatest” presidents owning slaves. Americans, and especially Abe Lincoln, started the bloodiest and nastiest war in America’s history. We don’t dismiss the accomplishments of these Americans. Certainly, the history of “Americans” is much worse and bloodier than “Christians” in America.

    March 11, 2009
  485. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: I argued for completely atheistic principles to be used in defining marriage – including doing away with marriage, letting any two people get married, and letting any number of people get married. You and others not only opposed every one of the ideas, but I was also called insulting, demeaning, irrational, and other names. You had the kindest interpretation – I can’t put my finger on why you are wrong.

    Any rational or atheistic ground for your and others opposition to these ideas escapes me. Rather, it seems that the main objections are purely political.

    That men and women copulating produce children is not a theistic belief; it is a scientific fact which every atheist has to accept as true. On this issue, it is mostly atheists, agnostic, and liberal Christians who are trying to discount this scientific fact, in favor of some other system, which appears rooted in, ironically, the same kind of non-empirical systems that atheists tend to abhor.

    March 11, 2009
  486. Anthony Pierre said:

    I am so glad this guy is saying what he is saying

    March 11, 2009
  487. David Henson said:

    Jane, the point of 443 is the democratic process (and thus religion) do legislate sexuality and “our bodies.” Where you draw the line is only an opinion not a right or a logic driven fact.

    March 11, 2009
  488. john george said:

    Jerry- I guess I didn’t make my point clear. Being a Christian does not make one immune from mocking. In fact, openly acknowledging a relationship with Jesus probably opens up more occasion for mocking than denying Him. There have always been those who try to sidestep personal responsibility for their actions. Many use religion as their cop-out. If a man’s walk does not line up with his talk, then he has some real problems. I would much prefer to relate to an atheist realist than a theist in denial.

    March 11, 2009
  489. john george said:

    Jerry- I take umbrage with this statement, “…Christianity is largely responsible for instituting race-based slavery…” Slavery was around long before Chriatianity. The whole point of being a Christian is to bring the Kingdom of God into whatever situation you find yourself, because the Kingdom is not dependent upon the person’s particular circumstances. If you look at the history of Israel, every 49 years was the year of Jubilee. It was in this year that debts were forgiven and those in slavery were set free. I think that if you check your history closely, slavery came out of the gentile cultures, not the Jewish. Abraham, considered the father of the Faith, had slaves and servants.

    March 11, 2009
  490. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I worded my statement very carefully. Slavery in Hebrew and pre-Hebrew times were not based on race. Anyone could become a slave, but normally slaves were conquered people from any “race” and poor/debtors from any “race”.

    The Portuguese Christians were the first to make “race” a basis for slavery. They used the several passages in the Bible to enslave Africans, considering them an inferior “race” that needed Christianity to save them. Arguably economics was the key factor, but for several reasons I place the blame on religion, on Christianity. Indeed, it took the several Christian institutions several centuries to condemn slavery and still you will find white Christians citing passage and verse in defense of slavery.

    March 11, 2009
  491. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I neglected to add that the characteristic that makes race-based slavery so much worse than debtor or captor slavery is that a slave cannot change her “race”. In the Hebrew and pre-Hebrew days, a debtor could earn her freedom, as could a captured person especially if a ransom was paid. The 15th century Portuguese Christians started race-based slavery, meaning there was no process for the Africans to free themselves.

    Of course I do not advocate any slavery, but I wanted to distinguish between the Hebrew and Christian institutions of slavery.

    Apparently this fits in David L’s opinion that the last 2000 years of Christianity were “impeccable”.

    March 12, 2009
  492. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I join your sentiment. I’d sooner be with a rational theist than an irrational atheist.

    March 12, 2009
  493. Jerry Friedman said:

    Anne: But they say there is no “god spot”,

    In all three cases the neural activity in the subjects’ brains corresponded to brain networks known to have nonreligious functions.

    ‘There is nothing unique about religious belief in these brain structures,’ Professor Grafman said.

    ‘Religion doesn’t have a ‘God spot’ as such, instead it’s embedded in a whole range of other belief systems in the brain that we use every day.’

    This juxtaposition with other parts of the brain helps to explain the increase of followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which coincides with the stomach-area of the brain.

    March 12, 2009
  494. Jane Moline said:

    Yes, David Henson–I just don’t want the legislation to be religious law. Like the Taliban. Like the right wing Christians want. Keep your religious laws off my body and everything else. I do not know how you equate the democratic process to religion beyond claiming that a group of religious could get themselves elected and then legislate their religion. This would be a failure of democracy. The religious minority forcing their religious beliefs on society. Like we have with same sex marriage, where a well-funded group of religious extremists want to force society to conform to their religious beliefs.

    March 12, 2009
  495. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: You said,

    Christianity has an impeccable history over the last 2000 years.

    We have very different definitions of “impeccable”.

    You said,

    Your accusations against Christians could be made against any group. What about the abuses of Americans over the last 200 years? Americans have killed and enslaved Native Americans, created a slavery system with 2 of our “greatest” presidents owning slaves. Americans, and especially Abe Lincoln, started the bloodiest and nastiest war in America’s history. We don’t dismiss the accomplishments of these Americans. Certainly, the history of “Americans” is much worse and bloodier than “Christians” in America.

    It would take a great deal of unraveling to understand the roots of the European-American genocide against native Americans. One principal factor was the Christian belief of a young Earth (~6000 years old). Under this mistaken belief, Europeans believed that native Americans were as new to the Americas as the Europeans were. Therefore, the Europeans believed that the native Americans had no greater claim to the land, so it was OK for the Europeans to take land from them.

    Another factor that I recently posted was the Catholic advocacy of slavery of Muslims (Saracens), pagans, and others. The European assault on native Americans was not solely a crime of Colonial Europeans, but of Christian Europeans. I don’t believe that the U.S. Civil War had a pervasive religious cause. Note, however, that one reason for the war was to end “race”-based slavery, a Christian-founded institution.

    Separating theism out of complex historical events is not an easy task. Suffice to say, because Christianity has been popular in European history for the last 1700 years, most major European events have directly or indirectly come from Christianity.

    March 12, 2009
  496. Jane Moline said:

    David L: the problem with your idea that atheists principals would “do away with marriage, letting any two people get married, and letting any number of people get married.” is insulting because in is stating that you know that atheistic principals are devoid of–principal. Atheists may be Buddhists or adhere to other non-theistic spritiual beliefs or be truly secularists without any religion or spritual belief system. That does not make them immoral or devoid of principal. Your argument reeks of the hubris of religion–that non-religious lack moral rules or principals because they don’t have the bible to tell them what is right or wrong. This is why your argument is insulting.

    Plural marriages exploit women. It is not in the interest of society to exploit women. Yet you continually claim that atheists who argue for the rights of same-sex couples are arguing for marriage “anarchy.” This is not true or even rational.

    Those arguing for same-sex marriage are not asking that every church or religion be forced to provide marriage services to same-sex couples. But we do expect that you will not discriminate against same-sex couples in employment, housing, and access to justice.

    The atheist is simply saying that the church should not dictate secular laws on marriage or anything else. Religion may guide you, but it should not be forced on others who do not share your belief “lifestyle.”

    March 12, 2009
  497. john george said:

    Jerry- I agree that the church in general in the past did an abysmal job in standing for righteousness. My wife and daughter have chaperoned a couple Spanish language trips to Europe. My wife’s reaction to the opulent edifices built over there was that you could see the danger in having a state religion. When you have that much power and wealth mixed together with no check or balance, the results are such as slavery and the subjugation of common peolples’ rights. The way I read the scriptures, these are not Christian principles but carnal, greedy principles. That is why I try to differentiate between having Christian moral bases for laws and governments but not having a theocracy. It has to start from the person’s heart, in my estimation. If we Christians walk in the way we are supposed to, we can be part of the check against graft and greed government.

    As far as the white supremist churches around, my opinion is that they will have to give acount for their actions. I still do not belive there is scriptural basis for their mindset anymore than the other lifestyles discussed here. My opinion is that any lifestyle that does not require selfdenial and giving to others is of questionable scriptural validity, but I know there are some in my own groups that do not quite see it that way. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not money in itself. That is a non-moral method of trade. And I believe that if you look honestly at many of the social ills in our past, you will find a connection to greed.

    March 12, 2009
  498. David Henson said:

    Jane, I would think most laws related to sexuality have religious origins. And Right Wing Christians just get one vote each. Suggesting that CA defeat of same sex marriage is not a legitimate expression of democracy just because of funding seems odd – unless you are claiming the same about Obama. My concern with the left is not so much what they want to do (although it is often silly) but that they want everything they think “is true” to be removed from the voting process. Removing issues from the voting process leads to extremism.

    March 12, 2009
  499. kiffi summa said:

    David……. You are right in that each vote (in the CA prop 8 ) is just one vote, and you are right that they have the right to spend their dollars to try to accomplish their goals….. but the scary thing is that they would WANT to spend 23 M $$ on inhibiting the rights of persons who are not harming them in any personal way.
    It’s the inhibition of other person’s rights to make primary choices in their lives that is the scary and objectionable feature of this, and especially when it is done as a result of claiming to know the will of God.

    This discussion should have been over long ago; there will be no resolve between those who believe there is right and wrong known to us as participants in a civil society, and those who believe they have the right to govern other peoples personal lives through a supposed direct communication from their accepted ‘God’.

    March 13, 2009
  500. kiffi summa said:

    This is bizarre…… I did NOT put that emoticon in my previous comment; it was a closed parens………

    March 13, 2009
  501. David Henson said:

    inhibiting the rights of persons

    You have a Right to Life, Liberty and Same Sex Marriage ?

    inhibiting the rights of persons who are not harming them in any personal way.

    This happens with parking tickets

    Honestly, the left would be better served to make their arguments to voters and stay off “the rights” mantra. California had a huge voter turnout to vote for Obama (who won … remember) and that same huge base of voters choose not to expand the defintion of marriage. Same Sex Marriage (which has all sorts of legal implications for society) lost because it did not have majority support.

    March 13, 2009
  502. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: The right to liberty includes the right to marry whom we wish (so long as a crime is not committed).

    Rights have nothing to do with parking tickets. We do not have a “right” to park in a way that violates parking laws.

    The only legal implication of same-sex marriage is to offer marriage benefits to more people. You are worried about social or religious implications, not legal.

    I think you misunderstand or misapply these concepts.

    March 13, 2009
  503. David Henson said:

    Jerry, Clearly (at least in CA) one does not “have the right to marry whom we choose” as you state. I believe your statement means “I think we should have the right to marry whom we choose.”

    I remember Robert Bork’s (your hero I am sure) nomination hearings when he was being quizzed about upholding some ban on contraceptives. An outraged senator said ‘the government can’t regulate our sex lives.’ He said ‘of course they can … do you think incest should be legal?’ (BTW: if you ever want to be a federal court justice this is not the way to accomplish that). The senator said “No.” And Bork said, “then you believe in regulating sex.” His basic point was that in a democracy these issues are decided by voting (even if one does not like the outcome). And that it is better for everyone to have the right to make their case to voters and win or lose than to make decisions by decree (court action). Because when people lose a vote they just try harder to organize but when they lose by decree they become radicalized – and that is when you get a Taliban.

    March 13, 2009
  504. Griff Wigley said:

    Kiffi,

    What happens is that the WordPress software tries to interpret certain character combinations in order to create emoticons/smilies.

    So if one types

    semicolon hyphen closedparens

    it automatically creates a winking smiley like this:

    😉

    While it’s not likely someone would use that combination in sentence, there is one that is more common and it showed up in your sentence:

    You are right in that each vote (in
    the CA prop 8 ) is just one vote

    The sequence of

    numeral 8 closedparens

    automatically creates this:

    8)

    So I fixed your comment by added a space character after the number 8.

    Apologies for the hassle.

    March 13, 2009
  505. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: We have rights even when governments wrongfully take rights away. The U.S. has an abundance of cases when a legislature has taken rights away only for those rights to be later restored. The U.S. has also historically refused to recognize rights to classes of persons; only for a later more enlightened government to recognize them.

    It is wrong to say that, for example, 150 years ago rights were given to blacks. It was not the providence of whites to give rights to blacks. Actually, blacks always had the several rights but whites refused to recognize them.

    This principle is seated in the several amendments to the U.S. Constitution, especially the 9th Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Think about what is meant by “others”.

    Marriage existed long before the U.S. and it relates back to biology-driven psychology. Most people are driven toward monogamous relationships. The natural tendency and long history are ample reasons to argue that the right to marry fits in the 9th Amendment ‘natural rights’.

    Therefore, while you say that people do not have the right to a same-sex marriage in California, I say that they do have the right and that the government is wrongfully denying the right.

    This is the perfect segue into your second point. We agree, generally the democratic process strengthens the rule of law. The fault of democracy is when it does not guard against tyranny by the majority. The way you describe it, we should have embraced the Jim Crowe laws because of their democratic establishment. If you don’t recall, courts struck down these tyrannical laws. If you defend the ban on same-sex marriage because of the democracy behind them, then you must defend segregation. Otherwise, I hope you recognize that 51%+ of prejudiced voters do not make good laws.

    According to you, we must be living in the era of the Taliban for the “activist” courts to abolish segregation. You fail to recognize that sometimes courts do the right thing.

    March 13, 2009
  506. john george said:

    Jerry- I’m not sure where you got this concept, “…The fault of democracy is when it does not guard against tyranny by the majority…” When I look up tyranny, I get this definition:
    “a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler”. How can a majority be guilty of tyranny unless there is a moral absolute that overides their decision? Seems really difficult to discuss this whole thing without relenting to some moral judgement somewhere. The big question I see is what code does a society resort to. Your argument, “…We have rights even when governments wrongfully take rights away…” could also apply to the other great debate bombshell- abortion. Here is a prime example of a group of people who have no way of exercising their right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness unless someone steps in and defends them. And it isn’t just being elegable for certain “benefits.” It is a life and death matter. And the government is the one stepping in and legalizing the forcing the “rights” of one set of people (the parents) onto this demographic.

    March 13, 2009
  507. David Ludescher said:

    Anthony: I enjoyed it also. Much of conservative Christian thought has been hijacked for political purposes. Much of what is good theology makes for poor politics; much of good politics is bad theology.

    March 13, 2009
  508. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: That’s an awkward definition of tyranny. A monarchy is a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler. A monarch can be a benevolent dictator on one end of the spectrum or a tyrannical dictator on the other. One dictionary offers this definition of tyrannical, “unjustly cruel, harsh, or severe; arbitrary or oppressive; despotic.” I suggest that you adopt that definition when considering “tyranny by the majority.”

    Imagine a society where 80% of the population is Tasmanian and they enslave, by democratic process, the other 20%. That is tyranny by the majority without there being a dictator. Of course this could never happen because there are no Tasmanians left.

    You said, “Seems really difficult to discuss this whole thing without relenting to some moral judgement somewhere. The big question I see is what code does a society resort to.”

    That is the nature of politics and the work of ethics.

    March 13, 2009
  509. john george said:

    Jerry- The definition was from Webster, so you will have to take it up with him. I don’t remember any reference to a monarchy. It seems that if a leader is going to be tyranical, he could be in that position of leadership by either election or coup. I like your definition better, “unjustly cruel, harsh, or severe; arbitrary or oppressive; despotic.” It doesn’t imply any particular political system. I believe we are talking more about cruel human behavior than political system, anyway. Cruel behavior implies a violation of a moral code, so we are back to the question of how the government defines morality and how it enforces that morality. Somewhere there must be a balance between laws that protect the common good of the majority and laws that protect the minority at the expense of the majority.

    March 13, 2009
  510. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: My understanding is that we already have that balance. Our civil rights are pretty good at preventing tyranny by the majority. Our legislative processes are pretty good at serving the majority. So the majority usually gets to do what it wants but no laws can be made to violate another’s civil rights.

    The gray area is determining some of the boundaries of civil rights. This is why I endorse same-sex marriages, because marrying one’s significant other, soul mate, life partner, poofy cat, or by whatever name, should not be prevented simply because of gender.

    March 13, 2009
  511. john george said:

    Jerry- If we have that balance now, how will granting to homosexuals the marriage rights and responsibilities now reserved for heterosexuals affect that balance? This appears to be a major shift in cultural mores. How do we know where this shift will lead us? Is there any historical record that proves this will advance our culture? What are the risks of proceeding down this road without knowing the outcome? Just wondering what you think, as I’m not sure all these questions can be answered definitively, either one way or the other.

    March 13, 2009
  512. john george said:

    Jerry & David- Perhaps we should recognize the difference between rights and priveleges. The laws regulating parking have more to do with public safety issues rather than a person’s “right” to park where he pleases. Marriage, like driving, is more of a privelege than a right. That is why both are licensed by the state. If a person cannot fulfill the requirements to earn a driver’s license, then he is not qualified to drive. If we want to approach driving as a right, then we could petition the government to allow anyone to drive in spite of his qualifications. In the case of marriage, if we approach this as a right instead of a privelege, then we have a place to petition the government to change the requirements of the laws regarding marriage, which we are in the process of trying to do. If marriage is considered a privelege, then there is precident to regulate the qualifications required to enter into this contract. This is where I take umbrage with the approach we have taken toward gender equality. It has come to the point of requiring male oriented organizations to admit women for the sheer sake of imposing gender equal rights. I just don’t agree with this reasoning.

    March 13, 2009
  513. kiffi summa said:

    John : Whenever you say “just wondering” it raises a red flag that you are either simply not agreeing … as is your absolute right … or else you’re introducing a pet subject again.
    I had gone away from this discussion, finding it fruitless, and now having returned and read a bit, I see you have once again added one of your two favorite topics, abortion. ( 454.1 ) Please, please, do not convolute this thread with that issue.
    Also in 454.1 you say that we must resort to “some moral judgement somewhere” … why do you think the people speaking here are not functioning from a position of moral judgement; I would prefer the term ‘moral evaluation’, but the term was yours … and that is where the continual problem lies … with judgement. “Smacks of the pulpit” as Benjamin Franklin would say.

    Can you allow others the freedom to determine THEIR moral evaluation? Just wondering …

    March 14, 2009
  514. David Henson said:

    No rights belong to the government. All rights, known or imagined, reside with individuals and through the democratic process we relinquish certain of those rights in favor of a civil society. Certain rights cannot be relished even through the democratic process. Marriage does not fall into the category. If tomorrow by vote society decided to no longer legally recognize the institution of hetro marriage that would not impinge on my civil rights. Therefore not recognizing ‘same sex marriage’ does not impinge on any’ civil rights.

    March 14, 2009
  515. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: The balance I speak of is letting the majority change society but not to violate a ‘minimum standard’ called civil rights. So the process has balance; the substance does not. There are several legal injustices that still need to be fixed.

    The prohibition of same-sex marriage is a substantive injustice that the process needs to fix.

    March 14, 2009
  516. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you.

    In Loving v Virginia (1967), the Court recognized the “fundamental freedom” of marriage when Virginia prosecuted a white man and black woman for marrying.

    In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court declared that marriage is a “fundamental right”.

    March 14, 2009
  517. David Henson said:

    Jerry, none of those cases are saying voters cannot retract the preformatted “marriage contract.” My free speech rights are the same in Minnesota as in Florida. Marriage differs by state and the law is changed over time so it cannot be seen as a “fundamental right.”

    March 14, 2009
  518. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I wish that you’d research these laws before stating your incorrect understanding of them. People have a basic right of “free speech” in all states. However, some states give greater free speech rights in several circumstances. Unlike most states, in California, the Pruneyard case gives free speech rights on private property under certain circumstances. So it is incorrect for you to say that your free speech rights are identical in the whole nation. You have a basic right that is identical, but some states grant more.

    In that same context, all people have a “fundamental right” to marry. The federal gov’t and the states may not take that right away. Like free speech, they can enumerate what illegal conduct is and prohibit that type of marriage. Prohibiting illegal free speech or illegal marriage is not taking the right of free speech or marriage away, assuming the criminalizing is not oppressive. Prohibiting same-sex marriage is oppressive.

    March 15, 2009
  519. David Henson said:

    Jerry, You don’t go down to the courthouse and get a “free speech certificate” and society is under no obligation to grant one … however you are free to speak your mind. You are also free to pair up but no civil rights would be violated if society voted to stop handing out “marriage certificates.” People are always free to enter into agreements and churches could provide whatever title they choose for people’s unions. You have only convinced me the the government should not be in the business of granted titles of “married” to anyone but not that the definition should be expanded to same sex couples.

    March 15, 2009
  520. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Actually, for some free speech activity, you will need a permit. For example, protests that may cause havoc with traffic (such as marching in the streets) need to be permitted.

    For some types of marriage, no certificate is required. In Washington D.C., common law marriage requires no certification from the government.

    So some marriages require certification, some don’t. Some free speech requires certifications, some doesn’t. And in both cases, the gov’t cannot take a fundamental right away.

    If it’s OK in your opinion for a church to provide whatever title they choose for people’s unions, why do you not support some churches recognizing marriage for same-sex couples? There could be a Harvey Milk Church, for example. If the state recognizes marriages of churches (as it does presently), shouldn’t the state also recognize marriages from the Harvey Milk Church, so long as the married relationship is not criminal?

    March 15, 2009
  521. David Henson said:

    Jerry, I have no objection to churches recognising any type of union they wish. Unlike you, I don’t see the state needing to get deeper into family and church issues … if there is a fairness issue then back the state out. I think you want the state to say same sex relationships are morally equal and then get schools to teach that to the kids of people who disagree – I disagree with the state taking on that roll (on any issue).

    March 15, 2009
  522. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: But the state declares that people of all “races” are equal, and can intermarry; people of all ages are equal, and generally at 18+ (when there is no real fear of exploitation), they can marry; people of all religions are equal, and can intermarry, etc.

    But now you want the state to say that people of different genders are not equal, or different sexual orientations are not equal? That’s the logic I just don’t understand.

    March 15, 2009
  523. john george said:

    Kiffi- Sorry to open up a rabbit trail. Your term “moral evaluation” is better than my use of “judgement”. I interchange the meanings of these words in my context, but I see how evaluation defines my meaning without the overtones of condemnation, which I do not mean.

    I think there is evidence of moral evaluations in regards to the direction any society goes. The question I raise is what foundation these moral evaluations are based on. When I asked Jerry what he thought, I was doing only that. I appreciate his perspective on these matters, as it is different than that to which I am normally exposed. I am not privey to them unless I ask him, and he is always gracious and succinct in his answers to me. And, some of the questions I raised in my post 455 are, as I stated, difficult to answer definitively. Philosophers have been debating some of these issues for years.

    March 15, 2009
  524. john george said:

    Jerry- I think David raises a valid point in his comment, “…I think you want the state to say same sex relationships are morally equal…”, and I think this is perhaps the crux of the debate we are waging. I’m not sure you personally are advocating the moral equivalency of these relationships, but some of us on the Christian side interpret much of what is said from the gay community to mean this. Is it possible to have “equal rights” without having “equal morality?” And if not, where does our option of our Biblical interpretation put us in regards to the law? That is the question I have not heard answered yet.

    March 15, 2009
  525. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I am advocating the moral equivalency of opp’-sex and same-sex marriages. Further, I advocate that the state should not care nor inquire about the gender of people who seek to marry.

    There are ample Biblical verses that claim genders are morally unequal, “races”/tribes/etc. are morally unequal, and that children are morally inferior to adults. These moral evaluations are utterly rejected in our secular state. Similarly, I advocate that viewing same-sex relationships (and marriages) as morally unequal be utterly rejected by our secular state.

    Religious beliefs about the inequality persons should be kept out of state policy.

    March 15, 2009
  526. kiffi summa said:

    Yes of course it is possible to “have equal rights without equal morality”. The government can afford equal rights to all persons; what those persons DO with those, or operate under those equal rights, may lead to evaluations of the morality of their actions.

    March 16, 2009
  527. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry and Kiffi: Under the American Constitution, the government cannot give any “rights”. The rights in the Constitution are intended to be inalienable freedoms that the government cannot abridge – ever.

    In that sense, there is a freedom to live in a loving and committed relationship with whomever you want. In fact, even the Catholic Church encourages people to live in loving and committed relationships.

    The real question in the marriage debate is whether we are going to interject the term marriage with meaning and value based upon our shared “beliefs” about what marriage should be, or if we are going to keep going down the path of “civil rights” until everyone and anyone can be married.

    To that end, I think that atheists should be the most capable of coming up with a definition that is meaningful and sensible. They don’t have the religious “baggage” to cloud their thinking.

    March 16, 2009
  528. Patrick Enders said:

    On the original topic of Atheism…

    For those interested, MPR is currently discussing survey data on religious affiliation (it’s down a bit). it has included a brief discussion of 2003 survey data that Atheists are the least-welcomed / least-“one of us” group in the U.S. – reflected in answers to questions of whether various minority groups “share your values,” “would you vote for,” and “would you approve of your child marrying one?” questions.

    March 16, 2009
  529. kiffi summa said:

    David: quoting from the Declaration Of Independence : ” We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

    John: please take note of the endowment “by their Creator” …

    All: please note the capitals on “Rights” which is accurate to the original …

    David: Please note that “Rights” ARE stated in the Declaration of Independence; I will further research your claim as to “rights” not being given by the Constitution.

    March 16, 2009
  530. Jerry Friedman said:

    There is a split of opinion on the status of “rights”. I tend to favor David L.’s more precise explanation that humans have certain human/civil rights, also called natural rights, and the government cannot abridge them. Even so, the government routinely abridges them, but at least the status of “right” makes them hard to abridge. (We have a right to life, but a police officer who mistakenly shoots a person, believing the person is a criminal, may not be held accountable for murder. Our right to life isn’t worth anything in a lot of circumstances.)

    The other opinion is that the government bestows human/civil rights. In this case, it would be argued that whites gave blacks the rights to life and liberty when they were emancipated. As I stated previously, I oppose this position philosophically.

    Some rights can be given by government. Inheritance rights, for example, are entirely legislated from governments past and present. The civil rights of equal treatment and even voting are probably not natural. I don’t conceive that a natural right prevents an anti-white restaurant owner from serving me. Instead, our society has deemed it in society’s best interest to have equal treatment. And I can’t conceive of a natural right to vote.

    Kiffi: Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. It does, however, give us a clue to some of the meaning of the Bill of Rights. With the Declaration as a reference, judges and juries can better interpret the Bill of Rights, and legislatures can create new laws in its theme. I trust that long after the Framers of the Constitution died, several of the Constitutional amendments and other laws were written with the spirit of the Declaration.

    March 16, 2009
  531. David Henson said:

    Jerry you vastly over simplfy history saying things like “whites enslaved blacks.” Specific ‘whites’ bought slaves from slave owning ‘blacks’ and brought them to America to replace white slaves. What this has to do with same sex marriage is beyond my understanding.

    The importation of white servants
    under contracts known as indentures
    proved more profitable as a short-term
    labor source than enslaving Indians or
    using free labor. Eventually, the
    final attempt to ease labor shortages
    was enslavement of Africans. Wherever
    you find slavery, you first find
    indentures

    http://www.geocities.com/nai_cilh/servitude.html

    March 16, 2009
  532. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: The fact that people don’t share the atheists values doesn’t mean that they are the least welcomed. It just means that the fewest people associate with atheists.

    Part of the problem may be that atheists are often perceived as intolerant and uncompromising on many social and political issues. For example, on Christmas the public square can’t have a manger scene celebrating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth; but, we can have lots of fictional characters, like Santa Claus. We have a national holiday for Martin Luther King; but, we don’t mention that he was a reverend or that his vision was deeply religious.

    Atheists could go a long way to improving their image by being tolerant of others’ beliefs, and giving credit where credit is due. Guys like Richard Dawkins give atheists a bad name, just like Jerry Falwell gave Christians a bad name, and the 9/11 terrorists gave Islam a bad name. We need to focus upon those common values which we all share, regardless of our religious or irreligious beliefs.

    March 16, 2009
  533. Jane Moline said:

    Although some atheists may be intolerant, I don’t think they are at all intolerant as a group. There are plenty of religious displays during the Christmas holidays, and plenty of religious music taught in the public schools. Most atheists are not offended. I have Jewish friends, however, that have expressed dismay at their constant bombardment by Christmas and its commercial exploitation.

    It is typically the religious that are intolerant of those that differ-so don’t blame the atheists.

    I do get tired of the “under God” addition to the pledge of allegience and tell my kids that they do not have to say those words.

    Richard Dawkins gives atheists a bad name?

    March 16, 2009
  534. David Henson said:

    Jerry, you keep bring up “whites” and “slavery” and I think its important to mention that over half ‘the whites’ in the original colonies were indentured servants – or effectively slaves. As this group pushed for freedom a switch was made by those men involved in slavery to importing ‘black slaves’ from black slave owners. Whether you mean to or not you tend to portray a “bad white men” popular caricature that lacks understanding of the historical times. None of this really relates to homosexual rights except to the degree that nation building requires labor and most frontier nations frown upon relations that do not lead to more laborers.

    March 16, 2009
  535. john george said:

    Jerry- I’m curious about the references you are refering to in this comment, “…There are ample Biblical verses that claim genders are morally unequal, “races”/tribes/etc. are morally unequal, and that children are morally inferior to adults…” Perhaps I have missed something in my studies, but I am not familiar with your references. Jesus taught that unless we becdome as a little child, we cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Both Paul (the Apostle) and Peter teach that we husbands are to live with our wives as equals, and even lay down our lives for them. Doesn’t sound like domination or inferiority on any level to me.

    March 16, 2009
  536. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: Politically, there issues for which atheists seem quite intolerant. If Muslims don’t want alcohol in their cabs, why make any issue of it? If they go broke, then it wasn’t a good idea. If Mormoms want to spend millions to defeat a same-sex marriage proposal, isn’t that their right?

    On other issues, like same-sex marriage, where atheist perspectives could lend more clarity, atheists seem more intent on being anti-religious than scientific and logical.

    In the end, if being atheist-freindly means trying to appease every complaint of atheists, then I guess that I am not atheist-friendly. Fundamental atheism is as bad as fundamental theism in the public sphere.

    March 17, 2009
  537. Jerry Friedman said:

    David H: A ‘red herring’ is leading an argument away from its point. My point was not to give a history lesson on the difference between indentured servitude, where one would be released after a period of years, and slavery, where one was permanently enslaved. Your red herring adds nothing to my argument.

    Pertaining to rights theory, some people believe that the black slaves were given rights by whites. I oppose this theory. Humans have ‘natural’ rights, including a right to associate, which is where the fundamental right to marry comes from. The emancipation of blacks and other enslaved people recognized their rights that were institutionally ignored. Similarly, the fundamental right of some people to marry whom they choose is being ignored when same-sex marriage is prohibited. The history of indentured servitude is wholly irrelevant to this argument.

    March 17, 2009
  538. Jerry Friedman said:

    Red herring.

    March 17, 2009
  539. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: I heard some of this when it was broadcast. The people speaking on the subject seemed direly concerned that fewer people associate with organized religion. They reported that increasing percentages of the population call themselves spiritual, nondenominational or nonreligious. Their dire concern may be a delay of Voltaire’s prediction. Two hundred years ago, Voltaire said that Christianity had 100 years until it extinguished itself.

    I also recall them saying that many people call themselves a member of whatever religion, because they were raised in that religion or went to that church, but they don’t practice that religion any longer. These nonpracticing theists might actually be atheists who haven’t lost their emotional connection to the theist label. I imagine that there are a lot of people like this.

    March 17, 2009
  540. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I recall passages about parents stoning children who curse at them, indicating parents as morally superior. I recall Samarians being stoned to death, including children and unborn, because the adults didn’t recognize the Hebrew god, which has racial superiority/inferiority connotations. I recall passages about women not being allowed to speak in the church, indicating men as morally superior, not to mention the claim that men are the ‘head’ of women as Yeshua is the ‘head’ of men. Witches are to be burned. I can cite chapter and verse if you’d like, but all these things and more are in the Old and Older Testaments.

    March 17, 2009
  541. David Henson said:

    Jerry, I agree the whole comparison of race to sexual orientation is a red herring. The two have far more differences that similarities. But you choose to introduce the comparison and using broad terms like “white people.” BTW: Many blacks earned their freedom and many indentured servants did not … again using Disney history serves no interests. My own family is white, has been in the US (and southern US) since colonial times and never owned slaves. My understanding is most of this trade was conducted by a very specific class of Dutch, French and Jewish traders.

    March 17, 2009
  542. kiffi summa said:

    Here’s some great news from the Associated Press today: An official from the Obama administration reports that the United States will sign the United Nations’s Declaration for the Decriminalization of Homosexuality which former President Bush refused to sign this past December, when he put the US in the humiliating position of being the ONLY Western Gov’t refusing to sign.

    Now only the Vatican, and the Islamic nations have refused to sign this Human Rights declaration.

    The AP report states that the Obama administration official also says: “in the words of the Supreme Court of the United States, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation ‘ has been accepted as an integral part of Human freedom’. “.

    March 18, 2009
  543. Patrick Enders said:

    Kiffi,
    That’s a nice statement to hear. It’s nice that we no longer have a president who finds that idea controversial.

    March 18, 2009
  544. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: Is there any practical significance to the United Nations Declaration? Is the Vatican’s opposition based upon the principle of subsidiarity (that sovereign nations have the right to decide their own laws)?

    March 18, 2009
  545. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    You seem to be consistently conflating “atheist” with anyone who disagrees with someone’s faith-based beliefs and actions.

    You have presented no evidence that the opposition to discriminating taxi drivers came mainly from atheists.

    You have presented no evidence that atheists are the guiding force behind opposition to Christian holiday displays. (On that matter, it is my understanding that Christian displays are fine legally – as long as displays from other belief systems are also allowed in an equal manner when requested. As an agnostic who often doubts the existence of god(s), I am fine with that.)

    You have also presented no evidence that atheists, as a whole, are any more intolerant than Christians, as a whole, or indeed any more intolerant than any other group.

    If you can prove that Atheists, as a group, are consistently intolerant, then you might have a point. Personally, my experience with Atheists is that they mostly keep their mouths shut about their beliefs.

    Finally, as Jane asked, what has Richard Dawkins done that “gives Atheists a bad name”? I’m asking sincerely; I’ve seen him regularly denounced by outraged Christians, but I haven’t heard much out of his mouth that seems all that terrible. (Admittedly, I haven’t really heard him much on the subject. I’m mostly familiar with his popular-science writings, such as the excellent “The Blind Watchmaker.” I just picked up a copy of his book “The God Delusion” – primarily so I can find out what all the fuss is about, without having it filtered through religious talking heads.)

    March 18, 2009
  546. Patrick Enders said:

    David, a bit of googling reveals that the Vatican’s opposition seems to mostly be about… gay marriage:

    “The Vatican specifically objected to the declaration’s use of the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” which it said had no established meaning in international law.

    According to an editorial in the official Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, these terms “imply that sexual identity is defined only by culture,” and their use in the declaration are part of an attempt to “equate same-sex unions with marriage and to give homosexual couples the chance to adopt or `procreate’ children.”
    http://ncronline.org/node/2935

    March 18, 2009
  547. kiffi summa said:

    David : the practical significance to the UN Declaration is the importance of the concurrence of opinion of the nations of the western world, i.e. their agreement on this issue.

    I lost the link, as it is now gone off the current news site where I saw it; I do not want to say why the Vatican denied its signature without checking/reading it again.
    However, I do remember the reason the Islamic nations gave : because it would, in their opinion, encourage pedophilia and incest. Sounds like some of the comments we have experienced here. I doubt that would have been the Vatican reasoning, given the history of priests with problems involving child abuse… and that is not meant to be a ‘monolithic’ opinion of Catholic priests.

    I also want to make clear that I do not consider the believers of Islam to be a ‘monolithic’ group; as in all religions, some are more rigid, or what I might term fanatic, than others.

    But I might ask you, David, if the Vatican does not wish to go along with the tenets, the principles of the United Nations, because of a feeling that only they ( Vatican ) will establish their laws, or guiding principles, then the Vatican would not be a member of the UN, would they?
    I had assumed they participated to be seen as an active member of a group of world leaders.

    March 18, 2009
  548. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi and Patrick: Patrick’s link states that only 66 of 192 nations voted in favor of the resolution.

    Further, the Vatican was in favor of decriminalizing homosexual behavior, and would have voted in favor of the resolution but for the resolution’s far-reaching definitions that lacked any definition in international law.

    The French representative who brought forth the resolution stated that the declaration had only “symbolic import”. Part of the Vatican’s concern was that the rich and powerful nations would use the resolution to force beliefs upon the remaining nations.

    Lastly, it appears that Obama is without authority to overturn the United States vote. The vote has already been taken, and the President is not the person entitled to vote.

    I didn’t actually find the Vatican’s press release. But, I did find a lot of hateful language against the Vatican. I wonder how many people have read the actual statement, and how many are relying upon stereotypes or misconceptions about the Vatican.

    March 18, 2009
  549. john george said:

    Patrick- Here is an interesting commentary written by my son regarding how popular opinion and democracy interact. What he is basically saying is that there needs to be some standard to analyze particular social actions other than public opinion. His specific examples have to do with the bailout and the “octomom”, but I think he has some valid points about the reasonings behind defending gay marriage we are talking about here.

    “Who defends right and wrong?

    One of the reasons that this nation was created as a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy is that public opinion does not always reflect the right course of action.

    Take AIG for instance. A company that is deeply mired in the economic downturn decides to honor its contract obligations with its employees in spite of its financial difficulties and the people cry “Foul!”. Oh “but this money is coming from the taxpayers and they are the ones that ruined the economy” the people cry! Well when the federal government began bailing out AIG, we the people assumed responsibility to fulfill ALL of the financial obligations they couldn’t meet. Are we now going to commit an injustice and violate their employee contract obligations? If we do, it sets a dangerous precedent for our society. The only way we could righteously avoid paying these bonuses would be for the recipients to voluntarily relinquish their right to claim them. But unfortunately our elected officials are reinforcing an unjust public opinion.

    Or consider the octomom. She decided to give all six of her remaining embryonic children a chance to continue living by having them implanted into her uterus; refused to “cull” any of them; gave birth to eight children and the people cry “Unethical!”. It may be unconventional but it is far from unethical. She willingly chose the parental sacrifices incurred by multiple births in order to preserve life instead of destroy it, and the people are outraged and call it wrong? Now some state legislatures are trying to make this illegal.

    How has our nation become so misguided? When will we elect leaders who have the integrity to defend the right course of action even when it defies public opinion? Will we choose to allow the whims of public opinion to continue defining right and wrong for us? Lord help us if we do.”

    From this, the argument could be made that past oppression of gay marriage has been an unjust imposition of public opinion, unless, of course, the last few thousand years of human history have possibly been correct. This is where we need an outside source or standard for moral evaluation.

    March 18, 2009
  550. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I don’t see how your post addresses me exactly. Did my linked article contain “hateful language against the Vatican,” or rely “upon stereotypes or misconceptions about the Vatican”? Has anything I have ever written done either of these things?

    March 18, 2009
  551. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I agree that “popular” does not equal “right.” The trick is – even though you and I agree more than we disagree on what constitutes “right” morality, we would be hard-pressed to agree on the source of that morality.

    As a purely practical matter (what “is” rather than what “should be”), what is “right” – or at least legal – is determined by the complex interplay of our legal heritage, our Constitution, our various governmental institutions, and the personal opinions and voting habits of our citizens. So yes, “popularity” does have a role, but all those other institutions tend to check the whims of popularity.

    It’s not a perfect system, but it does a pretty good job of eventually coming up with rules that nobody is entirely happy with, but which seem to allow most of us to coexist reasonably peaceably. The best thing is that it doesn’t require us to agree on a source or unifying principle for our personal beliefs and morals.

    March 18, 2009
  552. Bruce Anderson said:

    David,
    In comment 466.4 you stress that

    only 66 of 192 nations voted in favor
    of the resolution.

    True. However, a brief perusal of the list of 66 nations supporting the resolution, and the list of 57 nations supporting an opposing statement (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_declaration_on_LGBT_rights#cite_note-pinknews-art-3) leaves me even more grateful for President Obama’s reversal of course on behalf of the US.

    I think the majority of Americans would prefer to side with such countries as Canada, Mexico, all 27 European Union member nations, Australia, New Zealand and Japan (all signatories of the declaration) on matters of human rights and conscience, rather than with such countries as Nigeria, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea (among signatories of the opposing statement). If you choose the contrary, so be it.

    March 18, 2009
  553. john george said:

    Patrick- Yep, you are right. No system is perfect, nor can it please everyone all the time, but ours does work pretty well. I certainly don’t want to see it replaced.

    March 18, 2009
  554. kiffi summa said:

    As I stated initially, my comment was based on the Associated Press release, which stated that 70 nations had now signed. My comment was based on the opinion of most of the western world, as expressed by their approval of the UN’s Declaration.
    I understand your issue about ‘Law’; I am also interested in ‘guiding principles’ developed by an assembly of world leaders. In this case as you point out, not a majority, but certainly a majority of those with whom most Western values are shared.
    Sorry about the hateful statements about the Vatican; I saw nothing but the AP report, and read no further on the subject; unfortunately the Catholic Church has placed itself in a difficult place with regards to the actions of some priests, as well as having legitimate pride in the actions of other of its Priests, and I am thinking now of political martyrs, most recently in Central and South America.
    Since it was not approval of a law, as you point out, possibly they could have issued a qualified approval of this human rights issue, explaining their concern, rather than not signing at all?

    March 19, 2009
  555. Jerry Friedman said:

    Kiffi: That’s a potent example of “tyranny by the majority”, where the majority of nations are apparently tyrants against homosexuals and the U.S. is (recently) in the conscientious minority. The U.N. tries to be effective in assuring a minimum human rights standard; thankfully the U.S. civil rights laws are so much better.

    If some people praise democracy even when most people are superstitious on some issues, human rights will suffer.

    Civil rights leaders, like David L’s oft-cited Martin Luther King, know that the minority position is sometimes right, and that the minorities need protection from the majority’s unwillingness to change.

    March 19, 2009
  556. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: I haven’t found the Vatican statement, only exerpts. From the excerpts, it appears that the Vatican gave qualified disapproval.

    I understood that the Vatican said that any discrimination and especially violence, against homosexuals because of their orientation is wrong.

    I think that the Vatican’s objections were directed at language that “created” new human rights, rather than just recognizing the existing rights.

    If I am qualified to accept your apology to the Vatican, then it is accepted. If you could find the link to the actual statement, maybe we could look at it together. It appears that the Vatican may be in position to barter a compromise position.

    March 19, 2009
  557. kiffi summa said:

    David : I laughed out loud at your statement about your accepting my “apology to the Vatican” … it is my impression that the Vatican state will little care nor long remember what is said on Locally Grown in Northfield MN!

    March 19, 2009
  558. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: I’m glad that you got a kick out of it. I found the Vatican statement; I can’t figure out how to paste it in.

    The concluding paragraph states, “The Holy See continues to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal penalties against them.”

    I wouldn’t classify that statment as an anti-gay statement.

    March 20, 2009
  559. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: It’s anti-gay if the statement you posted does not reflect the Vatican’s whole policy of homosexuals, and if the Vatican’s whole policy treats homosexuals differently than heterosexuals.

    However, I agree that of the Vatican’s policies over the last 2000 years, that statement you posted is pretty progressive for what I’ve become accustomed to.

    March 20, 2009
  560. Jerry Friedman said:

    Evidence that the Catholic Church has learned nothing in the last 2000 years. Joseph Alois Ratzinger becomes the latest pope, then instead of teaching Catholics that “sorcery” is a myth, he condemns it, and tells Catholics to convert non-Christians to Catholicsm? And he lauds the Portuguese enslavers as ‘building a bridge’ between Christians and Africans?

    His behavior is reprehensible. It’s far from impeccable. I thought the Dark Ages were over. I look forward to the day when the papacy is abandoned for lack of followers.

    Pope condemns sorcery, urges Angolans to convert

    By VICTOR L. SIMPSON – 3/21/09

    LUANDA, Angola (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI appealed to the Catholics of Angola on Saturday to reach out to and convert believers in witchcraft who feel threatened by “spirits” and “evil powers” of sorcery.

    On his first pilgrimage to Africa, the pope drew on the more than 500 years of Roman Catholicism in Angola, saying that Christianity was a bridge between the local peoples and the Portuguese settlers.

    “In today’s Angola,” the pope said in a homily at Mass, “Catholics should offer the message of Christ to the many who live in the fear of spirits, of evil powers by whom they feel threatened, disoriented, even reaching the point of condemning street children and even the most elderly because — they say — they are sorcerers.”

    In Africa, some churchgoing Catholics also follow traditional animist religions and consult medicine men and diviners who are condemned by the church. People accused of sorcery or of being possessed by evil powers sometimes are killed by fearful mobs.

    Benedict counseled Catholics to “live peacefully” with animists and other nonbelievers and urged Angolans to be the “new missionaries” to bring people who believe in sorcery to Christ.

    March 21, 2009
  561. David Henson said:

    Jerry, the Catholics are not promoting sorcery and likely do not believe in it. But many Africans do believe in witchcraft and these beliefs are the cause of many killings. A friend of mine, Simeon Mesaki, received his PhD at the U of MN studying ‘witchcraft in Africa’ and how to end the beliefs. When someone gets sick in one village with what we know to be organic that village will go kill people in another village say they caused the illness with sorcery. Monothesism advanced civilization by promoting an ideology where all humans were equal by being so insignificant relative to God.

    March 21, 2009
  562. She willingly chose the parental
    sacrifices incurred by multiple births
    in order to preserve life instead of
    destroy it, and the people are
    outraged and call it wrong?
    [from 467.1]

    The sacrifices she chose weren’t only hers to bear: by agreeing to implant so many, she compelled her unborn children to suffer the possibly lifelong effects (if they survive) of a compromised prenatal environment and compels all of her children to suffer the hardships of too little parental attention, even if material resources are sufficient thanks to the generosity of others (on whose generosity she had no right to count). That, in many people’s eyes, was not an ethical “choice” — it has caused and will cause suffering that would not occur had she not made that choice. Unimplanted fertilized eggs do not suffer. Children do.

    March 21, 2009
  563. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Have you read what the Pope actually said? And, for your information, there are no “followers” of the Pope; rather, he is a servant of the Catholic Church.

    March 21, 2009
  564. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Only as much as I’ve read in the papers, like this from the New York Times,

    On the flight from Rome to Africa, Benedict had renewed the church’s objection to the use of condoms as a prevention against AIDS, going so far as to say the precaution actually “increases the problem” of H.I.V. infection.

    I’d rather the pope tell his followers that sorcery is a myth, rather than tell them to convert anyone. In this way, it’s not the Catholics vs. the Witch Doctors, but it’s realism vs. superstition. The former is more likely to cause intolerance, violence and killings, as the last 2000 years have shown.

    March 22, 2009
  565. kiffi summa said:

    Dare I say : AMEN!

    March 22, 2009
  566. kiffi summa said:

    David : no “followers” of the Pope; “rather he is a servant of the Catholic Church” ???
    The role of the Pope as a “servant” of his world wide parishioners could create the longest thread ever seen on LG!
    The unworldly splendor in which he lives and pontificates … if he is a “servant to the Catholic Church” can only prove “how hard it is to get good ‘help’ nowadays”.
    I could care less if that is how his flock sees him, as a servant to the church; but I need enlightenment on this point. I thought the Pope was revered as God’s highest representative on Earth, that then being the reverence visually proffered by the splendor of his environment and raiment.

    March 22, 2009
  567. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry and Kiffi: Until you read the actual source material, it probably is not productive to discuss your criticisms. It might be productive to discuss why atheists (and others) feel justified in being critical of various theist propositions without having any direct knowledge. I think that is the definition of prejudice (pre-judging).

    March 22, 2009
  568. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: No. The question is not about pre-judging/prejudice, but of the quality of evidence. The newspaper reports are ‘evidence’ that may or may not be complete enough to make a judgment.

    Sure, the journalists may have left out context. Journalists often do. And sometimes journalists are successful at cutting to the heart of the matter.

    In either case, it’s not prejudice. It’s making a judgment based on the report. The report I’ve read is grim: ratifying belief in witchcraft, endorsing missionary-style conversion, condemning the use of condoms.

    If you have supplemental or contrary evidence, something that shows more of what he said that didn’t make it into the newspapers, I’m willing to read it.

    March 22, 2009
  569. David Henson said:

    Jerry, you are totally misreading that witchcraft issue. The Africans are killing each other over witch craft and the Catholic Church it trying to get them to stop.

    The position on condoms is that they have been handed out for quite a while and AIDS is increasing not decreasing. I don’t know enough about the problem but the position is more reasonable than you seem to accept. This is actually true in Washington DC also and maybe other areas of the US. You and Patrick are big on evolution yet you seem to discount the enormous power of social evolution leading to behavior standards like monogamy.

    March 22, 2009
  570. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Victor Simpson’s report doesn’t say anything about ratifying belief in witchcraft or endorsing missionary-style conversion.

    The cause of atheism is not furthered by unfair and uninformed attacks against others, such as those leveled in the marriage debate, or charges against the Pope.

    March 22, 2009
  571. Jerry Friedman said:

    David H: Opinions vary.

    David L: Ratzinger expressing that those who participate in witchcraft should be converted to Catholicism ratifies the Catholic position that witchcraft exists, and provokes Catholics to convert them to Catholicism.

    Here is one key paragraph, which I already posted:

    Benedict counseled Catholics to “live peacefully” with animists and other nonbelievers and urged Angolans to be the “new missionaries” to bring people who believe in sorcery to Christ.

    I am not trying to further the cause of atheism and it’s unfortunate if that’s how you interpret it. Ratzinger is perpetuating superstition and repeating a call for missionary-style conversion that has abominable historical roots within the Catholic church. I am criticizing him for doing these. Criticizing an authority figure does not mean that the critic has an ulterior motive.

    Had Ratzinger said, “People who believe in sorcery and witchcraft are superstitious. Sorcery and witchcraft are gimmicks used to control or comfort people. Don’t hate them, don’t hurt them, but educate them,” I would have no objection.

    March 23, 2009
  572. kiffi summa said:

    David L: If you read correctly, you will see I was only commenting on your correction re: “followers” vs “servant” with reference to the Pope.
    I did not comment on his statement ( various references to Africa ) because I did not read it.
    Please do not include me in on comments I did not make, seemingly because you think I might agree with those comments.

    March 23, 2009
  573. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I think that the Pope was counseling Catholics to be tolerant of others’ beliefs (“live peacefully”). Moreover, he was advising Catholics to reach out (“be new missionaries”) to show animists and sorcerers that there is a better way.

    It strikes me that telling people that their belief system is superstitous, and that they need “education” is intolerant and impractical. What would you replace it with? Atheism? Rationalism? Pragmatism? Relativism? Historicism? Scienticism? Eclecticism? Christinanity? Buddism? Islam? Judaism?

    One of the raps against atheism, which I believe is well-founded, is that atheism considers itself intellectually superior. It mocks or dismisses others’ beliefs in an attempt to demonstrate its worthiness. (e.g. The God Delusion). Dawkins may be a great evolutionary biologist; but, he is a lousy philosopher and theologian.

    Kiffi: I brought you into the discussion because of your mention of the UN Resolution and the Vatican’s failure to vote in favor. Apparently, you had not read the Vatican’s response, only some news account(s).

    March 23, 2009
  574. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: All philosophy, science and politics should begin with rationalism. I won’t claim that these should end with rationalism. Sometimes, it’s right to be irrational.

    I believe that Ratzinger’s two statements, as you interpreted, are inconsistent. If the Angolan Catholics are to “live peacefully” with the non-Catholics, there should be no conversion. Telling others that their beliefs in sorcery and witchcraft are inferior to Christianity’s beliefs is a form of intolerance.

    I agree that the terms “education” and “superstition”, in the context I used, could be received very poorly, as I have received “conversion” and “missionary” very poorly. If you understand why “education” and “superstition” might be offensive to those who believe in witchcraft, then you should be understand why “conversion” and “missionary” might be offensive to non-Catholics.

    Whether any given pope technically has followers or whether millions of people follow his edicts because of his official status, what Ratzinger says is extremely influential on a very large population. If I say something insensitive, it’s unlikely that people will be injured. I expect extreme sensitivity from the Catholic institution, especially it’s official leader.

    March 23, 2009
  575. Patrick Enders said:

    David L, you wrote,

    One of the raps against atheism, which I believe is well-founded, is that atheism considers itself intellectually superior. It mocks or dismisses others’ beliefs in an attempt to demonstrate its worthiness. (e.g. The God Delusion). Dawkins may be a great evolutionary biologist; but, he is a lousy philosopher and theologian.

    David, have you read “The God Delusion”? Much as you said, “Until you read the actual source material, it probably is not productive to discuss your criticisms. It might be productive to discuss why [Catholics (and other Christians)] feel justified in being critical of various [a]theist propositions without having any direct knowledge. I think that is the definition of prejudice (pre-judging).”

    I have now read the first couple chapters of “The God Delusion.” (Thank you for your encouragement in this; without your obvious interest in the book, I may never have discovered this very interesting read.)

    As far as I have gotten, I see two essential points of the book:

    1. Matters of faith (and, indeed, the ultimate reality of the Universe) are legitimate topics of investigation and inquiry. My favorite passage from Mr. Dawkins’ book on this matter is actually a quote from one of my favorite authors, the late Douglas Adams:

    “Religion… has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, ‘Here is an idea or notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? – because you’re not!’ If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you say, ‘I respect that.

    Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows – but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe. . . no, that’s holy? . . . We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it’s very interesting how much a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.”

    2. The existence or non-existence of a God should be a matter of scientific investigation, and might be explored through testable hypotheses (I’ll quote Mr. Dawkins himself this time):

    “A universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without. The difference between the two hypothetical universes could hardly be more fundamental in principle, even if it is not easy to detect in practice. And it undermines the complacently seductive dictum that science must be completely silent about religion’s central existence claim. The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice – or not yet – a decided one.”

    He admits that it is not an easy question to answer definitively, but he offers an example of evidence which could settle the question:

    “To dramatize the point, imagine that forensic archaeologists unearthed DNA evidence to show that Jesus really did lack a biological father.”

    All in all, an interesting start to his book. I look forward to seeing where it leads.

    March 23, 2009
  576. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I don’t agree: Politics is about justice; science is about facts; and philosophy is about wisdom. Each discipline has a different objective. All have, or should have, the will to be obedient to the truths of human existence.

    The main problem that I have with rationalism is that it has no object. In other words, are we trying to be rational about facts? justice? truth? meaning? Rationalism seems to have unnecessarily confined itself to only accepting something as rational if it something is factual. But, facts don’t lead to conclusions until they are put in context of a rule or a belief.

    Hence, rationalism ends up accepting very few things as actionable because it wants to avoid being wrong. If today’s rationalism were willing to knock down the barriers of self-imposed limitations on the empirical verifiable, it could rediscover its full value to sort through the uncertainties of life.

    March 23, 2009
  577. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: What if the DNA of Jesus proved that he didn’t have a biological father? Would that end the debate?

    March 23, 2009
  578. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I don’t know that politics is about justice. I’d like to think so, but “justice” is such a relative term that it would be hard for me, at least, to define it in that way. I think that politics has more to do with questions of governing. Justice is a tremendous component of politics, but as an attorney, you must understand that justice is beyond the government’s ability. Sometimes justice to one adverse party is injust to another. That said, politics, government, justice, all need to start with a rationalist approach: facts, analysis, conclusion.

    Science follows the same method: facts, analysis, conclusion. Science is not all about facts. Darwin criticized the “facts only” explanation of science 200 years ago. He reasoned that scientists are more than people who count. A geologist who counts only quantities and qualities of rocks is not really a scientist. Scientists use science to turn facts into conclusions by way of analysis.

    Philosophy is by definition about wisdom. Not surprisingly, wisdom comes from facts, analysis and conclusion. It’s been said that the difference between intelligence and wisdom is that intelligence is about knowing things and wisdom is about using knowledge effectively. For example, an intelligent person knows that smoking is unhealthy, but a wise person doesn’t smoke.

    Each discipline starts with a rationalist approach. I repeat that each does not necessarily end with a rationalist approach (a statement of mine that you overlooked).

    I think you’ve turned rationalism into a religion, and I don’t think that’s either necessary nor fair. Rationalists may have any number of motivations, but they want to arrive at their conclusions with the fewest assumptions, the fewest guesses, and the least amount of dogma.

    March 23, 2009
  579. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: This would be a major boon to Christians, but not absolute proof. Again, with a rationalist approach, there are facts, analyses, and conclusions. Yeshua, having no biological father, would be a fact. Before arriving at a conclusion, there is that annoying middle step of analysis.

    Until there is evidence of that fact, the question is moot.

    March 23, 2009
  580. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Yes. If the DNA of Jesus of Nazareth proved that he didn’t have a biological father, it would conclusively show that Jesus was no ordinary human.

    If such a remarkable discovery were made, deeper inquiries into what exactly he was would, of course, follow.

    While you’re at it, David, you wrote,

    In other words, are we trying to be rational about facts? justice? truth? meaning?

    Yes. All of that.

    Rationalism seems to have unnecessarily confined itself to only accepting something as rational if it something is factual.

    Sounds right to me.

    Would you prefer to spend time drawing conclusions about the universe based upon things that are not factual?

    March 23, 2009
  581. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry and Patrick: We don’t have DNA but we do have eyewitness testimony that says that Jesus was no ordinary human. We have four writers (Gospels) attesting to the miracles that he performed, his life and his death. What should a rationalist/atheist do with those facts?

    The scientific/atheist methodology requires that these “facts” be proven wrong before they are dismissed as non-facts.

    March 24, 2009
  582. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: OK, I’ll bite.

    As a lawyer, you have studied rationalist devices to help with credibility. For beginners, we have best evidence and authentication problems with the “eye witness” testimony that you rely on.

    BEST EVIDENCE: There are no original writings, so the best evidence of the eyewitness testimony are the oldest available writings, not the translations of translations that you use. Modern translations, nearly 2000 years from the source, are very poor evidence.

    AUTHENTICATION: There is no authentication of the manuscripts, just scholars’ best guesses. The writings could be authentic copies with a chain of custody, or they could have been inserted capriciously, like the story of Yeshua telling the stoners not to kill Mary of Magdalene.

    You know that these two evidentiary issues cast extreme doubt on the eyewitness testimony. They don’t prove the writings wrong, but there is no reason to use the manuscripts as sole evidence to prove anything right.

    Scholar Bart Ehrman writes in “The Lost Christian Tribes” and “Misquoting Jesus” that there were four groups of Christians, each having a different view of Yeshua. (1) That he was entirely human, (2) that he was entirely spiritual, (3) that he was originally human and then became spiritual, and (4) that he was always entirely divine and spiritual. Why should an impartial juror believe #4 when people living closer to the time of Yeshua believed otherwise?

    Further, you know how fallible eyewitnesses are. There are three distinct resurrection stories in the three most recent gospels, and no resurrection story in the oldest gospel — the gospel written closest to the time when Yeshua lived. What conclusions would an impartial juror draw from this?

    Finally, you sleight the burden of proof. It’s not for scientific methodology to prove these “facts” wrong. The rule is whomever affirms must prove. You and others affirm that Yeshua is other-than-human. It’s your burden to prove. The evidence in the Bible, as I begin to explain above, is very poor evidence. Please try again.

    March 24, 2009
  583. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    For the moment, I’ll just add:
    1) What makes you think that the four gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life?

    2) What about all the other contemporaneous (to the gospels, not to Jesus’s life) books of Jesus which have been excluded from the Canon? Why do you consider the Gospels to be true, accurate recordings of the life of Jesus? Why not the Apocrypha and the Gnostic Gospels? For that matter, what about the contradictions between the four canonical gospels?

    What about all the Jewish witnesses to Jesus’s life who didn’t become his followers, and presumably didn’t think that he was God?

    There are many stages of proof that would be required before these tales, written distant from the time and place that they purport to record, could be considered proof of anything.

    As Jerry said,

    It’s not for scientific methodology to prove these “facts” wrong. The rule is whomever affirms must prove. You and others affirm that Yeshua is other-than-human. It’s your burden to prove.

    March 24, 2009
  584. Obie Holmen said:

    To David L

    You’re a lawyer? I guess you skipped class the day they talked about the hearsay rule. You’re a lawyer? I guess you skipped class the day they talked about burden of proof.

    March 24, 2009
  585. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: I haven’t read the God Delusion. I did listen to the MPR interview, which lasted 50+ minutes.

    I would agree that matters of faith are legitimate topics of inquiry and investigation. Inquiry and investigation don’t and shouldn’t extend to mocking or intentional misinterpretation.

    Dawkins’ claim that the existence or non-existence of God should be subject to scientific inquiry is a myopic vision of human inquiry. Thousands of years of scientific inquiry have yielded the following proposition in which science places its total faith: the universe is rational.

    Proof of this proposition, which is the heart and soul of atheism, is impossible, just like the proof of God is impossible.

    The fact that Dawkins cannot prove that the universe is rational does not mean that the universe isn’t rational. In fact, it would seem foolish to believe that the universe isn’t rational, even though there will never be proof.

    March 24, 2009
  586. kiffi summa said:

    David L; whether rationalist, atheist, or person of any structured religious denomination, we must remember that there was nothing written by “eyewitnesses”.

    This is a pervasive, and long exploited, misunderstanding of fact.
    Ask a Jesuit scholar.

    March 24, 2009
  587. Jerry Friedman said:

    David and Obie: There are several other rules that would keep such material out of the courtroom. Even in a more relaxed evidentiary standard of blog-style debate, it’s important to remember that the spirit of these legal rules is to help get to the truth of the matter.

    I just watched “Sophie Scholl”, about the trial of a German anti-Nazi. She was executed in 1943 for political free speech. Her trial would have been different if the American rules of process and evidence were used. While imperfect, American rules do help to reveal truth in a debate. On the contrary, I am a “hearsay” witness to very strong evidence of police corruption. Had I been allowed to testify, several people would not have pled guilty or been convicted of unruly conduct (riot, rout, unlawful assembly, etc.) at a May Day protest. A police officer told a woman that the police were “going to teach those anarchists a lesson”. I know the woman personally. She told a co-worker whom I know personally. The co-worker told me. I have complete belief in the credibility of the witnesses (who declined to testify), but a lawyer would never embarrass herself and have me testify in their place because of the rule against hearsay. That doesn’t mean the statement is false. Sometimes these rules reveal truth, sometimes they occlude truth.

    I accept that David has faith that the Bible’s stories are true. I don’t criticize him outright for his faith. Not speaking of David specifically, but criticism is due when (1) some theists (and some atheists, particularly irrational atheists) apply a double-standard — that their faith is rational and others’ faith is irrational, in other words, that their religion is correct and others’ are incorrect, when all of them rely on faith. And (2) when they take matters of faith and apply them to others’ lives, coercively, injuriously, or in other harmful ways. I simply have difficulty when someone takes faith and then tries to prove it’s rational. If faith is rational, then it’s no longer faith. So why do believers try? The answer begins another large discussion.

    Another evidentiary rule I intentionally overlooked is the rule permitting ancient manuscripts. It’s generally held that manuscripts older than 20 years are self-authenticating. Ignoring the flaws of this rule in the present context, let’s assume the rule allows the Bible to be considered as evidence. Following the same rule, the Book of Mormon must also be considered, and many other purportedly inspired writings. I find that the same arguments most Christians use to topple the Book of Mormon are flatly ignored when levied against the Bible. I don’t tolerate these double-standards well. Shouldn’t a person of faith accept all purportedly inspired writings? Or at least accept that if faith cannot be proven, that others should not be persecuted for having a different faith?

    David: You claim that the mysteries of science reveal the “faith” of atheists. I don’t share your view. All things in the universe are either rational or mysterious. I don’t see mystery and conclude “irrational”. I see mystery and conclude “mystery”. The history of science teaches us that mysteries are sometimes unravelled, and all unravellings-to-date show the rational. Perhaps that means that I am patient with the mysteries of the universe, and you rush to the conclusion of god.

    Perhaps that is the difference among people. Some people say “bless you” after someone sneezes, a practice started by Christians who thought a sneeze made one susceptible to demonic possession. I say “gesundheit”, the German word for “to your health”, which is a polite wish that the person does not get sick. Why did the early Christians conclude demonic possession? Patience would have been more dignified.

    March 24, 2009
  588. Jerry Friedman said:

    Kiffi: Even worse, sometimes “eyewitnesses” made no statements. In one verse, it’s written that there were 500 witnesses to a miracle. No witness names were taken. No statements were taken. Just the sweeping statement of 500 witnesses.

    Completely unrelated, did I tell you that 1000 people witnessed me swim from San Francisco to Hawaii after I overdosed on Red Bull? It started as a dare and ended with a small vacation on a tropical island.

    March 24, 2009
  589. Obie Holmen said:

    To David L

    Kiffi suggests that the gospel accounts were not written by eyewitnesses. Let me add to that comment with data from your own Catholic tradition:

    Re Gospel of Mark:

    “Although the book is anonymous … it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark [perhaps an associate of Paul and/or Peter]… [but] modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70 [nearly forty years after the death of Jesus].” Quoted from the Catholic Study Bible preface to Mark which adds that the author used a variety of oral and written sources rather than the author’s own experience.

    Re Gospel of Matthew:

    “The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark” also quoted from the Catholic Study Bible which adds that Matthew’s date of composition was at least a decade later than Mark.

    March 24, 2009
  590. Patrick Enders said:

    David, you wrote,

    Dawkins’ claim that the existence or non-existence of God should be subject to scientific inquiry is a myopic vision of human inquiry.

    Why? Given that many people choose to order their lives based on the premise that a God exists, it would seem to be a very important sphere of scientific inquiry.

    Thousands of years of scientific inquiry have yielded the following proposition in which science places its total faith: the universe is rational. Proof of this proposition, which is the heart and soul of atheism, is impossible, just like the proof of God is impossible.

    You have a couple separate points here. First, the heart and soul of atheism is simply a belief that “there is no god or gods.”

    Second, the main reason that “the proof [or disproof] of God is impossible” is that “God” means so many different things to so many different people.

    If one is merely talking about a God which was there at the start of the Universe, created it at that instant, and has not been present in – or interacted with – our Universe since that time, then I agree that such a proposition is probably untestable. How, after all, could we measure something (or the effects of something) that exists solely outside our own Universe? (Interestingly, Dawkins suggests that the existence of such a Deist God could be testable. I look forward to seeing how he argues that.)

    However, most Theists don’t believe in such a God. The God of most Theists – Christian ones anyway – is one which actively meddles in His creation in an ongoing fashion, and often in its very small detail: determining the outcome of football games, choosing who lives and dies in airplane crashes, etc. If such a God is acting in the world, its presence should be measurable and testable by scientific methods.

    Such evidence, of course, will have to be quite strong – given that it will have to face the principle of Occam’s Razor, and the simple premise that “What You See Is What You Get.”

    Again, some good concrete evidence supporting the possible existence of an omnipresent, omniscient, interventionist Creator God which took human form in Jesus of Nazareth might include something like:

    – Physical evidence of the supra-human nature of Jesus.

    – Strong, independently verifiable indirect evidence, as free from as many confounders as possible, of God’s special Grace towards his particular Chosen persons.

    Note that things like “weekly churchgoers live longer than non-weekly-churchgoers” (they do) doesn’t cut it, because the ability to attend church is related to one’s physical health.

    A good example of a testable hypothesis might be: When biologically similar persons are seated in the same area of the same kind of airplane in the same kind of plane crash, (INSERT CHOSEN GROUP HERE) miraculously survive at a far greater rate than their Heathen peers.

    March 24, 2009
  591. Patrick Enders said:

    MPR update: The speaker this hour is David (sounds like Block?), a Jewish journalist describing what he discovered when he read the Bible cover-to-cover.

    March 24, 2009
  592. Patrick Enders said:

    (Jewish American, that is. Seems relevant to his starting point for a reading of the Bible.)

    March 24, 2009
  593. Jerry Friedman said:

    Obie: Luke is also largely based on Mark.

    March 24, 2009
  594. Anthony Pierre said:

    Mark has no mention of the virgin birth and resurrection either

    March 24, 2009
  595. Obie Holmen said:

    Jerry,

    Yes, of course — the synoptics. And John, which offers the highest christology, is later still.

    Anthony,

    Right again.

    David L,

    It may seem like we’re ganging up on you, and I guess we are. But the point is that use of the New Testament apologetically doesn’t really work very well.

    March 24, 2009
  596. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: I didn’t mean literally written by the eyewitnesses. I meant written based upon eyewitness accounts. Granted, it is not very good evidence. But, it is some evidence.

    March 24, 2009
  597. David Ludescher said:

    Obie and Jerry: It’s pretty easy to flip the argument and say, “Prove there is no God.”. In the absence of any proof that there isn’t a God, should I believe there is a God?

    Given that there are “mysteries”,(Jerry) atheist and theist alike believe (“have faith”) that there is a supra-rationality to what now escapes rationality. My preference is to use the same name that my ancestors have used, “God”.

    That there is much that escapes rationality seems to be a self-evident fact needing no proof.

    March 24, 2009
  598. Patrick Enders said:

    David L, you wrote,

    It’s pretty easy to flip the argument and say, “Prove there is no God.”

    Not needed except for the most ardent, avowed Gnostic Atheists. I do not assert that there is no God. I assert that there is precious little evidence to support the hypothesis that there IS a God.

    In the absence of any proof that there isn’t a God, should I believe there is a God?

    If you want, sure, go right ahead.

    Given that there are “mysteries”,(Jerry) atheist and theist alike believe (”have faith”) that there is a supra-rationality to what now escapes rationality.

    Actually, the point of atheism is the proposition that there is NOT “a supra-rationality to what now escapes rationality.”

    That there is much that escapes rationality seems to be a self-evident fact needing no proof.

    Actually, it’s not. Empiricism, observation, and rationalism have shown that there is precious little that cannot be addressed by these methods. As an example of how the Scientific Method might be applied to the idea of an interventionist God, see my previous post.

    March 24, 2009
  599. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Mysteries are not supra- or super-rational. They are unknown. History has persistently shown that mysteries, that the unknown, become known and rational. History has never shown that mysteries, that the unknown, becomes known and irrational. Why do theists see the unknown and conclude “god”?

    I demonstrated this with sneezes. Sneezing does not mean someone is susceptible to demonic possession. Erupting volcanoes do not mean that god(s) are angry. A pregnant woman claiming to be a virgin does not mean she was inseminated by Biblegod. Fantastic claims do not mean that god(s) intervened.

    It’s pretty easy to flip the argument and say, “Prove there is no God.”. In the absence of any proof that there isn’t a God, should I believe there is a God?

    No. That is contrary to logic, rationality, and the burden of proof. In the absence of proof that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, should I believe that there is one? No. Nor should you believe in anything that has no evidence. Unless you have faith. What is key here is that faith is not equal to evidence.

    You claim that much escapes rationality. I can’t think of one. Can you elucidate?

    March 24, 2009
  600. kiffi summa said:

    Sorry, David L. … I don’t think there’s any ‘wiggle room’ there…

    March 25, 2009
  601. David Henson said:

    You have lots of eye witness accounts of the existence of God … John George right on here on this blog. There are, at least, millions who can attest to feeling his presence.

    If you are wearing ear plugs and I say I hear fire crackers going off in the distance. Then you pull out your ear plugs and say I don’t hear anything … there never were any fire crackers … prove it with verifiable data. Then who is ignorant ?

    March 25, 2009
  602. Anthony Pierre said:

    David, are you saying there is no way to verify there were firecrackers? I guess you haven’t seen the crime dramas on TV lately.

    March 25, 2009
  603. David Henson said:

    You are correct Anthony, I have not seen the crime dramas on TV therefore I doubt they exist.

    March 25, 2009
  604. I can paste you a youtube of a crime drama, can you paste me a youtube of god?

    (click on my name)

    March 25, 2009
  605. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    If one searches the area from which the sound of firecrackers came, it should be possible to find the remnants of the exploded firecrackers.

    I have already proposed one way to possibly measure the effect of a God’s actions upon this universe (see airplane crashes, above). If you really want to prove that God exists, I’m sure you could come up with other testable hypotheses.

    March 25, 2009
  606. kiffi summa said:

    Because of some of the negative remarks about homosexuals here, and also false information related to ‘hate speech’, I ask that you remember that the largest percentage of hate speech is directed to issues of personal sexual orientation.

    In 2007 our Congress passed Hate Speech legislation , but Pres. Bush refused to sign it into law. This legislation, the Matthew Shepard Law is again coming through Congress, and I urge you to work for its passage this time.
    There is a 1 minute video to watch if you need to be refreshed on the violence directed against self determined sexual orientation.

    You can go to the Human Rights Campaign website to give a contribution or contact your congress rep. (John Kline sends a letter back saying he does not wish to establish a special interest group; I say never mind about basic human rights, Mr. Kline ? )

    IMO, it is a test of the nature and humanity of our society, whether this legislation passes all the way through this time.

    March 25, 2009
  607. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: A few things.

    As Patrick says, firecrackers leave evidence even if no one was present to hear them. An amateur investigator could conclude “firecrackers” even if he was deaf.

    All the same, you and I agree that some things happen that leave no evidence. This is especially common with ancient and pre-history. I heard recently that 700 species of dinosaurs have been discovered. It’s reasonable to conclude that dinosaurs, having lived over a span of 150 million years, would have many more than 700 species (we have identified more than 4600 species of mammals presently living, after over 65 million years of evolution http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/). While we have no direct evidence of dinosaur #701 or later, there is enough direct (fossils) and indirect (evolutionary process) evidence that she existed along with thousands of other species.

    Biblegod does not get the luxury of the doubt that the missing dinosaurs get.

    1) Biblegod is purportedly omnipresent. Being omnipresent means that we should be able to detect Biblegod everywhere yesterday, today and tomorrow. But we cannot, which means either Biblegod is not omnipresent or Biblegod does not exist.

    2) Even if Biblegod is less than omnipresent, there is no evidence of it. We have massive evidence of dinosaurs, we have some evidence of the beginnings of life, and zero evidence of Biblegod.

    3) A “feeling” is not evidence. A billion people having a “feeling” is not evidence. While I trust that you have a “feeling”, there is no way for you to know, for me know, what that feeling is. If I have euphoria because I believe the Earth is flat, because I believe my late grandmother visited me while I was awake or asleep, because I took cocaine, because I enjoyed a rainbow, because I read a book that promises a happy afterlife, because an angel gave me golden tablets from which I wrote a book, etc., a “feeling” is not evidence that any of these things are real. I might be completely convinced that a vision is real, but except for the cocaine, there is no way to know if it is real, if it is a hallucination, or if it is a prank.

    All this to say, that I expect more than a “feeling” of evidence from an omnipresent deity. Something so big should leave some evidence. Something more than a “feeling”.

    Even the apostles purportedly had more evidence. They experienced the travels of Yeshua and purportedly witnessed miracles. Why do they get such direct evidence, but people 2000 years later — with no benefit of evidence — are condemned by Christians and supposedly Biblegod?

    Do you accept the Book of Mormon as inspired and genuine?

    March 25, 2009
  608. David Henson said:

    The discussion above was about a lack of eyewitnesses. I disagree with that specifically – whether they have seen, heard, felt or smelled ‘God’. I trust you Anthony about the crime shows so I require no verification of your claims. Personally, in the case of Atheism, I think the answer comes before the question (Jerry – I stole that line from somewhere). Why have a philosophical position that something does not exist unless you secretly think it actually does exist – it would sort of be a waste of time. I’m not sure how I can even verify that you don’t believe in God with accepting the same sort of evidence you reject from people who do believe in God?

    March 25, 2009
  609. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I don’t think the question is testing whether people actually do or don’t believe in a deity. The question has been whether there is evidence of a deity, particularly Biblegod.

    Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I agree.

    Your belief in Biblegod is not extraordinary. I trust you at your word. The existence of Biblegod is extraordinary. I hope for extraordinary evidence. I am sad to inform you that your feeling is not extraordinary evidence, nor are vague witnesses, nor are stories retold for thousands of years.

    You have not answered me: Do you accept the Book of Mormon as inspired and genuine?

    March 25, 2009
  610. Anthony Pierre said:

    David, I really don’t know if there is a god/goddess/deity or isn’t, I am leaning toward isn’t at this point.

    March 25, 2009
  611. Patrick Enders said:

    David, you wrote,

    Why have a philosophical position that something does not exist unless you secretly think it actually does exist.

    Huh? I do not follow your reasoning in this at all.

    I believe (small ‘b’) that fairies probably do not exist, because there is an utter lack of evidence supporting their existence. It’s not a philosophical position; it is my assessment of the available evidence. If someone can produce convincing evidence of the existence of fairies (for example, a fairy), I would revise my position/belief.

    March 25, 2009
  612. A question that sometimes occurs to me to ask: How is this world any different from a hypothetical world that has no god but where people believe in one anyway?

    Forgive me if I restate notions anyone has already presented — I’ve not been able to read all nearly-500 posts in this thread. I think animal brains, including human brains, have evolved to downplay the role of chance and to favor the perception of patterns and causation, even when there are none (it’s safer than a propensity NOT to associate a possible cause-and-effect). And we have evolved to trust our parents as teachers. And we fear death. These propensities and others explain satisfactorily to me mankind’s tendency to believe in a higher power or powers that control what we cannot and whose existence would help explain what we cannot.

    So my answer to the question I first posed is that I don’t think there is any difference at all unless we can demonstrate miraculous interventions — not just unlikely outcomes, but outcomes contrary to the physical nature of our world. An amputated leg regrows overnight. A gigantic hand reaches down from the sky to crush an army. Stuff like that. And even then you’d still need to decide whether it was “Biblegod” or some other supernormal or paranormal being.

    March 25, 2009
  613. David Henson said:

    I never said what I believed in but I should rephrase the above … I don’t know how I can verify that you have not perceived a God without accepting the same claims you reject from people who claim to have perceived God.

    As to Mormons I have two memorable experiences: 1) As a teen at the Mormon Church in UT I asked one of their spokesman about my having a wee bit of native American blood. He said if I did not accept Mormonism that my kids would go back to being red skinned wild Indians (I didn’t convert but he may have been on to something) 2) At the Apple Valley Taco Bell there was kid who gave us the very best service and took exceptional pride in his work (work that many can only drudge through). He really stood out so I had to quiz him and it turned out he was a Mormon ~ I still not converting but I would not shy away from hiring Mormons.

    March 25, 2009
  614. David Henson said:

    I never said what I believed in but I should rephrase the above … I don’t know how I can verify that you have not perceived a God without accepting the same evidence you reject from people who claim to have perceived God.

    As to Mormons I have two memorable experiences: 1) As a teen at the Mormon Church in UT I asked one of their spokesman about my having a wee bit of native American blood. He said if I did not accept Mormonism that my kids would go back to being red skinned wild Indians (I didn’t convert but he may have been on to something) 2) At the Apple Valley Taco Bell there was kid who gave us the very best service and took exceptional pride in his work (work that many can only drudge through). He really stood out so I had to quiz him and it turned out he was a Mormon ~ I still not converting but I would not shy away from hiring Mormons.

    March 25, 2009
  615. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    If you (or anyone else) say that you have perceived the presence of a God, I take you at your word, and believe that you truly had such a feeling. I have no reason to believe that you would lie about such a thing, and – certainly – your assertion is a fairly common one.

    Why would you find it hard to believe me if I told you that I have not experienced such a feeling?

    March 25, 2009
  616. David Henson said:

    Patrick, my point was that I can no more understand being an atheist than I can understand being a antifairyista. How can one build a philosophical position around a negative? Now saying you are a materialist I can understand but to disprove the super-material I suppose you would have to build a man starting from non-biological inputs.

    How can you prove that you have not experienced the presence of a God without resorting to the same type of evidence offered by those who have experienced the presense of God?

    March 25, 2009
  617. Bright Spencer said:

    It just twizzles my mind that people are sitting around at computers sending thoughts that travel all over the globe within seconds and that those same people have no sense of what a miraculous set of circumstances they find themselves in through no doing of their own. How do people think we got here? And don’t give me the fizzy theory, please. 🙂

    March 25, 2009
  618. David Ludescher said:

    David: In fairness to Patrick, I think he and Jerry have been arguing in favor of a rationalistic approach to unresolved questions.

    Your criticism of building a religion around atheism has always been one of my objections to atheism. If someone believes that God does not exist, or at least it hasn’t been proven, nothing is proven by the proposition. At its worst, atheism can be lead to nihilism, which believes in nothing except raw power. At its best, all atheism has to offer is a critique of other systems. This is extremely valuable for discovering false beliefs, and thereby, make the remaining beliefs more believable, but it offers nothing positive.

    For example, in the same sex debate, atheism could offer a purely rational approach to a solution. But, the solution which atheism offers is neither pleasant, nor politically correct.

    March 25, 2009
  619. David Ludescher said:

    Penny: Excellent question. I will offer you my explanation.

    The global warming debate has led to much discussion about Mother Nature or Mother Earth. Mother Earth is not a tangible “thing” but the entire environment that we call Mother Earth is a manifestation of our concept of Mother Earth.

    If we personify Mother Earth, we can understand her much better than trying to coordinate and keep all the scientific facts in mind. If we heat up Mother Earth, she will exact her revenge on us.

    Does it make a difference if we think that Mother Earth exists or not? Yes. If we think of the Earth as a “dead” thing, we lose the concept of the Earth as a living, breathing organism, and thereby act differently than if we consider her our “Mother”.

    March 25, 2009
  620. David L:

    I think there is great power and beauty in metaphor. But I think there is also power and beauty in understanding beyond the level of metaphor. You don’t have to personify the Earth to recognize that plants, animals, air, water, soil and sun are all part of a dynamic, interconnected system that sustains life as we know it – and it’s certainly important that our biologists and other scientists understand its workings. Loving the Earth as our mother doesn’t necessarily teach us the right way to take care of her. Speaking as a mom, I know that children often assume their mother will always take care of them and don’t give much thought to what’s best for her!

    March 25, 2009
  621. john george said:

    Jerry, Patrick, Kiffi, et. al.- I haven’t had a chance to keep up with the thread, but I have a theory to propose. It seems to me that the basis for not wanting to believe in God doesn’t lie in whether He can be scientifically demonstrated or not. If you all are really honest, I think you agree with some of the opinions stated in this excerpt from an article by Frank Turek on wwwTownhall.com. :

    Atheist Julian Huxley, grandson of
    “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley,
    famously said many years ago that the
    reason he and many of his
    contemporaries “accepted Darwinism
    even without proof, is because we
    didn‘t want God to interfere with our
    sexual mores.”

    Professor Thomas Nagel of NYU more
    recently wrote, “It isn’t just that I
    don’t believe in God and, naturally,
    hope that I’m right in my belief.
    It’s that I hope there is no God! I
    don’t want there to be a God; I don’t
    want the universe to be like that. My
    guess is that this cosmic authority
    problem is not a rare condition and
    that it is responsible for much of the
    scientism and reductionism of our
    time.”

    Certainly the new atheists such as
    Christopher Hitchens and Richard
    Dawkins have problems with cosmic
    authority. Hitchens refuses to live
    under the “tyranny of a divine
    dictatorship.” Dawkins calls the God
    of the Bible a “malevolent bully”
    (among other things) and admits that
    he is “hostile to religion.”

    It’s not that Hitchens and Dawkins
    offer any serious examination and
    rebuttal of the evidence for God.
    They misunderstand and dismiss
    hundreds of pages of metaphysical
    argumentation from Aristotle, Aquinas
    and others and fail to answer the
    modern arguments from the beginning
    and design of the universe. (Dawkins
    explanation for the extreme design of
    the universe is “luck.”)

    Instead, as any honest reader of their
    books will see, Hitchens and Dawkins
    are outraged at the very thought of
    God. Even their titles scream out
    contempt (god is not Great: How
    Religion Poisons Everything and The
    God Delusion). They don’t seem to
    realize that their moral outrage
    presupposes an objective moral
    standard that exists only if God
    exists. Objective morality—as well as
    the immaterial laws of reason and
    science—cannot exist in the
    materialist universe they attempt to
    defend. In effect, they have to
    borrow from a theistic worldview in
    order to argue against it. They have
    to sit in God’s lap to slap his face.

    While both men are very good writers,
    Hitchens and Dawkins are short on
    evidence and long on attitude. As I
    mentioned in our debate, you can sum
    up Christopher’s attitude in one
    sentence: “There is no God, and I
    hate him.”

    I think the real reason you don’t want to believe in God (Biblegod, as Jerry says) is that you don’t want to have to answer to Him for the way you live. This is not to say that you are living immorally, however you want to define that, but that you would then need to give acount for your motivations and recognize that there is a transcending “cosmic authority”, as Prof. Nagel states.

    Last fall, we debated at length the Cognitive Revolution in a thread that Griff began, and it might be good for anyone interested to go back and read some of those posts.

    March 25, 2009
  622. Oh, John… With affection, I can only say: Oy!

    Can’t the argument be turned on its head: Those who believe in one or more gods fundamentally WANT to believe, WANT to be governed, WANT there to be immutable laws, RAGE against the idea that life ends, RAGE that there is no higher purpose to life than all the kindness and understanding and skill and truth and mutual support we can offer each other in this life?

    I don’t think either argument proves anything, really. You’ll say, “No I don’t,” and I’ll say, “No I don’t,” and there we are.

    March 25, 2009
  623. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I don’t “want” to disbelieve in God. I don’t “want” to believe in God. As I have mentioned before, I take no hard line position on the question of divine existence – except “there is a remarkable lack of evidence supporting the hypothesis that a God or Gods exist.”

    I am a curious person. I am also a skeptical, and doubting person. What I *want* is to understand the true nature of the Universe. The method that seems (to me) to offer the most potential for understanding the true nature of the Universe is a combination of empiricism and rationalism, as expressed in some iterations of the Scientific Method. This is not merely an intellectual exercise; this is the way I try to understand the nature of anything that has an objective reality that can be measured – in my work, as well as in my personal life. (You can refer back to the ‘Cognitive Revolution’ thread

    If you wish to believe that you understand my ‘true’ motives better than I do, that is your right, and go right ahead and speculate away. Personally, I take you at your word when you state your motives, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you why you ‘really’ believe the things you do.

    March 25, 2009
  624. john george said:

    Penny- You touched upon something very important in your post:

    I don’t think there is any difference
    at all unless we can demonstrate
    miraculous interventions — not just
    unlikely outcomes, but outcomes
    contrary to the physical nature of our
    world.

    There is a scripture, “…NAS:1 Corinthians
    {2:4} and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
    {2:5} so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
    2002 (C) Bible,” that we the Church are not walking in today. I believe we should be, but as much as we have compromised our Theology with theories from the world and have not lived lives Holy to the Lord, we have lost the ability to do what the Apostle Paul did- demonstrate the power of God. It is written that if My people will humble themselves, then I will hear and heal their land. We the Church have not been honest with our own sin- not to God, each other, or those around us. Instead of humbling ourselves, we have focused on humiliating others. There is, and has been for a few years, a shaking going on within the church. Those who profess to live righteously but have hidden sin in their own lives have been and will continue to be exposed. This, I perceive, is God’s way of cleaning up His church. It is not for condemnation that sin is exposed, but it is for the opportunity of repentance and cleansing.

    I have witnessed broken bones (bent 90 degrees) straightened before my eyes. I have seen demonized people set free to where their countenance and complexion, and even their aroma, has changed right before my eyes (and nose). I believe that kind of outpouring of miraculous power is coming again, and it will be released by genuine repentance and revival within His people.

    March 25, 2009
  625. john george said:

    Penny- You are exactly correct. That is why Paul wrote what he did, and the one thing I long for is the demonstration of the power of God in this world so that you can truthfully say, “I believe in Him, not because of what John said, but because of what I experienced firsthand.”

    March 25, 2009
  626. How do people get their posts to be numbered “497.1” etc.?

    March 25, 2009
  627. john george said:

    Patrick- Sorry, I see I misstated my true feelings, and I didn’t mean to come across as knowing exactly what motivates you. Accountability is not the only underlying reason we resist authority. I think you deal with enough children in your profession to know that this is one of the underlying characteristics of children in general that we as parents have to learn to deal with, and one that they seem to come by naturally. We certainly don’t set out to teach them how to resist authority just to reverse that teaching later.

    I love your candor about yourself, “…I am also a skeptical, and doubting person…” You are the best kind, because you have no guile in you. It is just your skepticism that is a defense against deception. You just want something real, and so do I. See my comments to Penny about demonstrating the power of God. I think you will agree.

    March 25, 2009
  628. john george said:

    Penny- Just click on the little blue “Reply” in the lower left hand corner of the post you are responding to, like I just did.

    March 25, 2009
  629. Patrick Enders said:

    David H, you wrote:

    Patrick, my point was that I can no more understand being an atheist than I can understand being a antifairyista. How can one build a philosophical position around a negative? Now saying you are a materialist I can understand but to disprove the super-material I suppose you would have to build a man starting from non-biological inputs.

    David, you misunderstand Atheism. As Jerry explained at the beginning of this thread so very long ago, what you are describing is “Antitheism” – an active opposition to a “Theistic” belief in a God or Gods, or perhaps “Gnostic Atheism,” the active, knowing belief that There Is No God.

    “Atheism” is not that. “A” means “wothout.” That is, Atheism is simply the *lack* of belief in the existence of a God. Notice the key difference: Atheism is *Lack of Belief*, NOT *Active Disbelief.*

    How can you prove that you have not experienced the presence of a God without resorting to the same type of evidence offered by those who have experienced the presense of God?

    I’m not trying to prove that I have not felt the presence of God. I don’t care whether you believe the truth of my statement or not. I’m just sharing my observations. Just like you share yours. Neither my feelings nor yours will prove anything regarding the question of the existence of a divine entity.

    Patrick, my point was that I can no more understand being an atheist than I can understand being a antifairyista.

    Have you ever met an Antifairyista? That would be a very strange thing to get worked up over.

    I simply doubt that fairies exist. If it turns out that they do in fact exist, I will probably be very pro-fairy – assuming of course that they are as cute and benevolent as they are portrayed to be in fiction.

    How can one build a philosophical position around a negative? Now saying you are a materialist I can understand

    Again, see the distinction between Atheist and Antitheist, above. If you like, substitute “materialist” for “atheist” when reading about Atheism. Atheism is closer to materialism than it is to the Antitheism that you seem to believe it to be.

    but to disprove the super-material I suppose you would have to build a man starting from non-biological inputs.

    I’m not following you here, at all.

    David L, you wrote:

    Your criticism of building a religion around atheism has always been one of my objections to atheism. If someone believes that God does not exist, or at least it hasn’t been proven, nothing is proven by the proposition. At its worst, atheism can be lead to nihilism, which believes in nothing except raw power. At its best, all atheism has to offer is a critique of other systems.

    It is also possible that it may be a correct understanding of the true nature of the universe. If true, that’s got to be worth something.

    For example, in the same sex debate, atheism could offer a purely rational approach to a solution. But, the solution which atheism offers is neither pleasant, nor politically correct.

    Good God, David – you really don’t get tired of that issue, do you?

    March 25, 2009
  630. Patrick Enders said:

    Penny, do you like it? I’m not sure it helps all that much, and it can lead to missed comments.

    March 25, 2009
  631. Patrick Enders said:

    David L, you wrote:

    Mother Earth is not a tangible “thing” but the entire environment that we call Mother Earth is a manifestation of our concept of Mother Earth.

    If we personify Mother Earth, we can understand her much better than trying to coordinate and keep all the scientific facts in mind. If we heat up Mother Earth, she will exact her revenge on us.

    Does it make a difference if we think that Mother Earth exists or not? Yes. If we think of the Earth as a “dead” thing, we lose the concept of the Earth as a living, breathing organism, and thereby act differently than if we consider her our “Mother”.

    David,
    Would you similarly suggest that – in order to encourage ‘good’ behavior – we should all worship a God – whether it exists or not?

    If you want to conceive of the Universe as a living, vibrant whole, and call it “God,” you’ve come across a working definition of a God that I could endorse reverence for – and that I would agree can be observed to exist.

    As Einstein wrote,

    “What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”

    March 25, 2009
  632. john george said:

    Patrick- “Good _ _ _(what?)”! Hmmmmm! I don’t mean to belittle your frustration, as I agree that that subject matter doesn’t really lend any credence to any of the discussion on atheism, but I find it amusing that “God” is considered a good expletive to express the depth of that frustration. I always wondered what Muslims say- Good Allah? (No offence meant, here.)

    March 25, 2009
  633. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (491): Yes. If thinking God exists causes good behavior to exist, then that alone would be enough to justify a belief in “God”. Why wouldn’t it? Just because rationality doesn’t conclusively prove it? Isn’t good actions proof enough? However, if the belief in God causes violence, hate, and injustice, then abandon that belief. What good is a belief that causes human life to be worse, rather than better?

    That is one of the many lessons of the New Testament. In the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus proposes that very problem. (John, I might need you to paste in the passage.) Jesus asks who did the will of God? I think that Jesus was telling the people of his time that God exists, but not as the people thought God existed.

    I am willing to agree to adopt your working definition of God, or even the quasi-rational definition proposed by Einstein. This God needs no proof of existence; his/her/its existence is self-evident.

    However, what is not obvious the nature of this existence. To discover the nature of His existence we have all kinds of revelations, but we need rationality to order these revelations so that they make sense.

    I like your quote from Einstein.

    March 25, 2009
  634. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Your association between myself and the writers who Julian Huxley criticizes is a leap of faith. That said, I have not read “The God Delusion” so maybe it’s not a leap. I don’t know Dawkins’s motives, but I don’t trust his critics’ interpretation of his motives. I’ll have to wait to read the book.

    I have no ulterior motive. As Patrick expressed in different words, I seek the truth. In my experience, the truth is best discerned through logic, or through the rationalist approach: facts, analysis, conclusion. If I don’t take a rationalist approach, I believe I must accept all religions at face value, even those that contradict each other.

    I am equally delighted with a deity or without (based on that deity’s benevolent nature). If Moloch is the true god, we’re all in for a nasty surprise. If Dionysus is the true god, we have a different universe than Moloch’s. If there is no god, again we have a different universe. I don’t care so much what the result is, I simply care to discover the truth. Since I began asking theological questions 25 years ago, my answers have all pointed at or toward atheism.

    The idea that Biblegod presents objective morality is absurd. How does Biblegod determine what is moral? If Biblegod defines what is moral, then morality is arbitrary. Today Biblegod can say, “Thou shalt not murder,” and tomorrow it can say, “Murder the Samarians, because they have rebelled against me [Hosea 13:16],” which would mean that there is nothing about murder that is immoral other than Biblegod’s decree. This means that morality is NOT objective and that it is entirely arbitrary. If Biblegod does not define what is moral, then there is a morality apart from Biblegod, and then you might find an objective morality regardless of Biblegod existing or not. Apparently Julian Huxley has not considered these matters, yet Julian speaks authoritatively about them. His credibility has problems.

    Julian’s claim that Dawkins attributes the universe to “luck” is unlike Dawkins’s other writings. Dawkins wrote in “The Selfish Gene” that genes are not actually selfish, for they are chemicals without will, but it’s convenient to describe them as being selfish for the purpose of the book. I must assume that Dawkins uses the same poetic license with “luck”, as Einstein did when he said that the creator does not roll dice with the universe. Dawkins and Einstein did not believe dice or luck were involved. Einstein did not believe that a creator was involved. It was verbal shorthand to say so.

    In short, what you posted from J. Huxley reveals his ignorance at best, his malice toward atheism at worst.

    March 25, 2009
  635. Jerry Friedman said:

    Bright: The fizzy theory.

    March 25, 2009
  636. john george said:

    David L- Glad to oblige. Here it is:
    NAS:Luke
    The Good Samaritan
    {10:30} Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead.
    {10:31} “And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
    {10:32} “Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
    {10:33} “But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion,
    {10:34} and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him.
    {10:35} “On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’
    {10:36} “Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?”
    {10:37} And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”
    2002 (C) Bible

    Patrick- I also like Einstein’s quote. Perhaps I am just a product of the age of reason, but as I observed the diversity of the part of the universe I could perceive, I could not help but long for an answer. Science could not give me that, nor could mysticism, but revelation of God through scripture did.

    March 25, 2009
  637. john george said:

    Jerry- Sorry, but I think your theory fizzled.

    March 25, 2009
  638. john george said:

    Jerry- The author was Frank Turek, but I can see how the block quote can be confusing. In your reasoning, you raise an important argument- Is God bound by His own code of morality?- that I honestly do not have a definitive answer for. I’m sure this has been bandied between theologians for centuries, but I have not read all their postulates. I just have this opinion, and it is only that, so take it for what it’s worth. If God’s original intent was to have a creation based upon “good”, and “evil” came along and corrupted that kingdom, does He have a place to correct that corruption? Is it justice for the “evil” to oppress and kill the “righteous” without God having any concern for these events? If you read the account of Abraham interceeding for Lot (Gen. 18:20-33), there is, I think, some insight into God’s heart, here. I can only deduce from this that for God to allow “evil” to continue unchecked, there would be a worse end than destroying those who have given themselves over completely to practicing “evil”. I also know from II Pet. 3:9 that God desires all men to come to repentance. This repentance restores a person to God. There are many other scriptures I could refer to, but these two come to mind that support my belief that God lifts up those that are cast down and resists the proud. I am sure this disertation is lacking, but these are part of why I believe that God, being the source of morality, is righteous in all His ways. I also believe, as David the shepherd wrote, that God is unsearchable in all His deeds, yet He desires us to search Him out and ask hard questions. There is a Proverb that says something like it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but it is the glory of kings to search them out.

    March 25, 2009
  639. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Any ruler who does not abide by his own rules is a threat. Such behavior opens the door for the ruler to be an outright tyrant, and it will inspire copycats. For example, L.A. street gangs are reported to kill each other in part because they see themselves as sub-governments. Because the U.S. government permits the death penalty, so do the gangs. While this is a very simple example, it goes to say that a deity that commands us not murder loses credibility when it murders. Benevolent dictators all follow their own rules. I don’t see any room for argument here.

    If the benevolent dictator is trying to correct corruption, the dictator still must abide by the rules.

    I don’t understand how an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient deity could create anything that corrupts, unless the deity’s intention was for it to corrupt, in which case it isn’t corrupted. Is Biblegod not all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing?

    March 25, 2009
  640. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I am still wondering if you accept the Book of Mormon as inspired and genuine.

    March 25, 2009
  641. john george said:

    Jerry- You make the normal jump of supposed logic from God being all good, all knowing, and all powerful to being all controling. You also make the same jump from us being created in the image of God to God must be like us. Neither is correct. God’s desire is that we, His created, worship and obey Him out of love for Him and a choice to do so, not by coercion. Part of God’s image is His will, and he gave us the authority to exercise this will freely. We are not puppets or automotons. Also, in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, God, as man, paid the ultimate price of all our sin, the just and righteous being put to death for the guilty and unrighteous.

    In the account of Satan exalting himslf above God, we are not privey to how this evil was found in him. Lucifer is described as the greatest and most beautiful among the angels. Somehow, he ascribed his position as something he attained to rather than acknowleging it as a gift from God. I cannot find out the why of this in the scripture. I have this opinion, which I am hard pressed to find scriptural basis for, but I will lay it out, anyway. When God the Son came in the form of Jesus, this brought the Godhead to the same level as fallen man, and He became obedient. When God raised Him from the dead, he ascended to the throne of God righteously. Because He was without sin, this could rectify everything that Lucifer had undone in his rebelious ascension to God’s throne. I don’t know if this makes any sense, but I think there is a grain of truth in it.

    Again, I desire that you would believe out of your own personal experience with God rather than any of my pursuasions. God still desires to show Himself powerful on behalf of those whose hearts are completely His.

    March 25, 2009
  642. Patrick Enders said:

    David L, wou wrote:

    Patrick (491): Yes. If thinking God exists causes good behavior to exist, then that alone would be enough to justify a belief in “God”. Why wouldn’t it? Just because rationality doesn’t conclusively prove it? Isn’t good actions proof enough?

    Well, my biggest concern would be: what if it’s a lie? Still, if God were simply defined as the entirety of reality considered as a single thing, then its existence would not be a lie. Its nature would, however, be a little different than the conscious, omniscient, personified and personally interactive God typically associated with Christianity.

    I am willing to agree to adopt your working definition of God, or even the quasi-rational definition proposed by Einstein. This God needs no proof of existence; his/her/its existence is self-evident.

    However, what is not obvious the nature of this existence. To discover the nature of His existence we have all kinds of revelations, but we need rationality to order these revelations so that they make sense.

    Now hold on a minute. Naming the whole of the Universe ‘God’ in no way validates any particular ‘revelation’, whatever exactly a revelation is.

    But on the topic of revelation, this is one I’ve always wondered about:

    Lots of people have visions of God, receive messages from God, and write down things that God or Gods have told them. Many of these people are diagnosed as suffering from a psychiatric illness. Many of these people consider themselves to be Christians, yet their revelations would fall in the realm of heresies, as defined by various churches. Many more are received by people of non-Christian beliefs and religions.

    How in the world is any believer supposed to decide which of these are ‘true’ revelations, and which of these are not revelations at all?

    I ask this sincerely, since I do not understand the mind of committed believers. To my mind, as I was trying to build my own understanding of the universe, I early on realized that if I had been born in India, I’d probably have been a believer in Hinduism. If I had been born in China, I’d likely have been a Buddhist. In Israel, a Jew. And so on. If there really was a God who was sorting out the true believers from the damned, why would that God damn so many people to hell just because they happened to be born into the wrong part of the world? (Not to mention that it was he who damned them by allowing them to be born into that ignorant state.) It just doesn’t fit with the concept of a loving Christian God that I was being taught, and it just didn’t make sense.

    Not to mention that if I had been born in India, I wouldn’t even be asking the questions above. I’d have been raised with a whole different set of theological questions that my Western mind doesn’t even conceive.

    But I digress, so back to ‘revelation.’ It seems to me that people are awfully selective about which revelations they believe, and which they reject. And I cannot detect a single, unifying principle by which people sort one batch from the other.

    On the other hand, the scientific method does have a unifying principle for sorting correct from incorrect: the testable hypothesis. You make an assertion that a general principle might be true. (A requirement of the assertion is that it must have some predictive value regarding things that have not yet been observed.) Scientists then test the principle by looking for the particulars that follow from the principle. If the observed data is compatible with the principle, then that hypothesis is supported. If the hypothesis is contradicted by the observed data, then the hypothesis must be revised or rejected. The more we learn what is *not* true, the closer our hypotheses should get to the actual reality of the universe. It’s not perfect (it will never be possible to prove Absolute Truth through the scientific method, since there will always be more data out there to compare to our hypotheses, and with which to test our hypotheses, no matter how well supported they might be), but at least it offers a systematic means to *approach* an understanding of the true nature of the Universe.

    But for religious beliefs? As far as I can tell, people pick and choose the beliefs they accept or reject, based upon their own whims, feelings, and experiences (including their perceptions of being touched by a divine presence). That works fine for each individual, but it doesn’t seem to offer any means of sorting the truth of one person’s true beliefs from the falsehood of the next person’s contradictory beliefs. And there are so very many different true believers out there.

    Without such a systematic method, I don’t see how I can be expected to choose which one of you to believe.

    Whew.

    So David, what’s your rational method for ‘ordering’ these things you call revelations? And what the heck is a revelation, anyway?

    March 25, 2009
  643. David Henson said:

    Hey Patrick and I are in complete agreement on numbering confusion

    March 25, 2009
  644. Patrick Enders said:

    A slightly longer version of Einstein’s quote is,

    “I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”

    A discussion of ‘Einsteinian religion’ can be found in Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” a portion of the first chapter being available at:
    http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,1

    An excerpt from there is as follows:

    One of Einstein’s most eagerly quoted remarks is ‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.’ But Einstein also said,

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

    Does it seem that Einstein contradicted himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By ‘religion’ Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.

    Here are some more quotations from Einstein, to give a flavour of Einsteinian religion.

    I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

    I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

    The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

    Interesting stuff. Of course, Dawkins’ own interjection in there is certain to annoy some, and in my own reading I still haven’t gotten to the heart of his argument that belief in God can be proven to be a ‘delusion,’ but his background and framing of the question of the existence (and definition) of God has been well worth the read so far. I also recommend the preface to the paperback version.

    March 25, 2009
  645. Patrick Enders said:

    Oops. 490.1 was supposed to be 491.6.

    March 25, 2009
  646. john george said:

    Jerry- I just reread this comment of yours above, “…For example, L.A. street gangs are reported to kill each other in part because they see themselves as sub-governments. Because the U.S. government permits the death penalty, so do the gangs…”. Do you really believe that the reason these gang members kill each other is because the federal government allows the death penalty? I’m sorry, but I just don’t agree with your conclusion, here. People were killing each other long before there was any government, let alone one that allows capital punishment. Most of the motivations I have read about murders is that they were based in some greed or jealousy or perceived injustice suffered. What is that term you use when observations do not line up with conclusions drawn? I would submit that this is one of those cases. And I am not endorsing capital punishment in my opinion.

    March 25, 2009
  647. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: As I said, my analogy to L.A. street gangs was simplistic. I don’t believe the sole reason that gangs kill is because the U.S. kills its enemies and undesirables. Coming from L.A. and being involved in my community, I understand that one justification they give is because the government does the same.

    Extrapolate this to Christianity. One reason the Christian KKK kills is because of their reading of the Bible. How can we fault them? I forgot the specific verse, but in a Bible story, a husband kills his wife and her lover with a spear. The husband kills adulterers, and is deemed as doing Biblegod’s will. The KKK defend their evil because they claim to be killing, also for Biblegod’s will.

    Assume that Biblegod always adhered to his own commandments. Assume that Biblegod never killed (Noah’s Flood, Sodom & Gommorah, etc.), nor ordered others to kill, nor endorsed others’ killings, nor ratified others’ killing. Might Christians be persuaded differently about when to kill and when not to?

    The last thing civilization needs is a hypocrite for a ruler.

    March 25, 2009
  648. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Regarding your reasoning about Biblegod not being controlling, it doesn’t matter whether it’s controlling or not. If something is all-good, then no bad can come from it by definition. If something is all-powerful and all-knowing, then it will know if something bad may come, and it has the power to stop bad from coming.

    Let me express it this way. Being all-knowing, Biblegod knew that Satan would tempt Eve, and that an innocent person could not resist the Father of Lies. Therefore Biblegod knew that Eve would disobey it’s edict not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Being all-powerful, Biblegod could have done anything to change Eve’s plight. For example, Biblegod could have given Eve an education, an ability to see through Satan’s lies, or a distaste for figs (there were no apples in that region at that time).

    Being all-good, Biblegod should have done something to equip Eve with a defense.

    Would you, as a parent, knowingly allow your young-minded child to meet and talk to the most evil of people, a brilliant manipulator, a consumer of souls? Would you expect her to follow your one command, or would you protect your child, your creation, with some defense? Would you punish your child for being duped? If yes, how severely? Naturally I assume you won’t pretend to know what Biblegod was trying to accomplish. That’s fine. It doesn’t add up for me. Biblegod’s behavior in the Adam & Eve story is inexcusable from anyone claiming to be good. I would not knowingly allow my children to be around a pedophile, and much less would I allow my children to be around Satan.

    Knowing harm will happen, being able to prevent it, but doing nothing, is not “all good”. Control is irrelevant.

    March 25, 2009
  649. john george said:

    Jerry- I agree with your statement, “…The last thing civilization needs is a hypocrite for a ruler…” My question is, why do we keep getting them? Even Obama is reneging on some of his campaign promises, relegating his claims to political verbage to get elected. It appears to me that education level does not gaurantee that we will get more moral men. I think both you and I desire leaders that will live the way the talk.

    The Bible story you cite is partially correct, but it was not the husband who killed his wife with her lover. He killed a man who had brought a pagan woman into his tent, in specific disobedience to a command of God, and during a time when the elders were specifically meeting with God. Again, I cite the right God has to deal with His own people to keep then from sin.

    In all these arguments you propose, I still detect an attitude that you do not want to acknowlege a God that doesn’t align with your definitions of moral correctness and submit to His laws. You do have every right to choose this way, and lightening is not going to come down out of the clouds and strike you (at least I hope not!). You say you are a peace maker, and this is a trait I equate with Godliness. The source of that trait is where you and I disagree.

    March 25, 2009
  650. john george said:

    Jerry- I take issue with your comment, “…Being all-good, Biblegod should have done something to equip Eve with a defense…” He did do something. He told both Adam and Eve what He expected of them (education) and He gave them an incentive to obey(separation from Him if they disobeyed). They knew what was required of them and what would happen if they did not follow orders. How is this unjust in your estimation? He only did what He said he would do, nothing more nor less. If God did indeed give them a free will, then for Him to have controled the circumstances would have shown two things, 1) He did not really trust them (His love was conditional). 2) Their will would not have been free if He could overide it at any time. God took a huge risk with His whole creation in trusting them. Their disobedience took extreme mesasures on His part to restore men to the original purpose for which He made them- fellowhip with Himself. This is where you and I differ in our understanding of God and His purposes. His purpose was to have a people with characteristics like Him who would not rebel when given a chance to, as Lucifer did.

    March 26, 2009
  651. john george said:

    Jerry- I missed responding to your last statement, “…Knowing harm will happen, being able to prevent it, but doing nothing, is not “all good”. Control is irrelevant…” In light of my prevous post, control is very relevant.

    March 26, 2009
  652. David Ludescher said:

    Penny (495): The beauty and power of the metaphor is its ability to translate extremely complicated concepts into understandable terms that even the most intellectually unsophisticated can understand.

    Loving the Earth as our mother doesn’t give us any intellectually knowledge, but it gives us a great framework to know what is right and wrong without having to resort to how all the complex systems work.

    Most languages personify nouns giving them gender. Of course things don’t have gender. But, it often provides more meaning to the noun when it does have a gender.

    March 26, 2009
  653. kiffi summa said:

    John: The very fact that you lump names together, i.e. “Jerry, Patrick, Kiffi”, and then say “If you all are really honest” is making conclusionary evaluations (judgements) about our conclusions and beliefs.
    I daresay we are all individuals, and our beliefs would be personalized, not congruent.
    I honestly DISagree with much of the selected writings of Mr. Turek; selected writings are , IMO, the same as selected statistics.
    My critical statement for the day is : Again, the tautology of this thread is numbing.

    March 26, 2009
  654. kiffi summa said:

    Agree with “you guys’ on the numbering system … especially on a thread with long diatribes, such as this one. it enables the missing of comments/replies … although I do think the most recent comment still comes up on top of the sidebar.

    March 26, 2009
  655. I just submitted a reply, which seems to have vanished. Apologies if it shows up later and this is a duplicate.

    I find the “Reply” function and the way it groups discussions helpful if you are trying to read through a looooong topic like this one, but a bit more confusing when simply trying to stay current. If not for the e-mails sent out to those following the topic, I would almost certainly have missed some recent posts.

    March 26, 2009
  656. And I submitted another post, which has also vanished. Is the system weeding out posts that contain links? Both vanished posts did.

    March 26, 2009
  657. I’m going to back out of the discussion now because of time constraints. But I appreciate the cordial forum for discussion of big issues. I quickly disengage from other forums where people insult each other.

    I’ll leave with a link to an interesting article called “Crossing the God Divide” in the most recent issue of the Brown Alumni Magazine. It’s about a liberal, “mostly God-ambivalent” Ivy League student who spent a semester at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, and what he learned there.
    http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/features/crossing_the_god_divide_2217.html

    March 26, 2009
  658. Okay, now I see the “reply” feature. I did miss one of John’s earlier replies to me at first, but saw it later. When scanning a long topic already in place I think it’s somewhat helpful to have discussion threads grouped together, but it certainly makes it a bit harder when just trying to stay current. However, then I usually get the e-mails and don’t rely on scanning the loooooong page to read new posts.

    I need to back out of the conversation again – spent far too much time on it yesterday. I appreciate that cordial but vigorous debate between fellow community members can take place in a forum such as this. I quickly disengage from forums where people insult each other.

    I’ll leave you with a link to an interesting article called “Crossing the God Divide” in my college alumni magazine’s current issue, about a liberal, “mostly God-ambivalent” Ivy League student’s sojourn at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and the lessons he learned there.
    http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/features/crossing_the_god_divide_2217.html.

    March 26, 2009
  659. Griff Wigley said:

    Penny, I dug your comments out of the spam bucket. For some reason, the Askimet spam filter is being too aggressive when links are included in a comment and ignoring my pleas and prayers to lighten up. 😉 Apologies for the hassle.

    March 26, 2009
  660. Patrick Enders said:

    Yes, it is very hard to post a link in a post these days. I’ve almost given up trying for anything but the simplest address.

    Griff,
    Given that you preapprove people before they get to post in the first place (verifying their email address, etc.), why have a filter at all?

    March 26, 2009
  661. David Ludescher said:

    Penny: Very nice article. Thank you.

    March 26, 2009
  662. Griff Wigley said:

    Patrick, good question! I investigated and it seemed like a good idea to disable it but then Sean told me that it would mean that all the spam would get mixed in with all the other comments in my moderator area of WordPress. And since we get several hundred spam comments a day, it’ll be hell for me to sift and sort all the time to make sure I’m approving new commenters.

    Question for those affected by this: when you include links in your comments, does it makker if you use the WMD editor to ‘make a link’?

    March 26, 2009
  663. Patrick Enders said:

    WMD editor: you mean that thing at the bottom that I type into?

    All I do is paste a web address into the ‘leave a reply’ box as a part of my message. I don’t use the ‘make a link button.’

    (Strangely, when I’m at home, the ‘wmd’ editor thingie with the formatting options doesn’t even appear on the page – just the blank box. It probably has to do with a filter on my end.)

    March 26, 2009
  664. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (491.6): Intellectually, equating God’s existence with reality would be an imperfect model. But, practically, that model works quite well.

    When you indicate that equating with all of reality with “God” doesn’t match the Biblegod perception, you have to remember that you are saying that one of YOUR ideas doesn’t match with another one of YOUR ideas. All you need to do is to abandon your idea of Biblegod to get a more intellectually and empirically sound defintion and/or concept of God.

    So, when you say that you are concerned that the belief in the existence of God is a lie, what you are really saying is, “What if what I believe to turns out to be untrue?”. In many ways, it doesn’t matter. Whether I know who electricity works has nothing to do with whether the light goes on when I throw the switch. Whatever I learn about electricity doesn’t change the reality. It is the idea that has to change to match the reality.

    I will get back to the “relevation” question when I have time. Suffice it to say that human knowledge can be acquired in many ways, revelation being one of the most important. When I was young, my mother “revealed” lots of information to be true. I didn’t even question it because the source of the revelations was my mother.

    March 26, 2009
  665. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Thanks for your reply. I look forward to your explanation of revelation.

    I have not put forward the idea of ‘biblegod.’ (I’d never even written that word until about 5 seconds ago, and only first read it in Jerry’s posts, as far as I can remember.) In fact, I don’t think that there is a single coherent concept of god expressed in the bible. It’s a polyphonous work, with many different ideas contained within it. And – even limiting the discussion to Judaic and Christian theologies – there are no lack of other conceptions of god which seem to stray quite a bit from a literalist reading of the bible. In all, these gods run the gamut from very personal and highly anthropomorphic meddlers (both benevolent and malign), all the way to nebulous creators who exist entirely outside of the universe.

    I find it very hard to figure out which god is the one that any given believer is talking about at any given time, so I chose to discuss my adolescent thought processes regarding a single kind of god that I learned about in Catholic services and educational sessions. It’s not even the only God that I learned about in Sunday School. But when you have so many gods to consider, one has to start somewhere.

    Note that the closer one gets to a distant, non-interventionist Creator who exists entirely outside our Universe, and has interacted only with the Universe at its moment of creation, the more likely I would guess it is that such a deity might exist. But also, the harder it would be to prove the existence of such a god. And, I would guess, the less likely that such a god would care whether it was being worshiped, or not.

    March 26, 2009
  666. Griff Wigley said:

    Patrick, I just saw this on another blog. Try it and see what happens next time you have a comment with two or more links:

    If you are posting more than one link
    in the message area, please skip the
    http://www part, or your message may
    be delayed or discarded.

    March 30, 2009
  667. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (491 thread): You wrote: But when you have so many gods to consider, one has to start somewhere.

    You could start with your own conception of God and build from there. This is the Hellenistic approach. You can then match it to others’ conception of God, and decide which are the most intellectually satisifying. The main problem is that the intellectual approach is just that – its intellectual. It doesn’t tell you how to live your life.

    On the other hand, you could start with your own unexplained experiences, and build from there. This was the Jewish approach. The common, yet unexplained experiences are then attributed to God. This approach leaves gaping intellectual holes, but it has the appeal of being based in reality.

    The modern Catholic approach is to consider both approaches as capable providing the truth. For both science and religion have as their ethos the search for the truth. On the wings of reason and faith one discovers the truth.

    If I go to the doctor because I am sick, the doctor could run all kinds of tests, and come back to me and tell me what she thinks is wrong with me. That is pure reason at work. But, ironically, the most reasoned approach is not the most reasonable. The most reasonable approach is ask the patient questions. After the patient has revealed the symptoms, then the doctor can go about ordering the information into a meaningful diagnosis. Complete faith in her as the doctor would be ill-advised even though she has all of the medical training. Even the most astute and powerful reasoning is no match for the experiences of the patient.

    The most reasonable approach to the belief of God is not to wait until all of the evidence is in, and all of the tests are run. The most reasonable approach is to listen the thousands of years of experience before dismissing the patient’s problems out of hand. Gradually over thousands of years, people have gone from a God of power, to a God of the law, to a God of justice, to now, a God of love.

    March 30, 2009
  668. Britt Ackerman said:

    Here’sa fantastic new legal development

    April 3, 2009
  669. Patrick Enders said:

    Now there’s something to be happy about. Didn’t see that coming at all.

    Iowa: hotbed of radicalism. Who’da thunk?

    April 3, 2009
  670. Patrick Enders said:

    Next thing you know, you won’t be able to tell Des Moines from the Castro District.

    April 3, 2009
  671. Patrick Enders said:

    For the curious, here’s a copy of the ruling:
    politico.com/static/PPM104_090403_iowacourt.html

    And here’s a brief assessment from Politico.com:

    It’s really a sweeping, total win for the gay-rights side, rejecting any claim that objections to same-sex marriage can be seen as “rational,” rejecting a parallel civil union remedy, and pronouncing same-sex marriages and gay and lesbian couples essentially normal.

    politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/The_Iowa_ruling.html

    April 3, 2009
  672. Patrick Enders said:

    For the curious, here’s a copy of the ruling:
    politico.com/static/PPM104_090403_iowacourt.html

    And here’s a brief assessment from Politico.com:

    It’s really a sweeping, total win for the gay-rights side, rejecting any claim that objections to same-sex marriage can be seen as “rational,” rejecting a parallel civil union remedy, and pronouncing same-sex marriages and gay and lesbian couples essentially normal.

    April 3, 2009
  673. Patrick Enders said:

    For the curious, here’s a copy of the ruling:
    [NOPE; ONCE AGAIN, CAN’T POST THE LINK – EVEN WITHOUT THE http://www.]

    And here’s a brief assessment from Politico.com:

    It’s really a sweeping, total win for the gay-rights side, rejecting any claim that objections to same-sex marriage can be seen as “rational,” rejecting a parallel civil union remedy, and pronouncing same-sex marriages and gay and lesbian couples essentially normal.

    politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/The_Iowa_ruling.html

    April 3, 2009
  674. Patrick Enders said:

    For the curious, here’s a copy of the ruling:
    [NOPE; ONCE AGAIN, CAN’T POST THE LINK – EVEN WITHOUT THE HTTP,etc.]

    And here’s a brief assessment from Politico.com:

    It’s really a sweeping, total win for the gay-rights side, rejecting any claim that objections to same-sex marriage can be seen as “rational,” rejecting a parallel civil union remedy, and pronouncing same-sex marriages and gay and lesbian couples essentially normal.

    [AGAIN, NO LINK ALLOWED]

    April 3, 2009
  675. Another try on the link: click on my name in the title bar of this comment.

    April 3, 2009
  676. Ooh! That worked!

    The full ruling can be accessed from that page.

    April 3, 2009
  677. kiffi summa said:

    Hooray for the Iowa Supreme Court for allowing their principles of law to prevail over the fear, procrastination and discriminatory processes of the Legislature.

    A great example of the appropriate tension between the branches of government.

    April 3, 2009
  678. David Ludescher said:

    While this case could be seen as a sweeping win for gay-rights, there is nothing in the Court’s 60+ page ruling that prevents two bilogically related individuals from getting married, nor prevents polygamous relationships from eventually entering into the contract of marriage.

    The court also spent a fair bit of time discussing the “religious” aspect of marriage even though neither side pled such an argument.

    The last major error committed by the court was the remedy. Generally when laws are declared unconstitutional, the entire law falls. Judges do not have the authority to modify the law; they only have the authority to declare the law invalid.

    Given that they attempted to modify the law, the public would have been well-served by knowing how far this judically created concept of marriage can be extended. Overall, the opinion is substandard jurisprudence.

    April 3, 2009
  679. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Perhaps you preferred the dissenting opinion?

    April 3, 2009
  680. Jerry Friedman said:

    But courts have a history, a tradition, of substandard jurisprudence to fix a historical, traditional problem.

    And courts also muck things up.

    Courts are imperfect. Sometimes they do the right thing.

    April 3, 2009
  681. Obie Holmen said:

    David L,

    Good to know that our home town lawyers know more about jurisprudence than the unanimous Supreme Court of Iowa.

    Your recurring silliness in attempting to bring polygamous and incestuous relationships into this debate is becoming irritating. You suggest there is nothing in the Court’s 60+ page ruling that prevents two bilogically [sic] related individuals from getting married, nor prevents polygamous relationships

    Of course not, since those issues were not before the court.

    Similarly, you suggest that the court merely modified the law rather than following the appropriate protocol of declaring the law unconstitutional. Wrong again.

    The sole issue before the court was the constitionality of a certain statute which the court ruled unconstitional. It did not merely modify the law.

    The statute in question: Iowa Code section 595.2(1) provides “[o]nly a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” was declared unconstitutional — it was not modified.

    What is it about this issue that so intrigues you that you won’t let it go?

    April 3, 2009
  682. Peter Millin said:

    same-sex marriages and gay and lesbian
    couples essentially normal.

    Normal ??? By whose standards?

    Last time I checked it takes a male sperm and a female egg to create life.

    In any case. The gay community has won. Let them get married. The courts have spoken.

    April 4, 2009
  683. Peter Millin said:

    Obie,

    I am wodering more about the fact that Jerry and Patrick are so vehemently defending it?

    Not that anything is wrong with that…. 🙂

    April 4, 2009
  684. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: Very perceptive.

    Patrick: I’m kneeling, “Patrick, will you marry me?”

    April 4, 2009
  685. Peter Millin said:

    Can I be the “Maid of Honor” ?

    April 4, 2009
  686. David Henson said:

    The elephant in the room is probably anal sex. One has to throw science out the window to not think this is an unhealthy activity.

    In November, 2003, the CDC stated that HIV infection rates had risen in 29 states. There are an estimated 40,000 new HIV infections yearly with 70%of these being among men. Of those men who are infected, 60% are infected through homosexual sex

    One can argue that in an exclusive gay relationship the activity is benign for society (you can also argue that it is not). But when schools promote the equality of gay relationships they will de facto be increasing the likelihood of AIDs (and many other diseases) generating sexual activity. I, really – truly, do not understand how any responsible person can justify this as the best course for society? I am, at core, a libertarian but how many death warrants will society accept in the social promotion of a concept that is ultimately a private matter.

    April 4, 2009
  687. Patrick Enders said:

    Oh Jerry, I’d love to… you’re such a dear, but I suspect that it would hurt Felicity’s feelings, and I just can’t bring myself to do that to her.

    Let’s just keep it our secret, alright?

    April 4, 2009
  688. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: You’re very wise, especially since I don’t want to move to Iowa (no offense to LGN-reading Iowans). I am especially endeared that your reason for refusal is not because of me, but because of not wanting to hurt Felicity. What a mensch!

    Peter: I’d be honored for you to be our Maid of Honor especially since you gave me the courage to ask the question.

    April 4, 2009
  689. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: The elephant is yours.

    April 4, 2009
  690. David Henson said:

    Jerry, is it your honest belief that disease has nothing to do with the historical prohibition against homosexuality?

    April 4, 2009
  691. Bruce Anderson said:

    Perhaps Griff will have to rename this thread “How atheist-friendly is Northfield? (also, religious vs. legal views on marital rights; also, religious views concerning incest, polygamy, and the role public concerns about the health effects of anal sex has played in promoting homophobia among the heterosexual population)…

    David H.,
    In reply to your question,

    Jerry, is it your honest belief that
    disease has nothing to do with the
    historical prohibition against
    homosexuality?

    I don’t know about Jerry, but my answer to your question is: NO. Sexually transmitted diseases (including AIDS) among the heterosexual population (transmitted via vaginal, oral and anal intercourse) are hardly unheard of, and have not been used as a blanket justification for discrimination against heterosexuals.

    AIDS was first described by the Centers for Disease Control in 1981. Discrimination against homosexuals pre-dates 1981, methinks.

    April 4, 2009
  692. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Yes.

    April 4, 2009
  693. Bruce Anderson said:

    A correction to my post #516.3. My response to David H’s question should be in accord with Jerry’s. My answer is YES, I honestly “believe that disease has nothing to do with the historical prohibition against homosexuality.”

    April 4, 2009
  694. David Henson said:

    Bruce, hetrosexual sex is also highly discriminated against. And disease has everything to do with sexual rules and behaviors over time. I just can’t build the case for you (time constraints) but you are just too smart (along with Jerry and Patrick) to not understand this. There is also a big difference between not persecuting and promoting ACTIVITIES that many find objectionable and are in fact quite dangerous.

    April 4, 2009
  695. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Who’s promoting sexual ACTIVITIES?

    April 4, 2009
  696. Bruce Anderson said:

    So David, should we, as a society, ban all marriage (heterosexual and homosexual) because some sexual practices (between both consenting heterosexual and homosexual adults) sometimes lead to sexually transmitted diseases? I’m not following you.

    This thread drift has led me down a mental byway to a Frank Zappa song (Promiscuous, on a great 1995 album of live recordings from 1989, Broadway the Hard Way) touching on some of the same issues (lyrics below):

    Here we go!

    The Surgeon General, Doctor Koop
    S’posed to give you all the poop. But
    when he’s with P.M.R.C. The poop he’s
    scoopin’ Amazes me

    C-Span showed him, all dressed up In
    his phoney Doctor God get-up He looked
    in the camera and fixed his specs ‘N
    gave a fascinating lecture ‘Bout anal
    sex ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL SEX ANAL
    SEX

    He says it is not good for us We just
    can’t be promiscuous He’s just a
    doctor – he should know It’s the work
    of the Devil, so Girls, don’t blow!
    DON’T BLOW DON’T BLOW

    Don’t blow Jimmy, don’t blow Bobby Get
    yourself another hobby (If Jesus
    practiced medicine I’m sure he’d do it
    Just like him)

    Is Doctor Koop a man to trust? It
    seems at least that Reagan must (And
    Ron’s a trusting sort of guy – He
    trusts Ed Meese I wonder why?) I
    WONDER WHY WONDER WHY

    The A.M.A. has just got caught For
    doin’ stuff they shouldn’t ought All
    they do is lie and lie Where’s Doctor
    Koop? He’s standin’ by

    Surgeon General? What’s the deal? Is
    your epidemic real? Are we leaving
    something out? Something we can’t talk
    about? A little green monkey over
    there Kills a million people? That’s
    not fair! Did it really go that way?
    Did you ask the C.I.A.? Would they
    take you serious, Or have THEY been
    Promiscuous Have THEY been Promiscuous
    Have THEY been Promiscuous Have THEY
    been Promiscuous

    I wish I could provide a link to a YouTube video of the same, but I can’t, as there isn’t one. I tried in a previous failed post attempt to provide an appropriate alternative YouTube video of the late, great Mssr. Zappa (RIP, Frank), a cover of the Almen Brothers’ Whippin’ Post featuring some of Frank’s trademark guitar solos, but including links seems to send these posts hurtling into oblivion, so if you’d like to check it out, go to YouTube and search Frank Zappa Whippin’ Post. Enjoy.

    April 4, 2009
  697. Bruce Anderson said:

    Another correction (this time to post #523): that would be the Allman Brothers (no disrespect intended to Northfield’s Almens….

    April 4, 2009
  698. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Red herring.

    If society’s role was to prevent disease, there would be laws against eating animals. A meat-centered diet is the number one cause of disease. Heart disease, cancers, stroke, diabetes, kidney failure, and many others. AIDS doesn’t compare. I hope your concern for society’s reduction of disease translates to your vegan diet, and your advocating a vegan diet. Perhaps you should force a ban on meat-eaters from marriage.

    Society’s role is not to prevent disease by banning marriage. Even syphilis testing has been dropped from most states. Perhaps, instead of opposing same-sex marriage, you should advocate HIV testing before marriage.

    Homosexuals and heterosexuals can practice safe sex. That’s no reason to prohibit their marrying another. Or do you believe that all homosexuals have HIV? Or do you believe that homosexual lifestyles causes HIV? Your rationale doesn’t add up. Will you also ban hemophiliacs from marrying? Intravenous drug users? Heterosexuals who practice anal sex?

    Your prejudice against gays is evident. Veiling it in HIV fear-mongering is ineffective and immature. You’re much older than me, but I still wish you’d grow up.

    I am delighted that Iowa did the right thing. It reminds me that Wyoming was the first state to allow women to vote. Revolution happens in unexpected places.

    Incidentally, you still have not answered my question about the Book of Mormon. For the fourth time: Do you believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired and genuine?

    April 5, 2009
  699. David Henson said:

    Bruce – If you already have your answers from the Allmon Bros then I doubt I will influence you. I would just look deep inside yourself some day and ask does promoting pot (as I have heard you mention) and promiscuity really lead people to happiness? That was cute in the sixties but now it is just sad. AIDS is not some disease, its a death sentence, and it effects homosexual men at about 10 times the level of the rest of the population. I would not sneer at cultural morals evolved over 1000s of years in favor of rock musicans – especially in light of the radical pain those ideas have caused people

    April 5, 2009
  700. Peter Millin said:

    I think the real answer here is, that random uprotected sex is dangerous, no matter if you gay or straight.
    As a society we should encourage self respect and teach that sex is a special gift and not a sport.

    April 5, 2009
  701. Bruce Anderson said:

    David,
    I would never “promote pot and promiscuity.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Please do not make wildly inaccurate, defamatory accusations. Regarding the Frank Zappa/Allman Brothers allusions above, I will say just one word: SATIRE.

    I completely agree with Peter M (wow, did I just say that?!?) that “the real answer here is, that random uprotected sex is dangerous, no matter if you gay or straight.” Neither gays nor straights have a corner on the random unprotected sex market. I thought we were talking about committed, long-term, monogamous relationships.

    David H, I find many of your comments bizarre, and occasionally feel compelled to respond. You apparently feel the same about my comments. I’ll try to resist the impulse to respond in the future. I’ll leave it at that.

    April 5, 2009
  702. Jane Moline said:

    In order to encourage a stable society, government should encourage stable relationships. This means marriage. This discourages promiscuous sex (although heterosexuals manage promiscuity anyway) and encourages monogamy and reduces the incidents of sexually transmitted disease.

    If you want a stable society we should be encouraging and celebrating marriage for gays, straights, and childless couples.

    The opposition to gay marriage is simply a ploy to force religious law on the general population. Even then, it is a fanatical version of religious law. It is the equivalent of the Taliban’s version of government. The opposition is completely based on religious beliefs, and forcing those beliefs on others that do not share them.

    April 5, 2009
  703. David Ludescher said:

    Obie (515): I brought up the issue of gay marriage in the context of differentiating between atheist and theists beliefs, how those beliefs affect the secular thinking and laws, and whether Northfield is “atheist-friendly”.

    It’s intriguing to me because I am an expert in “divorce law”. As such, it is relatively easy for me to separate the legal from the religious, and more importantly, the legal from the illogical.

    As I watch this movement to expand the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, all I see are dangers and abuses:

    1. Marriage used to protect women and children from men leaving their families. A man used to be able to turn around four times, spit on his wife, and leave. Now, adults spit on each other and leave their children. New extensions of marriage will make this problem worse, not better.

    2. Our current system, even as unfair as it is to loving and committed adults, has some level of sanctity attached to procreation in the civil process. That is, the government’s promotion of biological parents caring for their own is a reasonable government objective. That sanctity is rapidly disappearing as marriage becomes more and more “adult-centered”.

    3. People will learn to “game the system”. For example, if a single person works for the government, it would be a simple affair for me, as a lawyer, to draft a contract whereby that person “marries” someone else just so that the third party can receive a share of those benefits.

    4. Loving and committed is NOT part of the definition of marriage. Nor will it be necessary for new couples to have this requirement. Marriages of convenience will abound.

    5. In addition to the political confusion, this issue is causing all kinds of intellectual confusion. The intelligentsia (Catholics and Muslims excluded) are generally in favor of same-sex marriage for religious reasons, i.e. that the people are in a loving and committed relationship. However, intellectually defining which loving and committed relationships should be “marriages” has continued to escape the intelligentsia.

    That the issue confuses people is demonstrated by the Iowan court decision. It’s 60+ pages of political ramblings which ultimately concludes that marriage cannot be limited to a man and a woman. Please notice that there is no prohibition against incestuous or polygamous relationships; there is only a prohibition against solely man/woman relationships. Given the declaration of unconstitutionality or the marriage statute, one has to wonder if marriage (in Iowa) is unconstitutional, or open to everyone.

    April 5, 2009
  704. Peter Millin said:

    The opposition to gay marriage is
    simply a ploy to force religious law
    on the general population. Even then,
    it is a fanatical version of religious
    law. It is the equivalent of the
    Taliban’s version of government. The
    opposition is completely based on
    religious beliefs, and forcing those
    beliefs on others that do not share
    them.

    I respectfully disagree. Most religous people are more tolerant than any leftwing radical group.

    April 5, 2009
  705. David Henson said:

    Jerry, the CDC statistics on sexual behavior would surprise you and disrupt your worldview.

    You are prejudice against meat eating as an activity and that’s ok because you believe it’s a poor life strategy – I eat meat but I have no issue with your prejudice. I am prejudiced against having 54 sexual partners on average in a lifetime and that is OK because I think is a poor life strategy. You have said you think the government sanctioning a specific limited type of relationship “marriage” is wrong. I have gone so far as to agree that the government should not be in the business of sanctioning any relationships – the government can be a repository for contacts (civil unions) and churches and other groups can decide how to title relationships (like married).

    I don’t agree with your dietary restrictions but I respect and honor your right to your beliefs – that is maturity.

    April 5, 2009
  706. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    The truth (or falsehood) of your statement is entirely dependent upon your definition of ‘leftwing radical group.’ If you are talking, say, the Chinese Communist Party, you are probably right.

    Personally, I’m not sure that I know anyone who is the member of a ‘leftwing radical group.’

    April 5, 2009
  707. john george said:

    Regarding the Iowa ruling, one of my co-workers is always telling me this acrostic for Iowa:
    I
    Owe the
    World an
    Apology.
    Unfortinately, his words have now been proven true.

    So many posts have put the whole issue of same sex marriage in a moral/religious context only. How about the historical context? We know, if you happen to believe Biblical history, that homosexuality has been around for a few thousand years. It is recorded in the histories all the major cultures of the past, if my memory serves me correctly. This being the case, why is there no historical evidence of a society or culture embracing this and continuing on to a higher level of tolerant culture? It just seems strange to me. The Greeks and Romans were highly educated and sophistocated societies. Being there is no historical evidence of this, and seeing that there have been melinia of time to see this evolve, is there something we are overlooking from history? Has every society that has embraced this eventually been overrun with fanatic religious lunatics that have undone all the progress made? Or is it possible that these types of relationships actually violate an unwritten genetic code in our DNA makeup? I don’t have answers here, but I am just trying to get the discussion away from religious overtones to something more concrete that we can perhaps dig out of history.

    One thing about this trend is, if it does violate something within our genetics and has just atrophied in past history, then those of us who oppose gay marriage only have to wait out this current trend. If it is destined to fail, it will do just that, as it has in the past. If it is destined to succeed somehow this time, then we are wasting our time and energy resisting it. The whole thing is really no threat to me asside from damage to the society and culture in general if it is indeed an unwise course of action. As it is said, those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it.

    April 5, 2009
  708. David Henson said:

    Jerry, I do not know enough about Mormonism to draw a conclusion about the Book of Mormon. I know some about the Bible and the Koran. Both Christianity and Islam are careful to point out that followers are to worship God not the books.

    I can say that your arguments that “bible-god” is not moral are not sound. The reason being is that you are projecting yourself as God in order to get to that conclusion. But you are not God. Just like a two year old cannot accurately judge the morality of his parents decisions, you cannot accurately judge the morality of God’s decisions.

    April 5, 2009
  709. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    Perhaps the core assumptions you have about the nature (and fall) of the classical Greek and Roman societies are different from the ones I have, but I’m not following you here.

    Still, I’m slightly encouraged by your statement “The whole thing is really no threat to me asside from damage to the society and culture in general”.

    The fact is, life in Connecticut and Massachusetts has not changed for the 90+% of the population that has no interest in entering into a same-sex marriage. I fully expect that same-sex marriages in Iowa will be equally unremarkable for those without a personal stake in the matter.

    April 5, 2009
  710. Patrick Enders said:

    (Trying again in the proper location…)
    John,
    Perhaps the core assumptions you have about the nature (and fall) of the classical Greek and Roman societies are different from the ones I have, but I’m not following you here.

    Still, I’m slightly encouraged by your statement “The whole thing is really no threat to me asside from damage to the society and culture in general”.

    The fact is, life in Connecticut and Massachusetts has not changed for the 90+% of the population that has no interest in entering into a same-sex marriage. I fully expect that same-sex marriages in Iowa will be equally unremarkable for those without a personal stake in the matter.

    April 5, 2009
  711. David Ludescher said:

    Jane (528): My opposition is primarily legal, and partly logical.

    I was in open court last week arguing that a man should be forced to honor his contract to his wife to love, honor, and cherish her. Of course, the judge didn’t require him to do so. Why? Because under the law, a man can leave his wife for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all.

    The law did nothing to encourage their relationship or to help her and the children. In fact, the law was and is completely apathetic to the fact that she was still in a loving and committed relationship. He broke the contract without a consequence.

    Why should or would the government want to create more of these worthless contracts? Make the contracts carry a consequence, open them up to everyone, or get rid of them. The worse thing that we can do is what we are doing – extending them to homosexual couples on a religious theory of love and commitment. Love and commitment in civil marriage went out with no-fault divorce.

    April 5, 2009
  712. john george said:

    Patrick- Just as acceptance of the gay lifestyle has not happened quickly, perhaps the effects of embracing it will not be quickly realized. That is yet to be seen, but with the trend that is going, I think we are destined to see them be they good or bad. I don’t mean to be a fatalist, here, but viewing history from my perspective gives me reason for pause.

    In looking at the Greek culture, I’m not saying that embracing the homosexual lifestyle was the event that toppled it. But it was something that was a part of that society. Homosexuality was also a part of the French Empire when it was a world power, but it was not the only thing that brought it down. In many of the world empires, for instance the British, I don’t remember it being a part of that society, so I’m not convinced that I can make a definitive causal relationship for every fallen empire. I would just like to know what cultures it was a part of in history.

    In our most recent historical examples of the last century, both the Japanese and the Germans were driven more by greed, I think, than ideology, but something could be said for the effects of the Arien society philosophy of Nazi Germany.

    What about the idea of homosexuality being a variant from the natural order? What are your thoughts on that? It would seem that we are dealing with people who are physically either male or female. What is the basis for their attraction to others of the same sex, if not psycholigical? Is there a common denominator, or are the underlying reasons as varied as there are people who have same sex attraction?

    Concerning my statement about this being a threat to me, I am honest when I say it is not. Legalizing gay marriage will not nullify my marrige to my wife. My only other concern, which I have expressed before, is how this will all play out in my freedom to hold and express my opinions about homosexuality and gay marriage.

    April 5, 2009
  713. Peter Millin said:

    Patrick,

    moveon.org
    commondreams.org
    mediamatters

    Just to name a few.

    April 5, 2009
  714. Peter Millin said:

    Concerning my statement about this
    being a threat to me, I am honest when
    I say it is not. Legalizing gay
    marriage will not nullify my marrige
    to my wife. My only other concern,
    which I have expressed before, is how
    this will all play out in my freedom
    to hold and express my opinions about
    homosexuality and gay marriage.

    John,
    I share these concerns as well. I am expected to have an open mind and think progressive, but God forbid I am expressing my opinion.
    The “Thought Police” will immediately step in and call me a bigot.
    This is not only true in the gay and lesbian community this is about true for any special interest group.

    I grant the gay/lesbian community their freedom to marry, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.
    And it is my right to teach my children that this behavior is just wrong…oops there I said it.

    We as a society have become over sensitive, because we are being made to feel guilty, over just about everything.
    This does nothing more then deepen the rift among various groups within society.

    April 5, 2009
  715. john george said:

    Peter- Good statement, this, We as a society have become over sensitive, because we are being made to feel guilty, over just about everything.
    This does nothing more then deepen the rift among various groups within society.

    I agree. This seems more like the tolerance I was brought up with than some of the stuff being taught now. I call it the difference between being equal and the same.

    April 5, 2009
  716. john george said:

    Oh rats! I hit the wrong command. I meant to put your words in block quotes. Sorry, Peter.

    April 5, 2009
  717. Patrick Enders said:

    Peter,
    As far as I know, I don’t know anyone who is a member of any of those groups. In most cases, I think of them more as advocates who have a certain readership, rather than groups with a formal membership.

    But what, for example, has mediamatters.org done that is intolerant? I’m somewhat familiar with them as a group that keeps an eye on the news, and reports what they think to be errors in other groups’ reporting. Sounds more like fact-checking and criticism rather than intolerance.

    April 5, 2009
  718. John, you wrote,

    What about the idea of homosexuality being a variant from the natural order? What are your thoughts on that?

    There is overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is relatively common throughout the natural world.

    From Wikipedia:

    Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior in non-human animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

    [link embedded in my name, above]

    As the song says,

    “Birds do it,
    Bees do it,
    Even educated fleas do it
    Let’s do it, let’s fall in love”

    April 5, 2009
  719. David Henson said:

    Peter, I think you hit the nail on the head

    it is my right to teach my children

    I think it is wrong to sit and teach children that playing Russian Roulette is OK. I think it is wrong for the government to teach them that high risk lifestyles are just “another form of family.” The combination of those taking extraordinary taxing authority and the media bludgeoning society with negative behavior models is destroying the fabric of American society.

    April 5, 2009
  720. Peter,
    I think you hit the elephant on the head.

    April 5, 2009
  721. If we allow people past child-bearing age (or who are sterile, or intend not to have children, or who have physical or psychological conditions that preclude “normal” sexual intercourse) to marry because they love each other and want a stable life together — which we do with no problem at all, no questions asked — I can’t see a legally persuasive reason not to allow other adult couples who love each other but who can’t make babies together the right to marry.

    No, it’s not traditional, and I understand that changes to tradition don’t come easily. But if we want to encourage stable, committed relationships rather than loneliness, promiscuity, financial instability or single parenthood, it’s a step in the right direction.

    We’ve stopped (for the most part) making gender a determining factor for educational and career choices — a proxy for who got to do what, irrespective of talents and drive. We need to stop making gender a determining factor for who we can marry. It’s about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – goals we claim to hold dear and defend with our lives.

    My opinion.

    April 5, 2009
  722. john george said:

    Patrick- There is better research than Wikipedia that says the same thing. I was looking into an article (I’m not even going to try for the link) that I found just by Googling “history of homosexuality in cultures”. There is a lot of research demonstrating this phenomenon in nature. Some of the creatures do this only out of control of reproduction. Some, or so the report says, do this to establish an authority heirarchy within a group or pack. With others, there is conflicting opinions of why it happens, but it does happen. Does this evidence, just because it exists, justify the legalization of the practice in our society? Many of these same animals eat their own young or the young of others, so following the same logic, does this justify the same practices on the human level? It seems we humans, because of our greater level of intellect and understanding, should be able to live above other animals.

    When it comes to commitment to like animals within a pack, is this a demonstration of love on their level? We humans are supposed to be able to make and keep commitments based on love, or so some earlier posts suppose. Perhaps the greater threat to marriage is the elevation of, and focus on, self awareness and importance rather than any legislation we might enact concerning those with same sex attraction. I believe the greatest motivation behind divorce is the over emphasis on self fulfillment rather than the importance of the marriage commitment, but that is another thread subject entirely.

    April 5, 2009
  723. john george said:

    Patrick- You have to be a pretty good shot to nail an elephant!

    April 5, 2009
  724. john george said:

    Penny- You make an excellent argument for not limiting marriage “rights” to procreation ability only. There must be a more universal requirement or standard.

    April 5, 2009
  725. David Ludescher said:

    Penny: Excellent point. But, perhaps the solution is to limit marriage, not expand it. Additionally, there should be consequences to the breach of the contract.

    As it is, the government is providing benefits to those who claim to be committed. However, when the commitment is broken, the only consequence is the loss of the government benefit.

    April 6, 2009
  726. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    The argument you are now making is the exact opposite of the one you previously made. In order to make your new argument, it would seem to me that you must first acknowledge that same-sex relationships are an extremely natural thing.

    It would seem to me that you should then come up with a compelling reason for us to act in a manner that is in direct conflict with our inherent nature. (For murder, the common interest in observing the “do no harm” principle seems a very strong one.).

    April 6, 2009
  727. David L,
    The main problem with your proposed remedy is that – based upon the admittedly small sample of persons reading this web page – there seems to be a profound lack of interest among any persons, except yourself, in giving up their rights and privileges of marriage.

    April 6, 2009
  728. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    On your second point, I believe, based mostly upon my personal observations, that some animals (dogs in particular, since those are the animals with whom I have shared my homes throughout my life) experience a wide breadth of emotions: happiness, sadness, anger, fear, frustration, and joy. I also believe that dogs demonstrate a feeling of ‘love’ that is equivalent to that offered by a child: a simple, deep, unqualified and unreserved attachment to the persons who have raised it and nurtured it.

    This deep attachment is, for me, the core essence of love, and the foundation upon which we build all of our more complex, constructed formulations of ‘higher’ forms of love.

    Of course, these are to some degree areas that have not yet been adequately answered in an objective sense, as it is very hard to ask a dog what it is feeling. (Or rather, it is very hard for us to understand the dog’s answer to that question.)

    Some preliminary readings regarding scientific studies (and philosophy) regarding these matters:
    [AGAIN, I AM UNABLE TO POST A LINK, so here are directions: go to Wikipedia, and select the articles titled “Emotion in Animals” and “Ethology”]

    April 6, 2009
  729. David Henson said:

    Bruce,
    Sorry I should not have directed towards you – I was speaking more to the lyrics. The USA has done a great deal to tear down morals and when overly doctrinaire this is good but I have come to think (through reason and experience not via any church group) that we have gone wildly too far and this is causing a lot of people a lot of pain. People listen to messages and giving a big platform to immature rock groups and film makers ends up influencing many people to make poorly thought out decisions.

    BTW: I actually support the ecological ends you are working towards – the only possible difference being that I think it’s impossible to get to that vision without slashing the size of government.

    April 6, 2009
  730. Peter Millin said:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/06/morning-bell-not-just-a-stereotype/

    Here is a different opinion on the IA court decision:

    This past Friday the Iowa Supreme
    Court rewrote the definition of
    marriage to include same-sex couples.
    Justifying their rejection of the
    argument that “the optimal environment
    for children is to be raised within a
    marriage of both a father and a
    mother,” Justice Mark Cady wrote: “The
    research … suggests that the
    traditional notion that children need
    a mother and a father to be raised
    into healthy adjusted adults is based
    more on stereotype than anything
    else.”

    This passage of the ruling (above) is just plain nonsense..

    Which makes me beleieve that:

    What is happening is no minor
    adjustment… It does not expand
    marriage; it alters its core meaning,
    for to redefine marriage so that it is
    not intrinsically related to the
    relationship between fathers, mothers,
    and children formally severs the
    institution from its nature and
    purpose. Expanding marriage supposedly
    to make it more inclusive, no matter
    what we call the new arrangement,
    necessarily ends marriage as we now
    know it by remaking the institution
    into something different: a mere
    contract between any two individuals.

    April 6, 2009
  731. Obie Holmen said:

    To Peter,

    Don’t look up, a piece of falling sky may hit you in the eye.

    Also, regarding your comment, it is my right to teach my children that this behavior is just wrong, I hope that none of them are born gay for the damage your teaching will wreak. You can hope for the best and they will merely grow up bigoted.

    Or, I can hope for the best, and they will grow up to atone for the sins of their father like the daughter of George Wallace.

    April 6, 2009
  732. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Russian Roulette? You equate same-sex marriage with a 1 in 6 chance of getting killed?

    April 6, 2009
  733. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: No one but god may forbid you from expressing your opinion. As with my own opinion, if your opinion sucks, people will express theirs. There is no reason for you to complain about others expressing their opinions when they disagree with you.

    April 6, 2009
  734. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Love and commitment are not simply classified under a religious theory, or do the irreligious not love?

    April 6, 2009
  735. Jerry Friedman said:

    John:

    What about the idea of homosexuality being a variant from the natural order? What are your thoughts on that?

    You’re on the threshold of dangerous ideas. Some Nazi programmes were based on brain disorders being variants from the natural order.

    With a neutral connotation, sure, homosexuality is a variant. So are blue eyes and blonde hair.

    Homosexuality has existed as long (and longer) than written history, longer than Christianity. If you want to talk about what’s “natural”, Christianity is not. Why should one’s feelings toward another person or a religion have anything to do with their right to marry, unless of course you consider 1 Corinthians 7:27. (Christians should not marry until the Second Coming.)

    Whether it is natural or unnatural, a positive, neutral or negative variant, whatever, homosexuality is irrelevant to the context of individual rights and the fundamental right of marriage. Let other people marry whom they want, so long as no crime is being committed.

    April 6, 2009
  736. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: The most recent statistics I found on the CDC web site, dated 2002, published 2005, does not list AIDS in the top ten causes of death among Americans. Heart disease, the #1 killer, killed 29% of Americans. Cancer, #2, comes in at 23%, and stroke comes in third at 7%.

    Among blacks only, HIV is the #7 killer (7,800 people). Among whites, HIV is #22.

    -National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 53, No. 17, March 7, 2005

    This does not budge my worldview. If your goal for a better society is assuring every human’s good health, you will advocate veganism. A non-animal diet is the best defense against heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, kidney disease, and several other top killers.

    Alternatively, if you want to legislate people’s sexual lives, I understand your current position.

    April 6, 2009
  737. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Why don’t you have faith that the Book of Mormon is inspired and genuine? Alternatively, why do you have faith that the Judeochristian Bible is inspired and genuine, but not the Book of Mormon? What do you know that the Mormons don’t know?

    I can say that your arguments that “bible-god” is not moral are not sound. The reason being is that you are projecting yourself as God in order to get to that conclusion. But you are not God. Just like a two year old cannot accurately judge the morality of his parents decisions, you cannot accurately judge the morality of God’s decisions.

    If I accept that I cannot accurately judge the morality of Biblegod’s decisions, then I must infer that neither can you. So it is unknowable to you whether Biblegod is acting morally or immorally. You take it’s actions on faith. If you are unable to accurately judge the morality of its actions, then you could be wrong. Indeed, maybe Lot’s unnamed wife was acting morally when she looked back at the destroyed cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and you cannot accurately judge if Biblegod was moral or immoral when it turned her into salt.

    I can’t speak for you, of course, but I have a problem following an ideology purportedly created by a being whom I cannot accurately judge is moral or immoral.

    Turn me to salt. I side with Lot’s wife.

    April 6, 2009
  738. Griff Wigley said:

    Obie,

    Some of your comments (like the one posted today) violate our Guidelines because of your harsh tone.

    Can you please re-read them and accommodate, please?

    April 6, 2009
  739. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Yup. But, it is fair without any religious overtones.

    April 6, 2009
  740. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    It is also silly, and – given the lack of interest – irrelevant.

    Perhaps you could offer something more constructive?

    April 6, 2009
  741. David Henson said:

    Jerry, I think they are all inspired and genuine. You have a bad habit of assuming you know what people think without actually asking them – and then you produce strawman arguments against your assuption.

    You are correct I can see with the vision of a God either (damn).

    I don’t recall them teaching in school to eat lots of red meat, chips and soda while sitting on the couch or handing out RED MEAT EATER certificates at the county seat. If they do this then I will side with allowing families to work this issues through on their own.

    April 6, 2009
  742. David Henson said:

    Freudian slip – prior post should “cannot see”

    April 6, 2009
  743. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Sorry, I didn’t realize that you are Mormon.

    If you cannot determine whether Biblegod is acting morally or immorally, how do you know if Biblegod is moral or immoral?

    I don’t recall them teaching in school to eat lots of red meat, chips and soda while sitting on the couch or handing out RED MEAT EATER certificates at the county seat. If they do this then I will side with allowing families to work this issues through on their own.

    I thought the elephant you complained about was the propensity of same-sex couples to cause AIDS-related deaths. Same-sex couples are more likely to eat animals than to eat only plants. Therefore they are more likely to die from heart attacks, cancers, strokes, etc., and (god forbid) if they adopt children, they will pass on a high-risk diet to their children. Come to think of it, opp’-sex couples are in the same category.

    So I say again, if you want to minimize the deaths of people, your focus should be on stopping the consumption of animals, not stopping same-sex couples from marrying. If you advocate a vegan diet, you can have an effect on reducing four of the top ten killers!

    Yet you do not oppose same-sex marriage because of disease. If disease prevention was your clarion call, you’d advocate veganism, or you’d advocate safe sex. You might even advocate same-sex marriage because married couples are less likely to “sleep around” and contract HIV. You don’t advocate these things. You oppose same-sex marriage for some other reason. Enough with your elephant. Say what you mean.

    April 6, 2009
  744. john george said:

    Patrick- Make no mistake, I am not changing my position or opinion of homosexual behavior. I’m just choosing to discuss it on a different level. This does not mean I will not tolerate how people choose to live, but my tolerance does not mean validation. My interpretation of the little research I have read is different than yours. I interpret it to mean that there is this type of behavior prevalent in animals because they are instinct driven. We humans have the capacity to choose behavior above the instinct level. In your application of the example of murder, this demonstrates that we can influence behavior based on an external set of values. Where does the concept of “do no harm” come from? It doesn’t appear to be prevalent in nature, per se. This being the case, how do we pick and choose which behaviors are acceptable and which ones are not? Will selective murder be embraced as an acceptable option in the future? Actually, it is right now, given the number of abortions performed in the world. Who is next? The elderly and frail, as they become an economic burden on the overextended welfare system? Does my line of reasoning have any validity, or am I completely decieved?

    To say that unprotected promiscuity has no threat upon our wellbeing is to deny the evidence. I remember an article out of the past when articles about AIDS first burst upon the scene. One of the GLBT leaders was interviewed, and one of his comments went something like this- We were just about there in getting people to accept our lifestyle, then this had to happen. That comment still sticks out in my memory as evidence that the struggle for acceptance of the gay lifestyle is more than just psychological. There are physical ramifications associated with it.

    Now, if I were to analyze this research from my belief system, I would say that it demonstrates the effects that sin resulting from the fall in the Garden has had on the whole of creation. Do you see the difference?

    April 6, 2009
  745. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    I’m not presuming to speak for David here, but…

    David,
    Didn’t you already say that it’s your dispproval of anal sex that lies behind your opposition to homosexual marriage?

    I’d be interested to know your thoughts on same-sex marriages between women. After all, anal sex rates are likely to be even lower among female-female couples than they are among heterosexual couples. More importantly, the rate of STD transmission is much lower among F-F partners than it is among M-F partners.

    April 6, 2009
  746. john george said:

    Patrick- Having grown up around dogs, I agree that they mostly demonstrate a high level of commitment and “love” for their owners. We did have a couple dogs that went “funny”. They were the proverbial dog that bit the hand of the one who fed them. In this particular case, it was my dad, and, seeing as how we lived on a farm and had an array of hunting guns, the dogs met an early demise. I guess from my little experience, I have always believed it possible for dogs to have near human behavioral traits and deviant behavioral traits.

    April 6, 2009
  747. john george said:

    David- I think you have a good idea in there being more consequences in the disolution of a marriage. I agree that the mere loss of tax exemptions seems pretty benign. The real kicker is where there is alimony and child support involved. This can be an overwhelming financial drain on an absent father, especially if he would like to go on with his life with someone else. I remember my wife and I joking when our kids were young that if either of us decided to leave, we had to take the kids with us. Of course, this was only jest, but there is a grain of incentive in such a threat.

    April 6, 2009
  748. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    Much like heterosexual marriage, encouraging same sex couples to commit to marriages would seem to be an excellent way to discourage unprotected promiscuity.

    April 6, 2009
  749. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    It would seem to me that it would be even more useful to encourage people to choose their partners wisely before getting married. Punishing people after their marriage has failed seems kinda useless – even dangerous, if the situation has turned hostile or abusive.

    April 6, 2009
  750. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: What could be better than a fair, atheistic system?

    April 6, 2009
  751. john george said:

    Jerry- I just found your comment. I am beginning to get lost with all these reply links to comments, but I do see some value in them.

    Regarding this comment, “… If you want to talk about what’s “natural”, Christianity is not…” I wholeheartedly agree. Christianity is absolutely not natural. God is outside the natural realm, and therefore His kingdom is outside the natural realm. I don’t know what I said that you are responding to, but the whole concept of dying to your own desires is certainly not natural.

    Where did you get your version of I Cor. 7:27? My NAS reads like this, “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” If your translation does that much damage to a verse, then there is little wonder you hold the position you do about God and Christianity.

    And as far as homosexuality being around before the Bible, I believe it has been around since the fall of man. That is why I believe, and it has been demonstrated in peoples’ loves, that it is a condition of sin that can be redeemed, like fearfulness and unbelief. I admit that it is difficult for me to discuss the whole issue outside of my belief system, but I an trying to get a better understanding of where people outside of my belief system are coming from.

    April 6, 2009
  752. David Ludescher said:

    That comment was in 537

    April 6, 2009
  753. john george said:

    Jerry- The issue I am refering to is the trend that my opinion is being classified as hate speech. I can’t speak for Peter, but I think I infer the same concerns in his comments. When a particular opinion is classified as illegal, then there are some pretty drastic consequences to holding it. It is just the same as in some Islamic countries that outlaw any citizens from converting to Christianity, or even foreign believers gathering to meet for a religious service.

    April 6, 2009
  754. john george said:

    Patrick- I guess you have more faith in human nature than I do. If the marriage commitment really held sway to keep people from extramarital affairs, then I don’t think we would have the level of extramarital affairs that seems to be of epidemic proportions in this country. Since the whole sexual experience is tied up in the act itself, then I don’t have any more hope for homosexuals to be faithful in their commitment than what is being demonstrated in the heterosexual marriages. It appears to me that there must be some outside moral agent needed for couples live within their marriage commitment.

    April 6, 2009
  755. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    You keep calling this hair-brained idea of yours an “atheistic” system.

    It wasn’t dreamed up by an atheist. It was dreamed up by a Catholic with a very peculiar and misguided notion of what atheists think.

    April 6, 2009
  756. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I find that being raised with positive examples of responsible married life, combined with careful choice of a wonderful and worthy spouse, is a great recipe for monogamous commitment.

    Social pressure is also important. No one in my extended family has ever been divorced, or – as far as I know – has ever had an extramarital affair. None of my closest friends have married badly or divorced, either.

    I sure as heck wouldn’t want to be the first to screw up.

    April 6, 2009
  757. john george said:

    Patrick- My blessings on you and Felicity and your life together. I think it is true that offspring of successful families tend to carry on the success into the next generation. This isn’t universal, by any means, unfortunately, but I think there is evidence to support our position. I also know of examples of young people coming out of broken homes and establishing a lifelong, successful relationship. It could be that the bad experiences of their own was enough incentive to change the direction in their generation. Occasionally, people do learn from history.

    I was doing more research into monogamous relationships in nature, and, according to one study, about 3% of 4000 species studied stayed in monogamous relationships for life. Man, unfortunately, was not in the 3%. The most successful in enforcing this commitment is the black vulture. Other vultures within the group take action when unfaithful daliances are detected. Too bad we don’t have the same type of mechanism in human marriages. But then, that would invade our freedom and privacy. If we are going to use patterns in nature to direct our lives, then the whole concept of a monogamous relationships is about as prevalent in nature as homosexual activity, if not less. Perhaps the sect of Mormonism that promotes polygamy is actually the most natural.

    April 6, 2009
  758. john george said:

    Patrick- When we choose to marry someone, we don’t have the benefit of knowing the future. There can be all kinds of connections when we are young that can be really strained later in life when disease or misfortune strike, or even when children come along. The wisdom is in the marriage commitment itself, until death separates us. Commitment is a choice we make, for better or worse. Unfortunately, some people decide to bail out when things turn worse rather than staying in the relationship and redeeming it. I’m not talking about abusive. life-threatening situations where the offending spouse refuses to change. I’m refering to life’s general inconveniences that come along. But, then, I’m getting more into justifications for divorce rather than wisdom to work through problems that arise. I just wanted to have that base covered.

    April 6, 2009
  759. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    Perhaps… though the polygamist wives (why is it always the women?) seem to get the rum end of that deal. (Then again, all the men who’ve been systematically run out of the community in order to leave an excess of women available seem to be getting a raw deal as well. No, scratch that: they’re probably the lucky ones.)

    Ah well. Jerry has previously touched upon why society has an interest in discouraging polygamist marriages.

    Similarly, I think we’ve already more than adequately covered why society/government has an interest in encouraging monogamous relationships (hetero ones, at the very least).

    April 6, 2009
  760. john george said:

    Jerry- Now I’m having the same problem Patrick did. Here is my post linked to the correct reply. Talk about bad aim! And to think I used to be able to bring down any pheasant on the wing at 50 yards!

    Jerry- I just found your comment. I am beginning to get lost with all these reply links to comments, but I do see some value in them.

    Regarding this comment, “… If you want to talk about what’s “natural”, Christianity is not…” I wholeheartedly agree. Christianity is absolutely not natural. God is outside the natural realm, and therefore His kingdom is outside the natural realm. I don’t know what I said that you are responding to, but the whole concept of dying to your own desires is certainly not natural.

    Where did you get your version of I Cor. 7:27? My NAS reads like this, “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” If your translation does that much damage to a verse, then there is little wonder you hold the position you do about God and Christianity.

    And as far as homosexuality being around before the Bible, I believe it has been around since the fall of man. That is why I believe, and it has been demonstrated in peoples’ loves, that it is a condition of sin that can be redeemed, like fearfulness and unbelief. I admit that it is difficult for me to discuss the whole issue outside of my belief system, but I an trying to get a better understanding of where people outside of my belief system are coming from.

    April 6, 2009
  761. David Henson said:

    Much like heterosexual marriage, encouraging same sex couples to commit to marriages would seem to be an excellent way to discourage unprotected promiscuity.

    Patrick, the CDC figures show most homosexual men are very promiscuous. One compelling purpose of monogamy would be raising offspring. Homosexual men do not generate offspring which reduces the biological need for commitment as well as the social need. The relationship is different. It may be better, it may be worse, it may be a matter of opinion but it is different. Families and individuals can decide whether different is equal or not on their own without the government propagandizing one position or another. This is what the people of California decided by referendum and it was a wise choice.

    April 6, 2009
  762. john george said:

    Patrick- Perhaps I am just thick, but I’m having a hard time getting my head around the use of nature as a support for homosexual relationships because it is in the natural order, although minorly, but not allowing polygamist relationships even though they are in the natural order predominately. Somehow, it just seems like vascilating logic. Sorry, but I’m just trying to understand. Heterosexual unions have definite advantages to society. I just don’t see the same advantages in homosexual unions.

    As far as women dominating mating trends, once they have conceived, there is little incentive to attact other males for at least nine months. For men, they can carry on their reproductive functions daily. Seems pretty clear why polygamy would be male dominated.

    April 6, 2009
  763. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Hate speech is not in itself illegal. Further, saying that “homosexuality is immoral” is not hate speech. If Peter is teaching his children that homosexuality is immoral, he committing no crimes. If he is teaching his children to hurt homosexuals, then there’s a problem.

    I don’t know what opinions are illegal. I can’t think of one. However, soliciting or inciting someone to hurt others is illegal.

    April 6, 2009
  764. Jerry Friedman said:

    John:

    And to think I used to be able to bring down any pheasant on the wing at 50 yards!

    I am happy for today’s pheasants that you’ve lost your aim. I have never found peace nor joy in killing.

    I wholeheartedly agree [that Christianity is not natural]

    Then we agree that something being natural or unnatural has no relevance, no application to marriage.

    Where did you get your version of I Cor. 7:27? My NAS reads like this, “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” If your translation does that much damage to a verse, then there is little wonder you hold the position you do about God and Christianity.

    The verse before talks about “the present distress”, for a “man to remain as he is” (single or married). What is the present distress? My NAS cross references point to Luke 21:23 and 2 Thessalonians 2:2. Both cross refs describe the Second Coming.

    Therefore, because of the present distress, the belief that the Second Coming was imminent, Paul tells the Corinthians that it is better for men to remain as they are. Single men stay single, married men stay married. Therefore, none should marry, none should divorce.

    See: http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1co+7

    April 6, 2009
  765. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins wrote in “The Selfish Gene” and Jared Diamond wrote in “Why is Sex Fun?” biology’s view on monogamy and polygamy among animals, including humans.

    Dawkins cites that there is a mono/polygamy ratio in various animal populations, so black vultures may have 100% monogamy, humans may have something less. Each species has its own ratio.

    While the myth is that men want to spread their seed around and women want to nab one protective man, that myth doesn’t work in reality. A father can better assure his offspring will survive if he invests in their childhood just like mothers tend to do. Hence, there is a biological reason for fathers to be monogamous. Mothers can dupe two men into believing they are both fathers and then get more protection for her children, or dupe a second man if the first abandons her. Hence, there is a biological reason for mothers to be polygamous. Among humans, you can find many more counterexamples to the monogamous woman/polygamous man stereotypes.

    The other aspect of your question relates to the biological advantage of homosexual relationships. Reproductively, I can’t think of any. Emotionally, there are several. People want to be with whomever they want to be with, in an equal way. That emotion means everything to them.

    April 7, 2009
  766. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I brought up the ‘naturalness’ of same sex relations because you asserted that “homosexuality [is] a variant from the natural order?” and asked “What are your thoughts on that?”

    I think our different philosophical understandings are the source of confusion between us here.

    To me, you seem to be operating under the classic Christian belief that humans are fundamentally flawed creatures, fallen from a state of grace, and only able to become better through the intercession of a divine agent.

    I do not believe that humans are living in a fallen state. Rather, I believe that our good acts are our own, and are the result of our inherently social and cooperative biological nature. I believe that loving bonds between individuals are an essential component of how we interact as a species, and I see no evidence that the loving bonds between same sex partners are any different (or any less positive) than those made between opposite-sex couples.

    April 7, 2009
  767. john george said:

    Jerry- The pheasants have nothing to fear from me! I haven’t hunted in probably 30 years or so. We used to hunt on our farm when I was growing up because it was a source of meat (being from a family of omnivores, that was important). It was just a euphamism regarding my inability to click on the correct post number.

    As far as your exegesis of I Cor. 7, I feel it is a little incomplete. It is attributed to Jesus in Matt. 24:37&38 that the end days will be like the days of Noah before the flood, where men were marrying and giving in marriage. I believe that Paul’s example had more to do with holding your commitment to Christ as more important than the horizontal relationships you enter into, but I may be incomplete in that, also, depending upon which scholar you happen to cite. I do see where you are coming from now. Thanks.

    April 7, 2009
  768. john george said:

    Jerry- This statement,”…Then we agree that something being natural or unnatural has no relevance, no application to marriage…” really isn’t what Patrick was presenting. At this hour of night, and with all the reply links, I can’t find which comment it was in, but the example of homosexual behavior in all the various levels of animals was being presented as a support for legalizing gay marriage. If there are no natural or “unnatural” (supernatural?) criterion to support marriage of any kind, then what criterion do we use? Perhaps I’m not fully understanding your comment. I certainly do not agree that my religious beliefs, based in something outside of nature, have no relevance. In fact, I believe (and I’m sure you won’t be surprised at this) that this supernatural God is the source for the whole concept of marriage. That is why I stated that it is difficult for me to discuss the issue from a purely historical or biological basis. But I am really trying to get ahold of your reasoning.

    April 7, 2009
  769. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    I don’t have a definitive answer either, but there are plenty of hypotheses out there to be tested.

    A bit of googling came up with,

    “There are a variety of ways that alleles (alternative versions for genes, the reason why we have different eye color, hair color, skin color, etc.) for homosexuality can propagate in an evolutionary manner. A recent study comparing a group of male homosexuals with a group of heterosexuals found that homosexuality was clustered in families, it seemed to be inherited more from the maternal side of the family than the paternal side, and that the females that seemed to be passing on this trait also had significantly more offspring.

    This suggests a pattern of sexual antagonism in the inheritance of an allele. This occurs when the allele has evolutionarily beneficial results in one sex, while evolutionarily detrimental effects in the other…

    There are at least three different levels at which homosexuality may be seen as adaptive, and each of these levels has its own implications with regard to how homosexuality manages to continue among humans. At the most concrete level, we might posit genetic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I’ll call this the “genetic” level. Some biological studies seem to support this view. At a more “abstract” level, we might assume that homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same genes, but that during ontogeny universal genetically determined “programs” get “switched on” or “switched off” depending on environmental influences. Thus, people may have the same genotypes, but these genotypes may produce different phenotypes in different situations. This might be called the “epigenetic” level. Many theories (including Freudian ideas) about the psychological dynamics behind homosexuality are of this type. At the most abstract level, homosexuality might be unrelated to genetic differences or to universal genetic programs that determine ontogeny. Instead, homosexuality may be culturally determined in a manner far removed from direct genetic influences. Following Dawkins’ (1976), we might call this the “memic” level….

    Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorised that homosexual behaviour, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males…

    [Links not included for the usual reason]

    And so on, and so on. The jury’s still out.

    April 7, 2009
  770. john george said:

    Patrick & Jerry- Patrick’s evaluation, “…I think our different philosophical understandings are the source of confusion between us here…” is , I believe, correct. That being the case, I am willing to allow you both your latitude to believe your philosophies, and I believe you are granting me the same freedom. Although we may not come to agreement on many points, I feel my discussion with you both has helped me understand you better. Hopefully, these discussions will bring more peace and unity in the end than division.

    As far as hate speech definitions, there have been attempts in the recent past to define my opinions as just that. So far they have not held up in court, but with the direction I see our own country and others going, I have a concern that it may happen in the future. If it indeed happens, I feel I have gained a couple friends that will not be in the group throwing stones at me.

    April 7, 2009
  771. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: I have no belief that homosexuality has a genetic component. If heterosexuals have a greater chance to reproduce than homosexuals, which they do pretty much by definition, then the less reproductive genes will eventually disappear from the gene pool.

    For example, if homosexuals have an extraordinarily high rate of reproduction, say 98%, it will always be less than heterosexuals, say 99%. After a whole lotta generations, the 99% will crowd out the reproductively inferior 98% gene. Assuming that a “homosexual gene” gives a worse reproductive rate than 98%, it wouldn’t take long for it to be crowded out. But I hear that homosexuals have been at a fairly constant 10% of human population. That means that homosexuals have an EQUAL chance of reproduction as heterosexuals, or homosexuality is not genetic.

    But this is relevant only to biologists. It’s not relevant to politicians, either formally elected or community bloggers.

    April 7, 2009
  772. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    Genetics can be much more complex than that (and I’m not saying that homosexuality is determined by a particular gene, or even that there is a single state of ‘homosexuality’ that stands in direct contrast to ‘heterosexuality.’)

    But, just to make things simple, let’s pretend it was. Why would such a gene persist? First, there could be a state where a different degree of expression of the trait could confer a reproductive advantage. Second, there could be an advantage to the near relatives of persons in same sex relationships. Perhaps they could serve as surrogate or ‘extra’ parents to their nieces and nephews? And there are many other possibilities, some alluded to in the quotes above.

    Yes, the above is all unsubstantiated speculation, but the truth is out there, and – given what we know about the familial distribution of persons with varying degrees of interest in same- and opposite- sex relationships – biology plays at least some role in who we choose as partners.

    You write,

    But this is relevant only to biologists. It’s not relevant to politicians, either formally elected or community bloggers.

    Maybe the difference in our level of interest in this question is reflected in the fact that I don’t consider myself a politician, but I did very nearly pursue a career as an evolutionary biologist. I love the question ‘why?’ – particularly when it comes to questions of why we are the way we are.

    April 7, 2009
  773. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (537): As a lawyer, I want a sane, rational, and fair system of marriage. It has nothing to do with Catholicism. I think that, as a society, we have to build a completely atheistic system, and then proceed to see if we want to incorporate religious concepts into a more complete definition.

    The idea of “marriage” today still carries religious remnants like commitment, love, and fidelity. None of those religious requirements exist in today’s civil law.

    I want to build a system of marriage that is “atheist-friendly”. That system is substantially different than a system that is “friendly to atheists”.

    April 7, 2009
  774. Patrick Enders said:

    David, you wrote,

    As a lawyer, I want a sane, rational, and fair system of marriage.

    Ah. So that’s it: it’s a definition of marriage dreamed up by a divorce attorney.

    I think that, as a society, we have to build a completely atheistic system…
    The idea of “marriage” today still carries religious remnants like commitment, love, and fidelity.

    You still persist in this insane notion that ‘commitment,”love,’ and ‘fidelity’ are somehow foreign to atheists, and exist only among the religious.

    David, you are nuts.

    April 7, 2009
  775. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: I revel in the sophistication in genes. Nonetheless, if heterosexuals tend to reproduce more than homosexuals, a homosexual gene will eventually be removed from the gene pool.

    Could I be wrong? Sure. If that’s your objection, I’m in complete agreement with you.

    First, there could be a state where a different degree of expression of the trait could confer a reproductive advantage. Second, there could be an advantage to the near relatives of persons in same sex relationships. Perhaps they could serve as surrogate or ‘extra’ parents to their nieces and nephews? And there are many other possibilities, some alluded to in the quotes above.

    A recent study comparing a group of male homosexuals with a group of heterosexuals found that homosexuality was clustered in families, it seemed to be inherited more from the maternal side of the family than the paternal side, and that the females that seemed to be passing on this trait also had significantly more offspring.

    Lots of traits cluster in families, like religion, language, diet. These traits are not genetic. Further, I pose that a family that is more tolerant of homosexuals would tend to have its children more comfortable acknowledging their homosexuality, hence a cluster. This researcher’s theory does not account for female homosexuals.

    The next articles suggests genetic, epigenetic, or memic causes of homosexuality. The latter two should be observed as the same. In epigenetic, there is a common gene among all humans (i.e., there is no homosexual gene) and in memic, there is no homosexual gene. I don’t argue against the latter two.

    And finally, while it’s possible that homosexuality among dolphins reduces intraspecies aggression, that still suggests to me that heterosexual humans will reproduce more often, on average, than homosexual humans.

    More importantly, consider the reverse. We must assume that heterosexuality came first. If homosexuality evolved as a gene, it must have conferred a survival advantage from day one. It must have been so advantageous that it worked its way into 10% of the human population.

    I admit that I fall short of omniscience, but I don’t see how a gene that discourages reproduction would, on average, result in more children, so many more children that 10% of humans express homosexuality.

    I vote for ‘memic’. I believe all humans are sexual, genetically, and for conscious or subconscious (“environmental”) reasons, some humans find it more satisfying to be with a same-sex partner. There are well known tendencies that have boys first bond with mom, then dad (and vice versa with girls). Perhaps, as ‘epigenetic’, these genes that everyone share are the root. I can be sold on this theory, but I couldn’t distinguish it from ‘memic’.

    Finally, I include from politicians to community bloggers all people who care about this topic: The cause of homosexuality, white skin, six-fingered hands, and many other human traits, are irrelevant to society’s rules on marriage.

    April 7, 2009
  776. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (537): The Iowa Court ruled that the government could not exclude gays and lesbians from marrying because “marriage” in Iowa law could be a contract regardless of gender.

    I agree.

    I don’t see what prevents us from taking the next step of saying that the people can be related. Isn’t the refusal to permit that kind of marriage just a “belief”? Why shouldn’t the government allow two brothers to get married?

    Articulate your objection (hair-brained and nuts excluded).

    April 7, 2009
  777. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    What, no evidence to support your assertion that ‘commitment, ‘love,’ and ‘fidelity’ are exclusively religious ideas?

    We agree on the following: While I believe that love is a real thing that exists in the feelings of many persons, I don’t think that the government should have a ‘love’ test for any two persons seeking to enter into a marriage contract. I don’t even think the government should care whether or not they have sex with each other.

    However, I do see that religious people are deeply attached to the word ‘marriage,’ and use it to refer to a religious ceremony that is quite distinct from the civil contract called marriage.

    I think it might be easiest to rename the contract a ‘civil union,’ and make it available to any two consenting adults who wish to accept the rights and responsibilities encompassed by that contract. And yes, I’d be fine with two brothers accepting those responsibilities. I doubt many of them would want to do so, but as long as the contract is freely entered into by two equal, competent partners, heck yes, they should be able to secure rights of inheritance and medical visitation rights and the like. (In the case of two brothers, I would think that the biological relationship between them would guarantee those rights, but I’m no lawyer, so you’d know better than I. Still, I could imagine a pair of platonic friends entering into such a contract.)

    Having said all of that, I don’t expect that to happen. There are too many people attached to the name ‘marriage’ – both straight and gay. The Iowa case is remarkable in its unanimity, and I expect it is a portent of where compromises on the meaning of marriage are going. And, like so many other good compromises, it’s one that I can live with, same sex couples can live with, and Christians should be able to live with.

    If Christians like, they can start referring to their “Catholic marriage,” their “Episcopalian wife,” or their “Mormon husband,” as distinct from other peoples’ “Civil husbands” and “Civil marriages.”

    But back to your crazy notion: please define ‘commitment, ‘love,’ and ‘fidelity’ in a way that makes it clear why you think these are exclusively religious concepts.

    April 7, 2009
  778. Patrick Enders said:

    Oops.
    See 536.3.

    April 7, 2009
  779. Peter Millin said:

    Obie,

    I would love my children regardless if they are gay or not. It certainly wouldn’t what i wanted for them, but there is worse things that could happen to them.
    See Obie you just confirmed what I have said earlier. The gay/lesbian community expects us straight people to be open minded and accept their points of view, but this seems to be a one way street.
    If I stray from the accepted tag line I will be discriminated against for being a bigot.

    Do you believe that your comments have done anything productive? I think not and most people would just shut up and never talk to a lesbian and gay person again.

    Don’t worry I have enough experience with gays, so not as to be threatened by your statements. I know I am not a bigot…your statement however makes me wonder.
    Remember bigotry and discrimination is not a one way street.

    I can respect the rights of gays and lesbians, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. Can you do the same for me?

    April 7, 2009
  780. john george said:

    Jerry & Patrick- Are you saying here that there is the possibility that homosexuality is driven as much by environmental issues as it is by genetic issues? If that is what you are saying, then the defense that homosexuals are born that way doesn’t have good biological evidence to support it. It almost seems that your conclusions would cast homosexuality as a learned trait, and therefore changeable by education. Am I understanding you correctly, or am I oversimplifying it?

    Jerry- I agree with you that some of these issues are more important to biologists than politicians. It seems unfortunate to me that marriage is being defined along political lines rather than cultural, but I think that is the direction we seem to be going.

    April 7, 2009
  781. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    Jerry is suggesting that as one possibility. He is also citing the possibility that more complex biological interactions (including but not limited to epigenetics, the still-poorly-understood biological process which involves the regulation of genes) play a decisive role.

    My reading of the evidence is that a tendency towards attraction to persons of the same and/or opposite sex is largely biologically determined.

    As many gay persons have observed, very few people “choose to be gay.”
    http://www.google.com/search?q=%22choose+to+be+gay%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

    Why would they? It’s a way of life that alienates many, and currently guarantees condemnation (even damnation) from a large subset of the population. Nonetheless, they feel the need to be gay in spite of those negative pressures, because being gay is intrinsic to their being.

    April 7, 2009
  782. Forget Iowa, a greater victory for equality in marriage rights just came to pass in Vermont – the first time same sex marriage has been enacted through the legislative process, rather than through the courts.

    The House just over-rode the governor’s veto by 100 – 49. So marriage equality is now the law in another state. This is the first purely legislative decision to enact equal marriage rights in one state and thereby a truly historic day for American liberty.

    [AGAIN, LINK NOT ALLOWED. GRRR. CLICK ON MY NAME ABOVE. I HOPE.]

    April 7, 2009
  783. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: It’s my opinion that homosexuality is not genetic. As Patrick cautioned, I could be wrong. For example, what if the “homosexual gene” causes homosexuality 50% of the time and zero offspring, and the other 50% it makes men hyper-virile and double offspring? The average offspring would be the same as people with heterosexual genes. This is certainly possible but I don’t believe it’s true.

    Let’s assume homosexuality is “learned”; I’d rather use the term “imprinted” because “learned” implies instruction. The earlier a non-genetic trait is imprinted, the more difficult it is to get rid of it. People who speak language A from age 1 and language B at age 15 will almost always carry an accent from language A. Language A, while not genetic, imprinted and helped form the mind and oral muscles. If homosexuality is imprinted at a young age, I don’t believe that it could ever be unlearned. It could be masked.

    We may never know why one imprints and not the other. Why do some people like some music and not others, some sports teams, some ice cream flavors? Some of these may be unexplainable imprints.

    I believe that everyone is born as “sexual” or maybe proto-sexual. At an early age, everyone imprints homo-, hetero- or bi-sexuality. If I am right, then it would be as easy to unlearn homosexuality as it would be to unlearn heterosexuality. Consider that for a moment. What would it take for you to become a homosexual? It probably applies to homosexuals contemplating heterosexuality. Society may coerce you to conform, but I don’t think that an oppressive homosexual society could ever make you gay.

    Heterosexuality is the norm for several biological reasons. This norm perpetuates itself: Children are usually raised in heterosexual families, so their imprinting is usually heterosexual. Patrick noted that homosexuality tends to run in families, so what if a family with harsh authoritarian fathers or overly gentle fathers have a higher chance of imprinting homosexuality on their sons? I don’t claim that it’s this simple, but I think conceptually it is. Because of the norm, most children imprint heterosexual. Because of exceptions to the norm (father’s extreme anger or love), some children imprint otherwise.

    I also doubt a homosexual gene because it would tend to weed itself out from the gene pool from day one. If a mammal 100+ million years ago mutated the first real homosexual gene, he should not have had any children. If he did, his children should not have had any children. It’s inconceivable to me that the first mutation would have been so successful to end up in 500+ species.

    April 7, 2009
  784. One relatively recent study suggests that prenatal exposure to androgen may have an influence on sexual orientation, as reported with this synopsis on March 30, 2000, in the journal Nature:

    Animal models have indicated that
    androgenic steroids acting before
    birth might influence the sexual
    orientation of adult humans. Here we
    examine the androgen-sensitive pattern
    of finger lengths1, and find evidence
    that homosexual women are exposed to
    more prenatal androgen than
    heterosexual women are; also, men with
    more than one older brother, who are
    more likely than first-born males to
    be homosexual in adulthood2, are
    exposed to more prenatal androgen than
    eldest sons. Prenatal androgens may
    therefore influence adult human sexual
    orientation in both sexes, and a
    mother’s body appears to ‘remember’
    previously carried sons, altering the
    fetal development of subsequent sons
    and increasing the likelihood of
    homosexuality in adulthood.

    I’m sure no one claims that this is the full answer, but it supports the view that one contributing factor may be biological yet not genetic.

    April 7, 2009
  785. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick:

    As many gay persons have observed, very few people “choose to be gay.”

    I don’t think anyone consciously chooses to be homo- or heterosexual. I think it’s a subconscious decision made at a very young age. I would not be surprised if it has a non-genetic but biological cause, like androgenic steroids.

    For eugenics sake, I hope it never is discovered to be genetic.

    April 7, 2009
  786. Jerry,
    I’m pretty sure that if there is some genetic component to sexual orientation, it is a subtle and multifactorial one.

    April 7, 2009
  787. David Henson said:

    One Fact:
    88.2% of adolescent youths as a Minnesota junior/senior high school described himself or herself as heterosexual, while 1.1% described himself or herself as bisexual or homosexual, and 10.7% were not sure of their sexual orientation
    Second Fact:
    Hetrosexual Males 30-44 report an average of 6-8 female sexual partners in their lifetime
    Third Fact
    75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners:

    Conclusion: do we really want to promote the equality of these activities to that 10.7%? NO. Does one have to be a wild eyed bigot to question pubic policy related to the above? NO.

    April 8, 2009
  788. David H. – I have some sympathy with your reasoning – but two thoughts: those statistics reflect a society in which marriage for those gay males was not a possibility. Do we refuse marriage – the very institution designed to encourage and recognize exclusivity and faithfulness – to those who want it on the grounds that without it they are likely to be more promiscuous? Isn’t that kind of backwards? How else (besides basic health education) do you best discourage having so many partners? Why not instead set up conditions so that a gay male feels society will support him in choosing to live a monogamous (actually that should probably be “monoandrous) lifestyle?

    And the 10.7% may not yet be ready to declare themselves “sure” during adolescence, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a matter of choice and that societal factors will have much of an impact on their eventual direction — and people with homosexual leanings who marry someone of the opposite sex in an attempt to choose a heterosexual lifestyle often end up causing quite a bit of pain to their partners and themselves. Your approach would lead to more, not less, of that.

    April 8, 2009
  789. Obie Holmen said:

    Peter,

    I apologize if you find my sarcasm to be overly biting. Perhaps it is.

    The two main points that I hoped to make were that you and others who resist gay rights, including marriage, are swimming upstream against the current of history and that teaching one’s children to hold anti-gay attitudes will only be harmful.

    Do you have the right to express a contrary opinion? Of course, but having a right does not make it right, and when you choose to offer your opinion for public consumption, don’t be surprised when it gets slapped down. This is especially true when it is an opinion that judges the morality of another’s behavior and also especially true when the pendulum of public opinion is swinging away from you. Rejection of your publicly proffered opinion is not discrimination.

    I don’t know you, and I will take your word that you do not harbor bigoted feelings.

    As to your implication that my own attitude smacks of intolerance, I plead guilty. I am intolerant of intolerance, and in this case it appears that my unduly harsh rhetoric may have reflected my own prejudices.

    Finally, not that it matters, but I am neither gay nor irreligious. My wife of thirty seven years and I are approaching old age, and we both have a lengthy history of activism and leadership within the ELCA in our local congregation as well as regionally and nationally.

    April 8, 2009
  790. To take the next step in the direction I was going in my first paragraph in my previous note: Is it surprising that gay males should have such a higher number of partners when you consider what I’ll call the “Sex and the City” phenomenon: that gays coming from more conservative and traditional suburban or rural communities receive little or no support there, so they congregate in urban communities of other gay men where they will find acceptance, the exhilaration of freedom to be who they are and, yes, support for a freer sexual lifestyle? I think it’s pretty clear that young heterosexual people who congregate in urban neighborhoods with an active nightlife tend to have more and in many cases a lot more sexual partners than those who stay in the more staid communities they may have grown up in. For gay men, add to that the lack of a societal and familial pressure to find the right partner, settle down and get married (and in fact a prohibition of that last item), it’s no great wonder that the number of lifetime partners would be even greater for gay men. Not to mention all that surging testosterone. If those men had no difficulty staying in or returning to their home communities, “finding the right partner, settling down and getting married,” I think you’d see those statistics evening out considerably. The fact that there is a desire for marriage between gay partners supports that conclusion: if gay men are simply hopelessly promiscuous, why would the issue even arise (or why wouldn’t we see it being sought by lesbians only)?

    April 8, 2009
  791. Jerry Friedman said:

    Penny: So you’re saying that the oppression of homosexuals is one reason for them not to fit into a monogamous/married relationship? That a society that welcomes homosexuals as equals might see homosexuals behave more like the modern Judeochristian ideal (fewer sexual partners)? So David might see more monogamy if he endorsed same-sex marriage?

    Isn’t that the nature of oppression? Oppose a group’s equality at every turn, demonize them, and when they react, demonize their reactions?

    I don’t accept David H.’s statistics without cited sources. Giving the benefit of the immense doubt, there is nothing objectively wrong with David’s statistics. People’s sex lives are their business, whether they abstain from sex or have 200 partners per year — as some heterosexuals flout.

    P.S.: -gamy (or its root, gamos) means marriage, so I’d use monogamy before monoandrous or monogynous; though I note that -gamy shares the common root with gamete, which implies reproduction, so I understand why you strayed from -gamy.

    April 8, 2009
  792. Jerry – Exactly.

    And yes, I believe you’re right on the etymology as well. I stand corrected.

    April 8, 2009
  793. David Henson said:

    Penny, our society has become wildly permissive in breaking down the goal of a single monogamous pairing in heterosexual relationships (relative to the past). Yet heterosexual females, on average, only have 3-4 partners in a life time (likely skewed upwards by a relative minority) – and the fact is this makes a lot of reproductive sense. The natural state is more or less monogamy.

    With all respect: Yourself, Jerry, Patrick and others are suggesting that homosexual relationships (male) are naturally or can be made monogamous – this is a projection and runs contrary to the facts at hand. In a way I think ‘your camp – if you will’ is more in denial of reality or in a sense homophobic. If we don’t like Apples then we’ll make them Oranges – does not work. The fact is sexuality is a broad continuum (where the most promiscuous [hetero & homo] do a lot of recruiting, often using drugs and alcohol. It is a fair and just argument to direct public policy towards healthier lifestyles or at least minimize awareness of unhealthy lifestyles even (and I know this is tough for liberals) if it hurts some feelings.

    April 8, 2009
  794. David Henson said:

    Jerry

    People’s sex lives are their business
    And their family’s – now we are in absolute agreement

    April 8, 2009
  795. David H. said:

    It is a fair and just argument to
    direct public policy towards healthier
    lifestyles…

    I agree. Encouraging marriage does that. Good health education does that. Using status as a proxy for behavior paints with far too broad a brush. As a woman of an age that remembers “Help wanted-men” and “Help wanted-women” classifieds, I’m very tired of those broad brushes.

    … or at least minimize awareness of
    unhealthy lifestyles

    Are you suggesting that prohibiting gay marriage as a matter of public policy will protect young people from awareness of the “gay male urban lifestyle”? From a knowledge that some people are homosexual or bisexual and the dawning awareness that they might be too? I don’t find that very convincing. I guess you’re saying it’s good policy not to appear to endorse homosexuality in any way, just in case there are some people who truly have a choice in sexual orientation. That’s a pretty harsh outcome for the many in the hope of benefiting the few, and it’s not just a matter of hurt feelings — it’s real people, including in many cases real children of those real people, who are made less financially stable, for one thing. Unless you take the draconian view that no gay person should be allowed to have or adopt children (and how are you going to enforce that?), the cat is out of that bag: those children deserve stable families. Marriage rights increase that stability.

    April 8, 2009
  796. William Siemers said:

    Having many sexual partners is not necessarily ‘unhealthy’. Having one sexual partner is not necessarily ‘healthy’. In any case, would anyone seriously suggest that our civil rights should be limited because of the number of sexual partners we have?????

    April 8, 2009
  797. Jerry Friedman said:

    Indeed.

    David has shown himself fixed to his opinion, as I am apparently fixed to mine.

    I am through with this topic.

    April 8, 2009
  798. David Henson said:

    Agreed … Can you believe it Jerry 🙂

    April 8, 2009
  799. john george said:

    Jerry, David, William- “…David has shown himself fixed to his opinion, as I am apparently fixed to mine.

    I am through with this topic…”

    Yep, same here. It just goes to show that some things run pretty deep. Change of the type regarding feelings about homosexuality do not come quickly. Good luck all.

    April 8, 2009
  800. David Ludescher said:

    Guys, guys, guys: So our elected officials should do what?

    April 8, 2009
  801. David Ludescher said:

    Obie (540): “… intolerant of intolerance..”? As I recall, you were intolerant of polygamy. Wouldn’t that be intolerant of tolerance?

    April 8, 2009
  802. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    In my opinion, our elected officials should enact legislation extending marriage rights to same sex couples. The Vermont legislation would be an excellent model to follow.

    April 8, 2009
  803. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Does it make sense to require that the couples be committed to each other for a minimum number of days, months or years to be given a license? Should the legislature allow related people to be married?

    April 8, 2009
  804. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I think you’ll find that I already answered your question, above. Any interest in answering mine?

    April 8, 2009
  805. Obie Holmen said:

    David L,

    Would you please give up on your repeated attempts to introduce a red herring into the gay marriage debate. Polygamy and incest are irrelevant to the question and remain so despite your bizarre assertion that they are somehow relevant to the “atheistic” position, a construct that exists only in YOUR mind. Several hundred posts ago, I suggested this argument was illogical and demeaning, and it still is.

    I note another poster called your argumentation “hair-brained”, and I concur with that assessment. Similarly, your concerns with “no fault” divorce are irrelevant.

    Several recent posters on both sides of the gay marriage issue suggest it is time to move on and find another issue. I agree.

    April 8, 2009
  806. kiffi summa said:

    Wait just a little gol-danged minute here … didn’t you just all agree to QUIT ?

    Oh wait, again .. I just looked back Patrick and David L. didn’t take the pledge…

    Griff: Could you add a third iteration of thread title here? Maybe “the Great 21st Century Debate Between the Last Two Remaining Holdouts when Everyone Else has Given up on Changing Anyone Else’s Mind” ?

    April 9, 2009
  807. Kiffi,
    1. Why do you care? If you don’t want to get hit by poop, you could just stay away from the monkey cage. There are plenty of cleaner exhibits at this zoo.

    1. I have no hope of, or interest in, changing David’s mind on anything. Sometimes I simply find it interesting to try to understand the thinking of people who hold a different viewpoit. For example, I am quite interested in learning why David believes that ‘love’ and ‘commitment’ are merely religious theories, which are apparently foreign to true atheists.

    2. The topic of marriage naturally resurfaced after the momentous events that have transpired in Iowa and Vermont in the last several days.

    3. In between some odd tangents, there have been some relatively interesting exchanges here – on the topic of theism vs. atheism, and even on the topic of same-sex marriage. Maybe another interesting theme will come up, maybe not.

    April 9, 2009
  808. Patrick Enders said:

    (Well, that was some odd formatting that the wmd thingie decided to generate. All I tried to do was number my points.)

    April 9, 2009
  809. Griff Wigley said:

    Patrick, that’s how wmd handles bullet points. Kinda odd, I agree, but visually, it seems to work.

    April 9, 2009
  810. Patrick Enders said:

    Griff,
    The odd/overly-helpful thing was that I didn’t use the wmd buttons. I just numbered my points 1, 2, 3, 4.

    April 9, 2009
  811. kiffi summa said:

    Why I care , Patrick, should be obvious, as I was a fully engaged commenter from the beginning on this thread …which is of prime importance as far as I’m concerned … this very important issue which deals with several areas of basic human rights, and the tendency of the “theocons” to insert their restrictive religious beliefs into a public human rights arena, and then run crying back to their religious belief system and the purported violation of it, whenever the political arena gets too hot.

    April 10, 2009
  812. Patrick Enders said:

    Kiffi,
    We’ve talked a bit about the place of atheists in the community. We’ve talked about the Boy Scouts, and we’ve talked about people making disapproving comments in the grocery store. Do you have anything else to add on the original topic?

    David interjected his interest in same sex marriage into the conversation for his own purposes, which apparently have to do with his notions regarding love-free, commitment-free, ‘atheist’ relationships. I would love to have him explain why he thinks that love and commitment are religious concepts, as it might be a valuable insight into a theistic perspective on life that, frankly, I just don’t get. I also think that – if he is willing to explain his notion – it might partly explain a way in which some theists think that atheists are fundamentally ‘different’ that the (apparently more loving and committed) religious portion of humanity.

    Others of us were also interested in discussing same sex marriage more recently in order to celebrate the remarkable events in Iowa and Vermont. Unfortunately, given that this is the one good online place to discuss things with other Northfielders, we can’t spin this discussion off to another topic/thread/section, as only Griff, Tracy, and Ross are allowed to start a topic. So we digress where we can.

    If you have anything else to bring up on the original topic, by all means bring it up, and maybe someone else will pick up on it and start another discussion.

    April 10, 2009
  813. kiffi summa said:

    Patrick : Thank you for all the instruction………

    April 10, 2009
  814. Patrick Enders said:

    Kiffi,
    You’re welcome. Thank you for the constructive criticism.

    April 10, 2009
  815. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: I interjected the “marriage” discussion for the purposes of making the discussion of atheists and atheist-friendly more concrete. The question of how marriage should be structured is a political, legal, ethical, and faith issue.

    Both atheism and theism tell us little about the correct political, legal, or ethical structures for marriage. But, they can tell us much of what we should believe about right and wrong.

    The reason that I think that ideas such as love and commitment are religious ideas is that these terms deal with ideas that do not make sense in the political, legal, or ethical arena. They only make sense as questions of right and wrong. We can’t write a law that says that everyone has to love each other. We can only believe this to be true, and act as if it were true, even if we can’t prove its truth.

    Whether someone should be allowed to marry someone else because those people love each other is a faith question, which is perplexing to many different faiths, including the faith of atheism. For some faiths, there is no confusion on either side of the question. But, it is just that – a faith.

    I am not suggesting that theists have a corner on the definition of right and wrong, or that atheists cannot be deeply religious (although most atheists seem to prefer “spiritual”). In the Christian tradition, atheists not only can live a holy life, they can achieve heaven. The only thing that you cannot do is deny the prescence of the Holy Spirit, and set yourself up as The God.

    Supporters of gay marriage are right in suggesting that individuals should not be denied the opportunity to live a loving and committed life with another person. The law does not deny them this freedom.

    But that freedom, whether asserted by an atheist or a theist, does not automatically translate to the “right” to have legal support. That many religious organizations oppose gay marriage does not mean that theists are full of bigots. That they oppose it on theological grounds is as foolhardy as atheists supporting it on their separate, but nevertheless, religious grounds. Whether gays and lesbians should have the same status under the legal system is a legal question.

    We cannot quit this question because it does not quit us.

    April 10, 2009
  816. David Ludescher said:

    David Brooks had an interesting editorial today on morality. The part that I found interesting was that he referred to the new atheists who he characterized as waging war against faith using reason.

    April 14, 2009
  817. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Thanks for posting this. I read his op-ed.

    One problem with this kind of approach to morality, as Michael Gazzaniga writes in his 2008 book, “Human,” is that “it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found.”

    I don’t agree. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a well studied principle that concludes, on average, cooperation is more advantageous than competition. Studies on human animals, nonhuman animals, and computer models all show the advantage to cooperation. Although, as I said, it’s the average that works out best. Sometimes competition works out better.

    Or as Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia memorably wrote, “The emotions are, in fact, in charge of the temple of morality, and … moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.”

    Intuition for ethics is a perilous approach. I agree that most people use intuition instead of reasoning. I wish they wouldn’t. Intuitive ethics (if you can call them ethics) is where racism, sexism, and other horrible things come from.

    People are accustomed to reason instead of using intuition, but not always for moral reasoning. For example, people are pretty good at stopping at red lights. Intuitively, we shouldn’t. But the reasoning of mortal danger or legal trouble stops our intuitive impulses from taking over. If normative ethics could be taught in elementary school (instead of college), then we would surely have more people comfortable with stopping at the red lights of morality.

    On to your point:

    It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith and who have an unwarranted faith in the power of pure reason and in the purity of their own reasoning.

    I don’t know how “new” the new atheists are. My readings from Siddhartha, Voltaire, Robert Ingersoll and others span a lot of human history. All of them used reasoning to construct moral principles or to topple theistic (im)morality.

    Granting Brooks’s opinion, as I have demonstrated with The Prisoner’s Dilemma and the peril of intuition-based ethics, it’s a challenge for people who don’t use reason to explain why their brand of morality should be adopted.

    April 15, 2009
  818. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: In real life situations, separating “atheist” principles from “theist” principles requires a certain amount of courage. Using the marriage debate we have been having, there is no clear line between atheist and theists positions.

    While the religious right is the most adamant about preserving the present definition, there are some such as myself, former Sen. Neuville, and most divorce lawyers, who consider civil marriage an oxymoron. The religious left considers itself enlightened by claiming that civil same-sex marriages should be the same as religious marriages.

    Brooks made a number of excellent points. His point that the new atheists view reason as being in war with faith is well-taken. Faithful people do not need to be unreasonable; nor do reasonable people need to be without faith.

    The new atheists are not a-theists; they are anti-theists. They have unwarranted faith that reason can solve every problem. And, when reason leads to conclusions that they intuitively don’t like, they pick an anti-theist position and declare it to be true.

    Intuitively, we all know that the penis/vagina combination is different than the penis/penis combination; reason confirms this fact. We also know, intuitively, that all of our relationships should be loving and committed; faith confirms this truth.

    The real trick is how we can combine reason and faith so that neither rules, and both reach their full potential. Reason and faith are the two wings upon which the human spirit rises.

    April 16, 2009
  819. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Most importantly, I agree with the spirit of your post. Naturally I disagree with some details.

    You present that religion serves a role in society and in morality. I agree. I simply ask that the religion be atheistic. It fundamentally doesn’t matter to me whether someone is a theist or atheist, but the historical record of theism frightens me. As Kurt Vonnegut once said, if someone yells “Genocide!”, run away from the Christians.

    Back to some ground we agree on: I have met extremely reasonable theists and some insufferable atheists. I have found that belief in god (Biblegod or other) does not unite nor divide society, but faith in humankind does. Because atheists focus entirely on their present life, and theists also focus on the afterdeath, it seems to me that atheists behave as though they have more of a stake in the present. I don’t know atheists who commit “sins”, believing that they can be forgiven. The atheists I know live morally day-to-day because this is the life they get.

    I still don’t know what you or Brooks mean by the “new atheists”. There have been anti-theists of all religions for all time. Did you know that the Catholics were anti-theists? Ask the Cathars about the Spanish Inquisition.

    I say, let reason rule society. Keep faith in your heart, in your church, in your home, in your taxi, in your private space, among your friends, and out of politics.

    April 16, 2009
  820. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I say that justice should rule society. When justice is in doubt, the tie goes to liberty. Justice is both the goal and the measure of a society.

    Justice is, and has to be a mixture of both faith and reason. Thus, we say that we believe that we have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just as you say that you have faith in humankind. Faith doesn’t have to religious to be faith.

    When we reach political issues, like the marriage debate, we have to put reason, faith, and justice into perspective:

    1. Theists are on the side of reason which argues for the same differentiation in the law that mirrors the differentiation in biology.

    2. Atheists are, ironically, on the side of faith (belief) which argues for spiritual qualities of love and commitment in the marriage contract.

    3. Justice stands in the middle unsure whether to continue to limit civil marriage based upon biological reality, open it up based upon a belief that love and commitment are more important, or try to find a common ground that incorporates intuitive beliefs about marriage, yet is reasonable and logical.

    And, so it is with many of the political questions presented to the new atheists. Every question that even has a hint of religious tradition leads to accusations of “keep that in your house”, “there is no place for that in the public sphere”, and other such anti-theists rhetoric. At the same time, new atheists spout a “new religion” of individualized, eclectic, and unorganized faith-based principles. When these principles are rationally challenged, they often resort to name-calling – bigot, hair-brained, narrow-minded, etc. Sometimes, they resort to emotional weapons – “I am offended”, “You hurt my feelings”, “wake up and smell the coffee”, etc. And, my pet peeve, “Let’s agree to disagree”.

    I accept responsibility for all of the Christians who have come before me promoting a Christianity of violence, bigotry, and hate. Some of the “new” Christianity is about the same things. However, the vast majority of Christianity is about peace, inclusiveness, and love. Anyone, including Christians, can raise cogent and definitive arguments against violence, bigotry, and hate. So, if you, or other atheists, want to argue against Christians, try arguing against the Pope, rather than against the Christian leaders of 500 or 800 years ago.

    I am not willing to concede the public sphere to atheists alone. People are spiritual by nature. That reality has to be incorporated into our public debates. God as a physical reality should not be in our public discussions, but God as an idea is not only useful, but it is necessary.

    April 17, 2009
  821. kiffi summa said:

    David: you say: “God as an idea is not only useful, but it is necessary.”

    I think it has been proven, whether you accept it or not, that your statement cannot be considered an absolute truth, since many people here have not felt the idea of “God” to be necessary, and in fact not particularly useful.

    I think “God” is often used as a useful and necessary TOOL, not idea; a tool used as an excuse to shut people up… therefor it is USEFUL to those who insist on a belief in God for all people, and would try to force their way on that point. As for the necessity of God, I do not see how you can make a case for that to be an undeniable truth, when so many agree that it is NOT necessary for them.

    I would agree that some belief system or “faith” is necessary to fulfill the spiritual side of homo sapiens; but cannot conceive of the possibility of one discrete set of beliefs satisfying all.

    April 18, 2009
  822. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: What mechanism is there to weigh “justice” or “liberty” other than reason? How do you decide what is just or liberating?

    Faith for some works great, but the same faith for others does not. Some years back, a woman was to be stoned to death because she was convicted as an adulterer. While that may seem to be an extreme case, it exemplifies the perils of faith. Some people’s faith object to same-sex marriage. Faith is not a reliable mechanism for justice or liberty. Sure it works sometimes, but a few happy endings do not redeem its long history of failures. Again I mourn the Tasmanians: too late, because they’re all dead.

    I would not want you to concede the public sphere to atheists. But I would want to purge faith from public policy. Our society should be built with the separation of church and state in our laws and other institutions.

    God is not a necessary anything, idea or otherwise. More harm has come from theism than atheism. Theism has had over 5000 years to get things right. I am not amused by its record. It’s long past time to give atheism a chance.

    April 18, 2009
  823. David Ludescher said:

    Kifffi: You have a number of good observations.

    1. Some kind of belief system is necessary to fulfill the spiritual side of Homo Sapiens.
      In that sense, God or some other organizing spiritual principle is not only useful, but necessary. Reason can’t be that organizing principle because matters wouldn’t be spiritual if reason could provide the answer.

    2. It is impossible to conceive of a system of beliefs satisfying all.
      That is true. Nevertheless, because we all have to live together, we need to work on a system that is the most satisfying; that system of beliefs is the law. To exclude a whole system of beliefs just because the beliefs are religious is not only unfair, but it imprudent. For example, that man and woman are made for each other for reproduction is self-evident. That fact is a religious tenet because it is a biological fact.

    3. God has often been used as a tool to subject people.
      That is also true. But, it has also been used for great good. Churches were early promoters of education and health care. There is no reason why we can’t, and shouldn’t take the good that has been done and encourage that good even though it may be theistic in origin.

    In the marriage debate, religious groups object to the organizing principle of marriage changing from a child-centered institution to an adult-centered institution. We should all share that concern.

    I find it unfortunate, and disingenuous, that atheists, and some people of faith have turned the political debate into a religious (bigots) versus the thinking world. Such a strategy is a strategy of war, not peace.

    April 19, 2009
  824. kiffi summa said:

    David: In your last paragraph in560.3, you say ” such a strategy is a strategy of war, not peace.”
    I would ask you to look at the speech of some of those who are sometimes called the ‘christian right’, but who call themselves “Christians” ( implying the only…) I would ask you to compare some of this language; Michelle Bachman has been spewing it lately…i.e. “the dangerous people”, references to “kicking bloodily through the darkness” … this is NOT the language of peace! This is the language of those who would ‘transform’ a world they don’t like, and they will enter the political arena to do so, and will resent being ‘called’ on their religious agenda, while operating in the political arena.

    This is why I say religion is, and has always been, a POLITICAL CONSTRUCT; which seeks to gather groups of like thinking people together for the purpose of attaining political power through supposedly unchallengeable religiosity.

    April 19, 2009
  825. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: Griff’s post makes me think that you are onto something. The way that many have found to push their own system of beliefs is to “go political”.

    April 27, 2009
  826. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I think at worst, it’s a lesson from the missionaries. An idea can be “pushed” by making one’s presence known. Of course, atheists generally are not known for the ethnocentrism and cruelties of missionaries, so it’s an awkward metaphor. Nonetheless, Catholicism is so popular because of the way that the Spanish and other Catholics force-fed Catholicism around the world. In this case, it’s an instance of advertising to liberate the world from superstition.

    At best, it’s advertising for another purpose. Some atheists are tired of being demonized, misunderstood, isolated, and disadvantaged. This form of advertising is to create an atheist community, a society-of-sorts, to reach out to atheists and quasi-atheists who are or feel marginalized by theists.

    If theists, generally, did not regard atheists as anathemas or untouchables, I doubt that you’d see this reaction. This is exactly like the homosexuals felt, so the homosexuals organized. Now, apparently, so are the atheists.

    April 27, 2009
  827. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I agree with some parts of what you say.

    I don’t, and never haved, viewed my Catholicism as a way to impose my beliefs upon someone else. Nevertheless, it is only human nature to claim that what appears individually true (belief) is also univerally true (truth).

    “Going political” is often used as a means to limit intellectual inquiry or take unfair advantage of complicated issues. Our debate on same-sex marriages is a good example. It is politically incorrect to suggest that opposite-sex and same-sex marriages are fundamentally different. If one claims that those two institutions are different cries of bigotry are raised. In reality, those two institutions are fundamentally and biologically different.

    Cries of bigotry go up because it is a very effective political weapon. But, intellectually it lacks any merit. It is not bigotry to admit that penises and vaginas make babies, and not penises and penises.

    The really good debates on the complicated issues of today’s world is going on within religious communities. The political communities don’t have enough intellectual honesty to engage in a good debate.

    April 27, 2009
  828. kiffi summa said:

    David : Thanks for thinking I “may be on to something” (from your 562); it’s hardly a new idea, or am original thought from me.
    But I really do differ with the last paragraph of your 562.2.
    If those in the political arena do not have the “intellectual honesty” to engage in a good debate, I would challenge you to get more specific.

    Who does not have such honesty to seek the good debate? Let’s start locally , on issues we all are familiar with……. You brought it up; you go first.

    April 27, 2009
  829. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I appreciate your not using your Catholicism to impose your beliefs on others. Similarly, I don’t impose my religious beliefs on others, but I am eager to share them with most any audience.

    You said, “In reality, [opposite-sex and same-sex marriages] are fundamentally and biologically different.”

    You also said, “‘Going political’ is often used as a means to limit intellectual inquiry or take unfair advantage of complicated issues.”

    You also said, “Nevertheless, it is only human nature to claim that what appears individually true (belief) is also universally true (truth).”

    We differ on the first point. Same-sex and opp’-sex marriage are different only in the way that society is prejudiced against one of them. Some older societies did not have such prejudice. So I don’t agree that they are fundamentally different, unless prejudice itself makes them so.

    Further, biology has nothing to do with the issue as several people have proven: that marriage and child-making are not necessarily associated with each other. Some marriages do not have the goal or result of making babies. Some babies are made out of marriage.

    So you might appreciate the irony of your wise sayings at the start of your post, followed by claiming your personal beliefs are universal truths. I certainly do.

    April 27, 2009
  830. Patrick Enders said:

    Thanks for your explanation of why love is a ‘religious’ thing. I became busy with other things, so I didn’t respond. Near as I can tell from your explanation, your definition of religion is so broad that every person would be considered religious – even atheists. As you said, “God is love.” Therefore everyone who loves is religious.

    This, of course, explains why your “purely atheist” version of marriage is so mystifying: you’ve defined atheism so narrowly that even atheists aren’t atheists.

    With that solved, I think this particular discussion has about run its course.

    April 27, 2009
  831. Patrick Enders said:

    Oh dear, David.

    You wrote,

    The really good debates on the complicated issues of today’s world is going on within religious communities. The political communities don’t have enough intellectual honesty to engage in a good debate.

    Wow, that’s a sweeping statement. No good non-religious debate on any of the “complicated issues of today’s world.” Hmmm.

    You seem to have an extraordinarily narrow view of what is “intellectually honest.” Do you believe that there is there any position that is both different from your own, and also “honest”? Perhaps you could cite one.

    Perhaps you are right, and you should just give up on the rest of us.

    Perhaps Kiffi was right, and we really should’ve given up on having an intellectually honest discussion with you a long time ago.

    April 27, 2009
  832. Jane Moline said:

    Bingo Patrick

    April 27, 2009
  833. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry, Patrick, Kiffi: Please don’t get me wrong. The intellectual dishonesty exists on both sides of the political spectrum, and it is the worst at the highest levels of political discourse.

    For example, when the ECLA published their paper on same-sex marriage, there was substantial criticism in the general public, and even some here on this blog about how narrow-minded the ECLA is. When I read the paper, I found it both pastoral and profound. The AP’s review of it was worse than one-sided; it was AP-sided. The AP presented none of the deep theological struggles facing the Church.

    When the United States invaded Iraq, I was shocked to hear that the reason we entered was because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, the argument was that we had to invade to prevent Iraq from using these weapons. Hello – the U.S. is the only country to have ever used weapons of mass destruction. In the end, the mass weapons turned out to be something very close to a hoax.

    I find that my Church is the only community that is not afraid to speak the truth regardless of the consequences. She may tell me many things that I cannot confirm as fact; but overall, She is committed to the truth as much as science is. She has no army, and requires no taxes. I am free to believe or disbelieve any of her teachings. But, like science, I disbelieve at my own peril.

    April 27, 2009
  834. kiffi summa said:

    David: A well presented response…
    However, I believe Galileo , from his years of imprisonment and disgrace, might differ with your unqualified opinion of your( and his) church.

    Having made that comment, I would also remark on the gatherings of international scientists and philosophers, which occur (bi-annually?) at the summer palace of the Pope, for the purpose of trying to sort out the tangles existing at the intersections of science and religion. Fascinating …

    However, you dodged the “political honesty” at the local level question?

    April 28, 2009
  835. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: I can think of a host of examples of intellectual dishonesty at the local level.

    Generally speaking, the intellectual dishonesty in Northfield tends to come from the left side of the political spectrum. That is a function of the fact that liberals tend to dominate the political landscape. Conservatives can’t “go political” because it is a losing political tactic.

    This bur oak tree is an example. Only humans have rights. A fetus is an undeveloped human. A tree has no rights. Consequently, if a fetus can’t have rights neither should a tree. It’s a fairly simple argument. But, make the argument and all of a sudden, everyone goes political.

    Suddenly, everyone starts talking about “we”. We need to save the tree, we need to protect the environmnent, we need to do this and that. The intellectual problem is that there is no “we” when it comes to the person’s property rights, just like the Supreme Court has said that there is no “we” in reproductive rights.

    When the discussion moves to the political arena, there is no hope of a solution. People take their political stance, claiming that is their opinion, and hold their ground until they can muster enough political support to get what they want.

    April 28, 2009
  836. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: From your perspective, I understand why you think of “liberals” as intellectually dishonest. However, I don’t know any person who equates the moral value of trees with unborn humans.

    As far as I know, trees are valued for two categories of reasons. These reasons are not mutually exclusive, and I am sure there are a few other reasons out there.

    1. Some believe that a healthy ecosystem is healthy for humans, and as trees are part of the ecosystem, trees need to be preserved. This comes out as an anthropocentric reverence for trees.

    2. Some believe that humans ought not disturb ‘nature’, or only disturb nature to a minimal extent. This view is more mutualistic, that is, respect for other lives and our own.

    In neither case does a tree have “rights”.

    In neither case is there a competing interest. There is no mother who may be unwilling to carry a tree in her uterus. Unlike a tree, a mother undeniably has “rights”.

    In my opinion, it’s intellectually dishonest to compare trees and fetuses.

    April 28, 2009
  837. Nathan E. Kuhlman said:

    Mr. Friedman,

    To be fair, Bruce Anderson’s comment in the original thread drifts tentatively into the realm of arguing that the tree has rights. Although this does not represent any kind of fair sampling of opinion, Mr. Ludescher has seen fit to use this as a straw man representing the aggregate beliefs of giaour Northfield. Apart from Mr. Anderson’s comment, the only person I have seen asserting, or even insinuating, that the tree has ‘rights’ is Mr. Ludescher himself.

    The issue under review in the matter of the S. TH 3 bur oak is not whether the tree has rights, but whether passers-by and other disinterested parties have rights with respect to the landowner’s disposition of a tree on her/his property. As much as I might tend to side with the tree, I am very suspicious of government intervention to that end. That disinterested parties may express a non-binding preference based on aesthetics or sentiment is one thing. Putting the force of law behind this preference is another. In this connection, I must concede Mr. Ludescher’s point that a tree is equivalent to a fetus.

    April 28, 2009
  838. David Henson said:

    On the whole, I think one would have to agree that trees on PRIVATE PROPERTY fair much better than trees on public property (certainly on 5th). We cannot throw the baby out with the bath water over one Burr Oak.

    In fact, I would think KFC would be quite open to hearing people’s concerns about the Burr Oak and not just rip it down in the middle of the night.

    April 28, 2009
  839. Nathan E. Kuhlman said:

    David H,

    I am so overwhelmed by your analogy that I may have missed your point. Would you care to elucidate, which part of the tree situation is bong water and which is baby?

    I’m not sure I can agree with your 2nd paragraph. It is often easier to ask for forgiveness than permission; this fact, I am sure, is not lost on KFB or its corporate parents. This tree is a goner. Everything else is commentary.

    April 28, 2009
  840. Jerry Friedman said:

    Nathan: Thanks for the context. Not to be insufferable but I still disagree.

    Bruce quoted Stone’s essay, “Should Trees Have Standing?”, in one part of a much larger post. Bruce’s whole argument was not to give trees ‘rights’ but to protect trees because of how humans enjoy trees. This is the most popular legal approach to protecting the environment, that because humans enjoy a tree, a bird, a flower, that tree, bird and flower should be protected. This is a far cry from rights.

    Rob added more to that, by advocating “respect for all life”. Respect for all life still falls short of rights. If we respect a tree, but there is a competing right, the tree loses to the right. However, if a tree has a right to live, and there is a competing interest, then we have a lawsuit.

    As I said to David L., in neither case (aesthetics nor respect) is there a competing interest with a tree comparable to a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy, including the 20+ years of motherhood that follows. Highways can be built around trees and commuters can have a longer commute. Fast food restaurants can select other sites. The tree was there first and humans are able to compromise without touching the tree. There is no compromise for a woman who wants to abort. There’s no middle ground.

    I can continue to distinguish the two if anyone still thinks a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is like a restaurant with an unwanted tree.

    April 28, 2009
  841. Nathan E. Kuhlman said:

    Mr. Friedman,

    I brought up Mr. Anderson’s post only because he brought up Stone’s essay, and it is a matter of mechanics to understand whether or not its mention constitutes an endorsement of the idea that the tree has rights. We are on the wrong thread for that topic, but we are here because Mr. Ludescher has used the idea of the tree having rights, which at most one individual may have espoused, as an imaginary exemplar of the hypocrisy of ‘the left’ vis à vis the venerable atheist question.

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds; I am small-minded enough to understand that in the matter of the tree, the land-owner has the ultimate say regardless of my preferences, and in the matter of a prgnncy, the uterus-owner has the ultimate say, irrespective of my preferences. For the purposes of this discussion, A woman with an unwanted prgnncy is exactly like a restaurant with an unwanted tree, in that both are precisely none of my GD business. And, perversely, I have Mr. Ludescher to thank for giving me clarity on this heretofore conflicted issue.

    April 29, 2009
  842. Jerry Friedman said:

    Nathan: Perhaps. We’ve inherited our laws from the English Common Law, which has origins in Roman law. We remember the adage that a man’s house is his castle. Property rights under Anglo-Roman law was absolute, or as you say, someone else’s tree is none of our GD business.

    The sexist “man’s castle” adage has fallen out of fashion as much as the Anglo-Roman belief in property. Some native Americans had a saying that one cannot own the sky, nor can one own the land. While today’s property law isn’t nearly as liberal as some native Americans’, our law is no longer faithfully Anglo-Roman.

    There are numerous examples of absolutism losing ground in U.S. law. For example, if you have a house with great sunlight, you can prevent a neighbor from adding a storey to her house if it blocks your sunlight. If you have no other means to walk from a highway to a beach, there will be a public easement across someone’s private property. Case in point, if your aesthetic enjoyment in a natural environment would be ruined by development, you might be able to stop that development.

    Each of these examples relates tiny exceptions in the formerly absolute ownership of property laws. The massive distinction here is between property laws and civil laws – laws about one’s person. While property laws have been losing their absolute character, civil rights have been gaining ground. This is no coincidence. Absolute property rights reflect the hierarchical society with landowners on top. A civil rights society has personal rights on top. Society has been moving from kings to presidents, from monarchy to democracy.

    This is why David L.’s comparison does not work. A tree upon the land is land that everyone shares, if not by title, by aesthetics. A woman’s body undeniably belongs solely to her. She has an absolute interest in her body’s health and integrity, and no one’s aesthetic interest can even begin to challenge that. Any arguable rights for the unborn belong to the unborn, not third-parties.

    April 29, 2009
  843. kiffi summa said:

    Have you seen comment #35 over on the ACTUAL bur oak thread?

    April 29, 2009
  844. kiffi summa said:

    There is a tiny “hobgoblin” which is urging me to say that if THE bur oak can take over the atheist thread … then it certainly deserves to stand forever!

    Alleluia!

    April 29, 2009
  845. David Henson said:

    Private property rights are the baby

    April 29, 2009
  846. Patrick Enders said:

    Yes, but now the fetuses are following the tree’s migration to this thread.

    April 29, 2009
  847. David Ludescher said:

    Nathan: Thank you for noting the clarity. We can be liberal or conservative. But, we should never be intellectually dishonest, otherwise we can’t have a real discussion.

    April 29, 2009
  848. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (556): It’s not my explanation that God is love. Pope Benedict’s first major writing as head of the Roman Catholic Church was entitled, “Deus Caritas Est” (God is Love). It is a deeply insightful, philosophical, and human document explaining how to understand God with our limited human intellect and faith.

    If you or other atheists read it, I think you would conclude that this God is not only a god in whom you can believe, but is a god in whom you must believe. To deny this God would be to deny your own existence. It’s tough reading, but it is well worth the effort for anyone who is seriously interested in expanding his or her horizons on the understanding of God. theists.

    April 29, 2009
  849. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Where might an English translation be?

    April 29, 2009
  850. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I hope your summary of this thing does not even begin to do it justice, because frankly, I can’t figure out why belief in a particular concept of God is required for anything – unless that god actually exists.

    It sounds suspiciously like an assertion that is based upon presuppositions that are not self-evident to non-religious readers. Or maybe, the current pope is one of the most brilliant and insightful philosophers that humanity has ever produced. (It’s possible, although I’ve never before heard him described as such.) Still, such an extraordinary demand will require some very persuasive evidence.

    Perhaps you should just point me to this piece of writing somewhere online, so that I can evaluate it further.

    April 29, 2009
  851. john george said:

    Patrick & Kiffi- Sorry, I just can’t pass this one up. Perhaps we are all barking up the wrong tree. Just goes to show how easily a thread can branch out into other subjects.

    April 29, 2009
  852. David Ludescher said:

    Guys: It’s on vatican.va but I couldn’t find an easy link and I don’t know how to move it over. If you go to Wikipedia – Deus Caritas Est they have a direct link. If one of you could pull it over, others might be interested.

    April 29, 2009
  853. Patrick Enders said:

    I haven’t read any of the posts since my last one, but with Google’s assistance, I found the letter at at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html and mercifully, it was short enough for me to read much of it now, and not relegate it to the back of my very long ‘to read’ list.

    My general thoughts are these:

    For Christians:
    If one believes that the Bible is the true word of a Christian God that actually did create the world, and used that book to write down his wishes for humanity, then it is a nice argument for Christians to strive for ‘higher’ forms of love. Women may be disappointed by their role as an appendage of men, but if that’s the will of God, then this letter is as nice an articulation of God’s commandment to love as anyone is likely to see.

    My personal reaction:
    Mr. Ratzinger and I clearly come from different planets, philosophically-speaking. His writings don’t argue from reality, they discuss how a particular set of writings should be interpreted to apply to reality.

    In no way do I see it necessary that God must exist in order for humans to love one another in selfless, giving ways. In fact, I feel that that calling is intrinsic to my being, and not imposed from an outside source. It is wired in my genes, and reinforced by my parenting. And it does not seem distinctly separate and in conflict with my human being.

    I see nothing in this essay that invalidates my own point of view on reality. Maybe you can explain it for me.

    I mean, I keep coming across passages like this:

    Having reflected on the nature of love and its meaning in biblical faith, we are left with two questions concerning our own attitude: can we love God without seeing him? And can love be commanded? Against the double commandment of love these questions raise a double objection. No one has ever seen God, so how could we love him? Moreover, love cannot be commanded; it is ultimately a feeling that is either there or not, nor can it be produced by the will.

    The suppositions inherent in this are far too many for a hunt-and-peck typist like myself to begin to cover. And the ‘evidence’ that proves it to be true is simply quotations from an unproven ancient text:

    True, no one has ever seen God as he is. And yet God is not totally invisible to us; he does not remain completely inaccessible. God loved us first, says the Letter of John quoted above (cf. 4:10), and this love of God has appeared in our midst. He has become visible in as much as he “has sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him” (1 Jn 4:9). God has made himself visible: in Jesus we are able to see the Father (cf. Jn 14:9). Indeed, God is visible in a number of ways. In the love-story recounted by the Bible, he comes towards us, he seeks to win our hearts, all the way to the Last Supper, to the piercing of his heart on the Cross, to his appearances after the Resurrection and to the great deeds by which, through the activity of the Apostles, he guided the nascent Church along its path.

    Is my reaction supposed to be: oh, yes, of course! Strangely, it is not.

    If you believe in Christianity as articulated by the Catholic Church, this may indeed be a powerful work of persuasion and inspiration. For me, it just seems to come from a strange parallel universe, where people seem to reach many identical conclusions, but cite completely different reasons for doing so.

    In no way does it seem to explain why acceptance of Joseph Ratzinger’s personal belief system is necessary for anything.

    I actually enjoy many (though not all) of Joseph Ratzinger’s sentiments and puposes in much of this letter, but without first accepting the belief that “God’s Word (as expressed in the Bible) is The Truth,” all of the writings that follow are just so much rhetoric.

    My main thought of unity on this is:

    Maybe the conclusions of Joseph’s (and my) desire to love are inherent in all of us. If Joseph wants, he can attribute them to divine influence, and divine love. If I want, I can attribute them to human nature, based in our biological and cultural heritage.

    As an example, there is this passage:

    Love of neighbour is thus shown to be possible in the way proclaimed by the Bible, by Jesus. It consists in the very fact that, in God and with God, I love even the person whom I do not like or even know. This can only take place on the basis of an intimate encounter with God, an encounter which has become a communion of will, even affecting my feelings. Then I learn to look on this other person not simply with my eyes and my feelings, but from the perspective of Jesus Christ.

    I would simply say: we humans have a capacity to project onto others a feeling of empathy, seeing in them a reflection of ourselves. It is not our only capacity, but it one that we should encourage, as it encourages comity, community, and mutual benefit.

    Both philosophies can coexist peacefully, and we’ll all be the better for it.

    Demanding that all must accept one’s own philosophy of life – or be somehow inferior or deficient for the lack of it – will only lead to conflict and suffering.

    April 29, 2009
  854. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (556): Wonderful summary from an “atheist’s viewpoint”.

    I thought that you, Jerry and others might have difficulty with the portions of the encyclical that are designed for the Catholic and Christian audiences. The message that I take away is that the ancient texts, including the multiple references to the Greek thinking, is that the living God is best expressed through Love, especially the Love that it took for a simple man from Nazareth to allow himself to be subjected to death to prove his Love for mankind.

    Any concept of a Christian God that is in conflict with that God is not a real God. “Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.””In a world where the name of God is sometimes associated with vengenance or even a duty of hatred, this message[God’s love for us] is both timely and significant.

    In other words, Benedict is admonishing his followers that a God of venegance and hatred is not the real God. “God’s will is no longer an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will…”

    Christians need this constant reminder, especially if they are going to reach out to non-believers. It is not that God is on our side. God is only with us when we keep the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves. The question then is not so much whether God exists or doesn’t exist; the question is whether Love exists in each and every one of us.

    More later,
    David

    May 1, 2009
  855. Jerry Friedman said:

    I agree entirely with Patrick’s point-of-view. Additionally, I find some of the sexism and homophobia of Ratzinger’s encyclical more than a bit disturbing. As a leader of very large population, I’d expect Ratzinger to embody his message of love. Instead, he reveres men over women, and heterosexuals over homosexuals. I read “Amid this multiplicity of meanings [of love], however, one in particular stands out: love between man and woman, where body and soul are inseparably joined and human beings glimpse an apparently irresistible promise of happiness.” While Ratzinger analyzes the Greek meanings of love, he fails to include that the ancient Greek culture was not homophobic, and homosexuality was especially preferred among soldiers who were believed to fight more fiercely when their lover was on the battlefield. Ratzinger uses Greek terms without Greek context.

    I really don’t understand the part about the love from Yeshua. I have cited several passages from the New Testament that are purportedly quotes from Yeshua, but are full of hatred. Why do Christians overlook these?

    “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26

    “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” Psalm 137:9

    “I will kill her children with death.” Revelation 2:23

    “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Matthew 10:35-36

    And there are more.

    David, maybe you can explain this to me. I’ve never understood it. Biblegod is immortal. Yeshua, being entirely god, is immortal. Of what significance is an immortal’s death if, in fact, Yeshua still lives and is expected to return? An atheist’s sacrifice is something; the atheist meets oblivion. But Yeshua is believed to be doing just fine. This means to me that Yeshua’s martyrdom, from a Christian point-of-view, was a theatrical performance. This was the first thing that convinced me that Christianity was made by humans, and humans who did very poor editing at that.

    May 1, 2009
  856. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I wouldn’t call it so much “trouble” as much as finding it irrelevant if one doesn’t already believe that the Bible is Truth.

    I would say that your summary reflects the most positive interpretation of the essay and its message to Bible believers. That’s the part that I hope would be of some value. Jerry’s critique covers some of the downsides of the messages therein.

    For straight Christian males, it must be a great message. On the other hand, I’m very glad that I am not a Catholic homosexual and/or woman.

    May 1, 2009
  857. Patrick Enders said:

    Back to the same-sex marriage issue. Yes, again. Some interesting survey results have come out this week:

    From ABC/WaPo, for the first time ever a plurality of Americans now support gay marriage:

    At its low, in 2004, just 32 percent of Americans favored gay marriage, with 62 percent opposed. Now 49 percent support it, vs. 46 percent opposed – the first time in ABC/Post polls that supporters have outnumbered opponents.

    More than half, moreover – 53 percent – say a gay marriage held legally in another state should be recognized as legal in their own state.

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1089a6HotButtonIssues.pdf

    A slightly different survey on the same topic has also been released by the Star-Tribune:
    http://www.startribune.com/newsgraphics/44095072.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUoaEaD_ec7PaP3iUiacyKUUr
    http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/44100537.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr
    This one’s a little odd, because it offers the choices of: “prohibit same-sex marriage”, “legalize same sex marriage”, or “leave it to the MN Supreme Court to interpret the state constitution.”

    Interestingly, the most popular option (35%) was for “leave it to the MN Supreme Court.” Conservatives can’t be happy with that.

    May 1, 2009
  858. David Ludescher said:

    Guys: Where did you find sexism or homophobia? I don’t recall seeing any.

    May 1, 2009
  859. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I cited Ratzinger’s homophobia in my previous post, and other questions for your elucidation.

    I’m preparing for a long weekend trip away. I’ll be out of this conversation for several days.

    May 1, 2009
  860. David Ludescher said:

    Guys: The encyclical was written for a Catholic audience. Hence, trying to understand it using a Catholic mindset would be difficult. Reading it with an atheist mindset, I hope you noticed that the “Catholic” God has much in common with your own views (if you are willing to let go of your false images and conceptions).

    For example:
    1. The opening words, “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him”. “These words … express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith …” The Christian faith and the Christian God cannot be properly characerized as a Biblegod or Dawkins-God.

    If atheists want people to be “friendly”, they simply must acknowledge that the their atheism may be directed at or toward a concept or personification of God that does not exist except in their own minds. God is real because love is real.

    That may not be the God that most Christians display, but “God is love” is the God whom Catholics are being asked to acknowledge by the Pope.

    1. “… biblical faith does not set up a parallel universe, or one opposed to that primordial phenomenon which is love, but rather accepts the whole man; it intervenes in his search for love in order to purify it and to reveal new dimensions of it.” One of those images is the image of man.

    We use ancient writings and fictions all the time to reveal truths that we wouldn’t otherwise understand. Is Shakespeare true? Of course not. But, Shakespeare was and is great because of his ability to create stories that touch upon the human condition. The Bible does the same except it is actually full of facts.

    For atheists, the more concrete and probably more understandable portion of the writing is the excellent presentation of the Church’s proper role and function is society. “The entire activity of the Church is an expression of a love that seeks the integral good of man: … it seeks to promote man in the various arenas of life and human activity. Love is therefore the service that the Church carries out in order to attend constantly to man’s sufferings and his needs, including material needs.”

    Wow! How can you not like this stuff, both for its truths, and for its expression of the real meaning of Church? It is the kind of stuff that atheists, Christians, Muslims, and all can rally around.

    May 1, 2009
  861. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I’m sorry, but your words sound to me like those of a Lewis Carroll character. I can’t follow them and see where your reasoning makes any sense at all.

    I read Mr. Ratzinger’s essay because you claimed it would prove that belief in his version of a Christian god was necessary for all of us. I don’t see how his essay accomplishes that – especially in that it uses ideas and words that apparently only have meaning to people who are already believers.

    If there’s an argument in there at all, it seems to be a very circular one.

    May 1, 2009
  862. Peter Millin said:

    When, in the course of human events,
    it becomes necessary for one people to
    dissolve the political bonds which
    have connected them with another, and
    to assume among the powers of the
    earth, the separate and equal station
    to which the laws of nature and of
    nature’s God entitle them
    , a decent
    respect to the opinions of mankind
    requires that they should declare the
    causes which impel them to the
    separation.

    We hold these truths to be
    self-evident, that all men are created
    equal, that they are endowed by their
    Creator
    with certain unalienable
    rights, that among these are life,
    liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    May 4, 2009
  863. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (556): I didn’t intend that you would develop a particular conception of God. Rather the Catholic concept of God, as expressed through her representative, the Pope, is a concept that has universal appeal because it is universally true. That concept is not true because it is Catholic; rather it is Catholic because it is true.

    I would encourage you to reread the encyclical, not with an eye towards challenging particular statements, but rather with an eye towards finding common ground in the atheist/theist discussions, especially in the political sphere.

    In many other countries, especially in the Middle East, the people have deeply-seated religious convictions that have to be taken into consideration if we are going to assist those countries with the development of permanent political solutions. We can’t take the attitude of “keep religion out of the political sphere” in those countries. That attitude is as senseless to them as the Pope’s letter is to you.

    I think that the Pope’s letter is a good starting ground. Certainly, it is way ahead of The God Delusion.

    May 4, 2009
  864. Patrick Enders said:

    David, you wrote,

    Rather the Catholic concept of God, as expressed through her representative, the Pope, is a concept that has universal appeal because it is universally true. That concept is not true because it is Catholic; rather it is Catholic because it is true.

    So you say. However, calling something Catholic does not make it so. If you want to bring skeptics into your Catholic fold, you’ll need to either 1) prove your assertions by verifiable means, or 2) recognize that reasonable persons can reject your assertions as unproven.

    May 4, 2009
  865. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (556): I offered the encyclical as a means for you to see that you or anyone else can be a Dawkin-esque atheist and still believe in the “true” God, who is best expressed through our experiences in love.

    It is understandable that you or others have become so annoyed with all those who claim to have God on their side that you would despise and resist all talk of God. But, being annoyed with the Christian right, and demanding that they stay out of political activity is no different than being annoyed with the Atheist left and demanding that they stay out of political activity.

    Both groups have equal rights to engage in political activity, and to try to impose their wills upon the people. That is the nature of democracy.

    Unfortunately, what seems to have suffered in the process is a confidence in the Truth. Sometimes we are so afraid of the truth that we not only don’t speak it; but we chastize those who do. People opposed to gay marriage are called bigots based upon a religion that I don’t understand. It is a religion that is rational when it chooses, and faith-filled when it doesn’t like reason’s response.

    May 4, 2009
  866. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    When you say ‘despise’ and ‘annoyed,’ you’re clearly projecting something on to me that I have neither felt, nor articulated.

    I’m simply saying that when you claim to know Truth, you have proven no such thing. Rather, your attempts at proving your Truth have been predicated on first accepting the Truth of statements in your Bible, as well as accepting Pope Ratzinger’s interpretation of those words as the only True interpretation.

    You say that your God is love, and without God we cannot love. I could just as easily say that pixies are the only source of true love. Without supporting evidence, (say, verified observations that ‘arrows of love’ are being shot into our hearts from a being far outside the world, vs. the same arrows being shot into our hearts by the pixie living in my closet) neither of them is any more self-evidently true than the other.

    May 5, 2009
  867. Jane Moline said:

    I get tired of trying to follow the side-discussions that are continued one after another by using the reply obtion–David L and Patrick E-could you please continue your discussion by just going in order and referring back to some specific quote if needed? I would really appreciate that so I could follow your discussion.

    I was channel surfing on early Sunday morning and there was a round-table discussion with a bunch of clergy–men and women–who were discussing atheists. I was quite shocked at how antagonistic their discussion was–they attempted to use peaceful languange, but the message was clear. I see the same comments in David L’s discussion above (I think it is 556.16.) David, you say that atheists are annoyed and despise all talk of God. NOT. Projecting feelings and motivations onto others is not a very good way to actually have a discussion.

    Atheists don’t despise talk of God. We don’t like it one bit when we are told that a religion is going to be the rule of law.

    May 5, 2009
  868. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (556): You are close to synthesizing my position. My God is Love. We can and do love without believing in God. But, he who loves abides in the Christian God, even if he considers himself an atheist.

    Regarding the Bible and its truth, I consider it to be true in much the same manner that I consider the Constitution to be true. Did the Constitution prevent slavery and the slaughter of Indian-Americans? No. Was it because the Constitution wasn’t true? No. It was because people did not understand the Constititution’s greater truths.

    Griff’s original question dealt with whether Northfield is atheist-friendly. One interpretation of atheist-friendly is whether it is anti-theist, specifically, anti-Christian. For example, some have claimed that the Mormon opposition to gay-marriage in California is a religious intrusion into political affairs. That position is intellectually disingenuous. There is no theist or atheist position when it comes to gay-marriage. We have already gone down that route. My conclusion is that, if anything, atheists tend to be more “faith-filled” on the gay-marriage issue than theists. Their arguments are based upon love and commitment, which are admirable qualities in a marriage, but are also qualities that have no legal basis.

    I would agree that neither you nor I have a corner on the Truth. But, if there is no such thing as the Truth, then we might as well stop talking because there is no standard for us to decide if we have reached any conclusion. We can, and should, discuss what great truths are contained within the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and other religious texts. To exclude them from our lives is to exclude thousands of years of history and thought in favor of what?

    May 5, 2009
  869. Patrick Enders said:

    David, you wrote,

    he who loves abides in the Christian God, even if he considers himself an atheist.

    If you would like to think of people’s beliefs and feelings according to this construct, please be my guest. However, I would hope that you would recognize that when you tell non-Christians that the only reason that they love is because your God gives them love, it is strikingly similar to Christians being told by a non-believer that the True reason that they believe in God is really *(insert materialistic explanation here).*

    Regarding the Bible and its truth, I consider it to be true in much the same manner that I consider the Constitution to be true. Did the Constitution prevent slavery and the slaughter of Indian-Americans? No. Was it because the Constitution wasn’t true? No. It was because people did not understand the Constititution’s greater truths.

    I do not see that our Constitution contains greater truths. Heck, it doesn’t even guarantee rights – that was left to the Amendments – and it specifically excluded women as well as enslaved African Americans.

    The Constitution seems to me simply a compact which establishes a peaceful means for coexisting and working out our differences. I believe it serves as a reasonably good template. However, I expect that at other times, and in other places, other people could work out another means which might serve those people just as effectively. Indeed, our current Constitution, as amended and interpreted, is a very different document from the original one created in the 18th century.

    I would agree that neither you nor I have a corner on the Truth. But, if there is no such thing as the Truth, then we might as well stop talking because there is no standard for us to decide if we have reached any conclusion.

    The difference is that I do not claim that my beliefs are the Truth. You often seem to claim that the Truth is yours. You also seem to repeatedly assert that your beliefs are the only ones that any reasonable or honest person would reach. This, to me, seems to be a bigger obstacle to discussion than our lack of an agreed standard for Truth.

    May 5, 2009
  870. Patrick Enders said:

    Jane,
    How’s that? I agree that avoiding nested posts is a good idea, but I didn’t think anyone would still be bothering to read along by this point. Glad you’re still around.

    May 5, 2009
  871. Following 556.18 –

    David L. wrote:

    We can, and should, discuss what great
    truths are contained within the Bible,
    the Koran, the Torah, and other
    religious texts. To exclude them from
    our lives is to exclude thousands of
    years of history and thought in favor
    of what?

    David – while you and I have very different ways of looking at the world, I do appreciate your thoughtful efforts to explain yours. While I do in fact know at least a couple of atheists who are just plain sick of any talk of God, I think many atheists would not object to the study of the texts you mention for insight into “great truths.” I think, for example, that there are many who could accept many of the teachings of Jesus as admirable moral teachings. That doesn’t mean we are compelled to accept traditional beliefs about an actual supernatural source for those teachings. In other words, we could be philosophical Christians without being religious Christians.

    There is a difference between moral or psychological insight, which may be found in many great works of literature, philosophy, memoir, nature writing, etc., and verifiable, state-of-fact “truth.” It is utterly “true” for me that to be out in nature is restorative and awe-inspiring, and also inspires me to closely observe and study and write to learn and teach more about it; it is most certainly not “true” for my 16-year-old daughter, and I wouldn’t dream of insisting that it is. However, it is really true that the Cannon River flows through Northfield ; that fact is not up for serious debate unless one starts to quibble about the nature of reality as revealed by the senses.

    For you it may be evident that Love = God = Love (sorry, I’m sure that is an over-simplification of your position), and it is possible that this is actually true in the same sense that it is true that the Cannon River flows through Northfield, but your sincere belief and the Pope’s teaching that it is so does not amount to the evidence that others require to consider it proven “true.” It may be utterly true for those who believe it, but it can be shown to be true only in the same sense that my reaction to nature is true, and without more evidence you cannot convincingly insist that it is true for all.

    May 5, 2009
  872. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick and Jane: You’re right. It was just my perception that atheists get annoyed and despise talk of religion in public life. To be called a bigot, intolerant, and some of the other names for suggesting political incorrect positions often feels harsh.

    May 5, 2009
  873. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I do not believe that I have called you “a bigot, intolerant, and some of the other names.”

    You seem to be projecting other issues onto this discussion – much as you did before when you wrote:

    It is understandable that you or others have become so annoyed with all those who claim to have God on their side that you would despise and resist all talk of God. But, being annoyed with the Christian right, and demanding that they stay out of political activity is no different than being annoyed with the Atheist left and demanding that they stay out of political activity.

    Also, I have not declared myself an Atheist. I am just a skeptic, trying to make a best guess as to what is true based upon the available evidence.

    May 5, 2009
  874. Patrick Enders said:

    Penny,
    Nice post, very well stated.

    May 5, 2009
  875. Peter Millin said:

    I think our founding fathers made it very clear that there is a seperation between religion and state.

    However they all agreed, even Jefferson and Franklin, that certain rights are given to us by a creator. How and what you call him is irrelevant.

    Acceptance and rspect need to be on both sides. Especially since nobody has proven or disproven the existence of a higher power.

    Even an atheist has to agree that certain spiritual laws transcend religion and faith.

    May 5, 2009
  876. David Ludescher said:

    Penny: I appreciate your comments. It was beginning to feel like a two-person conversation.

    I agree with your observation that what is true for one person often does not appear to be true for another person. Further, while it is hard to find substantial evidence to support many beliefs, it is also true that for many of the those same beliefs, it is even harder to find contrary evidence to support a disbelief.

    Take the belief that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. First, it is just as obvious that there is a “Creator”, as it is that the Cannon River runs through Northfield. I didn’t make it happen, you didn’t make it happen, no human made it happen. That there is creation supports, even demands, the proposition that there is a Creator. We may not have any knowledge of who or what this Creator is; but, we cannot reasonably doubt that the truth of a Creator, and still believe in the creation.

    Further, if we don’t believe in a Creator, we can’t have inalienable rights. If all rights are man-made, then those rights can be taken away, and as such there cannot be a universal agreement as to what is a human right because the “truth” of human rights will be different for every person.

    May 5, 2009
  877. Jane Moline said:

    Why not?

    May 5, 2009
  878. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: Was that question for me regarding the last statement in paragraph 3?

    May 5, 2009
  879. Bright Spencer said:

    It is amusing to me that I was about jump in here and stopped to read back to Penny’s last comment and found that I am in harmony with David L’s last comment.
    I was going to say and will say that people hold the concept of truth and proof very dear, knowing full well that the truth is very changeable and the proof may only be found in pudding that is no longer pudding.
    My Catholic teachings talk about “Faith” as a knowing that goes beyond what the senses can observe. There is no proof, as I have stated here before. There is only Faith, and I would not deny that someday the Creator in which we have Faith might be provable. It doesn’t hurt to look for the proof, but it might not appear to anyone who’s mind is closed.

    May 5, 2009
  880. john george said:

    Patrick- I always love your candit comments, as this one in your post 575:

    I am just a skeptic, trying to make a
    best guess as to what is true based
    upon the available evidence.

    That is why I decided to jump back into this conversation. I am of the opinion that many people who are labeled “atheist” by those who profess belief in God are best described by your comment. I think it is safe to say that we all are looking for something concrete that we can rely upon, especially in these uncertain times. Some find security in science, some in philosophies and others in various and sundry ideas out there. There are those who I identify with that find our security in our Spiritual experiences with whom we call God, Abba, Father, Lord, etc. We are more alike than we are different.

    David L.- You raise an interesting question in your quote form your post 578:

    Further, if we don’t believe in a
    Creator, we can’t have inalienable
    rights. If all rights are man-made,
    then those rights can be taken away,
    and as such there cannot be a
    universal agreement as to what is a
    human right because the “truth” of
    human rights will be different for
    every person.

    If morality is relative to the times and societies within that time period, then is there anything we can really build upon and “pass on” to the next generation? And if these qualities are transcendent, then what is their prime source? That is a little bit of a sticky wicket when we begin to make claims that there are no absolutes.

    Here is a list of character qualities that I think all who post here would agree are desireable: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. The question we would give different answers to is what is the source of these qualities? Those of you who remember the discussion last fall about the Cognitive Revolution would recognize this argument. For you and I, David L., we would say that source is in God, and for a validation, we would refer to the Biblical reference in Galations 5:22. For others who post here who do not believe the scriptures are the revealed word of God, they would point to societies who do not have a history of the Judeo-Christian God yet have men in their histories and cultures who exhibit these qualities. This observation, for me at least, lends credence to the concept of inalienable rights coming from an original imprint of a God image upon mankind in general, something that is programed into our genes in some way at creation, which, when allowed to, will surface in the organization of a society. The burden we have is not so much the proof of whether God exists, but rather, why should our understanding of Scriptures be the most valid basis. If we are honest with ourselves, I think we should recognize that in history, Christendom in general has not done a very good job of demonstrating this truth to the world.

    Patrick- If you really want to know for sure about God, you need only ask Him. That is something I was looking for 37 years ago, and I found it. It does take a lot of courage, though.

    May 5, 2009
  881. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I hope that you meant “Allah” and not “Abba”.

    David and John: I am delighted if you found a rationale for a peaceful life and advocacy in ancient writings. As I continue to understand where you’re coming from, I understand that you’ve chosen a theistic basis for morality. And that’s fine, so long as it does not infringe on others’ human and civil rights.

    My criticism of theism is its tendency to substitute dogma for critical thinking. When I have asked in earnest about why one tome (the Bible) is preferred over another (the Book of Mormon), why Yeshua solicits violence, why Yeshua endorses human slavery, and other related questions, have gone ignored, I conclude that there is no answer so it’s easier to ignore the question and hope the topic fades.

    I am encouraged by the peace that religious thinkers have brought. The Bible-Christian Church first brought vegetarianism to the U.S. (although individuals, like Benjamin Franklin, were vegetarians, the BCC began to institutionalize it), and ministers such as Sylvester Graham helped to popularize it.

    I offer the last bit so you understand that I am not absolutely anti-theist. I am anti-theist to the extent that theists act without reverence to life and sensitivity to others suffering.

    Waging war is causing suffering. I saw recently on a t-shirt, “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” As Peter Millin urged us to do away with euphemisms, killing human and nonhuman animals is causing suffering. Humans are better morally, politically, nutritionally, economically to stop violence in all its forms. If theists, en massé, would persistently oppose violence to everyone, as the Bible-Christians, Cathars, Jains, Quakers, and others do, you would find me living among theists as lions live among lambs in Isaiah 11:6-9.

    May 6, 2009
  882. Peter Millin said:

    Further, if we don’t believe in a
    Creator, we can’t have inalienable
    rights. If all rights are man-made,
    then those rights can be taken away,
    and as such there cannot be a
    universal agreement as to what is a
    human right because the “truth” of
    human rights will be different for
    every person.

    Amen to that David.

    Here is a list of character qualities
    that I think all who post here would
    agree are desireable: love, joy,
    peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
    faithfulness, gentleness and
    self-control.

    John,
    I call these “universal spiritual principles” I would add acceptance, tolerance and honesty.
    All “good religions” share these principals. Persoanlly I seperate religion from sprituality. Too often religion has violated those very same principals.

    May 6, 2009
  883. Patrick Enders said:

    I have to admit that I find Abba more mystifying than mystical.

    May 6, 2009
  884. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter and David: The inalienable rights you describe as coming from a Creator or Biblegod are an illusion. Or at least please provide one example of an inalienable right — that was not alienated in scripture.

    I know of no inalienable right. In secular philosophy, we strive for inalienable rights but there are ample exceptions. Rights such as the “right to life” are waived when a human attacks another with lethal intent and force – murdering another in justified self-defense is not punished. Rights such as “free thought” are strange to delineate, for no one can control another’s thoughts. However, “free speech”, as you know, is limited in cases of inciting violence, inciting fights, defamation, obscenity, among others.

    So please tell me what inalienable rights exist, those that Biblegod and its minions do not violate.

    May 6, 2009
  885. David L. wrote:

    First, it is just as obvious that
    there is a “Creator”, as it is that
    the Cannon River runs through
    Northfield. I didn’t make it happen,
    you didn’t make it happen, no human
    made it happen. That there is creation
    supports, even demands, the
    proposition that there is a Creator.
    We may not have any knowledge of who
    or what this Creator is; but, we
    cannot reasonably doubt that the truth
    of a Creator, and still believe in the
    creation.

    I think you are begging the question by calling our world “creation.” I don’t know any nonreligious person who would use that term. “Creation” implies a creator, but I don’t feel the need to assume a creator. A while back, on a Northfield.org forum, I wrote:

    I don’t know enough about physics and
    cosmology and all of it to understand
    the origins of the universe, but those
    who do study those things are moving
    toward a greater understanding, and it
    just doesn’t seem either necessary or
    emotionally important to me (or to
    most of them, apparently) to invoke a
    deity to explain it. People used to
    think the sun revolved around the
    earth — that was the natural,
    common-sense interpretation, until the
    real explanation was revealed (and the
    established church fought it like
    mad). Darwinism makes sense of the
    diversity and evolution of life in
    rational, physical, elegantly simple
    terms, and it seems to me just as
    likely that there is a rational,
    physical explanation of the origins of
    the universe and the beginnings of all
    life.

    May 6, 2009
  886. Jerry Friedman said:

    Penny: I was out of town o’er the weekend. I’m sorry that I missed that pearl from David.

    By capitalizing “Creator”, David clearly describes a conscious and deliberate individual who caused the universe to be created. He overlooks the wealth of science and scientists, such as Steven Hawking, who conclude that there is no room for a god, for a Creator, in the universe. While Hawking may be wrong, at least his learned opinion counters David’s faith that it’s “obvious” that there is a Creator.

    David also overlooks the long standing problem of first cause. What created the creator, ad infinitum? If nothing created the Creator, meaning that things can exist without a Creator, then it’s obvious that nothing was necessary to create the universe.

    It’s nice for people like you to remind David that philosophers and scientists have already answered his questions.

    May 6, 2009
  887. David Ludescher said:

    Penny: Agreed. Everything in science points to that the fact that the origins of the universe/creation can be explained in rational terms. In fact, that is the faith of science. Science believes, without being able to prove, that the world is entirely ordered.

    The faith of science is the same thing as the rationality of faith. Where these two intersect is where theists and atheists have their common ground.

    I’m not sure what question is being begged by calling our world a “creation”. Creation is a verifiable fact. A Creator is not an empirical fact; it is a necessary conclusion arising from the fact of creation. In that intellectual sense, a Creator has to exist.

    May 6, 2009
  888. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Was the Creator created?

    May 6, 2009
  889. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    Clearly – if one believes that nothing can exist without having been created, then in order for the Creator to exist, it must have been created.

    Or maybe, things come into existence through a natural process (don’t know what that process is, myself), but that process has no consciousness or intelligence which would allow it to be called a ‘creator.’

    Maybe the creator was created by just such a process. Or maybe the creator created itself.

    (Not speaking for David, of course.)

    May 6, 2009
  890. I think most of us have strong gut senses as to what is more likely (capital-C Creation vs. a natural, explainable process, for example), based on our trusted teachers and life experiences. I do understand that. There are strong emotional ties to the world views presented by beloved parents and a natural sense of betrayal if we deviate too far – not that many of us don’t, eventually, in one direction or another, but it’s not a simple step in most cases.

    May 6, 2009
  891. David Ludescher said:

    Guys: We are getting off base. But, in response, we don’t have to worry about existence of “the Creator” as long as we agree on the existence of creation.

    One of my points is that theism and theistic thought is not, and does not have to be, some bigoted, small-minded intellectual venture dreamed up by power-hungry politicos to suppress the masses. Of course it can be used incorrectly; and I am convinced that much of theology is being used improperly by well-meaning theists, especially on the religious right.

    However, the religious right’s venture into politics is at least 30 years behind the liberal left’s venture into politics. We currently have all kinds of leftist dogmas in the political sphere that defy reason, which need to be challenged. The dogma that all talk of God should be removed from the political sphere is one such dogma (dogmus?). The dogma that a fetus is not human is another. The dogma that the union between a man and a man is the same as a man and a woman is another one.

    These dogmas tend to be nothing more than unorganized systems of faith (religion).

    May 6, 2009
  892. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I don’t think we were getting off base. Any response on whether you believe the Creator was created?

    Also, I don’t think that you’re finding many dogmatic people here to get into an argument with.

    May 6, 2009
  893. Jerry Friedman said:

    David & Patrick: I agree. I’d like to know if David thinks that the Creator was created. Do I remember someone complaining about not being able to get an intellectually honest conversation in Northfield? It would be most gracious to have such a fundamental question answered.

    May 6, 2009
  894. Rob Hardy said:

    Dogma is the singular noun. The correct plural, following the Greek, would be dogmata. Ultimately, it comes from the Greek verb ?????, meaning “to seem (right/good/likely).”

    May 6, 2009
  895. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: I know of no spiritual laws. Can you clarify what you mean?

    May 6, 2009
  896. David Ludescher said:

    Rob: Thanks.

    May 6, 2009
  897. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: The best answer I have heard for that riddle is that of Immanuel Kant. It is an antinomy of reason.

    Reason would suggest the creator must not have a creator; equally reasonable is that everything that exists must have been created. Consequently, not only is reason useless, it is worse than useless because it tricks us into thinking that there is a right answer. Additionally, the question is also irrelevant. What would change if we knew if the Creator was created? It’s like asking why or how was gravity invented?

    The only way that we can know the Creator is through creation. We know gravity by its effects, not because we can perceive it directly.

    That is the best answer that I can muster.

    May 6, 2009
  898. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: What reason “suggests” that the Creator must not have a Creator? Did Immanuel Kant contemplate the work of Stephan Hawking, Carl Sagan, or their class of astrophysicists, when he contemplated this question? Is it “equally reasonable” for me to quote an irreligious philosopher from 300 years ago — who was not exposed to today’s science — and tell you how brilliant he was despite his lacking science education?

    The answer is relevant. If every Creator was created, then there is the problem of infinity. If there is an infinite chain of Creators, then it would take infinite time to reach the present. Because infinite time has not yet happened, then there cannot be infinite Creators.

    If the Creator was not created, and it has always existed, again you have the problem of infinity.

    If the Creator was not created, and it has not always existed, then at some time there was nothing. There was no time, no space. From nothing came something. If the something could have been the Creator, then it could have been the universe sans Creator.

    In other words, if the Creator could be created from nothing, there should be no objection from the universe being created from nothing. At least I think that’s an intellectually honest statement.

    I understand that you rest your case on faith. If that’s so, then why explain yourself with Kant and your own rationale? Isn’t your sole answer “faith”? I don’t understand why people who conclude “faith” dress it up with anything else.

    May 6, 2009
  899. Patrick Enders said:

    A brief digression re: the other topic on this thread:

    Same sex marriage has been enacted in Maine. Once again, this was by legislation, and not court action – it was passed by the legislature, and signed by the governor.

    The move represents a change in the governor’s thinking. “In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

    The new law also affirms that no particular church has to recognize a marriage that does not conform to its beliefs, and that no church is required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/maine-affirms-right-of-gays-lesbians-to-marry.php?ref=fp7

    May 7, 2009
  900. David Ludescher said:

    At least this one was done the right way – by legislative action rather than judicial fiat.

    May 7, 2009
  901. Patrick Enders said:

    Yep. Same way as in Vermont.

    Interestingly, in a recent MN poll, people were asked to choose between “prohibit same-sex marriage”, “legalize same sex marriage”, or “leave it to the MN Supreme Court to interpret the state constitution.”

    A plurality (35%) chose “leave it to the MN Supreme Court.”
    http://www.startribune.com/newsgraphics/44095072.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUoaEaD_ec7PaP3iUiacyKUUr
    http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/44100537.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr

    May 7, 2009
  902. Patrick Enders said:

    Yep. Same way as in Vermont.

    Interestingly, in a recent MN poll, people were asked to choose between “prohibit same-sex marriage”, “legalize same sex marriage”, or “leave it to the MN Supreme Court to interpret the state constitution.”

    A plurality (35%) chose “leave it to the MN Supreme Court.”

    I’d link to it, but Griff’s filter doesn’t trust my link. However, the link does appear in my comment 568, above.

    May 7, 2009
  903. Patrick Enders said:

    I was just contemplating this country’s previous great marriage exclusion: the anti-miscegenation laws which would’ve made my marriage to my wife illegal in 41 of these United States – including the one in which we married.

    Many of those laws were repealed by legislation, but in 16 of those states, these laws were only struck down in 1967, by the ruling of the Supreme Court.

    Those states were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

    The state where we married, Maryland, repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1967, “in response to the start of the Loving v. Virginia case.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

    Sometimes democratic action is enough, and sometimes discrimination is so entrenched that legal action is required to end it.

    May 7, 2009
  904. Patrick Enders said:

    I was just contemplating this country’s previous great marriage exclusion: the anti-miscegenation laws which would’ve made my marriage to my wife illegal in 41 of these United States – including the one in which we married.

    Many of those laws were repealed by legislation, but in 16 of those states, these laws were only struck down in 1967, by the ruling of the Supreme Court.

    Those states were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

    The state where we married, Maryland, repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1967, “in response to the start of the Loving v. Virginia case.”
    [Wikipedia; again, my link is filtered.]

    Sometimes democratic action is enough, and sometimes discrimination is so entrenched that legal action is required to end it.

    May 7, 2009
  905. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: It was the Supreme Court, not the voters, who ruled against segregation in Brown v. Board of Education.

    I’ve previously cited the problem in democracy when there is tyranny by the majority. If a population has 51% slave-loving people, the voters will never abolish slavery. Sometimes it takes an “activist” court to do the right thing. Sometimes it takes an “empathetic” court to do the right thing. Sometimes it takes a court that understands the Constitution and civil rights to do the right thing.

    I agree with David, that ideally the people should directly (by petition) or indirectly (by lobbying) enact egalitarian legislation, but when the majority of voters are tyrants in one form or another, I am happy that courts like Iowa’s do the right thing.

    May 7, 2009
  906. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: The Iowa Court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of the law. They decided (I believe rightly) that the law was unconstitutional.

    However, they then legislated that homosexual marriage is valid. Presumably, under its ruling the state cannot prohibit anyone from getting married. The issue of relative marriage or polygamy was not before the court. But, I see nothing in the decision permitting the state of Iowa to deny these people the right to marry also.

    The Supreme Court of Iowa should have stopped at the question they were asked to answer. Making unconstitutional laws constitutional is not its job.

    May 7, 2009
  907. Peter Millin said:

    jerry,

    Every human by birth has cetain rights he is born with. Those are right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    The amount of limitation to those rights will be the gauge at which a free society is meassured.

    We all are created equal and should be able to pursue our lives in whichever way we see fit, as long as we don’t hurt anybody because of it.

    This is were a good belief system can provide guidance. If we to adapt what I call “universal spiritual laws”, then the above mentioned will take care of itself.

    A creator in my opinion is the sum of all that we should strive for in our own lives. He is a spiritual concept that most people use to give meaning to their lives. It can take different forms and means different things to different people.

    It requires an act of faith to accept this concept. Even an atheist is putting his/her faith in to something that is above her or himself.

    Humility is a desirable trait, that helps people to accept the unknown.
    I don’t think (although I hope) that the answer of our origins will be answered in my lifetime.
    To be able to grasp the unknown and to accept that I don’t have all the answers I chose the concept of a Creator.
    I don’t expect anybody to follow my concept or try to convince anybody of the same.

    Faith and belief is just that…you either belief something or you don’t, especially in absence of any clear scientific proof.

    May 7, 2009
  908. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: I understand and appreciate your opinions on this subject.

    I have not read in any human law a constant respect for the rights of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. For example, the death penalty violates the right to life. Nor have I read in any laws purportedly from deities that view these rights as inalienable, although I am not well-versed in most religions.

    It would be extraordinary, I think, to find a religion that practices what it preaches. One that respects life and doesn’t make excuses to destroy it. I’d like to find a religion that actually embraces nonviolence in all forms, like the Hebrew Bible describes in Gen. 1:29 and Isaiah 11:6-9. Some Jews and Christians abide by these passages, but the vast majority look for excuses to kill innocents.

    In humility, I am always open to new ideas, evidence, arguments. The sum of all ideas, evidence and arguments that I’ve been exposed to conclude atheism. If you call that faith (in atheism), then we have different definitions of faith. To me, faith is belief without evidence, or contrary to argument.

    There is no evidence of any deity, so that implies atheism. There are ample arguments against theism, so it is not faith for me to conclude atheism. I take a rationalist approach: it’s really that simple. I take a rationalist approach in all things that may affect others. On things that are solely personal, I may be rational or irrational, like eating olives on occasion even though I really don’t like them.

    May 7, 2009
  909. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I understand that the normal method of courts is to narrowly tailor their ruling to redress the injury.

    I also understand that learned attorneys include in their prayer for relief, “and other such relief as the court deems just and proper.”

    If the Iowa court believed that legalizing same-sex marriages would satisfy this lawsuit and a multiplicity of other lawsuits, then they accomplished (1) “other such relief” and the highly valued (2) judicial economy. With one ruling, the court spared the Iowa judicial system of the same or similar issue being litigated again.

    I remember that in Brown v. Board of Education, there were 5 or 6 prior, similar lawsuits aimed at desegregating the South. Perhaps with that case in mind, the Iowa court decided not to wait for another 5 or 6 cases.

    I am overjoyed when courts get it right.

    May 7, 2009
  910. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: First, the Iowa Court used the wrong reasons to declare the law illegal (unconstitutional). Then having just declared the law illegal, they said that same-sex marriages are legal. And, in the final stroke of Orwellian double-speak, they declared the law legal again, now that same-sex couples are included.

    What Iowans have on the books right now is an unconstitutional statute. That should mean that NO ONE can get married.

    The revised heading may be accurate – legal vs. religious views. Ironically, the faith-based folks are the ones asking everyone to take it upon belief that opposite-sex and sam-sex marriage are the same. Under the law, there probably should be an equality. But, in the real world of science and evidence, a man is different than a woman and a penis is different than a vagina. That man and woman are “made” for each other is not a tenet of faith; it is a tenet of reason.

    May 7, 2009
  911. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Can you be more specific? I read the original trial court’s holding:

    “Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage… by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex.” -Varnum v. Brien, WL 874044 (Iowa 2009)

    The Iowa Supreme Court agreed, giving dicta against tyranny by the majority, “Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time.” …and then the kicker, “We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.”

    The court did exactly as I said, repelling the tyranny of the Defense of Marriage Act, and judicial economy to avoid more same and similar lawsuits.

    So what were the “wrong reasons” you cite? And with the Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional, aren’t the judges free to state that “the law [is] legal again, now that same-sex couples are included”?

    Otherwise, must we continue to agree that a penis is different than a vagina, and men are different than women? Must we continue to dispute that men and women being “made” for each other for reproduction has nothing to do with marriage? Repeating your belief does not make it true.

    May 7, 2009
  912. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,

    Maybe this explains better what I mean

    A free people [claim] their rights as
    derived from the laws of nature, and
    not as the gift of their chief
    magistrate. Thomas Jefferson, Right
    of British America, 1774

    May 8, 2009
  913. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: I agree with Jefferson. Further, his sentiment is in our 9th Amendment to the Constitution, that people have rights beyond what the Constitution guarantees.

    The laws of nature are better understood now than ever, particularly credited to evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. However, you mentioned “universal spiritual laws” which mean, to me, supernatural laws. The natural laws Jefferson spoke of are not equal to supernatural laws.

    This drifts from the point. I know of no purported deity and no religion that regards any human as having inalienable rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, but you and others were applauding Christianity for recognizing inalienable rights. I’d like to know how you and others conclude that the right to life, for example, is inalienable if Biblegod has a pretty big book documenting Biblegod’s alienation of life from humans.

    The idea that Biblegod guarantees certain rights has no validity in argument or purported evidence.

    May 8, 2009
  914. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: My purpose in bringing the issue of same-sex marriage into this post was to lend some practical clarity to what “atheist-friendly” means.

    As best as I can discern, the only creed uniting atheists together is an opposition towards political theists. The creed will even go so far as to deny obvious scientific facts, such as penises and vaginas are different or that fetuses are human by saying, “that is just your belief”. Frankly, I have no interest in adopting this belief system because it isn’t based upon reason.

    To compound the problem, those accusations are often followed by the proclamation of a different non-creedal belief, such as the government should allow any two unrelated persons to get married if they love each other and are committed. Why society should abandon the “one man and one woman” belief for a different “two person” belief but still retain the prohibitions against the persons being related and multiple persons is entirely based upon a faith, not reason.

    The Iowa Court didn’t shed any light on why this new “religious” belief is better or more appropriate. It just limited the discrimination to a smaller class of people.

    May 8, 2009
  915. David Henson said:

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government

    One question that needs discussion is can “fairness” or “greenness” become “an Object” that leads us to absolute despotism? When courts and paramilitary (police) enforce concepts they deem “fair” through force of violence and coersion at what point does the cure become worse than the disease?

    To me our society almost seems to be saying all types of debauchery are your state enforced “rights” but if you have no right to own the product of your hard work, ingenuity and effort. This is just not a sustainable system.

    May 8, 2009
  916. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: There is no universal atheist creed, except that atheists do not believe in a god. Similarly, there is no universal theist creed, except that they believe in a god. If you want more insight, you need to examine the individual a/theist or a/theist’s opinion(s) or religion(s).

    We agree, again, that a penis and vagina are different. You use those facts to arrive at a conclusion that is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest. As I have said, you reason that I should not marry because I will not have children. Marriage was originally about politics, later it added child-bearing, and now it’s added more reasons. Why you select ‘child-bearing’ alone seems arbitrary and capricious. Why you are fixed to your conclusion befuddles me.

    I agree that a human fetus is a human. I do not agree that a human fetus is necessarily a person, as it relates to the law against murder. Being human is not the issue, but being a person is.

    The law recognizes this differentiation. A fetus who dies as a result of the mother being attacked, such as by a robbery, counts against the attacker as a murder.

    As you know, corporations are “persons” in limited ways. The question is not, therefore, if a fetus is a human, but if a fetus is a person. If you want to condemn the politics behind abortion, I wish that you’d distinguish between “human” and “person”. It’s the straw man, again, when you claim that secularists don’t understand that a human fetus is human. The biology is not disputed, the politics are.

    I am of course delighted that you reject what you regard as unreasonable secular arguments. I reject them too. I also reject unreasonable theistic arguments. I wish that you’d do the same. It’s unreasonable to believe that there is a Creator for the reasons I previously discussed.

    May 8, 2009
  917. Patrick Enders said:

    David L and Jerry,
    I agree with Jane (#570): the nested post thing is incredibly hard to follow. We’ve now got posts on two different pages, and clicking on the latest post in the sidebar doesn’t even take one to the post that has been clicked on – it just takes you to the last page, which contains only David H’s post (and this one).

    It would be very helpful if we all stopped using the nested post feature for ongoing dialogues.

    May 8, 2009
  918. Peter Millin said:

    The laws of nature are better
    understood now than ever, particularly
    credited to evolutionary biology and
    evolutionary psychology. However, you
    mentioned “universal spiritual laws”
    which mean, to me, supernatural laws.
    The natural laws Jefferson spoke of
    are not equal to supernatural laws.

    Universal spirtual laws in my definiton are best described in the 10 commandments. I believe those to be universal and pretty much applicable to all religions.
    Maybe we I picked the wrong term.

    May 8, 2009
  919. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: I am resisting using the nested “reply”.

    Peter: OK. I think the confusion then is your selection of Jefferson’s statement of “natural” law to explain your respect for “supernatural” law.

    All passages are from Exodus 20.

    Biblegod commanded:

    3: “Do not have any other gods before me.” Does this mean that there are other gods?

    5: “[Biblegod punishes] children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,” Is it a universal spiritual law to punish children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and great-great grandchildren for the crimes of parents? And for rejecting something of which there is no evidence?

    6: “[Biblegod shows] steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.” This has the reverse problem of 5: shouldn’t a criminal child be disciplined even if the parent loves Biblegod?

    8: “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.” The Sabbath is Friday night and Saturday day. This is a universal spiritual law? Isn’t pretty much everyone, except some Jews, in violation of this?

    9: “For six days you shall labor and do all your work.” Isn’t pretty much everyone in violation of this universal spiritual law?

    10: “But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.” Wow. No comment.

    13: “You shall not kill.” Not even in self-defense, or defense of another?

    15: “You shall not steal.” Not even to feed oneself or one’s family? Is it a universal spiritual law to respect property over keeping one’s family from starvation?

    17: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

    I had hoped that a universal spiritual law would be: “You shall not permit slavery.”

    May 8, 2009
  920. john george said:

    Jerry- Take a look at the perfect law of liberty in the New Testament. This is summed up in the first two commandments, “You shall love the Lord your God wit all your heart, all your soul and all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus said that all the law and all the prophets hang on these two commandments.

    As far as the generational continuity of sin (#5 & #6 in your post 604), the thing that starts it is commiting sin. The thing that ends it is repentance. I have seen generational sins in my family that have been broken in my children’s genration because the line was broken in my generation through my recognition and repentance. I don’t know if this is the best analogy, but I liken sin to a genetic weakness. All it takes is the hybridizing of a dominant gene to break the line of weakness. This is something that, until the last few decades, only happened by chance. Now, with our understanding of genetics, these genetic changes can actually be engineered.

    Back to sin, the choice of repentance has always been there, thus the ability to break the continuity of sin in a family has always been there. Does this make any sense?

    For me, I am very happy we live in a dispensation of grace, and when we are in the Lord, there is now no condemnation. Jesus fulfilled the law, therefore I do not have to fulfill it. In fact, any efforts to do so in my own strength are a waste of time. I do not have within me the ability to fulfill the law, even the least of it. Even the first two commandments can only be enacted through me by the Holy Spirit. I need only to keep conscious of my great need for Him.

    May 8, 2009
  921. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Is any commandment more important than another? Is any commandment unimportant?

    Why aren’t the pro-slave commandments addressed by any Christian?

    I don’t understand how your analogy works. From what I’ve read, Eve ate the fig from the Tree of Knowledge, and all women are now cursed with pain in childbirth. No one knows how to undo that curse. Alternatively, if a father rejects Biblegod, the son gets punished for it? And the grandson? If a father loves Biblegod, and the son has slaves, Biblegod loves the son? If the grandson commits murder, Biblegod loves the grandson, because the father loves Biblegod?

    That doesn’t make sense to me. Individual merit makes sense to me, not multi-generational damnation.

    None of your writings relate to the earlier claim that Biblegod gives us inalienable rights. I’d like to know what rights from Biblegod are inalienable. David and Peter haven’t answered.

    May 8, 2009
  922. john george said:

    Jerry- In your comment

    Is any commandment more important than
    another? Is any commandment
    unimportant?

    I think you completely miss the point of Jesus’s teaching. If you follow this commandment, all the others will be fulfilled in your life. The secret for me to following it is to first recognize my complete inability to do so in my own strength. This is where the strength of God is completed in my weakness.

    Why aren’t the pro-slave commandments
    addressed by any Christian?

    I don’t mean to sound dense, here, but what are the “pro-slave” commandments?

    As far as the generational continuity of sin, please go back and re-read my explanantion. I feel you are hung up on the phrase, “..I will visit the sins of the fathers onto the second and third generations of thos who hate Me…” Do you see this as God forcing this sin upon some poor hapless person? Do you believe we live under the threat of a domineering puppeteer of a God? That doesn’t line up with the whole counsel of scripture and violates the concept of free will. It also removes all hope of there being any antidote for this sin, which is not true at all, relative to the scriptures. Jesus’ sacrifice was the complete remedy for this sin. That is the hope we Christians have in the Gospel.

    In my study of the scriptures, the concept of “rights” seems an antithesis to the tenor of them. In Phillipians, Paul wrote that we should have this same atitude in us that was in Jesus- namely, that He laid down His position as God the Son to come and die for our sins. Does this sound lie “inalienable rights?” I think I would differentiate our concepts in this way- what you and others call “rights”, I would call “privileges”. I think there is a root belief herein that is more than just semantics. We live in a fallen world under the effects of the original sin and separation from God. Do we really have a “right” to expect to live without this affecting us in any way? I don’t believe so.

    May 8, 2009
  923. Jerry Friedman said:

    John:

    I think you completely miss the point of Jesus’s teaching. If you follow this commandment, all the others will be fulfilled in your life.

    I fear that “loving Biblegod” has created 20,000 denominations, some of whom are quite gentle, like the Quakers, and some of whom are not. Remember, the KKK claims inspiration from Christianity. So while it may seem innocuous simply to love Biblegod, that has done little to explain what it means to be Christian. I must assume that the Quakers love Biblegod as much as the KKK, but they have very different ideas.

    If such a simple principle can be so broadly interpreted, I think more weight needs to be given to other rules. I don’t agree that the first two commandments are enough.

    I posted the pro-slave commandments in #604. See Exodus 20:10,17. I couldn’t find any anti-slave commandments in the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Amendments.

    Do you see this as God forcing this sin upon some poor hapless person? Do you believe we live under the threat of a domineering puppeteer of a God? That doesn’t line up with the whole counsel of scripture and violates the concept of free will.

    I thought all women are presently punished for Eve’s eating the fig. I thought everyone but Noah and family died in the Flood, even children, babies, and unborn. I thought everyone died in Sodom & Gomorrah, even children, babies, and unborn. Hosea 13:16 reflects the same attitude, killing babies and unborn because adults turned against Biblegod. There are more similar passages. These verses do not align with your explanation.

    Your explanation of rights vs. privileges makes more sense to me than David’s and Peter’s assertion that having Biblegod gives us inalienable rights viz a’ viz, an absolute moral dictate or universal spiritual laws.

    Instead, I see Biblegod changing some rules. Originally, eat no animals (Gen. 1:29). After the Flood, it’s OK to eat animals. Did Biblegod change the rule, or is it still immoral to eat animals?

    If Biblegod changed the rule, then the rules are arbitrary. There is nothing “right” or “wrong”, Biblegod just tells us what to do.

    If Biblegod cannot change the rules, then a morality exists independent of Biblegod. Humans, especially ethicists, seek to discover these moral rules.

    In either case, I think David’s and Peter’s assertion that Biblegod gives some sense of an absolute moral position is false. Biblegod changed some rules (nothing is absolute), or Biblegod doesn’t make the rules.

    May 8, 2009
  924. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: The idea of inalienable rights coming from the Creator is best understood in the converse.

    First, the definition of a “right” in the political sense is the freedom to act without interference from those citizens who constitute the government.

    • If all freedoms can be taken away (alienable), then all freedoms are merely at the whim of the current person or group in power;
    • Even if freedoms come from the consent of the governed, then rights are also alienable;
    • If freedoms come from the Constitution, even those freedoms can be taken away alienable.

    Hence, freedoms are cannot man-made, if they are to be freedoms. Life, liberty, and the ability to pursue our happiness are all freedoms that we are born with. I contend that the Creator, the Author of All Freedoms is the source. I think that it is equally valid to say that these freedoms come from Just Exist. Regardless, this proposition is not provable – it is self-evident. (We hold these truths to be self-evident.)

    I think what was evident to Jefferson and the other framers was that their freedoms did not come from the king via the king’s caveat; and that their freedoms came from the Creator himself.

    May 9, 2009
  925. Peter Millin said:

    For me there is a difference between religion/church and spirituality.

    The bible is manmade and thus full of faults and mistakes.
    Spirituality and the law of nature transcends all bibles and all religions.

    The most incarnation of this I found to be the ten commandments.
    If used as a moral compass, most issues (like slavery) would be obsolete, because they would never materialize.

    The spiritual aspect of most religions, condems killings, demands acceptance and promotes love, acceptance, honesty etc.

    Over the years people have used their own interpretations and missused the spirit of it, by following the text of the manmade part. Picked our the part that fits their agenda and ignored the principal behind it.

    May 9, 2009
  926. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: I appreciate your perspective. I don’t know if you’ve looked into Buddhism or some of the other Eastern religions, but from what you say, I think you’d find some peace and appreciation with them.

    If I had a Bible, it would be the Desiderata. Have you read it?

    David: First, I appreciate some of the proofreading mistakes you made. I get frustrated when I submit my comment only to see little errors. This is your first post where I noticed the same mistakes I make.

    Not that it matters.

    We agree that human-made human rights are alienable, by legislation or fiat, such as when Lincoln and Bush suspended habeas corpus.

    My reading of the Bible shows that Biblegod also alienates human rights, or expressly or impliedly has others alienate human rights. Think of all the children, babies and fetuses who drowned in Noah’s Flood.

    Suffice to say, I disagree that Biblegod gives us a firm, immutable, inalienable moral code.

    Humans cannot rely absolutely on human-made human rights but this does not fault the institution of rights. Ideally, when a civilization is educated in ethics, or when there is a benevolent dictator (such as good parents), we have the closest thing to inalienable rights. Even flawed civilizations, like ours, can get close to ideal.

    In any case, since humans abolished slavery and Biblegod/Yeshua ratified it, I have more faith in humans creating and defending human rights. Even if I was a theist, I would trust humans more than a “jealous” deity based on our track records. Only one group has ever been successful at genocide, though many have tried. Purportedly, Biblegod has been successful a few times.

    May 9, 2009
  927. john george said:

    Jerry- There is an underlying tenor in your opinions of “BibleGod”, which show up even in the discriptive term you use. It is one I call derision. When you used the term “punished” to describe the pain associated with childbirth, it comes across to me that this result of sin is somehow unfairly foisted upon all the women since Eve’s transgression. I do not percieve an understanding on your part that this disobedience set in motion a pattern through all creation that was not there before the transgression. There was a willful choice made to disobey God. There was also a clear warning given as to the effects of this disobedience. The original lie, “…did God really say…?” is the same thing that comes through antitheistic opinions today. It hasn’t changed because the source is the same.

    The other thing I perceive in your comments is an underlying disdain (possibly revulsion?) of the idea of submitting to an all powerful Being that answers to no one. The concept of having a God that is, on the one hand, forgiving and all loving, and on the other hand, willing to allow people(s) to suffer the effects of judgement for sin that were set into motion by the very committing of that sin, seems to be beyond your willingness to embrace. In fact, the very ability you have to make such a willful decision seems to validate the claims God has made in the scriptures that we, indeed, have been created with this free will. He is willing to allow us to follow it into rebellion against Him and bring about our own ruination without the forceful intervention of His Spirit into our lives. He only gently extends the invitation to us to turn and follow Him.

    Also, I looked up your “slavery” commandments in Ex. 20, and they have nothing to do with slavery. One has to do with honoring the Sabbath. The other has to do with covetousness. To say that these scriptures somehow validate the concept of slavery is a pretty far stretch for me. In fact, I would challenge your interpretation to be inacurate at best.

    Also, as far as the eating of meat, Jesus taught that it is not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him. It is what comes out of it. Paul (the apostle) has some good perspective on this concept in Romans 14, and Collosians 2:20-22. I know of many dogmas about eating meat or not that have been distilled out of the Scriptures, but I think they all miss the point. The importance is to have a clear conscience before God. In Romans 14, Paul writes that the Kingdom of God is not eating or drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

    I believe you feel justified in your revulsion of God, as I once did myself, but there is much greater life and freedom on this side of the cross. If you understand what real love is, then you don’t need more than the two commandments.

    May 9, 2009
  928. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry,

    Thank you for the direction to Budhism. However I am perfectly contend with my higher power.

    This is a great paragraph, because I have been in that place as well.Thanks John.

    I believe you feel justified in your
    revulsion of God, as I once did
    myself, but there is much greater life
    and freedom on this side of the cross.
    If you understand what real love is,
    then you don’t need more than the two
    commandments.

    May 10, 2009
  929. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: You continually refer to the Biblegod. I would remind you that even under our Constitution, Americans didn’t recognize the rights of women, African-Americans, and native Americans. Surely, you wouldn’t throw away the Constitution because it appears to have failed Americans. It is not the Constitution which has failed us; it is we who have failed the Constitution. So, I would ask you not to judge Christians by the failures of its people, but by the worthiness of its cause.

    The God of the Christians, or at least the God of whom the Catholics now speak is the God of Love. And, as Pope Benedict said, in a world where the name of God is often associated with vengenance and hatred, it is worth reminding the world that the God of the Christians is not a God of hatred, but is a God of Love. If you have a fault with this conception of God, I would like to know what it could be.

    May 11, 2009
  930. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: A key difference is that the U.S. Constitution was made with amendment in mind. In fact, four years after the Constitution, the first ten amendments were adopted. The flaws of this nation’s founders have been and continue to be fixed.

    Catholics consider Biblegod to be immutable: In God “there is no change, nor shadow of alteration” [James 1:17]. Biblegod is considered to be perfect to begin with, so any change is considered to be a change away from perfection. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

    I see no rationale in tossing the U.S. Constitution and its domain of laws, for they are known to be imperfect and they have a system of improvement. Comparatively, Biblegod’s laws are considered to be perfect back in the day and today. I find no perfection in slavery, which the U.S. abolished in 1865, less than 100 years after the nation was born. How long has Biblegod had to abolish slavery?

    Slavery is hatred. Massacre is hatred. These and other hatreds are found throughout the Bible, and throughout the history of people who revere the Bible.

    In 1210, the Catholics massacred up to 20,000 Cathars – because they disagreed with Catholicism. Many more thousands were killed before and after the massacre, up to two million according to some sources.

    From Wiki: “… Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, several hundred years later was “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” — “Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.” The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there including many women and children. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice. What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, ‘Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex.’ The permanent population of Béziers at that time was then probably no more than 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls could conceivably have increased the number to 20,000.”

    Remember what Yeshua said, “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.” [Matthew 7:17 NSAB]

    May 11, 2009
  931. Patrick Enders said:

    On the marital rights issue: more progress in New York:

    The New York State Assembly passed a bill tonight that would legalize same-sex marriage. The bill passed 89 to 52 after extensive debate with five Republicans voting for the measure.

    The fight to legalize gay marriage will now go to the Democratically controlled Senate…
    Word is that supporters of the bill in the Senate need to win around five votes to secure it’s passage.

    http://www.gothamgazette.com/blogs/wonkster/2009/05/12/assembly-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill/

    May 12, 2009
  932. john george said:

    Jerry- If you think the Pope’s membership in Hitler Youth was bad, take a look at the Apostle Paul’s resume. He had obtained authority to put to death anyone he found to be preaching the Gospel of Christ. The evidence of the working of God in a person’s life is change. My own opinion (not a doctorine) is that anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus, yet does not demonstrate a change in his own life, is either just getting started or is missing the mark. Does this mean a problem free life? Absolutely not! In fact, I heard one teacher many years ago say that the evidence of the Holy Spirit working in one’s life is problems. When we are born again into a Heavenly Kingdom, we are then enemies of the ways of the world and its systems, thought processes, motivations, etc. Since the Kingdom is not of this world, it does not seek physical change of this world so much as a change of heart in the citizens of this world. Thus, to say that God has not abolished slavery is to miss the point entirely. The slavery He has abolished is the slavery to sin.

    May 12, 2009
  933. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: A reading beyond the headlines finds this, “According to historical evidence, he shared his family’s anti-Nazi views and never joined the Nazi party.” He was registered against his will, and was later conscripted into the army at age 16. Pope Benedict revealed this information in a 1997 biography.

    I would encourage you to read the whole article.

    May 12, 2009
  934. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: What exactly is the historical evidence?

    I would encourage you to question assumptions.

    May 12, 2009
  935. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I agree that Paul and Joseph had a bad past, and both may do good deeds to make up for their bad past. I favor rehabilitation rather than punishment. I also favor full disclosure, and I cringe at people who accept Joseph’s uncorroborated statement. What else would he say to the public? He may he telling the truth, but he cannot be trusted because of the circumstances.

    While I may keep missing your spiritual point, you keep missing my plain-reading-of-the-text point. I am forever disturbed that the Bible does not condemn slavery. Slavery is among the worst crimes. Many lesser crimes are condemned in the Bible. Some good things are condemned. But no where is one of the greatest of all evils condemned.

    I get it, you look to the spiritual meaning. I look at the text. My bad.

    May 12, 2009
  936. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I don’t know. I just know that neither your summary nor the headline talk about the Pope’s healing work in the Middle East, which is what he was doing. Trying to vilify him for something that happened 66 years ago against his will at age 16 does nothing but demonstrate the depth of the prejudice against the man and the Catholic Church.

    May 12, 2009
  937. Jerry Friedman said:

    I reacted to the lies of the spokesperson. The lies could mean either there is something to cover up, or the Vatican wanted to extinguish a problem before it became a problem. The lies make me nervous, nervous enough to assume the worst.

    And I never take one person’s biographical interview as truth about things like this. At age 16, any person is old enough to carry a gun and to be infected with patriotism. Catholics are not pacifists, so I can’t take his interest in Catholicism as evidence that he had no interest in the war.

    I take issue with your characterization that it was “against his will”. What facts lead you to believe that? From my readings, he joined voluntarily in order to continue his seminal studies. He was photographed in a Nazi (Hitler Youth) uniform. Was he coerced, such as his life or his family’s life threatened? I read nothing of the sort. Since Ratzinger and Hitler were Roman Catholic, there’s no reason to believe that the Nazis would treat objecting Catholic teens so harshly. That said, I am not surprised if there was a state-imposed obligation to join Hitler’s Youth, but even then, Ratzinger voluntarily joined an obligatory program. To deny Ratzinger’s involvement in the Hitler Youth, or to call his involvement involuntary, and to accept only Ratzinger’s version of the story, are not persuasive ways to convince people of his good intentions. I expect more critical thinking.

    You are, after all, an attorney who deals with people who will lie to you and on the witness stand. Taking one person’s statement as truth, who has vested interests, without corroboration, rarely reveals the truth.

    While I understand your faith in him, if Ratzinger denies, dismisses, or minimizes his past involvement in the Nazi’s war, he cannot do “healing work” in the Middle East, if “healing work” includes working with Jews. Why should any Jew trust him under these circumstances? I’d rather the Vatican work to corroborate Ratzinger’s claims.

    I recognize that even Nelson Mandela, who was involved in murders, now works for peace. I don’t think that one’s past controls one’s future. But Mandela did not lie about it, his spokesperson didn’t lie about it, and as far as I have seen, he’s worked, in part, to atone for it.

    May 13, 2009
  938. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: No derision intended. Monotheists tend to believe their “god” is the only deity, so they use the term “God” in a monopolistic way. I use “Biblegod” in respect to the several religions who have a different view of “god”. Think of it as saying “the President” referencing Obama, but failing to recognize that there are non-Obama presidents. When there is a plurality of readers, of believers, ignoring other presidents is disrespectful. In that sense, I wish Christians would be more specific when talking about “god”, whether they use the term “Biblegod”, “Jehovah”, “Yahweh”, or any other name. Hence, I say “Biblegod” to respect non-Bible believers.

    I have no problem following the lead of a benevolent dictator, whether that’s Biblegod or anyone else. That would make life simpler. Biblegod is not benevolent, at least not by his résumé in the Bible.

    The slavery commandments ratify slavery. If your mentor told you that you shouldn’t covet your neighbor’s slave, and in fact your mentor wrote a large book of history and laws saying nothing against slavery whatsoever, and several things favoring slavery, “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.” [Lev. 25:44], I’d say that Biblegod not only ratifies, but endorses slavery.

    How can I love anyone who does not condemn slavery?

    May 13, 2009
  939. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I did a Wikipedia search. There is a long article in footnote 6 documenting his resistance even at a young age.

    May 13, 2009
  940. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Good. Following from the Wiki page, I take the ‘New York Times’ article as good evidence that Ratzinger opposed Nazism. The reporter spoke with Ratzinger’s father and people who knew them at the time. I can’t consider this perfect evidence, but as I said, I think it’s good evidence.

    http://bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/new_pope_defied_nazis.htm

    He still joined the Hitler Youth voluntarily, unless you can show coercion.

    May 13, 2009
  941. john george said:

    Jerry- I think I understand your use of the term “Biblegod”, now, and I choose not to be offended by it.

    Re.: your comment-

    …both may do good deeds to make up
    for their bad past. I favor
    rehabilitation rather than punishment.

    This is where the Gospel comes in. We do not have to “do good deeds to make up for” our past. If fact, we cannot make up for our past. Jesus paid the price for this. When we come to Him, he removes our past from before God. There is no record there against us. Regarding rehabilitation? What else would you call santification? That is why it is written that mercy triumphs over judgement.

    Then, your statement-

    How can I love anyone who does not
    condemn slavery?

    leads me to this question. How can the perfect God love us, the imperfect sinner? If a person approaches the Bible as just a piece of literature compiled by a bunch of unrelated authors over a melinium, then that person is bound to miss the spiritual significance of what it says. Jesus, Himself, told His followers that His kingdom was not of this world. To use a litmus test, such as slavery, or any other social ill of man that God happens to allow to continue in this world, as a test for for whether or not you will follow God is, to me, at least, saying that God is not all powerful and therefore subject to the whims of mankind. I am talking about a God who transcends time, space, matter, and any other finite limitation we might place upon Him. If He were not above these things, then He wouldn’t be much of a god. He is above all these things, and His desire is for us to be seated with Him above all these things. It seems to me that you keep arguing for God to perform the way you want Him to perform, as if He was accountable to you, and if He doesn’t, you will refuse to follow Him. In the new Kingdom comming, there will be no freemen or slaves, male or female, etc. But, until that time, the effects of sin on a fallen human race will continue to occur as social ills. I hold up the millions of human embryos that have been slaughtered over the last thirty odd years and the clammoring to force the acceptance of homosexuality through legislation as two examples (and not the only two) of the effects of that sin.

    May 14, 2009
  942. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Your point is well-taken. There are many who claim ownership of God, as if simply saying that one is a Christian means that one is right. Part of the problem is related to who or what God is.

    When Moses was told to go back to Egypt to free the Isrealites, he asked who should he say sent him and Moses was told to tell them that “I am” sent him.

    Obviously, God can have a lot of different names. I understand that Allah has 95 names in the Muslim faith. I like the name that God is Love. That helps remove the idea that God is an anthromorphic being controlling the earth. That anthromorphic concept worked well for people many years ago. But, as Jesus of Nazareth revealed, there is much more to understanding the nature of God.

    The Bible is the Word of God revealed. Each age and culture must read it anew, with the understandings that have been gained from experience, just as the law must continually progress in its evolution of concepts if it is to discover the truth of the human experience.

    May 14, 2009
  943. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I believe we’ll never come to terms on Judeo-Christian ideology. As we have discussed several issues, I find that we have these irreconcilable differences.

    1) I doubt the integrity of the text. It’s not controversial, any more, that the Bible has been edited profusely. We don’t have the originals. Christian Scholars John Mill and Bart Ehrman, among others, have documented over 400,000 changes in the Christian Amendments (New Testament) alone.

    2) I rely on the text to understand the religion. You have interpretations that vary from the text, based on information and experiences that I do not have; I take the plain reading of the text. When I read that one must “hate” one’s family to be a disciple of Yeshua, or that a son who curses his father shall be stoned, or that Yeshua will return imminently, within the generation from the people whom he addressed in Mtt. 24:34, etc., I read it for what it says.

    3) David L. asserted that I have prejudice against the Catholic Church and Ratzinger. I suppose I do. In theme with ‘actions speak louder than words,’ I look to the history of institutions to judge their character. Because of the history of Catholicism, with crusades, inquisitions and massacres, with witch burnings, missionaries, and other hells, I am not willing to assume the Church has had a “make over” and all should be forgiven. I hold this standard to all brands of Christianity and other religions. History has taught me that religion is another form of tribalism, and tribes tend to war with each other. The present war in Iraq is, I believe, another crusade of (America-)Europeans against Arabs. Politicians won’t say that, of course, so maybe I’m wrong. Maybe not. Christianity has 2000 years of terrorism. While some modern day Christians are sweet and benevolent people, I don’t regard their institution sweetly or benevolently.

    4) Some Christian beliefs are completely unbelievable to me. The idea that an immortal deity is sacrificing himself by dying has never made sense. If Yeshua is immortal, he never died. If Yeshua is mortal, he isn’t godly. But Christians believe that he died and still lives.

    5) Excluding any information outside the Bible, the Bible contradicts itself in extremely important ways. As I referenced above, Yeshua said that he would return within a generation (Mtt. 24:34), yet more than 2000 years later, there has been no Second Coming. This is a false prophecy, but Christians don’t seem to care about that.

    It doesn’t make sense to me why Christians expect non-Christians to accept Christianity based on what I wrote above. Christianity cannot show that their text is original/authentic/legitimate; assuming it is, they use much, much more than the plain text to interpret it; the history of Christianity is damn awful; Biblical claims contradict the natural world; and, Biblical claims contradict other Biblical claims.

    The problem of faith is determining whom we should have faith in. If it’s vogue to have faith in inauthentic, unbelievable, historically shameful things, how should I choose which of such things to have faith in? I understand why people followed Manson and Jones, among a very long list of Christian personalities. They believe in an ideology that cannot be shaken, cannot be reasoned with. Indeed, a Manson follower might be a sweet and benevolent person. I don’t mind a society of such people. I don’t mind a society full of such Christians. But, I haven’t found that most Christians are like that. Most Christians, most people actually, have faith in something and their faith is hard to shake. I always hope that their faith is in something peaceful, but I am often let down.

    Combined, these factors are a weighty reason not to be Christian. Think from a non-Christian’s perspective: what is appealing about a flawed text, with flawed interpretations, inspiring flawed actions? There are serious, logical problems with the Bible. While these logical problems may not be problems to Christians, they are to non-Christians. Yet Christians don’t acknowledge that. Not once has a Christian told me that Luke 14:26 (Yeshua’s disciples must hate their family) presents a problem, and it’s understandable why non-Christians are mortified at such a statement. Instead, Christians pretend it doesn’t say that. Some act as though I have a reading comprehension problem, because when I read “hate”, I comprehend it as “hate”.

    I don’t understand how present-day Christians consider Christianity to be a religion of peace, but they ignore Gen. 1:29 and Isaiah 11:6-9, which describe Biblegod’s intentions for a nonviolent existence. It’s another example of double-speak, praising a world of nonviolence, but not hesitating to eat the flesh of murdered animals. Why does an atheist care more about peace than a Christian?

    I don’t understand why Christians overlook these things. Why some insist that the Earth was created in six days, why some insist that some commandments are important and others aren’t (Christians generally don’t observe the Sabbath), why they don’t object to the liberal references of slavery and genocide.

    Obviously a lot of Christians have difficulty with some parts of the Bible. There are 20,000 denominations and 3000 English translations of the Bible (cite: 1994 Catholic Encyclopedia). If there wasn’t disagreement, then I’d expect one denomination and one translation. So Christians acknowledge great differences among their interpretations, but they act insulted when non-Christians carry the same disbelief + 1.

    I am happy to continue discussing these issues. Unless the problems I cite are addressed, and resolved, I’ll never understand why I or anyone should become Christian. Because having access to the original text is important to me, and there is no original, we may never agree on the most fundamental issues.

    May 14, 2009
  944. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: This point of yours is well-taken,

    Each age and culture must read [the Bible] anew, with the understandings that have been gained from experience, just as the law must continually progress in its evolution of concepts if it is to discover the truth of the human experience.

    If this was the practice of Christianity, not seemingly few goodly Christians, we’d have a better world.

    May 14, 2009
  945. john george said:

    Jerry- In response to all your points above in post 622.1, I want to touch on this comment you made to David Ludescher-

    If this was the practice of
    Christianity, not seemingly few goodly
    Christians, we’d have a better world.

    I think my response to this statement answers pretty much everything you have addressed. If I missed a point, please let me know. I perceive a concept in this statement that I’m not sure is supported scripturally. That concept is that Christianity is supposed to be some large homogenous organization, whose members that moves in lock step with one another. I don’t believe this is Jesus intention. What I have found in my limited study of the scriptures is that the Body of Christ is represented completely differently (see 1 Cor. 12). If you look at some of the events that took place in the early church with the ministries of Paul, Peter, Banabus, et al., you will find a group of people who did not agree on every little facet of the way. In their lives and ministries, they produced an expression of Christ that was onlt held together by the common Holy Spirit in each of them. It is this bond, not collective agreement on translations, applications, etc. of all the writings, that Jesus’s purpose was to implement. That is why the Gospel of the death and resurection of Christ appears to be foolishness to the unregenerate mind. I do not mean anything derogatory by my term, here. It is just the expression we use to differentiate between those who have experienced Holy Spirit renewal of their mind (see Romans 12:1) and those who have not. The one thing we all have in common is the Cross. No other religion of man has this teaching, that God would humble Himself, die Himself, to pay the debt for the transgression of His own law, and return from the dead, so that we, the undeserving, could live in newness of life. That is the Gospel and the hope that we have. This is where we agree, that we who call ourselves Christian have not done a very good job living in newness of life.

    May 15, 2009
  946. kiffi summa said:

    I hope you all will read the entire text of President Barack Obama’s speech at the Notre Dame Commencement, yesterday.
    We all need to be reminded of many things.

    May 18, 2009
  947. David Ludescher said:

    Agreed.

    May 18, 2009
  948. Patrick Enders said:

    For those interested in non-theological explanations of morality and altruism, there’s a good recent article in Newsweek by Sharon Begley, titled “Adventures in Good and Evil”:
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/195117

    May 20, 2009
  949. Patrick Enders said:

    Subtitle: “What makes some of us saints and some of us sinners? The evolutionary roots of morality.”

    May 20, 2009
  950. john george said:

    Here’s a pretty good quote from Obama’s speech:

    How does each of us remain firm in our
    principles, and fight for what we
    consider right, without, as Father
    John said, demonizing those with just
    as strongly held convictions on the
    other side?

    Perhaps the demonization comes out of lack of understanding rather than certainty. He also summed up the spirit behind this comment later in his speech with the golden rule. It is interesting that this principle has not been outlawed by any democratically elected government, to my knowledge.

    May 20, 2009
  951. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Interesting article. It helps lend some scientific credence to the value of religious practices, especially prayer. Religious experiences can change a person for the better.

    May 20, 2009
  952. john george said:

    Patrick- Interesting article. This comment:

    “Evolution favors organisms that can
    be vengeful when it’s necessary, that
    can forgive when it’s necessary and
    that have the wisdom to know the
    difference,”

    could just as easily be stated “Society favors…” or “Cultures favor…” I just have a problem with personifying evolution, as if it was more than a process. In this statement, it almost comes across as some external, omnipotent entity. If there is some external, omnipotent entity, why could it not be called God?

    The other interesting precept in this article is that positive behavior can be taught. Are we all just unfortunate products of our enviroinment? It would appear that there are principles that are being ingrained during our maturing process. Perhaps all the greed that has been exposed in the collapse of our financial institutions could have been “untrained” with the application of the proper ethical teaching. It would appear that certain financial and business practices are not necessarily amoral, or at least need to be accompanied by ethical teaching. There is a Bible verse that says that the scriptures are effective in the training of righteousness.

    May 20, 2009
  953. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: When science (or rather, scientists) use words of intention, like “Evolution favors…”, it shouldn’t be interpreted as a conscious will, therefore it cannot be interpreted as a conscious god.

    Richard Dawkins explains this in his book, “The Selfish Gene.” He specifically mentions the hemoglobin in our blood that is attracted to oxygen, that wants to bind with oxygen, or any number of other similar words. But hemoglobin does not have an option: it does not have a will to attract or to want. It abides by physical laws (of chemistry, in this instance). Scientists use words of intention for creative or explanatory shorthand or for analogy, not for describing the actual process.

    The actual process of evolution is not based on any desire to evolve. No being that has ever existed did anything intentional toward evolution. All beings do is intend to survive. Those who succeed pass their genes to the next generation. Over many generations, genes mutate (without intention). Sometimes, a mutation is beneficial, and all descendants benefit from the change.

    If you want to equate god with a completely unintentional physical law, then don’t let me stop you. But that’s not the nature of Biblegod, at least not my understanding of it.

    May 20, 2009
  954. john george said:

    Jerry- Fair enough explanation. I still look for the “why” of this process. If I remember our earlier discussions correctly, I think the scientific community is also looking for the same thing. The difference would be that I say I have found my “why.” The scientist would say he is still looking. Is that an accurate differentiation?

    Dawkin’s analogy of hemoglobin is interesting. Hemoglobin is attracted to both O2 and CO. The problem here is that the hemoglobin can readily release the O2, but it cannot readily release the CO. That is why a person can slowly suffocate in a high concentration of CO. The will it takes to escape this gas is on the intellectual level, not the cellular level. I could draw some moral analogies here, but I choose not to do so.

    May 20, 2009
  955. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I think that you limit yourself with your constant concern about Biblegod. Just like science has gained better understandings over the last 2000 years, so has theology, politics, arts, etc.

    Aristole thought that everything was composed of earth, wind, fire, and water. It is not that he was wrong. His explanation was the best one of the time. It lasted until a better explanation came along.

    Evolution is one of those areas where there are artificial conflicts between science and theology. I believe in intelligent design; I think that evolution is the proof of intelligent design.

    May 21, 2009
  956. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Yes, the scientific community looks for “why” as well as “what”. In fact, Darwin was once criticized for looking for “why” and he rebutted that if scientists merely look for “what”, such as how many rocks of certain types exist, then scientists are relegated to being accountants or clerks. Rather, Darwin claimed, scientists look for “why” as well, which draws upon the scientists’ observations, deductions, and intuition. Intuition, of course, is sometimes wrong.

    It’s a small example, but the childhood favorite dinosaur, brontosaurus, never existed. The scientist who first discovered the brontosaurus found a larger skeleton of the apatasaurus that was missing a skull, and named it “brontosaurus”. He added a skull that he assumed would belong to the body. When his error was discovered, “brontosaurus” became a synonym to “apatasaurus”.

    Science is full of mistakes, which is an accepted consequence of limited scientific tools, false analysis, and limited data. It’s normal for later scientists to prove earlier scientists wrong (or even scientists later proving themselves wrong) as technology, analysis and data improve.

    Theism, which relies on faith and not on reason, has no method to remove the jetsam and flotsam. It’s left to the individual to discover which religion among thousands is best, which denomination is best, and which interpretation is best. While this is great from a ‘freedom of thought’ perspective, it’s not great from a ‘discovery of truth’ perspective. If religion was held to the same standard of proof as science, there would be a lot less killings through the history of religion. I am remembering Jonestown, and an article I read a few years back of a person killed in an attempted exorcism.

    About hemoglobin and CO, this scientist explains that CO’s affinity for hemoglobin is 210 times stronger than CO2’s affinity, and the hemoglobin cannot willingly do anything, much less release the CO. It’s all simple chemistry.

    Question – Where does carbon monoxide bind to hemoglobin?
    —————–
    Like [O2], [CO] binds to the iron atoms of the hemoglobin molecules that are inside the red blood cells but the binding of carbon monoxide to the iron is much stronger (about 210 times stronger) than that of oxygen. The binding of carbon monoxide to iron is responsible for asphyxiation from carbon monoxide poisoning. Once carbon monoxide binds to the iron it pretty much knocks that molecule out of operation.

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00476.htm

    May 21, 2009
  957. john george said:

    Jerry- I’m not sure about your one point here:

    Theism, which relies on faith and not
    on reason, has no method to remove the
    jetsam and flotsam.

    There is a way believers remove jetsam and flotsam. We compare events to the scripture. Our faith is based on the belief that the scriptures are true and cannot be disproven. It is an act of our reason and cognitive abilities that allow us to sort things out this way and make sense of what we observe. In fact, the invitation from God, which I have quoted before, is,”Come, let us reason together…” Scientists operate similarly in their quest to make sense of what they observe. They start with their assumption that evolution is true and cannot be disproven and line all their observations up against that. I really don’t see the difference in the process. Just as scientists point to observable phenomena, we believers also have observable phenomena.

    May 21, 2009
  958. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: First, a proofreading correction to my prior post. The scientist explained that “CO” has 210 times stronger bond to hemoglobin to “O2”, not “CO2” as I mistakenly wrote.

    About removing the jetsam and flotsam, it’s been my observation that there are a great many similar and contradictory religions, and a great many similar and contradictory denominations. There are a great many similar and contradictory ‘holy’ texts. There is no method to determine one’s truth, and therefore the falsity of contrary views.

    Science, by comparison, seems unified. There are disagreements on very few issues. For the most part, scientists agree on what is known and what is unknown.

    Comparing these two, a theist can defend any belief because of faith. Faith is untestable. Some theists defend belief on personal communications with angels or other supernatural entities. Not only are some entire religions based on untestable, uncorroborative communications, such as Biblegod speaking to Abraham, but present-day individuals as well. I have met persons who have claimed to speak with Biblegod, who revealed to them a ‘true meaning’ of life, scripture, etc. There is no means to distinguish communications from creative story-telling, from hallucinations, from fabrications, from mistaken identities, from dreams, or anything else. If someone tells you in complete belief that he was visited by an angel bearing a golden tablet, and he transcribed the tablet to paper, and called it the Book of Mormon, there is no way for you to authenticate the story or verify the truth of the writing.

    If a scientist witnesses an event, and the event is never re-created or re-creatable, then science rejects it as evidence. It might have happened, it might have been mis-perceived by the scientist, but regardless of what happened, it does not become adopted by science. Science, therefore, has a method of removing a great deal of jetsam and flotsam from its annals because every scientist knows that for their belief to be accepted, another scientist has to be able to falsify it. If something cannot be tested, cannot be falsified, it’s rejected.

    I don’t know what method is used by theists. It seems to me when a theist has a different idea, it’s the inspiration of a new religion. Hence, Jonestown. Hence the Branch Davidians. Hence the Catholic Church. Hence Christianity. Hence Judaism. Hence Zoroastrarianism. Hence Paganism.

    Regarding the use of “reason”, I still don’t understand how an immortal deity can die, thus, how Yeshua’s death was really a death at all. Immortality and death are mutually exclusive.

    May 21, 2009
  959. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: There is nothing intelligent about evolution. Intelligent Design fails because lack of intelligence in evolution is evident. I can give copious examples.

    Once, I had thought that an intelligent design would be to make humans out of foam rubber. Flesh has so many drawbacks, especially considering how easy it is for us to be injured. All injuries would be abated if we were as resilient as foam rubber. Of course, a designer could add a few other useful attributes, like mending tears and resisting radiation (like weathering caused from the sun). Instead, evolution has given us fragile bodies that suffer from a wide range of perils, they don’t heal so well, and they grow old so quickly (hence the expression, “Youth is wasted on the young.”)

    May 21, 2009
  960. john george said:

    Jerry- Your observation

    Regarding the use of “reason”, I still
    don’t understand how an immortal deity
    can die, thus, how Yeshua’s death was
    really a death at all. Immortality and
    death are mutually exclusive.

    demonstrates one of the Apostle Paul’s comments about the preaching of the Gospel- it is foolishness to the intellect of man. I’m sure you’ve heard the whole explanation before, since you seem to be pretty well versed in Biblical studies. In a nutshell, when there is a perfect God with expectations of perfection from His created beings (humans), but the humans cannot attain to this perfection because of our fallen nature, then it seems reasonable to me that this perfect, loving God would be the only one able to pay the price of sin, the perfect dies for the imperfect. The One with eternal life chooses to lay that down for those under the curse of death, submits to death, then is raised from the dead to restore us to eternal life (which we were created with but lost in the fall). This just doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, but I was once in the same place as you. There is the possibility of having your mind renewed. You might call this deception or foolishness, but it is a real thing, and not just for me, but for multitudes who have had the same Spiritual renewal that I have experienced. As I stated before, our common denominator in Christianity is the cross.

    May 21, 2009
  961. john george said:

    Jerry- One other thought on eternal life. I happen to believe that the spirit of man is eternal. The choice we have in this life is whether we will choose to believe the free offer from God, and thus be restored to live in eternity with Him, or whether we will reject the offer and spend eternity outside of His presence. Just because our bodies wear out and die does not mean our spirits cease to exist beyond this physical death. This may be a little radical if you have not considered it before, but think about it a little bit in light of what you know about the scriptures.

    May 21, 2009
  962. Anthony Pierre said:

    I have a chupacabra living in my basement

    May 21, 2009
  963. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I respect your perseverance, but I don’t understand what you’re explaining.

    You note “Come, let us reason together,” and then you say that Biblegod being perfect, and humans being imperfect because Biblegod made us so, means that humans cannot understand Biblegod. So it seems that on some things we can reason and on some things we cannot. We are at a constant impasse if things that appear to be contradictions cannot be explained.

    In my opinion, the way to persuade an atheist is not by explaining faith, but by explaining how apparent contradictions are not actually contrary. How can an immortal god die, and the death be meaningful? How can Yeshua promise to return within a generation, yet 2000 years later there is still no Second Coming, and for him not to be called a false prophet? There is no persuasion to be made until these contradictions have solutions. To solve them by saying, “You must have faith,” or, “Biblegod is perfect and un-understandable,” do nothing to insert faith.

    May 21, 2009
  964. john george said:

    Why would you keep a mangey bloodsucker in your basement?

    May 21, 2009
  965. john george said:

    Jerry- I’m going to start a new post regarding your questions. You stated:

    humans being imperfect because
    Biblegod made us so,

    This is incorrect. If you read my post, God created us in His image, with eternal life. It was our decision to disobey Him. That is what introduced sin and death into the human race. That is also why He provided the path for our restoration to Him. The very basis of my premise that we continue into eternity is because He set our spirits in motion that way at creation. We continue eternally in either a redeemed state or a fallen state. That is why Jesus said, “It is given to man once to die, then comes the judgement.” I would propose that what you perceive as contradictions in the Bible are misconceptions on your part. You have said that my perceived contradictions within science and evolution specifically are due to my misconceptions about them.

    May 21, 2009
  966. Anthony Pierre said:

    I dont know probably the same reason people believe in cannibal zombie jews

    May 21, 2009
  967. Anthony Pierre said:

    lol that didn’t come out right, I meant jesus

    May 21, 2009
  968. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: What exactly does “his image” mean? And who is “he” — do you suggest that Biblegod has a male gender? Assuming Biblegod is all-knowing, didn’t it create humans knowing that humans would disobey?

    What is my misconception with Yeshua’s false prophecy, that is, Matthew 24:34?

    May 21, 2009
  969. john george said:

    Jerry- I refer to God as “He” because Jesus refers to Him as the Father, and Christendom in general refers to a triune God- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But God is more than that. He revealed Himself to Abram as El Shaddai. This term is best translated as the fullness of a mother’s breast. It is interesting that human milk has everything an infant needs to begin life- vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates and fats. God has everthing we need pertaining to life and Godliness. If you can use “evolution” as a term of intention, then I think I can use “He” and “Father” as words of intention toward God, limited and insufficient as they may be.

    Part of God’s image is His will, or ability to make decisions regarding His own accomplishments. For Him to make us in that image and then take it back away from us would violate that ability. Since we are created with the ability to choose good and evil, we must be allowed to pass the test. We didn’t, so the failure introduced sin and death into creation. In Revelation, it is written that we were created for His pleasure. What pleasure is there in having someone adore and serve you out of coercion rather than choice? That is not love at all, but simply being a puppet.

    As far as your reference to Matt. 24:34, the whole chapter is devoted to the end times and the second comming, so taking this verse out of that context hardly qualifies as an “Ahah!” Much of what is communicated in this chapter is shrouded in imagery. I believe there is a purpose in this. God often does not give us direct answers to things, much as I would like Him to. Instead, much of His truths are presented in parrables. This specific scripture refers to the fig tree putting forth its branches. He is not refering to the generation of those people listening to Him at that instant in time. There have been whole tomes written on what this section of scripture actually means, and I can’t think of one dissertation that I would say is 100% correct. I react to it in this way- we’ll have to see once. In other words, correct understanding of this section won’t come until it actually happens, IMHO. That being the case, what manner of men should we be right now?

    May 21, 2009
  970. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: This is one place where my use of “reason” concludes that Biblegod has no gender. It’s true, the Bible refers to Biblegod as being male. I note that in those days, (1) sexism reigned, and (2) prior and contemporaneous pagan religions had deities who really were male and female (e.g., Zeus and Hera). It doesn’t make sense, however, for Biblegod to be male. In a theological sense, that limits an unlimited being; it’s an anthropomorphic practice to humanize a deity as the ancient Greeks did. In a scientific sense, the purpose of gender, of sex, is to reproduce. Unless you believe that Biblegod had a mother and father, and Biblegod is anatomically designed to have children, Biblegod has no use for gender. That’s why I refer to Biblegod as “it”, not wishing to limit Biblegod to being male or female, not understanding how gender is relevant to infinite beings, and frankly, not wanting to have a sexist view of theism.

    On coercion, I don’t understand your point. Threatening non-believers, non-adherents, with eternal residence in Hell is coercion. If Biblegod wanted humans to have free will sans coercion, there would be no consequence for not associating with it. But Biblegod and Christians use coercion routinely.

    Regarding Matthew 24:34, again I apply reason and you tell me that reason is insufficient.

    “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” As you identify, “all these things” relates to the Second Coming.

    You said,

    He is not refering to the generation of those people listening to Him at that instant in time.

    The Greek word used for “generation” is “genea”. Here’s what five Greek lexicons say “genea” means: (1) The interval of time between father & son… from thirty to forty years those living in any one period; this present generation. (2) A generation of mankind, a step in genealogy. (3) A generation, an interval in time. (4) The whole multitude of men living at the same time[…] used esp. of the Jewish race living at one and the same period. (5) The sum total of those born at the same time… all those living at the same time… contemporaries.

    How do you determine that Yeshua was not relating to a “generation” if he said “generation”? How can you know the mind of Yeshua if not by his words?

    You said,

    In other words, correct understanding of this section won’t come until it actually happens,

    Why not apply this principle to the entire Bible? Why don’t you say that the entire book is a mystery until the end of times?

    If a prophesy on the Second Coming can’t be understood until the Second Coming, then what use is the prophesy? Was Yeshua just amusing himself, thinking of all the chaos a prophesy that can’t be understood would wreak?

    John, seriously, I ask for “reason” and you agree that we should use reason. Then I use reason, and you claim that language used to communicate to the Bible’s readers cannot be understood. This is the flotsam I was talking about. Theology supplies no tool to remove the infinite interpretations of plain writings, so everybody is free to make their own denomination. Atheists can’t keep up with infinity.

    I revert to my earlier statement. I’ll wait until the Christians figure out which of the 20,000+ denominations has the best picture of Christianity. After said event, I’ll resume talking about the merits of Christianity. It takes too much time to address the infinite opinions out there.

    May 21, 2009
  971. john george said:

    Jerry- You’re still missing the point of the reference in Matthew. The generation refered to by Jesus is that generation that sees the fig tree come into blossom. Many scholars interpret this tree as Israel and the new shoots are the return of Israel to the Promised Land. I give this interpretation some credibility in that most of the Biblical historical records revolve around Israel. If that is the case, then the generation that came in after WWII when Israel was reinstated as a country in the Middle East is that generation to which Jesus is refering. That generation is mine, and still very much alive, although we are approaching our end. That could mean that the return is close, if we do in fact understand the meaning of the apocraphal prophecies.

    As far as how you want to refer to God, I can understand your position. That is why I refer to the use of the masculine gender as being insufficient in describing God’s attributes. El Shaddai comes closest, in my mind, but how do we define an infinite entity in finite terms?

    As far as the coercion, I still don’t think you are understanding me. God doesn’t “threaten us” with eternal damnation. That is what we are born with. We have the choice to choose the way out of this. If we reject that choice, then we remain in what we are born into. It seems you just can’t get away from this concept that God is forcing something off onto us. It is a little like the hemoglobin. Just as it is made to bond with O2 atoms everytime, we have an affinity to sin, and we cannot free ourselves from this affinity without some outside intervention. God has provided that Himself. It still boils down to how we evaluate what we observe in our environment. You say that this Fe/O2 bond is set to occur that way because of natural selection. I ask, how did this process of natural selection get put into motion to begin with? It had to start somewhere.

    But, my main point is still how do we live in the present? Do we live as though there is no God and do whatever is right in our own eyes? Or, do we take a look at how peoples’ have been changed and how the scriptures, though thousands of years old, still have credibility to the behavior of men in this present day and age? I appreciate a comment Patrick made waaaaay back in an earlier post. He said somethiong like I hope there is not a God. I don’t want there to be a God. That is honest skepticism, to me. Why take a chance with eternity when it is in your power to choose otherwise?

    May 21, 2009
  972. Griff Wigley said:

    Just a test to see if comments on this thread are still working.

    May 26, 2009
  973. Obie said:

    I posted earlier on this thread, but I've been busy lately creating my own blog of progressive religious/political themes. It may unite the atheists and the conservative Christians on this thread — both sides can disagree with my blogposts. If anyone is interested, the blog is at: http://theliberalspirit.com. Apologies for the shameless self-promotion.

    May 27, 2009
  974. Anthony Pierre said:

    I can’t wait til god makes an appearance lol

    May 28, 2009
  975. David Ludescher said:

    Anthony: Look outside, dude.

    May 28, 2009
  976. john george said:

    David L.- You, being a lawyer, should know that people will make completely different evaluations of the same observable evidence.

    May 28, 2009
  977. Anthony Pierre said:

    I wish that was the god people in this thread were talking about.

    May 29, 2009
  978. Peter Millin said:

    This thread has proven that you can’t argue over beliefs. It is a futile exercise trying to convince people to change their beliefs.

    Which goes to the issue of faith. You either belief or you don’t, it’s really that simple.

    May 29, 2009
  979. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: Except that occasionally people do change. Dan Barker was a Christian preacher, now he’s an atheist (author of “Losing Faith in Faith”). Ruth Green was a Methodist, now she’s an atheist (author of “Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible”). One of my best friends was from the Church of Christ, now he’s an atheist. One of my best friends was a Jehovah’s Witness, now she’s an atheist. My sister was a Christian, now she’s an agnostic. My nephew was a Born Again Christian, now he’s an atheist.

    Occasionally, people change.

    May 29, 2009
  980. john george said:

    Jerry- You are exactly correct. People do change. I and all my Christian friends have changed from agnostic/atheist to Christianity. This is a two way street.

    May 29, 2009
  981. Peter Millin said:

    Jerry and John,

    I don’t know any of your friends or the people you cite, but I am pretty their conversion wasn’t the result of a discussion.

    Usually people get from one side to the other by personal experience.

    This thread is now up 637 posts and I am pretty sure that none of the participants will change their beliefs any time soon.

    May 29, 2009
  982. john george said:

    Peter- Discussion is supposed to foster understanding. Conversion is a heart experience, most often fostered by demonstration.

    May 29, 2009
  983. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: A more accurate terminology is to say that N.H. is sanctioning gay marriage. I am not aware of any state that prohibits gays from entering relationships.

    Moreover, with regard to entering into committed and loving relationships, I am not aware of any states that require that these new state sanctioned relationships be committed or loving. One would certainly hope that they would be.

    Hence, I don’t think whether someone is in favor of state sanctioned contracts between same sex couples is a good litmus test of “atheist-friendliness”.

    June 4, 2009
  984. Patrick Enders said:

    David, I’m not sure what you are responding to, exactly. I merely posted an update to one of the many sub-discussions that has taken place on this page – one that started with Britt’s post about Iowa, IIRC. Anyway, the wording is the NYT’s, not mine.

    The progress on this issue has been truly amazing these few months – and I think each new success deserves a moment of recognition in which some of us can choose to say, “Wow!”

    YMM, of course, V.

    June 4, 2009
  985. john george said:

    Patrick- “Wow” is indeed a many faceted exclamation. I remember the first time I saw the Grand Canyon, I said, “Wow!” I also remember when I saw the World Trade Center pancake onto itself in real time, I said, “wow!” I guess these events could have many different perspectives but the same exclamation.

    June 4, 2009
  986. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    Yep. Wow, indeed.

    BTW, I think my WTC reaction was a less-ambigious “Oh, sh**.”

    June 4, 2009
  987. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: I read Dan Barker’s story of his conversion from theism to atheism awhile back. I don’t recall it in detail, but your assumption was right, that discussion wasn’t part of it. Same with Ruth Green. She thought she was on her death bed (cancer, I think) so she decided that she would finally read the Bible, cover-to-cover. When she finished, she turned atheist. My friend, who was formerly with the Church of Christ, found Mtt. 24:34 to be fatal to his faith. When he determined that it couldn’t be reconciled with Christianity, he stopped being Christian.

    However, my former Jehovah’s Witness friend, my sister and nephew, all abandoned Christianity because of discussion. Sometimes discussion is fruitful in changing deeply held opinions. When Suzanne left the JWs, she had been a devout member for 40+ years. She befriended me hoping to convert me, but in the end, she became an atheist (not entirely due to my efforts, but because of problems within the JW community caused her to disbelieve them, and then she was open to the possibility of atheism).

    John: I am curious. Tell me more about when and why you were atheist, and when and why you became Christian.

    June 4, 2009
  988. john george said:

    Jerry- Re, your question

    John: I am curious. Tell me more about
    when and why you were atheist, and
    when and why you became Christian.

    Gladly.

    In my growing up, I was in a small Lutheran church in a small Iowa farm town. My mother had been raised Methodist and my father Baptist. After their marriage, they decided to compromise and joined the Lutheran church. The town was only about 400 people, so the churches were an important part of the social life in town. There was no strict Biblical teaching in my home, although my parents were very moral people and stalwarts of the community. My mother had hoped and planned for me to be a girl, so I knew about this disappointment all my early years. She even dressed me in the girl clothes she had purchased for about my whole first year, so I grew up with the sense that I should have been someone else. I suffered through many illnesses in my youth, so my mother was smotheringly protective of me. These early years did not prepare me for the onslaught of teaching I came into in college. I belonged to a student Lutheran congregation, but it was just the next step in my social use of the church.

    When I met my wife, I knew I had found someone who accepted me as a man rather than wishing I was a woman. We both were in philosophy classes (in the late ’60’s) that really challenged our beliefs. Since I had only a social religious foundation, and really no faith, it was easy for me to turn from my Lutheranism. I used to love to confront the Campus Crusaders and argue them into the ground. I used the same arguments that you use, that the Bible was actually written by a bunch of men; if God really existed, why was there so much injustice in the world; how could you actually believe something you could not perceive with your five senses, or could be proven scientificlly, etc.

    After our marriage, we formally turned from the church and pursued our secular ideals. The first job I had in my field put us in a small town in northwest Iowa. Our fist weekend there, we read an article in the local paper that 98% of the town’s population of 3000 belonged to a church (there were 7 Reformed, one Lutheran, one Catholic, one Methodist, two Baptist and a Gospel tabernacle) We returned to the Lutheran church as a social connection. There were many professional people who attended there, so it was good for business. We dove onto it unrestrained, becoming youth leaders, attending the adult Sunday school class, you name it.

    In’72, there was a group of what were called Jesus People who came to town for some special meetings at the little local gospel church. We invited them to come speak to our youth group. I listened to their stories and passed it off as old fashioned, unscientific and unlearned. The meetings that started then took on a whole life of their own. There were supposed “miricles” happening, people doing strange things. This caused much discussion in the Sunday school class, so Karen and I, being the young, brash newcomers that we were, decide to attend one of these meetings and bring back a report. At this meeting, something stirred in Karen to seek an answer to whether what she had believed in her youth and turned her back on, was really real. She responded to an altar call, and since I didn’t want to miss out on anything, I went along with her. While talking to a young man after the service, I suddenly saw that there was a bottomless abyss between us. I suddenly realized I could not get across this devide, but he was offering a way across this from his side if I would only believe. I walked out a hard, prideful, unconvinced man, but something had happened to Karen. I didn’t realize this until a couple days later when I began to see changes starting to appear in her. She had a new peace, joy, and optimism that was not there before. I began trying to argue with her about what I saw going on, but she would only say, “You are going to have to find out yourself.” This was driving me crazy that she had something that I didn’t and I couldn’t figure out a way to get it.

    This went on for a couple weeks, and she lived out I Peter 3:1-6 before me. One night, when I was literally pacing the floor in circles, a thought dropped into my mind that I didn’t have to figure it out. I just had to accept His way. I raced to tell her that I had figured it out, that I just had to accept it, and I felt pretty smug that I knew the answer. She said, “Yes. You are right. Now, when are you going to do it?” I realized that knowing the way but not acting upon that knowledge would not get me wht she had. I had to act on this new knowledge and accept God’s way that He was offering me.

    I experienced a spiritual rebirth right there. It was like a foggy film was removed from my eyes. Immediately, I began to experince what I can only call new life. The whole world seemed physically clearer. I began to read the Bible, as Karen had started doing, and it suddenly made sense. As I went throught it with new eyes, I found answers to many of the questions I had before. My language made an immediate 180 degree turn around. I had a new hope like nothing I had ever experienced before. The 37 years since, I have continually gained new insight and understanding of the scriptures and why things happen as they do in the world. In fact, it seems that the more I study and apply scriptures, the less and less I really know.

    Sorry about the long story, but I had to tell you part of it so you would understand my answer to your question above. The reason I became a Christian is that it was demonstrated to me in a way that I could not deny it or explain it away.

    June 5, 2009
  989. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: First, of course, I like that you reveal so much about yourself. It’s unusual for a man to admit that his mother wanted him to be a woman.

    I have a few observations. Some immaterial, so I’ll leave those alone. I am curious about this:

    The meetings that started then took on a whole life of their own. There were supposed “miricles” happening, people doing strange things.

    What miracles were these? Were they ever investigated or verified? Could you say with any certainty that they were authentic, and if so, how?

    Otherwise, I don’t know enough about your changing ideas to comment much more. I have a dear friend, Bob, who is deeply religious and has had his own set of profound experiences. When he has shared them with me, they were mundane through my interpretation, but to him they were direct messages from ‘above’. In the same way, what you write doesn’t stir me, but I understand that it stirred you.

    I note that you always retained some affiliation with a Christian church. While this does not contradict your claim to atheism, do you think it’s unusual for an atheist to keep affiliated in this way? I realize that it was good for socializing and for business.

    Just comparing you and me, I have never been in a Christian family. My mother — who raised me — was mildly religious. As I was growing up, theism was a background. Around age 14 is when I doubted even the background, and around age 18 is when I became an atheist. I transitioned from barely religious to non-religious. You took a different path. This only means that your experiences are not something that I can relate to. You had an early comfort with religion that I never had. I cited a few people, Dan Barker, Ruth Green, and two close friends, who were all very religious in their youth and early adulthood, but later became atheists. Like you, they found an early comfort with religion. So I don’t mean to say that early comforts never disappear. I only mean to say that I can’t relate. I would not have joined a church for socializing or for business goodwill.

    Again I conclude that you have faith in Biblegod and I do not. Until I have faith, or until you don’t, there will be an abyss of sorts between us. I have not heard nor experienced anything that added a pinhead of faith to my life. I can’t say definitively why some people have it and others don’t, only that I do not. And all the speeches and preaches I’ve heard have done nothing to change that.

    June 5, 2009
  990. john george said:

    Jerry- Regarding the miracles in those meetings, if I remember correctly, a fellow that had one leg about 2″ shorter than the other had his leg restored to equal length with the other. He had been born this way. The other outstanding one was a person who had lost sight in one eye in an accident, and their sight was restored. I have been in a lot of meetings over the last 37 years where these occurances are common, so I sometimes can’t get the specific event connected with the specific meeting. One of the most dramatic miracles happened before my eyes. We had moved into an apartment in Brooklyn Park in 1975. The second day we were there, our two daughters, 2 & 9 mo. at the time, were playing in the bathroom. The younger one stuck her finger in the crack on the hinge side of the door and the older one closed the door on it. My daughter began screaming, of course, and we found her with her finger still in the door, broken at a 90 degree angle. Karen and I were panic stricken, as we had no idea where the hospital was, and this happened in the late evening. We stopped and prayed, and when I opened my eyes, the finger was straight. My daughter took off to play agin as if nothing had happened.

    I don’t see this type of thing happen every time I pray, and I cannot tell you why. I know that there is no prayer “formula” that A + B always equals C. I wish there was, but that does not deter me from praying. One thing I have experienced is praying a word of knowledge. This is one of the gifts of the Spirit in I Cor. 12:8. It is given at a specific point in time for a specific circumstance and cannot be obtained by any intellectual process. These words almost always have an effect.

    I just love your last paragraph

    Again I conclude that you have faith
    in Biblegod and I do not. Until I have
    faith, or until you don’t, there will
    be an abyss of sorts between us. I
    have not heard nor experienced
    anything that added a pinhead of faith
    to my life. I can’t say definitively
    why some people have it and others
    don’t, only that I do not. And all the
    speeches and preaches I’ve heard have
    done nothing to change that.

    What transparency and honesty! I agree wholeheartedly! You are a man with no guile. You are not far from the kingdom. I believe that Biblegod is going to visit you in a tangible way that you will not be able to deny. He knows each of us better than we know ourselves, and He knows just the right way to touch each of us. This is nothing you can strive for lest you be able to take credit for it, but I believe it will happen for you at some point in your future. He has provided the way across the abyss, and He is offering it to you.

    June 5, 2009
  991. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I’d be curious to dig a little deeper into the short-legged miracle and the lost-sight miracle. I realize these are probably not possible to dig into because of the time lapse. I heard recently about a ‘faith healer’ who had collections of crutches around his office from those whom he had healed. One skeptic, upon entering the office, asked why there were no wooden legs. My trouble is, that it would be easy, Easy, EASY to fake a short leg or one-eye blind. It’s not easy to fake an amputation.

    Upon hearing about these miracles, did you accept them on faith or did you take a more critical approach. Might someone have played a hoax?

    I was not a witness of your 2 mo. and 9 mo.-old daughters, but I note that very young humans do not have as rigid skeletons as adults. Their bodies are much softer, they have more bones (that fuse together as adults), so while I can’t judge not having been there, I am not surprised at the event you described.

    I am open to any evidence of any deity. I ask for nothing more than what the apostles were purportedly given: empirical evidence. Philosophical evidence would also be welcomed.

    June 5, 2009
  992. john george said:

    Jerry- Your question,

    Upon hearing about these miracles, did
    you accept them on faith or did you
    take a more critical approach. Might
    someone have played a hoax?

    is the very reason we went to the meetings in the first place. I certainly did not believe either report at the time. I’m also sure those people have passed on. But then, my faith is not based upon something I heard about, saw, or experienced 37 years ago. If I did not have a present, real-time experience with God, I would not follow Him or direct other people to Him.

    I had a personal healing about 13 years ago, right after we moved to Northfield. I had banged my left foot on a piece of furniture at work and ruptured a tendon that follows along the inside of my ankle. Patrick can name it, I’m sure. It is one that is very easily damaged in expectant mothers. This made for very painful walking, and I could not hold my foot straight. A podiatrist in Owatonna was treating me at the time, and he was considering surgery as the only way to fix it. At my age, though, he felt he could not gaurentee success and might even make matters worse if the tendon completely separated. There was guest speaker at the church youth group (meeting in our basement at the time) one night who was praying for different ones. My 3rd. daughter came and got me and asked if I would allow him to pray for me. I agreed, of course, and my foot began to change immediately. The pain left right away, and I was able to walk up the steps unaided. After about a day and a half, the swelling was gone and I had complete articulation of my foot and ankle. I returned to the podiatrist, and he was absolutely amazed. He compared before and after x-rays, and the damaged tendon was restored. Although he has sold his practice and retired, I’m sure he has the records on this if you want to see them. He is a personal friend of mine, and I’m pretty sure he would lend them to me.

    As far as the incident with my daughters, I suspected the soft bone possibility at the time. I asked a doctor friend of mine if this was a possible explanation. He said it could be, but a 90 degree bend is pretty radical, and most likely, she had broken it. He also said that it would have not likely returned to normal use without some type of splinting, and it would not have corrected itslf in the minute or so it took to pray. You can take this or leave it. What I really want to see God do is demonstrate something like this to you personally.

    June 6, 2009
  993. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I still wonder about the veracity of the cited faith healings. I’d like to see an amputee restored, or anything that cannot be faked or misinterpreted.

    While I understand that ‘prayer’ is not purported to be a formulaic A+B=C endeavor, it leaves me wondering why a 2 mo. old girl gets her finger healed, an x-year-old man gets a tendon healed, but Anne Frank’s prayers go unanswered, and my very religious friend’s very religious husband dies of esophageal cancer. One sister of mine, who is ‘born again’, had a gall bladder problem. She prayed so that she would not need surgery. Then she had to have it removed. Later she got breast cancer. She prayed with her church’s leaders, was anointed in oil (or whatever they do with oil), and then she had to have her breast removed. As I said, I don’t suppose that prayer has a method to it, but I am left to wonder why true believers lose lives and organs, but a finger and tendon are healed. Is prayer the only way that the finger and tendon could have healed? The only way? If your daughter napped for an hour, might her finger have re-set, and the pain subsided? Might your tendon have been healing all along?

    I’d be upset if I had Biblegod intervene in my life. If I had a choice, I’d rather Biblegod save the lives of the 10,000,000,000 nonhuman animals who are killed in the U.S. for food every year. If ten billion is too big a number, I’d settle for a few less. Let Americans eat plants, as Biblegod dictated in Genesis. I’d rather Biblegod save some women from rape, some children from abuse, or some men from other harm. Why would I want my pleasant life somehow healed when others are suffering and dying in miserable ways?

    I am patiently awaiting a godly experience. When Biblegod (or any other of a vast number of gods) calls, I’ll blog about it here.

    June 6, 2009
  994. john george said:

    Jerry- Your points are well taken, and as I said before, I don’t understand why some prayers seem to “work” and others do not. There is a scripture in Eccl. 9:11 that gives me some insight. Whether you agree or not is up to you. The other aspect of this that I believe is that we live in a world affected by sin. Just because we are born again does not mean we will escape the physical effects of this upon our body. If you read Heb. 11, there is a list of all the various victories experienced by men of faith. Vv. 36-38 tells the other story, of those who suffered and died unjustly. Why does this happen? I can only point to the effects of sin in the world. Remember, the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking. It is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14).

    As far as my daughter’s plight, if I could have figured out where the hospital was that night, that is where we would have taken her. I called it (it was after 8:30 that night) and the person I got ahold of could not give me directions from where I was in Brooklyn Park to North Memorial. Being the small town person I was, I was completely intimidated by the city and was fearful of getting lost. As far as my problem with my foot, I had been suffering with that for about 6 months and it was getting worse. I was 49 at the time, and my doctor was concerned that surgery would not have been successful. He did make me a special orthotic and brace for that foot to try to support it. This worked somewhat, but, because I walk a lot at work, I was still in pain at the end of each day. In both cases, God was merciful to intervene on my behalf. I always consult medical science first when facing something, along with prayer. I feel it would be foolish to allow an open wound to fester and become infected when a couple stitches can have it all taken care of. But I am very thankful that I have something to fall back on when medical science falls short.

    Continue to wait for God. He is not deaf to you or blind your desires. Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled. You say you are a man of peace and I definitely see that in you. As I said before, you are not far from the kingdom of God.

    June 6, 2009
  995. john george said:

    Jerry- One other comment on waitng for your God experience, it is written that if you seek, you will find. If you knock, the door will be opened to you. If you ask, it will be given to you. Just a thought for your consideration.

    June 6, 2009
  996. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: In my first fourteen years (except the first few), I had knocked. I remember at age 8 or so, when a pet hamster died, that I called a televangelist show to pray for my deceased. We prayed. I thought the lady who answered the phone was very nice, but nothing happened later. Around the same age, when my younger sister became ‘born again’ I went with her to Sunday school. I was completely unimpressed, and offended at their editorializing (Christianizing) of Hebrew stories. Since we’re on the topic, I was annoyed that my public elementary school had all of its students, including non-Christians, sing Christmas carols as an educational activity. I hope that practice has ended by now. But I suppose that strays from your point.

    If you look from my perspective, there is no god, no Biblegod, and no door. How does a person without faith knock on a door that doesn’t exist? You have stated that prayer has no predictable method. Is knocking somehow predictable, meaning that can you tell me how to do so with any chance of success?

    If you can, I’ll cast aside my skepticism and follow your directions. If you can’t, it will seem to me that knocking is entirely subjective — so subjective that what one person regards as knocking, another person regards as nothingness. Again, this asks how can one teach faith?

    In my view, nothing fails like prayer. I think of Anne Frank, my friends and family, and the teeming millions of people who have suffered and died with no hope but prayer, and who were not saved. It seems to me that this is reality, and that when prayer coincides with relief, it is exactly coincidental. I understand that your faith leaves a different conclusion.

    I would have been impressed if my very Christian sister’s prayer worked to save her gall bladder years ago, or her breast last year.

    Sometimes I fantasize about divine intervention. I imagine, what if all gun powder fails to ignite? No more bullets. What if all blades fail to cut? No more slaughter. What if all the world’s armies and navies would rust where they sit? No more war. If I had any prayers, these are they. If they are ever answered, I’ll become a convert to any religion you want. I suppose you could interpret that I am knocking, but like the difficulty in regenerating a limb for an amputee, maybe my prayers are too difficult. Maybe I should ask for something small, selfish, and impossible to distinguish from normal healing.

    June 6, 2009
  997. john george said:

    Jerry- Be assured, your prayers are not too difficult, they are very noble. I wish I had a quick answer for why you have not seen an answer, but I do not. If you remember in the Apostel Paul’s writings, he tells of his “thorn in the flesh” that he intreated the Lord three times to remove. The answer back was that God’s grace was sufficient for him. The whole of life is so very complex that we try to find answers for everything that comes along. I’m convinced that this is probably not possible in this life. That being the case, I use Dr. Schaefer’s question, “How should we then live?” Paul wrote to the Phillipians that he had not reached the mark of the high calling of God, but he pressed on toward it. In my last 37 years, though they have been frought with trials, I have found this to be a rewarding pursuit, and in the end, I have life eternal.

    June 6, 2009
  998. David Ludescher said:

    Although I am generally not a fan of Katherine Kersten, she wrote an interesting piece on the New Atheism in Sunday’s Star and Tribune. Maybe someone can help me drag it over.

    June 9, 2009
  999. I read that too. Kersten always raises my blood pressure. I strongly object to her assumption that being guided by reason leads only to blatant self-interest and lack of consideration for others. People can devise and have devised ethical systems based on reason that take into account best outcomes for all and consideration of every person’s value. I doubt there are many atheists who would not consider the Golden Rule a reasonable ethical guidepost. To paraphrase Sam Harris,

    Jesus did of course say profound
    things about love and charity and
    forgiveness. The Golden Rule is a
    wonderful moral precept, but numerous
    teachers offered the same instruction
    centuries before Jesus (Zoroaster,
    Buddha, Confucius, Epictetus)…

    June 9, 2009
  1000. Anthony Pierre said:

    if more religious people lived by the golden rule, we wouldn’t have this ginormous thread.

    June 9, 2009
  1001. Jerry Friedman said:

    Kersten gets a lot wrong, leaving her article as an empty piece of propaganda written by someone apparently offended by there being more vocal atheists.

    [Atheists] are passionately committed to the idea that the universe is a random accident, that transcendent truth is a myth, and that man’s life has no inherent purpose or meaning.

    Atheists tend to believe that randomness has nothing to do with the universe. The universe was born from natural laws. Natural laws are not random.

    Atheists tend to believe that transcendent truth is not a myth. The truths she speaks of are locked in biology, particularly evolutionary biology. Christians of past eras didn’t understand evolution, so they credited mythology with creating them when it was really a lot simpler than that.

    Atheists tend to believe that the “inherent” purpose or meaning to human life is the same purpose and meaning for all life: enjoy it while it lasts.

    Judeo-Christianity throws a wrench in this, teaching that universal standards of right and wrong trump our personal desires.

    I have read no such universal standard in the Bible, unless leaving your children in a forest with the Father of Lies is right, unless mass murdering people for actively disagreeing with a purported god is right, unless it’s right to stone one’s child for disobedience, unless it’s right to burn women at the stake for practicing ‘witchcraft’, unless it’s right to hate one’s family, unless it’s right to keep slaves, ad infinitum.

    Alternatively, rational philosophies like Utilitarianism and Kant’s Categorical Imperative give a much better explanation of right vs. wrong than is found in any monotheistic book.

    What, for example, is the source of the bedrock American belief in human equality? It has no basis in science or materialism.

    She’s wrong here. From science generally, Darwin and others specifically, we know that all individuals are not morally better nor worse than anyone else. There is no “lower” life forms, according to Darwin, nor are there any higher. Everyone is born from the same, equal material. If anything distinguishes us, it’s merit. This secular idea gets translated into the democratic concept of one person, one vote, meaning moral equality.

    She overlooks the stark hierarchy institutionalized by Judeo-Christianity. The Bible speaks poorly of women and slaves. No secular society, completely divested of religious prejudice, does such a thing.

    In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the ancient Romans were pagans and Christians, not atheists.

    We Americans take the moral principles of equality and compassion for granted. Yet these ideas are deeply counterintuitive. We’ve largely forgotten that their source is the once-revolutionary Judeo-Christian belief in a loving God, who created human beings in his image and decreed charity to be the first of virtues.

    The founders of the U.S. would disagree. Thomas Jefferson condemned the whole Bible, claiming that it was too difficult to find its good parts to make it worth trying. Check out the truncated Jefferson’s Bible if you want more details. George Washington affirmed that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. Crediting Judeo-Christianity for the Golden Rule is plagiarism, but that is not a new criticism of Christianity. Easter was plagiarized (Ishtar). Satan was plagiarized (Pan). Sunday as the holy day was plagiarized (Mithras). Yeshua being born from a god father and human mother was plagiarized (Herakles), as was his virgin birth and death on a cross (Mithras). Noah’s flood was plagiarized (Gilgamesh). Why not plagiarize the Golden Rule?

    The historical record here should give us pause. The French Revolution, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union — all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting.

    So Christianity takes credit for things it does not deserve, then it tries to expunge Hitler, a Roman Catholic, who claimed that he was here to finish what Yeshua started, to kill all the Jews. Do Christians plan to recruit by white washing, by revising their history?

    The French Revolution was against Christian-born aristocracy. If anything, it was a secular revolution that was tired of theism-inspired oppression.

    Sure, Stalin was an atheist, but as we have discussed ad nauseum, not all atheists are alike just like not all theists are alike. Stalin was a brutal and insufferable tyrant, hardly a charge that can be laid against most people, much less most atheists. So I’m clear, I don’t condemn theism because of Hitler, nor do I condemn atheism because of Stalin. The principles should be judged, not the principals.

    Nor does science offer moral guidance. That way lies Social Darwinism — the notion of the survival of the fittest.

    Social Darwinism is a perversion of Darwin’s theory. It’s not an atheistic principle. It was, however, Hitler’s. Did I mention that he was a Roman Catholic?

    Kersten neglected to mention that per capita, there are fewer atheists in jail than their proportion in the rest of the U.S. Why is that? If atheism leads to bad morals, why do atheists not violate laws as much as theists?

    June 9, 2009
  1002. To again paraphrase Sam Harris:

    There is no evidence that members of atheist
    groups commit more violent crimes, or
    lie, cheat and steal with abandon. The
    problem with certain famous tyrants
    cited as examples of the evils of
    atheism (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao —
    Hitler’s supposed atheism has been
    seriously exaggerated) is not that
    they reject the dogma of religion, but
    that they embrace other,
    life-destroying dogmas. The
    anti-Semitism that built the Nazi
    concentration camps was a direct
    inheritance from medieval
    Christianity, not an example of what
    people do when they become too
    reasonable.

    June 9, 2009
  1003. Patrick Enders said:

    Oh, joy.

    Another Christian who completely misrepresents / misunderstands non-believers, then denounces the belief system that she describes.

    Good thing we have Jerry around to straighten her out. Saves me the trouble of doing so.

    June 9, 2009
  1004. David Henson said:

    Jerry, I think you lay too heavily on religion in your historical analysis. Both Hitler and Stalin were socialists and wanted to create equality through state enforced policy which leads to state enforced violence. The churches were not big proponents of these changes so they became against churches. The elites (very rationally) were against their proposed changes so they became against the elites. The financial and professional classes (which certainly included Jews) supported the elites so they became against Jews. Both leaders thought that a socialist industrial state could best provide for the common welfare. Both were willing to kill small numbers of people to get their programs in place. As their programs failed (which all social models do) they had to become more and more dogmatic about who was to blame for the failures and started killing large numbers of people. And because socialist endeavors fail then the government borrows heavily from foreign sources to fund the economic model. And then when they cannot repay their debts because of failure they blame the very same foreign governments for undermining their efforts and start wars. Oh yeah, and along, the way the utopian vision just gets better and better. Yes, we know you are being tossed out of your homes and terminated from work but we are going to fix that and give you health care coverage also (sound familiar).

    BTW: I am not Jewish but I was very troubled by the Sunday Doonesbury cartoon which was profoundly anti-Semitic.

    June 9, 2009
  1005. kiffi summa said:

    Too bad Jerry wasn’t around here 25 years ago when K.Kersten started building her ridiculously authoritarian empire. I had just moved to MPLS, and she almost ruined my initial evaluation of that fair city as a little piece of Heaven on Earth(no pun intended). And for years made me wonder WHY I subscribed to the STRIB.
    Don’t bother to read her; there is no intellectual curiosity on her part, and no intellectual stimulation for the reader. She is completely predictable.

    June 9, 2009
  1006. Jerry Friedman said:

    Kiffi and Patrick: What alarms me are the New Christians who completely ignore their religion’s history, so they appear squeaky clean to those who don’t check the facts. This is no different than Holocaust deniers who systematically use revisionism to make their cause look good.

    I don’t necessarily criticize people who negligently repeat things they heard and never got around to doing the research. Journalists, columnists, pundits, I harshly criticize them for not checking the facts. This is what turned me from nominally Jewish to an atheist. Christians made outrageous claims to convert me to Christianity. I did my homework and concluded that Christianity’s history is deplorable, its philosophy is a house of cards, and Judaism didn’t have anything better to offer.

    Why can’t Christians, en masse, contend with what Christians actually did? Why can’t they contend with what the Bible actually says? Why is their tact for recruiting to white wash Christian history?

    I am agreeable to David L.’s principle of an evolving Church, not that I endorse the Church but if the Church is to be relevant, it needs to evolve. I am agreeable to John G.’s principle of interpreting the Bible in the best way possible (though “best” is a subjective term, at least it’s a starting principle). I am not agreeable to blaming atheism for Hitler (or Stalin), or to crediting Christianity for things it did not do.

    June 9, 2009
  1007. john george said:

    Sometimes, when some of these columns are published, I’m reminded of this old saying in some Christian circles.

    To live above with the saints welove,
    oh that will truly by glory. But to
    live below with the saints we know,
    well, that’s a different story.

    Just as it is not correct to blame all atheists for the deeds of a few demented people who happen to denounce a belief in God, so it is not correct to blame all Christendom for the deeds of a few demented people who happen to say they believe in God. I’ll stick with the verses in Romans 14. The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. In other words, the focus mis not external bu what is happening internally with the new man we are promised.

    Jerry- Your comment

    The Bible speaks poorly of women and
    slaves.

    must be a different Bible than I read. We husbands are admonished to love our wives as Christ loved the church and laid down His life for it. We are to grant her honor as a fellow heir in Christ. Women have the same authority and leadership callings as do men. The concept of oppression of women as being a Christian concept does not line up with scripture. Oppression of women has its roots in paganism. This influence in men’s lives is exposed in the lives of many men in the Bible, but I have not found where it is justified.

    As far as the dominance of slaves, this also is a carry over from polytheistic religions. In the New Testament, masters are admonished to treat their servants with respect, seeing as they, also, are fellow heirs in Christ. I know you have a real problem with the Bible not specifically condeming slavery, but I still contend that Christianity is more about the inner man and how it affects the outward man rather than the particular place in life. Seeing that we believe there is a greater afterlife than this present one, where there is no slave or free, male or female, then this present short span of time pales in comparison to eternity.

    Anthony- I agree that we as Christians don’t often do a very good job of living up to our own preaching. As far as your comment

    if more religious people lived by the
    golden rule, we wouldn’t have this
    ginormous thread.

    I’m not sure this is 100% accurate. It seems we humans have a penchant for pointing out all those things about others that make them different from us. Then, we have to expend a lot of cyberspace to justify it.

    June 9, 2009
  1008. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: A different Bible?

    Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give you a big reward. Mtt. 19:29

    In the last days God will make things especially rough on pregnant women. Mark 13:17

    Males are holy to God, not females. Luke 2:23

    Paul explains that “the natural use” of women is to act as sexual objects for the pleasure of men. Romans 1:27

    Paul says “the head of the woman is the man,” meaning that the women are to be subordinate to men. 1 Cor. 11:3

    Men are made in the image of God; women in the image of men. Women were created from and for men. 1 Cor. 11:7-9

    There’s a lot more.

    Which Bible are you reading?

    You’re right, for the book of superior morality, it is surprisingly absent on condemnation of slavery.

    June 9, 2009
  1009. David Ludescher said:

    Kersten’s has some valid critiques of a completely reasoned based (faith-less) system of morality.

    For example, she points out that we are increasingly uncomfortable with any leader (my caveat – Obama is an exception) injecting moral principles into the issues of the day.

    That we should live by the Golden Rule is an accepted principle for both theists and atheists. But, why it should be so is not obvious. While reason expressed through something like Kant’s Categorical Imperative (act as an individual so that your actions could be a universal rule) leads to the conclusion that the Golden Rule should be observed, following the Rule requires great faith in the Rule, especially if the consequences are adverse. Without faith in the Rule, the Rule is just an academic exercise.

    Another one of Kersten’s points is that New Atheism has become its own religion. The ideas of equality and dignity are not rooted in Darwinism or evolutionary biology, nor are these concepts invented by great thinkers. Rather, they are a construct of a faith which often cannot be articulated or proven, only believed.

    Her parting question – Can we reject a belief in God and still retain the fruits of the faith? – is a good and timely question.

    It is difficult to maintain the fruits of faith because that lack of belief in God can, and often does, result, in an individual or democratic moralism, where right and wrong are determined by a personal preference or a vote, and not, as in science, by a careful consideration of all of the principles for discovering the truth. Questions such as abortion, capital punishment, and even war become a matter of personal preference and immortalized as law.

    June 9, 2009
  1010. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: The cure for offensive free speech is normally more free speech. We accept this as necessary for free speech to be free. Free speech in practice may be brilliant or flawed. When there is flawed free speech, brilliant free speech is the cure.

    I take the same approach with reason-based or rational morality. If a society develops a moral code based on secular reasoning, and it’s flawed, the solution is not faith-based reasoning but better secular reasoning.

    The Golden Rule exists throughout the animal kingdom. Why don’t alligators attack each other? Why do meerkats cooperate? Alligators and meerkats do not look to human or godly philosophies to understand that peaceful coexistence works well and peaceful cooperation for others. Therefore, correcting what you said, “why” the Golden Rule works can be an academic exercise, or just a few observations from nature. It’s so obviously a good principle that alligators and meerkats do it.

    But the Golden Rule is not enough. In a society of masochists, the Golden Rule is dangerous.

    I’m still not clear on what New Atheism means. I haven’t seen anything new, only more vocal. Nonetheless, some atheists are religious (I am). Some atheists are not.

    We disagree. Equality is rooted in Darwin’s realization that we evolved from common ancestors, that no species, gender, “race” or breed is morally superior than any other. Anyone who understands evolutionary biology would come up with the same conclusion. Darwin was among the first to articulate it. Further, I charge that equality is the default position. It’s been various religions over the eras that have made claims to the contrary, that some individuals are morally superior to others. So far, these religions have all been proven wrong, but most still don’t acknowledge their defeat.

    The work of John Stuart Mill on Utilitarianism contradicts your fear that without a deity morality becomes a matter of personal preference. Again, ask the alligators why they respect each other, ask the meerkats why they cooperate, and you’ll see that reptiles and mongooses can figure out a functional morality, so can humans… like Mill demonstrated.

    Here’s a question. Does the Bible teach morality or obedience? If you were convinced that Biblegod spoke to you and told you to kill your son, would you obey? Or would you reason that murdering your son is immoral even if Biblegod told you to? Let’s pretend that Biblegod exists and it really told you to do so. Would you commit murder and obey Biblegod?

    June 9, 2009
  1011. Jane Moline said:

    Lennon had it right. Imagine no religion.

    Kersten got it wrong. Many of the fruits of religion are poison.

    Kersten continues the false rant that without religion we won’t know the difference between right and wrong. I would say people who cannot figure out morality without getting Cliff notes from their church are the problem.

    June 9, 2009
  1012. john george said:

    Jerry- Regarding the references you gave above, I am a little surprised at your interpretations in one way, yet, with some of the attitdes you have expressed toward God, I guess I shouldn’t be.

    1) Matt. 19:29- If you read the whole verse, according to the NASV, the verse reads those who have left their relatives for the sake of the kingdom will receive many times as much, and inherit eternal life. This is a heart attitude, and the seeds that are planted will be multiplied.

    2) This passage in Mark is prophetic of the end times. Once the judgement has been released against those who have denied God, the effect will be universal. We are, afterall, destined for a heavenly kingdom, and this earth is to pass away. This verse would be like saying that if you jump off a building, gravity will have just as much effect on you as anything else.

    3) This passage refers to the dedication of the male offspring, and there are some manuscripts that refer to the firstborn son.

    4)Romans 1:27, I have no idea where you got your interpretation of this passage that you state. Vv. 26 & 27 refer to homosexual relationships, not the woman being created as a sex object for the man. The writer of Hebrews has this to say also-

    NAS:Hebrews {13:4} Marriage is to be
    held in honor among all, and the
    marriage bed is to be undefiled; for
    fornicators and adulterers God will
    judge. 2002 (C) Bible

    5)When you take vv 7-9 of I Cor. 11, you miss the whole point. Look at the verses.

    NAS:1 Corinthians {11:8} For man does
    not originate from woman, but woman
    from man; {11:9} for indeed man was
    not created for the woman’s sake, but
    woman for the man’s sake. {11:10}
    Therefore the woman ought to have a
    symbol of authority on her head,
    because of the angels. 2002 (C) Bible

    In Genesis, God said it was not good that the man should be alone. No other created animal “corresponded” to the man, so the woman was created out of the man, and from a part of him that is closest to his heart. The end of v 10 (italics mine) is the reason the woman should have a covering, because of the temptation to the angels (Gen. 6:4). Now, if you continue on in I Cor. 11 to vv. 11 & 12, you will find out where we actually stand with one another- we are equal yet interdependent.

    NAS:1 Corinthians {11:11} However, in
    the Lord, neither is woman independent
    of man, nor is man independent of
    woman. {11:12} For as the woman
    originates from the man, so also the
    man has his birth through the woman;
    and all things originate from God.
    2002 (C) Bible

    As I think about this, though, I realize I should not be too hard on you. You are trying to understand spiritual truths wihout the benefit of a renewed mind (Rom 12:1). Perhaps that is why Jesus said we must enter the kingdom of God like a child would, open and able to believe what they see.

    June 9, 2009
  1013. My mom points out if you believe the biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve, how absent-minded God seems in that after making all the animals of the earth in a condition to multiply, it apparently didn’t occur to God to make humans likewise. “Oh, the man is lonely – that never occurred to me; I’d better make him a mate.” Query – did Adam come ready-equipped with reproductive organs and a sex drive???? As far as I know, the story doesn’t mention God adding those after the creation of Eve. If Adam had ’em from the start, surely that disproves the account of Eve’s belated, after-thought creation right there, unless God just had a major “senior moment” while in the creation process. Seriously, how could that be anything other than a fable born from a male-dominated society?

    June 10, 2009
  1014. And if Eve was an afterthought, apparently, to literal bible-believers, God never intended there to be more than one human (unless he was planning to make more from clay) and the plan that humans were to be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over the earth was also an afterthought.

    Let’s just return to “male and female he created them,” if we’re going to believe in the bible’s account of creation.

    June 10, 2009
  1015. David Ludescher said:

    One of Kersten’s points, perhaps the main point, is that hostility to religion does not bode well for society. That point is well-taken.

    It seems to me that there has arisen a New Atheism, which likes to portray religion as a disease which needs to be quarantined in places of worship or in homes.

    June 10, 2009
  1016. john george said:

    Jerry- I just saw a typo in my last paragraph (it was late last night when I posted it). The refernce in Romans concerning the transformed mind is Rom. 12:2. Sorry I missed that.

    Penny- You point up something that is common in our struggle to understand why God does things the way He does. I would be the first to admit that many things are just puzzling. Regarding women, however He brought it about, I am very glad. I know I am incomplete without my wife.

    June 10, 2009
  1017. Jerry Friedman said:

    Jane: I don’t think that religion, per se, is wrong. I think that religion based on the irrational is wrong: irrational religions are typically dogmatic or anti-social. Such religions can be theistic or atheistic.

    The constant trouble that John G. and I have toward understanding what the Bible means, despite us reading the same words, points to the irrationality of the Bible. Not only do John G. and I tend to disagree, but as I state repeatedly, there are over 20,000 denominations stemming from 3000 English translations of the same book. In other words, It’s not just John and I who disagree, but disagreement is the norm.

    June 10, 2009
  1018. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I agree and disagree with several of your points. My safe disclaimer being, of course, that I never met nor conversed with Hitler nor Stalin; nonetheless I think some of your assertions go too far.

    You claim that all social(ist) models fail. China is doing pretty well as a socialist state. China may eventually fail, but so might the U.S. – eventual failure doesn’t support your conclusion, because all failed countries do not necessarily fail because of their economic model. Capitalist systems fail, communist systems fail, and socialist systems fail. Depending on how you view them, Sweden, Canada, Austria and Italy all have socialist aspects. Cuba has been socialist for quite awhile which is a testament to socialism, considering the embargo that the U.S. has had on them for quite some time. If Cuba was capitalist, they probably would have fallen long ago. In short, your analysis is short.

    But the real disagreement I have are your associations with the tyrants to their countries’ economics. Stalin and Hitler both sought world domination. This turned their socialist economies from peaceful industries to wartime industries. War cannot be sustained, therefore extended wars tend to ruin the attacking and defending countries (sound familiar?). The faults of the USSR and Nazi Germany were not their economic philosophy, but how Stalin and Hitler used their economy for war.

    Comparatively, China, Cuba, Sweden, Austria, Italy, and other socialist and quasi-socialist nations are not engaged in war or world domination, and their economies are being sustained. The U.S., on the other hand, is suffering. And the U.S.’s pervasive presence in the West’s finance markets is hurting everyone else.

    I do not mean to imply that the Iraq/Afghan wars are solely to blame. Of course there is a lot more fault in U.S. capitalism. The wars, however, cannot be overlooked as partially to blame.

    Further, my readings of the Catholic Church around WWII are much more supportive of Hitler than you assert. It seems to me that New Catholicism is trying to be more friendly to Jews, but this was not the case a few decades ago.

    June 10, 2009
  1019. john george said:

    Jerry- Good observation, as always. I’m very happy that the kingdom of God is not dependent upon the consensus of those of us who profess to be in it.

    June 10, 2009
  1020. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Under your definition, New Atheism has been around for at least 200 years. Voltaire spoke of Christianity as a disease.

    June 10, 2009
  1021. Jerry Friedman said:

    Penny, you said, “how could [Biblegod’s afterthought of creating women] be anything other than a fable born from a male-dominated society?”

    It’s a testament of how poorly educated the Bible writers and editors were, to overlook such a problem. You may note that there are two Creation stories in Genesis, one where Adam and Eve are co-created and one where Adam comes first. Some writers may have figured out the problem but the editors left it in. I am informed that the politics behind what stays in the Bible and what gets kicked is one reason why the Bible has dual accounts like this. To keep everyone happy, the Bible’s verses frequently don’t add up. Did you know that Goliath died twice in the Bible? Google it if you’re curious. Those zany editors gave us plenty to wonder about.

    June 10, 2009
  1022. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Atheism can be a purifying force for religion. Men and woman without a belief in God can help religions throw off its myths and irrational beliefs. Religion is not about believing in myths or irrational beliefs. It is a genuine search for meaning and truth.

    June 10, 2009
  1023. john george said:

    David L.- I’m not sure we are dealing with a “new atheism.” What we are dealing with is an anti-Christ attitude in society that is becoming more bold. See I Tim. 4:1-3, II Pet. 3:3&4 and Jude :18&19. We really should not be surprised at what we seeing going on around us.

    June 10, 2009
  1024. Anthony Pierre said:

    if more Christians lived by the golden rule we wouldn’t have this enormous thread.

    June 10, 2009
  1025. David Ludescher said:

    John: I disagree. The New Atheism is pro-Jesus and anti-God.

    June 11, 2009
  1026. Anthony Pierre said:

    This new atheism, as you call it, is a direct push-back from 8 years of theocracy rule.

    June 11, 2009
  1027. David Henson said:

    John, what is it that you see going on around you?

    June 11, 2009
  1028. john george said:

    David H.- What I see going on around me, and please understand that my perspective is colored by what I believe to be true out my understanding of the scriptures, is men going from bad to worse. Not only is there an acceptance and even an esteem of lifestyles that counter scripture (homosexuality, cohabitation, abortion, self exaltation, etc.), but there is a vocal uprising against those who would point these things out as being ungodly. We are at a time, as Isaaih prophesied, that men call evil good and good evil.

    June 11, 2009
  1029. David Ludescher said:

    Anthony: I think there is truth in what you are saying. But, an atheism that contends that theists are dullards and bigots forgets the great achievements of organized religion.

    If we could all live by the Golden Rule, we wouldn’t need God. But, unfortunately, human nature makes it almost impossible to live the Golden Rule unaided. Therefore, communities of believers in charity have gathered together to support each other and learn from their ancestors and contemporaries to learn the Great “Why?”.

    I think that there is no more dangerous idea in politics than man can build a just society that will solve all of man’s problems. We can never build a society so just that man lacks nothing. We can never develop rules that require a man to love his neighbor as himself. Society would be in chaos.

    June 11, 2009
  1030. Anthony Pierre said:

    organized religion has great achievements? do tell.

    I actually tried to do a google search on it and came up empty. I try to stay informed on threads in which I post.

    Also, if we haven’t found the answer to the great why after 2000 years, do you think it is time to look somewhere else for the answers?

    One doesn’t have to believe in god in order to be good.

    June 11, 2009
  1031. Jerry Friedman said:

    Anthony: I can think of one. Pythagoras’s religion studied math during a time when secular society shunned math.

    David: Again, I remind you that alligators and meerkats have thwarted chaos in their own socieites and they are presumably atheists. Are humans not as morally developed as alligators and meerkats?

    Again, the numbers of theists in U.S. prisons, per capita, exceeds the number of atheists. How exactly is religion helping to keep us from chaos?

    June 11, 2009
  1032. john george said:

    Jerry- It is not religion that has kept us from chaos. It is the mercy of God. As you knbow, I differentiate between religion and Christianity. The term Christian was originally a derogatory term originating in Antioch. Before the term was adopted, believers refered to themselves as “the way.”

    June 11, 2009
  1033. It is not religion that has kept us
    from chaos. It is the mercy of God.

    OMG. 🙂

    Could you ask him to step it up a little, John? There is far too much ghastly chaos in the world, and far too little evidence of the mercy of God for millions of the starving, the war-victimized, the homeless and displaced, the injured and ill, etc.

    In the meantime, I’ll continue to try to treat others well, to teach my children to do the same, and to contribute to charities that help in the circumstances described above. No religious motivation, just care for my fellow human beings.

    June 11, 2009
  1034. David Ludescher said:

    Anthony: A great political achievement was the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Pope John Paul II stood firmly with the Solidarity movement in Poland. Eventually, the Polish government had to cave in to him because of the solid Catholic bloc in Poland supported by the worldwide Catholic Church.

    The Catholic Church has been a solid supporter of worker’s rights as a matter of social justice for about a century.

    June 11, 2009
  1035. Curt Benson said:

    David L. you wrote:

    The Catholic Church has been a solid supporter of worker’s rights as a matter of social justice for about a century.

    Not that solid, I’d say. The recently report of abuses in Catholic run orphanages in Ireland is puke inducing. One report told of young children who were slaves in every sense of the word, forced to string Rosaries for hours. These “workers” were deprived of water so they wouldn’t wet the bed.

    Some of the parents of the children attempted to retrieve their children at the orphanages but were refused.

    A quote from the report from the New York Times:

    In a litany that sounds as if it comes from the records of a P.O.W. camp, the report chronicles some of the forms of physical abuse suffered in the boys’ schools:

    “Punching, flogging, assault and bodily attacks, hitting with the hand, kicking, ear pulling, hair pulling, head shaving, beating on the soles of the feet, burning, scalding, stabbing, severe beatings with or without clothes, being made to kneel and stand in fixed positions for lengthy periods, made to sleep outside overnight, being forced into cold or excessively hot baths and showers, hosed down with cold water before being beaten, beaten while hanging from hooks on the wall, being set upon by dogs, being restrained in order to be beaten, physical assaults by more than one person, and having objects thrown at them.”

    The Christian Brothers successfully fought to keep the names of the abusers out of the report. As of when this NYT article was printed, the Vatican hadn’t responded yet.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/world/europe/21ireland.html

    June 11, 2009
  1036. john george said:

    Penny- We can only have influence in the small sphere that we have access to. Keep up the good work. As far as things getting better, I’m concerned that we are on a downward slope. I do have this hope that the kingdom will come at the end of this.

    June 11, 2009
  1037. Jerry Friedman said:

    Curt and David: That report supports my belief. There are people all across the spectrum of good-to-bad. One’s religion does not determine where one rests on the spectrum. There are Catholics who are very good and Catholics who are very bad, as with Muslims, Jews, pagans, Zoroastrians, Humanists, et al.

    Name a good person of “x” religion and I can name a bad, and vice versa.

    Therefore, one’s religion is largely irrelevant in determining the person’s character. It’s not entirely irrelevant, as I said earlier, evidenced by the small proportion of atheists to theists in prison. Some religions tend to obey the law better than others. Buddhists, for example, are extremely unlikely to start or fight in wars, whereas Christians have started most large scale wars either as religious zeal (like the Crusades) or because they ignore “thou shalt not kill” just like most of the characters in the Bible.

    The persistent claim of theists that theism saves humans from chaos is unsupported by any evidence. The last 5000 years of history would have been much more peaceful — extrapolating from the last 2000 years — if atheism was dominant.

    June 11, 2009
  1038. Anthony Pierre said:

    I also hope the kingdom will come. beer volcanoes and stripper factories sounds really good right now.

    June 11, 2009
  1039. David Henson said:

    Jerry, I am quite confident that if you went back and looked at Hitler and Stalin’s initial aspirations that they were not world domination. They went to war because they could not borrow money or conduct their national affairs (trade) with neighbors.

    Cuba is not an industrial country. China has succeeded recently by allowing much greater freedom but their planned economy is running into big problems. Sweden is not analogous to much (and very small) and a major arms exporter (often overlooked by liberals).

    The US is in bad shape because it is trying to sustain a large social welfare state (like Germany and the USSR) and the model does not work. What underpins all taxation is coercion so reason would dictate “freedom” (really freedom to make choices) as the ultimate societal aspiration.

    June 11, 2009
  1040. john george said:

    Anthony-

    beer volcanoes and stripper factories

    Uh, I don’t mean to be dense, but from where did you get that?

    June 11, 2009
  1041. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Neither theism nor atheism is the cause of men doing evil. To the extent that belief in God prevents men from doing evil that they would have otherwise done, even if it is from a false fear of Hell, then the belief in the existence of God is a good thing.

    June 11, 2009
  1042. Anthony Pierre said:

    Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson

    June 11, 2009
  1043. Anthony Pierre said:

    What if they do evil that they otherwise wouldn’t have done in a false fear of hell?

    June 11, 2009
  1044. David Henson said:

    homosexuality, cohabitation, abortion, self exaltation

    I am no expert in Christianity but these issues do not seem like those that Christ was most focused upon? My personal perspective would be the Christian right is guilty of “self exaltation” – they almost seem to elevate themselves to “God Status” in judging others.

    June 11, 2009
  1045. Jerry Friedman said:

    I think you’ll find people again from both camps.

    Some people including atheists have no fear of afterlife, so they have no qualms of doing “evil” if they think they can get away with it.

    On the theist side, some people fear their belief in the afterlife and do “evil” nonetheless, thinking that they can ask Yeshua for forgiveness. This is the stereotypical mafia hitman who murders then prays for forgiveness. Some people do “evil” because they associate with a theistic “evil”. This is the stereotypical serial killer, like Charles Manson. Some people do “evil” thinking it’s theistically good, like the periodic Christian war against Muslims (and vice versa). This last group scares me the most, as recent news demonstrates.

    Again, point being, theism has absolutely no monopoly on morality. People do “evil” regardless of religion. From my historical view, theism has a bad track record (except among Buddhists, Jains, Quakers, and other groups leaning toward pacifism).

    June 11, 2009
  1046. john george said:

    Anthony- If you think you can get that pasta true believer, then you’ve been hitting the sauce! I’d say you should cheese it. Parmesean, I hope I didn’t offend you by that.

    June 11, 2009
  1047. Paul Zorn said:

    David L:

    You say:

    Neither theism nor atheism is the cause of men doing evil.

    Agreed. There are good and bad theists and atheists, and no reliable statistics (to my knowledge) that say one group is more virtuous than the other. Katherine Kersten, of course, rejects your thesis, asserting not only that religion can underpin moral behavior (true) but also that religion must underpin moral behavior (false).

    To the extent that belief in God prevents men from doing evil that they would have otherwise done, even if it is from a false fear of Hell, then the belief in the existence of God is a good thing.

    We’re straying close to Pascal’s wager here: Bet on belief, because there’s nothing lost if you’re right and Hell to pay if you’re wrong. I’d rather see religious belief as encouraging people to do good for its own sake than as insurance against flames and pitchforks.

    June 11, 2009
  1048. john george said:

    Jerry- I agree. The problem is not necessarily in the tenets of the particular religion, belief system, whatever you want to call it. It lies in how committed the adherants are to carrying out those tenets in their own lives. Yeshua taught that a person must not be just a hearer of the word but a doer of it. That is why the scripture that God does not want sacrifice, but rather obedience, is so central to the Judeo-Christian faiths. James has quite a bit to say about that, also. Your point that people do evil irregardless of their religion supports my belief that we are born with a sinful (evil) nature. I think that anyone who has suffered through raising a 2-year old can attest to that.

    June 11, 2009
  1049. john george said:

    David H.-Read my quote again. I have italicized those phrases that are, in my opinion, key.

    Not only is there an acceptance and
    even an esteem of lifestyles that
    counter scripture
    (homosexuality,
    cohabitation, abortion, self
    exaltation, etc.), but there is a
    vocal uprising against those who would
    point these things out as being
    ungodly.

    If you look at what Jesus taught, He seemed most concerned about what motivated a person rather than what they actually did. A person can choose to change their behavior without having a change of heart. But if a person has a change of heart, this will produce a different behavior. See what I am getting at?

    June 11, 2009
  1050. David Henson said:

    homosexuality, cohabitation, abortion

    The bible is not called ‘Book of Sexual Behavior.’ You are choosing to look at a small subset of scripture in castigating the world. Did Christ himself ever address these specific issues?

    June 12, 2009
  1051. Patrick Enders said:

    John, you wrote:

    Your point that people do evil irregardless of their religion supports my belief that we are born with a sinful (evil) nature. I think that anyone who has suffered through raising a 2-year old can attest to that.

    John,
    I truly hope that you’re not serious.

    I’ve never met a child with a sinful (evil) nature.

    At worst – and best, really, since it’s true of all of us at some point – I meet children who do not yet understand the consequences of their actions.

    I’m a bit disturbed that you believe that your god creates creatures with evil natures.

    June 12, 2009
  1052. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: John’s opinion, assuming he’s serious, was articulated by Freud. Freud believed that children were “evil” from birth, and society survived by adults learning to suppress their evil tendency. This was somewhat described by the mislabeled Oedipus Complex, mislabeled because King Oedipus made great efforts not to kill his father nor bed his mother, but through Greek tragedy he did both.

    Some novels like “Lord of the Flies” can be interpreted in the same way. As you surely recall, “Flies” showed the decay of society when boys were left to their own devices. While I think that’s a superficial analysis of the book, that analysis is common in society.

    I agree with your analysis, that mature minds can develop “Golden Rule” morals without society, but society speeds this development considerably. Children do not have mature minds, but the biological and psychological immaturity is not evil. There may be exceptions, like the several children who years ago put a baby on railroad tracks, but stories like these are so rare that I dismiss Freud’s analysis altogether.

    This is a fundamental reason why I object so strenuously to the “evil” of Eve when she ate the fig. Taken as a literal story, Eve had an immature mind — unshaped by society. Her moral development could not be similar to any normal, present-day adult. Without a society-guided sense of morality, she and Adam were cruelly punished after a devious serpent (some say Satan, a weighty intellect) persuaded her to disobey a rule that must have seemed arbitrary to Eve. Look at it this way: If Biblegod told Eve, “Eat from the Tree of Knowledge and I will banish you from Eden,” Even might have been more resilient. But Eve was left in a forest with Satan, and without a rationale of Biblegod’s edict.

    Perhaps then the Banishment should be best interpreted as a warning to parents. “Give your kids rules without reasons and expect disobedience.” I wonder why that’s not the popular interpretation of such a horrible act of punishment.

    June 12, 2009
  1053. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Do you suppose that Yeshua/Biblegod want obedience, as you write, or moral development? I asked David L. this question recently but he has not answered.

    If you were convinced that Biblegod told you to murder someone, would you obey, or would you refrain because of your moral development?

    June 12, 2009
  1054. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    Yes, I’m familiar with Freud – and with the fundamental Christian concept of humanity’s inherently evil nature. It’s a good thing that Freud’s ideas have mostly fallen by the wayside.

    This belief in the inherent evilness of children is disturbing enough in the abstract, but to apply it specifically to every young child (“…anyone who has suffered through raising a 2-year old can attest…”) is deeply wrong.

    Perhaps other parents could weigh in on the inherent evilness of their own (current or former) toddlers?

    June 12, 2009
  1055. Anthony Pierre said:

    im only offended by the bad puns lol

    June 12, 2009
  1056. David Ludescher said:

    Paul (677): Because Kersten tends to be a Rush Limbaugh in print, I usually just scan over her. This article was not typical Kersten.

    Her point is that we shouldn’t be hostile to religion. It doesn’t bode well for society, especially a society that is supposed to be tolerant. New Atheism, like much of the Christian Right, tends to be quite intolerant, not only of the people, but of the ideas.

    Her analysis, which I think is correct, is that something has to underpin moral behavior. Logically you cannot claim a moral obligation without referencing some belief system – even if that belief system is as simple as the Golden Rule.

    If an atheist claims a rejection of God, as Dawkins has done, what permanent reality is left to use as a basis for a moral system?

    Regarding Heaven and Hell, religions do encourage people to do good. However, many of us, perhaps all of us, need a little encouragement when doing the right thing requires courage. Without a firm belief that good is rewarded and evil is punished, why would we choose good over evil?

    June 12, 2009
  1057. john george said:

    Jerry & Patrick- I’m very serious. Just as there are natural laws, like gravity, there are spiritual laws, like original sin. The idea that God “creates” each individual is not completely true. If you look at Ps. 139, there are verses about Him knowing our unformed substance and having all the days of our lives written down in His book before there is any one of them. This does not say that He created us. We are the result of the union of a sperm and egg. This is a natural process that was set up at creation that works every time. (I won’t get into mis-carriages, etc. These evidently happen.) The concept of original sin relates back to Adam’s original disobedience to God in Genesis. This introduced a spiritual law (sin) that resulted in death, the natural result of sin. There have been whole books written on this, so I cannot fully explain it in this short post.

    As far as children not understanding consequences of actions, this is something that we parents are charged with training them. It is both amusing and frustrating to me to see a parent trying to reason with a 2-year old who is throwing a temper tantrum because he didn’t get his own way. You can’t reason with a two year old. They do not have that cognitive level developed yet. I would even posite this opinion- I have seen grown people people act the same way as a 2-year old and I believe it is because their training did not get through to them, somehow. There are maladies that cause this, also. I have a grandson that has Sensory Processing Disorder. Through therapy, our hope is that he can learn to control his reactions to his environment, but it is a slow, tedious process. He just doesn’t percieve his environment the same way a child who doesn’t have this does. It really helps to understand how a child is put together. The Proverb- Train up a child in the way he should go and he will continue in it to old age, is a foundation for this. Each of us responds to our environment in an induividual way. As we parents are able to understand how our children process perceptions, we are able to channel and strengthen their ingrown ability to process. This is the “way in which” they should go.

    I’ll stand by my analysis. It is supported by the evidence I see in every child I have encountered. There has got to be some inborn trait that causes a 2-year old to suddenly rebel against everything his parent suggests, from eating to not throwing items and breaking them. I certainly don’t know of any parent who has taught their child this behavior. Sorry Pat. I just believe you are wrong in your interpretation, along with the whole of psychologists and counselors who say the same thing. I believe this is an instance where the majority is wrong.

    Jerry- Re. your comment

    I wonder why that’s not the popular
    interpretation of such a horrible act
    of punishment.

    if you take a look at the direction God gave to Adam and Eve in Genesis, there was a reason given. This is why it is written the Adam disobeyed God. This wasn’t just some obscure whim of God’s that Adam didn’t understand. That is why your interpretation is not accepted by we Christians.

    June 12, 2009
  1058. john george said:

    Anthony- I thought that a good pun is actually an oxymoron.

    June 12, 2009
  1059. Patrick Enders said:

    David L, you wrote:

    If an atheist claims a rejection of God, as Dawkins has done, what permanent reality is left to use as a basis for a moral system?

    Ummm, how about the permanent reality which we inhabit?

    Jerry has already offered several good explanations for the basis of a reason-based or rational morality.

    I too find much to be said for Utilitarianism and Enlightenment philosophers. I also find this nation’s founding principle that “All [persons] are created equal” to be an excellent starting point for working out disagreements and competing interests.

    In addition, I have to admit to a bit of personal fondness for some of Kant’s reasoning around Categorical Imperatives when seeking a good guide for personal morality.

    And again, there’s the Golden Rule.

    Lump it all together, and one can simply say: we’re all in this life together, and as long as we all try to do good towards each other, we’ll all be the better for it.

    Indeed, there’s some evidence from neuropsychology (as well as from reasoning like that I’ve committed above), that we largely act intuitively or instinctively in our moral choices, and that the principles we cite for our decisions tend to be applied retroactively, as it were.

    For the few individuals who have difficulty acting according to these principles of mutual beneficence, there’s always the ‘stick’ of law enforcement.

    June 12, 2009
  1060. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    I have to admit that I’m awfully glad that I do not live in the world that you philosophically inhabit.

    The children are much nicer in my world.

    When you say,

    There has got to be some inborn trait that causes a 2-year old to suddenly rebel against everything his parent suggests, from eating to not throwing items and breaking them. I certainly don’t know of any parent who has taught their child this behavior.

    Children are innately curious, and only learn how the world works by testing it. It starts with simple things like the instinctual need to cry when one has needs (coupled with adults’ instinctual urge to respond to a crying infant). Later on through continued exploration, children learn what happens when they throw an object, what happens when they climb the cabinets, and what happens when they say “No!”.

    This process of exploration (and the responses that they get in return from their parents and the others that they meet) seems a perfectly adequate and simple explanation for the behavior that you cite.

    In a similar vein, do you believe that my current dog Maggie, and our previous dog Rosie, were also born with the evil taint of Adam’s sin? Each of them also went through a phase in puppyhood in which they rebelled against every rule that we tried to impose.

    By my perspective, through consistent rule-setting, they eventually learned that the responses they received for such negative behavior were less pleasant than the outcomes of desired behaviors, and they chose to willingly comply with the rules we had set.

    June 12, 2009
  1061. john george said:

    Patrick- You live in the same world I do. You just have a different analysis of it. This is to be expected, as you do not have the same childhood experiences I have had, and you do not presently have children. I really have no worries about your parenting skills. The couple times I have had coffee with you, I perceive you have a real father’s heart. The child that is fortunate enough to be adopted by you and Felicity will have a blessed life, indeed.

    As far as children’s curiosity, I see this as different from the willful rebelion against boundaries. It is not curiosity alone that motivates a toddler to see what happens if he refuses to obey a direction. And, I might add, each child is different in the way they respond. They will try their best to find a way around what you tell them to do. Boundaries give them security, and if we respond the same way to their attempts to cross that boundary, their security with us and their world gets strengthened. The most important thing we can do for toddlers to train them is to be consistent. Consistentcy adds mounds of foundation upon which greater things can be built.

    As far as equating a child with your dogs, this is where I completely disagree with Darwin’s concept. Humans are different than dogs, even though they may respond to the same stimuli similarly. Painful experiences will produce crying. Threats will elicit a defensive response. Beyond that, I see no similarities. As far as the effects of Adam’s sin, they are under the same curse. They eventually die. If their wounds are not treated properly, they will become infected, etc. Before sin entered creation, there was no decay.

    June 12, 2009
  1062. Anthony Pierre said:

    come on dude

    john, do you really believe there was a talking snake in the garden of eden and noah’s flood?

    June 12, 2009
  1063. Jerry Friedman said:

    Anthony: Correction, a walking, talking snake:

    “And Biblegod said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life”

    June 12, 2009
  1064. Anthony Pierre said:

    beer volcanoes vs walking talking snakes.

    June 12, 2009
  1065. john george said:

    Jerry- How do you know the “serpent” crawled on its belly before the curse? Read the last part of that reference. Also, just because Satan is refered to as a “serpent”, does this mean that all snakes are a manifestation of Satan? I don’t believe this is so, but you will probably find as many different written opinions of what this means as you will find writers. I know this just drives you nuts, the vascilation between literal and metaphorical in the scriptures, but this is really of no consequence to me, personally. That we have a spiritual entity manifesting itself through an animal in this case seems no different that when Balaam’s donkey talked to him. Also, we know the effect the legion of demons had on the pigs in the gospel acount of the Gadarene demoniac.

    June 12, 2009
  1066. john george said:

    Anthony- As far as Noah’s flood, there is both archeological evidence and cultural accounts of this. There are concentrations of sea salt in higher altitude rocks around the world. There are references to this flood in most of the acncient writings of the major cultures around the world. If you want some interesting reading, I would suggest reading some of the scientific articles in “Answers in Genesis” periodicals.

    June 12, 2009
  1067. Anthony Pierre said:

    I guess this drives me nuts too, as a logical scientific type

    I know this just drives you nuts, the
    vascilation between literal and
    metaphorical in the scriptures, but
    this is really of no consequence to
    me, personally

    as long as it doesn’t bother you, its cool with me. Can we talk about burritos now?

    June 12, 2009
  1068. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I don’t mind so much the vacillation between literal and metaphorical. I do mind when Bible readers choose which form is most convenient for them. There should be a universal standard to know, but there is no standard. Any time a Christian is upset with the literal writing, they are free to make it metaphorical. For example, many Christians don’t believe the universe was created in six days, so they interpret Creation as metaphor. Other Christians take it literally. They can’t both be right. That’s the vacillation that annoys.

    This is why there are Catholics and Protestants. No agreement as to the Bible’s meaning. Why should I be expected to understanding its meaning if people who devote their lives to the book can’t agree?

    I don’t know what you’re referring to about the serpent. The KJV says, “upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life” which I find easy to interpret that the serpent loses her legs, becomes a belly-crawler, and eats dust. Why would an upset Biblegod say such a thing if it wasn’t part of a curse? Curse Adam and Eve, curse the serpent, make her lose mobility and lose speech. Of course, some people interpret this metaphorically.

    There are no demons.

    There is no geological nor archeological evidence of Noah’s Flood. Plate tectonics, which account for volcanoes and earthquakes, also account for sea salt and sea fossils in the mountains. Bible writers didn’t know about plate tectonics, so a flood was an easy explanation for them, assuming they noticed the salt and fossils. Remember that Gilgamesh and other heroes had to contend with floods. The idea of great floods was widely believed in ancient mythology. This does not mean that great floods happened, only that story tellers made it so.

    Nothing about the Flood makes any sense anyway. Putting two of each wild animal, seven of each domesticated animal, and enough food to feed them all, amounts to a very large ship. The ark was roughly 1/8 the size of a modern aircraft carrier. It’s not large enough for these animals and their food, unless the Bible writers didn’t know how many animal species existed.

    There is not enough water to have flooded the Earth to cover Everest, and if there was, in 40 days it would come down at about 10 feet per hour. This is enough rainfall to sink an aircraft carrier. And where did the water go after the Flood?

    Of course, Biblegod could just dispense with these technical problems, which means that Biblegod opted for being theatrical in its condemnation of humans. It’s more likely that the Bible writers had no understanding of zoology, meteorology, geology, and physics.

    Some centuries ago, it was wondered how bears and other dangerous animals made it to the New World. Based on the Flood, all animals should be in Europe, Asia and Africa. People then thought it too unlikely that someone would have sailed to the New World with these dangerous animals just to release them. This problem started a lot of debate about the veracity of the Flood. As science has continued to explain things like salt on the mountain tops, the Flood must be delegated to metaphor.

    Anyway, as you know, either one has faith in the Bible or one does not.

    June 12, 2009
  1069. Anthony Pierre said:

    give it up jerry, those burritos are awesome!

    June 12, 2009
  1070. Jerry Friedman said:

    If they’re vegan, I’ll join.

    I know how difficult it is to persuade a theist of atheism and vice versa. That’s not entirely my motive. I assume that some lurkers here are learning from the exchange and I think it’s good for theists to know that their all of their beliefs have earnest challenges.

    I suppose I am most influenced by my nephew. At age 5 he declared himself a Christian. At 14 he tried to convert me to Christianity. At age 16 he announced that he was gay. His mother then took him to a psychiatrist (which she now regrets). At 18 he became agnostic. At 20 or so he became atheist.

    Another friend became agnostic after 50+ years with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I don’t think she calls herself an atheist yet, but she is far away from Christendom. We became friends when she decided to convert me. Funny that she went the other way (not entirely through my reasoning).

    Sometimes, reasoning helps.

    June 12, 2009
  1071. john george said:

    Hey! if you think the burritos are good, you should taste a Costa Rican taco sometime. My daughter and son-in-law make them. You roast up some beef (sorry, Jerry- I haven’t tried them with tofu) in some Costa Rican spices. SHred it up and put a little in a corn tortilla. Fold the thing over, fry it in some oil, and add shredded cabbage and a sauce made with mayo and ketchup. MMMMMMMMMM! Along with this, serve up some gaio pinto (rice & bean dish) and you’ve got some mighty fine eatin’!

    June 12, 2009
  1072. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Just a question: Does the “Answers in Genesis” organization you mention espouse young-earth (i.e., about 6000 years) creationism? (I’m afraid the one I found first on the Web does so … . )

    June 12, 2009
  1073. john george said:

    Paul- Yes, they follow a young-earth premise. Does that disqualify them in your estimation?

    June 12, 2009
  1074. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You said:

    Yes, they [the Answers in Genesis organization] follow a young-earth premise. Does that disqualify them in your estimation?

    I have no information and hence no opinion about any religious pronouncements Answers in Genesis may make, or have made. But adherence to a young-earth premise utterly destroys, for me, any scientific credibility the organization may wish to claim.

    June 12, 2009
  1075. john george said:

    Paul- Thanks for your honesty. I have a hard time accepting most of the premises of secular scientist assertions on the age of the earth. One of the problems in trying to date something relative to the half life of atomic isotopes is that the dating is just that- relative. To my knowledge, there are no other compounds, historical data, or any other verifiable observations to say that the dating method is accurate. As with any theory, it is postulated and adhered to until there is colaborating evidence to prove or disprove it. It seems to me, from the limited reading I have done in scientific articles that I can understand, that the whole process looks like circular reasoning. At the foundation of the assumptions, it seems there are postulates that are just accepted as true. If you or anyone else wants to believe all these things, that is your choice. But from articles I have read, it seems that the prevailing scientists don’t like their conclusions to be questioned by anyone who does not believe as they do. How this translates into the academic society is how funding is distributed. If you want funding, you have to believe as they do. If you question them, then funding is withdrawn. It seems that political pressures thrive wherever men come together as a group weilding authority. I am very glad I do not have to deal with that group on a daily basis.

    June 13, 2009
  1076. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick (677): Kant ended his masterful Critique of Pure Reason by concluding that pure reason is unable to solve the three main problems of man – the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and human freedom.

    He concluded that reason is just as likely to lead to a conclusion that God exists or that God does not exist.

    June 13, 2009
  1077. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    Re #684 …

    Uff da.

    The world is full of evidence, including but by no means limited to carbon-14-decay-related dating, that the world is not young in anything like the sense young-earth creationists assert. To ignore the evidence everywhere around us — or to attribute basic scientific understanding to fabrication by a cabal of elitist, funding-obsessed scientists — takes some dizzying leaps of logic.

    Sure, “secular scientists” sometimes disagree with each other, and members of that group have been known to behave badly. But creationist charges of “secular” scientists- closed-mindedness? There’s some chutzpah! Or perhaps it brings to mind Matthew 7:3 (KJV): And why behold the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    June 13, 2009
  1078. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: For a theist like Kant to say there’s a 50/50 chance for a god to exist is a major concession. Imagine the same analysis by a neutral philosopher.

    Paul: While I embrace your position, it doesn’t account for faith. The faithful are free to believe that Biblegod put such evidence of an ‘old Earth’ as is, including carbon-14, the Grand Canyon, and sea fossils on mountain tops. The faithful must believe that Biblegod is theatrical and plays with human reasoning by putting false evidence all over, because there is no ‘young Earth’ natural explanation for these things.

    One group of people follow the truth. Others lead it. In my opinion, ‘young Earth’ers lead the truth.

    June 13, 2009
  1079. john george said:

    Paul Z.- I think it is interesting that evolution scientists and creationist scientists both look at the same evidence and come up with two diametrically opposed evaluations. For me, it still boils down to which presuppositions you choose to believe.

    Jerry- As far as using the Grand Canyon as evidence of a long developement, I think it is interesting that the same type of formation was formed in a valley by caustic water spewed out by the Mt. St, Helens eruption. It is also interesting that stalagmites formed in the basement area of the Washington Monument, cause by rainwater dripping from fissures in the marble. As far as tectonic movement, what we observe at this point in time is definitely slow, but is it the end result of faster movements in the past, say at the time of the flood? I have observed the Rocky Mountains from the air. The shape of the areas on the eastern slope have the appearance of being deposited by receeding water. How do we know the mountains were formed over millions of years? What emperical evidence can you show me to convince me of that theory? It seems the greatest obstacle for evolution scientists to overcome in considering this hypothesis is not the evidence so much as the admission that there could be a God that did this quickly. You and Paul Z. will continue to believe what you choose, and there is nothing I can say to change you any other way. I am in the same position. There is nothing you can say to change my position on what I believe. But I contend that your approach, at its roots, is no more scientific than mine.

    June 13, 2009
  1080. kiffi summa said:

    Re: 685.1… John: “i contend that your approach, at its roots, is no more scientific than mine.” that’s what you said.

    Uff da, squared… and I am neither scandinavian nor a mathematician!

    John, John, certainly you are not comparing scientific method which has many layered steps, proven innumerable times before reaching a hypothesis, much less a conclusion to the word of the bible to which there was not even source witnesses?

    This is not to disrespect the Word you believe to be true, but certainly you can not suggest any source material, or scientific evidence, to confirm these Bible stories and pass them into the realm of fact?

    June 13, 2009
  1081. john george said:

    Kiffi- That is why I suggested to Pul & Jerry and anyone else who wants to look into some of the findings of AIG. These are not merely uneducated theists. These are Phd. physicists, chemists and scientists who have emperical evidence that supports a young earth hypothesis. As I said, these scientists are all looking at the same physical evidence. When they can come up with two different conclusions, then it appears there are some basic postulates that must be different. The processes of examination and clarification being the same, then I propose that the methods are both scientific. That is all I am suggesting in my opinion.

    June 13, 2009
  1082. Barry Cipra said:

    Last Fall, as the thread discussing the presidential election grew and grew, I submitted a posting wondering who would reveal himself by the Sign of the Beast, with posting #666. The honor went to John George.

    I happened to notice that this thread has already surpassed that mark. And the author of posting #666 is, once again, John George!

    Coincidence? Perhaps. Or do we here have compelling evidence that creation pseudo-science and young-earth advocacy are the devil’s mischief?

    June 13, 2009
  1083. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: The vast number of scientists do not take the position of your scientists, or the scientists of the Institute for Creation Research. It’s fine if you consider them credible. It simply puts you in the vast minority.

    Nonetheless, now I am curious why you and David L. have not answered my question. From my post to David in #660:

    Here’s a question. Does the Bible teach morality or obedience? If you were convinced that Biblegod spoke to you and told you to kill your son, would you obey? Or would you reason that murdering your son is immoral even if Biblegod told you to? Let’s pretend that Biblegod exists and it really told you to do so. Would you commit murder and obey Biblegod?

    June 13, 2009
  1084. john george said:

    Jerry- Sorry. I thought I had addressed your question, but I must have overlooked it. In the circles I associate with, any “word” or “direction” that someone supposedly receives from God is tested against the written word. In this particular case, your scenario would violate James 1:13&14. A test, if you want to call it that, that I have used to judge directions in my own life has been this. The idea needs to align with my own spirit. It needs to align with the written word. It needs to align with those I am in relationship with, and it needs to align with the circumstances. So far, in the 37 years I have followed it, it has never failed me.

    June 13, 2009
  1085. john george said:

    Barry- Honestly, now! Since the numbers asigned to my posts are generated by Griff’s software, perhaps he is the antichrist. What a laugh!

    June 13, 2009
  1086. john george said:

    Jerry- I forgot to add, regarding the minority I seem to be in, I am honored to be in that minority who says that God is true. If you look through history, often times, the people with the truth were in the minority. For instance, Galileo & MLK are a couple who come to mind.

    June 13, 2009
  1087. Paul Zorn said:

    John G:

    You say:

    …regarding the minority I seem to be in, I am honored to be in that minority who says that God is true.

    Isn’t it a tad vainglorious to equate the scientific minority you’ve chosen to join with those who say “that God is true”? Seems to me there are plenty of scientists out there who “say that God is true” and also accept mainstream science.

    And this:

    If you look through history, often times, the people with the truth were in the minority. For instance, Galileo & MLK are a couple who come to mind.

    Indeed, truth is not determined by majority vote, and has often had to swim upstream. But to adduce Galileo as evidence in favor of religious dogma trumping empirical science boggles the mind.

    June 13, 2009
  1088. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: You’re saying that if Biblegod appeared before you and told you to murder someone, you’d pull out your Bible and read from James?

    I thought you said Biblegod wanted obedience. See your post 677.4, “That is why the scripture that God does not want sacrifice, but rather obedience, is so central to the Judeo-Christian faiths.”

    June 13, 2009
  1089. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry (686): Kant didn’t say there was a 50/50 chance of God’s existence; Kant concluded that reason was incompetent to decide the question.

    Although Kant was a theist, he was “awakened from his dogmatic slumber” by the atheist David Hume. Kant realized that Hume’s criticisms of Christian dogma had compelling rational force. Having been awakened from his intellectual slumber, Kant set out to see if rationality could arrive at a conclusive answer. On both the God and soul questions, he found that reason was of no help. Reason led him to two mutually incompatible, yet indisputable answers – there must be a God and a soul, and there is no God or soul.

    He then sought to frame morality. He asked what is the proper use of human freedom. His “godless” or rational conclusion: Each person should act as if his actions could be asserted as a universal principle of legislation. That, he concluded, was the only universal answer which is consistent with reason. At this point, reason combines the atheist and theist position into a rational answer.

    June 14, 2009
  1090. kiffi summa said:

    John : Galileo? Do you perhaps not recall Galileo and his mighty struggle with his church?
    Certainly he was in the minority; certainly he was NOT in tune with his church.

    By what irrational stretch of the mind could you possibly use Galileo for an example to prove your point?

    This whole discussion has become ridiculous as it is reason confronted by irrationality; it is impossible to reason with those who do not wish to , or cannot.

    June 14, 2009
  1091. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: God doesn’t tell you to kill. There is a huge difference between God speaking to me, and me hearing God.

    June 14, 2009
  1092. David Henson said:

    Science is about predictability. 100% or absolute predictability is true science. There is a danger when models are created that are called “Science” to predict a future we cannot yet measure or to explain the past (which we for sure cannot measure in absolute terms). The danger is people start to equate these models to hard facts which they are not. Then others can postulate their own loosey- goosey models and claim them as hard facts. Then end result is arguing over how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

    June 14, 2009
  1093. john george said:

    Kiffi- Galileo’s struggle was against the prevailing mindset of the time. The only reason the church was even involved in the thing, from what I understand, is because of the strong church-state. Institutions of higher learning were in the church because that is where history, the arts, and “science” was really studied. The state funded the thing through taxation. I think that is good basis for our form of sepatation of church and state in government, but by no means basis for separation of church from society. It wasn’t until the Rennaisance that men began to separate religion from the state and higher learning. As I look at the present day scientific heirarchy, to me it has a resemblance to the medevil church state. I base this upon its reaction to anyone from outside questioning it. I think you and others here have demonstrated the reaction to my questions and anyone who believes as I do. I think David H’s. post 691 does a pretty good job of summing it up. There are some things that neither side can prove 100%, but that should not deter either side from continuing to search.

    June 14, 2009
  1094. john george said:

    Jerry- Re. #687.5, this is the reason we need to know God and know His word and be in relationship with fellow believers. The thing I have found in the 37 years I have followed Him is that He is always consistent with His word. According to this

    NAS:1 John Testing the Spirits {4:1}
    Beloved, do not believe every spirit,
    but test the spirits to see whether
    they are from God, because many false
    prophets have gone out into the world.
    2002 (C) Bible

    it seems pretty clear to me what we are supposed to do.

    June 14, 2009
  1095. john george said:

    Paul- I’m not trying to adduce Galileo to support religious dogma. What I am getting at is that I believe the prevailing scientific community has based its conclusions upon incomplete findings, and a philosophy that does not allow for the existence of God in the explanation of physical evidence. I believe there is scientific credibility in the Biblical account of our physical world, and it appears some scientists have searched out the evidence. We each have the freedom to believe either side.

    June 14, 2009
  1096. john george said:

    Bye, folks. I’ll be gone a couple weeks, so don’t look for an immediate answer to any questions you leave me.

    David L.- You’ll have to take up the slack while I’m gone.

    June 14, 2009
  1097. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: You know that according to the Bible, Biblegod does instruct people to kill, most famously telling Abraham to kill his son.

    I appreciate your attempt to demurrer, but I was hoping for an intellectually honest answer.

    If you were convinced that Biblegod told you to murder someone, would you?

    John: I am not supposing that anyone less than Biblegod is telling you to murder. I am not supposing that angels (of any order) or prophets are telling you. I am supposing that the very Biblegod you revere tells you, and that you are absolutely convinced that it is Biblegod. Would you disobey its order?

    June 14, 2009
  1098. john george said:

    Jerry- One more answer, then I’m gone. Within the kingdom, there is a place of appeal to authority. Take a look at Gen. 18, about verse 20 and following. There is an exchange between Abraham and God that is very interesting. Also, look at Number 14:11-20. There is a similar exchange between Moses and God. Knowing His character as I do, I would definitely appeal the request. In fact, knowing His character as I do, I would be foolish not to appeal.

    June 14, 2009
  1099. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry (687): The intellectually honest answer is that I have a limited ability to understand the world. Throughout the recorded history of the Bible, man’s conception of God has changed as man has become more capable of understanding his relationship the material and spiritual world.

    So, if today I were to hear God’s voice telling me to sacrifice my own son, I would call a good psychiatrist. Especially after the death of Jesus on the cross, there is nothing left of the idea of killing others to satisfy God. Killing others is intrinsically evil, even if it can sometimes be morally justified.

    June 15, 2009
  1100. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: You wrote,

    So, if today I were to hear God’s voice telling me to sacrifice my own son, I would call a good psychiatrist. Especially after the death of Jesus on the cross, there is nothing left of the idea of killing others to satisfy God. Killing others is intrinsically evil, even if it can sometimes be morally justified.

    Thank you. I wish more Catholics, and people generally, shared your view that murder is intrinsically evil. I agree that it’s intrinsically evil.

    Being intrinsic, you must agree that Biblegod is not the maker of good and evil, but Biblegod is subject to intrinsic good and evil, or at least some evils such as murder.

    After all, if Biblegod actually ordered you to murder someone, and you would disobey Biblegod’s order, then Biblegod ordering you does not make murder “good”. Biblegod cannot change good from evil and vice versa on a whim. You appeal to a higher moral authority than Biblegod.

    I am the same. If my family, my government, or any authority tells me to do something I believe is intrinsically or presently evil, I won’t do it. I don’t need mythology to tell me what is right and wrong. Apparently, neither do you.

    June 15, 2009
  1101. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Re your posting #691 …

    If your point is that scientific “models” should be constructed carefully, and their limitations kept in mind, then you’ve got a lot of company — including almost all working scientists.

    But I might quibble a bit with this:

    Science is about predictability. 100% or absolute predictability is true science.

    Sure, “absolute predictability” is a Good Thing, and it may sometimes function as a sort of ideal in science. Substitute “mathematics” for “science” and I’d come closer to agreeing.

    But if you mean that anything less than 100% predictability is always false science, or pseudo-science, then you’ve lost me. A lot of the work of science is testing proposed theories and principles against real-world events and data, to see how well theories describe and predict phenomena in nature. Some theories pass and others fail, and still others pass for a while and then fail when something better or more refined comes along.

    Newtonian mechanics, for instance, has terrific predictive power at some scales, but, it turns out, not at every scale. It’s not that Newton was just wrong, or hare-brained, or a charlatan. It’s that nature is more complicated and subtler than even Newton could fully grasp.

    June 15, 2009
  1102. David Henson said:

    Paul Z, my point was really one of understanding than science that ‘predicts’ is much different than science that ‘explains’. Since every culture has origin of mankind explanations these should be viewed with the greatest of skepticism when wrapped up in a science flag.

    June 15, 2009
  1103. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: In an atheist’s world what and or who is the highest moral authority?

    June 15, 2009
  1104. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Again with the caveat, not all atheists are alike.

    In my view, humans have moral tendencies based on our biology. Many moral norms have genetic influences, like altruism and selfishness. This is where the idea of evil being an intrinsic evil comes from. Humans evolved from a very long history of social animals. In fact, we were only able to leave Africa because of our complex social and altruistic (or welfarist) tendencies. Nobody taught ancient and pre-humans to be social, to be altruists, but our ancestors who survived best were those who cooperated best. Their altruistic genes were, on average, more successful than others’ selfish genes, leaving each successive generation slightly more altruistic than the last.

    So the highest authority may be our genes, because they are essentially immutable.

    Depending on context, the codified laws are the highest moral authority. Human legislatures make the actual highest authority under pain of penalty. You can consider “legislatures” to be any governing body, whether that’s mom and dad, a dictator, your pope, etc. Of course, legislatures are composed of humans, who are in turn influenced by genes.

    Somewhere in between biological moral tendencies and codified laws are the several philosophers (again, from mom and dad’s philosophy to the more famous and professional philosophers) who don’t stick entirely to genes or governments in how they determine right and wrong.

    It been my observation that most people follow intuition. Most people’s highest moral authority is really genetic, protecting one’s own interests, one’s family, one’s society, in preference to others. While the law serves as a pretty good deterrence against “evil” intuition, we know that no system of laws is intrinsically flawless (so many loopholes) or universally followed (so many criminals).

    I expect you are seeking a person of some sort as having all the answers. I don’t believe there is such a person, divine or otherwise. Humans have an infinity of transactions and not all of them can be objectively judged as good or evil. There are a lot of judgment calls, limited by human lack of knowledge and lack of wisdom.

    What I am certain of, and what you affirmed, is that there is no external “decider” of morality. Biblegod cannot arbitrarily claim that rape is moral on Tuesdays. Rape is intrinsically evil, as is torture, mayhem, and many other crimes. It’s understandable that some people want there to be a know-it-all authority, but wanting one doesn’t make it so. We have our genes, that give us impulses, legislatures that refine our impulses, and philosophers to help guide individuals and legislatures away from following bad impulses.

    I suppose that my highest moral authority is shared between my philosophy and my society. I follow society’s expectations so we all get along well, and since society codifies the minimum standard, sometimes I exceed that standard when honor, benevolence, or maximizing happiness dictate. That is why I am vegan, for example, because the lives of nonhuman animals matter.

    Of course, ask another atheist and you may get a different opinion.

    June 15, 2009
  1105. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    You wrote:

    science that ‘predicts’ is much different than science that ‘explains’

    Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t get this point. Seems to me that science is usually aiming for both explanation and prediction. No?

    And then:

    Since every culture has origin of mankind explanations these should be viewed with the greatest of skepticism when wrapped up in a science flag.

    If I understand your point correctly, I agree with it. As you say, many cultures have creation or origin-of-life myths and legends, quite different from each other. At most one can be true in the scientific sense, and so all (or conceivably all but one) of the scientific claims attached to such stories must be false. Whether creation myths are true and/or useful in some metaphorical or moral or literary sense is an entirely different question.

    June 15, 2009
  1106. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul: So what you’re saying is that a scientist doesn’t have to be 100% right, right? It’s not like Newton failed as a scientist because his model of physics was all wrong on the macro and micro scales, but that Newton succeeded as a scientist within the area that he worked. Now I wonder if all Western mathematicians weren’t actually in the field of math before they understood the concept of zero.

    June 15, 2009
  1107. Jerry Friedman said:

    …or as a better illustration, were the Egyptian mathematicians who were instrumental in building the pyramids failed at math because they did not understand zero?

    June 15, 2009
  1108. Paul Zorn said:

    Jerry,

    Yup, I do believe that absolute, 100% rightness is seldom really in the cross hairs of scientists who study the natural world. We’re never quite 100% sure, for instance, that all the oxygen molecules in the room won’t suddenly fly out the window, leaving us gasping or deflated like post-birthday balloons. But it’s very, very unlikely, and so we wisely don’t worry about it. That’s the best we can hope for, IMO, as regards the natural world, and in practice it’s plenty good enough.

    Mathematics is different in that, with some exceptions that don’t matter here, what’s mathematically true is really true, and won’t be seen as false tomorrow. (What’s mathematically useful, especially as regards describing the real world, may well change from time to time.) Mathematicians keep learning more and more of what’s mathematically true, and there’s no end in sight. The Egyptians and Babylonians knew a lot of true mathematics, but a lot less than we know now. That they (apparently) didn’t understand zero as we do means only that they, like we, knew some but not all of the mathematical truth.

    June 15, 2009
  1109. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Your response points to what is perhaps the greatest practical failing of atheism. Without a God, or perhaps more accurately, a God-concept, atheism can turns into skepticism, rather than a system of honest critique.

    Atheism sometimes asserts that something is not be believed until it can be proven to be true. Then when one asks how something can be proven true, the atheist asserts that it cannot be proven because there is no such thing as universal truth.

    It is a circular argument in which the atheist can always claim victory for himself because he is the sole judge of the truth. It is the converse of the dogmatic theist who claims victory as the sole judge of God’s will.

    June 16, 2009
  1110. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Welcome to the beautiful world of uncertainty.

    I will never be able to prove absolutely what is true.

    By contrast, you will never be able to prove what is Absolutely True.

    I guess we’ll all just have to muddle along.

    June 16, 2009
  1111. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I know your position on atheism.

    How can anyone feel satisfied in relying on Biblegod for moral guidance when you’ve demonstrated that Biblegod has no command of morality? Is it ironic that after I demonstrate your belief in intrinsic or independent-of-god “evil”, making Biblegod irrelevant in human morality, that you switch the focus to your condemnation of atheism?

    Talking about circular reasoning, Biblegod is “good” because the Bible says so, and the Bible is good because Biblegod says so… Is that the Christian position?

    If I can call philosophy a science of wisdom, of course philosophy begins with doubt and the seeking of proof. As Paul Z. and the whole population of scientists demonstrate, this is a strength of science — not a circular, fallacious weakness. Alternatively, if a philosophy started with assumptions, it could not last as a philosophy. Assumptions don’t fit in the scientific model.

    However, theistic models of morality are pinned to assumptions. Assumptions that a human can know the mind, the intentions, the benevolence of a god. Assumptions that a god could care about a species on a small planet, in a small solar system, in a small galaxy, in an enormous universe. Assumptions that a god can exist.

    Science continues to wreck the assumptions of theism. The relatively new science of evolutionary psychology is trampling the idea that Biblegod is relevant in establishing human morality. Not that there was any doubt from atheists, but evolutionary psychology is proving what atheists have long known.

    Maybe theism was a great vehicle for indoctrinating people into a morality, though as I have said endlessly in this thread, history shows otherwise.

    The deepest prejudices stem from theism, against women, homosexuals, and other “races”. Prejudices against nonhuman animals are almost entirely theistic. Theism carries its assumptions from centuries past into the present. Comparatively, science is pretty good — but not perfect — at abandoning its assumptions when they’re discovered.

    You are certainly free to choose a canon of assumptions and call it truth. I’ll take the scientific approach. John Stuart Mill’s thesis on Utilitarianism makes only one assumption, that “happiness” is “good”, and I am willing to adopt that sole assumption as I look to distinguish right from wrong.

    June 16, 2009
  1112. David, I think you have to separate theoretically provable facts about the physical world from other things. If an atheist says “there is no such thing as universal truth,” chances are awfully good she doesn’t mean verifiable physical facts, but rather moral/ethical/philosophical “truth”. Your point about sloppy reasoning is well taken if anyone is confusing the two, but I don’t know of anyone who is doing that in the way you describe.

    June 16, 2009
  1113. David Henson said:

    Paul, I think Newton was deeply religious (don’t have time to look up). But Newton’s laws were easy to verify again and again (and can be today). And where they are not applicable, at very small scales, they are not good science – precisely because they cannot predict outcomes.

    Models like evolution (historical) and global warming are theories based on observation but not testable as to validity. You might say they are “best guesses” – my point is simply that they are in fact “guesses.” As applied to origins, evolution is a “guess” filling a void we know is filled differently by every culture and religion – so I think it fair to apply extra skepticism and certainly not overplay the “scientific” basis.

    June 16, 2009
  1114. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Since you mention it … yes indeed, Newton was deeply religious — and he wrote even more on theology than he did on science. He was also, it seems, deeply into alchemy. Are these facts relevant to the present discussion?

    You say:

    Models like evolution (historical) and global warming are theories based on observation but not testable as to validity.

    Why do you say these theories are not testable? If evolutionary theory predicts that certain fossil forms should be found in rock strata of a certain age, and they turn up as expected — or don’t — this would be evidence for — or against — the proposed theory, no?

    Perhaps you mean that our lives are too short to directly observe new mammals evolving, or ice ages coming and going. That may be true in some sense (though we do see other organisms evolving all the time, like flu strains), but fortunately we have lots of alternatives to direct observation.

    And then:

    You might say they are “best guesses” – my point is simply that they are in fact “guesses.”

    True, but IMO irrelevant. “Guess” does nothave to mean “wild guess”. The whole point of science is to encourage guesses, but then to test them so ruthlessly that only the very best make the cut. And those few that do make the team are always vulnerable to being benched or thrown out as better guesses come along. Absolute certainty about the natural world is seldom if ever attainable.

    And this:

    As applied to origins, evolution is a “guess” filling a void we know is filled differently by every culture and religion – so I think it fair to apply extra skepticism and certainly not overplay the “scientific” basis.

    Yes, we should all “apply extra skepticism” (one might ask what “extra” means in this context … ) to any scientific theory. There are no free rides in science — not a bad definition of science, come to think of it. After 200 years of no-free-riding, evolutionary theory is still in some linguistic sense just a guess, but it’s a guess endorsed by virtually every scientist whose work really depends on an answer.

    If you mean that evolution is just another “cultural” or “religious” account of origins, on the same menu as Christian or Hindu or Kwakiutl creation stories, then I disagree completely.

    One problem is that evolution, at least of the Darwinian form, is not about origins at all, but about development from origins. More important to this discussion, evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief, and so it aims for a different kind of truth. Evolutionary theory is falsifiable by concrete evidence in ways religious theories (quite properly) are not.

    FWIW, I agree with the late Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion are different “magisteria” — they try to answer different questions.

    June 16, 2009
  1115. David Henson said:

    If you mean that evolution is just another “cultural” or “religious” account of origins, on the same menu as Christian or Hindu or Kwakiutl creation stories, then I disagree completely.

    then I disagree completely.

    The unwillingness to even consider that these “scientific” explanations (evolution, big bang, etc) are simply filling in unknowable voids just like the

    Christian or Hindu or Kwakiutl creation stories

    Or at the least being given much greater ‘scientific’ bona fides that they actually deserve. Well, it’s just not rational thinking.

    June 16, 2009
  1116. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    Different scientific theories (evolution, big bang, etc.) have different degrees of scientific credibility, and that’s OK — science is a process, not just a result.

    For evolutionary theory the “scientific bona fides” are overwhelming, and I see nothing “irrational” about saying so. Do you have well-founded, well-reasoned information to the contrary? If so, and if it’s new, scientists would like to know.

    June 16, 2009
  1117. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul: It’s a convenient position. Darwinian evolution has been debated for a few hundred years. Darwinian evolution from species-to-species takes thousands of years and in complex species, much longer. For example, the present-day human species has not significantly changed for 150,000 years are longer.

    So some people will always say there is no proof absolute because we have not seen species X evolve into species Y, and I suppose that’s only because we’ve been considering the question for only a few hundred years.

    The last great complaint I heard against evolution is that genetic information never increases, that is, a two-chromosome animal never becomes a four-chromosome animal. Even this last great complaint is easily snuffed because of humans with Downs Syndrome, an increase from the normal 46 chromosomes to 47.

    Evolutionary critics only succeed in criticism by attacking evolution on principle, that we haven’t witnessed species changing. Their criticisms on specific evolutionary problems never succeed.

    Yet even on this last point, you’re right in that we have seen viruses evolve. Their lifespan is short and they are physically simple enough not to need that thousands of years that larger species need. I have heard of Russian seals whose lake was cut off from the ocean. The land-locked seals, in mere hundreds of years, are now genetically different from the oceanic seals. We all know that breeding a horse and a donkey creates a mule, an animal that is neither horse nor donkey. And perhaps most interestingly, the Eastern Gray Wolf, over thousands of years and with human intervention, has evolved into hundreds of species of dogs.

    It’s a case of people concluding before analyzing. The natural world is full of evidence of evolution if people view it without conclusions.

    June 16, 2009
  1118. David Ludescher said:

    Penny (696): I always appreciate hearing from you with your fresh perspective.

    One reason to believe in a theist system (even if it can’t be proven true) is that there is a basis to develop a moral system. If there is no such thing as a moral truth, then all talk of morality is at best, personal opinion, and at worst, idle chatter. Human rights are not rights if those rights depend upon the government in power.

    Science operates on the principle that the world is ultimately rational and capable of being understood so that its assertions can be proven. Morality is no different. If a moral assertion is to mean anything, it must be capable of a rational explanation that is based upon something other than personal opinion.

    The good news about morality is that we don’t have to search for data like we do in science. We have thousands of years of data, called experience. All we have to do is to organize the data in a consistent and universal manner so that the concept matches the experience.

    June 16, 2009
  1119. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: You wrote,

    If there is no such thing as a moral truth, then all talk of morality is at best, personal opinion, and at worst, idle chatter. … If a moral assertion is to mean anything, it must be capable of a rational explanation that is based upon something other than personal opinion.

    Why do you immediately dismiss human personal opinion, but you immediately accept nonhuman personal opinion? What is Biblegod’s rational explanation of the Ten Commandments?

    What is irrational about Utilitarianism: “Maximize happiness.”

    June 16, 2009
  1120. David Henson said:

    Paul, there is continued confusion in society and here on this blog between “Natural Selection” and “Evolution.” Selective breeding was well understood 1000s of years before Darwin. Darwin posited, the very elegant idea, that nature (or the environment) also effectively selected biological traits. I do not think anyone would dispute this claim. Darwin had no knowledge of genetics or DNA. His knowledge of “species” was strictly phenotypical and anatomical. Even today, and this alone makes the concept of evolution much less specific than Newtonian physics, the definition of “species” itself is very nonspecific. One general principal of species, is you are outside the species when animals cannot breed. Within a species, such as “dog”, you can breed for many traits that are already in the code. But you cannot breed a dog with an elephant trunk because trunks are not in the dog’s code.

    Evolution from one species to another (evolution which has as wildly divergent definitions [within science] as ‘species’) requires the code somehow gets remixed or ‘mutates’ (so you get a dog with a trunk or such). Now “mutations” could explain how new species come about, assuming they occur, and that the mutation is heritable, and animal survives, and the animal is not sterile and that the animal can breed back into the population. But there is no scientific agreement on how mutation occurs. Mutation cannot be show in nature.

    So we are left with options:
    1) Biological entities (or the code) have always existed
    2) Biological entities (or the code) were designed by some intelligent being
    3) Biological entities (or the code) were designed by chance events from inorganic elements
    4) Our perception of material and biological may just be a perception of energy not yet understood

    1A), 2A) or 3A) the code is differentiated and fixed
    1B), 2B) or 3B) the code mutates and “evolves”

    Personally, I don’t get my undies in a bunch over the issue of ‘God’ vs ‘chance’ as it seems more semantics than reality. Which ever concept one deems “true” or “false” these are both placeholder concepts for unknowns. The dogmatic adherence to Newton’s laws seems, to me, like science – not because his models are “true” but because they can be used to predict outcomes. The dogmatic adherence to 2 or 3 above seems,to me, like religion.

    June 16, 2009
  1121. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: So there is no confusion, “Natural Selection” is a type of evolution, or more specifically, a mechanism of evolution. Other types are artificial selection, preferential selection (selection based on aesthetics, like beauty), and good or bad luck (selection based on chance opportunity, like not having your thriving community wiped out by a forest fire, or a forest fire wiping out your competitors).

    Mutation is shown in nature innumerable times, so I don’t know what you mean by “Mutation cannot be show in nature.” If you study birth deformities, you’ll also be studying mutations that happen in nature.

    June 17, 2009
  1122. David Henson said:

    Jerry, “selection” has nothing to do with species evolution UNLESS you except that mutations occur and then are ‘selected’ based on the viability of a new expression (this is the part of evolution that is somewhere between wrong and not at all understood).

    If I give 1,000,000 people a roadmap to Faribault and 1 ends up in Red Wing then the person in Red Wing just did not follow the map instructions correctly. The map itself has not changed. That is analogous to a birth defect. The expression is not going to be duplicated without a new map.

    “Mutations” are a viable explanation for species differentiation (not, mind you, for biology development from inorganic material). They used to say radiation caused mutations. Now, I think, viruses and retroviruses, is a popular idea for mutations. “God” is also a viable explanation for species differentiation. I do not think the differences between these ideas are all that great since neither can now be shown with scientific (predictive) proof. You have to “believe.”

    June 17, 2009
  1123. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Religion, Christianity, and particular belief systems, such as Catholicism have come under increasing attacks recently. An honest atheistic appraisal would have to admit that most of the attacks are simply political rhetoric without intellectual foundation (which is fair, but not very rational).

    For example, the gay marriage question is often framed as a question of the bigots against the enlightened. But, honestly, the only good intellectual discussions that I have seen on this topic are amongst religious leaders.

    June 17, 2009
  1124. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: We have immense disagreement on mutation.

    We know that radiation causes mutation. Ask the survivors of Hiroshima. Gamma radiation is very effective at changing DNA.

    We know that environmental factors cause mutation. This is what makes asbestos dangerous to humans. In fact, all carcinogens are chemicals that alter DNA, and the altered DNA causes cancer.

    We know that DNA replications are almost always perfect, but sometimes mistakes are made. A DNA mistake in one cell of a three-trillion-cell adult is unlikely to cause problems, but a DNA mistake in a sperm, ovum, or zygote will affect the entire organism.

    Therefore, if you give 3,000,000,000 people a road map to Faribault and 1 ends up in Red Wing, we agree that the one person won’t matter. But if you give 1 person a road map to Faribault and he ends up in Red Wing, then she goes on to make 3,000,000,000 people in Red Wing, you’ll have an entirely different result.

    I think you need to work on your metaphors.

    Why you factor Biblegod (or any other god) into this is really up to you, but do you really think that the Mighty Thunderer specifically mutates DNA to cause cancer?

    June 17, 2009
  1125. Paul Zorn said:

    David H:

    You say (some stuff snipped):

    “Mutations” are a viable explanation for species differentiation … . “God” is also a viable explanation for species differentiation.

    The “God” explanation, however “viable” for believers, is not a scientific explanation by any reasonable definition of science. For one thing, “God” in the sense you use could explain any phenomenon: why the sky is blue, why the stars shine, why the ivy twines, etc. For another thing, to say that “God” is involved in specific phenomena is not falsifiable, in the scientific sense, by any accumulation of evidence. The presence (or absence, for that matter) of “God” in natural phenomena is not a scientific question.

    And then:

    I do not think the differences between [“God” and mutation] are all that great since neither can now be shown with scientific (predictive) proof.

    I couldn’t disagree more. The scientific evidence for mutation is overwhelming, and can be seen all around us. True, the presence (or absence) of “God” can’t be proved scientifically, but that’s just because whatever “God” may be, he/she/it/ isn’t an entity amenable to scientific study.

    June 17, 2009
  1126. David Henson said:

    Jerry & Paul,I assume you agree that because you and I can go out and test together Newtons laws of gravity and predict outcomes over and over again that this “science” is on much firmer ground the your gyrations between aesbestos, dog breeding and Russian seals. The fact is you say mutations (not mutations caused by smashing a cell with a hammer) (but mutations that can survive and replicate in nature) are every where, then by all means point them out specifically and show valid predictions, not made from hindsight, that were deduced from a mutation “model.”

    June 17, 2009
  1127. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Expose humans to radiation and you’ll see a common, predictable, class of events caused by DNA mutation.

    The problem with your test is that biology is more complicated than gravity. When cells mutate, most often the mutations have no effect (they do not translate into proteins) or the mutated DNA is later corrected by the cell. Further, as I said, mutations that occur long after conception generally have no effect on the animal.

    So the mutations you seek to test and isolate are often fixed by the organism or they are too difficult to locate. If we examined your 3,000,000,000 cells (a process that would take 5700 years if each cell could be examined in one minute), you’d see how many of your own cells mutated. It seems to me that you are complaining because the gravity is easy to predict, and mutations are difficult. Difficult to predict, because of auto-correcting cells, because of the sheer number of cells, does not invalidate the effect that mutation has on evolution.

    Humans have caused mutations in fruit flies that result in predictable anatomical changes. If mutations happen naturally at a slow rate, and human-accelerated mutations cause predictable outcomes, your argument falls flat.

    June 17, 2009
  1128. David Henson said:

    The scientific evidence for mutation is overwhelming, and can be seen all around us.

    So the mutations you seek to test and isolate are often fixed by the organism or they are too difficult to locate. If we examined your 3,000,000,000 cells (a process that would take 5700 years if each cell could be examined in one minute), you’d see how many of your own cells mutated

    ….

    Yeah, do you believe in magic
    Yeah, believe in the magic of a young girl’s soul
    Believe in the magic of rock and roll
    Believe in the magic that can set you free
    Ohh, talking ’bout magic

    ….

    Guys, we will not agree. The arguments and evidence you offer are to wide spread and cobbled together for me to do anything more than scratch my head and say, “could be true.” And that is all any reasonable person could do. To dogmatically purport “the truth” of this, I think, one still has to be a believer.

    June 17, 2009
  1129. As I understand it, humans and guinea pigs have the same mutation (error) in the gene that allows most mammals to store Vitamin C. That mutation is visible upon DNA analysis. It’s clearly an detectable error in the code that other mammals have the properly-functioning version of, and it’s why we and guinea pigs both have the unique need for steady doses of Vitamin C in our diets for optimal health. That’s verifiable, not “cobbled-together.”

    June 17, 2009
  1130. Jerry Friedman said:

    Penny: I only disagree with losing the “vitamin C gene” as an error. As humans have a long history of eating vitamin-C-rich foods, mutations of the vitamin C gene did not harm humans. Therefore there was no error, if you mean error as a negative thing.

    Of course, if you’re on a long sea voyage, it might feel like an error.

    You may find it noteworthy that fruit-eating mammals don’t produce vitamin C. For example, cats make vitamin C but fruit-eating bats do not. Insect-eating bats, however, make their own vitamin C as well.

    June 17, 2009
  1131. I mean “error” in that if the little snippet of DNA sequence had not been reversed or scrambled or whatever it is that is evidenced by DNA analysis, we would have the same ability to make or store vitamin C as other mammals do. It’s an ability we could have but don’t because of a definable glitch in the code. If it made no difference at all, we wouldn’t consider it an error, but because we are aware of the dangers of vitamin C deficiency (scurvy) we can consider it an error rather than a deviation without consequence (of which I gather there are countless examples).

    I am not a biologist and I apologize for any errors or oversimplification in any of the above. When I first read about this identifiable snippet of garbled code and how it differs from the properly functional snippet of code in other mammals, I thought that was about as convincing a proof of evolution as I could ever want.

    June 17, 2009
  1132. Jerry Friedman said:

    Penny: I think you’re on the right track. My remark is that “error” carries with it a negative inference. I don’t think the negative inference belongs in this example. We lost our ability to manufacture ascorbic acid because our ancient ancestors ate abundant quantities of vitamin C from abundant fruits in their environment. Just like with gorillas and fruit-eating bats, that gene was no longer important, so mutations that knocked that gene out did not hurt the pre-human population. Over time, the whole population lost the ability to manufacture vitamin C.

    I’d argue that losing that ability was tied to gaining another ability. It doesn’t make sense that a vitamin C gene would disappear for no reason. It must have also caused some problem. With abundant fruits for food, the eliminating the problem along with the gene was better for survival.

    The reason why it sucks for humans now is because we’ve changed our diet from predominately frugivorious to very little fruit. Worse, for lengthy sea voyages, until vitamin C was discovered they ate even less fruit certainly for fear of spoilage.

    Back to my point: by losing the vitamin C gene, we lost the ability to make vitamin C and gained something else. If we ate like our ancestors have for the last 30,000,000 years or more, that wouldn’t matter. Only now, because we eat so little fruit, does it seem like an error. Actually, it’s not an error, just a change.

    If you meant “error” in a value-neutral sense, then yes it was an error. I only object to the negative inference used.

    June 17, 2009
  1133. Paul Zorn said:

    Hi, David H:

    Yes, we won’t agree on this. We seem to have different notions of what “belief” means in various contexts, and (as Walter Cronkite used to say) that’s the way it is.

    Your “citation” from the Lovin’ Spoonful, by the way, reminded me that I’m old enough to have enjoyed this song when it first came out, back in geological time. Another nice song on the same theme was I’m a Believer, by the Monkees. No word on whether the Monkees’ eponymous belief was that they might someday evolve into humans.

    June 18, 2009
  1134. Jerry Friedman said:

    The next issue of “Skeptic Magazine” has the cover story: “The Greatest Story Ever Garbled,” by Tim Callahan, on Christian Origins. It’s not due out for a month or two, but for those interested, I’m sure it will be an excellent article regardless of your faith.

    It also has stories on Nonhuman Ape Language, and the Science of Love.

    http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/index.html

    June 18, 2009
  1135. David Ludescher said:

    Theology’s criticisms of science suffer the same infirmities as science’s criticisms of theology.

    June 19, 2009
  1136. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Not.

    June 19, 2009
  1137. Paul Zorn said:

    David:

    Re #707: If you mean that science and theology often talk past each other, then right on.

    I’d just quibble mildly with “suffer” and “infirmities”, which feel a bit too negative to me. That science and religion often communicate awkwardly seems to me a criticism, or “infirmity”, of neither. IMO science and religion quite properly address different questions, with different open questions, methods, language, metaphors, notions of evidence, etc. Nothing wrong with that.

    June 19, 2009
  1138. David Ludescher said:

    Paul: Yeah, what you said. Some public debates, such as the evolution v. creationism create the impression that the battle is between science and religion, and science clearly wins. That is only true in the scientific arena.

    When science tries to explain the spiritual development of man, it proves itself incompetent. The story of Adam and Eve does a much better job of explaining the introduction of moral evil into the world than science could ever hope to achieve.

    June 19, 2009
  1139. Paul Zorn said:

    David L:

    I’m glad we’ve found some terrain of agreement. Just to be clear, though, I’d say that the evolution vs. creationism debate is indeed between science and religion, and that evolution does indeed clearly win in the scientific arena. For scientists that should be just fine … the scientific arena is where they do their thing.

    I agree, too, that science has little to say, qua science, about “spiritual development” and the “introduction of moral evil into the world”. That’s not a failing of science or scientists, just a reflection of the fact that these subjects are not in the realm of science. (By the way, do scientists actually pronounce on these subjects, speaking as scientists? I don’t remember hearing any.)

    Granted, Adam and Eve have more to say about moral evil than do, say, physics and chemistry, which are not so much wrong as mute on such matters. Whether Adam and Eve offer better lessons about moral evil than, say, Norse or Hindu mythology seems to me a more interesting question. I haven’t the slightest idea.

    June 19, 2009
  1140. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: So long as theism stays entirely within the bounds of faith, I concur, science has no instruments to determine truth or falsity. How often does theism stay out of science?

    Whenever theism steps outside of faith, theism becomes subject to all the instruments of science. This is why theism once claimed things such as ‘creation’ and ‘evolution’ for its own, but it’s had to give them up.

    You may want to read Andrew White’s “A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom” to learn how many times Christianity has retreated. And if you give particular deference to lawyers, know that White was an LL.D. — which means he was a real doctor of law. (American lawyers call themselves “J.D.” or juris doctor, which is really a bachelor’s law degree but American lawyers call it a doctor’s degree anyway.)

    June 19, 2009
  1141. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul: I consider philosophy to be the science of wisdom, although I recognize that my definition is not widely accepted. Nonetheless, I am certain that the science of psychology has a lot to say about the science of “good” and “evil”.

    Also, scientist Michael Shermer wrote “The Science of Good and Evil”.

    http://www.michaelshermer.com/science-good-evil/

    Contrary to David’s claims, morality is very much within the domain of science. Only faith is not.

    June 19, 2009
  1142. David Ludescher said:

    Paul: We are in agreement. Creationism as a scientific theory fails as a scientific theory, but it has merit as a theological theory.

    And, yes some scientists do pronounce on theology, i.e. the God Delusion. Scientists, as a whole, are not the most competent individuals on theological, or even philosophical questions.

    June 19, 2009
  1143. Peter Waskiw said:

    David:
    You stated that “….story of Adam and Eve does a much better job of explaining the introduction of moral evil into the world than science could ever hope to achieve”….how so?

    What actually was the “introduction” of “moral” evil? In your argument, can evil be ever described in terms of moral? So I am intrigued that you use this “story” to describe the spiritual development of man. Was not man already made in the “image of God”?

    June 20, 2009
  1144. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: If you’d suffer my answer, the story of Adam and Eve is about how a perfect, moral being, Biblegod, brings two children into existence, then promptly punishes them and all of their descendants for the female being disobedient, having taken instruction from a walking, talking snake.

    You can see how the Bible explains the introduction of “moral evil” — Bible writers and editors valued obedience over all and women under all. Therefore, to be human is to be evil, to be female is to be evil, and being a female human does not mean two wrongs make a right.

    June 21, 2009
  1145. Peter Waskiw said:

    thank you Jerry, I do understand your point and mnay have made that extension that “bible writers…valued obedience over all and women under all.”

    But David…., does this make sense to you…that “God” promptly punishes them and all of their descendants for the female being disobedient? Only after of Eve “having taken instruction from a walking(?), talking snake?

    Perhaps I can rephrase my question for David. What actually was the “introduction” of “moral” evil? What moral question was raised?

    In your mind and beliefs… what actually is the “spiritual development of man” if man (as Adam) was already made in the “image” of God?

    June 21, 2009
  1146. Paul Zorn said:

    Jerry,

    True, science sometimes has things to say about morality and even faith. Social scientist might study, for instance, why certain religions are more popular under certain circumstances. Or a cognitive neuroscientist could study how prayer or other religious experiences appear on an EEG, or interact with other brain functions. Or a psychologist could consider how religious faith functions as part of personality, or even how various faiths compare with each other in conferring perceived benefits for their adherents.

    Conversely (here I’m kinding guessing … way out of my zone …), priests and ministers might have religious things to say about science, like “the Heavens declare the glory of God”, or “adherents of religion X should stay away from science Y”. Scientists may agree or disagree, but their scientist-hood doesn’t give them any special standing.

    June 21, 2009
  1147. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul: The trouble I have, you could guess, is the assertion that thinkers, philosophers, scientists, etc., cannot make learned judgments on some aspect of the human experience. I’m not arguing for “special standing” to evaluate ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ but they have standing. We all do. I don’t need a deity to tell me that rape is wrong. David L. doesn’t need a deity to tell him that murder is wrong. These moral judgments are entirely within the capacity of humans to evaluate.

    Biblegod is irrelevant to humans discovering the difference between right and wrong. Based on history, Biblegod is dangerous.

    I don’t need to argue for special standing.

    June 21, 2009
  1148. Paul Zorn said:

    Jerry:

    I think we agree more than we disagree here …

    I’m by no means asserting “that thinkers, philosophers, scientists, etc., cannot make learned judgments on some aspect of the human experience.” As you say, we all have standing and capacity as humans to discuss what’s right or wrong. It’s seldom rocket science.

    My point is simply that questions, including ones surrounding good and evil, can be approached from different perspectives. I’m not suggesting that rape and murder or other clear horrors can somehow be rationalized or made OK from any perspective. I am saying is that if one wants to make science-based arguments for, say, young-earth creationism (or against that theory, for that matter), then one should expect to be held to standards of evidence and measurement and argument that are accepted in the field in question.

    June 22, 2009
  1149. Jerry Friedman said:

    Paul: I think we agree entirely. Your writings are very neutral and gentle, or should I say, scientific. In my writings, I’ve been more critical of theist “logic”.

    I think that scientists (and other thinkers) can analyze what is good and evil, as well as why it is good and evil. It doesn’t take a deity to figure it out.

    As King Darius said, culture will still play a role. On some matters, one culture may deem it moral to cremate the deceased, another may bury them, and they may view the other with shock at how they treat their dead. Some morals are not even close to absolute, and scientists will have the most difficulty in rationalizing these if they even bother. As for the rest, murder, rape, battery (sometimes called assault), theft, lying, theists have no special standing.

    June 22, 2009
  1150. David Ludescher said:

    Paul and Jerry: By the same logic, if one is going to make faith-based arguments on topics of morality, those arguments need to be held to the same standard as are generally considered acceptable within that field.

    When you or I have a moral opinion, we must be willing subject our opinion to the scrutiny of theology (the science of God). As an example, if I hold the opinion that murder is wrong, I still must be able to deal with the difficult cases of when war is justified, if abortion should be permitted, and if capital punishment should be allowed. Theologians can offer great insights into these questions because that is their skill set.

    June 23, 2009
  1151. Paul Zorn said:

    David L:

    You said:

    … [I]f one is going to make faith-based arguments on topics of morality, those arguments need to be held to the same standard as are generally considered acceptable within that field.

    Agreed.

    Then you said:

    When you or I have a moral opinion, we must be willing [to] subject our opinion to the scrutiny of theology (the science of God).

    Not sure I’m with you here. For one thing, I’m not sure I get the phrase “science of God”, whether or not advanced as a definition of theology. For another, you seem to be identifying moral philosophy with theology, or at least considering the former as a subset of the latter. Do you mean to that the God-less are immoral, or a-moral?

    And then:

    Theologians can offer great insights into [moral] questions because that is their skill set.

    Having descended (in more ways than one, perhaps) from a long line of theologians I’m inclined to agree with any praise of that skilled and learned group. But do theologians have a corner on the moral questions market?

    June 23, 2009
  1152. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Like Paul Z., I’ll bite.

    First, what is irrational about Utilitarianism? I asked you once before.

    You wrote, “if one is going to make faith-based arguments on topics of morality, those arguments need to be held to the same standard as are generally considered acceptable within that field.” What is the acceptable standard of faith-based arguments?

    You said, “When you or I have a moral opinion, we must be willing subject our opinion to the scrutiny of theology (the science of God).” Calling ‘theology’ the science of god must mean that god is measurable by scientific instruments. Did you really mean to say that? Are you therefore claiming that theologians are scientists?

    Why must I let theologians scrutinize it? What special qualifications does that lot of irrational and disagreeable people have? Why are they any better at distinguishing right from wrong than professional philosophers, police officers, or school teachers?

    You wrote, “Theologians can offer great insights into these questions because that is their skill set.”

    If I have a moral opinion, such as “turning women into salt for being disobedient is immoral,” I am quite willing to let anyone — including theologians — scrutinize it. However, like any science, I’d like to understand the logic behind it. So will the theologian be able to explain to me why it is moral or immoral to turn disobedient women into salt? Can you recommend a theologian for me and I can get started?

    If murder is intrinsically evil, will the theologian be able to explain to me, in scientific terms, why Biblegod is relevant to morality?

    June 23, 2009
  1153. David Ludescher said:

    Guys: First, I do not mean to suggest that atheists cannot or are not moral. I am of the firm conviction that the capacity to be moral is not dependent upon intelligence, nor upon a belief in God. There are plenty of stories in the Bible warning people that belief alone is worthless.

    While theologians and/or moral philosophers don’t have a corner on the market of moral truth, they generally have the ability to make informed judgments on the validity of particular moral positions. For example, when the United States invaded Iraq, Pope John Paul II stated that the invasion failed to meet the Catholic standard for a just war. Thus, the war was/is immoral.

    His statement was a proclamation of the faith that was developed over many centuries of study and experience. I think that just about everyone, including Congress, knew in his or her gut that the war was immoral, even though it was supported by about 3/4 ths of Congress and the people. The Pope could explain it in rational terms and solid arguments – gravity of the offense, alternatives to war, self-protection, love of neighbor, forgiveness, and all kinds of philosophical and religious arguments.

    So, there was a “science” or logic behind these moral arguments. His were arguments of universal moral judgments, not just Catholic judgments. You didn’t have to be a believer in God to come to the same conclusions as the Pope. However, to deny that he had a superior ability to explain why the war was wrong is to deny that morality has a rationality.

    June 23, 2009
  1154. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I am more agreeable to what you said here than in your recent post about theologians being scientists of god.

    I still wonder what gives any pope better standing over morality/moral judgments than professional philosophers, police officers or school teachers. I’m not asking about any pope in particular, but rather the office of “pope” or profession of “theologian”. Why does a pope get imbued with more moral credibility than the next guy?

    (If you want to talk about specific popes, be prepared for the long, unsavory, and embarrassing history of popes. So many of them have been such, uh, characters.)

    June 23, 2009
  1155. Patrick Enders said:

    David L, you wrote:

    So, there was a “science” or logic behind these moral arguments.

    David, science is not equivalent to logic. Science is defined by the Scientific Method.

    Per Wikipedia:

    To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    I’ve taken more than my fair share of theology courses, and known a few professional theologians. I’ve yet to meet a theologian who tested hypotheses through systematic observation, experimentation, and data collection.

    June 23, 2009
  1156. Patrick Enders said:

    David L, you wrote:

    So, there was a “science” or logic behind these moral arguments.

    David, science is not equivalent to logic. Science is defined by the Scientific Method.

    Per Wikipedia:

    To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

    I’ve taken more than my fair share of theology courses, and known a few professional theologians. I’ve yet to meet a theologian who tested hypotheses through systematic observation, experimentation, and data collection.

    June 23, 2009
  1157. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Below is one summary of papal crimes. So again I ask, what exactly is it about the office of “pope” that gives a person any greater understanding of morality?

    http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c7.htm

    Some highlights:

    ST. GREGORY THE GREAT (590-604). According to Gibbon, this pontiff was “a singular mixture of simplicity and cunning, of pride and humility, of sense and superstition.” [124:3] Jortin’s picture is still less flattering:

    "Pope Gregory the Great was remarkable for many things -- for exalting his own authority; for running down human learning [125:4] and polite literature; for burning classic authors; for patronising ignorance and stupidity; for persecuting heretics; for flattering the most execrable princes; and for relating a multitude of absurd, monstrous and ridiculous lies, called miracles. He was an ambitious, insolent prelate, under the mask of humility." [125:5]

    THEODORUS (642-49). He commenced the custom of dipping his pen in consecrated wine when signing the condemnation of heretics, [126:8] thus sanctifying murder with the blood of Christ.

    BENEDICT VIII (1012-24). He saved the city of Rome from a great storm, which it seems was caused by some Jews. The Jews being immediately executed the storm ceased.

    ADRIAN IV (1154-59). The only Englishman who ever became pope. He caused Arnold of Brescia to be burnt at the stake (1154) for preaching against papal corruption. The Irish should remember that it was this pope who, in virtue of the pretended Donation of Constantine, made over to Henry II of England the right to take and govern Ireland on condition of the pope receiving an annual tribute of one penny for each house. [132:6]

    BONIFACE VIII (1294-1303). He had his predecessor, Celestine, put in prison, where he died. [133:2] He openly styled himself “King of Kings,” trafficked in indulgences, and declared all excluded from heaven who disputed his claim to universal dominion. He persecuted the Ghibellines, and ordered the city of Bragneste to be entirely destroyed. He was publicly accused of simony, assassination, usury, of living in concubinage with his two nieces and having children by them, and of using the money received for indulgences to pay the Saracens for invading Italy. [133:3]

    And again, I ask you what is irrational about Utilitarianism.

    June 24, 2009
  1158. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry et al: My main point is that the study of theology and religion is a highly disciplined study. Many in today’s society try to paint theists as unscientific and therefore that their opinions are not credible.

    However, each person and the world is in need of a system to deal with those issues that science cannot solve. For example, science cannot make any credible statement on the meaning of life.

    June 24, 2009
  1159. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: You wrote, “My main point is that the study of theology and religion is a highly disciplined study. Many in today’s society try to paint theists as unscientific and therefore that their opinions are not credible.”

    I don’t consider a scientists or theologian per se authorities on morality. Some of them may happen to be, but not because of their profession. Pope John Paul II did not condemn the Iraq war because he happened to be pope, but because he exercised his moral judgment and concluded it deserved condemnation. How is his judgment any better or worse than Dennis Kucinich’s, who also condemned the war from day one? Kucinich is not a pope, and I don’t believe that he’s particularly religious.

    You keep claiming that theists, or theologians, have some special claim to understanding morality. I have not seen that claim demonstrated by reasoning nor history. Remember, atheists per capita are under-represented in prisons. My review of popes show that some of them are normal people, and many of them are power-crazed maniacs. None seem to have moral reasoning superior to other normal people.

    There is another class of persons whom you overlook, professional philosophers, who have all the motivations of discovering right from wrong but none of the corruptions of power. Without that corruption incentive, aren’t they a better source?

    There is another class of persons you overlook, the police officers and school teachers, who experience life ‘on the streets’ and have a perspective not shared by theologians in their ivory towers. Where does their perspective come in, or do only the theologians get to decide what’s moral?

    So I don’t know why you claim that theologians or popes have a special claim to understanding morality. I haven’t read your reasoning; and history shows otherwise.

    Otherwise, we agree that the “point” of science isn’t really to answer questions of art, such as the meaning of life. Scientists seek answers to science. Sometimes there is a cross-over, and in those instances scientists will apply science to art. In this sense, evolutionary biologists help explain morality by applying science to art.

    I understand that your religion leads you to popes for “the meaning of life” and that’s certainly well within your right to seek these answers from them, from a book, or from other sources. What I have been asking is why your chosen source, the Roman Catholic Church, is demonstrably better than any other source.

    The Desiderata, a poem, explains more about morality in one page than the Bible explains in one thousand. I’d wager that someone who follows the tenets of the Desiderata is more likely to be a moral person than someone who follows the tenets of the Bible.

    Finally, some scientists have taken moral positions. Einstein condemns war and patriotism. Oppenheimer was knowingly instrumental in building the most destructive weapon ever. Sagan wrote about meeting extra-terrestrial life. Scientists, as a class, have no special claim to morality, but many have applied their scientific minds to discussing it. Similarly, theologians have no special claim to morality. Reviewing the adultery, incest, murder, and avarice by popes, their role in Inquisitions and Crusades, et al., helps to prove it.

    June 24, 2009
  1160. Patrick Enders said:

    For those interested in hypocrisy:

    MSNBC is currently showing the SC Gov. Sanford’s apologies after being caught flying back from a tryst in Argentina.

    He just went on for a bit about ‘God’s law’ and how there are moral absolutes. Strangely, his belief in God-given moral absolutes hasn’t seemed to have had much positive impact upon his actions.

    On the bright side, however, his faith does seem to have allowed him to ask for forgiveness immediately after the fact.

    June 24, 2009
  1161. Patrick Enders said:

    Actually, he might not be quite as hypocritical as I at first thought. It’s a little hard to do much digging on him via Google right now with all the hits from the last week, but at least in a quick perusal of his online record, I didn’t find any denunciations of others for their sins.

    Rather, at first blush he seems to come from more of the libertarian/free market side of the party.

    Good for him. Unfortunately, his chance of realizing any national aspirations appears to have just taken a serious hit.

    June 24, 2009
  1162. Britt Ackerman said:

    This is a tangent, but I find it interesting. Discuss.

    June 24, 2009
  1163. Curt Benson said:

    Yes, this is a tangent of a tangent of a tangent. I am amused by the Gov’s office’s explanation for where Sanford was. He was was “hiking the Appalachian Trail”. I’d like to predict that “hiking the Appalachian Trail” will become the euphemism of the year. (and why can’t I stop thinking about Charo?)

    June 24, 2009
  1164. Jerry Friedman said:

    WWJD? I wouldn’t think that Yeshua would get into debt in the first place.

    June 24, 2009
  1165. Anthony Pierre said:

    is religion an excuse to do bad things now? you can be forgiven right away for anything you do!

    DO YOU HEAR THAT BRITT????

    June 24, 2009
  1166. Patrick Enders said:

    A couple qualifiers on that:
    1) Sanford on Clinton’s affair:

    “The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]

    He then voted to impeach Clinton.

    2) He is opposed to same-sex marriage because,

    “As Jenny and I are the parents of four little boys, we’ve always taught our kids that marriage was something between a man and a woman.” [The Post and Courier, 2/11/04]

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sanford-affair/

    Somehow, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more out there. So yes, as I said the first time, “hypocrisy.”

    June 24, 2009
  1167. Curt Benson said:

    Patrick, I would like to know exactly by whom and how the “Hiking the Appalachian Trail” phrase was invented. Couldn’t any middle schooler from the far left end of the bell curve do better than that? I’m reminded of “Fawlty Towers” when Basil would get caught in some jam of his own making, and he’d confabulate an increasingly implausible series of stories to placate his lovely Cybil.

    I guess a flummoxed staffer was pressed as to the Gov’s whereabouts and he glanced at his desk only to see a a copy of Bill Bryson’s “A Walk in the Woods”. OK, that sucks as an explanation, but let’s see you do better…

    June 24, 2009
  1168. David Ludescher said:

    Britt: What part do you find interesting?

    June 24, 2009
  1169. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I am not suggesting that any religious leader has a special claim to morality. What most of them can lay claim to is an understanding of the science/art of morality.

    For example, the ECLA is debating the issue of gay clergy. While the issue has generally been divided along liberal/conservative lines, the intellectual issues are quite challenging, and do not divide themselves into liberal or conservative. Rather, the issue divides itself into well-reasoned and personal opinion.

    We would never accept, “That is my opinion” when it came to scientific analysis; yet many people seem to have the opinion that all moral positions are equally valid. When the ECLA meets as a deliberative body to determine the tenets of the faith, it does not do so with the intent of suppressing gays, or trying to exclude them from worship. It does so to inform its people of the truth.

    June 24, 2009
  1170. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Either I’ve been misunderstanding your position or you’ve been adding more clarity to it.

    You have said that scientists are incompetent at explaining the spiritual development of [hu]man[s], and I showed you that some scientists exhibit competence in that area, such as evolutionary biologists, psychologists, and neurologists.

    You have said that, “Theologians can offer great insights into [moral] questions because that is their skill set,” implying they have a superior understanding of morality compared to lay people, but then you just wrote, “I am not suggesting that any religious leader has a special claim to morality.”

    If we agree that theologians are not specially qualified as ethicists, by virtue of being a theologian, then we can let that topic rest.

    Otherwise, you then state, “We would never accept, ‘That is my opinion’ when it came to scientific analysis; yet many people seem to have the opinion that all moral positions are equally valid.” I don’t know of any person who holds the opinion that all moral positions are equally valid. Nonetheless, I would like for moral questions to be answered in a more scientific method, which is what philosophers attempt to do. I don’t believe that theologians, as a class, attempt such an approach, something that Patrick recently remarked upon. Most theologians I’ve met, with notable exceptions, cite a convenient verse without thinking about it. Such practice is not moral reasoning, and to think of the monopoly some theologians claim on morality. What if the entire history of popes employed the scientific method in their policies … maybe Jews would not have been killed to stop a terrible storm.

    June 24, 2009
  1171. Patrick Enders said:

    David, Your answer 710.15, above, again ascribes special insight to theologians such as the “deliberative body” of the ELCA. However, you have again failed to explain how either the people who belong to the ELCA are somehow more “well-reasoned” than others, or how the deliberative process used by the ELCA somehow makes their conclusions more morally valid than anyone else’s.

    Scientists have the scientific method as a standard for how they conduct their scientific work. What reasoning method does the ELCA use that guarantees that their conclusions will be pure moral “Truth,” and not just a detailed rationalization justifying their own preexisting personal opinions?

    June 24, 2009
  1172. David Ludescher said:

    Guys: When we are sick, we hire a doctor. When our doctor’s pipes break, she hires a plumber. The reason – when it comes to plumbing, the plumber is smarter and/or more skilled than the doctor, and the doctor knows it.

    The person who hires the doctor or the plumber knows what the problem is because they have all of the data. But, they often lack the ability to formulate the hypothesis from all of the available data.

    Theologians can be of great value even for atheists. They can help understand what is meant by “God” “Yahweh” or “Allah”. They can lend clarity to why men have felt the need to worship something or someone greater than ourselves. They can lend rationality to the study of faith. They can explain why belief in God may be the most rational approach to life.

    Theologians have great value to humanity as a whole when they help us merge cultures away from the undifferentiated individualistic pluralism of America and into the one body of humanity. They can help us move away from the religion of David, Patrick, and Jerry, and into a system of beliefs that holds true for all people in all times.

    For example, theologians can help America understand why the attempt to institute American ideals such as democracy and equality of women is doomed to failure without reference to the Islamic culture. It is a task that cannot be entrusted to those unskilled in understanding or wanting to understand the theistic Islamic culture.

    June 25, 2009
  1173. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    You say that Theologians are superior moral thinkers – but you do not explain what traits, methods, or standards are in place to define their superiority in moral reasoning.

    Physicians and mechanics are held to defined standards and expectations. We/they are (hopefully skilled) technicians trained in a field of technical expertise. We are (to evolving/varying degrees) trained to meet certain levels of knowledge and skill in defined areas, and held to defined standards established variously by our peers, our professional societies, and the legal system. Those practice guidelines are also (periodically and ideally systematically/continuously) tested through the application of the scientific method, to determine whether or not accepted or new treatments are most effective.

    The reason that people might choose to trust my opinion on medical problems is to some extent based upon the fact that I meet those defined standards, and that I promise to keep up on the evolving scientific research relevant to my practice, and to practice my technical skill according to those tested standards as best as possible.

    What similar defined standards and methods do theologians have that ordinary thinking persons do not? How do these theologians test their hypotheses? How do they review their opinions and recommendations to prove that they have the best available answer to a question? How are theologians judged, to measure that they are meeting the standards of their field? What, in short, makes theologians better moralists than any other self-appointed philosopher?

    June 25, 2009
  1174. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: It’s getting to be rude when you ask questions and others answer, but when others ask questions, you do not.

    Peter Waskiw asked twice,

    What actually was the “introduction” of “moral” evil? In your argument, can evil be ever described in terms of moral? So I am intrigued that you use this “story” to describe the spiritual development of man. Was not man already made in the “image of God”?

    Twice you did not answer. Patrick has asked about the qualifications of theologians for anything outside of theology. I asked you three times about what makes Utilitarianism irrational, and I am waiting for your answer. You continue to ask questions like a trial lawyer before a jury, as trial lawyers do not answer questions — they only ask. Could you please be more keen in being part of the discussion rather than just promote your case?

    You wrote, “[Theologians] can help understand what is meant by ‘God’ ‘Yahweh’ or ‘Allah’.

    This is not correct. Theologians don’t know what is meant by god, Yahweh or Allah, except what others — who also didn’t know what is meant — have written in ancient manuscripts. In the same way, Scientologists can’t help anyone better understand what Xenu and the Galactic Confederacy mean, because they don’t know what fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard meant.

    “They can lend clarity to why men have felt the need to worship something or someone greater than ourselves.”

    To the extent that theologians are psychologists and philosophers, I agree, and so can non-theo’ psychologists and philosophers. Theologians have no special skills here.

    “They can lend rationality to the study of faith.”

    Faith is by definition irrational. There can be no rational study of the irrational.

    “They can explain why belief in God may be the most rational approach to life.”

    Theologians may seem like the only people who can explain why surrendering to the irrational is a rational approach to life, but again, this appeals to psychology and philosophy, not theology.

    Theologians only serve to interpret theology. As Patrick has been asking, without a rational standard (which you asserted but have not explained), there is no method to determine which theologian is correct. No one can determine if William Craig, Joseph Ratzinger, Charles Manson, L. Ron Hubbard, Moses, or the Church Lady, know what they’re talking about. There is no standard of knowledge, evidence or proof. They defy rationalism. Therefore, among the irrational, everything has equal value. No wonder why there is such pluralism in the U.S., because everyone can make up their own religion and many people do. If there was a standard, there would be more agreement and fewer wars.

    June 25, 2009
  1175. Britt Ackerman said:

    David L:

    It’s interesting to me because the stated purpose of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is to prevent “abusive, deceptive, and unfair” debt collection practices.

    Section 806 specifically addresses harassment or abuse. I don’t see that WWJD fits the subsections of section 806 (stated violations), but violation of that section is not limited to the stated violations.

    So, it’s a matter of interpretation to determine if WWJD is “conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.”

    What makes this interesting, is that if a collector came after some of us (Anthony, Patrick, Jerry, myself) with a WWJD letter, we would not be harassed, oppressed, or abused by the invocation of the WWJD mantra. However, under the act it doesn’t matter how any particular debtor takes the moral lecture; it matters only what the debt collector’s intent was in stating WWJD.

    So, here is the interesting part. By invoking “what would Jesus do”, is the debt collector “engaging in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt?”

    Indisputably, the debt collector is invoking WWJD as a mechanism for attempting to collect the debt. So, is the “natural consequence” of WWJD such that the debt collector should have forseen its action as abusive?

    I think it could go both ways. And the legal analysis will rely upon analysis of what exactly the concept of WWJD means. And I think it means very different things to very different people.

    So, looks like this case isn’t going to get kicked at summary judgment, which means that the legal analysis will necessarily take on a theological role.

    Isn’t that cool?

    June 25, 2009
  1176. Jerry Friedman said:

    Curt: I think the staffer meant Sanford was “Hiking the Argentinian Trail.” The two words are easy to confuse, especially when one is trying to cover up wrongdoing.

    Now I want to know if Sanford, Gary Hart and Elliot Spitzer will open up a club for those who screw up their own presidential nominations.

    June 25, 2009
  1177. Curt Benson said:

    Jerry, add John Edwards and Teddy Kennedy to the club.

    At least Hart, Spitzer, Edwards and Kennedy kept their dalliances domestic. Sanford outsourced his. Where is the outrage?

    (-and the word “trail” is easy to confuse with the word “tail”)

    June 25, 2009
  1178. Jerry Friedman said:

    “Hiking the Argentinian Tail” — I’ll write that one down!

    June 25, 2009
  1179. Patrick Enders said:

    Britt,
    I think you’ve found a case where a theologian’s opinion might actually be of value on a point of law.

    You’re right – if I received a debt collection letter with “WWJD” on it, I’d find it quite funny. Still, I do gather that it is a saying that holds great value for some people. I agree that it might take a theologian to explain why this might constitute harassment.

    June 25, 2009
  1180. Patrick Enders said:

    Personally, my favorite part about this case is that the aggrieved party is another debt collector.

    The aggrieved is apparently: 1a) genuinely concerned about the negative light that this WWJD thing might have on his profession, AND/OR 1b) jealous that a competitor thought of a novel way of nagging people before he did.

    2) More importantly, the aggrieved debt collector* seems to have been behind on paying a debt.

    *: or someone who once lived in the house, or someone with a name kinda like his, or simply a mysterious person named “Terry,” or…

    June 25, 2009
  1181. Jerry Friedman said:

    Britt and Patrick: Won’t the debt collector’s particular religious belief be more relevant than an expert theologian’s testimony? If the debt collector is a Catholic or Quaker, the collector’s intentions may be very different. If the collector is Catholic and believes that the debtor is Catholic, I can see harassment, but if the collector believes the consumer is a Quaker, Jewish or Hindu, could there be harassment?

    Is there a method that theologians follow to clarify what an X-religion collector intends when collecting from a Y-religion debtor?

    I’m not suggesting that a court cannot handle this, but considering our other recent discussions, I don’t believe that theologians are scientific enough to give opinions consistent with other theologians, much less the parties in the case. There is no reason to believe that a Catholic expert could possibly know what a Catholic collector meant by WWJD; not all Catholics think alike.

    This is why my legal mentors have called court a theater… (or was that a circus?).

    June 25, 2009
  1182. Patrick Enders said:

    Jerry,
    The only reason that I’d think a theologian might be of use in this particular case is because the case was filed as a class action. I suppose it might be equally useful to line up a bunch of people who can testify to their own individual offense, but if one was looking for an expert witness, a theologian, a minister, or an anthropologist or sociologist might all be of some use.

    But you guys are the lawyers, so I’ll let you decide who would make good expert witnesses on such a matter.

    Truthfully, I’m more interested in the fun of watching one debt collector sue another. It might even mean that they’ll have to take a day or two off of work to testify.

    (Apologies to any kind, considerate, compassionate, and moral debt collectors who might be reading this.)

    June 25, 2009
  1183. David Ludescher said:

    Britt: Didn’t the judge clerk at that office once upon a time?

    June 25, 2009
  1184. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry (710): A belief is a form of incomplete knowledge. It is not irrational; it just lacks complete data to form a conviction, or a certainty.

    Theology is the study of belief; it looks at the rationality of faith. In the Catholic tradition, a moral judgment must go through three separate phases: first, one looks to Scripture for the sacred words. Next, one turns to those learned in the faith to see how Scripture has been interpreted, and what meanings have been derived. Lastly, one must make an informed individual decision of conscience based upon the facts in the particular case.

    This is almost identical to how justice is discerned. First, one looks to the actual law, then to how judges have interpreted the law, lastly, one has to make an informed decision about how the statutes and case law applies in the particular case. The lawyer is a fool if he thinks that he can make a good decision relying entirely upon his own judgment.

    Yet, I often hear the claim that one does not need to be informed by anything other than personal judgment to make a good decision.

    June 25, 2009
  1185. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: What is the difference between “belief” and “faith”? I agree, beliefs may be rational or irrational. My understanding of faith is that it’s always irrational, or at least, I have never seen faith explained in rational terms.

    I am chilled that you compare scriptural and legal analysis so similarly. There is no authentication of scripture. You take it on faith alone that it is authentic, or you realize that it is not authentic but you don’t care. The common law, statutory law and case law each have abundant sources of authentication.

    Further, lawyers have rational (albeit sometimes arbitrary) standards to prove themselves worthy of practicing law. What standards exist for theologians? Patrick and I want to know.

    June 25, 2009
  1186. Britt Ackerman said:

    David L: I don’t know if J. Erickson ever clerked for one of the debt collectors involved in this litigation. Not enough info on judgepedia to figure it out and I can’t find a CV on line either.

    Jerry F: I don’t think it matters what the religion of the debt collector is, because I don’t think the subjective intent of the collector is relevant. All that matters is that collector’s objective intent in invoking WWJD.

    Patrick E: I think that the best expert in this case might be a theologian, because a theologian is uniquely equipped to interpret the objective intent of the debt collector. I could foresee expert theologians in support of both sides of the issue.

    June 26, 2009
  1187. Peter Waskiw said:

    David,
    You state “…I often hear the claim that one does not need to be informed by anything other than personal judgment to make a good decision…..”,….I agree.

    It is very interesting that the Bible writer Paul explained the application of Jewish “law” within the context of “faith”. Without boring you to much, Paul told his fellow believers the “law” was a burden to them. He pointed out they took the law literally and become trapped by it, rather than seeing the principle behind the law.

    As an attorney, Paul reasoned with them just as an attorney would reason today, however, his objective was to explain that God “changed his mind” as to what constituted right and wrong and was using the law to make this argument.

    In his time, the authentication of scriptures came from its acceptance as “law”, so when faith based laws are used as a rational way to determine right and wrong or “Moral Judgments”, there is an implied acceptance of their belief structure.

    Going back to your point about “rationality of faith”, and “introduction of moral evil into the world”, starts with preposition……at some point there was no moral evil.

    So if we start with here with the story of Adam and Eve to explain the introduction of moral evil, we need to understand “what actually was the “introduction” of “moral” evil? Jerry explained his thoughts, and many have also reached this conclusion. So in your mind what was the “introduction”?.

    Please feel free to reply.

    June 26, 2009
  1188. David Ludescher said:

    Peter W. (710.10): I agree with your interpretation of the importance in differentiating between the law of the faith and the principle of the faith. In the legal field, it is referred to the “letter of the law” versus the “spirit of the law”.

    We are obligated to follow the letter of the law; but we should really try to follow the spirit. The law is really nothing more than an attempt at a moral code. Its guiding principle is justice. Doubts about justice should be decided in favor of liberty.

    How liberty should be used is morality’s concern. And, while philosophers can give us lots of theories about how we should exercise our freedom, they cannot give us the courage it takes to do the right thing.

    My guess is that the idea of moral evil was introduced into the world through a process similar to the process described in the Bible. When man “ate from the tree of knowledge” man become something more than just another animal, man developed god-like characteristics, including the ability to know right from wrong. Thus, moral evil was introduced.

    And, the best account I can give of why there is evil is the Book of Job. After suffering through multiple trials, Job finally demands that God give an account as to why he was suffering. The answer is profound. God says, “Were you there when the skies were created, and the earth were formed?” and other similar statements. Evil’s existence is beyond our capability to understand. We just have to learn to live with it.

    June 26, 2009
  1189. Peter Waskiw said:

    David,
    For the point of modest discussion sub…..thread, you raise an interesting issue “how liberty should be used is morality’s concern”. If liberty is generally defined as freedom of choice, than the issue about the “introduction” of evil becomes important in defining morality.

    The ability to know right from wrong is not really the issue. If Adam and Eve were punished for what they did, this presupposes that they knew they did something wrong. Adam and Eve already knew what was right and what was wrong. Basically it is unreasonable to punish people who are unaware of evil or in this case doing something wrong. Even our laws today allocate degrees of guilt. So Adam and Eve did have knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree. They were already free moral agents.

    So getting back to my point, the introduction of moral evil, was not knowing “good or bad” but rather WHO has the authority to set the standard of good and bad. It was their assertion that they would be better of setting their own standards. Again, Paul demonstrated his astute understanding of this issue when he wrote “whenever people ….. that do not have law (Jewish) do by nature the things of the law, these people…. are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts.”

    With regards to Job, he actually thought it was God that was punishing him, rather than being confused about the “origin of evil”. Job felt very sorry for himself that he had lost everything….including his family, not realizing in fact, that God was using him to demonstrate loyalty.

    Hence the introduction of moral evil was in fact a demonstration not so much of “liberty” but in fact “loyalty”. I believe we have a saying today that says “for better or for worse”…

    June 26, 2009
  1190. Patrick Enders said:

    For those who find “The God Delusion” annoying, perhaps a secular, but more pro-monotheistic, take on the evolving concept of god(s) would be of interest:

    THE EVOLUTION OF GOD By Robert Wright

    NYT Book Review:

    God has mellowed. The God that most Americans worship occasionally gets upset about abortion and gay marriage, but he is a softy compared with the Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible. That was a warrior God, savagely tribal, deeply insecure about his status and willing to commit mass murder to show off his powers. But at least Yahweh had strong moral views, occasionally enlightened ones, about how the Israelites should behave. His hunter-gatherer ancestors, by contrast, were doofus gods. Morally clueless, they were often yelled at by their people and tended toward quirky obsessions. One thunder god would get mad if people combed their hair during a storm or watched dogs mate.

    In his brilliant new book, “The Evolution of God,” Robert Wright tells the story of how God grew up….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Bloom-t.html?_r=1&ref=review

    I think I’ll keep my eye out for this one.

    June 27, 2009
  1191. Patrick Enders said:

    For those who find “The God Delusion” annoying, perhaps a secular, but more pro-monotheistic, take on the evolving concept of god(s) would be of interest:

    THE EVOLUTION OF GOD By Robert Wright

    NYT Book Review:

    God has mellowed. The God that most Americans worship occasionally gets upset about abortion and gay marriage, but he is a softy compared with the Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible. That was a warrior God, savagely tribal, deeply insecure about his status and willing to commit mass murder to show off his powers. But at least Yahweh had strong moral views, occasionally enlightened ones, about how the Israelites should behave. His hunter-gatherer ancestors, by contrast, were doofus gods. Morally clueless, they were often yelled at by their people and tended toward quirky obsessions. One thunder god would get mad if people combed their hair during a storm or watched dogs mate.

    In his brilliant new book, “The Evolution of God,” Robert Wright tells the story of how God grew up….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/review/Bloom-t.html

    I think I’ll keep my eye out for this one.

    June 27, 2009
  1192. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter and David: Two things changed before and after Eve accepted the fig. What I think Peter is getting at is that the first thing — understanding right from wrong, good from evil, innocence from nakedness — is not an INTRODUCTION of evil, of sin. Understanding right from wrong cannot create evil; evil has to pre-exist for someone to understand the difference between evil and anything else. To belabor the point, one cannot understand the difference between black and white until black and white exist.

    The second thing that changed was Adam and Eve’s obedience of Biblegod to defiance.

    Therefore, is defiance of Biblegod the INTRODUCTION of sin? And if it is, where does this put David, when he says that he would not obey Biblegod if the Mighty Thunderer orders him to murder, because as David revealed, murder is inherently evil.

    June 27, 2009
  1193. john george said:

    Jerry- Waaay back in your post 696.4, (I’ve been gone a couple weeks) you said

    John Stuart Mill’s thesis on
    Utilitarianism makes only one
    assumption, that “happiness” is
    “good”, and I am willing to adopt that
    sole assumption as I look to
    distinguish right from wrong.

    This raises the question of how do you define happiness and good? And, is your definition of happiness and good better than say Patrick’s, or mine? You present yourself as a very logical, rational, reasonable person, and rightly so. It seems strange to me that you would base your process to “distinguish right from wrong” on two such subjective, irrational words as “happiness” and “good”. Am I missing something here, or were you being satyrical?

    June 27, 2009
  1194. Peter Waskiw said:

    Jerry,
    Thank you explaining it much more succinctly. I think you captured it very well. Simply, I was questioning David’s point because he ended his preposition that “evil” was introduced as a way to explain the “spiritual development of man”. I was trying to explain that it was not evil but rather disloyalty (badness) that was introduced into the human race which led to the debate we are having now to “determine truth or falsity”. Disloyalty (badness) already existing but not with Adam and Eve, the snake just was mechanism to introduce it, it could have been a “white fluffy bunny rabbit” for I care.

    However, when David introduced Job into the discussion, and for those familiar with the book, I grasped the opportunity to demonstrate that disloyalty (or turning someone to be disloyal!!) was a major theme of the book (the first few chapters of the book explain it very well .

    For those that want a diversion here, Eden actually mean pleasure, so Adam and Eve were “placed” in a “pleasure garden”. I wonder if it had hiking trails!

    I would agree with your statement that “disobedience” was the “introduction” of “sin”.

    Jerry…..if the “Mighty Thunderer” spoke to me I would first question my sanity than reason that he has me mistaken for someone else and then refer him to David as someone who has reasonable rates.

    June 28, 2009
  1195. Peter Waskiw said:

    O John, please forgive my intrusion…but you’re getting tricky now!…”…to “distinguish right from wrong” on two such subjective, irrational words as “happiness” and “good”…well done.

    June 28, 2009
  1196. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: First, a distinction. Hedonism says what is good brings happiness (or more specifically, pleasure) to the individual. Utilitarianism says what is good brings happiness to those affected.

    Your distinction matters to Hedonism. If a dictator is a Hedonist, and his pleasure comes from brutal rule, the difference between his happiness and “good” is extremely important.

    I don’t know that your distinction matters with Utilitarianism. If there is a population of 100 Utilitarians, what is moral for them is what brings the 100 people the most happiness. You should add more weight in determining happiness to those affected. For example, if 99 decide to enslave 1, at a superficial level, the slave’s happiness plummets by a great amount while the 99’s rises a little, which immediately suggests it’s not moral. At a deeper level, I’d add to the equation that all 100 lose happiness because slavery is a form of cruelty, and everyone loses happiness in the face of cruelty. Also, everyone loses happiness in a society where a rule permits someone to become a slave, so each of the 99 know that 98 may arbitrarily decide to enslave him. Factoring all of these, it does not maximize happiness for 99 people to enslave 1. The 100 people will be happier without slavery. Even better, it would maximize happiness for there to be cooperation among the 100.

    I have often seen superficial examinations of Utilitarianism that claim Utilitarianism is wrong because it would allow 99 people to enslave 1.

    So to your question, I don’t think it’s a helpful question to ask if Utilitarianism substantively to explain “good”. The philosophy simply says that if an action maximizes happiness, it is good.

    What is “happiness”? It’s subjective and it always has been, but being subjective does not make it irrational. This is the domain of subjectivity, not irrationality. We can pile on several major examples of happiness, they may all be subjective, and none of them irrational. Please don’t confuse the terms. If being with your family makes you happy, but it makes me unhappy, it does not make this measure of happiness irrational. It’s very rational why your family brings you happiness and not me.

    It’s OK for different things to make different people happy. The point of Utilitarianism is to maximize happiness. So if being with your wife and children is what makes you happy, and being alone makes someone else happiness, Utilitarianism would want an environment where you could both do what makes you happy. When there is a conflict, such as my slavery example, Utilitarianism again seeks to maximize happiness, to resolve conflicts with fairness (fairness maximizes happiness), and to give greater concern to those most affected (the slave’s concern about loss of liberty means more than the slavers gaining a servant).

    One reason why I do not eat animals is because their happiness in living matters to them more than my happiness matters by eating them. Losing one’s life causes great unhappiness to the individual and their family. Whatever happiness I may get by eating their cooked flesh is insignificant.

    Personally, I’m OK with “happiness” being subjective. It would not work for someone to declare what happiness is, and then expect everyone to abide by that person’s arbitrary definition. It would cause unhappiness to be forced to abide by another’s definition of happiness.

    If Utilitarianism was super-successful in the world, altruism would pervade. Each person would consider their own happiness and others’ happiness with every action they do. They may not always be perfect in making everyone happy, but at least that would be their mindset. Imagine a world where everyone sought to make themselves and everyone else happy.

    June 28, 2009
  1197. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: I think your observation is especially on point. You point out that Biblegod causes confusion among humans as to right and wrong. If being “good” is being obedient, and sin is disobedience, there is no consideration given to being moral… Under the Adam and Eve story, Christians do not evaluate what is “moral” but what is “obedient”. I believe that this Biblical lesson, in so many Biblical stories, cripples the moral development of Christians.

    June 28, 2009
  1198. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: Utilitarianism’s usefulness is limited because it is ultimately subjective. Hitler relied upon a form of utilitarianism is deciding that the German people would be “happier” without the Jews.

    Because happiness is a subjective matter with each individual, morality rapidly deteriorates with into radical individualism. Utilitarianism combined with democracy is simply tyranny of the masses. Because the 1 slave’s only appeal is to the 99 who want to suppress, the slave loses the vote 99-1.

    June 28, 2009
  1199. Peter Waskiw said:

    David,
    How do you define “radical individualism”?

    June 28, 2009
  1200. john george said:

    Jerry- Thanks for the answer. I agree that happiness does not necessarily infer irrationality, but the likelyhood of 100 people have a common stimulus that evokes happiness I think is idealistic at best but most likey unrealistic. The whole philosophy smacks of situation ethics that came to the forefront in the ’60’s. This required each person to do the most loving thing for the other person in a community. The subjectivity of this made it basically inoperative without a universal definition of what is love.

    Happiness, as you pointed out, is actually an emotional reaction to certain stimuli. This is where I have a problem with using the pattern for a basis to make moral decisions. With the variety we naturaly have as individuals of a society, it seems reasonable to me that there should be some universal understanding of expectations on each one’s part for the society to function. Otherwise, it seems the practice would lead to hedonism and anarchy. Perhaps I am being to simplistic in this, but being the personality type that I am, I look for common ground anywhere I can to foster cooperation. This being the case, for me to function, it seems that I may have to tolerate a particular behavior on the part of other members of society that does not make me happy. If I choose to be offended by this behavior, I could challenge it on the basis that it is infringing on my right to be happy. Without some standard to judge this against, then it seems that discord and breakdown of the society as a whole could occur. I think that is why the framers of the Bill of Rights worded it as they did in saying we have a right to “the pursuit of happiness.” They did not say we have a right to be happy or that we would necessarily be happy.

    June 29, 2009
  1201. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter W: I’ve mentioned Dan Barker on this thread before. He was a preacher and very involved in Christianity, then over some time he became an atheist. He wrote about his experience in “Losing Faith in Faith”. His take on Biblical morality is that it’s based on obedience, not moral reasoning. The pious are supposed to do what their interpretation of the Bible tells them to do rather than evaluate right from wrong independently.

    I don’t wholly criticize that approach. I mean that many people use a text as the foundation of morality, whether that’s Utilitarianism, the codified laws of the nation, or whatever. The problem is, as you illustrated with the Garden of Eden, is that obedience itself is taught as good and disobedience gets one kicked out of a rather nice place. This is military training — soldiers are taught to obey the chain of command. While this may work in some contexts, such as for winning battles, it fails in other contexts, like the military operatives who commit war crimes while “just following orders”.

    I do not think that obedience is evidence of moral development.

    If the Mighty Thunderer spoke to me, I might become a theist but I would not commit murder.

    July 9, 2009
  1202. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I am disturbed that your characterize Hitler’s programme as a form of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has one maxim, to maximize happiness. I cannot think of an instance or an example of Hitler deliberating what would maximize happiness, and then conclude genocide. At best, he considered what would maximize happiness for himself. If Jews were a genuine problem, Utilitarians would choose to find methods to fix the problem without suffering. For example, Utilitarians oppose the death penalty because it maximizes happiness to rehabilitate criminals rather than execute them. So I believe that you do not understand Utilitarianism, because nothing about Hitler was Utilitarian.

    Subjectivity does not ruin Utilitarianism. As I told John G., each person’s happiness are considered, and weighted for the consequences it brings to them. The consequences on the 1 slave are immense, but to the 99 slavers is marginal, so the slave’s interests are weighted greatly. Further, as I explained to John, that the existence of slavery reduces happiness in most people, for they may oppose it outright, or they may know that one day, they might be enslaved.

    You said, “Utilitarianism combined with democracy is simply tyranny of the masses. Because the 1 slave’s only appeal is to the 99 who want to suppress, the slave loses the vote 99-1.”

    If Utilitarianism was the rule, the 99 slavers would abolish slavery as would the slave. There is no tyranny of the masses, or by the majority, because tyranny brings unhappiness.

    July 10, 2009
  1203. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: Why do you think David doesn’t answer your questions? Or even better,

    David: Why don’t you answer Peter’s questions?

    July 10, 2009
  1204. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: If you make very specific rules, you would have a problem finding a common stimulus that makes everyone happy. Instead, I’d approach it from general rules. People want to have “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Liberty encompasses a great deal until it infringes upon another’s liberty. When there are conflicts, a court (whether formal with a judge, informal with a therapist, or something of the sort) would work to resolve the conflict.

    I don’t see this as a situational ethics problem, but I agree that situations — or context — may change the analysis. For example, we all agree that a fetus must not be killed without the mother’s consent, but we disagree on whether a fetus may be killed with the mother’s consent. The context changes the analysis. Even you agreed, I believe, that killing a fetus is OK if it’s the only way to save the mother’s life. So perhaps I don’t understand what your disagreement is with situational ethics, or at least how it applies to maximizing happiness.

    Hedonism is not Utilitarianism. Hedonism looks to the happiness of oneself, and normally physical happiness or pleasure. Utilitarianism looks to everyone’s happiness, in the entire universe, weighted toward how each is affected. Hence, my vote in the Northfield elections have no effect on a person in Syria, but it affects you, so when voting, I should consider your well being dramatically more than Syrians. Hedonism would only consider oneself.

    To restate your dilemma, something that mildly aggrieves one person but brings great happiness to several is considered “good”. If Northfield considered a drive in movie theater, and 50 people were mildly aggrieved but 100 people would be happier, the Utilitarian would approve the drive in. However, the fun is when we look for a better solution. It might be OK to choose the best of two options, but to maximize happiness, shouldn’t we choose the best of three options? The best of five? Might there be an alternate location for the drive in that makes fewer people unhappy and more people happy?

    This is why I protest the term, “The ends justifies the means.” This is a sophomoric summary of Utilitarianism and it’s used as propaganda against it. For example, if democracy is good in Iraq, and bombing them could bring democracy, I would not support bombing Iraq. Rather, I’d seek another means to bring them democracy that did not result in 500,000+ deaths and other devastation.

    July 10, 2009
  1205. john george said:

    Jerry- I appreciate your clarification on happiness in regards to majority/minority relations. The issue with the drive-in theater is not a moral issue, in my estimation, but I suppose someone could elevate it to that level. I don’t see how it affects the life of anyone, aside from the “happiness” issue. The issue with the fetus is more of a moral issue, in my estimation, because it has life and death consequences. To sacrifice the child to save the life of the mother seems to have a different connotation than sacrificing the child to enhance the happiness of the mother. It seems most abortions today fall into the latter set of circumstances. I guess you might say that I don’t define “happiness” as a moral issue.

    As far as hedonism vs. utilitarianism, that is much more clear to me. No one has given me as concise a definition as you. Thanks, again. From my estimation of how we humans respond in general, it seems there is still a need for altruism for this concept to work in the selfless way you imply. The characteristic I see in most people is more self-centered. In fact, for there to be a successful national magazine titled “Self”, then there must be a market for this type of philosophy. That is why I don’t put a lot of stock in utilitarianism as a moral guide. The outcome relies too heavily on the majority of men being basically good and altruistic.

    July 10, 2009
  1206. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: The drive-in movie theater may not be an ideal example. It could be a moral issue, if it seriously affects some people (such as to make their homes unlivable with the noise of cars late at night, or to cut down a piece of forest to build the theater). Or it might be a good example, because Utilitarianism deems “happiness” itself as good, and morality contemplates what is good and bad. In any case, I can use another example if you’d like.

    By whatever name we call the moral system, the system I have found the most peace and consistency with, the most rationality if you will, is the system that tells us to be selfish and altruistic based on the best outcome for everyone involved. (This is why David’s claim that Hitler used a form of Utilitarianism was wrong, because Hitler never contemplated what was best for the Jews.) I think that such a system reminds us to enjoy life and to consider what’s best for our community. This is the lesson of Utilitarianism.

    I would be delighted to participate in a study where such a system was enforced, where everyone worked for others benefit and everyone was expected to enjoy the fruits of their own labor as well.

    Studies have shown that a few selfish people do well in a community of altruists, and a few altruists do well in a community of selfish people. (I can clarify this if you’d like.) I interpret this to mean that it would be hard to sustain Utilitarianism on a large scale, because some selfish people would exploit the altruistic tendencies of Utilitarians. Nonetheless, I think that a little exploitation wouldn’t ruin such a society, and indoctrination or rehabilitation can help. For example, a convicted thief might be required to go through substantial community service or be banished.

    You might also consider that a young embryo does not have a brain, a mind, or happiness. An older embryo does, especially as a fetus in the last month of pregnancy. This means that Utilitarians must ignore an embryo’s interests early in a pregnancy (as they have none), but Utilitarians must consider a fetus’s happiness late in a pregnancy along with the mother’s, father’s, and others affected by a decision to abort. I think that Utilitarians would oppose late-term abortions if it’s only on a whim by the mother.

    July 10, 2009
  1207. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: You and I have a different concept of utilitarianism. I have always understood utilitarianism to state that each person should do what makes him or her the happiest. In that scenario, it becomes a radical individualism whereby the only rules are created by the individual. This is the essence of a democracy.

    Fortunately, our forefathers were wise enough to provide that the system of democracy must always be tempered by the idea of inalienable rights given by the Creator. Only by having a system of rights can we be assured that the tyranny of democracy does not run rampant.

    July 10, 2009
  1208. john george said:

    Jerry- Your comment above

    I think that such a system reminds us
    to enjoy life and to consider what’s
    best for our community. This is the
    lesson of Utilitarianism.

    I think compares to Phillipians 2:3&4. I don’t have my Bible program on this computer to post it, but I know you know how to look it up. This is foundational to my life pattern, and those Christians I am in fellowship with, and I know it works. I still prefer to be in fellowship with God and be at His direction to walk this out. The reason is that when I try to live this way in my own strength and reason, I fall flat on my face. The old man in me can not be rehabilitated. it must simply die so that the new man that God is birthing in me can live. It is just like a seed that must break out of its old husk to become the plant that is inside it.

    July 10, 2009
  1209. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: My understanding of Utilitarianism (hereafter “U'”) especially comes from Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer, and less known philosophers.

    Mill, who is largely regarded as first systematizing U’, originally summarized U’ as the greatest good equals the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. That summary was further simplified as “maximize happiness”.

    So I don’t know from whom or where you learned that under U’ “each person should do what makes him or her the happiest.” That definition is opposite Mill’s summary, and it’s hedonistic and fraught with danger.

    To maximize happiness means to make oneself and one’s community happy. Community means the universe or smaller depending on context.

    This is why, as I commented earlier, that I do not eat animals. Animals experience happiness. Eating them causes them unhappiness. The unhappiness they suffer greatly outweighs any happiness I might get from eating them. Further, if you consider that eating animals causes human disease, my superior health bestowed by not eating them gives me even more happiness.

    July 10, 2009
  1210. Peter Waskiw said:

    Jerry,
    I think you summed up your point well “I do not think that obedience is evidence of moral development”…I agree. (I have also included some comments forward in this discussion).

    You have developed the reasoning that David L’s argument is an attempt to justify his own beliefs. We all know that many war crimes in history were committed by “religious” people….Even many WWII war crimes were committed by nations that claimed to be “God Fearing”. But I diverge.

    Going back to David L’s original point about science trying to explain the “spiritual development of man” as “incompetent” ….I raise my eyebrows in surprise. He jumps to “Adam and Eve” to introduce “the introduction of moral evil into the world”. Some very interest moves but somewhat unsubstantiated in their own right. So I decided to question his premises about the “introduction of evil”. With the point you make towards moral reasoning as important becausew “Adam and Eve” were free moral agents”. They had the capacity to reason morally and therefore knew the consequences of “disobedience” By extension, I think the point you raise is relevant to how doctrine mixes with “moral reasoning”.

    To use your analogy, soldiers are ‘indoctrinated’ into the combat mentality with training. But this is no different with the larger frameworks that we all operate such as democracy, theocracy, and all the other forms of “cracy”. Each has it own framework with rules and procedures. Each one has its own form of ‘utilitarianism’, depending ofcourse on your frame of reference.

    Points made here about “rhetoric without intellectual foundation”, simply reinforce the negative attitudes towards true utilitarianism……instead of attacking the theory some attack the very basis of true utilitarianism…. the development of wisdom, experience, and skills to enhance our ability to improve the common good.

    However, the “the greatest good for the greatest number of people” is never absolute. And those that use a serious reglious moral approach under modern demoncracy’s rely on absolutes……but are contrained by the larger framework in society which states that people have a right to choose there own destiny only as long as it does not harm another.

    So I believe the words “….we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness (and) we are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers” helps us appreciate one important thing in life…… our common humanity.

    July 10, 2009
  1211. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: The utilitarnism you describe for Mills is also fraught with problems, primarily because it lacks specificity. Happiness and the common good, are vague terms, which need to rest upon a defintion of “good”.

    To this end, most faiths offer two contributions. First, they define what is good and evil. Second, they provide the courage to do good even when it requires individual sacrifice.

    July 11, 2009
  1212. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: It’s not enough to define good and evil, and to provide courage to do good. An independent method of evaluation is essential, independent of the faith’s dictates. What internal assurances do faiths have to guard against corruption? What prevents a pope or preacher from ordering homicides and suicides, or other less visible crimes? I’ll post another litany of papal crimes if you don’t understand my concern.

    My first impression when reading your post was guessing what the 9/11 hijackers must have believed. Surely they were taught the difference between good and evil. Surely they developed the courage to do good despite individual sacrifice.

    When a faith goes about defining good, how can we ensure that it is good?

    We can’t.

    Why do you criticize Utilitarianism for failing to define absolutes when there are none (at least in this context)? What’s good for business may not be good for the consumer. What’s good for police may not be good for citizens. Good is an elusive term.

    As I said many posts ago, the one assumption I accept with Utilitarianism is that “happiness” is “good”. Is there a problem with that assumption? Are there fewer or less assumptions with other ethical systems?

    Not that it matters, but I wonder what 9/11/2001 would have been like had the hijackers been Utilitarians. It would have been an uneventful day for everyone.

    July 11, 2009
  1213. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: When a faith goes about defining a good, there are multiple ways of ensuring that it is good. First, one can rely upon the sacred writings that have come down through the ages. Second, one can rely upon those learned in the writings and the teachings throughout the ages. Third, one can present the case to reason and intellect to ensure that it does not defy reason. Fourth, one can turn to models of what is perceived as good, and discern the elements that cause it to be considered good.

    The process is quite similar to a legal evaluation of a law. In making evaluations of justice, we need to refer at the Constitution (our sacred writing), examine the law, review prior cases, consider the rules and logic inherent in all of these, and finally make a judgment.

    July 12, 2009
  1214. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Thanks for your explanation. Incidentally, Utilitarianism uses the same approach…

    • Review, analyze, understand the writings (and other recordings) of Utilitarian leaders, whether ancient or recent;

    • Apply the writings to reason, in light of context and, if appropriate, culture;

    • Compare those conclusions to generally accepted notions of what is good and bad (or good and evil).

    I believe that the 9/11 hijackers, Nazis, etc., did the same thing, but that they fudged their analysis. Naturally, they’d claim that I fudged mine.

    In any case, what I think you’re suggesting is that your sacred writing, the Bible, is superior to other sacred writings, which may be the U.S. law, the Q’uran, ‘Mein Kampf,’ or Mill’s treatise on Utilitarianism.

    What makes the Bible a clearly superior document in distinguishing right from wrong? As Peter and I have discussed, it seems to be a great document in teaching obedience, but obedience and morality are different discussions.

    How is it that in the last 5000 years, countless wars were inspired by the Bible, but not one was inspired from “maximizing happiness”? I readily admit that many wars were inspired by “maximizing happiness for a few,” such as Hitler’s war, but no war was inspired by simply “maximizing happiness”.

    July 12, 2009
  1215. Peter Waskiw said:

    Jerry:
    David L’s stated that “I have always understood utilitarianism to state that each person should do what makes him or her the happiest” and extended the thought to “radical individualism”.

    I did not get that from your own writing Jerry…perhaps it was more “structured radical individualism”.

    I wonder how people reconcile the governance systems of theocracy and democracy.

    July 13, 2009
  1216. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: The “Buddy Jesus” is a wonderful joke. The blasphemy law looks real. If I was in Ireland, I’d rake up the fines…

    July 13, 2009
  1217. Jerry Friedman said:

    Peter: I think they’re reconciled like this.

    “Democracy rules unless theocracy speaks.”

    July 13, 2009
  1218. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry and Peter – 723 – That democracy and theocracy are not mutually exclusive terms is a lesson that George Bush never learned. In fact, democracy and theocracy aren’t really comparable terms.

    For example, the United States government and the Catholic Church are not comparable entities. I have to submit to the authority of the government because it has the power to force submission – guns, taxes, laws etc. I choose to submit to the authority of the Church because it seeks the truth of human existence.

    July 14, 2009
  1219. David Ludescher said:

    An interesting aside on the gay marriage rights issue: My brother is unable to get domestic partner benefits for his partner. The reason – his partner is a woman. He would be able to get the benefits if she were a he.

    July 15, 2009
  1220. Patrick Enders said:

    …or if he and she chose to marry. 🙂

    July 15, 2009
  1221. Patrick Enders said:

    From The Examiner:

    “Simply claiming that the Pope is not infallible might be considered blasphemous to many Catholics. Claiming that the prophet Joseph Smith was not really visited by angels and given magic golden plates would be blasphemous to Mormons. Mentioning the prophet Mohammad without adding the phrase “peace be upon him” would be considered blasphemous to Muslims. And claiming that Scientology is a sham and that Tom Cruise is crazy would obviously be blasphemous to Scientologists.”

    Here is an excerpt from the Blasphemy Clause:

    Section 36

    (1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

    (2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

    This part of the bill makes it illegal to criticize any religion either verbally or in writing. Saying anything in which a “substantial number” of followers might find offensive would now be a crime in the Ireland. But the bill goes even further. Here is another excerpt:

    Section 37

    (1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.

    July 15, 2009
  1222. David Ludescher said:

    … or we could just change the law so homosexual partners aren’t favored.

    July 15, 2009
  1223. Paul Zorn said:

    David,

    Sounds fair to me not to favor either gays or straights. I assume you’d change the marriage law, too, to the same effect.

    July 15, 2009
  1224. Scott Oney said:

    Paul: Why would you assume that? David’s suggestion is to change only a law, whereas yours involves changing the meaning of a word, as well as the intuitions of typically socialized people in our culture. Whether or not you think it’s a good project, I hope you can see that it’s an entirely different one.

    July 15, 2009
  1225. Paul Zorn said:

    Scott:

    Yes, changing marriage laws is a different and, given the “intuitions of typically socialized people in our culture”, a more difficult project than changing a work benefits law. The fact that the latter has already changed and the former hasn’t is evidence enough.

    So my “assume” was rhetorical, aiming partly to invite a response from David and partly to signal that I myself see both issues, although different in ways noted above, as connected to a general principle of fairness. I can’t literally assume anything about anyone else’s line of reasoning, as perhaps you’re pointing out.

    If we’re discussing language (as we both enjoy) I’d question the “entirely” in your last sentence. Both “projects” seem to me to link to larger principles of what’s right or fair for different groups — even if we disagree on what those principles imply in particular cases. No?

    July 15, 2009
  1226. David Ludescher said:

    Paul: Why would my brother support a change in the marriage law? All he wants (as a heterosexual) is to get what the homosexual partners are getting in non-marriage law. Homosexuals don’t have to have a contract to get these benefits, why does he?

    Isn’t it unjust discrimination against heterosexuals in my brother’s position? Or, is it just?

    July 15, 2009
  1227. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Why doesn’t your brother just get married? Problem solved (for him).

    Presuming that you are serious: the reason that non-married homosexual couples are offered benefits for their partners is because the people that offer those benefits have determined that homosexual couples deserve the same considerations as heterosexual ones, but the government has not yet changed marriage law to reflect that social reality.

    But again, why doesn’t your brother just get married?

    July 15, 2009
  1228. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: There are two problems. First, he has to enter into a legally enforceable contract. Second, he doesn’t want to promise her that he will love, honor, and cherish her for the rest of his life.

    His preference is to not get married, and get what domestic partners get for no commitment. I did suggest that he wouldn’t have to get married before God. They could reach an understanding that they were only getting married for the benefits. He is thinking on that one.

    July 16, 2009
  1229. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    It sounds like a civil marriage is a perfect solution for him – just like it should be for any two competent and consenting adults who choose such a union.

    When such a legal union is available equally to all, there will be no need for the peculiar practice of offering benefits to unsanctioned same sex couples, while denying them to unsanctioned opposite sex couples.

    Give it a few years, and I suspect that your brother’s dilemma will cease to be a concern.

    July 16, 2009
  1230. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Wouldn’t my brother’s problem be solved more easily, and fairly, by defining a domestic partner as any other adult living in a domestic relationship? Why perpetuate the “injustice” to him because of his sexuality?

    What would be the legal requirments of a civil union, which would solve this problem for him? Would there be any love, honor and cherish for the rest of his life?

    July 16, 2009
  1231. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    If the group offering the benefits wants to offer them to any two adults, I would think that would be a fine solution, as well.

    July 16, 2009
  1232. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    As to your second question, I think we’ve already covered our opinions on that a few pages back.

    In review: I agree with you that the government is not well qualified to judge love. As a result, I would make the same civil union/marriage contract available to any two competent and consenting adults who want to accept the mutual rights and responsibilities that that contract entails.

    July 16, 2009
  1233. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: My brother is being denied the same privileges based entirely upon his sexual orientation. Or, more accurately, gays and lesbians are receiving a benefit based entirely upon their sexual orientation, the very result that we are trying to avoid.

    July 16, 2009
  1234. Patrick Enders said:

    David,

    Round and around it goes, huh?

    Your brother is not being denied a benefit because of his orientation. He is being denied the benefit because he and his partner have chosen not to marry. Give same sex couples the option to marry (or not), and the two situations will be comparable.

    As it stands, you are simply pointing out a legal oddity that has been created to bypass the injustice of marriage law as presently constructed.

    July 16, 2009
  1235. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: At this point in the conversation, input from a theist-friendly position might help provide some enlightenment, if you are interested.

    Otherwise, I am afraid that I am simply stuck in the position of arguing against your politics, rather than against facts.

    July 16, 2009
  1236. john george said:

    Patrick- I think David is reacting to an underlying concept in this whole approach to “rights” that I have had a problem with, also. The whole Gay community seems upset that they are not not being embraced by the general populace, although I think they are tolerated. Some of us look at this approach through imposition of rights as an end run to have embracing of their lifestyle forced upon us. I can’t speak for David, but I still have a problem with equating their struggle to racism and the human rights movement of the ’60’s and ’70’s.

    July 16, 2009
  1237. Patrick Enders said:

    John,

    Your personal approval or disapproval would remain intact regardless of any action your government might take.

    The government sanctions (and executes) invasions of other nations, but that in no way means that I have embraced any particular war – or indeed any war ever.

    The government executes prisoners, but that in no way means that I embrace executions, or the ‘eye for an eye’ principle of retribution.

    The government gives special tax exempt status to any number of churches (Christian, Jewish, and myriad other faiths and subfaiths), yet this in no way means that I (our you) validate or embrace any particular one of them. Or any of them.

    In short, the government is always doing things that one or another American citizen disagrees with vehemently. It’s the reality of our complex, pluralistic society, and our complex, multifaceted governmental structure.

    In advocating for equal union/marriage rights for any two competent, consenting adults, I and others who agree with me are simply operating from the first principle that “all persons are created equal,” and all persons should be treated equally.

    Two competent, consenting adults in a relationship (same or opposite gender) seems to me to be essentially the same as any two adults in a relationship. Unless that relationship is demonstrably pathologic, they should be treated equally under the law.

    Anyway, I don’t think there’s any way either of us is going to change the other’s mind on this. It’s simply time to settle this dispute through our political and legal systems. Shall we readdress this when the 2010 election season comes ’round? I don’t see anything substantive happening on this issue in MN until then.

    July 16, 2009
  1238. john george said:

    Patrick- I wish I could be sure about your comment

    Your personal approval or disapproval
    would remain intact regardless of any
    action your government might take.

    But, unfortunately, I am not.

    July 16, 2009
  1239. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    Really? I know that the CIA has been working on mind control chips for years, but thus far, the technology has seemed to be remarkably ineffective.

    July 16, 2009
  1240. john george said:

    Patrick- We all know that nothing is free. The unknown factor to me is how much it will cost me to disaprove of a government action and how much freedom I will have to talk about it. Remember the law just passed in Scotland (or was it Ireland?) making it illegal to criticize any religion? What is to keep that type of thing from happening here? Common sense seems a very elusive quality in our society anymore.

    July 16, 2009
  1241. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    The difference is that we have freedom of speech enshrined in our Constitution. The Irish do not.

    See: Wikipedia

    United States

    The United States federal government
    and state governments are broadly
    forbidden by the First Amendment of
    the Constitution from restricting
    speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York
    (1925), incorporating the free speech
    clause. Generally speaking, the First
    Amendment prohibits governments from
    regulating the content of speech,
    subject to a few recognized exceptions
    such as defamation[37] and incitement
    to riot.[38] Even in cases where
    speech encourages illegal violence,
    instances of incitement qualify as
    criminal only if the threat of
    violence is imminent.[39] This strict
    standard prevents prosecution of many
    cases of incitement, including
    prosecution of those advocating
    violent opposition to the government,
    and those exhorting violence against
    racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.
    See, e.g., Yates v. United States
    (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

    [edit] “Hate Speech” in U.S.
    Professional and Educational Contexts

    Under Title VII of the Civil Rights
    Act of 1964, employers may sometimes
    be prosecuted for tolerating “hate
    speech” by their employees, if that
    speech contributes to a broader
    pattern of harassment resulting in a
    “hostile or offensive working
    environment” for other employees.[40]
    See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v.
    Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean
    Credit Union (1989).

    Both public and private educational
    institutions in the United States
    frequently adopt rules prohibiting
    stigmatization on the basis of
    attributes such as race, sexual
    orientation, religion, disability, or
    national origin. In the 1980s and
    1990’s, more than 350 public
    universities adopted “speech codes”
    regulating discriminatory speech by
    faculty and students.[41] These codes
    have not fared well in the courts,
    where they are frequently overturned
    as violations of the First Amendment.

    See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM
    Post v. Board of Regents of University
    of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v.
    Central Michigan University (1995),
    Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over
    restriction of “hate speech” in public
    universities has resurfaced with the
    adoption of anti-harassment codes
    covering discriminatory speech.[42]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

    July 17, 2009
  1242. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    The difference is that we have freedom of speech enshrined in our Constitution. The Irish do not.

    See: Wikipedia

    United States

    The United States federal government
    and state governments are broadly
    forbidden by the First Amendment of
    the Constitution from restricting
    speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York
    (1925), incorporating the free speech
    clause. Generally speaking, the First
    Amendment prohibits governments from
    regulating the content of speech,
    subject to a few recognized exceptions
    such as defamation[37] and incitement
    to riot.[38] Even in cases where
    speech encourages illegal violence,
    instances of incitement qualify as
    criminal only if the threat of
    violence is imminent.[39] This strict
    standard prevents prosecution of many
    cases of incitement, including
    prosecution of those advocating
    violent opposition to the government,
    and those exhorting violence against
    racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.
    See, e.g., Yates v. United States
    (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

    [edit] “Hate Speech” in U.S.
    Professional and Educational Contexts

    Under Title VII of the Civil Rights
    Act of 1964, employers may sometimes
    be prosecuted for tolerating “hate
    speech” by their employees, if that
    speech contributes to a broader
    pattern of harassment resulting in a
    “hostile or offensive working
    environment” for other employees.[40]
    See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v.
    Vinson (1986), Patterson v. McLean
    Credit Union (1989).

    Both public and private educational
    institutions in the United States
    frequently adopt rules prohibiting
    stigmatization on the basis of
    attributes such as race, sexual
    orientation, religion, disability, or
    national origin. In the 1980s and
    1990’s, more than 350 public
    universities adopted “speech codes”
    regulating discriminatory speech by
    faculty and students.[41] These codes
    have not fared well in the courts,
    where they are frequently overturned
    as violations of the First Amendment.

    See, e.g., Doe v. Michigan (1989), UWM
    Post v. Board of Regents of University
    of Wisconsin (1991), Dambrot v.
    Central Michigan University (1995),
    Corry v. Stanford (1995). Debate over
    restriction of “hate speech” in public
    universities has resurfaced with the
    adoption of anti-harassment codes
    covering discriminatory speech.[42]

    July 17, 2009
  1243. john george said:

    Patrick- I think it was Andy Rooney, in one of his diatribes, that said something like there is a trend in people’s thinking in this country that they have a right not to be offended. I think he has something there, and if we get enough supreme court justices who want to base laws on current attitudes on situations rather than constitutional laws, then we might see our freedom of speech eroded. Things do change over time because people change and sometimes change their way of thinking. If we base our laws on this natural way people change, then we will end up changing our foundations.

    July 17, 2009
  1244. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    It may be a very long while before the “right to not be offended” is ever enshrined in our nation’s legal fabric. A good example of that is the failure of the collegiate ‘hate speech’ codes noted above.

    I guess I just don’t share your pessimism. People may often complain about being offended by this or that (several of us around here probably do a bit of that now and again), but the fact is, just about anything that anyone might say is offensive to some group or another. In a society as diverse as ours, picking out which group’s orthodoxy to use as the standard for offense just doesn’t seem like it will ever be practical, so the 1st amendment will likely remain triumphant – no matter how much some people’s speech might annoy other people.

    July 17, 2009
  1245. David Ludescher said:

    Paul: We could certainly change the law so that marital status is irrelevant for anything. Then no one could complain about the unfairness of the system.

    There would be no discrimination. This solution has the advantages of saving the pulic’s money, solving the “marriage” question, and leaving the issues of loving and committed relationships to religions, where it properly belongs.

    July 17, 2009
  1246. john george said:

    Patrick- I certainly hope so. It would be really nice if everyone I might disagree with would be as reasonable and approachable as you and many others that participate in this blog. My experience here has added to my optomism in that area, but there are certainly a lot of opinions out in the media that give me reason for pause.

    July 17, 2009
  1247. Jerry Friedman said:

    John and Patrick: The guarantees of the first amendment have not changed much in the last 200 years. Over the last 50 years, through the civil rights era and Vietnam War protests, it’s been especially put to the test and it has survived well.

    It’s important to distinguish between the content of speech or the conduct of the speaker. It is extremely difficult, by statute and by precedent, for the government to regulate speech — other than a small number of exceptions as Patrick’s cite noted. Conduct is another story. Hate speech itself is lawful, but hate speech amounting to harassment — which is a conduct problem rather than content — is illegal.

    Keep that in mind. Is it the content of speech or the conduct that’s being regulated. The government has a lot more control over conduct.

    So hate speech that makes a hostile work environment is well within the government’s powers to regulate. It’s fine to state one’s opinion, but not in a manner that causes stress or fear at work. It’s very much like the difference between the KKK burning a cross at a public park or on someone’s front lawn.

    July 17, 2009
  1248. john george said:

    Jerry- 25 replies off one comment, 729, seemed a little over the top for me, so I decided to start a new post. I like the differentiation you make between government regulation of conduct as opposed to speech. That makes sense to me. I must admit that I know of no other country in the world where the media can launch a full scale information attack against a top government official without fear of reprisal. That is probably the foremost consideration any person should make when desiring to run for public office.

    July 17, 2009
  1249. David Ludescher said:

    Anyone interested in a fruitful dialogue between believers and non-believers might want to read “Caritas in veritate”, Pope Benedict’s most recent writing.

    As examples, “Denying the right to profess one’s religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true [human] development”. “The exclusion of religion from the public square – and, at the other extreme religious fundamentalism – hinders an encounter between persons and their collaborations for the progress of humanity. Public life is sapped of its motivation and politics takes on a domineering and aggressive quality.” “Secularism and fundamentalism exclude the possibility of fruitful dialogue and effective cooperation between religious faith and reason.” (p. 56).

    August 14, 2009
  1250. Bright Spencer said:

    David Ludeshcer, I could not agree more. And this oppression is evident in so many families that I see, no one can say or do one thing without someone blowing up and people end up with no family because of an idea. I am appalled at this behavior when I see it in my family and so many others.
    I see it more and more in art now. People only making art with no people in it, only colors and vague formlessness. We can no longer tolerate each other, let alone some one else’s religion. I realize this is not a 100% true statement, but I don’t know what percentage is true. I only know that
    1% is too much.

    And I am the first to speak out against certain behaviors and ideas I see in my friends and neighbors, but I would still sit down and have dinner with them, I would still honor their right to choose whatever life style they want, even if I do have to pay for it indirectly somehow. Freedom is more important that any other thing, because with out it, you cannot do any other thing but the one you are told to do.
    Thanks for hearing me.

    August 17, 2009
  1251. Patrick Enders said:

    David L,
    In 711.16 (back a few pages) you wrote:

    For example, the ECLA is debating the
    issue of gay clergy. While the issue
    has generally been divided along
    liberal/conservative lines, the
    intellectual issues are quite
    challenging, and do not divide
    themselves into liberal or
    conservative. Rather, the issue
    divides itself into well-reasoned and
    personal opinion.

    …When the ECLA meets as a
    deliberative body to determine the
    tenets of the faith, it does not do so
    with the intent of suppressing gays,
    or trying to exclude them from
    worship. It does so to inform its
    people of the truth.

    Today, I am happy to report that the truth just changed:

    ELCA votes to allow gay pastors By
    JEFF STRICKLER , Star Tribune

    Gay ministers will be allowed to lead
    parishes, representatives of the
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    (ELCA) voted today in Minneapolis.

    The 559-451 vote marks a historic
    change for the 4.8 million ELCA
    members, including 830,000 in
    Minnesota.

    The vote repeals the ELCA’s ban on gay
    clergy unless they agreed to remain
    celibate.

    http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/53859967.html

    August 21, 2009
  1252. john george said:

    Patrick- I think one of the pastors (I think from Wisconsin) was quoted to have said (and I don’t have the direct quote), “How can we have been doing something wrong for 2000 years?” This whole issue is part of the cognitive revolution- whether the scriptures have final authority upon which we base our beliefs. Some are concerned that this will divide the denomination. I really hope it does. I hope there are still some people out there who are not afraid to stand up and say that they believe the Biblical scriptures rather than popular opinion. I know you do not agree with this stance, and I think you know that I am not closed minded to homosexuals as people of value. But, when it comes to authority for structure within the Church, our final foundation must be the scriptures as we have had and do have them. The truth has not changed.

    August 21, 2009
  1253. Patrick Enders said:

    John,
    The fact that a belief is long-held does not make it right.

    People also long considered slavery to be acceptable. I think most would agree that we’re right in rejecting that belief, as well.

    August 21, 2009
  1254. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I thought you acquiesced that what a man puts in his mouth does not make him a sinner. If that also applies to homosexual men, isn’t that a good reason to allow gay pastors? It seems to me that the verse you cherish means that the physical (what goes in one’s mouth) is not important, but the mental (the words that come out) are important.

    I’d like to see all Christians demand that all humans be treated equally, as presumably Biblegod loves all humans equally. No more prejudice. No more arbitrary discrimination.

    August 21, 2009
  1255. john george said:

    Patrick- Just because something is differnt than what has been foundational for 2000 years, and considered “tolerance”, does not make it right, either. The apostle Paul wrote to Timothy in his second letter, 4:3, that there would come a time when men would not endure sound doctorine.

    Jerry- What does sexual preference have to do with what a person eats?

    August 21, 2009
  1256. john george said:

    Patrick- I do actually know how to spell “different”, if I can just hit the right keys!

    August 21, 2009
  1257. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Some verses you interpret literally, some as parables. I don’t know on what basis you choose to interpret things one way or another. It’s disheartening to think that the world’s Christians don’t interpret verses methodically. So I am eager to learn your method.

    I remind you that you interpret Luke 14:26 …hate your family and yourself… rather loosely.

    “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” Mttw 5:11

    What is a loose interpretation of this? What is a strict interpretation? Is there a third interpretation in between? Which do you choose and why?

    It’s hard for me to keep track of which verses should be interpreted in which way. I wish there was a manual that all the 20,000 denominations could agree on, to help Christians and non-Christians interpret these sayings.

    Is it possible that the original (unknown and unknowable) authors didn’t think the book would last 2000 years, so they neglected to annotate or leave a glossary?

    Is it possible that the 400,000+ documented edits has changed the Truth over the lifespan of the Bible? Which Truth has remained unchanged for 2000+ years?

    And, of the 3000 English translations of the Bible, which Truth is more true than the others? What about the Greek versions? Are any of them more true than the English?

    August 22, 2009
  1258. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: I am still studying the political and theological response of the ECLA. These responses in the ECLA’s Social Statement makes it clear that no doctrinal decisions (“truths”) have been reached:

    1. This church also acknowledges that consensus does not exist concerning how to regard same-gender committed relationships, even after many years of thoughtful, respectful, and faithful study and conversation. (line 623).

    2. We do not have an agreement on whether this church should honor these relationships … (l. 625).

    3. In our Christian tradition, we therefore seek responsible actions that serve others and do so with humility and deep respect for the conscience-bound beliefs of others. (l. 629)

    4. Although at this time the Church lacks consensus on this matter, it encourages all people to live out their faith in the local and global community of the baptized with profound respect for the conscience-bound beliefs of the neighbor. (l. 670).

    In sum – the ECLA does not have a position on “gay marriage”. In recognition of the lack of consensus, each congregation has the freedom to decide for itself how it wants to handle the issue according to its conscience-bound beliefs.

    With respect to the atheist/non-theists debate, the ECLA statement is based squarely upon the idea that there are some truths about sexuality, including: it is a gift from God, additional discernment and prayer is necessary to understand God’s plan on orientations other than a heterosexual orientations, and that sexuality must be exercised in a life-long, monogamous, and loving relationship.

    August 22, 2009
  1259. Patrick Enders said:

    David L you wrote,

    the ECLA’s Social Statement makes it clear that no doctrinal decisions (”truths”) have been reached

    That’s still a big improvement over the old truth.

    August 22, 2009
  1260. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: The Social Statement is more a proclamation of freedom than truth. What the document affirmed is that sexuality should be confined to monogamous, loving, and life-long relationships.

    August 23, 2009
  1261. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I am hoping for some guidance still. I am genuinely getting confused as to why “hate” in Luke 14:26 is interpreted so dilutely as to make Yeshua’s command to hate one’s family a very nice-sounding “love Yeshua a great deal more than anyone else.” Yet the “what goes in your mouth” of Matthew 5:11 is interpreted so strictly that it means only food.

    I am hungry for an understanding as to when some verses are interpreted in a “feel good about the Lord” way and other verses are interpreted in a “hate people who are not like us” way.

    Wouldn’t a dilute interpretation of the Old Testament’s “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination,” [Lev. 18:22] mean that homosexuality is, in fact, OK? It being OK could very well be the basis for lifting the prohibition of gay pastors. (It could even go the other way in a strict interpretation. Because we’re anatomically different, a man cannot lie with a man in the same way as with a woman.)

    I guess one way to phrase the question is why does your interpretation trump another Christian’s interpretation?

    I am souring at the notion of how whimsical, how prejudiced, how capricious different Christians interpret the Bible.

    August 23, 2009
  1262. john george said:

    Jerry- Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. I’ve been consumed by a house project that I wanted to get done over the weekend while my son-in-law was around to help.

    As far as Matt. 15:11, this was an explaination to the crowds that referenced the question asked by the Pharisees in v 15:2. Now we know that it is wisdom to wash one’s hands just to prevent the spreading of diseases. If you look at v 15:2, the pharisees refered to the washing of their hands as a tradition of the elders, a religious practice. Jesus was always trying to nail them on their hypocracy, where they were exalting themselves because they kept some small commandment but violated other commandments by writing laws to justify what they wanted to do.

    On that note, I see a parallel to what is going on in the ELCA. They have decided to embrace and justify a lifestyle that is warned against in both the New and Old Testaments. So they go about doing this in the name of tolereance, as if that were some supreme standard to acheive. Former Gov. Al Quie’s statement reflects that, that it would be worse for fractions to occur in the organization rather than taking a stand on what has been embraced as sound doctrine for a couple thousand years.

    The rest of your questions regarding some master method to interpret scriptures cannot be had intellectually. It must come out of a renewed mind (Rom. 12:2), born of the Holy Spirit. It is best summed up in I Cor. 2:14&15.

    Back to my original question to you, how does food (what goes into a man’s mouth) have anything to do with homosexuality?

    August 24, 2009
  1263. Obie Holmen said:

    To John George,

    I’ve been expecting you to show up and comment on my blog http://theliberalspirit.com in which I have numerous blogposts and extensive comments about the ELCA convention and other matters progressive and religious(perhaps a contradiction in terms in your mind).

    You state:

    On that note, I see a parallel to what
    is going on in the ELCA. They have
    decided to embrace and justify a
    lifestyle that is warned against in
    both the New and Old Testaments. So
    they go about doing this in the name
    of tolereance, as if that were some
    supreme standard to acheive. Former
    Gov. Al Quie’s statement reflects
    that, that it would be worse for
    fractions to occur in the organization
    rather than taking a stand on what has
    been embraced as sound doctrine for a
    couple thousand years.

    Please do not underestimate the profound wrestling with the meaning of scripture among ELCA members. Please do not dismiss those who find a contrary interpretation to your own as if we are merely buffeted by the winds of popular culture. Please do not put down others who dare go against a couple thousand years of inertia–not sound doctrine–as previously with slavery and a patriarchal attitude toward women.

    Disagree if you must, but don’t trivialize the soul-searching actions of others.

    August 24, 2009
  1264. john george said:

    Obie- I will prpbably not show up in your blog. What purpose would it serve? You have not arrived at your position lighty, nor have I arrived at mine lightly. We both will answer for our beliefs on that day. What the result of that will be, neither of us can say with surety at this point in time. I choose to embrace something that has been around for a long time, and has been researched by many more learned than I. They came to the same conclusions I do, so I will continue my direction. I was asked to leave the Lutheran Church 37 years ago, when the outpouring of the Holy Spirit fell on the main line denominations, as the local pastor ws fearful of that movement. That being said,I really don’t have a dog in this fight. The ELCA will do what it likes, and local congregations will do what they like. Neither affects me, but I still have an opinion on what has happened. To me, the question is, “Indeed, has God said….?”

    August 24, 2009
  1265. kiffi summa said:

    To anyone with an open mind, who wants to explore the workings of a strongly committed religious mind struggling with the the tenets of its faith , I would highly recommend a documentary film entitled “Constantine’s Sword”; you can get it from Netflix.

    It is the work of James Carroll, who was a Catholic priest from 1968-’74, and left his beloved church because of those actions of his church which he could not reconcile with its preaching. James Carroll is a deeply religious man who confronts a deeply religious struggle. His struggle is honest, heart wrenching, and deeply analytical within a broad historical context.

    It may be enlightening for anyone who perceives these philosophical questions to be simply a matter of hierarchal allegiance.

    August 24, 2009
  1266. David Ludescher said:

    John: You might enjoy Obie’s website. Obie provides the references to the actual statements made by the Church, her decisions, and her reasons – which reasons are substantially different from the media portrayl.

    If you read the documents, the ECLA affirmed that sexuality belongs within a publicly accountable, committed, and monogamous relationship, while allowing individual congregations the political freedom to choose how its members want to treat such relationships.

    August 24, 2009
  1267. john george said:

    David- At your behest, I took a look at Obie’s blog. It is not surprising or informative to me. It is a good compilation of a point of view with which I do not agree. My brother-in-law, who is a Lutheran Pastor, made the best differentiation on the conflicting viewpoints that I have heard from just about anyone. He recognizes homosexuality as a condition of the natural man, as do I. But he differentated it in this way- nowhere in scripture is homosexuality presented as a condition of the new redeemed man. When someone presents scriptural basis for this concept, I will be first in line to receive it. But, in all my research, and the research of many others I respect and trust, I have not found any basis for this teaching.

    He went on to say that allowing a person struggling with homosexuality to lead a church is really no different than allowing a person struggling with alcoholism to lead a chuch, as long as both acknowledge that what they are struggling with is in their old sin nature (Is there anyone who does not have struggles with their old sin nature?). But to come out and proclaim that the Bible does not call this sin is not very good exegesis, at least in my opinion. Putting this in context of the convention, I suppose what I am talking about is what they are calling a social statement.

    August 24, 2009
  1268. kiffi summa said:

    “the new redeemed man” … as opposed to “the natural man” (presumably believed to be created by God, in his image)

    Where is Wm Blake when you need him?
    Can’t you just picture a puzzled God, looking at his set of measuring spoons, and saying to himself: “could I possibly have put in a heaping Tablespoon of Arrogance when I only meant to add a scant teaspoon?”

    August 25, 2009
  1269. David Ludescher said:

    John: You have to read the documents and resolutions to what the ECLA actually decided. Then, if you read Obie’s comments and stories you can understand how it is possible to arrive at a conclusion that same same-sex sexual relationships should be supported.

    It will be interesting to see how the individual congregations and the worldwide ECLA Church handle this apparent break from the worldwide Church. There are a ton of intellectual nuances in the whole debate. It is too bad that all the nuances had to be consumed by the political rhetoric of same-sex proponents.

    August 25, 2009
  1270. john george said:

    David- I can understand how the Synod came to their conclusions. The Lutheran church was moving away from embracing the Bible as the authority in church doctorine back when I was a part of it. I don’t mean to be simplistic, but I believe this is another result of that shift. But as I mentioned to Obie, it really doesn’t matter what I think on this subject.

    August 25, 2009
  1271. john george said:

    David- For clarification, I did read the links that were in Obie’s blog to the actual statements approved by the Synod.

    August 25, 2009
  1272. john george said:

    Kiffi- Is it really arrogance to stand up and say that I believe the Bible’s teachings in regard to the church more that I believe comtemporary philosophies? The natural man and the new man are parts of the whole doctorine of sin and redemption. If we say we have no sin, then we lie against the truth (I John 1:8). The next section of that scripture is the hope of the Gospel. And, I don’t think God is puzzled at all.

    August 25, 2009
  1273. kiffi summa said:

    John: you always assume that I am speaking directly to you; not so.

    I am speaking generally to the presumption of arrogance that would challenge God’s making (if you wish to insist upon that ) of the “natural man” and an interpretation of that ‘creation’ as flawed, and therefor in need of becoming redeemed.

    But once again (741.1) you have equated homosexuality with sin.

    An exploration of the human genome would show that out of every ?# of human beings a certain number will be indeterminately male or female , and a certain number will be unable to be biologically determined as either male or female. (I do not use specific numbers because I do not wish to make a mistake, and the principle is what is important.)

    And I’m also sure that could be much more clearly stated by a geneticist.

    But the scientific evidence, the chromosomal evidence, would say that biological sexual identity is not an either/or, but a continuum; and the environmental/ social evidence would say that sexual identity can be only be established by the person claiming it to be one,or another, or both, or any percentage of either.

    I John 1:8, to my reading , only says that if we do not acknowledge the capacity for sin to be in all of us, we are not truthful.
    That verse deals with the possibility of self-deception, not redemption.

    August 25, 2009
  1274. David Ludescher said:

    John: I think the biggest danger from the ECLA’s decision is that many, if not most observers will be unable to differeniate sound politics from sound doctrine. Sound politics is, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”. Sound doctrine is, “Go and sin no more.”. (In reference to the adulterous woman).

    Then again, I have never been in favor of voting on truth.

    August 25, 2009
  1275. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I Cor. 2:15 is a frightening passage. It means that anyone claiming to be (or believing to be) spiritual is morally immune from secular laws. Do you agree?

    Doesn’t this give mean that spiritually motivated suicide bombers should be morally immune from secular laws?

    You also cited, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” [Rom. 12:2] I thought this is what homosexuals cite to explain their homosexuality. It’s been my observation that many men no longer conform to the heterosexual pattern, but they allow themselves to be transformed by their renewed mind.

    You must admit that Yeshua did not say “food” in Mttw 15:11. Even if he did, you must admit that Yeshua often speaks in parables. Why must Mttw 15:11 be only about food? I have read and re-read Mttw 15 and I interpret it much more broadly than you. The Pharisees are talking about the old law, and Yeshua again says that the old law does not apply, at least in the behaviors of the body (what one puts into his mouth) but in the behaviors of the mind (what comes out of one’s mouth). Homosexuality, as a sin of the body, Yeshua declares is not a sin.

    You said that Biblical interpretation is not an intellectual pursuit, but something that comes from the Holy Spirit. First, I think this is a rather convenient argument, because it means that no matter what other people say, you’re right. I should keep that in mind if ever I find that I am losing an argument.

    But what about this. The ECLA people who reversed the gay pastor ban are Christians, and like you, they also have the Holy Spirit to help them interpret scripture. But you two have opposite interpretations. How could the same Spirit give opposite interpretations?

    August 25, 2009
  1276. john george said:

    Well, Kiffi, you lifted two phrases in quotation marks from my post 741.1. This would lead me to believe that you were addressing me, and I think my assumption is correct. Perhaps in the future you could more clearly designate exactly whom you are addressing.

    You also said

    But once again (741.1) you have
    equated homosexuality with sin.

    Take a look at I Cor. 6:9-11. This is not a list of the righteous acts of the saints. It appears to be pretty clear to me. Your dissertation on genetics and mutations does not negate what has been written. IMO, it just demonstrates the effects that the fall of man has had on the whole creation. Take a look at Rom. 8:18-25. I believe this is an explanation of the effect the original sin had on the whole creation.

    Your interpretation of I John 1:8 is right on. I must not have been clear in my next phrase

    The next section of that scripture is
    the hope of the Gospel.

    I was refering to the next verse 9. This is the redempton verse. And if you look at v. 10, there is a repetition of the concept in v. 8. So, IMO, to deny how God actually views homosexuality is to lie against the truth. Through this all, I know I will never convince you to change your mind, but that is not my responsibilty, nor even in the realm of my capabilities. I can only tell of what I’ve seen and heard.

    August 25, 2009
  1277. john george said:

    Jerry- Your interpretation of Rom. 12:2 is really interesting (How’s that for a Minnesota term?). I had no idea that the gay community was using this scripture to justify their position. What they claim makes sense, now, knowing what their reasoning is. I do not think it is correct, by any means, because it does not allign with the whole counsel of God. I’m sure you’ve seen my references to I Cor. 6:9-11 and I John 1:8-10. My opinion is that this definition of Rom. 12:2 is deception.

    In regards to access to the Holy Spirit, this is a faith matter. If we are both using the Scriptures as a basis for our faith, and a means to judge ideas, then I believe we will have a similar outcome. See I John 4:1-6. Once we begin to deviate from the scriptures for justification of our actions, then we get into dangerous ground. It is the Biblical record that we use to judge the spirits. The wisdom of man leads to deception on matters of faith.

    August 25, 2009
  1278. john george said:

    David- I think you have differentiated the positions well, and I’m not in favor of voting on truth, either.

    August 25, 2009
  1279. kiffi summa said:

    John: now I am addressing you specifically… You say: “to deny how God actually views homosexuality is to lie against the truth”.
    Arrogance…

    And now I am saying that not just all who believe as you do, that homosexuality is a sin, are arrogant , but that you have just expressed an arrogance beyond belief, beyond faith… and that is that you personally presume to know the mind of God!
    and this through your 20/21 century interpretation of a book revered by many faiths, and subject to many interpretations, all of which support the discrete belief of the interpreter.

    Arrogance … sheer, unabated and insufferable arrogance that would judge other human beings and condemn them for simply being what they are…
    regardless of the goodness of their place in the world, their contributions to society, or their care for the common good.

    August 26, 2009
  1280. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: To judge an action is not to judge a person.

    August 26, 2009
  1281. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Might others claim that you are deceived?

    Your cites of I Cor. 6:9-11 and I John 1:8-10 speak nothing of homosexuality. Only the Hebrew Bible claims homosexuality is a sin, but so many verses in the New Testament claim that there are reasons not to heed that rule.

    Was Yeshua ever asked, or did he ever answer, a question about homosexuals?

    Your prejudice against them seems to me to be based on old Jewish law that did not apply in the time of Yeshua or thereafter.

    How can you be sure that the same Holy Spirit is guiding you gay pastors if you hold opposite opinions? Don’t the gay pastors have a better claim to truth since they are not stuck on the Hebrew Bible?

    When will you stop hating?

    August 26, 2009
  1282. john george said:

    Jerry- Stop hating? Wow! That is a pretty extreem accusation. First off, I Cor. 6:9-11 specifically mentions homosexuality as a behavior that prevents us from seeing the Kingdom of God, at least in the NASV. This version is embraced by msot Biblical scholars as being closest to the original Greek texts. As I understand translating, it is difficult to have something 100% accurate from one language to another. So, in light of this, I come to the conclusion that homosexuality is something addressed in both the Old and New Testaments.

    As far as being deceived, I respond with the comment made by the Lutheran pastor from Wisconsin. The gist of that is that it is arrogance to say that 2000 years of interpretation are wrong. Also, see my response to Kiffi.

    August 26, 2009
  1283. john george said:

    Kiffi- Since we have the Biblical account of God’s view of homosexuality, then we have to come to some conclusion concerning it. If homosexuality is not a sin, then those who struggle with it are surely condemned and there is no hope for them. If it is indeed a sin, then there is the propitiation for that sin in the Blood of Jesus. Again, look at I John 1:9. That is why I say there is hope for those struggling with homosexuality if they can only agree with what the Bible says about it. There is hope for the sinner in Christianity. You accuse me of arrogance when I am offering a hope for sinners. I would say that to disagree with this doctorine that has been around for these millinia is arrogance indeed.

    As far as me knowing the mind of God, there is a scripture refering to that, but I do not have my Bible reference program on this computer. We, as believers, have equal access to the Mind of God through the Holy Spirit. Can we know it all? Mercy, no! That is why we live in fellowship with Him. He gives us direction and understanding as we need it. This does not elevate anyone to any superior level in any way. It is part of being in the Kingdom. But, the standard we use to discern the Holy Spirit is the written word of God.

    August 26, 2009
  1284. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: As I said, Yeshua did not condemn homosexuality. Corinthians was a letter written by Paul. Why would Yeshua say nothing about homosexuality if it was such a bad thing?

    The translation I’ve heard of that verse condemns the effeminate, not homosexual. I do not agree that effeminate = homosexual.

    Every denomination says their Bible is the most accurate. That was the first thing the Jehovah’s Witnesses told me, and frankly, every other Christian tribe. Have you talked to the Mormons? Why should I, or anyone, believe your version is the most accurate, since the originals are long lost and more than 400,000 edits have been documented from the earliest known manuscripts? Your reliance on this one verse to hate homosexuals is unreliable.

    But they are all forgiven in the last verse, I Cor. 6:11. Why don’t you forgive them too, if you think they sinned?

    August 26, 2009
  1285. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: As a tangent, Paul said in the Corinthians verses you cite that thieves will not be allowed into Heaven. [I Cor. 6:9-10] But Yeshua told the thieves with whom he was crucified that they would go to Heaven. [Luke 23:32-43]

    Doesn’t that imply that Paul is wrong about thieves, and that he may also be wrong about the effeminate?

    Why the contradiction?

    August 26, 2009
  1286. kiffi summa said:

    David: tell that to Matthew Shephard…

    August 26, 2009
  1287. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: As we’ve been discussing, we do NOT have a Biblical account of Biblegod’s view of homosexuality.

    August 26, 2009
  1288. john george said:

    Jerry- First, there was only one theif that died with Jesus who was offered a place in the kingdom. The reason? He recognized two things- he was justly being punished because he had stolen (acknowleged and confessed his sin) and he recognized Jesus for who he was- God the Son. There was a promise from Jesus that those who confessed Him before men would have a place in the Kingdom. Your perspective of a contradiction in the scriptures is only in the unbelief of your own mind.

    As far as forgiveness and the sin issue, I extend the same forgiveness to the homosexual that I extend to all sinners, the same that God has extended to me, and that I so much do not deserve. The issue that we are talking about here is whether homosexuality is a sin or a condition. According to the NAS translation (and it is a translation, not a version or paraphrase), there is a differentiation between the effiminate (my margin annotation says “effiminate by perversion”) and the homosexual. I am being lambasted because I call homosexuality a sin, for which there is hope as I have openly explained. Until this issue is settled, there will be a marked line of disagreement.

    .

    August 26, 2009
  1289. john george said:

    Jerry- Sorry, but you are wrong. It is very clear if you believe it. See my answer to you in 738.8.

    August 26, 2009
  1290. Anthony Pierre said:

    yep jesus would hate gay people too

    August 26, 2009
  1291. kiffi summa said:

    John: in 744.6 you said to Jerry, ( regarding God’ s view of homosexuality): “It is very clear if you believe it” !
    That’s the point John, YOU believe it; others don’t… that does not make YOU right, but when you state that you know the mind of God, it does put a bit of burden of proof squarely on you… and considering all the hate coming from what you call ‘Christians’ on to those they disapprove of … it’s a bit hard to see it as anything but a vile un-Christian prejudice.
    Your ‘Christian’ perspective is aligned with some of the most perverted and intolerant ideas of expression in this country, IMO… “committed” by a “commandment” to “transform” the world to their select vision.

    Check out the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe Arizona and the hate speech of its pastor… Yes, ‘hate speech’ , John .. How can you call it anything else when a pastor tells his parishioners that “God commands them to kill Gays”?

    For God’s sake… Yes, for GOD’S sake … give up the hate , John; you cannot make a rational argument for Hate.

    August 26, 2009
  1292. john george said:

    Kiffi- Unfortunately, the most hate I’ve seen expressed in a long time is coming from you. I feel I can discuss this issue with Jerry or Patrick or Paul Z. or probably even Obie, (althought we have not engaged one another) without being lambasted, and, recognizing that we differ on opinion and interpretation of much information, at least have respect for one another. I see, from your post 745, that I cannot discuss this with you on the same level.

    August 26, 2009
  1293. kiffi summa said:

    Yes, John, an old tactic, if you cannot defend, attack…
    My ‘hate’ is not for you, and it isn’t even ‘hate’… it’s anger, pure anger, and it is there because there are people in some of these churches that have usurped to themselves alone the word ‘christian’… and they take that word and instead of trying to improve it and all it has stood for, good and bad, side by side… they use it to belittle those who have the courage to live their lives as they see themselves.
    If you cannot defend, attack…

    August 27, 2009
  1294. Griff Wigley said:

    Kiffi and John,

    I think it might be best for you two to avoid interacting with each other around this issue.

    August 27, 2009
  1295. Anthony Pierre said:

    griff,

    I don’t understand why you don’t want them to interact on the subject. This is the best debate we have had on this thread in ages.

    We need conversations like this sometimes.

    August 27, 2009
  1296. Patrick Enders said:

    Anthony,
    Is it?

    August 27, 2009
  1297. Anthony Pierre said:

    yes it is

    August 27, 2009
  1298. David Henson said:

    Kiffi, equating John (on this thread) to some minister who says to kill people seems logically flawed, since I do not think John has mentioned killing anyone. You may be liberal but does that mean you are in favor of “killing the capitalist pigs?”

    August 27, 2009
  1299. john george said:

    Griff- I had already made that decision after that last post, so thanks for the reenforcement.

    David H.- Thanks for the observations. I always appreciate what you post. Keep up the good work.

    Anthony- I think there have been better interactions on this subject with other contributors. I would side with Patrick on this.

    August 27, 2009
  1300. kiffi summa said:

    Griff: I had already made that decision after John’s last post… so thanks for the reinforcement.

    David: knowing more than one gay male couple who have moved out of Northfield because of the unhappiness they experienced in this community, directed at them by those who found them to be lesser human beings, or “sinners”, I feel pretty angry about the loss of worthwhile and productive human capital.

    Thanks, Anthony … for not being afraid of an honest disagreement as opposed to a lot of PC BS.

    August 27, 2009
  1301. Jane Moline said:

    John: In your arguments you appear to be saying that your religious belief equates to facts–when, they are religious belief–NOT fact. They include: 1) Homosexuality is “choice” (you have previously talked of how you have helped a homosexual “reform.”) and 2) Homosexual sex is a sin.

    This, along with David L’s “hate the sin, love the sinner” is a cynical attempt to claim that you “tolerate” those that are gay, when what you are continually doing is reinforcing your highly prejudicial attitude.

    I think it is the same as claiming that “negros” should be enslaved because it is discussed in the bible, and that the same should not inter-marry with whites. I find it ridiculous that you use sexual orientation as an excuse for discrimination–it is the same as skin color–it is the way that person is born.

    Further proof of this skewed thinking is evidenced by David L’s previous equation of homosexuality to perverted relationships like beastiality.

    And David L’s crocodile tears over his poor brother unable to cover his temporary cohabitant because she is female is akin to the poor white boys claiming affirmative action is hurting their chances of getting a good job.

    Frankly, I find these discussions mean-spirited. John George and David L continue to atttempt to convert the world to their form of religion as a way to oppress, claiming love and happiness and sunshine all the while. And when Kiffi jumps in after quite a long discussion where these subversive tactics are used, she is only expressing the anger and frustration of having to listen to such idiocy in the first place.

    The religious community is experiencing a well-earned backlash from secular society for continually forcing their religious beliefs on the population in general.

    Just so you know, gays and lesbians have been with us for generations. They live in your neighborhood, they attend church (usually where they are truly accepted), they teach in our schools, they are retired from jobs where they worked with straight people for years, they are on TV, they work in your supermarket and at fast-food restaurants and expensive restaurants, they own businesses and they coach soccer and baseball and hockey, they are doctors and nurses. They are here to stay. Almost all of them have mothers and fathers, some have brothers and sisters and children. And most of those relatives love and accept their gay father-son-brother or lesbian mother-daughter-sister. And almost everyone does not want to discuss their sex-life–or yours.

    Anthony I really enjoy your comments. Keep it up.

    August 27, 2009
  1302. john george said:

    Jane- I’m sorry if I have presented my arguments as facts. I have always tried to annotate them as my opinions or what I believe. If I missed doing so in any presentation, it was an oversight on my part. As far as there being a back-lash against the church from secular society, according to historical data, this has always happened when the chusch took a stand on what it embraces as truth. If there was not some reaction, I would say that we were not doing our job. As the apostle Paul wrote, it is better for us to suffer for righteousness sake than for our own bumbling. Here is where you and I might disagree as to how to determine that.

    As far as cultural contributions from any particular conviction, there is evidence of this all around us. Since we Christians recognize our need of redemption, it is normal that we live in a fallen world. As has been noted by many recent disclosures of various moral failures by professionals we would normally not expect to do some of the things reported, then it is surprising that many who make contributions to society can have moral weaknesses and failures.

    The whole issue we have been discussing is how we deal with these things within the church. Since many of us parts embrace a more literal interpretation of the scriptures than others, there will always be differences in how this is worked out experiencially. We must make these judgements upon scriptural interpretation rather than input from secular society. It is wise to consider all sides, but for we in the church, the scriptures are the final arbiter in our decisions. We will all have to answer for how we applied them, and I’m not sure any of us can claim inerrancy. We are, afterall, mere men. Fortunately, we have a merciful God.

    August 27, 2009
  1303. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: PC BS is equating John with all those people who are spewing hatred of homosexuals. Your comments are not only unfair, but intellectually dishonest.

    Saying that homosexual actions are sins is an intellectual conclusion. I can only speak for the Catholic faith in saying that the intellectual conclusion of sin has no relationship how the person should be treated.

    August 27, 2009
  1304. john george said:

    Oops- In this sentence

    then it is surprising that many who
    make contributions to society can have
    moral weaknesses and failures.

    I meant to write

    then it is not surprising that
    many who make contributions to society
    can have moral weaknesses and
    failures.

    August 27, 2009
  1305. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: I am advocating for same-sex marriages as long as the implementation can be fair to everyone.

    My position extremely liberal. I said that civil marriage should be atheist-friendly meaning that only legal concepts should be used in its civil definition. Your response was that I was too liberal (too atheist-friendly?) because I would allow too many people to get married, including some people with whom you had lifestyles disagreements, including polygamists.

    August 27, 2009
  1306. kiffi summa said:

    Actually David, I don’t see how confronting the disagreement squarely, instead of with what I call a lot of PC BS, is INTELLECTUALLY dishonest, as you say.

    Maybe you want to consider it harsh, rude, whatever, but it is not INTELLECTUALLY dishonest.

    What IS intellectually dishonest as well as content avoidant, is being afraid to vehemently disagree with a religious POV, just because it is a religious POV.

    Religious POVs take second place to basic humanity, IMO… Sorry, but that’s how it is with me: Your Heart, Soul, and especially your Brain are ‘bigger’ (more evolutionarily dominant) than your acquired religion.

    Whether you believe in Evolution , or Creation, I think MAYBE we could all agree that you are not delivered out of your mother’s womb with an intact religion.

    I don’t believe in Crucifixion as a form of capital punishment either…

    August 27, 2009
  1307. Jane Moline said:

    David–you are right. I am opposed to plural marriage.

    Howver, my comment as to your responses is that you “doth protest too much”. (Shakespere, not the bible.)

    You claim that you are liberal and tolerant but your arguments do not ring true. I have read your responses reapeatedly, and you are not so clever. I repeat: your argument on behalf of your brother who choses to live with a woman without marriage are false-he is not suffering. Many gay and lesbian couples are however, truly suffering the results of a society that practices discrimination–even if those doing are in the minority.

    John, I do not doubt either your sincerity or your devotion to your faith and struggle to become a better person for it. (Sorry about the dangling participle.) However, you also are smart enough to see that the your interpretation of the bible can have a profound, negative affect on others.

    In a simple example, if your interpretation was that a woman driving a car was a sinner, or a woman having a conversation with a man that is not her husband or father was committing adultery, you would have a difficult time in our society going to work or church or school. It is not so difficult for you to see that some are offended by someone claiming that the bible tells them their gay son is going to hell because –he is gay–but that you can save him by providing a safe place where he can find Jesus and change his “lifestyle.” For many, many people this is the same as claiming you can make a paralyzed child walk by helping him find his faith–only more insulting–like telling a black person they will become white if they would just accept Jesus in their life.

    Being homosexual is not a sin,or a perversion, or a mistake. It just is. This is not a religious belief, nor a matter of faith. Gay is gay. Straight is straight.

    August 27, 2009
  1308. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: I don’t recall saying that I was liberal or tolerant. Perhaps I am neither. Nevertheless, we need a “marriage” system that is fair to all. Doing so requires an honest assessment of marriage. That assessment is this – today’s civil marriage is only a contract. That is a legal fact, not a belief. By allowing plural marriages we admit the obvious: Once we get rid of the requirement that marriage is between a man and a woman, all other conditions upon the parties are arbitrary.

    August 27, 2009
  1309. john george said:

    Jane- I guess I have to ask, did you really read what I wrote? I’m really not sure where you came up with your examples you cite about the woman driving the car or the woman talking to a man who is not her husband as having any correlation to what I wrote about sin and redemption. There is a large world-wide religion that does interpret these actions as sinful, but it is not Christianity. I know that you do not agree with my interpretation, and that is your choice. The Biblical perspective is no more true because I believe it than it is any less true because you do not. In my study of the Scriptures, I have not found support of the concept that commiting sins sends a person to hell. In my understanding, we all are born under that judgement. It does appear that refusal to acknowlege sin can have that consequence. The reason being is that Jesus gave his life for our sins and rose from the dead so we can have newness of life. That is why I contend that viewing homosexuality as a sin has hope, but viewing it as a condition does not allow for hope (I will not re-cite the Scriptures concerning this). And, I believe there is no correlation between a person’s sexual preference and the permanence of their skin color. Much as I have heard persuasions that would equate civil rights issues to homosexuality, I do not believe they are valid. If you want to believe that, again, that is your choice.

    August 27, 2009
  1310. Jane Moline said:

    Yeah, John, I specifically used those examples of another world-wide religion because your Christianity beliefs are just like other religions beliefs–they are yours and you have to determine how they affect how you live day to day-and whether they interfere with living. I used those examples because I think the interpretation of the Koran by extremists is similar to many Christians interpretation of the Bible–it is extreme and not necessarily a logical result of a reading of the respective text. However, I have no desire to convert you or even affect your belief in your religion. My overall desire is to not have your interpretation or any other interpretation of religious texts adversely affect my life or be used to oppress others.

    The continual claim that the Bible says that homosexual sex is a sin and that we have to guard against that in our secular lives is oppressive to many people. It is just as if you are claiming the Bible says that blacks are suppose to be segregated from whites or that women are to be submissive to their husbands. Your public life is affected by these religious beliefs, and your interactions with those you work with and see are affected by these beliefs. I do not think this is healthy or good for society. It is not something I can stop, but I don’t like it and I think it is, well, hateful. So I guess I am even coming around to Kiffi’s thinking.

    So, John, what if your interpretation is just wrong? There is so much in the Bible where the violations are clearly spelled out, but over time, the church and believers have decided they can be ignored–from eating the meat of pigs to wearing clothes made of threads from different sources. Yet you cling to this somewhat vague inference to homosexuality as the WORD OF GOD. What is it about this that makes it so different from the other minor references in the bible?

    August 27, 2009
  1311. john george said:

    Jane- I agree that many extremists have hijacked various world religions and poluted the basic message of each. The thing that is so puzzling to me is why i would be lumped together with this group from Texas whom 1)I have never heard about, 2)I do not agree with, 3)and no one even asked me? It appears to me that just because I say I am Christian and my position that homosexuality is a sin somehow lumps me in with that crowd. It would be like saying that every Islamic believer is evudently a terrorist and bent on the demise of “infidels” because there are some groups who actually carry out these threats.

    The other position you seem to think I embrace is that just because I consider something a sin that I am automatically condeming that person who practices that sin. This is a false concept about Christianity in general and my beliefs in specific. Again, did ou really read what I wrote with an open mind? My message through all this has been that there is hope for the sinner. If there wasn’t, I would be in terrible straits.

    Also, your comment

    somewhat vague inference to
    homosexuality

    does not fit the scripture in I Cor. 6 that I cited. It reads pretty clearly in my Bible. One thing I have always appreciated about God in the 37 years I have followed Him is that He is always clear about His expectations. My hearing is not always clear, but His statutes are always clear. This is where the point of disagreement usually comes- is the Bible supposed to be our authority to test the various doctrines that come along? For me as a Christian, it is. If you chose not to believe it, then it really doesn’t matter.

    As far as the other “minor infractions”, there have been many books written on just these topics, so I don’t have any hope of simply explaining it here. I can only refer to the great commandment in Matt 22:37, Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27. You say that to point out sin to a person is unloving and even hateful. I say it is not, and I base that on James 5:20. I am willing to allow God to judge whether I am right or wrong.

    August 27, 2009
  1312. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: I looked for post 738.8 but there is none.

    You have not explained how your 2000-year old thoroughly edited Bible can be said to represent the truth, only that the Holy Spirit guides you to know right from wrong.

    But the very same Holy Spirit, you claim, guides others to a different and sometimes opposite belief.

    This claim is either inconsistent, or you lend credence to everyone who says their unique interpretation of scripture is the right one.

    August 28, 2009
  1313. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: As discussed, limiting marriage to man + woman is arbitrary.

    As discussed, limiting marriage to two adults is the first guard against exploitative marriage, as polygamists tend to be old men taking girls. As the homosexual community has done, if such a rule is oppressive, would-be polygamists can incite public debate and change that rule.

    As discussed, if and until polygamy is legalized, polygamists can participate in monogamy if they wish, and still enjoy a contractless marriage with whomever else.

    August 28, 2009
  1314. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: How can you determine if the faith you follow was not hijacked and polluted? Wouldn’t Jews claim that Christianity is a hijacking and polluting of Judaism? The Christians took the Hebrew Bible, reinterpreted it in favor of Yeshua, and plagiarized tons of other material.

    Did you know that every supposed resurrection in the New Testament copied another supposed resurrection? Most of the NT resurrections follow the same model as the Hebrew Bible. The resurrection of Lazarus follows the resurrection of Osiris from Egyptian mythology.

    Does it reveal anything that the miracles of the NT are knock offs of miracles from pagan religions? Why do you believe in NT miracles but not Egyptian, if they are the same story and the Egyptians came first?

    August 28, 2009
  1315. Matthew Rich said:

    I stumbled across an interesting article online this morning regarding the possible vote this November for same-sex marriage in Washington. The article appears today on the Seattle Weekly website and was authored by Kevin Phinney. The title of the article is Are Gays Too Late to Destroy Marriage? Their influence may ultimately be nothing compared to what straights have done.

    Here is the link to the article.

    August 28, 2009
  1316. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I don’t understand your principle governing what should be a marriage and what shouldn’t be a marriage.

    August 28, 2009
  1317. Jerry Friedman said:

    David:

    1. Public policy. On average, (a) society benefits when its citizens form families; (b) individuals benefit (increase happiness) when they are married.

    2. Public policy and civil rights. It is immoral and a deprivation of civil liberties not to afford all U.S. citizens with the same ‘equal opportunity’ as other U.S. citizens.

    David, I am wondering why it’s intellectually honest to rely on a book, written before science matured, before journalism matured, that has no known original manuscripts, and is known to have more than 400,000 edits since its earliest known copies. A book that celebrates racism and slavery. A book that has inspired wars and bigotry. A book that condones murder and misogyny.

    August 28, 2009
  1318. john george said:

    Jerry- Sorry, I typed the wrong number. It should be 737.8. Looks like I have the same problems finding and annotatiing these replies that others have.

    August 28, 2009
  1319. john george said:

    Jerry- I’m using “hijacked” in a different way than you. I’m not sure the jews fell that Christianity hijacked their religion. It was forst called “The Way”. “Christians” was a derrogatory term first used in Antioch. By hijacking, I’m refering to those radical fringe groups of about every religion out there who call themselves part of the religion but demonstrate by their actions they are missing some of the important tennets of the faith.

    August 28, 2009
  1320. Anthony Pierre said:

    some would say christians highjacked christianity from jesus. I think jesus would throw up in his mouth a little if he knew what was happening to his name.

    August 28, 2009
  1321. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: I’m not relying upon the Bible. I am relying upon legal principles that require that the restriction be objective, quantifiable, and enforceable.

    How is three men marrying any different than two men marrying? What is the harm to anyone?

    August 28, 2009
  1322. Jerry Friedman said:

    John: Yes, I am using “hijacked” in the same way as you. You can tell because the Christians took the Hebrew Bible and renamed it the Old Testament. By calling it Old, you can see that they hijacked the religion, usurped their holy writings, then called it their own (albeit, “Old”). They took Hebrew prophecies and reinterpreted them to apply to Yeshua. The Christians took Hebrew mythology and relabeled it as Christian. I think you’d learn a great deal of Christian origins by looking at how many Christian things were actually Jewish or pagan.

    August 28, 2009
  1323. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: I know of no objective harm for three mental competents to be mutually married. You know this: Historically, harm results because of exploitation.

    How about answering my question…?

    August 28, 2009
  1324. john george said:

    Jerry- Hope you don’t mind me cjhiming in here, but in answer to your comments

    I am wondering why it’s intellectually
    honest to rely on a book, written
    before science matured, before
    journalism matured, that has no known
    original manuscripts, and is known to
    have more than 400,000 edits since its
    earliest known copies. A book that
    celebrates racism and slavery. A book
    that has inspired wars and bigotry. A
    book that condones murder and
    misogyny.

    I direct you to I Cor 2:4. There is a demonstration of this “Spirit and power” in many contemporary churches that I am related to. I have my own theory as to whay we do not see it in every church, and I think there is scriptural basis for it, but it is just that- my theory. I believe we as believers must walk in a greater level of holiness and humility to see this early church release of the “Spirit and power”. People in general are tired of hearing “persuasive words.” What they want is reality. I see this reality in many churches, but not enough. The greatest demonstration of the truth of Scripture is a changed life. I’m not satisfied with winning an argument. I want others who have not experienced God to experience Him. The only way I know of is to demonstrate the reality of Scripture, not just talk about it. Too bad you are so far away, now. But, God has His “ways and means” committees in every location. I believe He will demonstrate Himself to you in a way that you will not be able to deny, and at a time you least expect it.

    August 28, 2009
  1325. john george said:

    Jerry- I think we are talking in circles, here. If you want to refer to Christianity as a hijacking of Judaism, go ahead, but I don’t agree with your analysis of the roots of Christianity. The early followers of Jesus considered themselves Jews, but with the inclusion of the Gentiles, calling themselves Jews didn’t fit. It definitely grew out of Judaism, and considers itself as having the same foundation as Judaism. Of course, Islaam also considers its foundation is in Abraham, the same as Judaism and Christianity. They follow the lineage of Ishmael rather than Isaac.

    I know I’m not telling you anything new, here, but the terms Old and New Testaments date to the King James era. This demarcation is used to organize the Bible between events that happened before the birth of Jesus from those that happened after the birth. There are references in the NT writings to the Torah as the “scriptures”. In fact. Peter refers to Paul’s writings as being hard to understand, but often distorted by false teachers as they distort the “other scriptures”.

    The “Testaments” are divided into the prediction of the coming of the Messiah (Old) and the fulfillment of the coming (New). As far as the Messianic prophecies, the difference between Judaism and Christianity is what a person believes about Jesus. Christians believe He is the fulfillment of those prophecies. Judaism does not, and is still looking for the coming of the Messiah.

    August 28, 2009
  1326. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: What is the question?

    August 28, 2009
  1327. Jane Moline said:

    John: I am saying that your misinterpretation of scripture regarding homosexuality is the same as the Islamic extremist misinterpretation of the Koran to oppress women or radical Christians who misinterpret scripture to oppress women, support segregation or white supremacy or otherwise USE their religiion to fit a warped view. I am saying straight out that you are wrong, and it is harmful. And it is unChristian. Gays are gays. Nor perverts. Not mistakes. Not bad. Not sinners except as much sin as straight people. And learn more about Judaism before making those pronouncements.

    August 28, 2009
  1328. john george said:

    Jane- I don’t understand your reasoning for calling my use of I Cor. 6:9 to be a “misinterpretation”. I’m just quoting it straight up. Just because you don’t like it, does that make me wrong? I really do not understand your animosity, aside from it just being something you do not believe. As I said before, there is hope for the sinner.

    Also, what else do you propose I learn about Judaism? There is a lot of detail to that religion, and I certainly do not profess to know all of it.

    August 28, 2009
  1329. Jane Moline said:

    I am glad you think there is hope for me.
    Judaism is not based on waiting for the Messiah.

    August 28, 2009
  1330. Jane Moline said:

    P.S.Glad only male prostitutes are immoral.

    And, again, you are reading a passage that has been translated from its original language. Not at all straight forward.

    August 28, 2009
  1331. john george said:

    Jane- Re 757 & 758. No, judaism is not based on waiting for the Messiah. That is my way of explaining the Jewish approach to the Messianic scriptures in the Scrolls and the Christian approach to the same scriptures. If I understand what you are saying here, then the Jewish religion is based upon being the chosen race through the lineage of Abraham.

    As far as my Bible, yes, it is a translation. When it comes to the original Greek, there are many manuscripts, again, so there are probably some variations in how a specific line is translated and by whom is doing it. Rob Hardy, are you lurking in the bushes somewhere? You have the expertise in Romantic Languages.

    August 28, 2009
  1332. Jane Moline said:

    John: check the King James version. Silent on homosexuality.

    August 28, 2009
  1333. Jane Moline said:

    And when did Jesus say this?

    August 28, 2009
  1334. john george said:

    Griff- I tried a post with a link in it that your spam filter did not like. Could you puuullleeeeessse fix it for me? While you’re at it, why don’t you get a spam filter that is developed in Minnesota? I’m sure Hormel objects to their product being deterred.

    August 28, 2009
  1335. john george said:

    Jane- Hang tight. I have a response coming as soon as Griff can get it out of his trap.

    August 28, 2009
  1336. john george said:

    Jane- Are the scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit or not? This is a question of belief, since Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one (Triune God).

    August 28, 2009
  1337. Jane Moline said:

    John: I think you have the interpretation wrong–you are focusing on one part (badly translated) and missing the overall message. I think Paul was instructing the Corinthians to live moral lives–and was admonishing them against promiscuous sex. (Some translatios will say “male prostitutes” others “effiminate” and so forth–but it seems to be a passage about excess in sex–adultery, prostitution, etc.

    I do not think it wise to base public policy on one small passage in a letter to the Corinthians, although I do not think promiscuous sex is good for anybody, including society.

    I would be more worried about the Gov of SC,who was chasing some Argentina tail, than about same sex couples. At least he has admitted to violating one of the ten commandments.

    I guess I wonder why some, calling themselves Christians, have raised a prohibition for homosexual sex up to being like one of the ten commandments. At the same time, many of these same Christians can explain that it is ok for soldiers to kill people even though that is definitely one of the ten commandments. That is the one that says “Thou shalt not kill.” Fairly simple language, easy to interpret as meaning–you should not kill. Period.

    Training young men and women and sending them off to kill. Perhaps I missed the part in the translation with the footnotes and exceptions that make this OK.

    Wage peace.

    August 28, 2009
  1338. john george said:

    Jane- I have no argument with your position on training people to kill. I don’t blame God or use Him to justify us having to do that, though. I see it as a necessary evil to survivie certain time periods in this fallen world. I also have no problem with encouraging people to live moral lives.

    I would like to hear your reaction to the link that (hopefully) Griff is going to free from his trap. I read a whole bunch of them, and it was quite evident which predjudice the translators bring to their task. The link I cited had, what I thought, at least, the most neutral logic in the way it translated the original Greek. What makes this passage most difficult is that the Apostle Paul combined some root words that have not been found in the same combinations in contemporary secular writings. This, unfortunately, opens up the gate for various opinions about what he meant, without anyone having corroborating contexts from which to draw.

    August 28, 2009
  1339. john george said:

    Jane- A response to your comment

    I do not think it wise to base public
    policy on one small passage in a
    letter to the Corinthians

    is well taken. We all would hope that the government representatives we elect would pass laws that align with our own convictions. This means that someone is going to be disappointed all the time. Public opinion ebbs and flows and is not necessarily based upon any Biblical principles. But, when it comes to a segment of the Christian Church making a decision that is contrary to a couple millenia of Biblical understanding, then I think they had better be sure they have it right. The Church is the pillar and support of the truth, according to Col. 3:15

    August 28, 2009
  1340. john george said:

    Jane- A search of some of the references in Google proves that a person can even manipulate the original Greek to support whatever viewpoint they prefer. There was one reference on this link
    http://www.geocities.com/ears_tickled/christiangreek_corinthians.html
    that seemed more reasoned than many of them. Take a look at it. I’m not sure that this point can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as David L. would say, either direction. When I look at the whole of creation and mankind, it would appear that there is a natural reason for having two genders. From this observation, I would naturally question relationships outside this pattern whether I was Christian or not.

    August 29, 2009
  1341. Griff Wigley said:

    I found it, John. It’s now posted at 760.2

    August 29, 2009
  1342. Jane Moline said:

    I don’t think the church has been a source of truth. (Some truth but a lot of hooey, too.) And I don’t think it is a question of a small group of Christians against Bible understanding. I think it is a large group of people of all faiths (and no faiths) who do not care to follow a minority interpretation of scripture. The church has claimed many things for years and years but that does not make creation the truth or anything else in the bible, for that matter. Just repeating something over and over does not make it true. You may accept it as truth because of your faith. To impose that on others makes it the same as any other radical imposition of religious rule.

    August 29, 2009
  1343. john george said:

    Jane- I agree with all your points, here. And, I, nor anyone else, for that matter, can force any opinion upon anyone else. We are free moral agents and therefore have congnitive abilities. I do accept the Bible as truth because of my faith. I would take one additional step that is recorded in James- I will show you my faith by my works. This scripture really bothered Martin Luther and many of the Reformationists, because it takes the whole argument of faith out of the intellectual realm and puts it in the here and now realm. I just revel in it, though, because I believe Christianity is something to be demonstrated and not just talked about. Don’t get me wrong, I do love to talk about it, as is evidenced by my posts. But, this does me no good if I do not live it. How that is worked out can be cause for much misunderstanding, especially for anyone on the outside looking in, and especially when dealing with people trapped in their sins. All of us were in that trap before repenting and turning to the Lord. That is why I think it is important to develope relationships within our community.

    August 29, 2009
  1344. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: In 1858, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to mean that blacks did not have any rights. Did we lose faith in the Constitution and claim that it was a bunch of hooey? No. We realize that the Constitution can be interpreted narrowly and incorrectly.

    So it is with the Bible (and I suspect other holy books). An atheist will discover, if its words are read in a spirit of understanding and truth, that there is a humanism surpassing even the most sophisticated Constitutions of today.

    August 30, 2009
  1345. Jane Moline said:

    Luckily, David, we did not stick with the US Supreme courts interpretation of the constitution for that 1858 case –in a few decades we were able to move beyond their bigoted interpretation of the constitution. It is too bad we are unable to amend the bible for the truths discovered in the last 4000 years. And it is too bad that many cling to their bigoted “interpretations” of the bibles “truth.”

    August 30, 2009
  1346. Anthony Pierre said:

    The bible’s words are rarely read in that spirit, david.

    August 30, 2009
  1347. john george said:

    David- Ah! The spirit of understanding and truth. I suppose you and I may have differing definitions from Anthony and Jane as to what is “truth” in the church and what is “hooey.”

    August 30, 2009
  1348. David Ludescher said:

    Jane: And it is too bad that you have let your dislike of some people and their interpretations of the Bible color your perceptions of the Bible’s literary, cultural, social, and humanistic value.

    The Bible doesn’t cause discrimination against gays any more than the Constitution caused discrimination against blacks. Rather, both documents were written in a spirit of revealing truths about how man should live and treat each other.

    August 30, 2009
  1349. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: Do you mean Article IV, Section 2?

    “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State [i.e., slave], under the Laws thereof, escaping into another [i.e., runaway slave], shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour [i.e., no asylum], But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due [i.e., escapes slaves shall be returned to their enslaver].”

    August 30, 2009
  1350. David Ludescher said:

    Anthony: As an example, the Bible does condemn same-sex sexual behavior. Read within the context of the times, it is easy to understand why the behavior was condemned. And truthfully, some of the reasons for that condemnation still exist, just as the reasons for condemnations of adultery, fornication, and prostitution still exist. Read within its context, the Bible’s teachings about sex are not about religious versus legal views; they are more about teaching responsible sexual behavior.

    August 30, 2009
  1351. Jane Moline said:

    Yes David–the bible teaches against promiscuous sex. It does not prohibit sex, but that is the interpretation of some.

    August 31, 2009
  1352. Jane Moline said:

    Right David–guns don’t kill people–people do. The bible is used to promote discrimination against women and gays and you’all just claim to be a bunch of true believers.

    August 31, 2009
  1353. Anthony Pierre said:

    truth and understanding is not the same as blind faith.

    August 31, 2009
  1354. kiffi summa said:

    I’m apprehensive of Griff’s ‘link trap’ , so go to the people of the American Way website, then a related org called Right Wing Watch and ask for content on the “God Commands you to kill gays” sermon preached by Steve Anderson, of the Faithful Word Church, in Tempe AZ.

    Anyone would be shocked by the degree of language used, and the assumptions made, concluding in the directions given. The language cannot be characterized as anything other than ‘hate speech’ and the people using it should be held accountable for the havoc they cause, whether the words were spoken in a church or not.

    The same preacher gave a sermon about wishing for President Obama’s death, and the next day one of his parishioners is the guy( all over the news) with the assault rifle over his shoulder, in a crowd of people, outside a health care forum.

    My question is this: if the ‘Christian Right’ which does not support these extremist views does in fact NOT support these views, shouldn’t they actively work to disavow these extreme statements?
    If the ‘Christian Right” who do not feel that these statements which refer to gays as “rapists, sodomites”, etc are acceptable, shouldn’t those ‘Christians’ stop linking descriptors of a similar nature to the word homosexual?

    August 31, 2009
  1355. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: You wrote, “What is the question?”

    I had said, “David, I am wondering why it’s intellectually honest to rely on a book, written before science matured, before journalism matured, that has no known original manuscripts, and is known to have more than 400,000 edits since its earliest known copies. A book that celebrates racism and slavery. A book that has inspired wars and bigotry. A book that condones murder and misogyny.” Please note the underlined section. You tout intellectual honesty, which is splendid, but you defend public policy based on an intellectually dishonest book. John G. even says that the Bible cannot be discerned intellectually, but through the Holy Spirit.

    You said that some things, like murder, are inherently evil.

    Is homosexuality inherently evil?

    August 31, 2009
  1356. Jerry Friedman said:

    I have to ask, what’s the Christian view on parading around in a bikini, trying to get the award for being the most popular sex object? Might Sarah Palin have the answer?

    August 31, 2009
  1357. Anthony Pierre said:

    I have a feeling they are saying ‘get off my side’

    August 31, 2009
  1358. john george said:

    Anthony- You might be right. I have the opinion that foolish and hateful behavior have no political or religious boundaries. I remember after the Viet Nam war, when the GI’s were coming home and disembarking at airports, there were SDS members and every other disrespectful person out in the welcoming crowds spitting on these guys and accusing them of being baby killers. The only reason these “protesters” were not shot on the spot is because these GI’s had been taught to respect other people, something those off-scourings of society had never learned. And to think, “civil disobedience” and destruction of property are still esteemed as an acceptable means of protest. I don’t think those protesters 30+ years ago realized the damage their actions were doing to their own cause.

    The same can be said for those deceived parishoners in Texas. This type of activist behavior really has no place in the Church, IMNSHO. I think a good example of this is what Peter did to the high priest’s servant in the Garden of Gethsemanie, and how Jesus rebuked him. He went one step further and restored the servant’s ear, according to one Gospel. We Christians can only have an effect upon a world of unholiness by how we exhibit holiness. Our admonishment is to love those who hate us, not kill them.

    Jerry- I don’t think there is a “Christian view” on beauty pagents. I hesitate to condemn those who participate, just because they don’t happen to fit my expectations, because if God could use Balaam’s donkey to talk to him, He can probably use a beauty pageant contestant. A good example of how God can arrange things for His children to keep them from violating their conscience is the example in the movie, “Chariots of Fire.” My opinion of Carrie Prejean’s actions is that she was not walking in righteousness in many of her actions, and therefore negated her opportunity to be a witness for the truth.

    August 31, 2009
  1359. john george said:

    Griff- I forgot to thank you for rescuing my post with the errant link. It is much appreciated.

    August 31, 2009
  1360. Jane Moline said:

    John George: Unfortunately,some of them were baby killers. Some have even apologized.

    See, when you send people to war to kill people, they do just that. I am grateful to the Vietnam war protestors for not giving up and not giving in. War is wrong. Teaching people to kill is wrong. Claiming they are honourable is….pretty weird.

    August 31, 2009
  1361. john george said:

    Jane- Yes, some of them were. But what about the ones who weren’t? What about the ones with no choice in the matter? Just because a few Muslims attacked the World Trade Center, does that mean all Muslims are terrorists? Should we go around spitting in their faces and calling them baby killers? I don’t have any problem with protesting attricities. What I have a problem with is taking out a person’s frustrations on everyone associated with a group whether or not they participated in attrocities. No matter how much you disagree with a person and no matter what side of a position you are on, I do not think it is appropriate to treat them with this type of disrespect.

    August 31, 2009
  1362. David Ludescher said:

    Jerry: (752 thread): My original claim, which I still stand by, is that an atheist-friendly analysis of civil marriage would conclude that it is seriously broken. (See Matthew Rich’s post at 756).

    Proponents of same-sex marriage are right that including gays in marriage is only fair. Opponents of same-sex marriage are right that adoption of same-sex marriage is not curing the brokenness of today’s marriages.

    September 1, 2009
  1363. Jane Moline said:

    David L: Opponents of same-sex marriage are not claiming anything about same-sex marriage “not curing the brokenness of today’s marriages.”

    Instead, they are claiming that extending marriage recognition to same sex couples will CAUSE the destruction of marriage–while the real culprits are opposite-sex couples failing–like our little Christian buddy, the governor of South Carolina, who cannot seem to understand marriage vows.

    September 1, 2009
  1364. Anthony Pierre said:

    Have you guys read about ‘The family’?

    September 1, 2009
  1365. john george said:

    Jerry- One more thought on beauty pageants. Take a look at the book of Esther. That whole scenario started out as what sounds to me like a beauty pageant. Remember Mordecai’s words to her in chapter 4. We do not always know ahead of time why we have an opportunity to be in a place of influence or honor. In fact, God can even use the disobedient, as with Samson.

    September 2, 2009
  1366. kiffi summa said:

    OK, Griff … a few hours short of a week, with no comments…

    Isn’t it time to bury these old scrolls, and let someone dig them up a thousand years from now?

    September 9, 2009
  1367. Jerry Friedman said:

    A week is hasty. I’m traveling far out of state and haven’t had the opportunity to respond. I’d suggest agnosticism on when to bury the old scrolls until the body rises from the grave or smells so bad that the corpse has risen through bacterial action. In other words, wait…

    September 9, 2009
  1368. kiffi summa said:

    Another week has gone by with no additional comments, Griff.

    Can’t we admit the subject has gone to Hell? Give the Devils their due and consign it to the flames!

    September 16, 2009
  1369. john george said:

    Griff- I don’t know what your standards are on keeping a thread open, and it really doesn’t matter to me, but I know other threads have sat dormant for a couple months and are then revived as some new event sparks interest. The characteristic of this particular thread is that it can never really be resolved, so do what you like. I was still waiting for a response from Jerry F. on my #775 post, but he knows how to get ahold of me if he has any more comments.

    September 16, 2009
  1370. Patrick Enders said:

    It’s not dead, it’s only resting!

    September 16, 2009
  1371. Jerry Friedman said:

    Indeed, it’s resting. I’m amused that some people want to declare it dead, when it’s really an immortal web page. It’s not like Griff has a crew of gnomes working hard to maintain it.

    I’ve been overwhelmed with work, a trial in California (the stingy insurance company of the guy who rear-ended me didn’t want to settle), and writing deadlines so my LGN cruising has plummeted. Like the believers in the apocalypse have said, “The end is near!” I’m not dead so I’ll be back.

    September 16, 2009
  1372. john george said:

    Jerry-That’s great to hear. Hope you didn’t have any neck or back injuries.

    September 17, 2009
  1373. john george said:

    Wait a minute! That didn’t come out right! I’m not glad to hear you were rear-ended. I’m glad to hear you are not dead and just busy. Sorry.

    September 17, 2009
  1374. Griff Wigley said:

    Immortal… I like that characterization of this message thread.

    September 17, 2009
  1375. kiffi summa said:

    Griff: Why don’t you just do a new thread on “How Fundamentalist-friendly is Northfield?”

    and then those who feel immortality is within their grasp can have the same conversation all over again?

    September 17, 2009
  1376. Patrick Enders said:

    There can be only one… immortal thread.

    September 17, 2009
  1377. kiffi summa said:

    Another no comment week … Dead… but immortal?

    Griff: Can you find a cover of the issue of Time magazine (how many years ago?) which shocked some of the country with its headline … what was it? “God is Dead!”, or was it: “Is God dead?”

    September 25, 2009
  1378. Jerry Friedman said:

    Kiffi: Atheists are not used to waiting endlessly for an imminent response. OK, cheap jab. Strike the statement.

    September 25, 2009
  1379. Curt Benson said:

    Taking a cue from Ashton Kutcher, Kirstie Alley and Griff, God is now on twitter:

    http://twitter.com/HolyGod

    September 28, 2009
  1380. Curt Benson said:

    ….. apparently God has responded to Griff’s criticism that he operates with a disturbing lack of transparency. He’s blogging too:

    http://www.holygodblog.com/

    Griff, is he a client?

    September 28, 2009
  1381. Peter Millin said:

    God has been declared dead way before Time magazine had pronounced it.

    Have you heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly, “I seek God! I seek God!” As many of those who do not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter…

    Whither is God,” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. All of us are murderers…. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him…

    September 29, 2009
  1382. Patrick Enders said:

    God was declared dead by Nietzsche. It’s actually a fairly interesting concept – unless, I suppose, you are a true believer in divine inspiration:

    “God is dead” never meant that Nietzsche believed in an actual God who first existed and then died in a literal sense. It may be more appropriate to consider the statement as Nietzsche’s way of saying that the “God” of the times (religion and other such spirituality) is no longer a viable source of any received wisdom. Nietzsche recognizes the crisis which the death of God represents for existing moral considerations, because “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands.”[1] This is why in “The Madman”, a work which primarily addresses atheists, the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order.

    The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than Christian values. He would find a basis in the “will to power” that he described as “the essence of reality.”

    Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. He may have seen himself as a historical figure like Zarathustra, Socrates or Jesus, giving a new philosophical orientation to future generations to overcome the impending nihilism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_God

    (I took a philosophy course on postmodernism at Marquette University, titled “The Death of God and the Emergence of Technology.” It won an “Enny” – my own personal award – for best Philosophy course title ever.)

    There is a stark dichotomy between traditional mystical thought and post-enlightenment technical thought. Nietzsche recognized this, and sought to find philosophical roots for morality in the philosophical absence of divinely-inspired absolute morality. I don’t know that he got it right, but I’m glad that he (and others) have tried.

    September 29, 2009
  1383. john george said:

    I just got a new book from a good friend. It is written by Francis Chan, titled “Crazy Love- Overwhelmed by a Relentless God.” In the first chapter, he responds to all the “Why…” questions by quoting Daniel 4:35, “All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as He pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back His hand or say to Him: ‘What have You done?'” The next two sentences are riveting. “Can you worship a God who isn’t obliged to explain His actions to you? Could it be your arrogance that makes you think God owes you an explanination?” These are a couple of pretty pointed questions that, IMO, get to the heart of the issue of believing in God or not.

    September 30, 2009
  1384. Anthony Pierre said:

    I don’t know dude, I would love for it/him/her to explain this

    13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a] and give them to the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

    20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

    Deuteronomy 22:13-21

    September 30, 2009
  1385. john george said:

    Anthony- “You must purge the evil from among you.” Is that explanation enough?
    But, then Jesus comes with this one in John 8:7, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Hmmmmmmm.
    Then, we have Hosea 6:6, “…for I desired mercy (some vs- loyalty, obedience) rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.”
    Then, God’s dwelling above the Arc of the Testament was called the “mercy seat.”
    I’m very glad that Jesus paid the price for my sin, and had mercy upon me, because I was worthy of death. That same mercy is available for you, also, if you want it.

    September 30, 2009
  1386. john george said:

    Sorry- That should be “Ark”, not “Arc”, although there were flashes of lightning associated with it.

    September 30, 2009
  1387. Anthony Pierre said:

    in a word.

    no

    October 1, 2009
  1388. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Nietzsche’s warning has largely been misinterpreted.

    Beyond the scientific question of God’s existence (which seems to dominate the thinking of Dawkins and other atheists) is the consequences of believing in God’s death (atheism). In this way, Nietzsche was more of a prophet than a moralist.

    Nietzsche predicted a nihilism would eventually overtake humanity, and man would eventually revert back to his will to power. He warned that without God, man’s life would lose meaning and value. In the end, all that would matter would be who had the power.

    I think we are seeing some of the signs of what Nietzsche predicted in Western Europe and America.

    October 1, 2009
  1389. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I understand Nietzsche’s insight. The Nihilism he feared had to do with the crisis of faith/identity/morality that believers would face – and does not necessarily apply to those who do not attribute morality to divine inspiration.

    As it is, I believe that human morality is a result of our natural biological tendency to do good towards our kin, reinforced through socialization and enforcement of laws. As such, I think that philosophy is merely an effort to apply formal, rational theoretical structure to a visceral, and not inherently rational, urge to take care of our kin.

    Interestingly, this evolutionary idea of morality is getting some support from studies that look at how we make moral decisions.

    My google-fu is running up against my need to get my little girl to daycare, so this is the best (and it is not very detailed or exactly what I was looking for) reference that I could find regarding the biological origin of morality, as found through observation and experimentation:

    http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-nature/emotions/other/trolley-problem2.htm

    I’ll try to find more detailed discussion at some point.

    October 1, 2009
  1390. john george said:

    Anthony- If we have a god that has to answer to us, then he wouldn’t be much of a god, IMO. (I used the lower case “g” for emphasis.)

    October 1, 2009
  1391. John, I don’t mean to put words into your mouth, but it sounds as if you’re saying essentially that you couldn’t have a god worthy of the name whose joy and purpose was to explain things so that its creations could understand them, or that such a god would be less worthy of our love and worship than one who did not explain. It sounds as if it all comes down to power, in the end, then, doesn’t it? Well, really, I think it’s circular reasoning: we can’t explain some things about a presumptive God’s supposed actions that we would find abhorrent by the standards of our time, so the solution is to take that as proof that God must be a real god, in fact the best/most powerful kind of God, rather than admit that the mythology doesn’t stand up to rational moral scrutiny.

    I acknowledge that plenty of people would say they do not recognize the God they worship in some of these biblical descriptions.

    October 1, 2009
  1392. john george said:

    Penny- Re. your comment “…whose joy and purpose was to explain things so that its creations could understand them, or that such a god would be less worthy of our love and worship than one who did not explain.”, no I did not say that. What I said is that God does not have to ANSWER to me. (I’ll be glad when Griff gets his tool bar back.) To me there is a difference, and I have had God show me many things that I did not understand. It comes through revelation and a renewed mind, and I have found that He takes delight in revealing truth and insight to me. I should iterate that His delight is in each of His children, not just me only, as if I had some inside track with Him that is not available to other believers.

    October 1, 2009
  1393. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: I didn’t understand Nietzsche the same way. I understood Nietzsche to say that without God, all man’s actions, including man’s morality, are directed to the will to power.

    I think we see this pathology in politics today. Without a belief in God, there are no absolute values; rights become alienable; and art of justice is reduced to amassment of power structures that serve the person rather than the whole of humanity.

    October 2, 2009
  1394. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I guess we all see what we want to see. Nietzsche saw a crisis for traditional systems of morality. I see that philosophies of morality are just window dressing for rationalizing and organizing our intrinsic impulses.

    I share neither your despair, nor Nietzsche’s, for our present state and for our future. Why? Because my background is in science (including a major in biological anthropology), and at the same time I was reading Nietzsche, I was also learning of Franz de Waal’s work, and other scientific research that reveals altruistic behavior in our primate relatives that in many cases closely mirror our own.

    A couple interesting reads that I’ve found on the web regarding the empirical/scientific study of morality:

    “If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html

    “The Biological Basis of Morality”
    http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm

    “Virtuous Species: The Biological Origins of Human Morality: An Interview with Frans de Waal”
    http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=184

    http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/10/23/biological-basis-for-morality.htm

    Oh, and thanks for prompting me to check out a couple books:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262600722/ref=pd_luc_sim_01_01
    http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691141290/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

    October 2, 2009
  1395. Patrick Enders said:

    Griff, can you please unmoderate my post? Thanks.

    October 2, 2009
  1396. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: I don’t have to look any further than the invasion of Iraq to see the foolishness of a system of morality without the concept of God. Nietzsche understood that without God (or at least the concept of God) that man will drift to into the land of nihilism where everything and nothing can be justified.

    With a biologically based concept of morality, what is wrong with invading another country, and killing their women and children? What is wrong with torturing captives? What is wrong with holding prisoners for years without the opportunity for truth-telling? An explanation that refuses to admit of the permanent, the universal, and the eternal cannot provide an answer. All it can state is, “In my opinion …”.

    Why did the vast majority of the American people, and our political leaders not see the moral atrocity? And, why were the vast majority of religious leaders, including Pope John Paul II so vehemently opposed to this war? In retrospect, can’t we say absolutely and unequivocally that this war was wrong? Or, do we still have to settle for the answer, “In my opinion …”?

    October 2, 2009
  1397. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Most of the people who supported that war of aggression were ostensibly Christians. The leader of that war effort believes that he is a Christian, and according to some around him, he believed at the time that he was acting as an instrument of God (IIRC… I forget exactly how his special relationship with Divine Purpose was characterized).

    There is a long history of Christians fighting brutal wars of aggression in the name of their Christianity. The Pope-sanctioned Crusades (1095-1272+) were particularly immoral wars of aggression. Jerry has already detailed many other violent Christian acts. The history of Christian Europe (not to mention the history of Christian Europe vs. Africans and Americans) is full of ongoing violence.

    My point is this: the Christian Epoch has been long and bloody. It is full of violence by Christians – often in the name of Christianity – upon Christians and non-Christians alike. It seems silly to suggest that the modern period is any more immoral or bloody than that past, or to suggest that people are fundamentally any worse in their tendencies to do evil (as well as good) than they were in those past, more exclusively Christian, times.

    By contrast, I do not consider myself to be a Christian believer. However, I know that killing a person is always wrong. By extension, unlike so many American Christians, I know that war is wrong, and that – if indeed waging war can ever be justified, it can only be in the truly direst of circumstances, when a greater wrong must be ended and no other means is available.

    It doesn’t take an idiot to see that our war of aggression against Iraq never rose to that level of imperative. But yet, many Christians supported it. Maybe you should ask why they did so, in spite of – or could it even be in concordance with – their concept(s) of God?

    October 2, 2009
  1398. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: What you say has a lot of merit. But, I fear that you are drawing the wrong conclusion.

    My faith (Catholic) has some fairly sophisticated principles governing war. (I think you would find them to be nearly identical with your thoughts.) Having examined those principles in relation to the Iraqi war, I find the war unjustified on numerous grounds. That was also the conclusion of Pope Paul II. In line with his duty, he instructed the faithful to reject war as an answer to the crimes of 9/11.

    It is my understanding that leaders of the Islamic faith have also rejected the violence of 9/11, and have instructed the faithful to reject violence as a means of performing God’s will.

    So, it may be true that some believers supported acts of violence in concordance with what they believed were the dictates of God. But, I would suspect that most believers’ support was done in spite of, not because of, their beliefs.

    Interestingly, because atheists didn’t have to work out the Christian/Muslim overtones, I think it was easier for them to view the situation in more neutral (and God-like) terms than someone who identified himself as a Christian.

    October 3, 2009
  1399. Can we now concede that this blog has beaten the dead horse many, many times?

    October 12, 2009
  1400. Patrick Enders said:

    My love,
    It’s always dangerous to revive a slumbering thread by suggesting that has worn out its welcome. See above, or ask Kiffi.

    Unfortunately, until Griff turns over the keys to the blog to the rest of us (or we find a better place to carry on our local online repartee), there really is no other option than to post at the bottom of some tangentially-related set of comments which have precious little to do with the original post.

    October 12, 2009
  1401. Patrick Enders said:

    Slight tangent: MPR broadcast an excellent episode of “Radiolab” last night, which looked at randomness, and the human tendency to perceive patterns in random events.

    The show is quite entertaining, and does a great job of discussing the patterns that we see in random(?) events. I can’t help but believe that the biggest difference between non-theists and those theists who perceive miracles in our daily lives has to do with how people process the seemingly strange events that occur either due to chance, or perhaps due to some outside influence guiding our world from behind the scenes.

    This hour, Radiolab examines Stochasticity, which is just a wonderfully slippery and smarty-pants word for randomness. How big a role does randomness play in our lives? Do we live in a world of magic and meaning or … is it all just chance and happenstance? To tackle this question, we look at the role chance and randomness play in sports, lottery tickets, and even the cells in our own body. Along the way, we talk to a woman suddenly consumed by a frenzied gambling addiction, two friends whose meeting seems purely providential, and some very noisy bacteria.

    http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/06/15/stochasticity/

    And hey.. it’s available as a podcast!

    October 12, 2009
  1402. Patrick Enders said:

    p.s. Felicity: I highly recommend this podcast for any of your statistically-challenged students.

    October 12, 2009
  1403. john george said:

    Patrick & Felicity- It is good to see that other couples are schedule-challenged when it comes to having time to communicate with our spouses. Now, if I could only get Karen interested in posting here…

    October 12, 2009
  1404. kiffi summa said:

    Felicity: I tried, several times to get ‘Them’ to give it up; now you have tried…
    I can’t believe any exhortations will do any good , because they are ADDICTED to this discussion.
    I think, that they think, they have discovered a new and infinitely renewable energy source!

    October 12, 2009
  1405. Anthony Pierre said:

    it would power downtown for a year with the amount of hot air in this thread

    October 12, 2009
  1406. john george said:

    Come on, folks! This is Griff’s blog. Can’t you allow him one opportunity at immortality? Or, is he just beside himself, since some of you refer to “them” in regards to this thread? Or, perhaps some of you all are beside yourselves?

    October 12, 2009
  1407. Jerry Friedman said:

    Felicity: Again I ponder what it matters if this thread is awake or slumbers for eternity. Is there a shortage of space on the Internet? Does Griff pay rent for this HTML file?

    October 12, 2009
  1408. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: I think there is a lot of merit in suggesting that the main difference between atheists and theists is the method that is used to process unexplainable events.

    I would suggest that it is much more rational to assume that every event has an explanation, although it may be unknown, then to suggest that all events are purely random.

    October 15, 2009
  1409. Jerry Friedman said:

    David: You don’t need to fret about random events. I don’t know of any science that rests on random anything. (I understand that some subatomic particles appear to make random movements, but there may yet be smaller forces at work upon them. The science of quarks has not rested.)

    October 15, 2009
  1410. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    I completely agree with your statement that

    it is much more rational to assume that every event has an explanation, although it may be unknown, then to suggest that all events are purely random.

    The difference is that a scientist, agnostic or non-theistic rationalist assumes that “there is a cause (or causes), but I do not yet know what it is.”

    A theist assumes, “I do not know what the cause is, so it must be God.”

    The radio show I linked to actually has to do with the step that precedes that process of explanation. It discusses the first step of observation which is: “Is there a discernible pattern in a set of observed events, or is it all just complex noise?”

    A skeptical scientist or statistician assumes that it is probably all just noise (that is, the patterns have not yet been discerned), until a pattern can be measured and characterized, and shown to be different from that which would be expected to be generated by background noise (that is, a complex interplay of many webs of cause and effect, which adds up to the lack of predictibility that you characterize as “random”).

    Again, scientists do not accept “random” as an explanation in and of itself. It is simply a shorthand for “lack of predictibility.”

    On the other hand, some nonskeptical theists seem to simply assume, “Wow! That must have been an act of God!”

    October 15, 2009
  1411. john george said:

    Patrick- Another perspective, from a believer, in your observation is in the area of healing. It is written that when a believer prays for the sick, then they will be healed (simple cause and effect). This is not paranormal, at least from a believer’s perspective. We don’t assume that every unexplained event is caused by God. We act upon His word (pray for the sick) and believe He will confirm His word with the appropriate manefestation. What is not normal is when we pray for the sick and they are not healed. This is hard to explain, and therefore has the appearance of a “lack of predictability”, as you say.

    October 15, 2009
  1412. Patrick Enders said:

    The South continues to prove that racism is not quite dead yet:

    Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.

    Staff
    AP News
    Oct 15, 2009 15:47 EST

    A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

    Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

    “I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”

    Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

    “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

    If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

    “I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/10/interracial_couple_denied_marriage_license_in_la.php?ref=fpblg

    Sheesh.

    October 15, 2009
  1413. john george said:

    Sheesh is right. Just one more reason I live in Minnesota, not to be racial about it, though. There is a reason the Irealites wandered in the desert for 40 years. I think you remember my link to the Newsweek article about race patterns in the DNC/RNC thread.

    October 15, 2009
  1414. Jerry Friedman said:

    Patrick: “Sheesh” is not my first reaction.

    I think that racism will exist as long as the myth of human races exist. If this bigot took a modern science class or read current science literature, he might realize that all humans alive today belong to the Homo sapiens sapiens race, and that the nearest human race to be “racist” against are Homo sapiens neanderthalis. No one would be upset if the bigot denied a marriage license between a modern human and a Neanderthal.

    October 15, 2009
  1415. Scott Oney said:

    Patrick: More faux news? Notice that the article you link to doesn’t mention the race of either member of the couple. It also doesn’t explain how Judge Bardwell’s wife could tell by talking to the bride-to-be over the phone that they were an interracial couple, if indeed they were.

    I found a picture of the groom on another Web site, though, and based on his bandanna, I’d guess “Crips.”

    October 16, 2009
  1416. john george said:

    Scott- This isn’t faux news. I found it on my MSN home page. You do raise a couple good questions about how the whole event, though.

    October 16, 2009
  1417. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    It’s from the AP. They tend to be more slightly more accurate than Fox.

    I’m not sure how the Judge decided the race of the members of the couple. How, exactly, would the means by which he determined that justify his quotes, above?

    Thanks in advance for your explanation, because I don’t see how his justifications could ever seem anywhere near okay.

    October 16, 2009
  1418. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott, there’s an expanded version of the AP article, after the authors reached the judge for comment:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff_19

    It explains that he learned that they were of mixed race when they called to get a marriage license signed:

    “Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell’s wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.”

    But it’s okay, because Judge Bardwell explains:

    “I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

    Again, Scott, how does the fact that they determined the couple’s race by phone make this okay?

    Thanks again.

    October 16, 2009
  1419. Scott Oney said:

    Patrick: Sorry, Dude; your head must be spinning! As for your question, I really can’t answer it. I have no idea why you think the means by which the judge determined the race(s) of the couple are relevant to the accuracy of the quotes attributed to him in the article. So your thanks in advance were misplaced.

    And notice that it was the judge’s wife, not the judge, who took the phone call. I don’t know if it was a publicity stunt or just a prank call that went too far, but it just doesn’t ring totally true. The reporter should have tried to find out.

    John: Most style guides tell you not to mention race unless it’s relevant, but they don’t give good examples, so people usually err on the side of caution. But in this story, it’s the whole point, so it especially stood out that AP shied away from identifying the subjects by race. I thought it was kind of funny.

    October 16, 2009
  1420. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    From your current response, I take it that your interest in the race of the husband and wife – and how the judge’s wife determined it – had nothing to do with suggesting that what the judge did or said wass okay, and was merely an interest in journalistic accuracy? If so, I am very glad to learn that.

    If you could, though, please explain your “Crips” comment.

    October 16, 2009
  1421. Patrick Enders said:

    Scott,
    Perhaps too, you could more clearly explain your comment that

    “I don’t know if it was a publicity stunt or just a prank call that went too far, but it just doesn’t ring totally true.”

    You seem to be hinting at some kind of a thought, rather than just stating what you think. Perhaps you could explain your hypothesis about a “publicity stunt” or “prank call that went too far”?

    October 16, 2009
  1422. Scott Oney said:

    Patrick: So many questions! I’ll try to help you out with a couple.

    If you could, though, please explain your “Crips” comment.

    In the world of gang colors, red is associated with Bloods, blue with Crips. The would-be groom is pictured wearing a blue bandanna, which would be consistent with Crips affiliation but place him in danger in a neighborhood controlled by Bloods. It’s also important to note that wearing colors consonant with those of a controlling gang would be considered disrespectful for one unaffiliated with that gang. I know it to be true in Mpls., and also in Schenectady, N.Y.; I think it’s a nationwide phenomenon.

    Perhaps you could explain your hypothesis about a “publicity stunt” or “prank call that went too far”?

    People stage publicity stunts to draw attention to themselves, someone in whom they have an interest, or some cause. If that’s the case here, it worked. There’s more and more every time I google these guys.

    I must admit I’m as flummoxed as you are about how a person could determine the race of a girl’s boyfriend by simply talking to her over the phone, unless she for some reason mentioned it.

    October 16, 2009
  1423. Paul Zorn said:

    I keep trying to resurrect (maybe not the right word …) these old, old threads. But here’s something new about religion and its place in public life. Last Saturday’s Strib has an op-ed

    http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/93152889.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

    arguing that the next Supreme Court appointee should be an atheist. Since then President Obama has nominated Elena Kagan, who is (I think) Jewish. But the question remains: Is the editorialist right? Do atheists deserve “representation” on the SCOTUS?

    May 10, 2010
  1424. kiffi summa said:

    Paul: I do not think it is appropriate in a country which has separation of church and state to have religion be a factor in the eligibility of Supreme Court Justices.

    Since religion cannot play a preference in the decisions made by the justices, they should be presumed to take a neutral position as to personal religious persuasion.

    As a matter of fact, Kagan, if nominated, would replace the only Protestant (Stevens) currently on the Court.

    So… with her nomination, the court would be comprised of Jewish and Catholic members.

    May 11, 2010
  1425. Patrick Enders said:

    Souter is Episcopalian. If he’s anything like the Anglican/Episcopalian ministers that I keep coming across in British literature, he’s probably an atheist.

    May 11, 2010
  1426. I don’t think religion or atheism of candidates should normally enter into the appointment or approval process as a deciding factor, except that I think having varied backgrounds on the court is generally good, and I also think there is danger in having a strong majority of one religious persuasion and, frankly, especially of a religious persuasion that takes a particular doctrinal stance upon an issue on which Americans as a whole have varying views and which is likely to come before the court.
    .-= (Penny Hillemann is a blogger. See a recent post titled Bald Eagle Hanging Out With Pelicans) =-.

    May 11, 2010
  1427. Paul Zorn said:

    Nobody proposes making religion or lack thereof an official or legal criterion for eligibility to sing with the Supremes. Even if that were a sane idea — it isn’t — it would run hard afoul of the Constitution’s establishment clause.

    But there’s a harder question here somewhere.

    While ethnicity, gender, culture, and other such factors should certainly not be mandated (for or against) in these appointments and nominations, it seems to me perfectly reasonable and wise to keep such things in mind when nominations are made and voted on.

    It’s not just a matter of statistical fairness or bean-counting, though those may play some role. More telling for me is the fact that the SCOTUS is asked to rule on a huge variety of questions, some of which touch directly on issues of religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Justices with a variety of experiences in these areas bring something extra to the table, or bench. Something of that advantage might accrue, I think, if we had more diversity than we do in the area of presence or absence of religious belief.

    May 11, 2010
  1428. john george said:

    Paul Z.- I agree with your comment, here, :
    “While ethnicity, gender, culture, and other such factors should certainly not be mandated (for or against) in these appointments and nominations, it seems to me perfectly reasonable and wise to keep such things in mind when nominations are made and voted on.”
    What my biggest concern over the last few years with the advent of “profiling” into the public forum is our fear to consider any of these normal traits for fear of being lableled a “profiler.” Is this so bad? If we are looking for an employee for a job whose requirements include public relations, and a slovenly, ill-kemp, inarticulate applicant seeks the position, I’m pretty sure we would be more inclined to hire someone who at least tried to dress and act like the job requirements. I guess I really don’t see any difference when looking for a Supreme Court justice. This is a fairly specialized position, and those being considered for it need to have a little more in their resume than their ethnicity, gender and creed. If they have the qualifications, these other factors should be beside the point.

    May 11, 2010
  1429. David Ludescher said:

    Paul: It seems perfectly reasonable to keep ethnicity, gender, culture, and other factors in mind when choosing a candidate; but it isn’t in practice. In fact, it might work in reverse – Justice Clarence Thomas being the example. A “minority” candidate like Thomas doesn’t get the same kind of screening that a “majority” candidate would get simply because people don’t want to seem racist. A marginal candidate like Thomas might get appointed because of his race yet a justice like John Paul Stevens might more closely identify with the issues of racial injustice.

    May 12, 2010
  1430. Phil Poyner said:

    There are very few absolutes in this world, but here’s one I know to be true: In the American political process, declaring yourself an atheist will instantly render you unelectable in over 95% of all locales. See, a majority of Americans foolishly believe morality and ethical behavior go hand in hand with religion, regardless of how many examples they may see that prove the contrary. I’ve met moral and ethical religious people, and I’ve met moral and ethical atheists. And I’ve met bunches of immoral and unethical people of every persuasion! I fail to see the correlation between the two.

    May 13, 2010
  1431. Patrick Enders said:

    Phil,
    That’s mighty enlightened of you. I hope you’re not planning on running for office.

    May 13, 2010
  1432. Phil Poyner said:

    Ah, but then I never actually declared MYSELF an atheist! 😉 Still, in this day and age believing that an atheist could be moral an ethical is probably enough to make ME unelectable. Just as well…I’m also kind of a jerk most of the time!

    May 13, 2010
  1433. Phil Poyner said:

    Ah, but then I never actually declared MYSELF an atheist! 😉 Still, in this day and age believing that an atheist could be moral and ethical is probably enough to make ME unelectable. Just as well…I’m also kind of a jerk most of the time!

    May 13, 2010
  1434. Paul Zorn said:

    Phil,

    You raise an interesting “recursive” question about eligibility for office. Suppose

    (i) disbelief in God disqualifies a bloke;
    (ii) disbelief in rule (i) disqualifies a bloke;
    (iii) disbelief in rule (ii) disqualifies a bloke; and so on.

    Who could run? Blimey! The good news for all of us is that being a jerk is emphatically not a problem.

    Sorry about the faux British, by the way, but Patrick’s reference to clergymen in literature set me off. For anyone who likes such things, I recommend Barchester Towers, by Anthony Trollope, which somehow manages to be respectful, satirical, moving, and very, very funny about English ecclesiastics and politicians. And you get to watch pro- and anti-disestablishmentarians go head to head.

    May 13, 2010
  1435. David Ludescher said:

    Phil: I would be concerned if a sitting Supreme Court justice was an avid atheist. It isn’t much different than having a judge who is a fundamentalist Christian. Judges have to judge according to the law and the Constitution, not their individual bias.

    I don’t think it would be that hard for an atheist to get elected if they didn’t make atheism an issue.

    May 13, 2010
  1436. Paul Zorn said:

    David,

    Would you worry if one of the Supremes was an “avid” Lutheran? Catholic? Unitarian?

    Perhaps an atheist could get elected if he or she “didn’t make atheism an issue.” In a fairer world, the same stricture would apply to non-atheists, too. In an even fairer world, candidates could make whatever issue or non-issue they want of religion, and voters wouldn’t give a d*** either way.

    May 13, 2010
  1437. David Ludescher said:

    Paul: Yeah, I would worry. The idea that a particular group deserves “representation” flies in the face of impartial decision-making.

    Candidates for an elected office is a different matter. A person’s particular belief structures inform voters what issues are important to the candidate.

    May 14, 2010
  1438. kiffi summa said:

    Human Rights Campaign sends out a notice to its members that the Catholic Church is refusing to allow children remain in their schools if it is discovered that the parents are gay…
    A child in the Boston Catholic school system was admitted and then the admission rescinded because of the parents sexuality; two preschoolers in a Colorado school were expelled ( preschoolers expelled??? ) because of their parents sexual orientation.

    Is this a common practice, or an aberration?

    May 15, 2010
  1439. Patrick Enders said:

    So the Church believes in punishing children for the sins of their fathers?

    Interesting.

    May 15, 2010
  1440. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: Who is the “Human Rights Campaign”, and how did they get their information?

    May 20, 2010
  1441. Scott Oney said:

    David: Those small bumper stickers, two yellow lines on a dark blue background (meant to be an equal sign), are theirs. It’s a group that fights for equal rights for those they’ve managed to convince themselves don’t have ’em.

    May 20, 2010
  1442. kiffi summa said:

    David; Human Rights Campaign is a national equal rights organization. I suggest you go to their website and search around.

    An e-newsletter came from them last week with the information about the children being denied school attendance because of their parents’ sexual orientation.

    May 20, 2010
  1443. john george said:

    Kiffi- You raise an interesting issue, here. Should religious organizations be compelled to change their doctrines to allign with societal trends? I say no. Most monotheistic religious organizations have a narrow set of tenets that sets them apart from the society around them, and other religions that differ in their basic doctrines. I believe this is the concept the framers of the constitution had in mind when they wrote their separation clause. This group of men had different religious backgrounds and recognized that it was important that each of them have the freedom to live those convictions. That is the reason the Pilgrims fled England to this country in the first place. If you want to use human rights as a litmus test of whatever religion you might want to associate with, then that is certainly your perogative. But I don’t think we should summarily impose this narrow set of standards on every religion to satisfy your own definition of what an “acceptable” religion should look like.

    May 20, 2010
  1444. kiffi summa said:

    John: these are little children, in one case preschoolers… there are no “narrow set of tenets” or “doctrines” to apply to them. I believe you are just being argumentative with me personally because of our well known differences about ‘religious’ POVs.

    I am remembering a colored print hanging on the wall of the Sunday school room when I was a small child: A picture of a young man with long blondish-brown hair, wearing what we would now call a dress, seated on a rock, and saying “Suffer the little children to come unto me…”

    May 21, 2010
  1445. Paul Zorn said:

    Here’s a link — there are thousands more out there — to the kids-of-gay-parents-in-Catholic-schools story.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/05/14/catholic.student.gay.parents/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

    Rejecting kids for their parents’ inadherence to a Catholic doctrine seems absurd on its face, not to say impractical. Doing so across the board would probably empty the schools. By the same logic, too, Lutheran schools (like the one I attended as a tyke) should vet parents’ views on predestination, transsubstantiation, and the okay-ness of lodge membership, all of which have been and may still be live theological questions.

    So much said, the recent cases in Massachusetts and Colorado seem to me to be aberrations from, rather than instances of, standard operating procedure. Indeed, Catholic schools seem to me to do a lot of good works specifically among poor and disadvantaged kids, including some with parents in jail, on drugs, and worse. This good record doesn’t excuse the Massachusetts and Colorado decisions. On the contrary, it suggests that these decisions were not just wrong, but (to this non-Catholic) anti-Catholic.

    May 21, 2010
  1446. Scott Oney said:

    Kiffi: I found the article on the HRC Web site, but it doesn’t explain how they found out about the kids’ parents. I doubt any Catholic school would have enough money in their budget to hire a team of private eyes, which would be the best way. Did the nuns place bogus ads on craigslist, or something, and bust ’em that way?

    May 21, 2010
  1447. Patrick Enders said:

    Indeed. Why not look a little deeper into parental deviations from church doctrine?

    Some serious consideration should be given to the following:
    Divorce
    Out of wedlock birth
    Contraception
    Masturbation

    Or, if the Church want to look beyond sex and relationships, how about:
    Meat on Friday
    Taking the name of the lord, our god, in vain
    Voting for a Democrat

    I’m sure there are plenty of others.

    May 21, 2010
  1448. Jane Moline said:

    John George your anti-gay homophobic perspective does not add to the discussion. Being gay is not a societal trend.

    However, religion used as an excuse to disccriminate and persecute groups of people has been going on since the beginning of time–which is why some people are driven to atheism.

    I don’t think the Catholic church is a good example since they are so pathetically punitive–their recent misogynistic ex-communication of a nun for giving the ok to save a dying woman shows how organized religion continues to work against the altruistic actions of the faithful.

    May 21, 2010
  1449. David Ludescher said:

    Paul: I think defiance not inadherence was or is the problem. Each bishop gets to decide for himself how to handle parents who openly reject or defy the Church’s teachings but still demand a Catholic education.

    If I remember correctly, the Boston decision was reversed and the Denver decision was confirmed by the respective bishops. Either way, it is unfair to the child to have him or her be a pawn in the parents’ disagreements with the Church. If you don’t agree with the Catholic Church, you can always enroll your children in the public schools.

    May 21, 2010
  1450. Patrick Enders said:

    Jane,
    I don’t think religions drive people to Atheism. Generally, it’s a lack of belief in the existence of a god (or gods) that drives people to Atheism.

    It might be more accurate to say that the actions of the Catholic Church can drive people to non-denominationalism, or non-Catholicism.

    May 21, 2010
  1451. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Perhaps the children of divorced-and-remarried parents should be expelled due to their parents open defiance of Church doctrine?

    May 21, 2010
  1452. Paul Zorn said:

    David,

    The Boston decision was not “reversed”. The decision, at least as reported here —

    http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/05/20/omalley_post_cites_good_of_the_child/

    was more ambiguous. As I read it, the Cardinal managed to praise both sides in the controversy.

    As for “defiance” vs “inadherence” … is there really a clear difference? Do couples who practice birth control, for instance, “defy” the Church in doing so? Or do they just “not adhere”?

    May 21, 2010
  1453. Jane Moline said:

    Patrick I disagree. (Surprize!)

    The actions of some organized religion cause people to question their faith and examine their beliefs–causing some to discover that they are more comfortable without. In a way it does not really “drive” them as much as encourage their exploration in that direction–more of a mosey for most.

    May 21, 2010
  1454. Patrick Enders said:

    Jane,
    Ah, I misunderstood your intent. Understanding your point, then, I guess we should commend the Catholic Church for encouraging thoughtful exploration of our beliefs.

    May 21, 2010
  1455. john george said:

    Jane- I am not offended by your evaluation of my perspectives. You have your right to those opinions, innacurate as they might be, and I know you and I differ on this issue. Enough said.

    However, I don’t think your comment here is quite accurate:

    “Being gay is not a societal trend.”

    According to the link I have posted here, until 1973, homosexuality was still treated as a mental condition by the American Psychatric Association. It was pressure from society, specifically the homosexual community (surprise?) that began to change how homosexuality was viewed.

    http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

    I think there is historical precedence to say that the acceptance of homosexuality in this country is a societal trend. I am not advocating returning to the pre-1973 treatment of the gay community, but I do resist being coerced into redefining my interpretation of Scriptural Doctrines in my particular expression of Christianity. Just as I would not want to see Catholics or Muslims forced into compromising their convictions by society, I reserve the same right to embrace my own convictions.

    May 21, 2010
  1456. Jane Moline said:

    Yes, John George, just as it is a societal trend to recognize civil rights for blacks (or Indians. Or Jews. or Muslims) or women’s suffrage.

    I am suggesting, very strongly, however, that those who are against the acceptance of equality and human rights in our society keep their narrow-minded diatribes to themselves and their like-minded friends.

    May 21, 2010
  1457. john george said:

    Kiffi- I’m not convinced that you understood my point, and it really isn’t worth it to press the issue further.

    I don’t fully agree with the responses of these two schools, but they are Catholic schools, not public schools. That being the case, unless they receive tax dollars for their programs, I don’t think the government or the HRC has any position of authority to tell them how to handle these situations. They can certainly express an opinion, just as I can, but that opinion carries no more weight with the Catholic Church than my opinion.

    May 21, 2010
  1458. David Ludescher said:

    Paul: I am sure that O’Malley will have to wrestle with questions that you pose. Obviously, no one has the “right” to attend a Catholic school. If the parents are going to be a disruptive education influence, then enrolling the child is not good for anyone, least of all the child.

    Catholics can disagree with the Church in a respectful way that honors the duty of the Church to teach the tenets of the faith. Non-catholics should be tolerant enough to understand that the Church’s agenda is not dicatated by the political popular social mores.

    May 21, 2010
  1459. john george said:

    Jane- Censorship? Really?

    May 21, 2010
  1460. Patrick Enders said:

    The Catholic Church may be continuing its anti-homosexual purge, but fortunately there are open doors for such families just down the street:

    Lesbian Lutheran minister to become ‘official’
    Seven years after the Rev. Mary Albing took the pulpit at a south Minneapolis church, the ELCA is recognizing her ministry.

    For seven years, the Rev. Mary Albing has been pastor of Lutheran Church of Christ the Redeemer in south Minneapolis. But the official roster of pastors lists the job as vacant.

    Albing, a lesbian, couldn’t be recognized as a minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).

    Her stealth status ends Sunday morning when Bishop Craig Johnson of the Minneapolis Synod signs the original Letter of Call that Albing got from the church in 2003.

    http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/94635159.html

    May 22, 2010
  1461. kiffi summa said:

    John: in a phrase that may be very familiar to you, “you raise an interesting point here”…

    Is it possible to look on your voiced un-acceptance of people with differing sexual orientations as “discrimination” ?

    May 22, 2010
  1462. kiffi summa said:

    Sorry… in my reply to John above, I meant to say “Censorship” , not “discrimination”…

    Obviously a Freudian slip, or at least closely related neurotransmitters.

    May 22, 2010
  1463. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: “anti-homosexual purge?” What does that mean?

    May 23, 2010
  1464. Patrick Enders said:

    In this case, the expulsion of children from Catholic schools because their parents are gay.

    May 23, 2010
  1465. Jane Moline said:

    John George–you can call it censorship-I don’t want to hear the drivel of discrimination–you can claim that your religion is an excuse for your homophobia–but that is exactly what Christian churches used to uphold slavery and later Jim Crow laws in the south. Keep it away from my children and even my dog–they deserve better.

    May 23, 2010
  1466. William Siemers said:

    In other words, John, you have the right to your opinion…you just don’t have the right to express it.

    Jane, may I suggest, if you do not want to ‘hear the drivel’ of opinion that you do not share, then perhaps you should not put yourself, (and your dog and children), in a position where you are exposed to it, rather than calling for the censorship of the free expression of others. While I do not agree with John on the subject at hand, his posts generally, and certainly in this case, meet the guidelines of this forum, and deserve to be seen. I’ll leave it to Griff to determine if your outburst meets those same guidelines.

    May 23, 2010
  1467. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: The document doesn’t support your interpretation. Rather, the document concludes that it is the Vatican, not the individual bishops, who set the guidelines for admission to the seminary.

    When I read the document I didn’t detect a significant difference between the guidelines for heterosexual and homosexual seminarians.

    May 24, 2010
  1468. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: My guess is that one adult is the biological parent and the other “parent” isn’t. Either way, the adults should keep the children out of disputes that are between the adults and the Catholic Church.

    May 24, 2010
  1469. kiffi summa said:

    David: To reorganize/re-phrase …what about the Church keeping the children out of disputes that are between the Church and the Adults?

    May 24, 2010
  1470. Jane Moline said:

    William: I appreciate the sentiment of your words–but I don’t think speaking out against discriminatory and inflammatory speach is an outburst–if John George was speaking against interracial marriage or having his children go to school with blacks or against having a Hispanic teacher in the public schools or a shop run by Indians (from India) everybody would SHOUT him down.

    For some reason his claim that it is against his religion gives him license to denigrate gays. I am saying NOT HERE. NOT NOW.

    May 24, 2010
  1471. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: Ironically, that is what Cardinal O’Malley has suggested in Boston. He said that he would work with the adults to find the children another school where their education came first.

    May 24, 2010
  1472. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church should exclude adopted children from Catholic Schools, as well?

    Like the many gay parents whose relationships you dismiss so casually, my relationship with my daughter is merely a legally-defined one, free from any direct genetic transfer.

    I suspect that is not what you meant, so it sounds more like you’ve introduced a rather smelly little red herring there.

    May 24, 2010
  1473. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    You are right. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike are excluded from the priesthood if they have “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”

    May 24, 2010
  1474. john george said:

    William- Yep, I think you are correct. I think it is interesting that a “discussion” is many times viewed as an exchange of agreement among like minded individuals. I was of the impression that the opposite was true, that a discussion can be had between unlike minded individuals. Perhaps our fragmented society is not providing a safe forum for that type of discourse anymore. I have had the impression from Griff that he would like to foster that level of discussion here, where people of differing ideas can discuss those ideas without digressing into name calling. I always appreciate your posts and your even-handed way of presenting your ideas. Keep up the good work.

    May 24, 2010
  1475. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: And, homosexuals and heterosexuals with “deep-seated heterosexual tendencies” are excluded.

    May 24, 2010
  1476. Patrick Enders said:

    The article does not say that. Perhaps you could cite a source?

    May 24, 2010
  1477. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: I don’t know the legal nor biological status of the adults who are claimed to be the “parents” in either the Boston or the Denver cases.

    What strikes me about the stories is why a parent/adult would ever voluntarily put their child in the middle of an adult dispute.

    May 24, 2010
  1478. Patrick Enders said:

    And yet, you persist in putting the air-quotes around “parents.” Do you do the same when you introduce your own “children,”* or your own “parents”?

    Similarly, would you introduce me as the “parent” of my daughter?

    *: if any.

    May 24, 2010
  1479. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: Your original claim was that the Catholic Church was continuing an anti-homosexual purge.

    But, in reality, it looks like some unthinking adults wanted to get into a fight with the Catholic Church. It would be different if this were a public school where officials are prevented from favoring any specific creed. But, this is a Catholic school. What part of their thought process would tell them that this was good for their child?

    How about a little tolerance for a faith that teaches children are the product of a man and a woman?

    May 24, 2010
  1480. Patrick Enders said:

    David,
    Thank you for refraining from the use of “”parents”” – although I notice that you now choose to refer to the persons in question as adults rather than call them parents (with or without quote-marks).

    As an adult who happens to live with a child that is not my genetic offspring, I appreciate your consideration in now opting for omission, rather than commission in this regard. It is a slight improvement – although I am still curious about your opinion on whether adoptive parents can simply be called parents, or if they need to be referred to as “parents”?

    But back to the matter at hand…
    I find it hard to respond to your questions without understanding your assertions. Perhaps you could explain what you meant by:

    “But, in reality, it looks like some unthinking adults wanted to get into a fight with the Catholic Church.”

    Maybe you’ve read more on the subject than I, but I don’t recall that such a motive has been established.

    May 24, 2010
  1481. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: I don’t know any facts – just media spin. That being said, the quotes attributed to Cardinal O’Malley seem the most sensible. The Church is trying to help the kid find a school that better matches the adults’ value system. It seems like a sensible approach for a private school.

    May 24, 2010
  1482. Patrick Enders said:

    As I noted above, “there are open doors for such families just down the street” at the ELCA.

    May 24, 2010
  1483. David Ludescher said:

    Patrick: The Catholic-intolerant can always go to the public schools.

    May 25, 2010
  1484. Penny, I think you know, but I just want to point up the fact that ot all Catholics apply their beliefs in the same way…right or wrong as that may be. Many members of the Catholic church, like any other church may go to church and expound their beliefs with many a varied reason as to why.

    May 25, 2010
  1485. kiffi summa said:

    I agree with Jane… you guys (John and William) don’t seem to be able to parse out the difference between freedom of speech (1) and using speech to denigrate or harm others (2). Freedom is on who’s side there?

    I’m sorry, but I cannot forget that John said, and I quote: “… not all homosexuals are pedophiles”.
    That kind of comment should not be tolerated in society, whether based in a religion or not. It can be ‘allowed’ as a precept of the freedom of a person to say it; but should not be tolerated by a society striving to be civil.
    I can’t imagine any thoughtful religion ‘thinking’ that it is OK to Harm those whom they consider to be ‘Other’.

    May 25, 2010
  1486. William Siemers said:

    Kiffi…

    Once again, you make my point…

    You say that this forum (representing ‘civil society’) should censor the statement, “not all homosexuals are pedophiles.” Should the statement…”not all heterosexuals are pedophiles”, likewise be banned? You would censor words that are completely factual?

    Of course your objection is to what you believe to be the implication of John’s statement. But rather than respond to the reasoning behind his statement, you would have it banned. Never mind that by doing so so you eliminate your opportunity to enlighten those who might share John’s misguided reasoning. Let me assure you that not all the tenets of the “Kiffi Summa World View” are universally accepted, so censorship is not really advancing your cause.

    Jane…
    Responding (in the strongest terms you would have), and ‘shouting down’ are very different. Shouting down is censorship and simply destroys debate. “Shout” as much as you like, but allow others to make their point, however misguided it may be. Censorship does not defeat prejudice.

    May 26, 2010
  1487. kiffi summa said:

    Sorry William… but I do NOT make your point.

    I clearly differentiated between the freedom to say something, “misguided” or not, and the tolerance of letting such a statement just stand without challenge… so I do not censor the speech, and I do not censor the speaker.
    I ask that society not tolerate prejudicial evaluations of other people based on personal matters such as their sexual orientation.

    I do not believe in censorship except where violations of law harm innocent people.

    I think it is quite obvious that you misunderstand me, and perhaps I also misunderstand you; therefor it is better that we do not engage in a spitting war… sorry I replied to you.

    However, I do not misunderstand John’s statement in the context within which it was made, and will continue to hold it as an example of discrimination, religion based or not.

    May 26, 2010
  1488. William Siemers said:

    Sorry Kiffi, I was thinking of ‘tolerate’ as ‘permit’ rather than ‘not oppose’.

    Good…You seem to agree that John, or anyone else for that matter, can say whatever he wants in this forum except if violates Griff’s guidelines.

    May 26, 2010
  1489. Paul Zorn said:

    I have no opinion on whether anybody understands or misunderstands anybody else.

    Seems to me, though, that both “censor” and “tolerate” are capable of big-time misunderstanding. Censorship, for me, is about preventing people from saying or writing or seeing or reading or hearing things, as opposed to dissing what people say or write. Thus one might deplore or despise or dispute — but not censor — the utterances of, say, Rush Limbaugh. Conversely, a parent might forbid children to watch certain movies or read certain texts — censoring them, in some sense — without necessarily disputing them.

    “Tolerate” is another tricky word — as the exchange just above illustrates. When Kiffi asks, for instance, that “society not tolerate prejudicial evaluations of other people …” I agree completely — if the point is that “society” should not prevent those who disagree from voicing their disagreement. But I would disagree, just as vehemently, if “not tolerate” is understood in any way that comes close to “forbid”. It’s tricky …

    May 26, 2010
  1490. David Ludescher said:

    Kiffi: The law makes all kinds of discriminations. The question is whether the discrimination is just. So, when Jane calls the Catholic Church “pathetically punitive” (812)that is an example of discrimination.

    Are you suggesting that society shouldn’t tolerate Jane saying such discriminatory things?

    May 26, 2010
  1491. kiffi summa said:

    Paul’s got it right; don’t ‘mess’ with him in either spelling bees OR word usage!

    May 26, 2010
  1492. What I don’t like about some atheists I have met is that they look down on people for believing in God or gods. I wonder how much more silly it is to believe in God, like I tend to do on a good day or in the universe being born from some type of bubbling up from nothing like a cold bottle of Coca Cola spontaneously appearing in the Sahara Desert on a particularly hot day.

    Other than that, I am okay with whatever people believe, as long as they don’t believe they’d like to do something rude to someone else.

    Thanks for letting me make that point uncensored.

    May 26, 2010
  1493. Paul Zorn said:

    Bright,

    Yes, nobody likes snooty atheists, especially when they willfully caricature, rather than try to understand, others’ beliefs. But such caricaturing is no less “rude” when non-atheists do it, as perhaps with the “carbonated beverage theory” of life’s origins.

    Let her who is without sin cast the first aspersion.

    May 27, 2010
  1494. Phil Poyner said:

    In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, “That’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are.”

    May 27, 2010
  1495. I’m fine with that, Paul. I speak my truth and I hope it resounds with others and then I hope we get to a place where we can all speak our truths and everyone says…fine.
    If you are offended, then so be it. If you want to change who you are, then cool.
    If you want to stay the same, then it’s alright.

    What I wish we could do is to see the sin, rule on it,then see the good in the person, if any, and then go with it. Mostly everyone wants to throw the baby out
    with the bath water. We’re all going down the drain, if that’s the case…me included, and goodness knows I’ve TRIED to be good.

    May 27, 2010
  1496. Jerry Friedman said:

    Bright, I know what you mean. It was pointed out to me that theists of one religion are atheists of another, so Christians are atheists when considering Hinduism. Yet so many Christians consider Hindus as pagans and damned. Considering world history, the Christian atheists are the most hostile atheists of all, participating in attempted genocide, succeeding at least once, and oppressing all sorts of others because they believe in a different god or gods.

    Sometimes I think that the atheists of all religions, such as myself, have simply learned by the example of others. I mean, if the Protestants and Catholics didn’t have a 30-year war, if they tolerated or accepted each others’ differences, and if this was the norm for theists, I think that atheists would have been greatly influenced by such goodwill.

    I don’t mean to excuse atheists bad behavior. Since so many religious people are so nasty does not mean that atheists have a right to be. I simply understand why some atheists are.

    I always support religious people finding common ground. It would be very nice if people of all religions, and no religions, would abandon religious strife. No more bombs, no more tracts, just hugs and handshakes.

    May 27, 2010
  1497. Well, it sometimes takes me awhile to get to the point I really want to make and now I have it for anyone who is still interested. It doesn’t really matter what any of us believes as far what theory, god, or lack of a theory, or god, what matters is this…wait for it, wait for it…what matters is that what we believe takes us through this journey we call life in a manner that we can recognize who we are and what we can do on this journey. We are all in this boat, airplane, bus ride, sky dive, march, OOB travel, motorcicle, and or gerbil wheel together. Can we agree on that much?

    (refer you to the old son, I don’t want a nickel, I just wanna ride my motorcicle,
    I don’t want a dime, I just want to ride my mo….tor cy….cle!)

    May 27, 2010
  1498. Jerry Friedman said:

    I think I know what you mean, and I like the sound of it. But I hear too many people who take what you say, “what matters is that what we believe takes us through this journey we call life in a manner that we can recognize who we are and what we can do on this journey,” and they do very bad things with it. Some people hurt other humans. Some people hurt other nonhumans. The list is long. Each of them believe that “what we can do on this journey” is to dominate others. I long for an ethic that is easy for everyone to adopt, that puts respect for others as its highest moral. Some religions have come close, but none so far have been embraced by many people. Even classic Buddhism, that propounds respect, is not as popular as other forms of Buddhism that, for example, establish a slave class of people to serve the enlightened class of people.

    May 27, 2010
  1499. I think it is possible, but I may be dreaming,that we could all move to a higher plane and just create neat ideas and stuff and just sit around in bliss. I think the stress created by the push and pull of the yin and yang is necessary to move us through the generations with gradual progress, however that may be defined and redefined throughout the ages, toward a different level of existence. I won’t say higher here, cuz I wouldn’t want to define that for everyone.

    Excuse me now, I have to get the crumbs out of my keyboar. 🙂

    May 28, 2010

Leave a Reply to Patrick EndersCancel reply