No God, No Rights? You betcha.

[Alan Smithiee]

" In fact, the truth be told, no matter what your Harvard philosophy prof told you, by definition if I think my religion is right, then I also have to believe that everyone else's religion is wrong."

uh, actualy, no, it seems to mostly be the monothiest religions that hold that they are the "one true way" (tm), quite a few other religions believe that there are many paths to divinity and that all are valid.

 

[MeekandMild]

It was supposed to be a biting commentary on the relative dangers to society posed by the Catholic Church and people who don't wear clothes.

I will withold judgment as to your eating habits. But neither you nor I was here in the 15th century and we are here in the 21st century. In our era the only Catholic clergy who are dangerous are the ones who espouse the free sex philosophy. Their rate of child molestation is roughly equivalent to that of Yale faculty members.

I would wonder, if comparing to other insitutuions of the time, the medieval church was really so harsh. I hear the quote somewhere that no matter how depraved they were there was never a fifth century Frankish leader who forced people to cannibalize their own children as did the Red Chinese of the 1940's.

Applying Majority (read "mob") rule to religion via a democratic state like ours is functionally no different from "establishing" the religion of the majority, and it's something worth fighting to stop.

Sort of like allowing the commoners to own guns or the majority ethic group to get into college with equal opportunity, eh?

Whether or not a religion is "established" is a semantic issue.

sort of like the issue revolving around the definition of a well regulated militia. What was initially meant to be "state church like the church of england" is now totally turned around by the revisionists, i.e. you.

In fact, while I agree with them on religion in some cases, I view communism as perhaps the most dangerous philosophy yet devised

Major difference is that for US atheists their religion is generaly a private matter but in the communist countires it was codified as a state religion.

it seems to mostly be the monothiest religions that hold that they are the "one true way" (tm), quite a few other religions believe that there are many paths to divinity and that all are valid.

I have several Hindu friends. (As you know, Hinduism is not a monotheistic religion.) They believe that within Hinduism there are many paths to divinity but outside of it is nothing but error. I don't know very many Buddhists (which is a very narrowly constructed form of Atheism) but the ones I have talked religion with tell me The Middle Path is the one true way.

 

[H Romberg]

1. Are you trying to equate my desire to keep church and state separate (limiting government power) with gun control (increasing government power)? I don't see the correlation.

2. The "well regulated militia" clause of the 2A is indeed a semantic issue, but just like this one, the freedoms protected are a lot more important than the way the passage is worded. I'm not revising jack when I interpret the 1A to mean church and state ought to be two distinct entities. That logic was there and was argued intensely when they wrote the darned thing.

3. Bhuddism may not include a "god" in your sense, but it's a pretty far cry from what I consider Atheism to be. Bhuddism contains a pretty good set of ideas on the supernatural. Since "Atheist" describes a person who has NO THEORY about the supernatural eg, he does not claim to know anything about it, the two don't seem much alike other than the absence of a belief in a god. I freely admit that I don't know much about a lot of the religions of the world, as I'm not a member or inclined to become one. Is it possible you need to revise your definition of what it means to be without theism.

4 Just out of curiousity, would you support legislation that gave unfettered access to the commons and the public trough to ALL religions? How about Satanic cults? Pagans? Muslim Fundamentalists?

5. Under Communism, the state was without religion (good idea). The bad part was that they kept folks from practicing their own religion (very bad idea).

 

[MeekandMild]

1. Are you trying to equate my desire to keep church and state separate (limiting government power) with gun control (increasing government power)? I don't see the correlation.

The wall of separation between church and state was a private communication and wasn't part of the bill of rights. The bill of rights was designed to control the Federal government. By philosophy I'm a paleofederalist, believing that all powers not expressly given to the federal government should be reserved to the people and the individual states.

Recalling that at least one state Pennsylvania was set up as a quaker theocracy and another (south carolina I believe) was originally a catholic colony and another, Taxachusetts had strong puritan and pilgrim enclaves I think there is a strong historical precident to let the states and local governments alone in such matters.


2. I'm not revising jack when I interpret the 1A to mean church and state ought to be two distinct entities.

You are when you fail to acknowledge the definition of establishment.

3. Bhuddism may not include a "god" in your sense, but it's a pretty far cry from what I consider Atheism to be... Is it possible you need to revise your definition of what it means to be without theism.

Well, try this: http://www.gardendigest.com/zen/ten.htm
and this: http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
and this: http://www.4degreez.com/free_thought/manifesto.html

Many folk express a natural confusion about the purpose of meditation, contemplation and the quiet mind. Also many folk confuse empiricism with atheism. Finally it seems that most atheists fail to see their own evolution toward codified dogma.

4 Just out of curiousity, would you support legislation that gave unfettered access to the commons and the public trough to ALL religions? How about Satanic cults? Pagans? Muslim Fundamentalists?

If they want to take over California and run it that way they should feel free.

5. Under Communism, the state was without religion (good idea). The bad part was that they kept folks from practicing their own religion (very bad idea).
Communism's state religion was atheism.

 

[NickEllis]

Hmm... falacy?

Nanaimo Barr...
"uh, actualy, no, it seems to mostly be the monothiest religions that hold that they are the "one true way" (tm), quite a few other religions believe that there are many paths to divinity and that all are valid."


Interesting point that you are trying to make here, but the fact of the matter is that if one of these "many paths to divinity" religions believes in such a manner, and a Baptist believes only in a different Way to Eternal Life, then they are quite simply mutually exclusive.

However, forgive me, I was using one of these "one true way" religions. Examining the alternative, lets say that someone believes in Vishnu, and another believes that Micheal the Archangel is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Both say the other is out to lunch, but both affirm that there might be "alternative paths." At some level, you must affirm that at least one has to be wrong, at least in their core doctinal beliefs concerning either Vishnu or Micheal the Archangel! There are certain things that cannot be both right and wrong.

Respectfully,

Gaiudo

 

[Cellar Dweller]

OK, just how much can you twist logic to get:

Recalling that at least one state Pennsylvania was set up as a quaker theocracy and another (south carolina I believe) was originally a catholic colony and another, Taxachusetts had strong puritan and pilgrim enclaves I think there is a strong historical precident to let the states and local governments alone in such matters.

and

If they want to take over California and run it that way they should feel free.

Obviously, if California's hypothetical STATE religion is Christian, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for any other religion to "take over."

It is IMPOSSIBLE for a local pocket of Non-Acceptable Religions to establish themselves as they can be declared offensive, immoral and illegal by the State at any time (torture and conversion optional, seizure of worldly possessions mandatory, expulsion optional, see history for examples).

Let's say there is some "tolerance" for those poor unwashed fringies.
What if the town religion is in conflict with the county? The county with the State? The State with the Fed?
What if your personal religion prohibits everything, but a bazillion "lunatics" move into your state and the new "Official" religion says "everyone must consume alcohol while gambling every Sunday after 5pm."
Oh, that's right, you could just move... What if the surrounding religious majority is Amish? Pack only what you can carry on your back? Move as far as you can walk? Charter a horse and buggy? What if they refuse to deal with nonbelievers? :banghead:

There's a very good reason there is no Official Religion of the United States (I'm waiting for the NASCAR-licensed version).

 

[H Romberg]

The bill of rights was designed to control the Federal government.

I think there is a strong historical precident to let the states and local governments alone in such matters.

We don't live our lives under Federal law for the most part unless we live in DC. We live under state laws that are constrained by having to obey the Constitutions of both the applicable state, and the US. Is it your contention that the states are not required to adhere to federal Constitiution after having ratified it? I hesitate to imagine the effects of that logic on our beloved gun rights. I wonder how Prohibition happened if states don't have to obey the Constitution. I believe we fought a war over this once back in the 1860's, and IIRC, the Feds won.

most atheists fail to see their own evolution toward codified dogma.

It might be worthwhile to refrain from lumping everyone who doesn't happen to believe in a god together. Whether or not you acknowledge it, there are at least as many different beliefs and philosophies that don't believe in magic as there are that do. Some of them have a lot in common. That commonality isn't dogma. It's just commonality.

Communism's state religion was atheism.

Communism as implimented, included a specific form of atheism on the part of the state, and mandated the same for the individual. That's NOT what separation of church and state is about. It's actually 180 off.

The 1A does two things. It prohibits a state religion, mandating a state that operates without religion. It also protects the right of the individual to practice his religion, whatever that may be.

We've come full circle to the difference between rights of the state and rights of the individual. The BOR protects the rights of the individual by limiting the powers of the state. If it annoys people not to be able to have the state reflect their own personal religion, too bad.

You know, this is depressing. On one hand, we've got liberals that will defend your personal liberties to the death while using the state to force compliance with thier idea of economic fairness. On the other hand we've got conservatives who will defend your property rights to the death while using the state to force compliance with their idea of virtue.

Neither one realizes that as correct as they might be, it's the use of the state to force compliance that causes most of our real problems.

 

[MeekandMild]

Neither one realizes that as correct as they might be, it's the use of the state to force compliance that causes most of our real problems.

This looks like a good note to eject on. (Insert smilicon for the Martin Baker Face Curtain sign) See you on THR!