During the last season of “West Wing,” reporters tried to pin down candidate Arnie Vinnick (Alan Alda) on the subject of his religious beliefs. Vinnick–who wanted to keep the fact that he’d lost faith in God under wraps–stated that his personal views on God were off limits, he’d never discuss them, that they weren’t relevant to the job he was to do as president, and that as far as he was concerned that was the end of it. To all intents and purposes it was. It never came up again in the series.
I commented at the time that in the real world, that would never happen. That such an assertion would only be the beginning of the story, not the end of it.
Now it seems that we’re seeing the scenario played out in real life as Rudy Giuliani asserts that his personal religious beliefs are just that–personal–and should have no bearing on his campaign.
This promptly became front page news on “Newsday” and now we’ll see just how fast the question goes away. I suspect it won’t anytime soon.
The ironic thing is that Giuliani is both right and wrong. The fact is that his personal beliefs *shouldn’t* be a factor. If he doesn’t want to discuss them, he should be entitled to that. The problem becomes that the automatic assumption is that he is either agnostic or atheist, and in a society where the vast majority of people assert a belief in SOME sort of divine spirit, that’s not going to go over very well.
On the other hand it really IS a relevant question because look who we’ve got running the country now: A man who believes that he’s operating at the personal behest of God. Bush doesn’t simply believe in God; he KNOWS there’s a God and that he and God are tight. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, too much “knowledge” can be a lethal thing.
If Giuliani is an atheist and doesn’t want to discuss that beause he figures it’s nobody’s business and that it might cost him votes, I can understand both viewpoints. Still, knowing that a candidate will not run this country and world affairs under the belief that he’s taking his marching orders from God might not be such a bad thing.
PAD
• 
However it is bad business for the religious right that has taken over the Republican party and turned it into nearly a modern version of the KKK based not on your skin color but your religious beliefs. Actually strike that, did anyone see McCain on O’Riley’s show, “the white man is under attack”…
I seriously hope that Ruddy pulls out the nomination, it’d serve the religious idiots right to get saddled with a moderate social.
Oh man, I hope this doesn’t cost Giuliani the nomination. I was really looking forward to the first election where I would vote FOR somebody rather than against somebody.
This is probably going to be another issue for Mayor Rudy that just get blown out of proportion. I agree with PAD on this one, his personal religious view is personal, but the Religious Right ‘could’ begin having seizures because of this. (At this point I think the Religious Right is waiting for either Senator Thompson or Representative Gingrich to get into the race. And as rumors are getting more rampant that Fred is getting in around July 4th, I think that Rudy is in trouble unless he finds ‘religion’ fast.
did anyone see McCain on O’Riley’s show, “the white man is under attack”…
Actually what was said, by both McCain & O’Reilly was “The white Christian power structure”
It’ll be interesting to see how the right explains how that isn’t racist.
I think in Bush’s case he’s always yapping about his close personal (working) relationship with God because he’s a nutjob and a fanatic.
I cant imagine him ever saying that his religious beliefs are no one’s business because people like that believe HIS beliefs SHOULD BE everyone’s business.
The fact that Rudy is telling people his beliefs are irrelevant is a point in the plus column in my book.
Half the time I think that Bush isn’t really all that religious, he just plays one on TV. The other half I think that maybe he really is just like he appears. I don’t know which is really right, just like I don’t really know anything about anyone outside my house. Heck, outside my HEAD. But, in the times when I think Bush really is as religious as he claims, it seems that he doesn’t think his beliefs should be everyone’s business. He thinks that everyone’s beliefs should be HIS business.
Sorry about the dingoes.
Unfortunately, America has spent many years indoctrinating people into thinking that “Godless Atheism” was the ultimate evil, a symbol of communism, socialism, and other evil -ism’s that didn’t gel with the American way.
There’s no such thing as “personal” or “off-limits” when you’re talking about the most important job interview on the planet. We all have a period of time to pick this person who will for four years have a HUGE impact on our lives… his or her opinions and beliefs on every facet of our world gives us insight as to whether he or she deserves the job or not.
I just watched “American President” again over the weekend, and am reminded of the Michael J Fox blow-up in the Oval Office…
“A. J. MacInerney: The President doesn’t answer to you Louis!
Lewis Rothschild: Oh, yes he does A.J. I’m a citizen, this is my President. And in this country it is not only permissible to question our leaders it’s our responsibility! “
We’re supposed to ask about everything that might at all be relevant… and our current administration is a great example of why it’s relevant. In 1959, the fact that JFK was a Catholic, and thus in some way had some degree of fealty to the Pope, was a cause of great concern… he got asked about it, answered it to the satisfaction of the American people, and got elected. It wasn’t off-limits then, it’s not off-limits now, to understand the belief system of the person running for office.
However it is bad business for the religious right that has taken over the Republican party and turned it into nearly a modern version of the KKK based not on your skin color but your religious beliefs. Actually strike that, did anyone see McCain on O’Riley’s show, “the white man is under attack”…
I seriously hope that Ruddy pulls out the nomination, it’d serve the religious idiots right to get saddled with a moderate social.
If the religious right has taken over the Republican party yadda yadda, how is it possible that Rudy is the front runner?
Meanwhile, the Democratic candidtes are being very very explicit in talking about their faith. I have no real problem with that but I can imagine some of my friends on the left having a hard time swallowing Hillary talking about her “prayer warriors” which is a phrase I usually associate with Frank E. Peretti novels.
My take on it (and it’s only my opinion and therefore worth about as much as anything else offered for free) is that Rudy’s the frontrunner solely due to his noteriety/name rocognition. The only onther Repub currently in the race who matches him is McCain, who much of the Right has spent years smearing, and who isn’t helping himself by shredding his credibility in an attempt to win over the hardcore Right.
It’s also why Fred Thompson has such buzz without even entering the race, despite his history of being a quite mediocre senator. He’s been on TV, people recognize him, etc. And he’s also positioning himself as the actual conservative in the race, which helps with those for whom support for Rudy comes with a ‘holding thier nose’ quality to it.
Where did all these “christians” decide that “thou shalt not kill” was just a suggestion in the bible? Of course, I guess if you pick and choose what you like about the Constitution, it’s hard to draw lines where to stop. As we’ve learned in this age of fast as light media, there are many out there who wave the banner of God, while serving their own interests. I think in Bush’s case, it’s that he has no conscience. It’s not his fault he must have been born that way. He really believes that people should die (so long as not his family members) to put “his people” in power (it may not be the office, but we all know what large sums of money can do for you). In case any of you missed it, for a good look on the world today check out Kurt Vonnegut’s A Man Without a Country…great, fast, reading!
I’m gonna disagree with you on one minor point, PAD. I don’t think that Bush would be any better if he was an atheist.
Bush believes that he’s right and God is simply his justification for it. Atheists are just as capable of feeling a moral imperative, they’ll just use different buzzwords to justify it.
Did you see the Micheal Bolton interview on the Daily Show? He took the attitude that because Bush was elected president, he not only had the right to do whatever he wanted, he had an *obligation* to ignore everyone else’s opinion and do exactly what he wanted. That was an “I’m always right” justification that had nothing to do with religion.
Bush’s actions aren’t about God and they never were. He’s just an egotist who uses God as a justification.
Living in an area where there are homemade yard signs “FRED T in 08”, I can see the groundswell first-hand for Thompson.
Meanwhile (to digress wildly) did anyone else hear Sen Reid refer to “illegal aliens” under the newly minted euphemism, “undocumented Americans?” Why not just say “yet-to-be-registered voters for me?”
I always loved the “Undocumented workers” line–in my experience, they have documents out the wazoo. My wife worked at an insurance place for a bit and the law required them to provide insurance to anyone with an id, obviously fake or not. With that they could get a license. Our immigration policy is nuts; with one hand we push them away, with the other we beckon them in. And then we blame them! “Don’t come here but if you do and have a kid everyone can stay!” “Don’t come here but if you do you can make lots of money and we almost never check!”
When my uncle ran a speakeasy during prohibition the cops would tell them when they were going to “raid” the bar. That way they could make sure that the relatives of the Governor would not be caught in an embarrassing situation delivering the booze. Everyone knew it, everyone was in on it. I used to wonder how things could get that way but it’s much the same now. The immigration laws should be abandoned, changed or enforced. This current “policy” is doing nobody any good.
If the religious right has taken over the Republican party yadda yadda, how is it possible that Rudy is the front runner?
He hasn’t won the nomination yet.
The idea of anybody being a ‘front runner’ when the election is well over a year away is an invention of the media so people will pay attention to the media as well as the attention-craving candidates.
I always loved the “Undocumented workers” line
I always loved the whole “they haven’t broken any laws” bs more.
Where did all these “christians” decide that “thou shalt not kill” was just a suggestion in the bible
Actually it’s “Thou shalt not murder “
It’s okay to kill in defense of self, family, &/or country. So if you can justify killing in one of these 3 categories then everything is honky-dory.
It’s sad that the Republican party has determined a lockstep, “you must tow the party line” policy in so many areas. You had to support the Presidentr on Iraq (except once public opinion became overwhelming negative). You have to support the war on terror (even if this means government intrusion into the lives of citizens is greater than ever). And now you not only have to be religious, you have to have the *same* interpretation of religion: no abortion rights, no gay rights (how many candidates were fine with an employer firing an employee just for being gay?), and now you have to go to church every Sunday. (But executing people is still fine.)
Giuliani’s stance on abortion seems perfectly rational: He personally opposes abortion but recognizes that the law supports it. This is like the status of free speech: You don’t have to agree with what someone is saying to support their right to say it.
Yes, but the problem with a rational position is that one cannot get the votes of the irrational while holding it…
The idea of anybody being a ‘front runner’ when the election is well over a year away is an invention of the media so people will pay attention to the media as well as the attention-craving candidates.
Well, perhaps, but there is no denying that some folks have way more support than others. It’s hard to argue that among the announced candidates (and two others–Gore and Thompson) we are looking at the next president of the United States. Polls may not mean everything but they mean something and right now Rudy is in a good position.
It’s sad that the Republican party has determined a lockstep, “you must tow the party line” policy in so many areas.
As opposed to the free for all that is the Democratic Party, where 100 flowers bloom? That’s the way parties are–you have to expect a certain level of agreement on certain principles. Actually, I’d say a party that can have Romney, Guilliani and McCaine as frontrunners has a certain tolerance for difference. There is certainly more difference on, say, abortion, among the Republicans than among the Democratic candidates.
NOt that the Democratic candidates are always in lockstep either. Hillary has certainly established herself as considerably more hawkish than Edwards. Obama is still the biggest question mark in the race–it remans to be seen if he can keep his so far impressive momentum going or if his inexperience will begin to tell. I have to say, so far he has been amazing on the stump but less so in the debates (Hillary won the last one handily). But then again, the “winner” is in the eye of the voter; some folks will cntinue to insist that their candidate “won” a debate even when their support drops after it’s over. A strange definition of victory…
End of the day, if you want to keep things ‘personal’, don’t run for ‘public’ office.
The problem with conspicuously saying nothing is that it usually leads people to suspect things infinitely worse than anything you could have said…
That’s not to say that there shouldn’t be some degree of “OK, he’s answered, let’s move on now” in the mix somewhere.
Or am I making the mistake of trying to bring common sense into the equation again?
Cheers.
“There’s no such thing as “personal” or “off-limits” when you’re talking about the most important job interview on the planet.”
Here’s the thing: However one phrases the question about faith, the answer tells you jack-all in terms of determining what one can expect. If the choice is–for instance–between an atheist and someone who speaks of their deep faith in the Almighty, the majority of people in this country will instantly hew to the latter. But if the choice is presented between voting for someone who is careful with the lives of our young soldiers because he believes in personal responsibility as opposed to someone who sends thousands of people to their deaths because he firmly believes that God told him to, he’s doing God’s work, and it’s his responsibility to spread his religious ideals to the world…
You see the problem.
PAD
>He’s been on TV, people recognize him, etc.
I’m selfish. I hope he loses because it otherwise would mean he’s off the show. And he’s one of the best things in it.
Jason M. Bryant: Bush believes that he’s right and God is simply his justification for it. Atheists are just as capable of feeling a moral imperative, they’ll just use different buzzwords to justify it.
Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it’s derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that’s the derivation of one’s actions, atheists can’t compare. Not by far.
I’m sure Mit Romney also wishes people would stop asking the “faith” question. (At least he came out on top in the attack from Sharpton after Glenn Beck — also Mormon — pursued the matter.)
Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it’s derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that’s the derivation of one’s actions, atheists can’t compare. Not by far.
Which sums up Islamo-facism as much as it does Bush’s “been to the mountaintop” attitude.
I’m selfish. I hope he loses because it otherwise would mean he’s off the show. And he’s one of the best things in it.
I believe that he’s already off the show. He would pretty much have to have quit by now to let NBC find a new person in time to start filming. They may have been the first people to know for sure that he’s running.
“In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it’s derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that’s the derivation of one’s actions, atheists can’t compare. Not by far.”
Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 02:33 PM
Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years.
You are aware of a little thing called the Crusades, are you not?
Also, what do you mean by “atheistic” government? I ask because many people abuse the term. The official doctrine of the Soviet Union was atheism, and therefore that was truly an atheistic government. On the other hand, many people wrongly refer to any secular government as “atheistic.” For instance, many religionists have complained bitterly about attempts to bring our government into line with the wording of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and referred to that as a movement towards “atheistic government.” But there is a world of difference between prohibiting the government from respecting an establishment of religion and restricting the establishment of same (both of which are actually prohibited by the Consitution, something that is ignored by a vocal and intellectually dishonest segment of religionists).
Hank Driskill wrote:
We’re supposed to ask about everything that might at all be relevant… and our current administration is a great example of why it’s relevant. In 1959, the fact that JFK was a Catholic, and thus in some way had some degree of fealty to the Pope, was a cause of great concern… he got asked about it, answered it to the satisfaction of the American people, and got elected. It wasn’t off-limits then, it’s not off-limits now, to understand the belief system of the person running for office.
Except that Kennedy essentially denied any belief system in his speech in Houston. It was easy for him to assuage any concerns because he had no fealty to the Pope. He went throught the motions of attending Mass but he was a very poor Catholic. And of course, abortion wasn’t even legal then. Does anyone consider Edward Kennedy to be a Catholic?
“Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it’s derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that’s the derivation of one’s actions, atheists can’t compare. Not by far.”
To some degree I agree with that. I think that atheists look at personal responsibility differently than religious people.
But I don’t think that religion is the cause of Bush’s beliefs, not even in the slightest. I think he’s a very broken person looking for justification for his actions. So I think he does what he wants and then says that “God made me do it.” I believe he has used religion to fire up his people in this country, so he’s used it as a tool to achieve what he wants.
But I don’t believe that he actually got his values from what he learned about religion in his life. I think he’s just a bigger version of the guy who tries to con me by saying that his car broke down on the side of the road but Jesus made me drive by him so I could loan him money.
Regarding the argument made that atheistic governments have killed more people than Christian, I would like to argue that most of these governments were not killing people in the name of atheism (Convert to atheism or I will kill you!). I think that in most cases, atheism was merely a means of undermining the belief systems of the people they wished to subjugate to make that task easier. I might also opine that Communism, Maoism, Kim Jong Il-ism, etc. have most of the attributes of a religion, the only difference being that the Godhead is an actual person.
Keep up the comments, guys. I still come to this site for my daily mental stimulation.
Regards, the Rev.
But you could also argue that many, if not most of the “religious” wars were actually fought over something other than religion–land grabs for the most part.
Neither of the extreme factions in Northern Ireland, for example, could possibly believe they are going to heaven for killing innocents.
I believe that he’s already off the show. He would pretty much have to have quit by now to let NBC find a new person in time to start filming. They may have been the first people to know for sure that he’s running.
As I understand it, he has indeed asked to be released from his contract (and the request has been granted). Meanwhile, CNN.com had a story earlier today that Sam Waterston is negotiating to have Jack McCoy bumped up to the position of DA for next season.
(We now end this portion of thread drift, and return to the real discussion already in progress.)
I would have more regard for Giuliani on this matter if he actually had a history of keeping his religious background out of public matters. Anyone who remembers the flap over Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” back in ’99 should be aware that’s not the case (or at least that Giuliani isn’t above using public power to score points with a specific religious community).
(Looking for information on the controversy using Google, I was struck by an interesting pattern: In general, those who’d actually seen the painting in person said it was beautiful and not disrespectful, while those who hadn’t seen it but were against it anyway said it was a travesty (and often used highly-charge but inaccurate terms to describe it). Guess which category Giuliani fell into?)
Bill, don’t patronize me. Of course I am aware of the Crusades. I could point out that I said Christian GOVERNMENTS not Christian ARMIES, many operating free of governments. But that doesn’t matter because I am more than willing to throw them in the mix. The death toll of all the crusades is supposed to total about one million. Stalin or Mao killed more people in the average year. Both were atheist governments.
Bill Mulligan already answered the reverend’s first point. Although regarding his second I might add that atheism itself had those same attributes (dogmatism, etc.) that communism and religion share in common. Agnosticism is a different matter.
Bush is an arrogant SOB who probably has never admitted to an mistake in his life, even before he found religion. That’s just his current justification for being always right.
Here’s the deal the American people are a religious people. 80% of the country self-identifies as Christian and over 90% believe in some form of higher power. However, the religious right has worked steadily over the past 30 years to equate being a religious people with having a religious government.
The founding fathers knew that Americans were a religious people, but they also knew that we were a diversely religious people (and we’re even moreso today that we were 220 years ago). They knew that only a secular government could be truly neutral in regards to all faiths. But that isn’t what the far religious right, hence why people like Bill O’Reilly are soiling their pants over the fear of the “white Christian power structure” losing their influence.
The religious right wants government to be a religious conservative only club and thanks to minions of Pat Robertson like Monica Goodling, they’re well on their way. Now even the Democrats are convinced they can’t win unles they fall over themselves to proclaim how religious they are.
Didn’t some longhair guy say something about not being like the hypocrites who loudly proclaim their faith in the streets.
Ben Lesar: Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years.
Luigi Novi: No, even taking that into account they still don’t compare.
The problem with this analogy is that in atheist societies like the Soviet Union, atheism was incidental. Those pogroms were not carried out in the name of atheism. By contrast, things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, jihads, fatwas, etc. were indeed carried out in the name of religion, in whole or in part.
Stalin and Pol Pot didn’t murder people because they were atheists. They murdered people because they were dictators. As such, they did not possess the sentiments of empathy, due process, or civil rights that those in free societies do. That they happened to be atheists is completely irrelevant to that point, and indeed, the religious persuasion of their victims was not the reason why they were targeted; they were targeted for reasons of nationalism/ethnicity, culture, and politics. While Stalin did ban religions and raze churches, again, this was because of the dictator mentality: He wanted to make over the country according to his personal tastes and worldview. There was no atheist “doctrine” that he claimed to follow, since atheism is not a belief or theory, but simply a lack of a belief in gods, and does not prescribe any action. This does not hold true with things like jihads or the Crusades, which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Bill, don’t patronize me.
No one was patronizing you. Don’t be so sensitive.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Of course I am aware of the Crusades. I could point out that I said Christian GOVERNMENTS not Christian ARMIES, many operating free of governments. But that doesn’t matter because I am more than willing to throw them in the mix. The death toll of all the crusades is supposed to total about one million. Stalin or Mao killed more people in the average year. Both were atheist governments.
Your argument is nevertheless fatally flawed. First, its very premise presupposes a false dilemma: that Christianity and atheism are the only alternatives. Christianity is but one of many religions upon which governments have been founded and in the name of which armies have spilled blood.
Second, it bears mentioning that there has been an historical trend towards secular governments since the birth of Christianity. Theocracies governed the minority of the globe’s population at the time that Mao and Stalin went on their rampages.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Bill Mulligan already answered the reverend’s first point.
Yes, yes, the actions of theocratic governments are sometimes motivated by things other than religious fervor. At the same time, religion also informs secular governments’ decisions. Anyone remember that famous cry of “Godless commies!” from the Cold War days? Or how about President Bush, who believes his ascendancy to the presidency was part of God’s Plan? Or how about the Republican party, whose presidential candidates must bow and scrape before the Religious Right if they are to have any hope of winning the nomination?
(Bill Mulligan, put your torch and pitchfork down. I’m well aware that the Democratic party has an extreme liberal base to which its presidential candidates must pander. But the influence exerted by the Religious Right over the Republican party is undeniable and shows how religion can be a factor even in an ostensibly secular government.)
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 6, 2007 06:58 PM
Although regarding his second I might add that atheism itself had those same attributes (dogmatism, etc.) that communism and religion share in common.
Communism is a relatively recent historical phenomenon, though. And it is ironic that Christianity and Communism are so at odds. Atheism aside, communism as an economic system is far more compatible with the teachings of the New Testament than is capitalism, yet Christianity has nevertheless embraced capitalism. Strange freakin’ planet we live on.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 6, 2007 07:51 PM
There was no atheist “doctrine” that he claimed to follow, since atheism is not a belief or theory, but simply a lack of a belief in gods, and does not prescribe any action.
Not so. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, said the following about religion: “Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.”
That Marxist/Leninist doctrine informed the actions of the Soviet government for decades; the official stance of the Soviet Union was atheism, and it actively worked to stamp out religion through propagandizing, indoctrinating, and using force. Mao was equally suppressive of religion, which he blamed for China’s “backwardness.” Atheism can indeed be a foundation for, or component of, doctrine.
“Ben Lesar: Not if you ignore that atheist governments killed more people through genocide in the 20th century alone than Christian governments did in 2000 years.”
1) Neither the belief or the lack of belief in religion has prevented people from killing and brutalizing each other in very large numbers in the name of ideology and/or the persuit of power. Christianity is one ideology that has been used to justify brutality or has been held by people and governments that brutalized others. Communism is another. We can discuss the ideologies, we can discuss the people who followed or used these ideologies, but there is no point in pretending that religious or non-religious governments and organizations are somehow more or less responsible than the others for brutality.
2) The mathematical claim that the governments that held atheistic ideologies were responsible for more deaths than the totality of governments that held Christian ideologies is probably not true, especially if we take into consideration to movements of colonialism and imperialism in the last 500 years.
3) This argument also fails to take into acount the historical context of the rise of communism in an era where more people lived with more governmental power, with more powerful weapons (and other ways of causing death) than before.
4) All this discussion is simply a multiplication of the basic misconception at the heart of this thread: that atheists are somehow moraly deficient compared to religious (or vise versa).
Atheism itself is not an ideology. Communism, which is a very dogmatic ideology, contains atheism, but it hasn’t been to the best of my knowledge one of the major rallying cries of Communism compared to others.
Posted by: Micha at June 6, 2007 09:24 PM
All this discussion is simply a multiplication of the basic misconception at the heart of this thread: that atheists are somehow moraly deficient compared to religious (or vise versa).
Bingo. Atheists can be just as capable of extremism as religionists — and both can be just as capable of living with their “opponents” harmoniously. It’s like a hammer: you can use it to build a house, or to hit one over the head. It all depends on who is using it.
Posted by: Micha at June 6, 2007 09:24 PM
Atheism itself is not an ideology. Communism, which is a very dogmatic ideology, contains atheism, but it hasn’t been to the best of my knowledge one of the major rallying cries of Communism compared to others.
Well, given how the Soviets and the Maoists did their level best to squelch religion, I’d have to disagree. Atheism was a component of their doctrine, and both feared it as a threat to their hegemony.
Bill Mulligan, put your torch and pitchfork down.
I prefer those rake-like things the villagers are always carrying…what the hëll were they? And what were they going to do with them? Groom the monster’s lawn?
Seems to me, in my vast experience of, well, nothing, that most people are all for diversity until they find out that there’s someone with some authority that (GASP!) thinks something besides what THEY think. “If yer gonna be in charge of ME and my Life, yer gonna have ta think just like I do. Or at least claim you are. Yer a Repub/ocrat? Yer okay with me. Who are you, now?” Now, this also translates badly for anyone who thinks differently. “You are DIFFERENT, you must be vanquished!” Hence, something that shouldn’t be Mount Crashyourcampaigninto is built by several really energetic moles. BUt, have you guys noticed that some of these extremists don’t want to talk about any problem other than the small one they’re focusing on?
Oh, and before I forget–
Simple, Bill, the answer is simple.
They were going to tell him to–
Wait for it—
Fork off.
“By contrast, things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, jihads, fatwas, etc. were indeed carried out in the name of religion, in whole or in part.”
There is no real evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.
“That they happened to be atheists is completely irrelevant to that point”
Considering that it just so happens that the governments that killed the most (by far) in the twentieth century were atheist, I am going to have to disagree. Either this is a startling coincidence or you have to admit that there is a connection of some sort between atheistic governments and genocide.
“This does not hold true with things like jihads or the Crusades, which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.”
Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades.
“Christianity is but one of many religions upon which governments have been founded and in the name of which armies have spilled blood.”
So is it fair to group all religions together? Christians governments existed for far longer than atheist ones and yet killed far fewer. Yet you think you need to bring more religions into this in an attempt to even the odds. Yet even including all religions atheist governments killed significantly more in the 20th century than did religious ones.
“Second, it bears mentioning that there has been an historical trend towards secular governments since the birth of Christianity. Theocracies governed the minority of the globe’s population at the time that Mao and Stalin went on their rampages.”
When I say Christian governments I do mean governments were Christianity is the official religion, such as England. When I say atheist governments I do not mean merely secular ones, such as the United States, but officially atheist governments such as the Soviet Union. There were no fewer Christian governments than atheist ones during that period.
“Or how about the Republican party, whose presidential candidates must bow and scrape before the Religious Right if they are to have any hope of winning the nomination?”
And how many genocides is the Religious Right responsible for?
“Atheism aside, communism as an economic system is far more compatible with the teachings of the New Testament than is capitalism, yet Christianity has nevertheless embraced capitalism.”
Not in the least. The Bible teaches free will, self-determination, and Charity; not coercive government redistribution of wealth and property.
Does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that there seems to be a debate to the effect that theism is better/worse than atheism because fewer millions were killed in its name? Humanity is immensely effective at killing other members of humanity in great quantities. Is it really better that we commit such slaughter in the name of (fill in deity of your choice) than in the name of (fill in atheist/atheistic philosophy of your choice)? Perhaps the question should be: How do we stop the dámņ killing?
Regards, The Rev
By-the-way, Bill Mulligan, you are quite right about the basis of the Irish situation. I believe someone once opined that the problem with Ireland was too much religion and not enough Christianity.
“By contrast, things like the Crusades, the Holocaust, jihads, fatwas, etc. were indeed carried out in the name of religion, in whole or in part.”
There is no real evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.”
Well, German Jews were targeted as convenient scapegoats to distract from Hitler’s spiralling economy, and since they were already despised as the alleged killers of Christ, that made them easy targets. So there’s that aspect.
And not for nothing, but it should be pointed out that Hitler was, to the best of my knowledge, a practicing Roman Catholic, which kind of goes back to the whole notion of how dubious it is to ascribe importance to a leader being someone of faith.
PAD
PAD
So is it fair to group all religions together? Christians governments existed for far longer than atheist ones and yet killed far fewer.
Well, you clearly don’t mind grouping all atheists together. Leaving aside the gross generalizations, I should also point out that genocide figures are a lot higher in the 20th century because a) the population is a lot higher, so there are more people to kill and they’re easier to find, and b) technology made it a lot more efficient. This has nothing to do with ideology, just opportunity.
Ah, that’s one thing I love about Canadian politics. Except for some mostly fringe candidates (like the christian family party, who have no chance of ever electing someone), most candidates don’t talk about religion. Gáÿ šëx was decriminalized in the sixties by a catholic justice minister (later prime minister Trudeau), and gay marriage was legalized under a catholic prime minister (Jean Chretien). If anything, a lot of voters *distrust* candidates that insist on bringning their religion into things.
And, as an additional point, Canada has *no* laws about separation of church and state; it just isn’t an issue.
And not for nothing, but it should be pointed out that Hitler was, to the best of my knowledge, a practicing Roman Catholic, which kind of goes back to the whole notion of how dubious it is to ascribe importance to a leader being someone of faith.
There’s always been some controversy on Hitler’s beliefs, actual and professed.
Publically at least he calimed to be Catholic “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” but privately he was contemptuous of Christianity in general and Catholisism in particular. Speer and others who knew him said he never attended church and his only admiration for the Catholic church was in it’s use of pomp and spectacle. He blamed Christianity for the fall of the Roman empire and expressed the wish that Germany had been fortunate enough to have developed a more militaristic religion like Islam or the Shinto of Japan. “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
While it’s of little use in trying to make rational sense of a madman’s thoughts, his hatred of Jews seems also to have been more of a racial thing than of a religious one. The Nazi laws regarding Jewish heritage did not seem to have any apartheid laws; they were based on how much “Jewish blood” one had. A devout Jew who had just one Jewish grandparent might be safer than an atheist who had two Jewish granparents, that sort of insanity.
What amazes me is not that Hitler used Jews as scapegoats but that he actually seemed to believe in what he was doing which is what helps elevate Hitler from just another corrupt politician into the true evil.