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
• 
If I were taking orders from a voice speaking directly to me, which no one else can hear, I’d wind up in the looney bin. Unless I were President.
But how do we know for sure that he’s not taking his orders from God?
He does work in mysterious ways, just ask Gideon.
>If I were taking orders from a voice speaking directly to me, which no one else can hear, I’d wind up in the looney bin. Unless I were President.
Or Pope?
“But how do we know for sure that he’s not taking his orders from God?
He does work in mysterious ways, just ask Gideon.”
The ‘God’ of the Bible was likely the nastiest character in all of literature. From telling Abraham to kill his son to wiping basically everyone out in a flood because we displeased him (the first religious terrorist and most successful). Then you get to the New Testament and he finds a way to torture us after we die. What a nice guy.
So if you do read the Bible, yeah the stuff Bush does could easily fall under ‘orders from God’, but then a god that acts like that I wouldn’t want to follow.
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.
I notice though that real religious suppression (and the mass killings) came during the early years of the Russian and Chinese communist regimes, but lightened up somewhat afterwards. The corallation I see is at the time, the societies were ruled by dictators who actively developed a personality cult (Stalinism, Maoism).
No god wants competition for worship.
It’s not so much that atheist governments have killed so many people as it is a single atheist who decides to play God.
I have to disagree with many here who seem to want to automatically equate the concept of an atheist government with mass murders, genocide and tyranny. There have been more tyrannies throughout history that were lead by religious leaders then by atheist leaders. The fact that modern technology has allowed modern tyrants running atheist governments to kill more people then they could have a few centuries ago says more about mankind’s ever growing capacity to kill each other then it does anything else.
It’s also not the atheistic beliefs that make the tyrant. Most tyrants have seen forced atheism as a tool, and then only one of many tools, to try and break the spirit of the masses. If a decent person who was an atheist with the intention of doing the best for the people were to ascend to the leadership of a country it would be nothing like a genocidal dictatorship.
Beyond that, the number of deaths being attributed to “Christian” governments may be slightly undercounted by some here. Most people are discussing the obvious characters in history while passing over the multitude of less flashy forms of religious tyranny. How many kings and queens of olden day Europe outlawed at pain of death any religion other then their own? How many deaths were caused by starvation and/or poverty when the Church and the Crown was a little overly oppressive about what the peopled “owed” them? How many died when the Church and the Crown sanctioned exploration to expand the Empire to fulfill God’s chosen destiny for “his” people and then sanctioned the “peaceful” conversion of the locals?
I’d also question placing Hitler in the “atheist government” category. Hitler invoked God and God’s greater plans for “his” people (the Germans) in a number of speeches as he rose to power. Hitler used religion as a tool to empower and then control the German people in a number of areas of his overall power structure and plans. There were evn references to this in Mein Kampf if I remember correctly (it’s been a while since I read it.) The “fact” that his was an atheistic government and that he squashed religious practices under his rule is more a result of people being taught the wartime propaganda as fact.
“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.”
He was RAISED a Roman Catholic. He was also, however, a fan of Nietzsche, Teutonic paganism, and at times replaced the Bible with Mein Kampf. Not to mention that several of his top ministers, such as Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann were all atheists. He also didn’t treat the pope very well. Some say he planned to have him killed…
“There have been more tyrannies throughout history that were lead by religious leaders then by atheist leaders.”
I doubt this, but even if so one should take into account the number of Christian governments and the length of their existence versus atheist ones.
“I’d also question placing Hitler in the “atheist government” category.”
No one that I am aware of did so. Luigi Novi said the opposite though.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
So is it fair to group all religions together?
Insofar as you are trying to create a comparison with atheism, which is an extremely broad category, then, yes, it is logical to look at religion as an equally broad category.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
Yet you think you need to bring more religions into this in an attempt to even the odds.
It’s not about “evening the odds” or what I “need,” it’s about the dictates of logic. If you are going to compare atheism to its alternative, that alternative is the broad category of religion. Christianity is not the only alternative to atheism.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
Yet even including all religions atheist governments killed significantly more in the 20th century than did religious ones.
The 20th century is only a narrow slice of human history, and it has already been pointed out by another poster that the “atheistic” governments of that era possessed weaponry far more potent than that possessed by, say, the Holy Roman Empire. So it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.
I’m afraid you’ll find that history rarely accommodates a desire to put everything into neat little boxes.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
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.
Great Britain has been responsible for quite a few deaths in the last two millenia. Of course, not all of those killings were in the name of “Christianity,” but then again most of the killings at the hands of the Nazi, Soviet, and Maoist armies weren’t in the name of “atheism” either.
Again, reality is not kind to those who need to put everything in neat little boxes.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
And how many genocides is the Religious Right responsible for?
Oh, settle down. I was simply trying to point out how difficult it is to separate “Christian” governments from atheistic governments. Ours is ostensibly a secular government and yet we were founded largely by Christians and have had a predominantly Christian-oriented culture. So which are we? A Christian government? An atheistic government? Unforunately, there’s often no way to draw a neat little dividing line between the two.
And if you’re going to keep bringing up genocide perpetrated by atheistic governments, then you must also consider that predominantly Christian nations like the U.S. and Great Britain participated in the slave trade, another societal evil. If you’re going to link genocide with atheism, then you must also link slavery with Christianity. Or you could view things more logically, and recognize that slavery and genocide are practices that cross religious and ideological boundaries.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 7, 2007 12:23 AM
The Bible teaches free will, self-determination, and Charity; not coercive government redistribution of wealth and property.
The Bible teaches a lot of things, including the teaching that the apostles lived a very communist lifestyle, abandoning the idea of “personal property” when they chose to follow Jesus. That’s not dissimilar to one of the core tenets of Marxism: “to each one according to his need, from each one according to his ability.”
Marxist theory, by the by, held that government control should soon be ceded to the people, who would run things in the form of collectives. Obviously, it didn’t work out: governments don’t like to give up power once they have it. But the fact remains that communism and Christianity have much in common.
I have no truck with atheist-bashers, and I have no truck with Christian-bashers. Atheism, Christianity, and all other religious and ideological movements have inspired people to do great things and have also been the inspiration for great evils. Anyone can hide behind a symbol and claim that they embody all that that symbol represents. But as we’ve seen throughout history, deeds often contradict words.
Circling back to Peter’s initial point: history has indeed shown that it is foolish to vote for individuals based on the labels they choose to hide behind. Religion is no more an accurate predictor of an individual’s moral fiber than any other outward characteristic. Individuals can only be judged by their actions.
Sasha — good point about the correlation between the “cult of personality” and religious suppression in China and the Soviet Union. Don’t forget, however, that Marxist theory explicitly included atheism.
Posted by: The Rev. Mr. Black at June 7, 2007 01:36 AM
Perhaps the question should be: How do we stop the dámņ killing?
Rev., while I’ve been going on at length, you hit the nail on the head in just a few words. Well said.
Not that long ago you told us you post infrequently because you feel that a certain group of posters, myself included, express ourselves more eloquently than you could. You know what I say? Bûllšhìŧ. Post more often, Rev. People like me — who tend to drown in the details — often need the life preserver that can only be offered by clearer thinkers like yourself.
I was just at the supermarket. Saw people buying lots and lots of stuff. Looked at the cold medicine I was buying. Saw the ingredients, the symptoms it treats, the dosage. Then it hit me in the side of the head. People want to have supermarket politicians. They want aestethically pleasing packages that’ll do most of what they say they will. That box of Cocoa Puffs start your day right. That soda quench your thirst. That polical candidate supports only the things you want him/her/it to, and nothing that the nasty other side doesn’t like. And without any artificial sweeteners. Unfortunately, that’s the atmosphere these candidates find themselves in, akin to juggling chainsaws on ice skates going down the frozen stairs. Because they have to have Wide Appeal, they have to cater to groups, even when the groups are miniscule.
I think I’ll go with the Cap’n Crunch/Dig ‘Em ticket.
Is it possible to use zombies as foot soldiers in a fantasy setting?
Someone once told me that life is like a box of chocolates, with a color-coded chart on the back telling you exactly what’s inside each one. I think that’s kinda how politics work too.
The fact is, the public wants to know what a candidates religion is simply because they want the easy drawn out picture of what he’s like. We want to be able to vote down party lines and know where the people who’s names we don’t know stand on issues like abortion or stem cell research or environmental protection simply because of their political party. And that’s why the Repubs have it, or did, so strong. We know what they’re about. The Dems? A good portion of their votes came from running as “not a Republican”.
So although personally I feel like religion amounts to a hill of beans in one’s personality, of course the public wants to know what his faith is, it’s so much easier than actually researching his stance on hot button issues.
How do we stop the dámņ killing?
You don’t, until people are willing to get informed and start questioning authority! The average person most of the times abdicates their right to think for themselves and follows a heard mentality. We have witnessed this ourselves quite painfully since 9/11. Most of the population quit thinking for themselves and let George Bush lead us down the path of utter stupidity. Congress abdicated their right of oversight of a war mongering prìçk and the general populace abdicated their ability to think for themselves over the fears of mushroom clouds and airplanes flying out of sky.
As long as the majority is willing to abdicate their thought processes and allow a third party to decide for them the killing will continue in any name.
whoops!
That should be “a herd mentality”.
Is it possible to use zombies as foot soldiers in a fantasy setting?
Micha, it’s way too early in the thread to bring up zombies. We do that when the grownups have moved and we are more or less left on our own.
I think a lot of the commentary in this thread has been defensive and it’s pointless. It isn’t the sane believers or non-believers who should be duking it out. The fanatics of all persuasions are the enemy of us all.
There has been a belief among many atheists I know that goes something like “if only there were no religion there would be peace and the world would be as one”. Well, they’re kidding themselves. And it only pìššëš øff decent folks who are religious, to the point where, amazingly, more people would vote for a gay candidate than for an atheist one.
Which is ridiculous. I can sort of see where someone might get the idea that it is a good thing for a person not to be given the power of life and death over the world if they don’t believe in God since you have then made them literally the most powerful being in the known universe, at least in their mind. But it just as equally likely that a carelessly chosen believer will see himself as under God’s protection, able to throw the missiles without fear, protected by His Mighty Hand (some of what has come out of Iran sounds like this–the idea that Israel would not be able to respond due to the intervention of Allah. Which amazes me since the history of the last 60 years or so indicates that Allah has chosen sides and…it ain’t Iran’s.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
Is it possible to use zombies as foot soldiers in a fantasy setting?
“Micha, it’s way too early in the thread to bring up zombies.”
Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread. Or maybe not. This is the political thread isn’t it?
Anyway, I would appreciate a reply on the other thread.
———————–
“I think a lot of the commentary in this thread has been defensive and it’s pointless. It isn’t the sane believers or non-believers who should be duking it out. The fanatics of all persuasions are the enemy of us all.
There has been a belief among many atheists I know that goes something like “if only there were no religion there would be peace and the world would be as one”. Well, they’re kidding themselves.”
Very true. Fanatic atheists caricaturize al religion as hate mongering and intolerant, while the fanatic religious caricature all atheism as immoral and untrustworthy. Both are wrong. I’m so sick of fanatics. We have a bumpersticker that says: ‘Death to the Zealots.’
———————–
On the relation between the Holocaust and Christianity:
Racism in general and Antisemitism in particular go through different permutations at different times and different places. There are different strains, if you will. During the 18 to 20th centuries the good old Christianity based antisemitism was joined by other strains, including a ‘scientific’ one based on race, which was the one adopted by the Nazi ideology. Nevertheless, there is no use pretending that this strain is not related to the antisemitism that derived from Christian ideology. So it doesn’t really matter if one Nazi hated Jews because of what he heard in Church, another because Jews were the wrong race, a third because they were capitalists, a fourth because they were communists, or because they kept to themselves, or assimilated to much, or were too rich, or too poor, or too traditionalists, or too modern and liberal, or all of above. Christianity made its contribution to the mix, as did other ideologies.
——————-
“Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades.”
Show me where communism calls for Genocide.
The article in wikipedia on Genocides in history presents an interesting and complex picture. And this list doesn’t seem to include the religious wars of the reformation as well as massive killings at earlier times. In any case, Christian government seem to have had a nice share in genocides and other acts of brutality over the years.
—————–
“The Bible teaches a lot of things, including the teaching that the apostles lived a very communist lifestyle, abandoning the idea of “personal property” when they chose to follow Jesus. That’s not dissimilar to one of the core tenets of Marxism: “to each one according to his need, from each one according to his ability.””
“And distribution was made to every man according as he had need” (Acts 4:35).
I think there is a better quotation somewhere in the Rule of St. Benedict. Something that sounds positively communist. I wrote it down once and wanted to show it to my commie aquiaintances. But I can’t find it now.
———————–
Posted by: Sean Scullion at June 7, 2007 03:05 PM
“People want to have supermarket politicians. They want aestethically pleasing packages that’ll do most of what they say they will. That box of Cocoa Puffs start your day right. That soda quench your thirst. That polical candidate supports only the things you want him/her/it to, and nothing that the nasty other side doesn’t like. And without any artificial sweeteners. Unfortunately, that’s the atmosphere these candidates find themselves in, akin to juggling chainsaws on ice skates going down the frozen stairs. Because they have to have Wide Appeal, they have to cater to groups, even when the groups are miniscule.”
Very good point. Maybe part of the reason for the leadership crisis I see in several countries today is also, among other things, the result of this attitude.
“Which amazes me since the history of the last 60 years or so indicates that Allah has chosen sides and…it ain’t Iran’s.”
The whole point of Islamic fundamentalism (and too a certain degree other fundementalisms) is that Muslims are in bad shape because they moved away from Islam, and that only return to Islam will fix their problems. ‘Islam is the Answer.’
Soviet-style Communism had many (if not most) of the characteristics of a crusading religion. They had their dogma, they had their prophet (Marx), they had their Chosen People (the Proletariat), they had their infidels (the Bourgeois Capitalists), they had their martyrs and saints (Che Guevara), they had their Bible (Das Kapital), they had their paradise (the Workers’ Ideal Society), they had their schisms (Lenin x Stalin, China x USSR), above all they had the belief in the historical inevitability of their victory in exactly the same way many Christians and Islamists just know that they’re right and all the rest of us decadent Secularist Liberals are wrong.
It seems to me that if you want to recreate the world using fire and blood, you need to have a powerful ideology with which to rally people. Such an ideology must be of the sort that will fire-up your followers and appeal to emotion instead of reason, even though you can use the outer trappings of reason.
You can call it Christianism or you can call it Communism, but it’s mostly the same thing, it has always been. It’s all about Us x Them, it’s about Salvation, and the Only Right Way, and about how you should “just read this one book and every answer you need is in there”.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
I think a lot of the commentary in this thread has been defensive and it’s pointless.
Bill, we’ve had far worse here. And it’s never pointless to air out points of view so that they can be examined.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
It isn’t the sane believers or non-believers who should be duking it out. The fanatics of all persuasions are the enemy of us all.
I wish it were that simple, Bill, but it’s not. Intolerance doesn’t always wear a white hood.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
There has been a belief among many atheists I know that goes something like “if only there were no religion there would be peace and the world would be as one”. Well, they’re kidding themselves.
And I think you’re kidding yourself if you believe you’re being any more objective than the rest of us. We all tend to read the worst into the views of those with whom we disagree, while unconsciously turning a blind eye to the gaps in our own logic. My guess is that you can, at times, be as tone-deaf to the finer points of atheism as I can be to the finer points of Catholicism, or any other religion for that matter.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 06:33 PM
And it only pìššëš øff decent folks who are religious, to the point where, amazingly, more people would vote for a gay candidate than for an atheist one.
Okay, bear with me because at first it’s going to seem like I’ve gone off the deep end. But there’s a point to what follows, and I beg your indulgence for a moment:
Political correctness has gotten out of control in this country. There are groups who wear their victimhood on their sleeve, who use claims of oppression as a weapon, who want special treatment under the law merely because of their affiliation with a particular group.
They’re called Christians.
I’m constantly hearing Christians complain about how their holidays aren’t officially recognized anymore. I’m constantly hearing Christians complain because their values are no longer enshrined into law as they once were. I’m constantly hearing Christians complain because our government has the temerity to contemplate taking “God” out of the pledge (he wasn’t there originally, by the way). I haven’t yet met a Christian who doesn’t feel as though their values are “under attack” — in a nation that is predominantly Christian!!!
Are you pìššëd øff yet, Bill? Is your blood pressure rising? If so, then welcome to my world. I believe in God but reject religion in a world where most people consider atheism and religion to be an either-or proposition. People who would raise a stink if I dare to question their beliefs have no problem ostentatiously saying Christian grace before meals IN MY HOUSE — and expect me to STAND THERE AND SMILE because, well, they’re Christian and that excuses anything. And these aren’t fanatics, Bill! These are your everyday, garden-variety folk. LIKE MY OWN PARENTS, who won’t come over to my house because I’m “living in sin” with my girlfriend.
Christians aren’t actually under attack, by the way. No, it’s just that the playing field that was tilted in your favor has now been leveled, and y’all don’t like it. Suddenly Christianity is just one amongst many valid belief systems and sometimes you get drowned out in the same way that you used to drown others out. Well, if Christianity is all that, then quit your whining and SHOW me that your belief system is as good as you SAY it is.
Blood boiling yet? Thinking that the above is just a diatribe, an irrational screed, nothing but raw, primitive emotion vomited onto the computer screen?
If so, then you and I are in complete agreement.
Have no doubt, what I’ve written here reflects how I sometimes feel about Christians. Because I’ve been pushed and pushed and PUSHED by people who, according to their own rhetoric, are supposed to be charitable and tolerant!
Then again, I often fall short of my own ideals. I often preach civility here but frequently engage in uncivil behavior. In my calmer moments, I realize I have no right to condemn Christians for having the exact failings that I myself possess.
Bill, I’m sure I have prejudices toward religion that I don’t even recognize. By the same token, I’m asking you to consider that you may have prejudices towards the non-religious that you may not recognize.
You are correct that atheism is not the cure-all for the world’s ills, nor is religion the cause of them all. By the same token, the reverse is true: atheists are not the devil and religionists are not always angels. That’s all I’m trying to say. To paraphrase the Bible, we need to stop criticizing the speck in the other guy’s eye and start paying attention to the plank in our own. If we can do that, we might be able to drop some of our barriers down and start understanding each other.
Thus endeth my sermon. ‘Night all!
A couple of people have touched on it, but I’d like to chime in with something that should irk a couple folks. The problem with arguing Christian governments vs. Atheist governments is that, when it comes right down to socio-political brass tacks, there’s no appreciable difference between the two once religion becomes merely a tool used to control thought and justify the worst excesses of a government, which it almost inevitably does in cases of official state religions.
The danger is not Christianity, or Atheism. The danger is any state sponsored or enforced religion, period.
-Rex Hondo-
I guess I came off as harsher against atheists than I intended. The point I was trying to make was that it was pointless arguing over whether or not atheist nutcases or religious nutcases have killed more people in history because no matter what the truth is it would tell us little about the value of religion or non-religion.
My only gripe about some–some!–atheists is that they have learned the wrong lessons from fanatical believers and have fought back by being just as unpleasant, intolerant, and irrational. That isn’t going to win any hearts and minds but I think a lot of what passes for “argument” on the internet these days is nothing more than a pìššìņg contest with no real goal intended other than pìššìņg.
This board is usually a very happy exception, despite occasional lapses. I know being here has made me more considerate about other people’s point of view, not that I’m not capable of occasional insensitivity. But I’m getting better and at least ya’ll get some insightful zombie knowledge which may pay off big one day.
Sasha — good point about the correlation between the “cult of personality” and religious suppression in China and the Soviet Union. Don’t forget, however, that Marxist theory explicitly included atheism.
Oh, I haven’t forgotten. But I believe it is important to realize that communism’s genocides has less to do with the theory’s basis in atheism and more with individuals’ attempts at playing divinity.
Oh, I haven’t forgotten. But I believe it is important to realize that communism’s genocides has less to do with the theory’s basis in atheism and more with individuals’ attempts at playing divinity.
It’s worth remembering that atheism and nihilism rearely, if ever, occur in a vacuum when it comes to a basis of government. They just don’t make for very good rallying cries. “Nothing matters, because we’re all going to die, and that’s it! But yay me, anyway!”
State enforced atheism merely “pulls down” the old god or gods in order to set the stage for the elevation of a new God-King or messianic figure, usually the leader of whichever political movement. Some of the creepiest footage I’ve ever seen was of German schoolchildren, in the early 40, praying to Hitler.
-Rex Hondo-
The Starwolf’s comment
“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.”
leads me to ask—
When is Fox going to open the phone lines so we can start voting off the candidates on the Reality Debate Show?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
The point I was trying to make was that it was pointless arguing over whether or not atheist nutcases or religious nutcases have killed more people in history because no matter what the truth is it would tell us little about the value of religion or non-religion.
I wholeheartedly, unreservedly, and completely agree.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
My only gripe about some–some!–atheists is that they have learned the wrong lessons from fanatical believers and have fought back by being just as unpleasant, intolerant, and irrational.
Yep. “Battle not with monsters…” and all that.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
That isn’t going to win any hearts and minds but I think a lot of what passes for “argument” on the internet these days is nothing more than a pìššìņg contest with no real goal intended other than pìššìņg.
I’m sorry, Bill, but I drank a whole dámņëd bottle of water before writing my last post! When you’ve gotta go, you’ve gotta GO!
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 7, 2007 11:04 PM
This board is usually a very happy exception, despite occasional lapses.
Go screw yourself.
Wait, that was me being a lapse, wasn’t it?
That isn’t going to win any hearts and minds but I think a lot of what passes for “argument” on the internet these days is nothing more than a pìššìņg contest with no real goal intended other than pìššìņg.
But, I like to pee.
-Rex Hondo-
Posted by: Rex Hondo at June 7, 2007 11:19 PM
It’s worth remembering that atheism and nihilism rearely, if ever, occur in a vacuum when it comes to a basis of government. They just don’t make for very good rallying cries. “Nothing matters, because we’re all going to die, and that’s it! But yay me, anyway!”
Thanks a LOT for ruining my rallying cry, you dumb jerk.
Wait, that was me being a lapse yet again, wasn’t it? Crap. I totally suck.
Luigi Novi: 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.
Bill Myers: Not so. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, said the following about religion:…That Marxist/Leninist doctrine informed the actions…
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about the Marxist or Leninist doctrines. We’re talking about atheism. Atheism doesn’t have a doctrine. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s). It is not a movement, organization, theory, or philosophy that was “founded”, it has not holy scriptures, books, rules, doctrines or dogmas, and there are no “authorities” that govern it. By bringing up Lenin or Marx, you’re underlying this very point. Again, crusades, holocausts, inquisitions, fatwas, jihads, forced circumcisions, etc., are not merely committed by theists. They’re derived directly from the holy texts and/or authorities that explicit instruct the followers of those religions. There is no such thing in atheism. There are no holy texts, priests, rabbis, or imams, or for that matter, any “followers”. Thus, if an atheist murders people, whether it be one or one million, and it is known that that murderer is an atheist, it isn’t atheism that “told” him to murder. The decision stemmed entirely from his own personality, and not any adherence to a doctrine that explicitly instructed him to do this. In this way, atheism’s relationship to the genocides committed by dictators that just so happened to be atheists is the same as the relationship between sexual criminals and pornography, which is anything but causal, and in turn, equivalent to the relationship between say, sexual criminals and the owning and driving of a motor vehicle. The same does not hold true for crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion, because in those cases, those crimes were carried out on the explicit instruction of those religions.
Bill Myers: 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.
Luigi Novi: But not a doctrine itself. It is simply the lack of a doctrine. Lack of a doctrine is not a doctrine, any more than not eating ice cream because you’re allergic to it or lactose intolerant means that your favorite flavor of ice cream is “allergic” or “lactose intolerant”. Whether someone incorporates a point of view into a doctrine or ideology is the responsibility of that someone, and in no way means that therefore, ipso facto, that viewpoint is itself a “doctrine”. This holds true for atheism in the same way that it does for natural selection, which has also been accused of being a doctrine, or the basis of certain doctrines. The fact that some have used natural selection to justify every doctrine from Marxism to capitalism to Fascism does not mean that therefore, natural selection is a “doctrine”. It remains that if I am unconvinced of something because I accept the validity of and try to adhere to the Scientific Method, testability, falsification, the Peer Review Process, and in general, empirical methods of testing knowledge, whether that something be astrology, phrenology, chiropractic, psychic powers, alien abduction, feng shui, homeopathy, government conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination, the moon landing and 9/11, or for that matter, gods, that is not a “doctrine”. Not being convinced of something is not a “doctrine”.
Ben Lesar: There is no real evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.
Luigi Novi: First of all, there is the historic Anti-Semitism that Peter mentioned. But if you want something more explicit:
“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..” –Mein Kempf
Granted, Hitler also killed Gypsies, Poles, POW’s, homosexuals, the handicapped, etc., but since 6 million of the 10-12 million killed in the Holocaust were Jews, the above quote shows that religion accounted quite a bit of it.
Luigi Novi: That they happened to be atheists is completely irrelevant to that point.
Ben Lesar: 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.
Luigi Novi: And your disagreement is completely irrelevant to the point, because the point is whether atheism is a causal factor or incidental to it, which is in no way determined by the number of people killed. Are you saying that if they killed few people, then you would agree that atheism was incidental, but because they killed a lot of people, then it’s causal? This is a non-sequitur. What does the amount of people killed have to do with whether the murders were derived from atheism? If you want to refute my point, then you have to show not that more people were killed by atheists, but that these acts were the direct result of atheism. If we were to take your theory to one logical permutation, it might look like this:
Atheist detonates a nuclear weapon that kills 1 million people.
Spectator: “Wow, it looks like atheism kills a lot of people.”
Theist detonate a nuclear weapon that kills 5 million people.
Spectator: “Whoa! It looks like theism is deadlier!”
Atheist detonates a nuclear weapon that kills 10 million people.
Spectator: “Oh šhìŧ! Atheism kills more people!”
Theist detonates a nuclear weapon that kills 20 million people.
Spectator: “Oh wait, no! It’s THEISM that kills more!”
Atheist kills 40 million people.
Spectator: “Whoops! Looks like I spoke too soon. Atheism has killed more!”
Thus, you’re basing your entire conclusion regarding causal effects on nothing more than numbers, which is arbitrary, subject to change within the contingencies of history, and logically flawed. The issue is not whose viewpoint’s adherents have killed more. The issue whether that viewpoint can be viewed as the causal basis of these acts. The fact remains that people like Stalin or Pol Pot murdered people because they were (gasp!) murderers. Not because they were atheists. Atheism does not cause people to murder people, nor is it even cited by those murderers as the source of instruction or inspiration for it, for they developed their own doctrines that merely incorporated it, as Bill Myers touched upon. The same does not hold true for religion, as I explained above.
Luigi Novi: 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.
Ben Lesar: Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades.
Luigi Novi: Two points:
First, the above quote by me says “religion”. It doesn’t say “Bible.” Holy texts are one source of religious instruction, but they’re not the only one. The instructions by the authorities that govern those religions are another. The Crusades, for example, were sanctioned by the Pope. Even within the context of holy texts, the Bible is not the only one, so I don’t know why you single that one out.
But if you want examples of a Biblical passage that instructs persecution and genocide, here’s one in which Jesus speaks:
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.” –Mark 19:27
Ben Lesar: And how many genocides is the Religious Right responsible for?
Luigi Novi: Depends. How do we categorize “the Religious Right”? Are we talking, for example, of the Americans who were organized in the last decades of the 20th century, or do we group in their ideological ancestors and counterparts? And what counts as a “genocide”? How many deaths? Do deaths from back alley abortions count? Murders of doctors who perform abortions? How about a President sending our sons and brothers off to die in a war because he felt God told him to? How about a prominent religious public figure calling for the State Department to be bombed? And for that matter, why does genocide even have to be the sole criteria? Any attempt to inculcate religion by any form of coercion is despicable, and the Religious Right are certainly guilty of that.
Ben Lesar: Not in the least. The Bible teaches free will, self-determination, and Charity; not coercive government redistribution of wealth and property.
Luigi Novi: First of all, I do not know of where in the Bible it teaches free will or self-determination. It teaches that having any other gods other than the Judeo-Christian god is a sin, that saying his name in vain is a sin, and prescribes the death penalty for working on the Sabbath, not being a virgin on one’s wedding night (if you’re female), being a rebellious child, wearing clothing made from two different threads, planting different crops side by side, being homosexual, etc. Where is the self-determination or free will in that? Can you tell me where in the Bible it preaches these things?
Second, the tenth commandment (of the set I was taught, at least), preaches against coveting, and Jesus preached against personal wealth. These are far more in line with communism than capitalism.
Posted by: Rex Hondo at June 7, 2007 11:54 PM
But, I like to pee.
God dámņ it, your pee-pee joke was funnier than my pee-pee joke, you pee-pee head!
Oops, lapsed again. I methinks I have gotten too punchy to be allowed to post for the rest of the night. I shall retire before I am dismevowelled.
Rex Hondo: It’s worth remembering that atheism and nihilism rearely, if ever, occur in a vacuum when it comes to a basis of government. They just don’t make for very good rallying cries. “Nothing matters, because we’re all going to die, and that’s it! But yay me, anyway!”
Luigi Novi: Atheists do not believe that “nothing matters”. That’s simply a bigoted statement.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 12:01 AM
Atheists do not believe that “nothing matters”. That’s simply a bigoted statement.
Luigi — take a deep breath, okay? I’m pretty sure Rex made that “nothing matters” remark with tongue in cheek.
For someone who is carrying the banner of rationalism and logic, your posts seem to be carrying a much harder edge than usual. And frankly, as a former devout Catholic who left the faith because I believed it flew in the face of logic and reason, I can tell you that you are nevertheless distorting religion as badly as religionists distort the concept of atheism. Time to calm down and realize that we are not your enemies, okay? You’re making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they’re getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn’t necessary.
Bill Myers: I’m pretty sure Rex made that “nothing matters” remark with tongue in cheek.
Luigi Novi: Sorry.
Bill Myers: For someone who is carrying the banner of rationalism and logic, your posts seem to be carrying a much harder edge than usual.
Luigi Novi: I will say what I said to you back when you told me that my MySpace posts seemed to be written in a totally different style from the posts I make in debates. When I debate on matters of fact, evidence, logic or reason, that is what I employ. It’s always been that way, and you can look through some old threads on this blog to see this. I can even point them out to you. More and more over the years, I’ve strived to pare down my arguments/counterarguments so that they’re free of sarcasm, reciprocated, insults, etc, so that they only thing that others can respond to is the quality of the reasoning I employ. When I post something personal on my blog, it tends to have more of a personal POV, and may be characterized, depending on the subject matter, by more humor, light-heartedness, stream of consciousness, etc. Since this is Peter’s blog, I try not to treat it as my own.
Bill Myers: I can tell you that you are nevertheless distorting religion as badly as religionists distort the concept of atheism. Time to calm down and realize that we are not your enemies, okay? You’re making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they’re getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn’t necessary.
Luigi Novi: Can you point out some that illustrate this? I went over my last post and couldn’t find this.
In actuality, the “nothing matters” line was in reference to nihilism, which I mentioned alongside atheism, harkening back to a previous post which I hadn’t taken the time to find and quote, and since the two do often go hand-in-hand.
-Rex Hondo-
How do they go hand in hand?
Well, you don’t see a whole lot of people who believe existence to be utterly devoid of meaning embracing the concept of a supreme being. Which is not to say, it should be noted, that it automatically works the other way around. There are still many, as you said, who don’t necessarily believe in a higher being, but still find meaning. One often leads to the other, just not necessarily the way you may have thought I was saying.
From the socio-political, building a despotic empire angle, if one is going to impose one’s own “religion” and purpose on a people one must first tear down the old gods (enforced atheism) then use that to remove their old sense of purpose (at least a pseudo-nihilism) before introducing new divine figures and purpose.
-Rex Hondo-
It should be pointed out that there are and were people who were religious and socialists.
“Bill Myers: I can tell you that you are nevertheless distorting religion as badly as religionists distort the concept of atheism. Time to calm down and realize that we are not your enemies, okay? You’re making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they’re getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn’t necessary.
Luigi Novi: Can you point out some that illustrate this? I went over my last post and couldn’t find this.”
Micha: Yes.
Luigi Novi: “The same does not hold true for crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion, because in those cases, those crimes were carried out on the explicit instruction of those religions.”
It should be noted that we are talking about a specific interpretation of religions. Religions are not necessarily promoting crimes against humanity, just certain interpretations of them. Which is also true of variations of socialism.
“Granted, Hitler also killed Gypsies, Poles, POW’s, homosexuals, the handicapped, etc., but since 6 million of the 10-12 million killed in the Holocaust were Jews, the above quote shows that religion accounted quite a bit of it.”
The Nazi’s killed many people. But the important thing is that they set out to eradicate the Jews, this was an key element of their ideology, and they built an industrial process to accomplish that. The targeting of Jews is derived from a tradition that is essentially Christian, even if it had aquired some secular aspects. (I am not discounting the gypsies, poles and homosexuals, but there story is slightly different).
It should be pointed out that there are and were people who were religious and socialists.
It was and is a very popular stance here in Latin America, by the way.
It’s just in the US and parts of Europe that religion is mostly associated with the political right, maybe.
Here in Brazil, many times the socialists and the Christians have made common cause to (in their own words) defend the poor from Imperialist exploitation. And it is, rather, Capitalism that sometimes is painted as associated with “godless hedonism”.
Do you guys know that Hugo Chavez sometimes uses Christian imagery in his speeches? The guy has said that Jesus is a role-model for Socialists, while Judas and his 30 coins of silver represents the Satan that is Capitalism…
Here’s a statement that Rudy can have, free: “My religious beliefs are between me and my God.”
Luigi, so you are one of the many people who prefer to believe what a politician (Hitler, no less) says rather than what he does? Certainly one should at least have his private words take precedence over his public ones.
“Thus, you’re basing your entire conclusion regarding causal effects on nothing more than numbers, which is arbitrary, subject to change within the contingencies of history, and logically flawed.”
No, I am basing my argument on the fact that atheist governments CONSISTANTLY killed millions of people, and still do, whereas Christian ones did/do not.
“First, the above quote by me says “religion”. It doesn’t say “Bible.” Holy texts are one source of religious instruction, but they’re not the only one”
You said “(Crusades) which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.”
“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
First, that is Luke 19:27. Second, you are being deceptive; it is part of a parable Jesus told and not to be taken literally.
Bill Myers: You’re making some excellent, very well-reasoned points as you usually do, but they’re getting at least partially obscured by an undercurrent of condescension that just isn’t necessary.
Luigi Novi: Can you point out some that illustrate this? I went over my last post and couldn’t find this.
Micha: Yes.
Luigi Novi: “The same does not hold true for crimes against humanity committed in the name of religion, because in those cases, those crimes were carried out on the explicit instruction of those religions.”
It should be noted that we are talking about a specific interpretation of religions. Religions are not necessarily promoting crimes against humanity, just certain interpretations of them.
Luigi Novi: How can you have an “interpretation of religion”? A religion is an organized belief system. How can you have an interpretation of a belief a system? Do you mean to say an interpretation of a holy text? Yes, religions have promoted certain interpretations of their holy texts and doctrines, and as a result, we’ve had inquisitions, crusades, fatwas, jihads, terrorism, mass genocide, civil wars, hatred, various crimes against humanity, and so forth. If the holy texts of those religions promote violence, and those religions claim to follow the teachings of those texts, then yes, those religions are promoting crimes against humanity.
And how exactly does this answer my question about condescension? Where in that passage by me that you quoted is there condescension? That passage is a portion of a paragraph in which I pointed out the difference between genocide committed by atheist regimes and those committed by theist regimes, and I confined myself to using reason to make that explanation? Where in that is there condescension?
Micha: The Nazi’s killed many people. But the important thing is that they set out to eradicate the Jews, this was an key element of their ideology, and they built an industrial process to accomplish that. The targeting of Jews is derived from a tradition that is essentially Christian, even if it had aquired some secular aspects. (I am not discounting the gypsies, poles and homosexuals, but there story is slightly different).
Luigi Novi: That’s what I said: That it was derived from religion, in response to Ben Lesar’s claim that there was no evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
Atheism doesn’t have a doctrine. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s).
Okay, I know I’m going to pìšš øff Micha by going to the dictionary again, but…
The Microsoft Encarta Dictionary defines “doctrine” as:
1. a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy
2. a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct
3. something taught to people
It seems to me that the Soviet Union’s adoption of atheism as its official government stance; and its attempt to spread atheism through classroom “education,” propagandizing, and use of force; meets the definition of “doctrine.” So, yeah, atheism can be a doctrine.
I’m sorry if this upsets you, but atheism and theism have this in common: neither of them are doctrines in and of themselves, but both can form the basis of doctrines. That said, I don’t think atheism and communism are inextricably linked.
By the way, a friend of mine is an atheist, and his perspective is much the same as yours. He rejects faith in favor of science. I understand your point-of-view better than you seem to believe.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
Again, crusades, holocausts, inquisitions, fatwas, jihads, forced circumcisions, etc., are not merely committed by theists. They’re derived directly from the holy texts and/or authorities that explicit instruct the followers of those religions.
Actually, the Bible is rife with contradictions and open to wildly differing interpretations, as is the Koran. As Micha has pointed out, these acts are derived in some cases from specific interpretations of these dense and often confusing texts.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
There is no such thing in atheism.
When Soviet police arrested and/or killed people in order to suppress religion, those actions were clearly derived from an atheistic doctrine.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
[The Bible] teaches that… wearing clothing made from two different threads, planting different crops side by side, being homosexual, etc. [is a sin].”
Yes and no. In the new Testament, Jesus reportedly said that the “purity codes” in Leviticus were null and void, but that the laws against immorality were still in effect. He listed a number of offenses in that vein, including what is often translated as “lasciviousness.” There is some disagreement about whether or not this applies to homosexuality.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 7, 2007 11:58 PM
Where is the self-determination or free will in that? Can you tell me where in the Bible it preaches these things?
Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
P.S. Luigi, I’m not a Christian. I’m not pushing religion. In fact, I don’t even push theism, even though I am a theist. I don’t believe atheism is inherently evil, or that atheists are prone to be less moral than theists. At the same time, I do not believe the reverse is true. I believe you are being as unfair to religionists as you believe they are to atheists. As Bill Mulligan pointed out, there is just no sense in that.
Luigi Novi: Atheism doesn’t have a doctrine. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s).
Bill Myers: Okay, I know I’m going to pìšš øff Micha by going to the dictionary again, but…
The Microsoft Encarta Dictionary defines “doctrine” as:
1. a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy
2. a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct
3. something taught to people
Luigi Novi: Again, these definitions prove my point, not yours, because atheism is not a rule or principle, it is not a body of ideas, and it is not “taught”. If we are generous, we could say that if you grow up in an atheist family, you would probably have an atheist viewpoint as a result of that through familial osmosis, but to my knowledge, atheists do not “teach” atheism. Atheists do not send their kids off to atheist school. They don’t go to atheist church every Sunday. They don’t make sure to observe the atheist high holidays. They don’t make sure they read from the atheist Bible. Even if some kid in an atheist family wanted to decide to follow a religion, his atheist parents, though possibly disappointed or troubled, would likely do nothing to stop him. To extend this hypothetical generosity, one can say that you can teach skepticism and critical thinking, and that a consistent adherence to those things might lead to atheism, as it did with me (though I learned those things on my own; they were not “taught” to me), but even then, that’s not a certainty, for there are skeptic believers. Martin Gardner, who is considered the founder of the modern skeptical movement, in fact, is a believer in God.
Bill Myers: It seems to me that the Soviet Union’s adoption of atheism as its official government stance; and its attempt to spread atheism through classroom “education,” propagandizing, and use of force; meets the definition of “doctrine.” So, yeah, atheism can be a doctrine.
Luigi Novi: Again, adopting an idea or point of view as part of a doctrine does not mean therefore, ipso facto, that idea is a doctrine itself. Again, can you please explain to me how not believing in something is a “doctrine”? All you keep saying is that oh, the Soviet Union incorporated this as a basis into that, and so forth, but what I keep pointing out to you is that the only doctrine in question here is a government/political one. It remains that lack of belief in gods is not a doctrine. I’m sorry if this upsets you, but I explained this in detail above, and rather than refute it, you’re just repeating the same fallacy, deliberately ignoring the distinction between a doctrine and a mutually exclusive idea incorporated into one, instead of refuting it.
Bill Myers: I’m sorry if this upsets you, but atheism and theism have this in common: neither of them are doctrines in and of themselves, but both can form the basis of doctrines.
Luigi Novi: Which means that everything is a “doctrine”, because everything can be made the “basis” of one. Say some dictator comes to power (y’know, as opposed to those dictators that don’t come to power). One of his little pet hobbies/interests/whatever is botany. He LOVES botany. I mean, we’re talking a major league hard-on for the chlorophyll. So he institutes a policy requiring ten live plants in everyone’s homes. He rewrites the science curriculum to put emphasis on botany instead of biology and chemistry. Major monuments are made to seminal botanists. A giant greenhouse park in every city. His views have a major effect on industrial development, because he is loathe to clear rural areas in favor of building cities, towns, factories, etc. Thus, he has used botany as a basis of a doctrine.
Is botany a doctrine, Bill?
Or, in your words, Bill, can it be the basis of one?
And if that dictator murders millions of people, do you mention botany in the same breath as fundamentalist Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or whatever, by connoting botany to be just as culpable for instructing murder? The difference between the two is that the hypothetical botanist dictator did something with botany, because by itself, botany says nothing about killing its opponents. But genocides carried out by theist murderers does not require them to do anything with their religions, because their religions already prescribe those actions, and thus, these crimes are a faithful fulfillment of them, often without any “interpretation”, or the fulfillment of orders from those religions’ authorities.
I also used the non-hypothetical example of natural selection above, and you didn’t respond to that. Why is this?
The conclusion remains that whether something is the “basis” of a doctrine is irrelevant to the genocides committed by atheist dictators, because those crimes stem solely from the personality of the dictator. The crimes carried out in the name of religion, on the other hand, stem from the holy texts and religious authorities of those religions, which instruct those crimes. Atheism “instructs” nothing.
Bill Myers: Actually, the Bible is rife with contradictions and open to wildly differing interpretations, as is the Koran. As Micha has pointed out, these acts are derived in some cases from specific interpretations of these dense and often confusing texts.
Luigi Novi: This does not change the original point, which is that crimes committed by atheist regimes were not carried out in the name of atheism. The same does not hold true for theist regimes. Points of interpretation do not change this. The bottom line is that comparing that genocides of Stalin to those of say, the Crusades or Inquisition is a false analogy.
Bill Myers: When Soviet police arrested and/or killed people in order to suppress religion, those actions were clearly derived from an atheistic doctrine.
Luigi Novi: But atheism itself does not prescribe these things. It is the murdering dictators who did. The same does not hold true for crimes committed by religious dictators, for their holy texts do prescribe bigotry, violence, and genocide for those who do not believe.
Can you show me an example of an ancient atheist holy text? Or an authority on atheism that outlines its “rules”? Can you show me where, in the book of atheism, it says “Commandment #1: Destroy religion”? You can’t, because there’s no such thing.
Bill Myers: Yes and no. In the new Testament, Jesus reportedly said that the “purity codes” in Leviticus were null and void, but that the laws against immorality were still in effect. He listed a number of offenses in that vein, including what is often translated as “lasciviousness.” There is some disagreement about whether or not this applies to homosexuality.
Luigi Novi: Where did Jesus say that they were null and void?
Throughout the New Testament, the reader is instructed to follow “scripture”, which means the Old Testament. Jesus said to follow the scripture, and that he and his father were one and the same, so it makes no sense for an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless being to change his mind over the course of a couple of thousand years on what rules are right and what rules are “null and void” (one of many proofs that the various books of the Bible originated in the minds of various different human authors, and not a god).
Bill Myers: Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Luigi Novi: And how does this square with all the other aspects of the Bible that are clearly against self-determination and free will? The Bible is a document of in-group love and out-group hostility. The passages that seem to preach love and freedom are not intended as universals, but only for God’s chosen. Those outside of this group are not given this consideration. Chapter 21 of Exodus, for example, gives explicit instructions on how to conduct slavery. How does this jibe with this passage about “freedom”? Even Jesus endorsed slavery, in Luke 12:47-48, rather than condemning it.
Bill Myers: P.S. Luigi, I’m not a Christian. I’m not pushing religion. In fact, I don’t even push theism, even though I am a theist. I don’t believe atheism is inherently evil, or that atheists are prone to be less moral than theists. At the same time, I do not believe the reverse is true.
Luigi Novi: Ditto.
Bill Myers: I believe you are being as unfair to religionists as you believe they are to atheists. As Bill Mulligan pointed out, there is just no sense in that.
Luigi Novi: Where have I been unfair to religionists? Can you point out a passage? I asked you to do this when you accused me of “condescension”, and you never responded to that point either. Can you illustrate these accusations?
Ben Lesar: Luigi, so you are one of the many people who prefer to believe what a politician (Hitler, no less) says rather than what he does?
Luigi Novi: What Hitler did was kill lots of people, including 6 million Jews. What he said was that he did it for religious reasons. I see no contradiction there, nor any reason to force an “Either/Or” question, as if the two are mutually exclusive.
Ben Lesar: Certainly one should at least have his private words take precedence over his public ones.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. There can reasons for the discrepancies that do not require one to take precedence over the other. There is much controversy on Hitler’s religiosity, and I see no reason to take his criticism of religion or Christianity to mean that he himself wasn’t religious or a believer in God. Many Christians, for example, criticize Christianity, and the Vatican. I did when I was a Christian. Bottom line: Was Hitler or was he not an anti-Semite? The answer is yes. And where does that anti-Semitism originate from? Simple. Religion. Whether he adheres to all the dogmas of that religion, or has respect for any particular denomination is beside the point. He hated entire swaths of people and murdered them, a viewpoint and act that originated with religious belief. But if you can show me how his anti-Semitism did not originate with religion, please let me know.
Luigi Novi: Thus, you’re basing your entire conclusion regarding causal effects on nothing more than numbers, which is arbitrary, subject to change within the contingencies of history, and logically flawed.
Ben Lesar: No, I am basing my argument on the fact that atheist governments CONSISTANTLY killed millions of people, and still do, whereas Christian ones did/do not.
Luigi Novi: You’re basing your argument on that now . But in your prior statement you said:
“…the governments that killed the most (by far) in the twentieth century were atheist…”
Thus, you were appealing to numerical, or quantitative considerations to argue that there was some relevance that some murdering dictators like Stalin have been atheists. I correctly pointed out that this was non-sequitur, because the issue of whether atheism itself prescribed those actions is completely unrelated to how many were killed by adherents to each worldview. The issue I brought up is whether the actions in question are the direct fulfillment of instructions explicitly made by those religions’ doctrines, and the distinction that atheism has no such doctrine or instruction. You failed to refute this point.
The fact that you’ve leap-frogged onto a new concept—consistency—not only does not change the fact that you indeed made this appeal to numbers (and makes your “No, I’m not” response a transparent falsehood), but is itself just another kind of appeal to numbers itself: In what way is “consistency” at all pertinent? Are you saying that if crimes committed in the name of religion are sporadic, uneven, intermittent, or inconsistent, then somehow, that means that they were not committed in the name of religion? Or that they only were if these events occurred on some type of schedule? This is not simply untrue; it’s completely nonsensical gibberish.
Whether the crimes in question were “consistent” is irrelevant. The issue is whether the crimes were derived from a specific doctrine or authority on the doctrine that instructed it. Crimes committed for religion’s sake were committed according to such doctrines and their priests, rabbis, imams, etc. By contrast, atheism does not call for any such thing.
Nor am I interested in your narrow definition of “government”, which like much else in your responses to my statements, has been deliberately selective. The Vatican, after, is a government, and the Crusades were carried out with a papal blessing, and thus, it was carried out in the name of the Christian Church, which is also a government. When you see whole streets burned out by sectarian warfare in Belfast, and people kidnapped, tortured and killed by rival religious death squads, and when you consider that for years, the Protestant and Catholic establishments both wanted segregated and suppression of the other side, who cares if it’s a “government”? So your statement that Christians (or Christian governments, if you prefer) have not done this is false, as such crimes have indeed been committed in the name of Christianity just of other religions. No such thing was carried out in the name of atheism.
Moreover, even if no official government is involved, how is this a relevant criteria? By this reasoning of yours, Al Quaeda is not committing their crimes in the name of religion, because they are not the official government of any country.
Luigi Novi: 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.
Ben Lesar: Show me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades.
Luigi Novi: Two points: First, the above quote by me says “religion”. It doesn’t say “Bible.” Holy texts are one source of religious instruction, but they’re not the only one.
Ben Lesar: You said “(Crusades) which are a direct fulfillment of the instructions given to followers by their holy texts.”
Luigi Novi: No, I did not. You selectively edited the quote by me (even putting parenthesis around it for some reason) to make it seem that I was singling out Christianity. But in fact, the actual, more contextualized quote (which I have reproduced right above), shows no such thing, as it actually says “things like jihads or the Crusades.” So in other words, I was speaking of such crimes in general. (Readers can scroll up look at my June 6, 7:51pm post to verify this.) I further clarified this by including things like “circumcision” and “fatwas” in my statements, to make it clear that I am not singling out any one religion, and by pointing out that explicit instructions of holy texts are once source of instruction, but the authorities of those religions are another. Thus, the Crusades apply because they were blessed by the Pope.
Ben Lesar: First, that is Luke 19:27.
Luigi Novi: Yes, thanks for the correction.
Ben Lesar: Second, you are being deceptive; it is part of a parable Jesus told and not to be taken literally…
Luigi Novi: You have not established any deception. The fact that it is a parable is irrelevant to the issue, because in that parable, the person speaking is a man who was trying to impose himself as king, and he was speaking of those who resisted this. That Jesus speaks of this man in a positive light means that Jesus endorses the act of a man forcing himself as a ruler on people who don’t want him. The moral bankruptcy that Jesus reveals in himself, therefore, is clear, and pointing out that it is a parable does nothing to change my point. You asked for a Biblical passage that instructs persecution and genocide, and I gave you one. If the parable condemned that would-be king, then that would be untenable.
Even if what you’re saying about that parable is true, how do you know that it was deception on my part, and not say, a genuine mistake, as with which book it was from? Why do you assume the more sinister motive?
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 03:26 PM
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 03:26 PM
Can you illustrate these accusations?
Luigi, it wasn’t my intent to “accuse” you of anything but merely to offer my observations (you’ll note that I also acknowledged you made some good points, as you usually do). It seems you regard me now as an adversary because I disagree with you, and are determined to “win” this “fight” at all costs. I have lost my apetite for such fare and therefore see no reason for this exchange to continue.
Take care.
Bill, I do not see you as an “adversary”, nor do I mind that you disagreed with me, any more than I’ll wager Peter considers me an adversary for the times I’ve disagreed with him. I do not see these exchanges as something to “win”, any more than I did with those exchanges with other persons wherein you took my side and cheered me on. I simply don’t play favorites, as I try to be consistent in my viewpoints and the expressions thereof, and to that end, I’ve tried to conduct myself with dispassion in this thread, and nothing resembling bitterness, anger, or vitriol.
You said that was condescending and unfair to religionists. All I’m asking is for you to point out where I did this. I ask this partially because I don’t believe I did this, but at the same time, because I acknowledge the possibility that I did, and I expect my friends to point these things out when they offer legitimate criticism. The fact that you split hairs by calling them “observations” instead of “accusations” is unimportant. The point is, you have offered a criticism, and I think I have the right to ask you to back it up, just I think that you have the right to offer it. Nothing more. If you don’t do that, then you’ll only reinforce my original impression that these statements by you originated within your mind, and not in anything I said or did. This of course does not obligate you to answer, but I can’t consider your criticism if you don’t.
Take care yourself, buddy. 🙂
Posted by: Bill Myers at June 8, 2007 01:02 PM
“It seems to me that the Soviet Union’s adoption of atheism as its official government stance; and its attempt to spread atheism through classroom “education,” propagandizing, and use of force; meets the definition of “doctrine.” So, yeah, atheism can be a doctrine.”
Nyet comrade Myers. The soviet Union promoted communism, and the party line as decided in a given time, not atheism. Communism is a doctrine, it has a body of writing and interpretation to which it looks for guidance. As do Christianity and other doctrines. But atheism is not like that — it is not a systematic school of thought that is taught anywhere as dogma. There are atheist philosophers, but atheists don’t specifically look to them for guidance unless they follow other principles of their philosophy, as is the case with communism or surealism, or Nietche. As you yourself say: “atheism and theism have this in common: neither of them are doctrines in and of themselves, but both can form the basis of doctrines.” Only atheism is not the basis of communism, it is not even a necessary part of it, which is how you can have religious communists. Theism is at the basis of Christianity, but the truth is that Christianity and theism are two very different things. Only one of them is a doctrine.
“When Soviet police arrested and/or killed people in order to suppress religion, those actions were clearly derived from an atheistic doctrine.”
Nyet again Comrade. The soviet suppression of religion was not motivated by atheism. Atheism is only the belief that there is no god. Communists supressed religion either because of their interpretation of communist doctrine (namely that religion is a reactionary tool of the bourgoise to atupify the proleteriat and so forth), or because of specific political interests at specific time (such as the connection between Budhism and Tibetan national identity). In any case, Communists did not supress religion constantly, only when it served their interests. At other times they tolerated it.
“Okay, I know I’m going to pìšš øff Micha by going to the dictionary again.”
Not at all. In this case we are talking semantics. I don’t think there is a real disagreement, only a need to fine tune certain distinctions.
————————
Luigi Novi: “How can you have an “interpretation of religion”? A religion is an organized belief system. How can you have an interpretation of a belief a system? Do you mean to say an interpretation of a holy text?”
Because religion’s are belief systems they are subject to different interpretations and different opinions, which sometimes result in a schism inside the religion, and sometimes not. The different interpretations are not only of the sacred text. Religions develop over time layers upon layers of interpretation, and interpretation of the interpretation, and doctrine, and rituals, and folk belliefs, and legends, and policy, all of which go through changes over time, as they are interpreted to fit the times.
“Yes, religions have promoted certain interpretations of their holy texts and doctrines, and as a result, we’ve had inquisitions, crusades, fatwas, jihads, terrorism, mass genocide, civil wars, hatred, various crimes against humanity, and so forth.”
It is also a change in interpretation that had made it possible for different Christians to support and oppose racism, slavery, antisemitism, communism, science, modernism, and humanism. It is a fact that he same Christianity that has promoted antisemitism for years seems to have changed its mind at modern times.
“If the holy texts of those religions promote violence, and those religions claim to follow the teachings of those texts, then yes, those religions are promoting crimes against humanity.”
But that’s the point. while certain interpreters read in the texts a call for violence, others find there a call for peace; where some find a support for capitalism others find communist ideals. It is not the holy texts that promote violence as much as their contemporary interpreters. (Which is not to say that their original meaning was not violent in itself, these religions were first developed in quite brutal times, but our problems are with the modern interpreters who wish to promote violence, not with the texts themselves. And our allies are those who prefer less violent interpretations, even if their readings may not be correct in a historical sense).
Luigi Novi: “And how exactly does this answer my question about condescension? Where in that passage by me that you quoted is there condescension? That passage is a portion of a paragraph in which I pointed out the difference between genocide committed by atheist regimes and those committed by theist regimes, and I confined myself to using reason to make that explanation? Where in that is there condescension?”
It seems to me that to treat genocidal violence as an inherent aspect of religion is similar to attributing it inherently to atheism. It seems to me a condescending attitude toward religious people, as others have a condescending attitude toward atheists. However, I have no desire to attribute condescension to you if it is not there. I am more interested in the issue of the discussion.
Micha: “The Nazi’s killed many people. But the important thing is that they set out to eradicate the Jews, this was an key element of their ideology, and they built an industrial process to accomplish that. The targeting of Jews is derived from a tradition that is essentially Christian, even if it had aquired some secular aspects. (I am not discounting the gypsies, poles and homosexuals, but there story is slightly different).”
Luigi Novi: “That’s what I said: That it was derived from religion, in response to Ben Lesar’s claim that there was no evidence to suggest the Holocaust was religiously motivated.”
It was not my intention to contradict you on this point as much as to add to what you said a point I felt is important.
———————–
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 8, 2007 12:45 PM:
Luigi, so you are one of the many people who prefer to believe what a politician (Hitler, no less) says rather than what he does? Certainly one should at least have his private words take precedence over his public ones.
The issue of this or that statement of Hitler about Christianity is irrelevant. Hitler was the leader, but he was not alone, and the antisemitism promoted and then practiced by his party, his country, and his country’s allies was closely and undeniably related to the antisemitism promoted for centuries by Christianity, even if it has aquired some new layers in the modern era. Hitler took racism and antisemitism to the extreme, but he did not invent either, he inherited them from a European culture that was essentialy Christian.
“No, I am basing my argument on the fact that atheist governments CONSISTANTLY killed millions of people, and still do, whereas Christian ones did/do not.”
Yet it is a false argument. You are taking the fact that in a specific moments in modern times three atheist regimes (USSR, China, Cambodia) killed large numbers of people, to create two false impressions:
1) That Christians were somehow more hesitant about killing large numbers of people. that they were somehow more gentle and pacific in nature. This argument would be false even if accepted the numerical claim that Stalin and Mao killed more than all Christian governments (an assumption I am not certain of, but cannot verify); because even if it were true, history clearly shows that Christians were not shy about kiling many fellow Christians, Christians of other denominations, Jews, Muslims, pagans, African, amerindians and indians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
“But while introduced disease devastated native populations, colonial brutality and economic dislocation also played significant roles. Rummel, for example, estimates a total of approximately 13.7 million democides (deliberate killings) of native Americans in the colonial and post-colonial eras.[5] The population reduction, sometimes by government policy and sometimes not, of the Natives of South and North America by Europeans is estimated to be one of the largest and longest in history.[6] (See also cultural genocide).”
And this is only genocides starting in 1500. There are also many wars by Christians that are not considered genocide but were quite brutal nevertheless. And there are also certain eastern European peoples that seem to have vanished somehow during the early middle ages, and of course slavery.
2) The second false assumption tis hat the acts of brutality by Stalin and Mao are somehow a reflection of their atheism. Atheism was not that important an aspect in their ideology, and although it caused the persecution of the religious establishments, it was not the motivation behind the massive killings they perpetuated. They killed because of different aspects of their personality and ideology, most specifically the desire to social engineer their societies in a wide scale and the lack of compunction about how it is to be done. This has little to do with atheism as such.
Also, the acts of Stalin and Mao were specific events in the history of their countries, and not a constant pattern in the behavior of the communist regimes in Russia or China.
““But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
First, that is Luke 19:27. Second, you are being deceptive;
it is part of a parable Jesus told and not to be taken literally.”
Yet are you certain no Christians have ever taken it literally?
Luigi Novi: How can you have an “interpretation of religion”?
Luigi, hope you don’t mind me horning in on the discussion, but this question of yours ia something that I’ve said for a long time. Religion is nothing BUT interpretation. Whether it’s the interpretation of the head speaker, be it priest, minister, rabbi, high priest, or whatever or just the individual reading a text, that information is being interpreted by the listener/reader’s frame of reference. Each person is unique, so each person’s experience with religion or spirituality is unique. Case in point, I had the HARDEST time understanding the whole Prodigal Son bit since my own father would let me try my own way, find my own path, and if it differed from his, well, okay as long as it wasn’t TOO extreme. Any success I had was shared, any failure, he was always there to help, with only the occasional friendly jibe sent my way. Since I lack the experience of the type of father in the story, I couldn’t understand it. I always just said, why didn’t the father just say, “Okay, don’t do it again, dummy, and come eat dinner.” I got lucky, only later did I find THAT out. Without the personal interpretation, without the connection nothing in any religion would have any meaning, from the Eucharist to the Bar/Bat Mitzvah to the Calling of the Corners. Without your own personal knowledge of the ritual and it’s connections in your head, they’d be pointless.
Thanks for letting me butt in.
I’m currently working on a project about a hotel fire here in Fort Wayne, the centennial of which will be next year. One of the most interesting things to happen in the hotel’s history was in 1884, when James G. Blaine, the Republican candidate for President (against Grover Cleveland) was to speak from one of the hotel’s balconies. He arrived after much advance publicity and during much hoopla. He had just barely begun to deliver his speech when local Democrats shouted him down. He left the hotel and was driven by carriage to the city’s Catholic hall. But, he chose to deliver his speech from the back of his carriage, not wanting to even appear to mix politics and religion by going into the hall.
What a difference 123 years can make.
“Even if what you’re saying about that parable is true, how do you know that it was deception on my part, and not say, a genuine mistake, as with which book it was from? Why do you assume the more sinister motive?”
Because you quoted it without giving the context that was obviously needed. Anyone who knows what a parable is understands that it is not to be taken literally. When, for instance, Jesus speaks of things in parables he is speaking of things spiritual –“my kingdom is not of this world”—not physical. Any death will be as well.
Speaking of taking things out of context; I did not do so. I made no claim that you were singling out Christianity, my quoting you was in response to your claiming that you did not specify holy texts as the source of those instructions to go on crusades, jihads, and such.
“The issue of this or that statement of Hitler about Christianity is irrelevant. Hitler was the leader, but he was not alone, and the antisemitism promoted and then practiced by his party, his country, and his country’s allies was closely and undeniably related to the antisemitism promoted for centuries by Christianity, even if it has aquired some new layers in the modern era. Hitler took racism and antisemitism to the extreme, but he did not invent either, he inherited them from a European culture that was essentialy Christian.”
Christianity was never the source of anti-Semitism. Almost every nation which has had a significant Jewish population has suffered from it. (Anti-Semitism, not having the significant Jewish population.) Gandhi was an anti-Semitist. Post-Christian Europe is still a hotbed of anti-Semitism. The fact is that may people all over the world don’t like Jews. One possible reason is that races and cultures of one kind don’t tolerate those of others coming to their nation and not assimilating. But to me the reason is spiritual. I believe that since the Jews are God’s chosen people those under sinister influence direct anger towards them without even knowing why.
“That Christians were somehow more hesitant about killing large numbers of people. that they were somehow more gentle and pacific in nature. This argument would be false even if accepted the numerical claim that Stalin and Mao killed more than all Christian governments (an assumption I am not certain of, but cannot verify); because even if it were true, history clearly shows that Christians were not shy about kiling many fellow Christians, Christians of other denominations, Jews, Muslims, pagans, African, amerindians and indians.”
North Korea, Laos, China is still doing it… and more. I would like to see someone point out an officially Christian government in the 20th century that killed more than a few thousand.
Speaking of which, Luigi, the numbers do matter. Why? Because in the case of the Christian governments most of the deaths were isolated incidents. The huge figures in atheist genocides indicate that they were, in fact, genocides.
“And this is only genocides starting in 1500. There are also many wars by Christians that are not considered genocide but were quite brutal nevertheless. And there are also certain eastern European peoples that seem to have vanished somehow during the early middle ages, and of course slavery.”
Most of the deaths of Native Americans were accidental, caused by disease. Of course some of it was spread on purpose, but very little really. Also, people like to point to slavery and blame Christians when, to my knowledge, the first nation to not only ban it but work against it, was an officially Christian one. The man who wrote “Amazing Grace” was a slave trader… until he converted to Christianity. On the other hand, slavery has finally returned to Europe now that it is post-Christian.
“Yet are you certain no Christians have ever taken it literally?”
No, I am saying that Luigi shouldn’t though. How many atheists have taken nihilism seriously, by the way? Nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism. Genocide is a logical working of nihilism. There is a connection, albeit indirect, between atheism and genocide.