A A A A Search :

Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)

login • sign up home • about • help • archives • index • tags • changes • search

» 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On

From charlatan's workspace   

10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On

---

created by charlatan on Dec 25, 2007 at 12:42:48 am     Comments: 24

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

I like this one, from John Prine’s song Pretty Good: I heard Allah and Buddha were singing at the Savior's feast
And up the sky and Arabian rabbi
Fed Quaker oats to a priest.
Pretty good, not bad, they can't complain
Cause actually all them gods is just about the same.

But, this Christmas morning I have awakened to my wife of twenty-six years, and my two daughters home from college. I read the Blade online of two people I know listed in the obituaries. I am filled with sorrow yet I count the blessings still asleep in my humble home.
I admit there are times when I have been an atheist, agonistic, and Christian. This morning I am the latter.

posted by Offshore on Dec 25, 2007 at 10:15:22 am     #

I don't care how #5 is offensive, when the separation of church and state must be followed. Adopting any religious ethos as a part of state policy can ONLY offend the other religions who don't so subscribe. It's therefore best to offend ALL religions equally, by keeping the state secular, with no religious affiliation whatsoever.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 25, 2007 at 11:14:47 am     #

To each their own... some people dine on steak, some on unflavored oatmeal. No one truly knows where it will take them. I think most people are genuinely decent and honest.

I think people can agree on things like Prussian moral/ethical philosopher Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. Essentially it states that people should be treated not merely as means to an end, but as ends in themselves.

The separation of Church and State is a sideshow issue to push emotional buttons. It's the Paris Hilton/Brittany Spears smoke and mirrors of politics.

What parts of the grand (I'm assuming you mean) Christian agenda have been pushed into law lately? I would say both the domestic and foreign policy of this empire unChristian and inhumane in general.

By the actions of those creating such policies, you'd think that at best they were greedy nihilists, but certainly not Christian nor ethical atheists.

posted by charlatan on Dec 26, 2007 at 02:22:49 am     #

Oh, spare me the faux bewilderment, Char. It's intellectually insulting.

Laws on "decency": these are religiously based and should be rejected summarily.

Laws against homosexual status: similar case.

The entire Iraq "War": dropping bombs while clutching their crucifixes or Stars of David.

All religious ethos should be kept out of the function of a government that claims to be equally respecting of religions.

And if I hear "we're a Christian nation" out of the rightwingnuts one more time, I'm gonna barf. They grin, and look innocuous, and the next thing you know, married homosexuals can't obtain the same rights under the government that married heterosexuals have, and then those fuckers continue to grin but more hugely. What they're doing is insidious and evil (in the secular sense) and it MUST STOP.

We are NOT a "Christian nation". Christians and Catholics do not OWN the nation's culture. LIBERTY should own the nation's culture, as any reading of our formative documents should reveal.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 27, 2007 at 12:23:01 am     #

>>LIBERTY should own the nation's culture, as any reading of our formative documents should reveal.>>

If liberty had a higher priority than distributive justice (distributing wealth), there would be no need for religion in government.

If, on the other hand, wealth distribution is the priority over liberty, then a moral code to determine how the wealth should be allocated is essential.

But determining a moral code by democracy is obviously a completely dysfunctional and self destructive proposition - therefore, religions fight against both democracy and themselves to control it.

If you're going to be in the business of distributing wealth - you are going to be in the business of morals which means that you are going to be in the business of religion - even if your religion has no god.

When you must have a set of morals to decide how to dole out the liberty you have stolen from the people, if you decide to go with no morals it doesn't mean that you are being neutral to all religions. It means the obvious: you have stolen liberty from the people and are now doling it out with no morals.

If, on the other hand, you don't steal the liberty in the first place, you don't have to worry about morals.

So, yes, you decide: its either liberty or religious battles.

But don't let anyone fool you into thinking that atheism is not a religion.

Removing Christianity from the government and replacing it with atheistism is not the answer.

Making liberty the priority over wealth distribution is the answer. That will eliminate the need for any religions in government - including atheism.

posted by babbleman on Dec 27, 2007 at 01:36:18 am     #

So here is my bottom line shout out to modern liberalism:

If you are going to take my liberty, then you are going to get a fight with my Christianity to control the use of it.

A theocracy is the last thing in the world that protects liberty. But when liberty was raided in the first three quarters of the 20th century, I am forever grateful to the Religious Right for grabbing the wheel in the last quarter and keeping us between the ditches until we can figure out how to get liberty back.

posted by babbleman on Dec 27, 2007 at 01:55:44 am     #

There's no reason to remove Christianity from the gov't, since it's NOT there in the first place. There is no mention of Jesus Christ in the Constitution.

Also, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (written in 1797) states:

As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

posted by Chris99 on Dec 27, 2007 at 10:36:59 am     #

I think many confuse Christianity with biblical philosophy when talking about the founding of our country.

Yes, the majority of the founders were religious people with their faiths rooted in the New Testament teachings. That's a fact.

But they didn't bring 'Christianity' - a denominational belief - into the government. What they DID bring was the belief that our rights are derived from God (or a higher power, etc.) and not 'granted' to us by some government.

It was the belief that man has certain inalienable rights inherent in being human that was the 'biblical principle' they brought into government. Further, that government had no ability to 'grant' such rights to us, but that government was there to protect everyone's basic rights. The government was structured so that it could not infringe upon such 'God-given rights' although many would say we're pretty far from that today.

The idea that human beings have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is based in the religious beliefs of the founders, so it was these 'beliefs' that led to the restrictions of government toward such rights and the mistaken idea that our government was 'Christian-based.'

posted by MaggieThurber on Dec 27, 2007 at 11:22:49 am     #

Chris, to ignore the influence of Christianity on our government's original structure because the words "Jesus" and "Christ" do not appear in the Constitution is a bit near sighted to say the least.

The teaching of Christianity that man has a direct relationship with God, with no men or governments in between telling him how to live, was the single most important vehicle for natural law and natural rights that are fundamental to both the Declaration and the Constitution.

This is the basic tension. A socialist / collectivist / directed economy government cannot be efficient when you have a bunch of citizens running around with their own morals and believing that their rights are inalienable and must, under all circumstances, be protected by their government.

To the contrary, that self-sufficiency and private moral code must be removed so that government can have its own legal (not natural) code.

That's why socialists HAVE to demoralize a population with Atheism - because a socialist government cannot exist effectively with Christianity. It can exist, but not effectively.

Socialism has an inevitable momentum towards Atheism because natural law just doesn't work when the government needs to take all the money and pull all the strings.

posted by babbleman on Dec 27, 2007 at 11:24:29 am     #

lol, Maggie, you beat me :)

posted by babbleman on Dec 27, 2007 at 11:25:13 am     #

So again, if you are going to take so much money (ie, liberty) you are going to have a fight for its moral control.

So you have 2 choices:

1) Pick a winning religion to guide the pile of cash (liberty) you've stolen. Just remember, it is not possible to not pick a religion (that's why resisting religion is not a choice). Non-religion is a religion. So even if you succeed at what you think is being non-religious - you are being religious.

2) Give back the money (ie, the liberty) and the fight will go away.

Christians only want to run the country because the country has taken their money (ie, their liberty). Give them their liberty back and they will go away because they are really good at taking care of themselves and each other - that's how they prefer it.

posted by babbleman on Dec 27, 2007 at 11:49:18 am     #

Back to the original post, once I get my liberty back, I will get along fine with Atheists. But until then, the fight is on - screw them.

We don't have to agree on anything. This is what happens when you steal liberty - get used to it - and don't tell me that I have to be tolerant of anyone, because I won't.

Jefferson understood the inevitable momentum against liberty well:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

posted by babbleman on Dec 27, 2007 at 12:18:31 pm     #

Chris, to ignore the influence of Christianity on our government's original structure because the words "Jesus" and "Christ" do not appear in the Constitution is a bit near sighted to say the least.

That's a pretty weak strawman argument, since I never said anything about influence. However I find your views intriguing, much like Carrot Top is "intriguing". But I disagree. Natural rights and natural law are athiestic by defintition. Morals and morality existed long before Christianity and organized religion. The idea that these rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) were bestowed upon us by "God" is in error. These rights are "endowed by their Creator" (i.e. Nature)

posted by Chris99 on Dec 27, 2007 at 12:24:08 pm     #

babbleman, did athiests steal your money? Do you think the writers/framers of the 16th Amendment (and all the states that ratified it) were Christians? What if it were Christians who were responsible for "stealing" all your money?

posted by Chris99 on Dec 27, 2007 at 12:41:46 pm     #

"The idea that these rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) were bestowed upon us by "God" is in error. These rights are "endowed by their Creator" (i.e. Nature)"

God, Creator...potAYto, potAHto...

I think we're saying the same thing...

posted by MaggieThurber on Dec 27, 2007 at 12:59:48 pm     #

Sure, just substitute "God" for "natural selection/evolution" (or vice versa) and we are saying the same thing.

posted by Chris99 on Dec 27, 2007 at 02:12:23 pm     #

>>babbleman, did athiests steal your money?>>

Yes.

Socialism, collectivism, communism, the subjugation of the I by the We - take your pick - these are the ideas that have been given the force to steal liberty.

You will have a hard time assigning those megatrends from the last 1.5 centuries to Christianity. But if you want, go for it. I'm all ears.

Socialism is not compatible with religion. The government has to be the first priority - not god. That is why every major socialist movement has, as a significant part of its execution, attempted to remove religion in general, and Christianity in particular, from its society and replace it with atheism.

Again, if you don't think that this is the case, then show me otherwise.

posted by babbleman on Dec 27, 2007 at 02:57:15 pm     #

I hardly think the burden of proofs lies upon me to disprove your crazy theory of non-religious socialists out to "steal your liberty". You say the founders brought their Christian influence into the making of our gov't. And if the legislators that amended the Consitution to allow the gov't to collect taxes were also "Christian-influenced", then how can you blame atheists or socialists for "stealing your liberty"? By the way, you do agree that religion is collectivist in nature, no?

posted by Chris99 on Dec 27, 2007 at 11:44:17 pm     #

Babs, do I sound like I'm into the "wealth distribution" game? No.

I'm largely talking about a government that uses moral codes as straight cut-n-paste from some religious faction's texts, and then applies them as social policy. The "anti-gay marriage" laws are entirely in line with that. It's like slouching towards Nuremberg (i.e. using laws to codify the concept of a second-class citizenry). Secular or religious, the end result is the enaction of a social policy that is essentially anti-liberty.

As well, the tax code prefers married people over singles. Since married people enjoy shared expenses, there is no economic argument for it, hence this is just more religious-inspired policy and is again an affront to liberty.

Even if removing "God" from government does give the atheists their chance to enact some sort of social policy, I still say the government should and must be a lot smaller, hence no matter WHO (factionally speaking) is at the helm, they can only do so much damage. So I believe my philosophical arse is covered there.

posted by GuestZero on Dec 28, 2007 at 12:01:51 am     #

GZ, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was taking your point a step further to propose that religion in government wouldn't exist (or at least not to a level that would matter) if government hadn't been shoe horned into being a welfare state and social engineer. The same for lobbyists and corporate control.

It kills me that liberals want to concentrate all this wealth and power and then stand there all dumbfounded and indignant about the fact that groups are falling all over themselves to wrest control of it.

Married vs. single tax returns are an artifact of a tax code built for social engineering and political manipulation. Flip the tax base to consumption (ie, voluntary), eliminate embedded/concealed taxes (corporate, capital gains, etc.), shut down government knowledge of personal income and "filing status" ceases to exist.

The gay marriage issue exists ONLY because the government has the means (and the force over us using 2/3 of our median personal income) to be a moral master. That means that any group, no matter how small, can use the government to change the state morals in ways that would never exist naturally in the population.

Gay marriages, for all intents and purposes, do not exist statistically. Despite this, for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is that it is a full frontal assault on Christianity) it can be made into cause to enact policy of over arching social and moral implications.

Is that fucked up or what? The federal government can now be used as a hammer by a group of people that number less than the population of Lucas county to redefine the state morality for the entire country.

Government should not have this morality hammer in the first place. But please don't be surprised that, since it does, when it is abused by issues like gay marriage that there is an equal and opposite reaction.

posted by babbleman on Dec 28, 2007 at 01:58:30 am     #

Babbleman, I'm with you here:

I was taking your point a step further to propose that religion in government wouldn't exist (or at least not to a level that would matter) if government hadn't been shoe horned into being a welfare state and social engineer. The same for lobbyists and corporate control.

But how do you reconcile this with an earlier post in which you said this:

Socialism is not compatible with religion. The government has to be the first priority - not god. That is why every major socialist movement has, as a significant part of its execution, attempted to remove religion in general

You seem to say (at one point) that socialist states are incompatible with religion, and try to rid the state of religion. However you also seem to say religion thrives in a socialist welfare state (along with other interest groups) because of their desire to "get a piece of the pie".

posted by Chris99 on Dec 28, 2007 at 02:10:06 pm     #

>>You seem to say (at one point) that socialist states are incompatible with religion, and try to rid the state of religion. However you also seem to say religion thrives in a socialist welfare state (along with other interest groups) because of their desire to "get a piece of the pie".>>

Chris99, sorry maybe I wasn't being clear.

What I am saying is that because socialism naturally displaces religion (or, more accurately, needs to replace competing moral codes with its own), religion fights back.

So, yes, maybe I am saying that religion thrives with socialism, but it certainly isn't because of socialism's support - it is in spite of it.

In other words, if there is going to be a public moral code, both socialism and religion are going to fight over it.

If government's mission and purpose is one that does not make morality its primary focus, there would not be a fight by religion to take control of it (the moral code).

So my point is that villifying Christians as being motivated to create a theocracy is totally misguided. The grab for theocracy is coming from socialism. Christianity is just reacting.

If you really want to have a seperation of church and state - be honest and look at who is trying to build the church in government.

Or, more importantly, if a separation of church and state is really as important to some people as they say it is, they need to take a serious look at the government's mission to determine what kind of things lead to separation and what kind of things lead to collusion.

If government's mission is to protect individual liberty and the free economy that comes from it, you will have very little if any need for policy directed explicitly by morality - and thus you will have a separation of church and state.

If, on the other hand, the mission of government is to equalize wealth and usurp the liberty necessary to do so - you have to have a moral code adopted by the government to determine which parts of the population are going to get the wealth (independent of having created themselves) and which parts are going to lose the liberty.

Given this, I hold that socialism and a separation of church and state are mutually exclusive. That is, if you have socialism, it is impossible to have a separation of church and state. Socialism has to be a church in and of itself by the very nature of what it intends to do. Therefore, government has to be the church if its mission is socialism. This puts it naturally at odds with non-government religions (in our case, Christianity).

But I think the illusion that many people are under is that socialism's preferred religion, Atheism, is not a religion. Therefore, if we can make government atheistic (by, in our case, repelling any Christian control) we have achieved a separation of church and state.

But nothing could be futher from the reality. All you have done is chosen one religion over another.

If you want to have separation of church and state, you have to make liberty your priority. Otherwise, as soon as you take liberty you must, by necessity, adopt a moral policy to manage it.

posted by babbleman on Jan 02, 2008 at 10:42:55 am     #

So from this perspective, the practical structure is pretty appearent. If you don't want religion to reign, you have to let freedom reign. But that is something the left can't do to fulfill its mission despite the fact that they constantly pretend to great protectors of freedom. This is just one of many contradictions between the left's proposals and their reality.

posted by babbleman on Jan 02, 2008 at 10:53:58 am     #

I don't agree that atheism is a religion, and I don't think the founders believed that either. If they did, then the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state would be nonsensical. But probably the biggest issue I would have with your argument would deal with the idea of morality. You seem to say that once gov't has defined part of it's mission to include any kind of morality, it has already broken the separation of church and state. Two problems---one, I don't accept the fact that morals in general are religious. Humans practiced forms of morality long before man invented religion. Secondly, I would question the idea that Americans introduced morals into our government's mission. I would say it was there already, if you consider the idea of promoting and providing for the general welfare was in the Constitution from the beginning.

posted by Chris99 on Jan 02, 2008 at 01:41:08 pm     #

home • about • help • contact

© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk

current date: 07-Oct-2008 3:11 A.M.

old version of Toledo Talk