Thread: Christian ethics vs Secular Humanist ethics Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027729
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
What are the differences between Christian ethics and Secular Humanist ethics?
I'm not interested in beliefs here, I'm interested in the practical outworking of those beliefs.
And while I realise both those terms are loaded with ambiguity ( Christians and Secular Humanists will likely disagree on what each are), I wonder if there any obvious standouts with practical implications.
By practical I mean how we live our lives and the decisions we make and what we DO and how we behave towards other people.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
I'm not sure there are any practical differences. Both rely on building up ethics on a substrate of a belief in the value of individuals.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
For most practical purposes the differences within Christian and humanist positions will outweigh the differences between them.
I think one difference in general is that secular humanism tends to base the value of human beings in characteristics that most belong to young able-bodied adults: autonomy, reason, self-determination. Christian ethics, all things being equal, will tend against seeing those traits as determining human value.
A Christian is more likely to regard abortion as problematic even though there is no explicitly non-secular reason to do so.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Part of the reason for there being a Renaissance was the rediscovery of the writings of the pre-Christian Greeks and Romans, which were found to contain ethical statements that made just as much sense, or more, as anything the Christians could come up with. We still refer back to many of those much-earlier writers, partly because their writings were not enveloped in a fog of "church-speak".
Ethics allow for society to function, just as much as ethics allow individuals to function There is no exact-one-way to be ethical, but there is common ground to all statements, if they are going to work among all people.
Secular humanists have to work with the ideas that there are many, very different, people in the world, and that a common ground has to be found. Christians aren't much good at finding common ground with "others" Rather, "others" are all too often seen as dangerous, or as subjects for evangelisation, or as objects in the background, rather than just being people.
Indeed, the statement about "Christian" ethics and "secular" ethics implies some sort of separation, as if Christian ethics were some other entity than the secular ones.
It would be more helpful to find where those ethics differ, and analyse the reason why, than to trumpet that "Ours" are better than "yours" on the basis of a book that you may not even have read (and may not care to).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I was wondering if there are any differences, especially as quite a lot of Christians are secularists, and Christian humanism is very long-standing.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
Secular Humanists don't stand outside abortion clinics protesting.
That was both flippant and serious. It's hard to tell some secular humanist ethics from liberal Christian ethics and hard to tell other secularist humanist ethics from Middle of the road CofE ethics. Arguably you can barely tell Randians (who are atheists if not secular humanists) from prosperity-gospel loving Christians.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Both secular humanists and religious (more than just Christian) humanists share closely related beliefs on the treatment of others. The difference between the two is that humanists have only their personal conscience to keep their conduct whole; religious humanists rely on a rewards and punishment (heaven or hell) dictum to keep their conduct in line.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
I see the difference as being one of limits. We all have limits to our ability to love and forgive. But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
The practical consequence of this is that a follower of Jesus doesn't have to be afraid of feeling foolish if her capacity to love and forgive is "taken advantage of".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I see the difference as being one of limits. We all have limits to our ability to love and forgive. But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
The practical consequence of this is that a follower of Jesus doesn't have to be afraid of feeling foolish if her capacity to love and forgive is "taken advantage of".
Do you find this to be true in practical terms? I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful? I've not observed that myself, but this is anecdotal.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What are the differences between Christian ethics and Secular Humanist ethics?
Christian ethics are what I try to live by. Secular Humanist ethics are what I think everyone should live by.
In practical terms three main differences would be:
Grace, forgiveness and heaven: Christian ethics say forgive as I want to be forgiven. That's a non-negotiable. I hope to share heaven with everyone who I have ever hurt or who has hurt me. My relationship with my enemies has to look forward to a future reconciliation with them, in this life and beyond the grave. Secular ethics are concerned for right relationships in this world alone.
Sins of thought: all sorts of wrong thinking is bad in Christian ethics - envy, resentment, despair, covetousness, lust ... not merely because it might influence behaviour but because I'm trying to be the sort of person who doesn't think like that. Secular ethics should reserve a private space inside other people's heads where they can think what the hell they like.
Sexual ethics: The principles are the same - commitment, consent, respect - but Christian ethics have a structure in which marriage, even an unhappy marriage, is qualitatively different from the most loving and commited cohabitation. Christian ethics can forbid fornication and adultery even in circumstances where secular ethics would see good grounds for making an exception.
Probably lots more, but that's enough to show what I think the difference is.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Of course the two are similar. Secular humanism retains the ethics of liberal Christianity while jettisoning. Also, not all atheists are pro choice. They usually use the argument that the fetus is a potential human and should be protected. In other words, pro life atheists use an argument similar to one of the arguments used by Roman Catholics.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
My impression is that Christian ethics is usually opposed to consequentialism (such as utilitarianism). For example, in a recent post, mrWaters says of something, it would make perfect sense to me if I was a censequentialist ("the ends justify the means"). I don't believe that one that considers himself a christian can accept such a position.
This seems consistent with a lot I have read on SoF whereas a lot of secular ethics is, often explicitly, seeking the greatest good/utility/happiness (or least misery) for as many as possible.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
My impression is that Christian ethics is usually opposed to consequentialism (such as utilitarianism). For example, in a recent post, mrWaters says of something, it would make perfect sense to me if I was a censequentialist ("the ends justify the means"). I don't believe that one that considers himself a christian can accept such a position.
This seems consistent with a lot I have read on SoF whereas a lot of secular ethics is, often explicitly, seeking the greatest good/utility/happiness (or least misery) for as many as possible.
I just wonder if the average Christian on the Clapham omnibus actually ponders such things. Isn't it likely that s/he uses the morality of the age, or as it is christened, the Zeitgeist - and that might involve consequentialism? Although I'm not sure how one would set about assessing such things. I suppose you would have to commission a poll - what fun, eh?
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just wonder if the average Christian on the Clapham omnibus actually ponders such things.
Secular ethics may be that of the atheist on the Clapham omnibus* since there is no authoritative voice for them to turn to, but Christian ethics is, I assume, reinforced by whatever Christian authority/community one turns to.
* I've never been to Clapham - is it worth the bus ride? I assume the bus itself would be packed with every opinion pollster who can fit on.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just wonder if the average Christian on the Clapham omnibus actually ponders such things.
Secular ethics may be that of the atheist on the Clapham omnibus* since there is no authoritative voice for them to turn to, but Christian ethics is, I assume, reinforced by whatever Christian authority/community one turns to.
* I've never been to Clapham - is it worth the bus ride? I assume the bus itself would be packed with every opinion pollster who can fit on.
Clapham station is an anorak's dream, with many interesting platforms, and destinations being announced all over the place; I'm not sure about the buses.
I just assume that like everyone else, the average Christian uses a rag-bag of bits and bobs of moral positions and ideas. As you say, I expect these are periodically given a good old sousing by the vicar/priest/pastor, but whether or not that actually produces any kind of coherence - I doubt. But then there is a lot to be said for a rag-bag of bits and bobs - let me not have men about me who are consistent!
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just assume that like everyone else, the average Christian uses a rag-bag of bits and bobs of moral positions and ideas.
I may be answering a more meta-ethical question than Evensong intended. To get back to the OP, in an earlier thread there was a lot of discussion about whether some good acts are vitiated by the moral agent doing them for sinful reasons - this seems not an issue for many secularists: if I do good I don't care if it's for a selfish reason because it's the consequence that's important, not the state of my soul.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
It's hard to tell the difference in the United States in part because a large number of atheists keep a very low profile. I'm not sure there's a huge difference, other than a bias toward liberal rather than conservative attitudes. I think I'm rare in that I went to a 100 year old high school run by secular humanists. So things that you may think of as religious actually don't look too different. For a couple of years I had a once a week ethics class.
Do ignore the salesman who tells you those used Christian ethics are shinier because they were used by a little old lady who only took them out for a drive on Sundays ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
Love and mercy benefit the recipient - it would seem unfair to them if God withholds his grace from non-Christians who might otherwise do greater good.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, I've met some amazing Buddhists, whose compassion shone like a shining thing. They don't really have 'God' within their domain, but maybe God has them within his.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Christian ethics are what I try to live by. Secular Humanist ethics are what I think everyone should live by.
What we expect from others and what we expect from ourselves is an important distinction, but not necessarily along the Christian/Humanist lines.
quote:
In practical terms three main differences would be:
Grace, forgiveness and heaven: ...
Sins of thought: ...
Sexual ethics: ...
Interesting: I wouldn't say that any of those are uniquely Christian ideas, as I've encountered all of them among Secular Humanists, though perhaps for different reasons not associated with the afterlife.
Forgiveness is not uncommon - it is an important component in some types of psychological and/or psychiatric healing. It may be stated as, "don't live in the past: forgive and move on. Live in the here and now."
I can't remember how many times I've heard someone carry on about "negative thoughts" and how they can drain a person's energy, etc. While there may be some differences in the details, the phrase "be real" often includes the idea of discarding fantasies and other unproductive or negative "thought forms" (to use the vernacular).
Sexual ethics is a bit more difficult to judge because I don't keep track of what everyone else is doing and correlate that with their religious affiliation. My impression, however, is that, as Dafyd said earlier, there is more difference among each group than between them. I don't think there is that much difference in the divorce rates between the two groups, for example (it may be higher for Christians in some areas), while promiscuity and adultery are not unique to either group. I know plenty of secular marriages that survive well past the average length these days. I have heard people argue that the partners in a secular marriage make a more conscious decision to get married and to make the marriage work during difficult times rather than relying on a religious justification for why they have to stick together, and therefore may have a happier or more rewarding relationship, but there is so much variation it would be difficult to prove. It seems more productive to me to acknowledge those who work hard to have a committed and fulfilling marriage/relationship regardless of the theological underpinnings or lack thereof.
So in my experience I don't see these constructs as being uniquely Christian, even if they stem from specific Christian teachings.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Good points, Carex - I agree with your point about forgiveness; in some ways, it is a cornerstone of some psychological approaches.
On grace, interestingly, I had a Zen teacher whose teachings on grace were something luminous, and I will never forget them.
I think there is an interplay or overlap today between different ideas, or different fields of ideas, or different modes of thought. So a distinction between Christian ethics and secular ethics may be untenable really. Life is fuzzy around the edges, and in fact, in the middle also.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Part of the reason for there being a Renaissance was the rediscovery of the writings of the pre-Christian Greeks and Romans, which were found to contain ethical statements that made just as much sense, or more, as anything the Christians could come up with. We still refer back to many of those much-earlier writers, partly because their writings were not enveloped in a fog of "church-speak".
I find this comment interesting, because I have recently read and reviewed the just-published Inventing The Individual:The Origins Of Western Liberalism by Larry Siedentop.
His opening chapters question the conventional belief in a Graeco-Roman proto-secularism based on free thinking and rational ethics, which was rediscovered during the Renaissance or Enlightenment.
He claims that the ancient world was bound by a descriptive notion of natural law which involved "natural" inequality, and that an equality of respect for the personhood of each and every man and woman was an unintended product of early and mediaeval Christianity, with its scriptural anthropology and soteriology, and its prescriptive version of natural law.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful?
Not necessarily, but I do find them more self-righteous.
They are always banging on about their compassion and integrity.
Christians can be self-righteous too, of course, but I think that their assertion of what they believe to be objective and absolute truth and goodness, is often mistakenly confused with an assertion of their own personal transparency and goodness.
Whatever else one might think about the dogmas of God's absolute holiness, and human original sin, they can, and should, and sometimes do, encourage in their holders a self-suspicion and self-awareness.
There are, of course, good and bad Christians and good and bad secular humanists, and all can be "hypocritical" in failing to live up to their professed ideals, but on the whole I do think that Christians are more in touch with reality.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I've met some amazing Buddhists, whose compassion shone like a shining thing. They don't really have 'God' within their domain, but maybe God has them within his.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Amen.
(By the way, does anyone actually self-identify as a "secular humanist"? I'm used to that term being one mainly used by certain religious groups to attack people...)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(By the way, does anyone actually self-identify as a "secular humanist"? I'm used to that term being one mainly used by certain religious groups to attack people...)
By the way does anyone actually self-identify as a member of the "Religious Right"? I'm used to that term being one used mainly used by certain anti-Christian groups to attack people...
Seriously, while "secular humanist" can be employed as a term of abuse, I think that on the whole it is a useful and accurate way of summing up a widespread worldview.
I have actually heard atheists, in response to being grouped with other atheists such as Stalin and Pol Pot, angrily insist that their atheism is incidental, and that what really characterises them, and distinguishes them from "bad" atheists, is their secular humanism.
[ 15. August 2014, 05:37: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
By the way does anyone actually self-identify as a member of the "Religious Right"? I'm used to that term being one used mainly used by certain anti-Christian groups to attack people...
And by Christian groups!
quote:
Seriously, while "secular humanist" can be employed as a term of abuse, I think that on the whole it is a useful and accurate way of summing up a widespread worldview.
This does make sense, yes, and it does distinguish it from other forms of humanism, such as Petrarch's and the like.
quote:
I have actually heard atheists, in response to being grouped with other atheists such as Stalin and Pol Pot, angrily insist that their atheism is incidental, and that what really characterises them, and distinguishes them from "bad" atheists, is their secular humanism.
Ah, this I did not know. Yes, I would not want to be lumped in with the Inquisitors myself, to take an analogue from Christians in history.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
(does a double-take)
Um... why are people lumping in perfectly nice atheists with Pol Pot and Stalin??
... oh, right, I've encountered people who do things like that.
On behalf of ... myself, I guess, if you're an atheist and have been so lumped in with people like that, many hugs and I'm sorry you were treated that way.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful?
They are always banging on about their compassion and integrity.
Only, in my experience, when - as has happened regularly in the past - they are assumed to have neither. I'd suggest A N Wilson's "God's Funeral" or almost anything about atheism in the C19 for evidence of the belief that society would collapse into depravity and corruption if people lost their belief in God. You still sometimes see such views in the US.
Look how long it took for atheists to be accepted as MPs in the UK, and even now John Major is, I think, the only PM to have publicly admitted not being religious. Is an atheist likely to be acceptable as a US president? We are still likely to be seen as untrustworthy. Try duckduckgo-ing (or googling) atheists untrustworthy and see what you get. For example in Canada in 2011 we are rated below rapists in trustworthiness*. Interestingly atheists don't seem to judge religious believers negatively.
Of course if the only way to be accepted is to at least pretend to religious belief, many will so pretend. And you can rightly call them hypocrites if you are so inclined. Surely, you think, better to be a pariah than to lie about something which is unimportant to you but important to others.
OK you'll all admit you've met 'good' atheists, maybe some of your best friends are ... but would you want your daughter to marry one.
It's hardly an issue in the UK, though perhaps more serious in some parts of the US and in many other parts of the world.
Pretty much the same sort of arguments have been in the past leveled at people of colour, women, Jews, the poor, immigrants, Catholics (especially excluded from religious tolerance by John Locke). It isn't as bad for us as for those other groups (at least post the Inquisition and Robespierre) but I'm not quite so sure that, "on the whole ... Christians are more in touch with reality" - just your own reality.
* I have no idea how trustworthy the example is. I got a bit cross - sorry. And probably I lack compassion and integrity as much as the next person - whoever and whatever they are.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
OK you'll all admit you've met 'good' atheists, maybe some of your best friends are ... but would you want your daughter to marry one.
She is one, and she lives with one (not married, but they've been together for ten years, so they might as well be) and yes, we get along very well with both of them, thank you.
quote:
Robespierre
Robespierre?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I see the difference as being one of limits. We all have limits to our ability to love and forgive. But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
The practical consequence of this is that a follower of Jesus doesn't have to be afraid of feeling foolish if her capacity to love and forgive is "taken advantage of".
Do you find this to be true in practical terms? I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful? I've not observed that myself, but this is anecdotal.
In practical terms, I find those without faith more likely to draw a line on what can be expected of them or anyone else, and base that around human rules - law, company policy, whatever.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
Love and mercy benefit the recipient - it would seem unfair to them if God withholds his grace from non-Christians who might otherwise do greater good.
You have to accept you're in need of something to seek it out. if you believe you can achieve something by your own power, and therefore refuse to ask for help with it, it can't be described as "unfair" that you do not have help forced upon you.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Robespierre?
Didn't like atheists. Or Roman Catholics. Or anyone other than deists.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
By the way, does anyone actually self-identify as a "secular humanist"? I'm used to that term being one mainly used by certain religious groups to attack people...
Mostly, they identify as humanist. The word 'secular' tends to be added by Christians as a reminder that 'Christian humanism' (and presumably Jewish and Islamic humanism etc etc) is a thing.
Although any term can be used abusively if you're abusive about the people it refers to.
[ 15. August 2014, 14:05: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Robespierre?
Didn't like atheists. Or Roman Catholics. Or anyone other than deists.
Quite. I think he was the first to refer to atheism as an "aristocratic vice" - a phrase one occasionally still hears. A bit of foolish whimsy on my part, but it's a bit much to blame the problems of France on the King's atheism ("Armed in turn with the daggers of fanaticism and the poisons of atheism, kings have always conspired to assassinate humanity." May 7, 1794) and then claim that atheist revolutionaries are therefore 'really' aristocrats.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful?
Not necessarily, but I do find them more self-righteous.
They are always banging on about their compassion and integrity.
Christians can be self-righteous too, of course, but I think that their assertion of what they believe to be objective and absolute truth and goodness, is often mistakenly confused with an assertion of their own personal transparency and goodness.
Whatever else one might think about the dogmas of God's absolute holiness, and human original sin, they can, and should, and sometimes do, encourage in their holders a self-suspicion and self-awareness.
There are, of course, good and bad Christians and good and bad secular humanists, and all can be "hypocritical" in failing to live up to their professed ideals, but on the whole I do think that Christians are more in touch with reality.
Counterpoint:
Things I have been told by Christians but never by any form of atheist or secular humanist.
- I deserve to be tortured eternally.
- If I don't change I will be tortured eternally and it is good that this happens
- Suffering is good for me.
- The speaker is right because the eternal and supreme being says so
- Don't interfere. This is God's will
- That couple is unnatural and their love is an abomination (complete with comparisons to paedophilia and bestiality)
- That the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world are in a conspiracy and this tendentious reading of the Bible is right
- God wouldn't let me be wrong
And this is without getting into things I've heard online - such as The Second Work of Grace/Entire Sanctification by which some claim to be free of Original Sin. And also not counting the spewings of the Westboro Baptist Church.
An invisible skydaddy makes some Christians more humble. A perfect being backing them makes a lot of Christians into arrogant jackasses, sure that their beliefs are right. For all his self-righteousness, if Dawkins was a Christian rather than an atheist he'd be known as a moderate.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Things I have been told by Christians but never by any form of atheist or secular humanist.
*That couple is unnatural and their love is an abomination (complete with comparisons to paedophilia and bestiality)
Are you saying you don't believe there are any homophobic atheists, or that you've never met one, or that you don't know, but you've never met an atheist who has expressed homophobic sentiment?
I've known some homophobes (including outspoken ones) who were not remotely "religious". I don't honestly recall whether they would have claimed any belief. It's possible - sadly - that for some, homophobia alone is sufficient reason to align themselves with the Christian right, even if they don't have any other belief or faith practice.
But in the main, I'm saying that in my experience, there's plenty of faith-free hate ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, do you find that atheists or humanists are less loving or merciful?
Not necessarily, but I do find them more self-righteous.
They are always banging on about their compassion and integrity.
...
There are, of course, good and bad Christians and good and bad secular humanists, and all can be "hypocritical" in failing to live up to their professed ideals, but on the whole I do think that Christians are more in touch with reality.
Clearly YMMV. Most of the secular humanists (for lack of a better term) that I know never talk about their "compassion and integrity", or compare themselves to others, or even bother spending their time discussing such things. They just get on with living their lives as best they can.
Of course, there are lots of people like that in the world, and you can't always group them into Christian / Atheist / Other without getting to know them better since they don't wear their beliefs on their sleeves. So our perceptions of the "other" group are based mostly on those who we see making noise, while we know that "our group" contains a lot of quieter and more reasonable types.
I certainly consider the atheists I know to be far more in touch with reality than the Christian groups that feature in the news most frequently.
While perhaps the majority of the people I know are atheists, none of them fit the common straw-man stereotypes of Atheists or Secular Humanists often encountered here on the Ship. In that sense the terms are quite similar to "Religous Right" or "Fundamentalist" (or even, as is becoming more common, "Christian") as a convenient way to associate a large group of people with the opinions and actions of a few in order to attack them all without making any effort to understand just what they actually believe.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Coming a bit late to the party toad, in relation to que sais-je's line about atheists: quote:
Interestingly atheists don't seem to judge religious believers negatively.
there is a short article in Sociological Images entitled "Who dislikes Atheists?" The image actually rates like/dislike between several differing religious groups, including atheists.
It seems that atheists dislike Evangelical Christians almost as much as Evos dislike atheists (surprise!), but atheists do have a soft spot for Buddhists. The feelings of the atheists surveyed about most other groups on the chart are, roughly, "meh" - or, IOW, about 50-50.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Sorry, too late to edit "to add" rather than "toad"
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
It seems that atheists dislike Evangelical Christians almost as much as Evos dislike atheists (surprise!), but atheists do have a soft spot for Buddhists.
Buddhists have never shown much interest in Gods. We share their lack of interest.
I doubt if most of my friends (in the UK) understand the nuances of Christian subdivisions. There's Happy Clappy and there's Proper Church (and then there's Quakers - nice people but a bit too good).
Its good
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(By the way, does anyone actually self-identify as a "secular humanist"? I'm used to that term being one mainly used by certain religious groups to attack people...)
Why yes. There's the
Secular Humanist Council
When I was going to a high school run by the Ethical Culture Society I do remember seeing a Secular Humanist magazine, but I don't know if that morphed into The Humanist.
In general, most of the groups self-describe as Humanist. It does seem to be a term the religious right now associates with devilry but it's been around a long time for people who want to self describe around their interest in ethical behavior rather than as their non relation with any god.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Robespierre?
Didn't like atheists. Or Roman Catholics. Or anyone other than deists.
Yes, you're right.
I tend to think of "the sea-green incorruptible" in political terms, as the personification of bourgeois authoritarianism (what Talmon called "totalitarian democracy"), but he got son culottes dans un noeud with the Enrages, and later Hebertistes, as much for their opposition to religion (such as Cult of Reason celebrated in Notre Dame) as for their economic demands.
[ 16. August 2014, 03:20: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And also not counting the spewings of the Westboro Baptist Church.
To paraphrase Churchill, “never in the field of anti-religious polemic has so much been owed by so many (secularists) to so few (the Phelps family)”.
They are absolute gold – one is tempted to say a godsend.
Trouble is, they are so completely unrepresentative of Christianity in general or evangelicalism in particular, that citing them is like trotting out Enver Hoxha as typical of atheists.
It’s about time that some equivalent of Godwin’s Law was introduced to cover Westboro Baps.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Trouble is, they are so completely unrepresentative of Christianity in general or evangelicalism in particular, that citing them is like trotting out Enver Hoxha as typical of atheists.
I disagree. The only difference between them and a sizable percentage of Christians is the level to which they are willing to take the message.
I do not paint all Christians with the same brush, not even most. But to say the WBC were a complete anomaly is incorrect.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Trouble is, they are so completely unrepresentative of Christianity in general or evangelicalism in particular, that citing them is like trotting out Enver Hoxha as typical of atheists.
It’s about time that some equivalent of Godwin’s Law was introduced to cover Westboro Baps.
As a non-Christian I can't tell if the Westboro Baptist are not real Christians. My own touchstone on how you tell a Christian, real or non real, is that they claim that some other people are not real Christians.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As a non-Christian I can't tell if the Westboro Baptist are not real Christians. My own touchstone on how you tell a Christian, real or non real, is that they claim that some other people are not real Christians.
I am not claiming that the WBC are not Christians - that is not my point.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For most practical purposes the differences within Christian and humanist positions will outweigh the differences between them.
I think one difference in general is that secular humanism tends to base the value of human beings in characteristics that most belong to young able-bodied adults: autonomy, reason, self-determination. Christian ethics, all things being equal, will tend against seeing those traits as determining human value.
A Christian is more likely to regard abortion as problematic even though there is no explicitly non-secular reason to do so.
This.
And this,
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I see the difference as being one of limits. We all have limits to our ability to love and forgive. But Christianity holds out the possibility of being enabled by grace to achieve scandalously gratuitous levels of love and mercy.
The practical consequence of this is that a follower of Jesus doesn't have to be afraid of feeling foolish if her capacity to love and forgive is "taken advantage of".
And this,
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
My impression is that Christian ethics is usually opposed to consequentialism (such as utilitarianism). For example, in a recent post, mrWaters says of something, it would make perfect sense to me if I was a censequentialist ("the ends justify the means"). I don't believe that one that considers himself a christian can accept such a position.
This seems consistent with a lot I have read on SoF whereas a lot of secular ethics is, often explicitly, seeking the greatest good/utility/happiness (or least misery) for as many as possible.
And this,
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What are the differences between Christian ethics and Secular Humanist ethics?
Christian ethics are what I try to live by. Secular Humanist ethics are what I think everyone should live by.
In practical terms three main differences would be:
Grace, forgiveness and heaven: Christian ethics say forgive as I want to be forgiven. That's a non-negotiable. I hope to share heaven with everyone who I have ever hurt or who has hurt me. My relationship with my enemies has to look forward to a future reconciliation with them, in this life and beyond the grave. Secular ethics are concerned for right relationships in this world alone.
Sins of thought: all sorts of wrong thinking is bad in Christian ethics - envy, resentment, despair, covetousness, lust ... not merely because it might influence behaviour but because I'm trying to be the sort of person who doesn't think like that. Secular ethics should reserve a private space inside other people's heads where they can think what the hell they like.
Sexual ethics: The principles are the same - commitment, consent, respect - but Christian ethics have a structure in which marriage, even an unhappy marriage, is qualitatively different from the most loving and commited cohabitation. Christian ethics can forbid fornication and adultery even in circumstances where secular ethics would see good grounds for making an exception.
.... seem to me to have merit of some sort.
I wonder if the issue is not necessarily of kind, but of degree. Do we forgive because it helps US let go of the past ( e.g. psychology) or is more than that. Is it about trying to "love your enemy".
The utilitarian argument is also strong. Some things just seem totally unacceptable regardless of the benefits to the greatest number of people.
Perhaps something to do with a stronger sense of the value of an individual life created by God?
So the loser, the infirm, the unloved, the enemy are still beloved of God so this changes things.
We love as we are loved. And as Errnoneous Monk says it's not about tit for tat, it's about going the extra mile for no good reason but that that's what Christians are called to do.
I dunno. It's a hard one because secular humanist ethics do seem to be based on Christian ones.
As for this,
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Both secular humanists and religious (more than just Christian) humanists share closely related beliefs on the treatment of others. The difference between the two is that humanists have only their personal conscience to keep their conduct whole; religious humanists rely on a rewards and punishment (heaven or hell) dictum to keep their conduct in line.
I don't agree. I don't love wastefully because I want to go to heaven. I love wastefully and try and love my enemy because God loves me the same and shows me the way in Christ.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Things I have been told by Christians but never by any form of atheist or secular humanist.
*That couple is unnatural and their love is an abomination (complete with comparisons to paedophilia and bestiality)
Are you saying you don't believe there are any homophobic atheists, or that you've never met one, or that you don't know, but you've never met an atheist who has expressed homophobic sentiment?
I've known some homophobes (including outspoken ones) who were not remotely "religious". I don't honestly recall whether they would have claimed any belief. It's possible - sadly - that for some, homophobia alone is sufficient reason to align themselves with the Christian right, even if they don't have any other belief or faith practice.
But in the main, I'm saying that in my experience, there's plenty of faith-free hate
I'm certainly not saying there aren't homophobic atheists. I'm saying that there is a specific degree of homophobic zeal that doesn't in my experience come from atheists.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And also not counting the spewings of the Westboro Baptist Church.
To paraphrase Churchill, “never in the field of anti-religious polemic has so much been owed by so many (secularists) to so few (the Phelps family)”.
They are absolute gold – one is tempted to say a godsend.
Trouble is, they are so completely unrepresentative of Christianity in general or evangelicalism in particular, that citing them is like trotting out Enver Hoxha as typical of atheists.
It’s about time that some equivalent of Godwin’s Law was introduced to cover Westboro Baps.
Never was so much owed by Christians to one small unrepresentative sample that's moving the Overton window. And being able to say that the group I was specifically not including aren't representative is a way of ducking the case.
Which teachings of the Westboro Baptist Church are out of line with mainstream conservative teachings? Sure they are much more open in saying things like "God hates fags" than the people who try to force reparative therapy on gay people. The latter is in practice more harmful to more people than that group of clowns.
And are you going to engage with my main point or is this a distraction?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Trouble is, they are so completely unrepresentative of Christianity in general or evangelicalism in particular, that citing them is like trotting out Enver Hoxha as typical of atheists.
It’s about time that some equivalent of Godwin’s Law was introduced to cover Westboro Baps.
I see your Godwin's Law and raise with No true scotsman ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As a non-Christian I can't tell if the Westboro Baptist are not real Christians. My own touchstone on how you tell a Christian, real or non real, is that they claim that some other people are not real Christians.
I am not claiming that the WBC are not Christians - that is not my point.
Your point is that they are such an embarrassing extreme of Christian that no one on the internet should talk about them because you don't like it.
Good luck with that.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The utilitarian argument is also strong. Some things just seem totally unacceptable regardless of the benefits to the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism is only one form of consequentialism (which says only that the consequences - not the intention - of your actions determine their goodness).
There are many arguments against utilitarianism. The obvious one is killing a large minority of the population to better the condition of the survivors isn't acceptable. A rights consequentialist might, for example, claim that actions should not breach various rights conferred by society and these count above the greater good for any group of individuals.
The danger of consequentialism is uncertain ends being used to justify bad means. Isaiah Berlin says somewhere that there are few more ominous phrases that "You'll thank me for this one day".
The danger of intentionalism is you end up gazing at your navel wondering whether you might be doing the right thing for the wrong reason - while people starve.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Utilitarianism is only one form of consequentialism (which says only that the consequences - not the intention - of your actions determine their goodness).
The danger of intentionalism is you end up gazing at your navel wondering whether you might be doing the right thing for the wrong reason - while people starve.
Not really disagreeing; more making a difference of emphasis...
Intention isn't the usual contrast with consequentialism. (It seems to me that a theory that says that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends purely on the rightness or wrongness of the intention behind it would be equivalent to consequentialism in its practical effects.) The usual contrast is with deontologists who believe that actions are right or wrong independent of intention (mostly) or (sometimes) consequence. (Even the most hardline deontologist presumably believes that some actions can be rendered right or wrong by the consequences.)
The doctrine of double effect makes the rightness and wrongness of some actions dependent upon intention, but makes the intention with which they're carried out. But that doesn't mean you determine the relevant intentions by introspection. The intentions in question are the reasons you'd give somebody else to persuade them to take the action in question.
[ 16. August 2014, 18:51: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Your point is that they are such an embarrassing extreme of Christian that no one on the internet should talk about them because you don't like it.
My point is that using WBC to make wider points about Christianity in general or evangelicalism in general is inaccurate and unhelpful, in exactly the same way that it is mindless and harmful to characterise global Islam in terms of ISIS or Boko Haram.
[ 17. August 2014, 07:22: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I see your Godwin's Law and raise with No true scotsman
Since I have never tried to maintain that the Phelpses are not "real" Christians, I don't see that your Non true scotsman (sic) card has any conceivable relevance to the game.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Which teachings of the Westboro Baptist Church are out of line with mainstream conservative teachings?
I don't know the details of their teaching, but their public methods and practice are neither scriptural nor mainstream.
quote:
And are you going to engage with my main point or is this a distraction?
Your "main point" appears to be that some Christians (like some people amongst the adherents of every worldview or belief system) are unpleasant people, a "main point" which no Christian would dispute, and with which it seems too trivial, banal and self-evident to "engage".
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Good Lord. I agree with Kaplan Corday. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
Dafyd Thanks for the clarification. Though I'm not clear about:
It seems to me that a theory that says that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends purely on the rightness or wrongness of the intention behind it would be equivalent to consequentialism in its practical effects.
Someone might give money to charity because they wanted to be admired as charitable, perhaps because it will get them gets them additional contracts say. And anyway a charitable act may be tax deductable. I would tend to say that it is a good act because of its consequences though the intention is entirely selfish. I guess I'm separating the action from the actor ... and I'm not now sure that makes sense.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Good Lord. I agree with Kaplan Corday.
Me too!
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Your point is that they are such an embarrassing extreme of Christian that no one on the internet should talk about them because you don't like it.
My point is that using WBC to make wider points about Christianity in general or evangelicalism in general is inaccurate and unhelpful, in exactly the same way that it is mindless and harmful to characterise global Islam in terms of ISIS or Boko Haram.
Unhelpful to whom? For Gay people in the United States they've been very helpful in the same way Bull Connor and the hard line segregationists convinced many to change their minds and support the Civil Rights movement. Another example is the dramatic collapse of anti-Semitism in the United States after World War II. People did not want to be associated with the position shared with the Nazi's even if they had never advocated killing Jews as the Nazi's did.
There's something about hearing people doing loathsome things and justifying their actions with the justifications you've used yourself for your own actions. Westboro Baptists picketing Veteran and Gay Funerals because Gays are condemned by God gave pause to a lot of people attending those funerals who had homophobic views.
No one saying that all Christians are wrecking funerals because they are anti-Gay, but what makes people pause is the similarity of the God hates Fags arguments of the Phelps clan to the ones someone may hear at their Church is what gives pause.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Unhelpful to whom? For Gay people in the United States they've been very helpful in the same way Bull Connor and the hard line segregationists convinced many to change their minds and support the Civil Rights movement. Another example is the dramatic collapse of anti-Semitism in the United States after World War II. People did not want to be associated with the position shared with the Nazi's even if they had never advocated killing Jews as the Nazi's did.
The claim that something however unpleasant will make others rethink their views is true. It may also make those who shared them privately assert them more publicly. This has nothing to do with the question of whether anything useful about Christianity can be deduced from the WBC since it is true about all organisations - moderate or extreme, religious or secular.
Godwin's Law please.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
The claim that something however unpleasant will make others rethink their views is true. It may also make those who shared them privately assert them more publicly.
I haven't seen any examples of people seeing the Phelps clan at work and then announcing that they shared their views to the mourners. Perhaps you can provide some examples.
quote:
This has nothing to do with the question of whether anything useful about Christianity can be deduced from the WBC since it is true about all organisations - moderate or extreme, religious or secular.
Whatever "it" is. quote:
Godwin's Law please.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
You seem to think Godwin's law is a regulation. It isn't.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Another example is the dramatic collapse of anti-Semitism in the United States after World War II. People did not want to be associated with the position shared with the Nazi's even if they had never advocated killing Jews as the Nazi's did.
Godwin's Law please.
It seems a bit ridiculous to cite Godwin's Law as forbidding calling the leadership of the Third Reich "Nazis", or noting that ideas advocated by actual Nazis are unpopular.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I haven't seen any examples of people seeing the Phelps clan at work and then announcing that they shared their views to the mourners. Perhaps you can provide some examples.
But then the WBC isn't a long term problem/embarrassment: it won't recruit new members if other people won't identify with it. If others who see themselves as Christians don't join it can hardly be representative of the religion.
Like most social groups it survives, and maybe grows, as people accept its views, dwindles if they don't. Same as all churches, political parties, ... Why do people join groups if not to because they share some of their attitudes? And do I need examples to show that people in groups will often do things that, as individuals, they wouldn't dare do?
quote:
Whatever "it" is.
The claim that something unpleasant will make others rethink their views but may also make those who shared them privately assert them more publicly.
quote:
You seem to think Godwin's law is a regulation. It isn't.
It is a sign that a worthwhile debate is in dire danger of descending into silliness. And not in a good way.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems a bit ridiculous to cite Godwin's Law as forbidding calling the leadership of the Third Reich "Nazis", or noting that ideas advocated by actual Nazis are unpopular.
As above, it isn't a judicial sort of thing, more a law of (human) nature. Egregious as WBC are, comparing them with the Nazi's is silly. I'm an atheist, maybe a nasty one, but I doubt it would be very helpful to compare me to Stalin. Except I also have a mustache.
But my apologies to both if my comment made it seem I was calling for regulation of SoF beyond what we already adhere to.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I haven't seen any examples of people seeing the Phelps clan at work and then announcing that they shared their views to the mourners. Perhaps you can provide some examples.
But then the WBC isn't a long term problem/embarrassment: it won't recruit new members if other people won't identify with it. If others who see themselves as Christians don't join it can hardly be representative of the religion.
If you use the criteria that other people who see themselves as Christian don't join, what denomination is representative? This seems a variation of the True Scotsman. Westboro is only significant to the extent people see it as sharing theological justifications with larger churches. It is true that Westboro isn't significant in the long term because their battle is in the process of being thoroughly lost. An analogy is what happened during the civil rights movement where churches abandoned their former racial justifications for segregation.
quote:
Like most social groups it survives, and maybe grows, as people accept its views, dwindles if they don't. Same as all churches, political parties, ... Why do people join groups if not to because they share some of their attitudes? And do I need examples to show that people in groups will often do things that, as individuals, they wouldn't dare do?
It's been spectacularly unsuccessful in advancing its views. To the extent people see a similarity between their views and those of sincere homophobic views of other Christian churches, it's been a great help in getting some of those other churches to change.
quote:
quote:
Whatever "it" is.
The claim that something unpleasant will make others rethink their views but may also make those who shared them privately assert them more publicly.
They've gotten a few more adherents, but the trend has been greatly in the other direction. I don't know any gay rights activist who is unhappy about their existence. They are the gift that keeps on giving.
quote:
quote:
You seem to think Godwin's law is a regulation. It isn't.
It is a sign that a worthwhile debate is in dire danger of descending into silliness. And not in a good way.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems a bit ridiculous to cite Godwin's Law as forbidding calling the leadership of the Third Reich "Nazis", or noting that ideas advocated by actual Nazis are unpopular.
As above, it isn't a judicial sort of thing, more a law of (human) nature. Egregious as WBC are, comparing them with the Nazi's is silly. I'm an atheist, maybe a nasty one, but I doubt it would be very helpful to compare me to Stalin. Except I also have a mustache.
The comparison was actually between their homophobia and anti-Semitism. A violent and loathsome anti-Semitism caused many people and churches to rethink and abandon their own milder anti-Semitism. There has been a popular change in public attitudes toward gay people recently. In their own
quote:
But my apologies to both if my comment made it seem I was calling for regulation of SoF beyond what we already adhere to.
No apology needed. I thought you were arguing in favor of Kaplan Corday's proposed new regulation that Westboro can't be discussed as an example of Christian Homophobia.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Kaplan Corday's proposed new regulation that Westboro can't be discussed as an example of Christian Homophobia.
I don't believe I have mentioned attitudes toward homosexuality.
This was partly to avoid the thread’s being consigned to DH, but since you have taken it upon yourself to raise the issue, on your own head be it.
We can only hope that the Hostocracy will choose to see this as a discussion of the representativeness of WBC which necessarily involves mention of homosexuality/homophobia, rather than a reversion to debate about the topic per se.
I didn't mention it also because WBC, in believing that homosexual activity is anti-scriptural, is not remotely aberrant or anomalous, but stands in the tradition of historic, creedal Christendom, all of which shared this stance until a few decades ago, and most of which continues to do so, with the exception of moribund, liberal, Protestant churches in the West.
Where WBC is sui generis, and totally outside Scripture, evangelicalism and Christianity in general, is in its behaviour and methods, ie taking obvious pleasure in distressing families by vilifying the deceased at funerals.
This would be equally unacceptable if they were attacking the dead for their atheism, or adultery, or drug-taking, rather than their homosexual behaviour.
As it happens, I believe that it is appropriate to mention WBC in the context of homophobia, because there is such a thing as homophobia, and WBC genuinely represents it (as do groups such as those in Uganda who wanted the death penalty for homosexuality).
What WBC does not represent is the attitude of mainstream evangelicalism, ie.a disagreement with the acceptability of homosexual behaviour which does not at the same time hate, fear, exceptionalise or dehumanize gays.
It is equating this latter attitude with homophobia, and dragging in WBC to ram home the point, which is unethical and unacceptable – not to mention lazy.
As I said upthread, citing the two or three dozen family members who make up WBC as representative of Christianity, or even just evangelicalism, is like citing the thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) who make up ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taleban, al-Qaeda, Jamaar Islamiyah etc as representative of the one and a half Muslims in the world.
Smearing anyone who disgrees with homosexual behaviour as a homophobe is also analogous to labelling anyone who opposes any aspect of Israeli domestic or foreign policy as an anti-Semite.
[ 20. August 2014, 01:32: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I'm agree that it's not clear how much discussion can continue without being moved to Dead Horses. I will try to limit the discussion to Westboro and the perception of homophobia.
It is ingenuous to say you haven't raised the issue of attitude toward homosexuality when the Westboro actions exemplify their attitude toward homosexuality. It's not like they're picketing with blank signs.
As for "representative", this is the True Scotsman dance. I do note that the goalposts have moved from "not representative of Christianity" to "not representative of mainstream evangelicalism Christianity".
In an earlier post you claimed that you didn't say they aren't real Christians". Are they "True Christians"? Can you make a list of representative denominations? Does it include those evangelical denominations whose ministers caused the Uganda capital punishment laws to be passed? Are "moribund, liberal, Protestant churches in the West" representative of Christianity? Who gets to vote on which denominations are included?
The problem with your claim that your beliefs do not hate, fear, exceptionalise or dehumanize gays is that other people, especially gays who have been subjected to them think they do. If people see your behavior as hurtful they will see you as homophobic.
When the claim is made that ISIS is representative of Islam, those who consider the claim usually realize that they don't share a theological basis with most adherents or practices. So the claim fails.
You share a theology with Westboro. They do hurtful things as a consequence of that theology. That causes outsiders to contemplate whether you do hurtful things as well.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You share a theology with Westboro. They do hurtful things as a consequence of that theology. That causes outsiders to contemplate whether you do hurtful things as well.
Westboro do hurtful things as a consequence of the theology they share with Kaplan? Not some other bit of theology that they either hold or do not hold? Really? You might like to think about that again.
To turn the example round, this is like saying that when people look at Stalin and Hitler they see what shits all atheists are and wonder whether all other atheists might be potential evil dictators, so all other atheists had better drop their atheism quick because it will cause people to think of them as mass-murderers.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You share a theology with Westboro. They do hurtful things as a consequence of that theology. That causes outsiders to contemplate whether you do hurtful things as well.
Westboro do hurtful things as a consequence of the theology they share with Kaplan? Not some other bit of theology that they either hold or do not hold? Really? You might like to think about that again.
To turn the example round, this is like saying that when people look at Stalin and Hitler they see what shits all atheists are and wonder whether all other atheists might be potential evil dictators, so all other atheists had better drop their atheism quick because it will cause people to think of them as mass-murderers.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I didn't mention it also because WBC, in believing that homosexual activity is anti-scriptural, is not remotely aberrant or anomalous, but stands in the tradition of historic, creedal Christendom, all of which shared this stance until a few decades ago, and most of which continues to do so, with the exception of moribund, liberal, Protestant churches in the West.
Dinghy Sailor: Are you saying that Kaplan Corday belongs to one of those moribund liberal Protestant churches in the West or that his church is in the tradition of Creedal Christendom he attributes to Westboro? I had assumed the latter when I referred to shared theology.
The abuses done by Stalin do cause people to wonder if atheists are evil. They usually conclude not because there's no evidence that other atheists do the same damage. It is unclear whether Hitler was an atheist or a lapsed Catholic.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for "representative", this is the True Scotsman dance.
No it's not.
WBC are true/real Christian but not typical Christian, because they engage in practices not found in either the Bible or practically any other Christian group.
In the same way the North Korean regime is true/real atheist, but not typical atheist, and it would therefore be wrong to accuse all atheists of wanting to persecute Christians as it does, and then accuse them of the "true Scotsman fallacy" when they objected that they were quite different to the Pyongyang government.
quote:
The problem with your claim that your beliefs do not hate, fear, exceptionalise or dehumanize gays is that other people, especially gays who have been subjected to them think they do. If people see your behavior as hurtful they will see you as homophobic.
No-one is entitled to immunity from criticism for false beliefs based on false subjective impressions.
To continue the analogy, there are Christians who are offended and frightened by what atheists say about them, and really believe that it is a precursor to active persecution, but any claim on their part that therefore atheists should not be allowed to publicly disagree with them would, quite rightly, be laughed out of court.
quote:
When the claim is made that ISIS is representative of Islam, those who consider the claim usually realize that they don't share a theological basis with most adherents or practices.
Not true.
Groups such as ISIS share a huge amount of common theology with their co-religionists, including the belief that they are right and non-Muslisms are wrong.
They differ radically on the important issue of terrorism.
In the same way, it is possible to share theological beliefs with WBC and radically differ with them on publicly vilifying homosexuals at their funerals.
Since WBC is the only group which has ever done this, why on earth would anyone have grounds to think that evangelicals are all going to start doing it as well?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for "representative", this is the True Scotsman dance.
No it's not.
WBC are true/real Christian but not typical Christian, because they engage in practices not found in either the Bible or practically any other Christian group.
So do snake-handl;ers - arguably more biblical.
Have you ever heard their preaching - it seems to be excessively about gays and there is very little else on salvation or anything
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for "representative", this is the True Scotsman dance.
No it's not.
WBC are true/real Christian but not typical Christian, because they engage in practices not found in either the Bible or practically any other Christian group.
"True", "Real", "Representative"... So many euphemisms, so little time? So which denominations are "Representative" and which ones are not? Was there an election that I missed?
quote:
In the same way the North Korean regime is true/real atheist, but not typical atheist, and it would therefore be wrong to accuse all atheists of wanting to persecute Christians as it does, and then accuse them of the "true Scotsman fallacy" when they objected that they were quite different to the Pyongyang government.
quote:
The problem with your claim that your beliefs do not hate, fear, exceptionalise or dehumanize gays is that other people, especially gays who have been subjected to them think they do. If people see your behavior as hurtful they will see you as homophobic.
quote:
No-one is entitled to immunity from criticism for false beliefs based on false subjective impressions.
To continue the analogy, there are Christians who are offended and frightened by what atheists say about them, and really believe that it is a precursor to active persecution, but any claim on their part that therefore atheists should not be allowed to publicly disagree with them would, quite rightly, be laughed out of court.
Who is demanding immunity from criticism? You? The gays who are expelled from church? The Christians in Iraq?
quote:
When the claim is made that ISIS is representative of Islam, those who consider the claim usually realize that they don't share a theological basis with most adherents or practices.
Not true.
Groups such as ISIS share a huge amount of common theology with their co-religionists, including the belief that they are right and non-Muslisms are wrong.
They differ radically on the important issue of terrorism.
In the same way, it is possible to share theological beliefs with WBC and radically differ with them on publicly vilifying homosexuals at their funerals.
Since WBC is the only group which has ever done this, why on earth would anyone have grounds to think that evangelicals are all going to start doing it as well?
No one is saying that other groups are going to "criticize" by picketing funerals because they share theology with Westboro. What is being said is that other groups are vilifying gays because of that shared view. The details are best discussed in Dead Horses. For those who believe these other, perhaps "representative" Christians do vilify or damage gays, Westboro is merely an extreme of a continuum of hurtful behavior rather than unrelated. Their extreme behavior has been helpful for Gay people in that it causes others to reflect on their own position.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
For those who believe these other, perhaps "representative" Christians do vilify or damage gays, Westboro is merely an extreme of a continuum of hurtful behavior rather than unrelated.
That's going to be a matter of very subjective opinion.
WBC's picketing funerals with offensive signs is pretty unambiguous, but a church's simply stating, in line with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the church universal past and present, that it believes homosexual behaviour to be antiscriptural, while unexceptionable, is sure to be interpreted by someone as vilificatory, damaging and hurtful.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So do snake-handl;ers - arguably more biblical.
The only conceivable biblical justifications for snake-handling I can think of are Mark 16:18, in the highly questionable section 16:9-20, and Paul in Acts 28:3-6, which in context seems scarcely prescriptive.
I wish you well in overcoming these exegetical obstacles, however, because I've sat through services in which I would have done anything for a spot of snake-handling to liven things up.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Well I self identify as a Christian secular humanist.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Dinghy Sailor: Are you saying that Kaplan Corday belongs to one of those moribund liberal Protestant churches in the West or that his church is in the tradition of Creedal Christendom he attributes to Westboro? I had assumed the latter when I referred to shared theology.
The abuses done by Stalin do cause people to wonder if atheists are evil. They usually conclude not because there's no evidence that other atheists do the same damage. It is unclear whether Hitler was an atheist or a lapsed Catholic.
So atheists get let off the Stalinist hook by not running gulags but merely sharing his theology, whereas KC is still on the same hook as Westboro because because he shares their Christian theology, despite not picketing gay funerals. That's a little inconsistent don't you think?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
For those who believe these other, perhaps "representative" Christians do vilify or damage gays, Westboro is merely an extreme of a continuum of hurtful behavior rather than unrelated.
That's going to be a matter of very subjective opinion.
WBC's picketing funerals with offensive signs is pretty unambiguous, but a church's simply stating, in line with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the church universal past and present, that it believes homosexual behaviour to be antiscriptural, while unexceptionable, is sure to be interpreted by someone as vilificatory, damaging and hurtful.
and earlier
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As it happens, I believe that it is appropriate to mention WBC in the context of homophobia, because there is such a thing as homophobia, and WBC genuinely represents it (as do groups such as those in Uganda who wanted the death penalty for homosexuality).
Kind of hard to mention WBC if
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It’s about time that some equivalent of Godwin’s Law was introduced to cover Westboro Baps.
So moving on to those religious leaders who urged the passing of the Uganda laws such as the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda and Scott Lively.
I agree with your calling their actions homophobic but is that simply your subjective opinion?
How do you determine this other than showing damages?
Are their denominations representative of Christianity?
Are they simply "in line with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the church universal past and present, that it believes homosexual behaviour to be antiscriptural"? If so, does that excuse them with a free pass to damage homosexuals?
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence. Those that cite homosexual activity as forbidden by God need to also be carefully watched for homophobic actions.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Are they simply "in line with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the church universal past and present, that it believes homosexual behaviour to be antiscriptural"?
Yes, they are.
quote:
If so, does that excuse them with a free pass to damage homosexuals?
It gives them to right to say that they are wrong, but not to prosecute, let alone imprison or execute them.
In the same way, it gives them the right to disagree with those who do not hold a Niceno-Constantinopolitan trinitarian theology, or a Chalcedonian Christology, but not to persecute them.
quote:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
No it hasn't - you're just making that up.
The overwhelming majority of people with two brains to rub together know that most atheists, such as those on the Ship, are nothing remotely like Stalin, who represents an extreme.
The real point about Stalin's atheism is that it demonstrates that atheists are not automatically morally superior to religious people, which has sometimes been implied.
quote:
Those that cite homosexual activity as forbidden by God need to also be carefully watched for homophobic actions.
In the same way that your average Western atheists have to be incessantly scrutinised in case they try to revive the OGPU/NKVD?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So atheists get let off the Stalinist hook by not running gulags but merely sharing his theology, whereas KC is still on the same hook as Westboro because because he shares their Christian theology, despite not picketing gay funerals. That's a little inconsistent don't you think?
Atheists do not have a stated moral code to which they can be measured. Christians do.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The real point about Stalin's atheism is that it demonstrates that atheists are not automatically morally superior to religious people, which has sometimes been implied.
No, they are not automatically superior. However, see my above reply to Dinghy Sailor.
Religious, agnostic, non-theist and atheist are of equal inherent morality. The difference is the playbook. Secular humanists, one variety of atheist, do have a loose playbook, but the rest only what they choose to adopt.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Atheists do not have a stated moral code to which they can be measured. Christians do.
Religious, agnostic, non-theist and atheist are of equal inherent morality. The difference is the playbook. humanists, one variety of atheist, do have a loose playbook, but the rest only what they choose to adopt.
Secular “Secular humanist” is probably close enough to synonymous with “atheist” as far as the milieux (including the Ship) of most of us are concerned.
If the average Western atheist were asked about their moral code, it would almost certainly be something like: “Every individual human being is of inestimable worth and should be treated with respect, dignity and consideration”.
First, any secular humanist with a skerrick of honesty and self-awareness will admit that they don’t live up to these principles (or their particular version of it) in the same way that Christians don’t live up to their standards.
Secondly, no secular humanist that I know of would take the relativist attitude that Stalin, as an atheist, was free to adopt any ethic he chose, and therefore cannot be criticized for any of his actions.
In other words atheists, despite their lack of a “stated moral code”, in practice believe in an absolute morality.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It gives them to right to say that they are wrong, but not to prosecute, let alone imprison or execute them.
In the same way, it gives them the right to disagree with those who do not hold a Niceno-Constantinopolitan trinitarian theology, or a Chalcedonian Christology, but not to persecute them.
Does it give them the right to oppose allowing Homosexuals or non-trinitarians to get a civil marriage? Doesn't that count as damage?
quote:
quote:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
No it hasn't - you're just making that up.
The overwhelming majority of people with two brains to rub together know that most atheists, such as those on the Ship, are nothing remotely like Stalin, who represents an extreme.
The real point about Stalin's atheism is that it demonstrates that atheists are not automatically morally superior to religious people, which has sometimes been implied.
quote:
Those that cite homosexual activity as forbidden by God need to also be carefully watched for homophobic actions.
In the same way that your average Western atheists have to be incessantly scrutinised in case they try to revive the OGPU/NKVD?
Your ignorance doesn't mean it didn't happen.In the United States this was most seriously attempted in the 1950's by Senator Joseph McCarthy and The House Un-American Activities Committee.
quote:
Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity.
-- Sen. Joseph McCarthy, identifying the "final, all-out battle" as being between atheism and Christianity (not Communism and Capitalism or the Soviet Union and the United States) in his famous address to the Ohio County Women's Republican Club on February 9, 1950. This is the address which launched the terrifying and destructive "McCarthy Era" attacks upon many US citizens.
The attempts failed and many people have concluded that most atheists are not Stalinists so they're not being assumed to be communists. That's not to say the question was never raised, and the assertion was not repeatedly made.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, no secular humanist that I know of would take the relativist attitude that Stalin, as an atheist, was free to adopt any ethic he chose, and therefore cannot be criticized for any of his actions.
In other words atheists, despite their lack of a “stated moral code”, in practice believe in an absolute morality.
Humans have an innate moral framework. And history shows it to be more relative than absolute.*
Stalin fails his actions failed the framework of the society they affected.
*We, as a species, have the innate drive to help and be good to those we consider "us". It is in defining that "us" that we fall down.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, no secular humanist that I know of would take the relativist attitude that Stalin, as an atheist, was free to adopt any ethic he chose, and therefore cannot be criticized for any of his actions.
In other words atheists, despite their lack of a “stated moral code”, in practice believe in an absolute morality.
Humans have an innate moral framework. And history shows it to be more relative than absolute.*
Stalin fails his actions failed the framework of the society they affected.
*We, as a species, have the innate drive to help and be good to those we consider "us". It is in defining that "us" that we fall down.
The idea of a framework is interesting, as it may be infilled by different sets of values; so it is a kind of grammar, not a semantics, and the society fills that in with its particular values.
For example, Christians used to burn people - I suppose during that period (a 1000 years?), it was considered virtuous.
I'm not sure if your idea of an innate drive to help is not balanced by an innate aggression and sadism. Well, then, maybe we all need helpful ways of sublimating that sadism, things like soccer I suppose.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
What we need is a broader definition of what includes us. It is in seeing people as other which justifies our mistreatment of them.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That seems quite mysterious to me - why we need to scapegoat and punish others. Oh hell, there are Marxist, psychoanalytic and religious explanations, and maybe they all have a grain of truth.
I suppose I become an I by positing you as other; then that can easily become an alienation.
I think some parts of morality are a 'reaction formation', in other words, they are attempts to neutralize our own hatred.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Some of this appears built in. The moral life of babies shows compassion and a sense of fairness develop extremely early.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
OK, my apologies – I assumed that when you talked about equating atheism with communism you were referring to the present, and not to sixty-four year-old history.
It is certainly not true today.
Yes, there were wild accusations back in the mid-twentieth century by McCarthy and some of his followers that atheist=communist.
(On the subject of conspiracy theories, I can remember, as a young and impressionable evangelical many decades ago, being told by those who were anti-Catholic and anti-communist, that in fact the apparent bitter antipathy between the Vatican and the Kremlin was all for show, and that behind the scenes they were really close allies manipulating world events).
However it is highly questionable whether many people took the automatic identification of atheist and communist seriously even back in 1950.
The situation was vastly more complicated than Christians and anti-communists versus atheists and alleged communist sympathizers.
For a start, a number of leading anti-communists of the time were atheists, such as George Orwell, Sydney Hook and Isaiah Berlin.
Also, there were anti-communists who were anti-McCarthy.
One example is Malcolm Muggeridge ( possibly an atheist himself at the time) who in the face of opposition from the Western left-wing press courageously exposed Stalin’s Ukraine Famine, but who also gleefully ridiculed McCarthy in his article Senator McCarthy McCarthyised, Or The Biter Bit, in his Tread Softly For You Tread On My Jokes.
Another is the US Army which brought McCarthy down.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
Rather than all this to-ing and fro-ing about whether Stalin the Atheist was/is typical of all atheists it would be better if Kaplan Korday started off on a proper factual basis by providing the evidence that Stalin was an atheist.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Rather than all this to-ing and fro-ing about whether Stalin the Atheist was/is typical of all atheists it would be better if Kaplan Korday started off on a proper factual basis by providing the evidence that Stalin was an atheist.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being serious.
There is a one-volume biography of Stalin published in 2004 written by Robert Service.
I haven't read it, but I have read Service's biography of Trotsky, which was good, so as far as I know it is sound.
However, the most recent detailed biographical work on Stalin of which I am aware consists of the two volumes Stalin:The Court Of The Red Tsar (2003) and Young Stalin (2007) by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
In the former he states "...[Stalin] became an atheist in his first year", and in the latter he quotes Stalin's actual words "I became an atheist in the first year".
The reference, of course, is to Stalin's first year at the Tiflis Seminary in 1894, where he was training to become an Orthodox priest.
Yes, he started off Orthodox in the same way as Hitler started out Roman Catholic and Mao Buddhist.
If you have any counter-evidence, from either your own or others' research, that Stalin remained in fact a crypto-believer, I'm sure the world would be fascinated to learn of it.
Richard Dawkins made a desperate attempt to argue that Hitler was a Christian, but he didn't even try in the case of Stalin.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
OK, my apologies – I assumed that when you talked about equating atheism with communism you were referring to the present, and not to sixty-four year-old history.
It is certainly not true today.
Yes, there were wild accusations back in the mid-twentieth century by McCarthy and some of his followers that atheist=communist.
(On the subject of conspiracy theories, I can remember, as a young and impressionable evangelical many decades ago, being told by those who were anti-Catholic and anti-communist, that in fact the apparent bitter antipathy between the Vatican and the Kremlin was all for show, and that behind the scenes they were really close allies manipulating world events).
However it is highly questionable whether many people took the automatic identification of atheist and communist seriously even back in 1950.
The situation was vastly more complicated than Christians and anti-communists versus atheists and alleged communist sympathizers.
For a start, a number of leading anti-communists of the time were atheists, such as George Orwell, Sydney Hook and Isaiah Berlin.
Also, there were anti-communists who were anti-McCarthy.
One example is Malcolm Muggeridge ( possibly an atheist himself at the time) who in the face of opposition from the Western left-wing press courageously exposed Stalin’s Ukraine Famine, but who also gleefully ridiculed McCarthy in his article Senator McCarthy McCarthyised, Or The Biter Bit, in his Tread Softly For You Tread On My Jokes.
Another is the US Army which brought McCarthy down.
Given Joseph Stalin is not exactly a current political figure you have to go back to see accusations that were made during the cold war.
It was more than what you dismiss as wild accusations and conspiracy theories. People lost their jobs and careers on accusations of atheism, communism and homosexuality notably "The Hollywood Black List"
And no one has said that all anti McCarthy people were communists. So thanks for the straw man. I can add it to the one you did earlier where you were saying that I was saying that atheists on the ship are evil.
I'll take it as a not very good try at a notapology.
And yes, it is certainly not true today and not even for everyone then. that's what I meant when I said
quote:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It was more than what you dismiss as wild accusations and conspiracy theories. People lost their jobs and careers on accusations of atheism, communism and homosexuality notably "The Hollywood Black List"
Much, though by no means all, of what McCarthy and his followers dealt with was precisely that - "wild accusations and conspiracy theories".
I am "dismissing" the truth of them, not their seriousness or the fact that they were made.
Agreed, they often resulted in injustices.
What is your point?
quote:
And yes, it is certainly not true today and not even for everyone then. that's what I meant when I said
quote:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
This could get convoluted, and I will probably regret bringing it up, but here goes:-
I have a suspicion that you think I was dealing with the proposition that atheist always=commnunist, which obviously is not, and never has been, true.
What I was questioning is whether many people believed it even sixty-four years ago, and whether anyone at all believes it today.
"...many times..."? I don't think so.
[ 25. August 2014, 06:30: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It was more than what you dismiss as wild accusations and conspiracy theories. People lost their jobs and careers on accusations of atheism, communism and homosexuality notably "The Hollywood Black List"
Much, though by no means all, of what McCarthy and his followers dealt with was precisely that - "wild accusations and conspiracy theories".
I am "dismissing" the truth of them, not their seriousness or the fact that they were made.
Agreed, they often resulted in injustices.
What is your point?
My point is when serious harm is done by the government their charges are not "wild accusations". That trivializes the persecution.
quote:
quote:
And yes, it is certainly not true today and not even for everyone then. that's what I meant when I said
quote:
The claim that all atheists are evil communists because Stalin was an atheist has been made many times and refuted by evidence.
This could get convoluted, and I will probably regret bringing it up, but here goes:-
I have a suspicion that you think I was dealing with the proposition that atheist always=commnunist, which obviously is not, and never has been, true.
What I was questioning is whether many people believed it even sixty-four years ago, and whether anyone at all believes it today.
"...many times..."? I don't think so.
Again you try to trivialize it. Enough people believed it to support a political movement that did a lot of damage to a lot of people. How many is adequate for you? And while communism has lowered as the mark of evil one survey showed
quote:
40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society", putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26%) and homosexuals (23%).
As for your lack of thought...
Discrimination against Atheists in the United States shows the number of state constitutions which limit the rights of atheists. That's not a one time happenstance of wild conspiracy theory. Obviously this predates the communists, but atheist=evil has been stated any times and often acted on.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
My point is when serious harm is done by the government their charges are not "wild accusations".
Non sequitur.
When "wild accusations" (which is what indeed many of them were) cause "harm", is does not follow that in retrospect they cease to be describable as "wild accusations".
quote:
Again you try to trivialize it. Enough people believed it to support a political movement that did a lot of damage to a lot of people.
To exercise a healthy scepticism is not the same as to "trivialise", a word which I suspect you are employing for its emotive impact rather than its descriptive appropriateness.
The point is not whether or not many believed it, but that enough people in positions of influence did, producing distinctly non-trivial consequences such as the execution of Ethel Rosenberg.
quote:
40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society",
It's hard to keep up with you, Palimpsest, when you move the goal-posts (an activity which could conceivably fall under the rubric of "lack of thought").
The question was whether people today equate atheism with communism.
I have not made the slightest reference to the issue of whether or not Americans today are suspicious of atheists, and am quite ready to believe that some are, though I would be interested in the provenance of your "one survey".
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0