Moderates give cover to religious fanatics

[robtex]

The tone of the OP usually determines the tone of the responses to the OP. A perceived attack generally makes people defensive.

I don't know if you ever read any of the gun control debates on RF but I am pro-gun control. Being in texas that is a very unpopular opinion. In live debates down here in person, I was the only (sob according to them) who was pro-gun control. Once I asked one of them there red necks why his position on the issue was so extreme. He said that it wasn't in his head but, in order to fight for his gun rights he had to lean really hard to the neo-conservative stance in order to find what he thought was a fitting balance on the issue which was not in the middle.

We dont' know harris motive ( i sure don't) and as for the other atheist posters who to say what their motive is either. A non-theist on a religous based forum has some interest in religion or they wouldn't be here. I don't want to take this on a tangent guessing harris motive but in the idea of his well adverstised political agenda maybe he is shooting for the sun in hopes of hitting the moon.

The more important idea is that you read the op and think "oh great another lets get rid of religion thread" and I read the op and wonder academically speaking if we can chew on the of like fat, metaphorically speaking and find to what degree or what margin it is true, and under what circumstances. Don't worry about Harris or the end of religion as you know it or trying to guess motives us posters. Three things I can tell you with great confidence about this thread:

1) religion as we know it will not end or be saved by the direction of this thread. Instead it will stay exactly the same as before we logged on.

2) i you nor anyone else can really know the motives of various posters unless they come out and articulated it and even than if we accept their answers we do so on faith ---which of course proves the utility of faith which should tickle you at least a little bit.

3) their is room for academic manuevering on the op if you look at it with the attitude of such and the same is true for about any thread on rf. It is a sujective perception that is malleable by design.

Perhaps you and Standing_Alone and Sunstone can formulate an argument together, since I know they have voiced similar thoughts. And all three of you are known to be tolerant/open-minded, not knee-jerk anti-religionists.

phil has had a pretty big impact on my atheism. His methodical approach to viewing theory and particulary his way of phrasing open-ended questioning and open ending apparently closed ended phrased questions. The one thing I learned from Phil which would apply to you and this thread is if you see what you percieve as a closed end question than open it up with more questions or parameters.

Oh I agree, and I felt a little silly for bringing it up. The vast majority of Methodists are great and we UUs work with them on a number of social issues. In fact, I know several UUs who are attending a local Methodist seminary. They couldn't do that if Methodism were incompatible with UU values. But it still amuses me that Bush is Methodist and Clinton and Carter are Baptist.

perhaps a different thread but Carter was a very religious man. I had no idea he was baptist but that is the second famous fella and clinton being the third who go against the presented image of their religious institutions.

 

[gnomon]

Point taken.


You have nothing to apologize for.


And I would tend to agree with you, though we can still have legitimate discussions using the rhetoric Falwell spurts as a springing point.

Of course, I guess I'm guilty of often times being automatically dismissive of what Falwell says. Me = hypocrite, I guess...


I should be, too. I wasn't even sure if I should have even responded to the thread to begin with. It's something I lack the knowledge to debate about, but something I'd like to maybe see a debate about so I could maybe learn something (and often times I want to say something based on what Harris says, but after such responses am afraid to for the chance of being associated as being just like him, but really, I'm just a dumb atheist guys, you got no reason to fear me ), but some other time perhaps. I need to learn to keep my mouth shut when I have nothing of substance to say. Sorry, guys.

Apologize for nothing. You showed class where others didn't.

Frubals to you.

editthers referring to Harris and other atheists, sometimes myself, who tend to be rather abrasive or arrogant.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Pete, if I could ask about a real life incident to you and how it relates to this. Last year, you quit your christian church because the church, as a congration via its leadership supported the war in Iraq on moral grounds.

I argued that these were "immoral" grounds, but fair enough.

I would stipulate that in the realm of religion the general postulation and the specfic postulation of your old congregation was that of "god's will" .

They actually were pretty specific that the "church" did not support war of any kind. However, it appeared that those in charge of the flock were all for it, and there is NO WAY I would let a war monger lead me.

What I mean is that they largely felt it was "god's will" to be in the Iraq war or that the USA was preforming God's will by consent to involvement in the war.

You left the church based on their moral support of that war. As a hypothcial, if you had stayed in the church would you feel you had consented to the war in iraq by non-dissent and by association ?

One deacon thought I should stick it out and keep making waves. I felt that voting with my feet was going to make a bigger impact. When I met someone from the church recently, they asked me specifically WHY I left. Obviously, I made little or no impact with my departure.

If so, and if one postulates that the idea of "it is gods will for the usa to invade Iraq" is a statement of a fanatic than the ones who reject, ideologically this statement, but stand behind the church by attendance and tithing are moderates that provide cover for religous fanatics (which doesn't include you as you left this organization).

It appears we want an answer from a statistically indeterminate model. Your best guess is as good as mine.

 

[lilithu]

We dont' know harris motive ( i sure don't) and as for the other atheist posters who to say what their motive is either. A non-theist on a religous based forum has some interest in religion or they wouldn't be here. I don't want to take this on a tangent guessing harris motive but in the idea of his well adverstised political agenda maybe he is shooting for the sun in hopes of hitting the moon.

Rob, I don't have to guess what Harris' motives are. I can go by what he says. And if I'm not allowed to go by what a person says, then I see no point in any online discussion.

You and others have suggested that my response to Harris is reactionary, and that I'm not taking the time to read his opinions. I wasn't born with a predisposition against Sam Harris. I formed my opinions of his views by having heard/read them. Exactly how "open-minded" am I required to be before I can say I disagree?

The more important idea is that you read the op and think "oh great another lets get rid of religion thread" and I read the op and wonder academically speaking if we can chew on the of like fat, metaphorically speaking and find to what degree or what margin it is true, and under what circumstances.

<....>

The one thing I learned from Phil which would apply to you and this thread is if you see what you percieve as a closed end question than open it up with more questions or parameters.

That's fine if you have the patience for it. From my pov, I neither have the patience for atheists who condemn all theists nor theists who condemn all atheists, nor Pagans who condemn all Christians, nor Christians who condemn all Muslims etc. etc. I see no basis for beneficial discussion in these viewpoints, and would rather dialogue with people who actually want to dialogue. (dialogue being something that requires a two-way exchange)

As I suggested, if you have the ability to open up the dialogue with better phrased arguments, then I'm sure I'm not alone in inviting you to do so.

perhaps a different thread but Carter was a very religious man. I had no idea he was baptist but that is the second famous fella and clinton being the third who go against the presented image of their religious institutions.

Who is the first?

 

[robtex]

Who is the first?

in the confines of this thread george w bush.

 

[robtex]

I argued that these were "immoral" grounds, but fair enough. They actually were pretty specific that the "church" did not support war of any kind. However, it appeared that those in charge of the flock were all for it, and there is NO WAY I would let a war monger lead me. One deacon thought I should stick it out and keep making waves. I felt that voting with my feet was going to make a bigger impact. When I met someone from the church recently, they asked me specifically WHY I left. Obviously, I made little or no impact with my departure.

Here let me re-phrase it than: Did those who stayed, irregardless of their personal positon of the war, create an atmosphere of complied consent by their lack of departure to an organization with a pro-war position and as the organization is a spirtual organzation is it reasonable to state that ideas or positions it takes can be interpreted as "god's will" or "god's way"?

It appears we want an answer from a statistically indeterminate model. Your best guess is as good as mine.

actually your guess is much better than mine cause you were there but more importantly since this is an intimate issue for you (your ex church) if I am hitting to close to home and you decide not to address it won't find a different way to phrase the question but instead let it go. The original motive for the question in my last post to you was to put the abstract ideas of this thread into a concrete model for you as it occured to me you likely had a up close and personal experience that relates to the op and the thread in general.

as a sidenote the notion that you held true to your values and walked brought your stock way up in my book.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Rob,

It gets back to HOW you define the terms. I certainly don't feel that the moderates are to blame for the extremists. They probably do MORE to keep the extremisists in check than anything else. An extremist would be far more willing to listen to a moderate telling him he is wrong, than an opposite extremist.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well, I am driving in traffic and trying to read/respond. I will come back to this later tonight.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yeah, but the Bible and the Koran have gotten those facts wrong only once, each, whereas science gets them wrong time and time again, and frequently even disproves itself!

Maybe we should move your comment over to the Science vs. Religion forum because I would be interested as to what you believe science has gotten wrong.

Just interested in the thoughts on it...that's all....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thanks MaddLlama....

Being an Atheist I certainly don't share Stark's views... The dude is obviously an idiot...

The sad thing is we've given his rhetoric unwarranted attention.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

oops peolpe...I was typing to fast.....

In my last statement I meant to express by displeasure toward Harris.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Here let me re-phrase it than: Did those who stayed, irregardless of their personal positon of the war, create an atmosphere of complied consent by their lack of departure to an organization with a pro-war position and as the organization is a spirtual organzation is it reasonable to state that ideas or positions it takes can be interpreted as "god's will" or "god's way"?

Possibly. It depends on whether they just decided to conform or if they are actively working to change the status quo. We can see by the jingoistic rhetoric that followed the Iraq invasion that often those who disagree are painted as traitors and helping the other side.

actually your guess is much better than mine cause you were there but more importantly since this is an intimate issue for you (your ex church) if I am hitting to close to home and you decide not to address it won't find a different way to phrase the question but instead let it go. The original motive for the question in my last post to you was to put the abstract ideas of this thread into a concrete model for you as it occured to me you likely had a up close and personal experience that relates to the op and the thread in general.

I don't have an issue with the intimacy of the question as much as I see that there were LOTS of honorable avenues I could have taken. Again, some see a complete abandonment as the coward's way out, and I am not sure I disagree: I abhor conflict, especially personal conflict. My decision included seperating myself fromt he apparent hypocrisy (the lunacy of embracing WWJB astounds me) as well as trying to make a visible statement about how important peace is to me. Hopefully, that will give you a better perspective of why I did what I did.

as a sidenote the notion that you held true to your values and walked brought your stock way up in my book.

Thanks for the kind words!

 

[logician]

Any thoughts on this Los Angeles Times article?

God's dupes
Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics -- and are every bit as delusional.
By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
March 15, 2007

PETE STARK, a California Democrat, appears to be the first congressman in U.S. history to acknowledge that he doesn't believe in God. In a country in which 83% of the population thinks that the Bible is the literal or "inspired" word of the creator of the universe, this took political courage.

Of course, one can imagine that Cicero's handlers in the 1st century BC lost some sleep when he likened the traditional accounts of the Greco-Roman gods to the "dreams of madmen" and to the "insane mythology of Egypt."

Mythology is where all gods go to die, and it seems that Stark has secured a place in American history simply by admitting that a fresh grave should be dug for the God of Abraham — the jealous, genocidal, priggish and self-contradictory tyrant of the Bible and the Koran. Stark is the first of our leaders to display a level of intellectual honesty befitting a consul of ancient Rome. Bravo.

The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things. As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low — sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. — continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse. Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources.

Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death.

Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we can't be sure it will happen in our lifetime.

Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure.

Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched.

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.

People of all faiths — and none — regularly change their lives for the better, for good and bad reasons. And yet such transformations are regularly put forward as evidence in support of a specific religious creed. President Bush has cited his own sobriety as suggestive of the divinity of Jesus. No doubt Christians do get sober from time to time — but Hindus (polytheists) and atheists do as well. How, therefore, can any thinking person imagine that his experience of sobriety lends credence to the idea that a supreme being is watching over our world and that Jesus is his son?

There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith — but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.

Let us hope that Stark's candor inspires others in our government to admit their doubts about God. Indeed, it is time we broke this spell en masse. Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain — from cosmology to psychology to economics — has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.

Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.

One of the best posts I've ever seen on here.

Professing atheism by an American politican is seen as nothing short of heresy by the mainstream of society, which is why few do it - it amounts to polticial suicide.

Rationalism always seems to be pushed aside by dogma, even in so-called 'Open-minded" America.

 

[dogsgod]

Moderates allow religious fanatics to blend into society because they share the same basic beliefs such as a belief in God, original sin, forces of good and evil, etc. That's how wackjobs like Bush, Blair, and Harper get elected.

 

[dogsgod]

Ithink the difference between moderatres and fanatics is that fanatics act on the beliefs that they share with moderates.

 

[uumckk16]

Ithink the difference between moderatres and fanatics is that fanatics act on the beliefs that they share with moderates.

I don't think I agree with you. Could you provide an example?

 

[dogsgod]

Take the belief that a soul enters a new life at the time of conception. Fanatics believe they are fighting the good fight to protect this helpless, defenceless soul against the abortionist. Most moderates would agree that a soul enters life at the time of conception and would agree that the soul is helpless and defenseless and leave it at that.

 

[dogsgod]

I don't think I agree with you. Could you provide an example?

My last post was in response to this quote, I'm new here and just now figured out how to do the quote thingy. So, you see, the moderate and the fanatic share the same beliefs about the soul, but the fanatic acts on it.

 

[des]

>Oh I agree, and I felt a little silly for bringing it up. The vast majority of Methodists are great and we UUs work with them on a number of social issues. In fact, I know several UUs who are attending a local Methodist seminary. They couldn't do that if Methodism were incompatible with UU values. But it still amuses me that Bush is Methodist and Clinton and Carter are Baptist.

Also Southern Baptist (also Al Gore is Baptist and Bill Moyers is a Baptist preacher, at least in training). There was a big split in the Baptist church (can't remember the year), but at one time Baptist and "the priesthood of the believer" was the heart of the Baptist message. Being a Baptist there was no hard and fast creedal code. I think that there is also a more moderate branch of the Southern Baptists and they don't buy all the rhetoric of the Southern Baptist convention (and you could put Gore, Clinton, Carter and Moyers in that catagory). At one time, for instance, the Southern Baptists were not anti-abortion (or rather it was up to the individual), mostly because you were not supposed to dictate a position to a Baptist. Things have tended to change, but I would still guess there are Baptists who take still take the priesthood of the believer thing seriously.
Also I think Carter may have left the Southern Baptists over their position on women (?). (There are other Baptists groups, like Baptists of America).

Another thing, is that though Bush is technically a Methodist. The Methodists are also fairly strongly influenced by the "priesthood of the believer" idea (not quite taking as far as we do hehehe), but anyway, they would not require you to sign your name on creedal statements etc (at least to my understanding). We use the same religious education and participate in a lot of social action with Methodists as well. Bush may be a Methodist but he is also a born again believer. Born again believers tend to not really identify as much with denominations (since I would guess most Methodists are not born again type believers), so he may go to the churhc with wife and kids but I don't think he would think of himself first as a Methodist.
(There are born again type congregations, but I don't know of any branch of Methodism that is?)

--des







perhaps a different thread but Carter was a very religious man. I had no idea he was baptist but that is the second famous fella and clinton being the third who go against the presented image of their religious institutions.

 

[des]

I think you bring up an interesting issue here, that you maybe didn't mean to bring up. That is, the most moderate religious voice (Methodist) is over run by the more conservative. For instance, though Catholic are not really "immoderate", on certain issues, like abortion, they aren't exactly "mainstream". The mainstream opinion is probably closer to the Methodists.
So rather than giving "cover", instead the more moderate voices (as they are often smaller in no. as well--- afaik, there are no megachurches that are Methodist, ECLA Lutheran, Presby USA, etc.). So they aren't cover they are drowned out. As we know the no. of "mainline Christian churches" is losing membership and in some cases whole congregations. If this isn't happening fast enough various teams have gone from Institute of Religion and Democracy (sounds harmless, huh?) are going into mainline demoninations and trying to convince the memberships that they are too liberal. They get into minor political squabbles and try and make them more important. There is a real effort at this for although the no. of mainline churches may be small, the influence is seen as too great (perhaps to further their theocratic ends).
This article also sites changes in the Southern Baptists.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/relig_inst.htm

--des

Now lets say you have a room with a

methodist
catholic
baptist (southern or first)
aog (army of god) member.

and that the 4 indivduals by and large beliefs are congruent to the doctrine and practice so their church so that the methodist is for abortion, the catholic and baptist against and the aog is against and sees the action of abortion as a war on god. Each propose dogma exist in congruence to the doctrine and practice of their church which is to say that the methodist by and large subscription to dogma and by association absolute morality is marginal by comparision.

Of this the aog openly advocates that assassinations of abortion doctors is not immoral.

In regards to the op I think it would be fair to state that the methodists gives less cover or less spirtual advocation to the idea of assassination of abortion doctors than the catholic or baptist by marginazation of both dogma, and the immorality of abortion as well as the idea that man can discover the will of God and invoke it on earth.

now even if the baptist and the catholic say, "hey assassination of abortion doctors is going to far only god can judge" they still tithe the church which politically (while evading taxes) proposes via lobbying efforts and in their houses of worship that abortion is evil and wrong and use their money and influences for such which sends the message to the aog that he is not on the fringe with his beliefs only that he feels direct intervention is neccessary despite the baptist and catholic views on such.

the sheer number of the congregations and populations of such further the aog postulation and even if that aog in our hypothical room doesn't want to personally assassinate an abortion doctor if his friend does and he is looking for spirtual justification he won't find it in the methodist crowd but will find it in the ideology of the catholic church and baptist minus the direct intervention and supported by the vast congreations of which he can not nor will not stop to view each members personal viewpoint. the members by association adopt the canon of their repective institutions by viewpoint of the outsiders both in the institutions offical political stances (of which there are many and frequent) and cultural socialization.

If this assessment is speculated as correct than I would ante up as a first posulation that dogma, the mere finding merit in the idea of dogma, irregardless of the dogma prescirbed and the organizations that do, add credence to the idea of moderates covering fanatics (in as far as catholics and baptists don't advocate assassination abortion doctors but aog does) and by inverse the divorce from meriting dogma denies credence to the idea that moderates cover fanatics.

The reason dogma provides credence to the idea of moderates covering practices and ideals of fanatics is that dogma is an assigment of divine revelation and as such has equal validity to all other dogma from outside third parties but less than those who prescribe to the dogma of their organization and furthered by the idea that collectivley organizations that strongly promote dogma, by their promotion alone validate others dogma by protaganizing their own dogma under the general umbrella of "dogma should be protaganized".