Moderates give cover to religious fanatics

[lilithu]

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.

:areyoucra

So how does that explain all the moderate Christians who are pro-choice? How does that explain Christians who actually work to preserve a woman's right to choose?

Just because you make unsubstantiated claims about religious moderates doesn't make it so.

 

[robtex]

I think I found the intro speech plus 55 minutes more here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4slqVeJfvgo

I haven' watched it yet.

the lower right hand corner gives 2, of 8 3, of 8 ect ect.

 

[dogsgod]

:areyoucra

So how does that explain all the moderate Christians who are pro-choice? How does that explain Christians who actually work to preserve a woman's right to choose?

Just because you make unsubstantiated claims about religious moderates doesn't make it so.

The moderate doesn't act on their religious beliefs, that's why they can be pro choice. When a Christian joins forces with the secularist and works for women's rights they are taking the issues and removing them from the church by secularizing them. Years ago it was argued on religious grounds that women should and could not vote, but now since they have the right, it's no longer a religious issue, at least not in the west where it's taken for granted and now arguable on secular grounds.

If the moderates for whatever reason decided not to share these basic beliefs with the fanatics, the fanatics would stand out like a sore thumb rather than blend in as they do now thanks to the moderates.

 

[michel]

Wow, that totally convinced me to stop being religious and to stop respecting the beliefs of religious people. Good thing I read that. I am absolutely certain that every person who reads this will be converted to atheism. And if they're not, they are clearly irrational/insane and should be institutionalized, sterilized or put to death.

You really had me going there................

I do wish they'd stop using the term "Balkanize" - I find it terribly insulting. I can't explain why, I just do... it's like they're making a bad joke about everything that happened here.

I can understand that........it almost sounds like something out of "Star treck"..........

As for the article itself... fanatical athiests scare me just as much as fanatical theists.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I found nothing but hate speech in that quote. Intollerance is bad whether it is directed at Christians, atheists or (fill in YOUR religion here). In it's vapid appeal to "logic" it has indeed entered the realm of being delusional.

Quite; what a load of "what is produced by dung beetles"........

 

[robtex]

I watched the videos last night I posted from post 142. It was 90 minutes long and labeled as 1 of 8, 2 of 8 ect ect. I didn't see harris being a fanatic in them. He was very calm and composed. He didn't call for the death of religious leaders or arrest of them or anything involving force. He had main points but it will take a while to dig them out one by one and work through them.

One of the first ones he pointed out redundantly over and over is that the general area of religion as a topic for discussion is taboo by society. He stated that challenging the validity or question the reasoning of faith is taboo in and of itself and this leads to larger social issues because religious reasoning by implication of being off limits for analysis is covered.

I am going to go back and index where he said what and interject it into this thread. He gave a great example with abortion that I am giong to dig for. If you haven't watched the videos you should. You can break them down into 10 minute segments but it is best to go in order because he is very organized in how he makes his presentation.

 

[robtex]

I found another single clip video that is 23 minutes long here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM

 

[lilithu]

The moderate doesn't act on their religious beliefs, that's why they can be pro choice. When a Christian joins forces with the secularist and works for women's rights they are taking the issues and removing them from the church by secularizing them.

This is so insulting, I don't even know how to respond. I work with people who are pro-choice because of their faith. I am pro-choice because of my faith (tho I am decidedly a religious liberal, not a moderate). As I said, you can make all the uninformed generalizations that you want. It doesn't make it so.

 

[robtex]

Just real fast as an observation...and i am going to do more reading before posting again on this, but in regards to the dogsgod and lilithu sub-debate i am noticing you two are not on the same page and it might be bringing some mis-commnication about.

dogsgod is postulationing his ideas within the structure of the chrisitan religion and lilithu is responding as a uu. Being as you are both looking at this from different institutions i think there may be some misunderstanding at this point.

if you guys could, and i did a poor job with this too so far, with your examples pro or con solidify it with historical examples i think it might make the debate easier to qualify than general abstactions without example.

 

[standing_alone]

This is so insulting, I don't even know how to respond. I work with people who are pro-choice because of their faith. I am pro-choice because of my faith (tho I am decidedly a religious liberal, not a moderate). As I said, you can make all the uninformed generalizations that you want. It doesn't make it so.

Maybe it's because I was a sort of Christian fundamentalist before I became agnostic and then atheist, but I don't see what is inherently insulting about this statement (though I also understand why you say it is insulting to you).

If a moderate Christian is pro-choice while Christian fundamentalists are pro-life (justifying their stance based on the Bible "Thou shalt not kill"), is not that moderate Christian not acting on the belief of "Thou shalt not kill?" Of course I understand that not all Christian churches take a fundamentalist approach to the Bible and see no conflict between being pro-Choice and still following "Thou shalt not kill." But what if that moderate Christian is a member of a fundamentalist church. For example, I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church, I believed in their approach to the Bible (literal word of God and everything ), but as I matured, I started to disagree on fundamentalist approaches to law (while I thought abortion and homosexuality, for example, were evil and sinful, I didn't feel that my religious beliefs should be made the law of the land, hence I was pro-choice and pro-gay rights towards the end of my stint as a Christian). Since I shared similar morality as the rest of the people in the church I attended, but didn't believe in making my beliefs the law for everyone, wasn't the difference between me and the rest of the people at my church just that I decided not to act on certain aspects of my religious/church's belefs? Or was I just a Christian fundamentalist (thus, not a moderate) that didn't act on my religious/church's beliefs (as I think about it, I think this is most likely the case). I know my experience isn't the same for all moderates, but couldn't it maybe be for some religious moderates?

 

[lunamoth]

I think it's really amazing how many people here think that a literalist, fundamentalist approach to the Bible is the only legitimate approach, otherwise a moderate or liberal is 'not a real Christian' or 'not living out their beliefs.' As Lilithu has pointed out, this is very much not the case, and it says to me that at least some non-theists have bought into the fundamentalist paradigm...a paradigm that was born during the period of Biblical criticism post-Enlightment.

Sola Scriptura is not the only way to approach the Bible, nor is it the way the Bible has been approached thoughout most of Christian history. Scientific thinking during the Enlightenment has split Christianity into polar mindsets, one approaching the Bible in a very literalist manner and the other approaching the Bible in a very personal, experiential manner. Twins born of the same crisis in history.

From what I've gathered about some of the different approaches to Christianity today:

Scripture alone, Scripture literal-factual - Fundamentalist/Evangelical movement
Scripture + Tradition - Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox
Scripture + Tradition + Reason - Anglican/Methodist
Scripture + Tradition + Reason + Experience - Methodist/Anglican

I don't know where Presbetyrian fall in there, and you can probably mix and match it in other ways, for example Charismatic/Pentacostal would probably be mainly Scripture + Experience. And the Episcopal Church is Scripture, Tradition, Reason...but I know that most of us would also count our personal experience of/relationship with God as very important as well. Esoteric/Gnostic Christians might say they are mostly Experience + Reason + Scripture, reversing the order of importance. And, I'm sure Catholics also employ reason and personal experience in their faith. Guess I'll apologize right now to all who feel I've assigned things incorrectly, but I do think the above is a good illustration of these different approaches.

This is what makes dialogue across denominations difficult, and what leads to misconceptions among Christians and by non-Christians. It's not only that we disagree on what Scripture means, we have a basic disagreement on the appropriate way to approach Scripture.

This is why comments such as that by both Harris and dogsgod are so insulting and not a good basis of dsicussion. They are starting with incorrect assumptions about what faith, religion, and theism is for a large number of Christians. I have noticed this in our discussions at RF as well...it's as if opponents of Christians first say that we are not real Christians unless we are fundamentalist Christians, and then they reject fundamentalist Christianity for whatever variety of reasons.

It's not a sound debate because they have set up a strawman of what a Christian is, and they proceed to tear that down, but it is not what we are.

Present company excluded of course. I see you all wish to have a rational, legitimate debate about this, but I agree with Lilithu we'd be better of starting again with better assumptions about what moderate Christianity really is. If your position is that "faith is dangerous,' as seems to be Harris' position, what's there to debate? It's just a shouting match.

 

[lilithu]

Maybe it's because I was a sort of Christian fundamentalist before I became agnostic and then atheist, but I don't see what is inherently insulting about this statement (though I also understand why you say it is insulting to you).

If a moderate Christian is pro-choice while Christian fundamentalists are pro-life (justifying their stance based on the Bible "Thou shalt not kill"), is not that moderate Christian not acting on the belief of "Thou shalt not kill?"

The bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill." It says "Thou shalt not murder." And so the difference of opinions between Christians on the issue of abortion is the same as the difference of opinions between any other group of people. Do you believe that the foetus is a person? If not, it's not murder.

In fact, even if one were to take the position of sola scriptura, there is no injunction against abortion in the bible, while there is otoh evidence that the Israelites did not consider the foetus to be a baby/person. It is simply interpretation that abortion is wrong. And there is no reason to say that a socially conservative interpretation is "more Christian" than a socially moderate/liberal interpretation.

 

[lilithu]

Just real fast as an observation...and i am going to do more reading before posting again on this, but in regards to the dogsgod and lilithu sub-debate i am noticing you two are not on the same page and it might be bringing some mis-commnication about.

dogsgod is postulationing his ideas within the structure of the chrisitan religion and lilithu is responding as a uu.

No. I did inject my own faith in there, but I also quite explicitly stated that the beliefs/actions of bona fide moderate Christians does not match dogsgod's mischaracterizations. You yourself have lifted up the Methodist church as an example of a moderate Christian group. While there may be individual Methodists that dissent, the denomination as a whole has made it a matter of record that they are pro-choice. And I as a UU have worked with Methodists on this issue. How can these Christians be actively working to preserve a woman's right to choose if they actually believe that abortion is wrong?

 

[dogsgod]

liltihu, can you articulate how it is your are pro-choice because of your faith? In other words, what commonly shared faith based beliefs lead you to be pro-choice? I ask because it's easy to understand what can lead the religious to be anti-abortion, but more difficult to understand what leads the religious to be pro-choice, so maybe you can help us out here.

 

[logician]

Let the woman control her own body, not the church down the street.

 

[standing_alone]

The bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill." It says "Thou shalt not murder."

My apologies. I was going off of the Ten Commandments as I had them bashed into my head as a kid.

And so the difference of opinions between Christians on the issue of abortion is the same as the difference of opinions between any other group of people. Do you believe that the foetus is a person? If not, it's not murder.

In fact, even if one were to take the position of sola scriptura, there is no injunction against abortion in the bible, while there is otoh evidence that the Israelites did not consider the foetus to be a baby/person. It is simply interpretation that abortion is wrong. And there is no reason to say that a socially conservative interpretation is "more Christian" than a socially moderate/liberal interpretation.

I understand that among Christians, there is great difference of opinions. I tried to acknowledge that in my post, but the words seemed to have escaped me. What my point was, there could be, among fundamentalists, a Christian who in every way mirrors their beliefs (continuing with the abortion example, thinking abortion is murder) but not believe in enforcing that among non-Christians (that is, not trying to make their beliefs the law of the land for everyone to follow). Then wouldn't this individual not be acting on that particular belief? That was all my point was and looking back on it, it's kind of a crap point.

I understand that there is a great variation among Christians, as there are with any group of people, I'm just saying that I bet there are some out there (and this goes for people of any belief system) who do not act on their beliefs when they see them as potentially being burdonsom to others not of their beliefs. Nor did I mean to imply that the socially conservative interpretation of the Bible was "more Christian" than others. I really don't care which is seen as more legitimate; I'll leave that to the Christians. My point, as I already tried to state, was that among an "island" of fundamentalists, there could be a few out there who do not try to push their view on everyone else, thus not acting on their belief. Of course, it all depends on what constitutes "not acting on a belief," such as, is it inaction if one observes it for themselves as an individual, but not trying to force society as a whole to do the same? Then when there is also a great diversity of belief amongst people who share only a title... And looking at it only through the lens of the abortion debate makes it so narrow... I guess it's all so very... complex. *brain overheats*

 

[Scuba Pete]

The moderate doesn't act on their religious beliefs,

You need to meet more moderates. This is incredibly short sighted, demeaning and asinine statement.

 

[Scuba Pete]

dogsgod is postulationing his ideas within the structure of the chrisitan religion and lilithu is responding as a uu.

No. He is postulating his ideas based on his bias AGAINST Christianity.

 

[robtex]

The bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill." It says "Thou shalt not murder." And so the difference of opinions between Christians on the issue of abortion is the same as the difference of opinions between any other group of people. Do you believe that the foetus is a person? If not, it's not murder.

I

Kat it is technically thou shall not murder but more important is that is doesnt' matter if they phrased it as:

thou shall not committ homicide
thou shall not take life
thou shall not execute

ect ect, because as you pointed out interpretations differ and in the backdrop of some of the others like, "thou shall have no other gods before me" and the no graven images one they really are so open to meaning and so widely debated that non-theists, self included assign little to no utility to the lot of them.

However, and this is important, in accordance with the Harris propostion christians, who make up the majority (or as percieved by many of the christians the moral majority), and they interject value on these one line-no context phrases.

If i was to go into work tomarrow and say the 10 commandments out loud I would have a complaint on my managers desk the next day by a christian, I can guarantee you this would happen, that the "atheist is talking about my religion again" or the "atheist is naming the 10 commandments."

The idea of even discussing 10 random statments, that are in no context and in no way are tied in to any other part of the Torah (of which most christians write off as old news after Jesus came to earth), is so sensative it isnt' even up for discussion or as Sam Harris labels it "taboo". The fact that Alyssa mis phrased it meant enough to you that you had to correct her and you are not even a christian.

Now tie this into the abortion debate and we have a complexed problem. A christian says "God says, thou shall not murder (or kill depending on which church) " applies it to abortion and the debate is over and dead before it even started. No number crunching, no study of what an abortion is, what the medical or biolgocial parameters are on the start of life all that we know is "God said" and its tabboo and the discussion is done.

And this based on a commandment that is not qualified at all in the Torah, broken by the god of the torah repeatly as he drowns his subjects in sulfur and rain water and certainly never ever applied to abortion within the torah at all.

If we take Harris idea at face value, and i had time to watch his videos on the "end of faith" speeches in the meantime, is that the methodology of faith based medical analysis is qualified by the moderates because the moderates endorse the same methodology though they reach different and even opposite conclusions.

The endorsement certainly isn't direct but it is indirect by the procurement of allocating the highest level of "truth" to be divinely inspired. Or less abstractly put, your God says "yes abortions" their god says "no abortions" and the battle errodes to who has the best divine revelation instead of what emperical analysis or data can we review to reach a rational conclusion.

 

[Ozzie]

Wow, that totally convinced me to stop being religious and to stop respecting the beliefs of religious people. Good thing I read that. I am absolutely certain that every person who reads this will be converted to atheism. And if they're not, they are clearly irrational/insane and should be institutionalized, sterilized or put to death.

Book me in!

 

[Stairs In My House]

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....

Um, it was a joke. It's a reference to the process by which one scientific theory gets replaced with another, e.g. Newtonian physics was "wrong" and got replaced with relativity, or phlogiston was suddenly "wrong" as soon as oxygen was isolated. Since religious texts do not undergo repeated revision, they're wrong only once, whereas science progresses by being wrong repeatedly. Get it? Here, read this. Okay, get it now?

(And lilithu probably knows that this is the naive falsificationist view of science but that ruins the joke so I'm going to pretend to be a naive falsificationist.)