In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court of the United States today upheld the partial birth abortion ban. All five of the justices in the majority were Catholics. This case stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court of the United States will no longer adjudicate cases based on the Constitution or the laws of the United States. From now on the SCOTUS will decide cases based on the morality dictated by the Vatican who is now in charge of the law in the United States.This is of course very bad news for all women in the United States, all gays and lesbians in the United States, and of course, anyone else not Catholic, especially Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists.Last year when the Court struck down the death penalty for minors, conservatives throughout the country condemned the Court for considering the briefs filed by Britain, EU, and else where about how it was no longer acceptable practice in the world to execute children. With today’s Catholic majority upholding the Vatican position on abortion, we all await those same conservatives condemnation of the Court for failing again to consider U.S. law and Constitutional right of privacy when it comes to decisions between a woman and her doctor over the state of her health and life.
Peter Nuhn
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O’Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
e.a.c.:
Ok. Hitler – maybe the greatest liar and propagandist ever – often called himself a Christian. That’s how atheists define who is a Christian?
As long as you’ve got your Google window open (as I do), you should check other pages that are not tailor made for the atheist choir. There are many more quotes even more damning than the ones you pasted above.
For example, from Hitler’s Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953).:
“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity….
“Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse….
“…the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little….
“Christianity the liar….
“We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.” (p 49-52)
13th December, 1941, midnight
“Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. ….
“When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.” (p 118-119)
Do these quotes sound familiar to anyone else but me? Again, I’m not saying that modern atheists are all Hitlers just because they hate Christianity (and not all hate Christianity). That is the sort of nonsense that a Christian like me gets used to hearing from every fool on the political left who can’t think of an argument against you, so they call you Hitler or a Nazi. (Need I say that not all on the left are fools or is that obvious, too?)
Here’s the point: we can try to out-quote each other, but I think what he said in private is probably a better reflection of his true beliefs than the propaganda he fed a mostly Christian nation. If you want to argue against that, go ahead.
The greater truth here is that what he did is entirely unjustifiable on any legitimately Christian view. Calling yourself Christian doesn’t make you a Christian. Without resorting to religion or a metaphysical definition of “good” or “bad”, how does an atheist condemn such atrocity?
Thanks, too, for the reply. These are smarter posts than the tripe further up the thread.
The Truth
Okay, you tell us, how do we know when one is really a Christian? Will all the other “Christians” agree with you?
rna2dna:
It’s a Christian “fantasy” that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (thanks, HeatheNZ), (and Hitler, which I believe, but will suspend because as far as this blog is concerned the question is open) were the greatest criminals in modern history?
Wow. Things were starting to look up for this blog there for a little bit with regard to rational argument. I am tempted to ask who you would rate as being criminally equal with these monsters, but you’ll probable employ some bizarre atheist calculus that somehow puts Bushitler or the pope or someone else with whom you have (sometimes legitimate) ideological disagreement with on their level. Go ahead if you like. I have no rational argument against that sort of incoherent moral equivalency.
TheTruth,
Very true. of course, your claim “Christians leading the abolitionist movement” was to the effect of intimating angelic status to Xians of the period. Your subsequent statement puts it in far better perspective – if I may paraphrase – Xians were no better or worse then non-believers regarding the abolition of slavery. The only difference is that the Xians were the ones basing their positions (for and against) on (at best) ambiguous biblical readings and revisionist interpretation.
Regardless of the accuracy of this generalized statement – they definitely drove the biblical and moral arguments for the retention of slavery. Every coin has two sides.
My quote was a too reasonable government. If you avoid reading the “too” then it’s going to make little sense. This is merely to contrast it against ideologies (be they theistic or atheistic) that marginalize the use of reason.
A quick list from wikipedia:
evilatheistconquerer I think adequately covered the Hiter = Atheist question. I would also like to say that even if Hitler were not an xian he was certainly a believer in the supernatural – which would by definition make him a theist rather than an atheist.
Karen, great question.
First, a logical/rhetorical point that I’m sure many of you have thought of. I am a Christian. If I call myself an atheist en route to calling a group of atheists to action of some sort, does that make me an atheist? Of course not.
I used to read blog comments sections(this is a rare exception these days – even more rare that I would comment) and on the right wing versions the following type of post was common: “I’m a right wing republican who voted for Reagan, Bush I, and Dole, but Bushitler has me so angry with his blood-for-oil and psycho wingnut judges that I’m going to vote against him in November!”
No intelligent person believed this person was a republican who actually voted that way.
Point being, the language one uses and more importantly, what they do, defines (or betrays) who they are.
My non-authoritative definition of a Christian is one who can say the Apostle’s Creed, thoughtfully consider it and mean it when they say it, and act accordingly. They will take their obligations to their denomination seriously, serve all who will let them as Christ served, and do their best to love others as Christ loves them. Finally (actually, it’s stupid to say “finally” as it’s too dynamic a concept to be relegated to a few propositions, but for sake of space), one who knows that they are sinful, humbly admits that and seeks forgiveness, and honestly tries to better with Christ’s help.
Hope that helps and thanks again for the question.
As KAren rightly asked: Who does get to judge? You very soon fall into the “no true Scotsman logical fallacy” and run the real risk of defining yourself as the only “true” christian. In reality there is no way to come to an objective consensus on who is a xian and who is not. It’s for this very reason that I prefer to stick to the bifurcation between theist and atheist.
To that end I think you TheTruth might grudgingly concede that Hitler was indeed a theist. And perhaps that his theistic beliefs largely coloured his actions and opinions.
To be sure there was more to his life than theism – things are never as simple as one issue.
Don’t want ot get into an abolitionist debate, but just wanted to give a tip of the hat to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one known atheist who was critical to the abolitionist movement, even though she was a mere woman.
TheTruth
Of course the problem with this is the non-authoritative bit. The next xian is likely to come along and pose a different entry requirement – even an opposing requirement that would exclude you as a xian. When it comes down to it all you have is your own self declaration propped up by subjective interpretation of clippings from your holy book.
From my perspective I am forced to accept on good faith a self proclamation of religious affiliation. Of course I know some people will lie, but you are in no better position to judge who is lying and who is not than I am.
In fact I would argue that I might be in a better position as I am at least do not have a self motivated agenda that defines membership.
Karen,
I think we have established that both theist and on-theist were both good guys and bad guys regarding abolition.
In other words xianity as a creed does not merit any high moral ground.
TheTruth
I’d agree that the chances are high that this hypothetical voter is not telling the truth. However, would you consider it impossible that such a person with these views and actions exists? I certainly would not.
Very nice, heathen. Seriously.
I absolutely did not mean to intimate any supposed “angelic status to Xians of the period”. Don’t know why you seem so sure of that. What I meant was what I said. I know there were many Christians involved in the industry of slavery and I do not attribute to them “angelic status”, whatever that is.
I fail to see how “too” makes your point any clearer. I’m afraid you’ll have to make this more explicit if you want me to consider it. Reason divorced from Faith every bit as destructive, if not moreso, than Faith divorced from Reason. Do you think that Lenin and Stalin did not use “reason” to advance their cause? Or was that a different Reason? And who gets to decide what Reason is, much less “too reasonable”?
I don’t want to sound too flippant about this, because these are important questions and I appreciate your replies. I guess my point here is that Reason requires a grounding of some kind, religious or not. All of the monsters named above thought they were at the threshold of a post-religious era (I haven’t read any Pol Pot, so correct me if I’m wrong there). If the atheist denies the metaphysics of good and evil(as most atheistic philosophers do), then what is your grounding for a just society?
And I’m glad we agree that Christ was the first to state the golden rule, while Confucius and many others (thanks for the paste – there were a couple I hadn’t seen before) stated it in the negative. If you’re not sure why the difference is important, read C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man”. It’s short, and there’s almost no God stuff in it.
And I’m as satisfied with the resolution of the Hitler as Atheist question as you seem to be.
Thanks again.
TheTruth:
I’m familiar w/the ‘Table Talk’ folderol. It’s crap, pure & simple.
Here:
http://nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm
“However, whenever addressing the history of Hitler, it would not deem fair to exclude mention of alleged sayings of Hitler, from apocryphal sources such as the “Secret Conversations with Hitler,” “Hitler – Memoirs of a Confidant,” Albert Speer’s memoirs or “Hitler’s Table Talk” (also referred to as “Private Conversations”). Mostly from the latter do opponents against Hitler’s Christianity usually refer. For Hitler’s Table Talk is the only source where one can find Hitler denouncing religion to such a degree.
Hitler’s Table Talk
“Those who deny Hitler as a Christian will invariably find the recorded table talk conversations of Hitler from 1941 to 1944 as incontrovertible evidence that he could not have been a Christian. The source usually comes from the English translation edition by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper.
“The table talk has Hitler saying such things such as: “Christianity is an invention of sick brains…,” “The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.”
“But those that argue against Hitler’s Christianity fail to see that Christianity comes in many forms, two of which consist as: a belief system held by Christians, and organized religion. It was the latter, organized Christianity, that Hitler spoke against (just as many Christians do today). Not once does Hitler denounce his own Christianity nor does he speak against Jesus. On the contrary, the Table-Talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. But the problems with using Hitler’s table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler’s apostasy are manyfold:
1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)
2) The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler’s other private or public conversations.
3) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity.
4) The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler’s actions for “positive” Christianity.
Your also completely wrong about who came up w/the Golden Rule:
# “This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” ? Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 BCE)
# “What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.” ? Confucius (ca. 551?479 BCE)
# “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” ? Hillel (ca. 50 BCE-10 CE)
For someone who claims to be the ‘Truth’, I’d advise you bone up on your facts before spouting off.
karen,
My personal favorite lady from that time is still Margaret Sanger. She went around to poor communities passing out birth control to women who already had too many kids. Her life was threatened by many people for her actions and she was put in jail too. She also made the newsletter “The Woman Rebel” which used the phrase “No Gods and No Masters” (my favorite saying too).
The Truth
I echo what HZ said about your response as to what a Christian is. He always says things much better than I could.
As a Lutheran, growing up, we were also required at times to say the Nicene Creed. When we were doing that, would we have not been as Christian in your eyes? I can still say most of the Apostle’s Creed, even though it’s been decades since I believed a word of it.
I don’t see what value the recitation has, in connection to being Christian. Taking the words to heart and acting on them is another matter. But as HZ pointed out another sect may take more stock in say, the Lord’s Prayer, or something else, and call you un-Christian because you do not value as highly what they do.
You asked about Hitler,
Atheism in itself does not condemn or condone anything. It simply speaks to a non-belief in any deities. This is where theists get confused when they charge atheists with horrific crimes, when the crimes were usually impendant upon some political or economic power scheme, and were not committed in the name of atheism.
As a secular humanist, or simply a person of empathy, I condemn the acts of Hitler on the basis that they were detrimental to the human race, and were acts I would not want to have committed upon myself.
HZ
Agreed. It was just irking me that only xians were being mentioned as abolitionists.
TheTruth,
Your statement clearly says that xians lead the abolitionist movement, and through omission, attempts to credit xianity with ridding the US of the scourge of slavery. It was at best disingenuous for reasons previously stated.
Regarding your confusion about hypothetical governments that are too reasonable: The example you site are those of extreme ideologies. Ideologies that are held to be true by those who espouse them despite any reason that might indicate otherwise.
I think we have some semantic confusion here:
Of course people heading or invested in unreasonable regimes use reason to further the ends of their ideology. This does not mean the ideology itself is reasonable or well reasoned. Do you see the distinction?
We most certainly do not. Please don’t put words into my mouth – it’s a cheap shot. The same semantic intent clearly exists whether stated as a positive or negative.
evil
Yes! No gods, no masters. Margaret Sanger rocked! She was indeed a woman ahead of her time, and brave beyond the pale.
Good for you HZ! I was about to say something when I saw your comment pop up.
You’re trying to be sly, The Truth.
Oops… sorry for the double post – window went blank and refreshed.
If you look at my earlier post about Hitler, I did say that he was either a deist or an atheist, depending on the context. So I agree (not even grudgingly!) that this is a possibility. Most of the founders of this great country were deists who were only nominally Christian or even anti-(organized) Christianity. Many of them were fine and brilliant people, I’m sure. Some of them owned slaves, of course, too…
Karen, good point about non-believing proponents of abolition. I don’t think I said or implied that non-believers haven’t made important contributions morally, but it’s good to know a new name to add to the list.
And regarding my self-declaration: you can accept it or not. Who gets to judge? God. Not me. I’m giving you a fairly well-informed, but again, non-authoritative opinion.
I would just ask that you not limit the world of arbitrary dogmatism to Christianity.
If a biology professor at a university says that God created the universe, he is castigated by the magisterium of those self-appointed guardians of scientific truth.
If a president of an ivy league university points out that a growing body of scientific research indicates that men may have innate superiority in certain cognitive capacities and challenges social scientists and researchers to find differently, he is publicly shamed and defenestrated in the name of tolerance.
As I like to say, here’s the point: to say or imply that Christians are the only ones with dogma who are offended when someone claims membership while clearly not demonstrating an adherence to said dogma is ridiculous. Why Christians, let’s say the Catholic Church, should be the one group in society that should not be allowed to define its own teaching and measure adherence, is beyond me. Atheists/secularists/etc. do it every bit as much as Christians.
So to more directly answer your question: I believe an organization or church (or whatever) has every right to define itself and its membership. Who gets to decide? Ther person himself, but he should do so thoughtfully with the considerations I posted above. Who gets to decide if one is an atheist? And what if that atheist believes Christ was the Son of God? You see the quandary.
Great questions, all.
TheTruth
Probably similar to yours. Hopefully like most xian you cherry pick rules from the bible that support your moral conscience. This is what people of different religions have done for a long long time. It works well as long as there are no pesky atheists to point out that you are in fact cherry picking, and if you were not you’d be stoning people for working on sundays (or saturdays), wearing clothes made from more than one cloth, eating shrimp and pork, and all manner of things that our society currently thinks are prefectly reasonable (there’s that word again) actions.
In essence theists tend to look to their holy book to justify a moral position, non theists tend to weigh the reasonableness of a position to justify a moral position. (Of course many theists actually use reason too – but they prefer to attribute it to a divine edict).
I sense an accusation of moral relativism coming next, so in an attempt at a preemptive strike, let me say that I think moral relativism and moral absolutism are demonstrably untrue. The position I take is that of the changing moral zeitgeist.
TheTruth
I would absolutely agree. Your ‘atheist hoodoos’ are prime examples of arbitrary dogmatism. ie. Lenin/Stalin/Mao with extreme communism, Pol Pot with anti-intellectualism and Hitler with warped Nationalism.
Some closing comments, then I’m afraid I’ll have to go. I’ll try to check back later, but no promises. I really appreciate the thoughtful posts here.
Karen, saying the Creed is important, but meaning it is the point. One’s Christianity doesn’t spike momentarily when uttering certain words or diminish thereafter. Perhaps I should have been more clear.
HZ –
What I said about Christians leading the abolitionist movement is true and that’s what I meant. So is the fact that they did so often with explicitly Christian language. When I attempted to clarify and said that there were certainly believers and non-believers on both sides of the issue I meant that. But how you can imply from that that I think Christianity caused the end of slavery, I’m not sure. Christians led the abolitionist movement, and Christians were slaveowners. The former were acting in a Christ-like manner, the latter were not.
Karen and HZ: I was not trying to be sly. The imperative of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is in very important ways different from “Don’t do anything to anyone you wouldn’t want them to do to you.” I thought this was more obvious, but by way of example (and unfortunately briefly as I have to wrap this up) a Christian commits a sin of omission if he does not help someone in need whom he reasonably could be expected to help and whom he knows needed such help. Therefore, he cannot ignore the suffering (even though we all know many Christians do) of those he knows need help if he is able to help. If the imperative were to not do anything to someone you wouldn’t want them to do to you, then this omission is no problem.
This is one example, but it shows one aspect of the important difference between the two. With regard to “The same semantic intent clearly exists whether stated as a positive or negative.” I’m sorry, but this statement is philosophically indefensible. To see why, read J.L. Austin or even better, John Searle’s “Speech Acts”. You’ll like Searle – he’s an atheist.
Sanger… too much here. Suffice it to say, she is a perfect example of a person who embodies the divorce of faith and reason. I’ll just refer you to this, although I doubt you’ll read it.
http://www.lifeadvocate.org/1_98/feature.htm
Sorry I have to bolt, but I have too much else to do. I enjoyed the exchange and wish you all well.
TheTruth
Awww – and just when I was starting to think you were a reasonable person. Do you seriously not understand that it is a scientists ‘duty’ to criticize other scientists’ hypotheses?
Usually this is done through perr reviewed publications backed by emperical evidence. However a scientist making such an unscientific, unsupported statement as you have proposed deserves any derision s/he receives – not the least because the hypothesis is stated itself in a non-scientific manner.
Science, unlike religions, does not have “guardians of the truth”. Every, let me repeat that, EVERY, scientific hypothesis, theory or law is subject to invalidation. (again need I say it – unlike religious ones).
The Truth
A biology professor at a university has no business categorically stating god created the universe. That is not science; it is opinion, or religion, and does not belong in an accredited biology classroom. Unless of couse, he can prove it. The professor may state it as often and as loudly as he want outside the classroom.
The president of the ivy league university may point out whatever studies he likes, and challenge whomsoever to disprove them. If others take issue with his point, they may.
A loud-mouthed radio show host may get fired for making a racially and sexist offensive statement about a basketball team, even though he was technically exercising freedom of speech.
You ask
But you also say
So shouldn’t the churches just delineate the guidelines and let god sort it all out? But the catholic church, of all of them is known for continual confession and absolution of sins. If god is going to judge you in the end, why does he need all this intermediary help?
I accept your declaration of christianity. The only problem I may have with your christianity is if you try to get it legislated into my life. The point was that other christians may not agree that you’re a christian. Many of us are familiar with this having come out of one faith or another. There just is no definition of “christian”. There is only the acceptance of the declaration thereof, as you say, and many, many people are giving others of you quite a bad rep.
Is this a joke? Of course the individual decides if he is an atheist. The second question negates atheism, so there is no quandary.
The Truth
I did read your link on Margaret Sanger and am revising my opinion of her. I will do further research, but it appears she was not the heroine I had imagined.
Still, NO GODS NO MASTERS is a great quote.
The Truth
….a…n…d…after more searching, I’m swinging back in the other direction on Sanger. The info in your article was biased and I found others that countered it.
Yes, she was into eugenics, and fairly naive about it. But she was not trying to racially purify. She was trying to prevent the pregnacies and births of incompetent children to incompetent people.
She wanted to corral and sterilize the retarded and imbecilic, etc, and segregate them in self-supporting communities away from the general populace.
Can’t say I agree with her on that, but she made incredibly important contributions to women’s health and autonomy.
She also had wacko ideas about ma$turbation early in her life which changed radically when she was older.
karen,
Just keep in mind what the site was that he linked. Also, Dr. King was given the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger award in 1966. Would he have gotten it if she was as racist as that article claims? I found a site that actually suggested Dr. King was working with Sanger to eradicate african americans by giving them birth control. I’ve never heard such a big piece of shit. Just goes to show, you can find anything on the internet.
At the time period, many people were anti-semitic, so if she was then it wouldn’t have gone against a large portion of American society.
“Many American cities discriminated against the Jews by limiting where they could live, work, or attend school. Minneapolis in particular had a nation-wide reputation as being extremely anti-Semitic.”
http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/108jewish.html
“In one 1938 poll, 41 percent of respondents agreed that Jews had “too much power in the United States,” and this figure rose to 58 percetn by 1945.”
Daniel Levitas on the history of antisemitism in the United States as published in the 1999-2000 edition of Groliers Multimedia Encyclopedia.
Plus, the immigration thing is something that was decided by the U.S. State Department, not Harry H. Laughlin of the Eugenics Department of the Carnegie Institution. Though, it is clear that the State Department gave in to strong anti-semitic feelings in the country by refusing to remove the quota barriers.
If Margaret Sanger was for population control, I think it was to the extent that she thought people shouldn’t have too many kids which they wouldn’t be able to take care of. Considering her past work, I would especially consider this likely.
karen,
“She also had wacko ideas about ma$turbation early in her life which changed radically when she was older.”
It may surprise you that Sigmund Freud was as well. Again, most people at that time period were. They even had machines to slap little boys you-know-whats down in the night should they have a “special” dream.
To show you how crazy people used to be, in the early 1900s, many people were into social darwinism, a very corrupt butchering of Darwin’s brilliant ideas. They used this theory of social darwinism as an excuse for their racism.
evil
She wasn’t racist. When she used the word race, she was referring to the human race. A black doctor and nurse worked in her clinic. I can’t recall, the doc may have run the clinic. She said in a letter to a friend that Hitler’s racial purification was sad and horrific. Didn’t The Truth say private writings revealed the most about a person?
I’m too lazy to go find the links right now, but if anyone really wants them, I’ll go find ‘em, I s’pose.
Poor Margaret. No wonder she led a birth control brigade…she was pregnant 18 times and gave birth 11 times!!!! YEEEESH!!! (Catholic upbringing)
karen,
I think in one of the crazy sites I found it said she was a racist. It would have been the same one that said Dr. King was trying to kill off all the african americans. It amazes me how many loonies find their way onto the internet.
Damn. And I thought my paternal grandmother had a lot when she had 9! (They’re all still alive too. And with PhD’s no less.)
KA
I believe the examples you give for the golden rule were also supplied to The Truth in a longer list by HZ.
But The Truth insists these are not the same:
Of course there is that tricky phrase reasonably could be expected to help
and the ambiguous if he is able to help.
The Truth
What happened to if a man has no coat, give him yours? Does that mean you’re obligated to give the first coatless man your garment, but to the next one you give simply a shrug? Just what is reasonable to be expected, and what defines your ability to help?
The people in Darfur need your help. So do the people in Iraq. And closer to home, in Louisiana and the other gulf states. There are homeless everywhere. How much are you doing for them? How many sins of omission are in there?
karen:
Yeah, I’d read all that.
Reminds me of Humpty Dumpty(?): “A word means what I wish it to mean, no more & no less.”
Means the same thing, no more, no less.
Religion sure ties the logic centers in the brain into knots, don’t it?
Hi, TheTruth, sorry I couldn’t reply sooner. I’m part of the SF&F convention organization this week, and we were playtesting a new roleplay game, Jack Chick: the Doodling. Watch out for the sequel, Fred Phelps: the Picketing.
Wether they drove it or not is questionable. What isn’t was that they were on both sides, and therefore can’t claim moral apsolutism. In fact, I’d say that those christians that did fight against slavery were either underread in their Scripture, cherry picked it, or flatout disobeyed it. The Bible supports and regulates slavery. The Bible even directly argues against abolition and abolitionists (1 Tim).
The other thing I wanted to point out, the fight for Civil Rights. Religious people in the 20th century definitely didn’t play a positive role in all that. Catholic church is still wildly sexist in that manner, not just internally, but externally. From a woman’s position in the society, to arguing for staying married to an abusing husband.
Those two are interconnected. As it was pointed out, atheist doesn’t. Atheism has no higher moral value, in that it is a one-question topic. Humanism could offer an answer, though. Personally, I am libertarian. Even without invoking “good and evil”, I condemn murders as activities of one person in terminating the life (or freedom) of another. “One’s freedom stops where another’s nose begins”.
It is definitely possible to be moral without invoking and relying on metaphisical good/evil, and even the Bible and xtianity show that. Just like secular moral zeitgeist has changed, so has the religious one. That’s why neither xtians nor jews no longer claim people who work on sunday, or who blaspheme, or who have sex before marriage should be stoned. Unchanging moral apsolutes no longer upheld by anyone with any semblance of reason. Moral zeitgeist or?
No. Christian fantasy is that they were the greatest criminals in modern history because they were atheists. Not sure how clear was it pointed out, but their actions stemmed from the same pigheaded dogmatism that religion is steeped into. They replaced the holy book/god/son/ghost with book/party/… That and the gross inability and downright idiocy in the government (both USSR and China’s) are the prime reasons why they still are the greatest criminals in modern history.
Though Vatican is not far behind, following the same pigheaded dogmatism and actively fighting condom use in Africa, just because it can be deduced from the “holy book”.
Definitely no. Theirs was the dogmatism. A rational person must leave open the posibility that he is wrong on a subject. Dogmatism is all but.
Yes, spacious.
Would you then accept that the real number of xtians is actually much much lower then the one claimed by various polls?
For instance, there was a poll conducted in Croatia, that probed into sex habits of both religious and nonreligious people. Some of the results are that 90% of people claims they think condoms are positive, 83% think that condom use should be tought in school, 78% think masturbat1on is natural, 81% aprooves of premarital sex. In a country where 87% of people are declared catholics.
If the nutshell of your argument is to be taken, the true number of catholics would be as low as 10-15%. Whereas Catholic Church claims the 87%, as privately declared.
And that’s my question. If you stick by the above definition, do you also admit to a much much lower number of xtians in america, or are you disingenuous enough to take the percentage at face value, and then slap them all with your own personal definition?
TheAllegedTruth:
All right! So we have the nominees for the ‘true Christians’! Hallelujah!
I actually don’t give religion credit for anything. Any more than I’d credit atheism for anything.
Because I credit the people w/the good & bad. Something needs to be said about the system they employ, sure, but thus far, religion doesn’t seem make people ‘better’, or more moral.
Howdy…
I feel like I’m cheating here by just popping up and making a comment, but this posting is like crack – quite addictive, and I’ve got a few papers due so I can’t give the full replies your comments deserve. So read on only if you’re interested in these answers.
Krystal: If you doubt the difference in propsitional meaning content – particularly the performative aspect – between the golden rule and its predecessors, please read Speech Acts by John Searle. I know that’s a cop out, but I don’t have the time to go through the whole argument. He’s actually pretty easy and non-technical to read and he is an atheist, so he can’t be accused of making a sophisticated and surreptitious religious argument.
There seems here to be a great deal of conflation between Christian the adjective, Christianity, and Christians as people, as well as an obsession with who gets to assign these terms in an authoritative way. Christians often make these same mistakes, and this is often the basis for conflicts between Christians and within Christianity. There are many sources if you are actually interested in answers to these questions. My experience has been that those on either side of the believer/non-believer divide don’t listen well when they’re worked up into a lather of self-righteousness. I am guilty of this as well, as are many other Christians I know.
Some basic points regarding reason: for one “side” to say or imply that it is the sole possessor of reason is absurd. You can break out with Searle, Russell, Quine, Dawkins, etc… I’ll counter with C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, etc. This is tired and lazy. If this is our technique we are associating ourselves with our greaters rather than thinking through the issues for ourselves in a calm manner.
If, a la Dawkins, we think we can change the definition of reason or rationality, by declaration, to include only those people who share our world view, we are foolish. We deintellectualize ideas we can’t grapple with so we don’t have to grapple with them. They’re stupid, we’re right. Game over.
Fine, but just be honest with yourself about what you’re doing. Any definition of reasonable or rational that excludes Chesterton or Lewis is absurd.
Also, if “logic” is the standard by which you judge one’s rationality, then please learn about it. I recommend Bertrand Russell, W.V. Quine, or if you’re really adventurous, Husserl’s Logical Investigations. One can make irrational judgments using flawless logic by employing flawed premises. Premises matter, which has been one of the points I’ve been trying to make here. Some of you have rightly pointed to mistakes I’ve made and as a reasonable person I accept that and try to clarify when necessary.
With regard to the “you Christians are hypocrites and we’re not” thread… I’d say that you’re half-right. Christians are often hypocrites – we say something is wrong then we do it, say we’re sorry (or don’t) and then do it again. Our bible does contain contradictory admonitions. Of course, this assumes the idiotic modern internet definition of hypocrisy, like the definition of irony as mere coincidence, but I digress. Atheists, however, alternately claim to abstain from judgment, then accuse others of all kinds of wrongdoing and wrong thinking. To be consistent logically the atheist must deny metaphysical Truth, Good, Evil, etc., but the same person then tells the Christian how wrong she is about believing what she does, and insisting (often correctly, sometimes incorrectly) that Christians are the perpetrators of many wrongs throughout history. The atheist rightly accuses the Christian of believing in a God which has not been scientifically demonstrated to exist and (wrongly) therefore being irrational, while the atheist, by definition, believes something that has not been proven by science – that there is no God.
Atheists insist (unfairly) on tarring all Christians with the selectively chosen real, exaggerated, and false legacy of destruction “Christianity” has wrought (as opposed to individual and collective Christians), but insist (fairly and reasonably) that atheists be understood as individuals who cannot be linked with the even more destructive atheist dictatorial monsters of recent history. And the “they weren’t doing it qua atheists, but Christians did these terrible things qua Christians” canard is circular.
I don’t claim that this is some winning argument for Christianity. It is, at best, incomplete, and will remain so as the dialectic progresses. My point is that employing some personally or even collectively chosen version of reason against those whom we don’t understand is not how we come to understand them. Again, fine, but if that’s what your m.o. is, then admit that you’re only interested in this conversation as far as it flatters you by surrounding yourself with fellow believers. Many of us Christians would have to admit the same.
Larger point: the great evils and errors of history are when there is a divorce between faith and reason. Faith without reason is destructive. Reason without faith is at least equally as destructive, if not moreso. Reason, in order to be non-circular, needs to be based on something other than itself.
I wish you all the best.
-TheAllegedTruth
TheTruth:
Yes, you ARE cheating.
Blah-de-blah-blah-blah.
You folks don’t even adhere to your ‘higher moral ground’. Your religion doesn’t improve anyone. Most here don’t even qualify the existence of Jesus.
Oh, please. Tu quoque, anyone?
Lewis was a lousy philosopher, JRRT was a good author but a fantasist, Pascal’s wager’s been thoroughly debunked, Pasteur? What ‘theological’ work did he do?
No, no, no, no: credit goes to the people. Religion gets diddly.
“do unto others” as opposed to “don’t do unto others”?
The same as:
“There is not nothing” as opposed to “There is something”?
Your semantical gymnastics are so unseemly.
I’ve read both those jokers. GKC suffered from sophistic logorrhea, & Lewis was at best a mediocre ‘philosopher’.
I’d say any epistemology that includes those fellows is absurd in the extreme.
TheTruth
I’m assuming your latest post is an attempt at an olive branch, and I intend to treat it as such. That being said, I’d like to correct a few points made.
I assume you mean ‘example’ rather than definition otherwise your point (to which I agree to differ) makes no sense.
A common misstatement. Atheism certainly includes the possibility of believing there are no gods, however, almost without exception every atheist of which I am aware merely do not possess a belief in gods. In my opinion the former position is indefensible, the latter unassailable. Both are atheistic positions.
Two points here: I would suggest that atheists actually tend to tar the xian religion with the selective horrors perpetrated in its name. Individual xians, defacto are associated with these acts by virtue of the fact that they follow the same holy book thru which many of these acts were justified. I think it’s fair to say that xians do their best to distance themselves from this bloody record – and quite understandably want nothing to do with it.
2. The difference between theistic based atrocities and non-theistic based atrocities is simply that the former are often done in the name of their particular god or in accordance with some passage in their holy book; the latter are never (that I know of) done in the not believing in a god or the lack of a holy book. I hope you can see the difference – it’s important.
Lastly faith and reason: In my opinion the two are mutually exclusive. I am working with the definition of faith that goes something like belief in a proposition without evidence or proof (you might be referring to a different definition). In this scenario, if one has reason to believe a proposition, then one has no need of, or indeed has destroyed the possibility of hold that position as an act of faith.
Thanks for the conversation. Oh and I applaud with your call (while ignoring your inference) to study logic and argument. I certainly found it very worthwhile in my university days.
The Truth
Glad you added the modifier ‘alleged’ to your signature. At least now you’re attempting to be honest.
From where do you get this?
If I have ever said I am not judgemental, I was lying, or temporarily out of my mind (a place I go from time to time, but the meds bring me baack.) I know I never stated this to you, however.
And again, all atheists have in common is a nonbelief in deities. Why can’t you understand that? There is no book of atheism with a charter and rules.
I do deny metaphysical truth, good and evil, but am well aware of PHYSICAL truth, good and evil, at least as it is commonly defined.
If i were to hit you in the back of the head with a hammer for no apparent reason, the physical truth is that it would hurt and perhaps kill you. It is evil (I prefer the words wrong or bad) because it serves no healthy purpose and is something I would not want done to me or mine. If someone prevented me from committing the act, that would be good, for it preserves life and precludes needless pain and suffering.
Because I don’t recognize the metaphysical does not prevent me from acknowledging that others do, and that they profess to follow rules that disallow them from acting in certain ways. I am also not prevented from observing that they
blatantly ignore these rules on a regular basis, yet try to tell me that I should be upholding them. I feel within my rights to point out to them that they are being hypocritical. They counter with the forgiveness card. This is more hypocrisy.
I have rules of life that I adhere to which are based in reason, but often overlap those outlined by the religious. I do not have rules pertaining to the worship of any supernatural beings and am not a natural sinner in need of forgiveness for that which I’ve never done.
One last time… promise.
It seems we’re well into the shouting past each other part of the program, so I’ll leave you to your own. I really do appreciate your reading my comments and responding thoughtfully. You all gave me plenty to think about.
Best,
T.A.T.
Tito,
In your post (04/20/07 @ 06:59) you said (among other things):
“A shining light will gleem in a valley of darkness now that the innocent unborn children may someday gain the rights to life that all humans are endowed by their CREATOR (so says the constitution).”
Not true.
You are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution (a common mistake). The Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence, is the basis for the law of the land.
The words “endowed by their CREATOR” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.