For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
Source: CNN
A lot of atheists seem to be really impressed by this, but I'm not. Why should I be? Why on earth should I be moved, impressed, or happy that someone has deigned to recognize the physical existence of atheists in America? Wow — atheists exist! Stop the presses! Sorry, but I'm not just able to get excited about that.
Is this a step forward? Oh, absolutely — it's a step forward because so few politicians have ever done the same. This is merely a sign of just how bad things are in America, though, rather than a sign of how great Barack Obama is. The refusal of so many to even acknowledge that atheists exist, never mind acknowledge that atheists are equal citizens whose views should be taken into consideration, demonstrates just how deep and strong the animus towards atheists is in American society.
While admitting that we exist is good, it's not good enough. I want a lot more than to merely have my physical existence recognized and I think that other atheists should have enough self-respect to want more as well. Atheists who make a big deal out of Obama's single reference to the existence of nonbelievers seem to me to be getting excited over crumbs that have been absentmindedly swept from the table when they should have their own place at the table.
Obviously it would be absurd to expect several paragraphs devoted to atheists in Barack Obama's inauguration speech, so a single reference to atheists is probably the most one could expect. I'm not saying that atheists should have expected more in the speech, but rather than atheists should expect much, much more than meaningless rhetoric. A single acknowledgement that nonbelievers exist in America doesn't come anywhere close to making up for the anti-atheist bigotry which has been tolerated in the Democratic Party and even in Barack Obama's own presidential campaign.
Actions are more important than rhetoric, and even then not all actions are the same. Many liberals were mollified when they learned that Bishop Gene Robinson was invited to deliver a public address the day before the inauguration, as if that made up for the invitation to Rick Warren to deliver the inauguration's invocation. It didn't because Rick Warren — noted homophobe and anti-atheist bigot — was given a much more prominent position. Even worse, Gene Robinson's address was left out of the televised broadcast of the day's events and that was apparently because Obama's team wanted things that way.
So not only didn't Gene Robinson make up for Rick Warren, but his treatment actually reinforced all the worst interpretations of Rick Warren's presence there. All of these actions — not mere rhetoric, but actions — will only be made up for by significant progress in substantive matters concerning gay rights and gay equality. Fortunately, there are signs that that will indeed be happening, but people who care about equality for gays must keep up pressure on the administration rather than simply assume that things will go their way. There has been far too much support for anti-gay rhetoric and actions in the Democratic Party for gay to act otherwise.
Atheists need to learn from this because our position is, if anything, much worse. Absolutely no one was invited to give any sort of address from a secular, nonbelieving perspective at any point in any of the inauguration events. There is nothing in the written plans of Obama's administration to repudiate past anti-secularism or to reverse course against anti-atheist discrimination. Atheists have thus far received just one thing: an acknowledgement that we physically exist. Big deal. I already knew I existed and I knew that he knew atheists existed — we need more than a statement of the bleeding obvious.
The best that can be said about this meager reference to our existence is that it provides something to grasp hold of when making our case that we deserve more. We can point out that our existence has already been acknowledged and, better yet, it was done so in the context of a statement setting us alongside several prominent religious constituencies. So, now how can you justify ignoring us and pretending that we aren't equal or worthy of equal consideration? It's not much, but it's something to start with.
If anything they should have had a humanist give a speech…..I would have even been happy with a very secular Unitarian. but thats just me.
Austin, you are absolutely right about the state of America and non-believer marginalization. The inauguration struck me as concrete evidence of a theocratic government. We felt the might of the theocons and the 47% (who voted McCain) when Obama, who was not even brought up religious, has to prominently feature Rick Warren and marginalize Bishop Robinson.
Usually when people are sad, they don’t do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.
Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks, 1965
“Atheist” does not equal “non-believer” I am NOT a non-believer. I believe in many things. I believe that humans are responsible for their own destiny. I believe that morality is a human value that does not need a Supreme Policeman to work. I believe in the complexity of the Universe and in its ability to evolve without a preexisting Grand Plan or “outside” intervention.
I especially don’t put much stock in his recognition of ‘non-believers’ when he also states throughout the address;
…the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
…and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
And closes with God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
He could have also left out “So help me god” from the oath since it doesnt appear in the constitution that way.
I would have been much more impressed with that, than with the term “unbelievers” in his address
I agree with the article from the standpoint that I almost don’t like even having to call myself an “atheist.” There were “flat earth believers”–I don’t consider myself a “non-flat earth believer.” I think the same holds true with the sillyness of religion. And yes, sorry, I’ll be mean. I was raised Catholic. Religion is sillyness. Sorry that the rest of the people that were raised with me don’t think so.
While I agree that there was little need for Barack to mention “us,” I appreciate it for no other reason than it hopefully makes “them” squirm a bit. Right?
Like, we’re allowed now. Or something.
As far as mentions of god, etc., it’s like Christmas to me. I’m a “westerner” and we celebrate “Christmas.” A tree, presents for no reason, stars and angels on the tree, crappy music, etc., etc. I say “merry christmas” because the people that insist on the “happy holiday” sillyness irritate me. Christmas, to me, is an American social thing that has long since not had anything to do with religion at its roots. Sure, my neighbor has a full-size nativity scene that is sort of goofy, but really, that doesn’t offend me. If it offends some jewish person, or some muslim, too bad. I don’t get offended at any of their stuff.
So say “so help me god” when you take an oath. That’s the words. And when saying “god bless the United States of America” maybe think “may the lords of Kobol bless the United States of America.” It’s just words.
There are battles to pick, and there are battles to just, well, go along with.
Like Mike said…
Some things are more “traditions” now than explicit expressions of religious belief and are, as such, uttered or done without much thought behind them.
Some things are more “traditions” now than explicit expressions of religious belief and are, as such, uttered or done without much thought behind them.
While I generally agree with this, I highly doubt that an inaugural address has a single word or phrase in it that doesn’t have considerable thought behind its meaning. He’s not exactly coming up with this on the fly, so to speak.
Obama is lucky to have had such an unworthy predecessor. By standards set by Bush, Obama IS amazing. But as this article states, we need more than that.
But, as I see it, it is a process. It needs a first step. I think the term atheist was not included because the american people might have revolted right there. It sounds like a calculated move to me. But from the words spoken, we should assume more freedoms to come of it. Indeed, we should expect it, and demand it if it does not come eventually.
Again, I think the praise comes from expecting so little from Bush and then, suddenly someone comes in who thinks that maybe torturing people isn’t ok, maybe science / research spending is intelligent, maybe we should have freedom to be who we are instead of the assembly line of religious robots.
Personally, the inauguration made me a little nauseous. The prayer, and some near-sighted comments from Obama.
Regardless, there is praise needed. Sure, we shouldn’t have to praise Obama. But in the face of 8 years of stupidity and (what I would term) poor morality on the part of Bush, we should praise him. If only to encourage the intelligence of science funding and the acknowledgment that America isn’t just fundamentalist Christians.
Well, he didn’t just acknowledge their existence, but also acknowledged that they’re legitimately American. He’s not about to put hate groups into that mix (you know. . . other than religions), even though they exist.
I’m less concerned about the semantics of “atheist” v. “nonbeliever” here. It’s rhetoric, and he can’t list every possible description of a position on deific existence; I mentally attach an “et. al.” to such statements.
I guess we ave come a long way in the last 20 years. Remember how Papa Bush did not even consider us atheists “citizens”?
I am more impressed with Obama’s renewed call to follow real science. I hope this means junk science such as Intelligent Design will receive zero support from an Obama administration. Similarly, I hope stem cell research is not hindered by the right-wing religious nutjobs.
I think the “nonbelievers” mention is more important than people think. Not only are we not being excluded anymore (a la Bush Sr.), we are actually being specifically included.
Obama’s mother was a non-believer and I bet that the president himself is at the very least agnostic, but he realizes that in the US of Jesusland, you have to be Christian to govern. He is not free to express his true views, but the end justifies the means. He can do more good by posing as a Christian than by coming out of the closet right now.
Well i must say simply that the term “non-believer” I find to be rude in a way. Almost like it should be considered as bad. He could have simply said, and “free-thinking” Americans which is what I feel an athiest is. Someone who thinks for themselves and is not constricted by any religious beliefs.
I agree with Don Pope (nice name for an atheist by the way)—I do consider this an important step considering the increasing presence of religion in our political system over the last 2 or 3 decades. I also believe that it has to be connected to his mother and his upbringing. I mean, if he’s only been a Christian for 20 years, that means he likely lived as a non-believer himself for 27 years.
This is, in fact, not the first time Obama has tacked on the “and nonbelievers” line. I’ve heard him say it at least twice before and I’m pretty sure he used it in the Rick Warren interview during the campaign.
Yes, he certainly is walking a duel line, but he is the only high level politician that I’ve ever heard say it. And considering his power, popularity and global presence, that’s a pretty damn big deal to me.
My first reaction to his inclusion of “non-believers” was to be a little insulted….”non-believers” makes us sound like people who need help because we don’t have anything to believe in..it has a negative and condescending connotation.
I have a belief! Just because it doesn’t include the “god” of the monotheistic religions doesn’t mean I need help or am to be pitied. It means that my belief isn’t governed or regulated or oppressed by others. I think for myself and act on my own conscience.
Reading this blog has done more to convince me that we need to tread lightly in being recognized in this country. Being militant and confrontational is only going to repel the majority of people. We deserve equal treatment and Obama’s recognition of the group which he terms “non-believers” is a step in the right direction even though it’s a bit insulting.
It’s not enough, but enough will take time and I’m satisfied for now.
I still think being acknowledged is better than not. I really think that Obama is a closet Atheist anyway; he seems too intelligent and rational to believe the divine blather espoused by his (now former) church. I believe his involvement in that whacky Chicago affair was strictly for the communal ties, and perhaps to help him formulate and solidify a cultural and political identity.
This was Obama’s way of saying to us Atheists “I recognize you and understand your point of view.” Given the context, it was brave (or bravish, perhaps) to include this in his speech. We should think of it as a step forward, not backward.
The difference between a Judeo-Christian country and an atheist country is that a Judeo-Christian country recognizes the rights of atheists to live freely as atheists. If America were to sever itself from its past and discard its foundational Biblical principals, the atheists in power would most likely rewrite the rules of moral decency and do away with anyone who dares to believe in things that threaten their power. If there is no God, the ones who hold the power will invariably fill the vacancy. As the new, self-appointed gods, they would rule supreme, deciding who lives and who dies. Atheists don’t like believers too much and I fear they would make their feelings known by filling mass graves at every opportunity. History has made this abundantly clear.
Feel free to prove this by citing examples of atheist countries denying the rights of atheists to live freely as atheists.
What foundational biblical principles?
That’s a pretty serious accusation. Can you support it?
Since you’re in Japan, how do you manage to survive since the country has no “foundational biblical principles”?
Prove it.
Evidence?
Is this what happens in Japan where the rulers don’t believe in your god?
If that’s so, do you suppose it might be because of all the bigotry and animus they have towards atheists, as demonstrated for example in your comment?
Unlike Christians, who have never created mass graves?
Hello Austin,
Thank you for responding to my post. And thanks also for your fair challenges and questions.
First off, you want me to cite “examples of atheist countries denying the rights of atheists to live freely as atheists.” I don’t quite understand this because punishing people for NOT believing in God would only encourage them TO believe in God. The cornerstone of Communist oppression is the idea that religion is “the opiate of the masses”. Joseph Stalin wanted to scare God out of the hearts and minds of his captives because God had the nasty habit of breeding contentment. And to “Uncle Joe”, contentment was anathematic. Let’s just say that atheist countries deny the rights of atheists to live freely…period.
You asked, “What foundational biblical principles?” Well, how about the Judeo-Christian principals that our Founding Fathers used as inspiration for the creation of our country? Our treasured documents, our money, our courts of law, our universities and our governmental buildings are all copiously adorned with proof of this fact.
I wrote, “If there is no God, the ones who hold the power will invariably fill the vacancy.” And then you asked me to prove it. The proof is in the history books. The proof is in the old saying, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Atheism on a micro-level is fine and dandy. But on the macro-level it’s scary as hell. The leader of a Godless country is apt to view God as an opponent that can only be defeated when all those who believe in Him are eliminated. A dictator wants his people supplicated to satisfy his selfish needs. God, by contrast, is no dictator. We don’t bow down for His sake. We bow down for our own sakes, because humility has its rewards.
I wrote, “…atheists in power would most likely rewrite the rules of moral decency…” and then you asked me to support it. Okay. It used to be considered immoral to kill unborn children. With Roe V. Wade and the efforts of the American Left, killing an unborn child is now considered to be a constitutionally protected right. And if Obama has his way, killing a baby AFTER it’s born will be reclassified as the moral equal of letting the baby live. (See “The Born- Alive Infants Protection Act”.) If that’s not proof enough, look at the Soviet Union, the P.R.o. China, North Korea, Cuba, the Killing Fields of Cambodia and Baathist Iraq. Need I say more?
Final point: You wrote, “Since you’re in Japan, how do you manage to survive since the country has no ‘foundational biblical principles’?”
I’m glad you mentioned it. Before America defeated Japan and rewarded it with a new constitution, founded on the same Biblical principals of our own (your point above just isn’t true), Emperor Hirohito was considered to be a living god. The consequences of this delusion were meted out all across Asia. Read about the Nanking Massacre, the Bataan and Sandakan Death Marches, Pearl Harbor, The War in The Pacific, “Comfort Women”, and Nana San Ichi Butai (Unit 731). These historical events attest to the very truth of what I am saying. I’d like to see a nation of atheists stand up to such evil and prevail. I doubt they’d last two minutes because in the horizontal world of the “do-what-FEELS-right” Atheist, evil doesn’t really exist. If evil doesn’t really exist, then what’s the point in fighting it? To the atheist, the only threats to world peace are posed by all those unsophisticated, rotten, nasty Bible-thumpers who have the unmitigated gall to label people as so-called “evil-doers”. To the atheist, Marx was right: If we could just got rid of all those silly, unscientific believers, we could turn the world into an Atheist utopia where Prince Obama can fly around on his pink unicorn in the unpolluted skies above the unraped expanses of our Goddess Gaia and her saintly son, Al Gore.
This is the part where the athesists get at me mad and call me a Bible-thumping denier.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Hello again Austin,
I just reread your post and this time I understood what you meant when you wrote, “Feel free to prove this by citing examples of atheist countries denying the rights of atheists to live freely as atheists.”
Yes, I see now. You were taking issue with my wording, which was, indeed, a bit inartful. Let me clarify my point:
A country that is guided by Judeo-Christian ethics will recognize the value of all human life simply because God is the authority on the matter. In other words, in a Judeo-Christian country, an atheist’s life is just as valuable and sacred as the Pope’s life.
A country that rejects the existence of God takes the human being out of its special and sacred position. An example of consequence is that people today, with the best of intentions, are keen to elevate animals (ex. polar bears, spotted owls and snail darters) to a position equal with humans. I think what they are actually doing is LOWERING humans to a position equal with animals. All life becomes less valuable. It has come to a point where many of us are actually classifying humans as an enemy of the Earth. To some, zero population growth and the thinning of our numbers is what needs to happen. And to a small group of university professors, the elimination of 90% of humanity is the only practical and moral option we have for saving the planet. In a country shaped by such twisted thinking, what protections would believers or non-believers enjoy? What argument could be made to defend the value of their lives? If you can rationalize an excuse for squashing a cockroach under your shoe, why not use the same reasoning to kill a human being…or a whole slew of human beings? Many of the most prolific mass murders were athesists who pondered the same questions and concluded that human life was cheap. And when they killed, they felt like gods wielding power over life and death. Like a said, if God is eliminated, someone is bound to fill the vacancy.
Feel free to point any out.
Then cite some.
What is a “godless country”?
Did it? By whom — everyone?
It shouldn’t be? The state should be able to determine these things for women?
Feel free to point to the “biblical principles” in the Japanese constitution.
Why do you make so many empirical assertions without supporting them?
Prove it.
I don’t know about “Bible thumping,” but you definitely a bigot for dismissing an entire class of people as “the atheists.” It’s no different from being dismissive of “the Jews” or “the blacks.”
And a different country wont?
What does it mean for a “country” to do this? Unless you can explain that, the rest of your argument is meaningless.
Prove it.
Here we go again. This Ted in Japan person is obviously an absolute close minded bigot against anything secular. The same old song of Judeo Christian dogma is the only way. Nothing else works in a society, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseum.
The horrors caused in the mane of religions throughout history prove him so dreadfully wrong, it screams out from his opinions.
No matter how much reason and logic he uses to try to cloak his venom in, it is still venom and hatred, proving even his suppositions are false.
To sum it up it is the same old credo “I am right. Everyone else is wrong. Non-believers aren’t rational, loving humans, they can’t be if they don’t believe in a god!”. I have to say, our friend Ted is showing little of that “love” for humanity in his statements.
A minor correction – The second paragraph, of course, should read “The horrors caused in the NAME of religions…”. Sorry, as you were.
As an atheist, I too am completely unimpressed. But unlike you, I do not want more and am not asking for more. Many people don’t like or feel threatened by atheists. That’s life. I do not want government acting on my behalf to make people like me. I don’t want to be a member of yet another grievance group running to mommy with their hands out and their mouths open. If that’s all that I hear about atheists from my government over the next 4 years, I say great.
Since when does being included as a full equal mean being part of a grievance group?
If you don’t “want more” than mere acknowledgment of our physical existence, then you don’t want to be treated as a full equal. You don’t want atheists to have the same chance of being elected to public office as theists. You don’t want atheists’ voices to be included on important public policy decisions alongside theists’ voices.
Frankly, I don’t understand that.
Hey Soujourner,
Thanks for the comments. I hope you don’t mind a response.
First, a clarification: I’m not taking issue with individual atheists. I’m speaking of what atheism does to the world in the grand scheme of things. If governments marginalize religious people by evicting God from the public square, there will be severe consequences. If you can accept this as a fair opinion, then maybe you can re-think your assertion that I am “obviously an absolute close minded bigot against anything secular.”
By the way, you don’t know me at all so it seems pretty presumptuous of you to say that. Blind, hateful invective is a hallmark of true bigotry. Doesn’t it seem odd that you would present yourself as morally superior to me by acting morally inferior? What’s the deal?
Just to rephrase my basic point: Judeo-Christian ethics elevate the value of human life because humans can’t claim dominion over it. Atheism, on the other hand, makes the value of any life suspect because without God, life can never be intrinsically valuable.
You wrote, “The horrors caused in the name of religions throughout history prove him so dreadfully wrong, it screams out from his opinions.”
I might agree with you if it could be proved that religion is the cause of the horrors. I grant you that our world has been shaped by a violent history of religious conflict. No doubt about it. But who’s to say that the horrors that we have seen are any worse than the horrors that we HAVEN’T seen? Who’s to say that religion hasn’t been a net force for good in the world? Perhaps humans, uninhibited by any sense of humility to a higher authority, would have created a world of horrors that we can scarcely imagine. You seem to have concluded that religion is the problem. I tend to believe that the human condition is to blame. If we were to eliminate all religious reasons for killing each other, we’d simply invent secular ones.
One last thing: You remind me of a scientist who sets up a controlled experiment with two different petri dishes containing two different developing cultures. But unlike a skilled scientist who carefully analyzes the data collected from both cultures, you draw all your conclusions from only one. This is what we call “bad science”.
Anyway, take care and thanks for sharing your ideas. Very interesting, indeed. And of course, no hard feelings.
Feel free to show how an absence of belief in gods does something in particular to the world.
Feel free to explain what “evicting God from the public square” is and what it has to do with atheism.
First, you’ll have to explain what you mean and provide evidence to support your accusations.
This implies that all other ethics are inferior to yours. I’d like to see you support this
Prove it.
Hello Austin,
I spoke of the “Judeo-Christian principals that our Founding Fathers used as inspiration for the creation of our country…” and you asked me to, “Feel free to point any out.”
One that comes to mind is from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator (a single Creator with a Capital “C”) with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Another is, “In God We Trust”. Our Founding Fathers didn’t immortalize that saying on our money for nothing.
In courthouses all across the country there are depictions of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments. Since Moses is far older than the U.S. and our buildings are, indeed, decorated with him and those Commandments, I think it’s safe to say that they had some significant influence on our system of justice. These and many other examples support my belief that the monotheistic beliefs of the Jews and the Christians did inspire our Founding Fathers.
I have to say that most of your questions seem reflexively and dishonestly posed, like silly retorts that are too-clever-by-half. Why not just plug your ears and go “bla-bla-bla” or offer the more intellectually honest chestnut of “Talk-to-the-hand”?
I would, however, like to take issue with this charge of “bigotry”. When I criticize atheism, I’m taking issue with a world view that is freely adopted by individuals. Hating Jews and Blacks for who they ARE is not at all comparable to disagreeing with atheists for what they THINK. Is this not a fair point? And to be clear, I’m not taking issue with atheists as individuals. I’m taking issue with atheism as a force that produces global consequences. I live in Japan. My wife was raised a Buddhist but is essentially an atheist. I was raised a Catholic, but honestly don’t know what I am. My brothers are atheists. My issue is not with these people whom I love. I honor and respect their freedom to believe what they believe. I’m simply arguing that atheism, on a macro-scale, has produced and will produce a great deal of death and suffering. Accept my point if you can. Disagree with it if you must. But please don’t misconstrue my words as hatred for an entire group of people. That just doesn’t comport with my values.
Oh yeah. I wrote, “With Roe V. Wade and the efforts of the American Left, killing an unborn child is now considered to be a constitutionally protected right.”
And you wrote, “It shouldn’t be?”
The answer to that question depends on the answer to the bigger question: When does a right to live become inalienable? If life is a straight line with one end identified as the moment cellular growth begins (conception) and the other end identified as the moment cellular growth ends (death), then there is the answer: Life begins at conception. Any other point on that line can never be adequately defended as a fundamentally different point. They are all arbitrary. Is it okay to kill a baby at 6 months in the womb? 7 months? Head out? Shoulders out? All the way out but still connected to the mother? An hour after birth? 6 months after birth? These questions are still being debated. And I think the pro-choice people are still unsure that they are truly pro-choice. What if future pre-natal technology can predict sexual orientation? And what if mothers choose to do away with their “gay babies”? Would the government change its mind and say that they are no longer Pro-choice? Will they stipulate which unborn babies do, in fact, have a right to live and which ones don’t? If designer babies become the norm, will we do away with babies because they have the wrong color eyes? Will we create factories where embryos by the millions will be created and destroyed to produce useful products? Do you see what I’m getting at? We, who are against abortion, are not mean, rotten, nasty people who want to take control of women’s wombs. We recognize the consequences of making abortion a crime. But we also recognize the consequences of reducing human life to nothing more than a valueless clump of disposable tissue. Shouldn’t we consider the potential consequences of divorcing abortion from all its moral implications? Because that’s what it’s all about. A child aborted should never be redefined as the moral equivalent of a child born. Is that a fair argument?
That would be Deism.
They didn’t put it on our money at all. It only started after the Civil War and wasn’t official across all money until the 1950s.
I’m not clear on what “Judeo-Christian” principle this is, much less what it has to do with the foundation of the country.
For example?
Then I’m afraid you must not know what you’re talking about because atheism isn’t a worldview.
Great. Perhaps you can explain what worldview she and I share.
That’s hard to believe. Either you possess the belief that at least one “god” of some sort exists or not. If you do, you’re a theist; if you don’t, you’re an atheist. It’s understandable for a person to waver from one to another or to be unsure about which is most sound, but it doesn’t make sense for a person to really not know if the belief is in their own mind or not.
You’re making the claim, not the argument.
Who said it was?
You’re welcome to support this claim, but you’ll have to do so in the forum as it’s off topic for here.
No. You seem to be taking the position that people shouldn’t have the moral autonomy to determine who has access to their body and organs.
No, because criminalizing abortion requires denying women the power to deny access to another to their body and organs. Unless you can show that the state should have the power to establish this, it doesn’t matter if the fetus is regarded as having a “right to life” or not. If you were connected to me and dependent on my body/organs to sustain your life, the state couldn’t stop me from disconnecting you, even if means your death.
But, as I said, that’s off topic for here. If you want to make an argument for state power over the disposition and use of an adult’s body and organs, you should do so in the forum.
Oh, and I would recommending reviewing what an argument is and is not.
Hi Austin,
You’re absolutely right about “In God We Trust”. I had forgotten that the official inscriptions of our national motto date from the 50’s. I think I may have been confused by the fact that Civil War era coins also had the phrase.
And yes, I accept your point about deism. But to be clear, I’m not arguing that America is a Judeo-Christian country. I simply believe that the Bible influenced its creation. I believe our future depends on our ability to remain faithful to our past. and there have been many wise people before us who felt the same way. They wanted to assert that God was central to the greatness of our country. The Pilgrims who set us on the path towards individual liberty, private ownership and free markets were not thanking native Americans for the bounties of the harvest. They were thanking God. But now with God being a bone of contention, Thanksgiving has been re-imagined as a symbol of all that is wrong with America–The evil white man is in trouble. Along comes the benevolent red man to save the day. And the white man repays the kindness by stealing the red man’s land and murdering his people.– God has been erased from the story and the truth has been erased from the history books.
By the way, what exactly is your wish for the country? To make fools of those who believe in a higher power? To banish God from the public square? To eliminate religion all together? What are you advocating? And why do you seem so ticked off at the idea of a Biblical influence on our country?
Do you want the government to impose secular-human values on the private lives of Christians? For example, in Florida, a school nurse is prohibited, by law, from discouraging a pregnant student from having an abortion. She can’t take the child to a pro-life counselor or group, especially if they are affiliated with a specific religion–seperation of Church and State and all that.
But there is no equal law that prohibits the nurse from encouraging an abortion. She can take the child to an abortion clinic. Parental consent is necessary to hand out aspirin. But for a potentially life-threatening operation like an abortion, the parents need not be informed.
So in this example, the State’s secular belief that abortion is okay trumps a Christian’s belief that abortion is NOT okay. The State can legally kill a person’s grandchild and violate his or her religious convictions. Are you fine with this?
By the way, if you think my arguing skills are poor, then fair enough. I’m just sharing my thoughts with you. If you’re not moved or impressed, it certainly doesn’t surprise me. Anyway, thanks for setting me straight on several issues. You’ve helped me out and I appreciate it. Take care.
This suggests otherwise:
As compared to what?
Slavery? Denying women the right to vote?
In what context?
Insofar a they are foolish, they do that all on their own.
Is that a realistic threat that merits concern?
Skepticism. Reason. Education. Science.
Insisting that you support your claims — and thus far you haven’t — isn’t being “ticked off.”
False Dichotomy, since there are secular people who disagree with abortion and religious people who support abortion rights.
It would be more accurate to say that your reasoning skills are poor. You’re unfamiliar with basic logical fallacies, you have no idea how to construct a logical argument, and you don’t even appear concerned with supporting your claims.
Are you OK with this state of affairs?
Hello again,
I wrote, “But to be clear, I’m not arguing that America is a Judeo-Christian country.”
Then you challenged me with my own words:
“The difference between a Judeo-Christian country and an atheist country is that a Judeo-Christian country recognizes the rights of atheists to live freely as atheists. If America were to sever itself from its past and discard its foundational Biblical principals…”
Notice my wording? I used the indefinite article: “‘A’ Judeo-Christian country”. The United States employs the definite article. My point is that if a country–any country– identifies itself with Judeo-Christian principals, it will, by definition, recognize the value of human life. But if a country–any country, with America being only an example–identifies itself with atheistic principals, I think the powers that be would find it very easy to arbitrarily regulate who lives and who dies. An example of this is in today’s news: Nancy Pelosi wants American tax payers to be in the business of preventing new Americans from being born…regardless of their religious convictions on the matter. If you can’t see anything wrong with this, then I don’t know what to tell you.
I mean, when Americans enslaved Africans, they betrayed their religious principals. And it was only when they reclaimed those principals that slavery was brought to an end. When we presume to be our own gods, it becomes all too easy to alienate rights that are supposed to be inalienable. Hitler was no Christian because he believed Darwin’s idea of survival of the fittest applied to humans. This idea motivated him to decree that Jews were sub-human. And once decreed, murdering 6,000,000 of them became a simple matter of logistics and mathematics. The immorality of his plan was a non-issue.
In the same way, people today decree that unborn babies are sub-human. And once decreed, millions upon millions of them can be obliterated without all that messy guilt or confusion to get in the way of a fine day. It is, after all, nothing more than a “procedure”, an inconsequential matter of choice.
See, now? Here is why I don’t think your questions are honest. I wrote, “I believe our future depends on our ability to remain faithful to our past.”
And this is your response?
“Slavery? Denying women the right to vote?”
To suggest that I’m for slavery and against women’s suffrage is all pretty fine and dandy and probably makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. But what it tells me is that you are not interested in understanding anything I have to say. Had you been actually reading my words with an open mind, you would have felt no need to make that comment. It’s just plain snarky. I would think that you, as a superior thinker, would be above that….as well as above calling me a bigot and other such insults. Is this how you deal with folks that you disagree with? Not classy, my friend. Not classy in the slightest.
Just so you know, slavery and the denial of a woman’s right to vote were the consequences of the times. Humans had to slowly evolve throughout history. America had slavery because it was born into a world where slavery was ubiquitous. Women couldn’t vote because that was the way of the world. Now why don’t you try hitting me with ideas that are a little bit less childish and a bit more well-reasoned? And I think coming down off that highhorse of yours would do you a world of good.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I appreciate you taking the time even though I don’t appreciate your insults.
Yes, but the use of an indefinite article does not eliminate the implication that you are talking about America. The implication is created by constantly complaining about how awful not being a Judeo-Christian country would be with how important it is for America to stay connected with its past.
Because there are so many strong examples of this in the past, right?
What are “atheistic principals”?
The Christians involved would disagree.
Actually, he relied more heavily on Christian traditions about how to treat the Jews.
I’m pretty sure I told you that abortion is off-topic here and would need to be discussed in the forum. You’re positively obsessed with the issue.
Yet those are indisputably part of our past, heritage, and traditions. So if you’re not in favor of remaining faithful to them, you need some means of distinguishing between those parts of our past that we need to remain faithful and those we need to abandon. You must be in favor of remaining faithful to some set of standards or ideals which are independent of our past rather than slavishly devoted to it.
In other words, my question was very honest because it puts into sharp relief the fact that your statement couldn’t really be true and isn’t a principle you yourself could consistently hold to. The question was honest because it cuts to the heart of your claim and reveals a central contradiction.
Had you been thinking about your words with an open mind, you’d have noticed the problem yourself and addressed it on your own rather than forcing others to point out such an obvious contradiction.
They were a consequence of religion as well.
Also, they are part of the past that you claimed we should remain faithful to, but of course you can’t really mean that, right?
It’s not an “insult” to point out the flaws, errors, and contradictions in a person’s position. It’s also not an “insult” or even “snark” to use a question that forces a person to think through the contradictions themselves and work out how to address them. Of course, for this to work it’s necessary for a person to be able to separate their own ego from their ideas so that they don’t get defensive every time problems are pointed out.
My point is that if a country–any country– identifies itself with Judeo-Christian principals, it will, by definition, recognize the value of human life. But if a country–any country, with America being only an example–identifies itself with atheistic principals, I think the powers that be would find it very easy to arbitrarily regulate who lives and who dies.
Why only Judeo-Christian principles? what makes those principles superior to Buddist Principles, Islamist principles etc…or are you biased towards the Judeo-Christian? further what prevents the judeo christian nation from find(ing) it very easy to arbitrarily regulate who lives and who dies. The church when it was at its zenith of power found it very easy to destroy or minimalise their detractors. How is that superior?
You have offered the old bromide “absolute power corrupts absolutely” as proof that “If there is no God, the ones who hold the power will invariably fill the vacancy.” Leaving aside that this saying isnt proof of anything.
Why wouldnt that bromide apply to anybody in power? why wouldnt it apply to a theist in power? a Christian? a Muslim? especially when there is ample historic proof that it does apply.
I see no evidence that Judeo-Christian principals, would, by definition, recognize the value of human life. As they certainly do not recognise the equality among humans, Gays are not equal, athiests are not equal, Muslims are not equal. None of these are equal until they repent and join the herd.
I really enjoyed the philosophical bantering between Austin and Ted. Will there be more? Is there more. I’ve never been to this forum before. It seems quite interesting
I think Obama’s recognition of unbelievers was a small step in the right direction.
I agree that it would have been a bigger step if he had specifically mentioned atheists. Sure, you could argue, as some have here, that they don’t want to be identified as “atheist” because that is a negative term (would they prefer “humanist”?)
But it is a fact that numerous religious groups get specific recognition on occasions such as this, and atheists are a major group that get systematically ignored.
I run a Christian website that specifically welcomes atheists, for this reason, that Christian exclusiveness is particularly obnoxious to atheists. Liberal Christians frequently acknowledge Jews, Muslims etc, but they almost never acknowledge that atheists have a valid contribution to make to forums on religious or other issues.
So, Austin, feel free to make a contribution to my website. Read my mission statement “welcome atheists?”, or anything else, and I’ll give prominent space for your comments.
I’m at http://www.wesleyschair.com.