»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
God-fearing....or not.
| The Alley |
|
God-fearing....or not. |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
NPR this morning spoke about Congress returning from the Thanksgiving break and the first order of business was a prayer to open the session. The first two words of the prayer were "Dear Lord....". Outside, workers were preparing the "holiday" tree. Does anyone else see anything strange about this scenario????? |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yep. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think there will always be a tension between the attempt to completely secularize government, and the persistent feeling that religious piety is good and necessary. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well, an atheist might argue that they shouldn't be praying. I don't mind, though. And it may be a quibbling point, but the difference is, that if the quote is accurate, when praying "Dear Lord," there is no attempt to qualify which Lord, whereas, the term "Christmas" does. And I have no idea why I'm entering a fray when I have no emotional attachment to the outcome. Just playing "devil's advocate"?  ? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Serenity,
But so do these: Tuesday (The day of Tue/Tiw) Wednesday (The day of Woden) Thursday (The day of Thor) Friday (The day of Frigg) Saturday (The day of Saturn) Easter (The Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring) January (The month of Janus) March (The Month of Mars) May (The Month of Maia) June (The Month of Juno) Some people think the word April is etymologically connected to Aphrodite, as well. If Christmas is to be disputed, why isn't Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, etc? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Maybe it's because Christianity is the dominant religion today? And paganism is shrugged off as quaint nods to mythology? I dunno. As I said above, I don't particularly care. But others might be riled if our congressmen began their prayers to "Dear Lord Jesus Christ". There's a difference and you know that, Essorant.  But then, maybe you are just playing devil's advocate too? I don't really mind, but it does remind me of a recent "true serenity story". (I pause to allow everybody time to groan.) We discovered, just recently, that our old um, Holiday decorations which were bought to fit the windows of our previous home didn't fit the slimmer windows on this house. So when my daughter put up the twinkly-lights and such, we went outside to examine her handiwork. The 'problem' became apparent when the word "JOY" which is dotted with happy little twinklers, was only partially visable. That's right. We stood on the sidewalk and watched the word, OY, blinking, totally unaware that there might be a problem. I just shrugged and said "leave it". My daughter took it down, because it might potentially cause offense. She's a thoughtful one, she is. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Serenity, I know a little about a few religions and have even studied mythology and the realm of the Druids but I;ve never come across one where the main character was referred to as The Lord, except Christianity. If you have, I'd be interested in knowing which one.... |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lord definition 8, applies, I think. And there ARE others, but either give me time, or do your own research. (I say that with love, Mike. You know that.) I'm being pointedly serene tonight. Even if I must be obtuse. And shrug...I like my daughter's attitude. Correction: I LOVE my daughter's attitude...she's just so, loving of all peoples. When I grow up, I wanna be just like her. *peace* and yes, JOY to you. And Merry Christmas too, since I know that's your preference!  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is "politically correct" to accept names after figures most people don't believe in (Woden, Thor, Frigg, etc,) but not after a figure most do believe in, that is, Jesus Christ? Political correctness may make much ado about Lord too. For example, it may take the masculine implied in the word as discriminating against the feminine gender. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, serene one, I read through that entire link and all of the definitions of lord but found no other religious reference to the word except "Christianity Jesus" and "terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God" so I repeat my question. Are there any other religions that address their top honcho as the Lord? |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
Do I have a problem with the praying in a gov. office or do I have a problem with what I see as the hypocrisy? meh...it's a losing battle. I must respect their's but they hold not a sliver of respect for what I believe or even my disbelief for that matter. We have baby showers and such at my Government office and they usually say a prayer. At one time there was a bible study group that took over what was supposed to be the lunch room, at lunch. So I have a problem with both I suppose but I am fairly certain I wouldn't have a problem with the praying at all if there were no hypocrisy involved... "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
These congressional members of non Judeo-Christian belief were all, most likely, present during that meeting: 1 Muslim 2 Buddhists 6 unaffiliated (inconclusive?) 16 Mormons 2 Unitarians, one of which--Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark, D-Calif.- the first openly "nontheistic" member of Congress. Chart provided here. quote: I feel religious piety is only good and necessary during the opening of a congressional meeting if all beliefs are given an equal platform of supplication or non-supplication due to non-belief. Otherwise, good and necessary become systematically hypocritical with the press of one religion upon all others. IMO, This belies the first order of government: “We the People.” and is principally unsound with the principles of a democracy. Even Michael’s title of this thread deserves a consideration of belief. Some fear a god of wrath and some believe in a god of love who has never exhibited any such notion as wrath, and I think he's covered that, acceptably. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hon, I'm not arguing with you because I can't--I am not arguing with you because I won't. I thought it was pretty clear that I do not give a ...drat? I have no personal preference of religion--I find them divisive--as evidenced by this thread. But okay. Sure. You win. (I don't have much emotional attachment to that either.) Ho?  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Exactly, Susan. It was the hypocracy I was pointing out. I have no problem with their praying at all but I do have a problem with a Christmas tree now being a holiday tree because a reference to Jesus would be harmful to the psyche of some of our illustrious citizens...and the courts back them up, along with banning christmas school plays and carols. So to have Congress praying to God mere feet from where workers are working on the "holiday" tree is a snapshot of hypocracy at work "fuming" |
||
Marge Tindal
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
Just popping in on an interesting subject~ Balladeer~ quote: Google Native Indian Lord - You will find many, many legends where the "Lords" are used~ Lord of the Cold Wind Lord of the Sky etc etc etc *Huglets*  ~*Marge*~ ~*The sound of a kiss is not as strong as that of a cannon, but it's echo endures much longer*~ |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*chuckling* *tag* |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Marge,for the info. And it may be a quibbling point, but the difference is, that if the quote is accurate, when praying "Dear Lord," there is no attempt to qualify which Lord, Now, if congress were praying to an Indian lord, it makes one wonder which one...the mind boggles with the examples I could come up with.  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well now--you have no idea if some of them are NOT, now do ya? *shrugging* Just because it boggles your mind, doesn't mean that others can't fill-in-the-blank, so to speak. and thanks Margie, |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What about someone whose religion doesn't believe in Christmas or this "holiday", and doesn't believe in celebrating it at all? Are there not people out there with such religions? How are you respecting their religion, when you put Christmas decorations on your house, and they may see them, and they may be offended. When you sing about Christmas and they may hear and they may be offended, when you post images or poems, etc, and they may see them and they may be offended. Just because you aren't offended doesn't mean they are not. If one should stop expressing and celebrating his religion or something connected somewhat with religion, in public, whether in a more common or more formal setting, just because it isn't what someone elses religion may be and he or she and his/her religion may feel offended by it, then NO ONE can express or celebrate ANYTHING because there is always a possiblility (and often the likelihood) that someone else's religion in the neighbourhood is not the same, doesn't agree, and that person may take offence. Expecting people not to express or celebrate religions in public or politics is not what I consider respecting religions, but unduly discriminating against them. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Quite a speech. But who are you talking to? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
To the readers of this thread. PS that should be "whom are you talking to?" |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ah...I was confused. You used the term "you", and since your post was directly after mine I thought perhaps you'd confused me with the Sheriff of the Lawn Ornament police. Thanks for clearning that up. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: That's a good point. According to the First Amendment: Separation of Church & State. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of." Or congress could pass a law that only Episcopalians can be president, for example. Or only Christians may express their religion in public, etc. Which if one looks at American history???? Hmmmm, there's no law there, but who creates the foundations of a government? The people do. And since the majority of a people rules, we have a predominantly Anglican history. Well of course that's gonna affect politics, as well as what hits close to home such as prayer in school & holiday celebrations. John F. Kennedy was our first and only Roman Catholic president. quote: Imagine what anyone who isn't Judeo-Christian must feel if Kennedy felt second-class. I think it's a form of "Payback" which probably isn't the best way to describe such discriminations, but peoples of other religions are exercising their rights and I feel they must rely on separation of church and state, not because they are intolerant of Christianity, but because much of Christianity is intolerant of them. Many people want to keep prayer in schools, as long as it's Christian prayer, not Muslim or Buddhist prayer, and the very thought of Wiccan or Pagan prayer sends people into riotous protests or hysteria. Equality is equality, and I don't feel it's anyone's God or Godlessness, or the complete neutrality of either, that's creating the inequality & disparities. I feel it's the power of human intolerance. |
||
|
Marge Tindal
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
I can only attest to what I personally do when speaking to others about prayers that I've offered up for them ... I tell them, "May The Lord-of-your-knowing, bless and keep you." SereneOne~ We do think much alike, yes ? For I know that you also share immense respect for the 'religion' or 'beliefs' of others~ I have never been bothered by another's public display of their beliefs, culture, and/or religion~ I truly can't imagine why it would bother anyone~ May The-Lord-Of-YOUR-Knowing bless and keep you this day~  *Huglets* ~*Marge*~ ~*The sound of a kiss is not as strong as that of a cannon, but it's echo endures much longer*~ |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I agree. Extremism is a problem. But I don't think having a respectful preference is. A minority has preference of one religious manner over another as well. If it were the majority it would be the similar "many" but saying Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan etc, instead of Christian or something else. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Marge "gets" it. And I'm not saying that just because she and I happen to agree on this--we have disagreed on many things before, but I think our friendship is a testament to understanding, respect, and tolerance. I'll have to recuse myself from the part of "devil's advocate" in this conversation now--any atheists who feel a need to voice an opinion must speak for themselves--but I suspect it's a weary argument by now. No one's preferences bother me--unless their preferences hurt others. And Essorant? hon? Every year I watch not just one, but most of "my" holy days turned into cartoons. And I don't really mind. I used to wear the pointy hat. Now? I wear a tiara... We will never see through the same pair of eyes. Well, it's possible, through modern medicine, but the brain interprets things differently--individually. I felt the need to qualify the statement, because...sigh, sometimes I feel like anything I type is going to be pounced upon for another argument. It gets frustrating. You do surprise me though, because you know through your studies how intermingled it all actually is... But I think that respect for differing beliefs is an ultimate sign of faith. Perhaps the "Lord" knows what "he/she" was doing when the "Lord" created me (and others) as I am? Perhaps the creator knows more about language than even you? Maybe that creator chooses to speak to me (and others) in languages and symbolism that I can understand? You can disagree with me--and any of the above--but to do so is to question the omnipotence and wisdom of the "God-of-your-understanding." If you believe there is a plan, you should trust that, then, and trust that it includes the provocative thoughts and statements of disbelief as well. Now. Happy Holy Days...or Hollydaze, or even the simple, all-inclusive "Season's Greetings." I just don't want to exclude anybody. Now if someone as simple as me feels that, then how much greater is that love from "The Lord"? (With, or without the capital "L.") Sheesh. With extra hugs for Marge.  Um, I won't be back to this thread either. I wanna listen to Christmas Carols. *smile* |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Ess~ True, preference should not be a factor to reinforce extremism and intolerance. As Karen stated: "unless their preferences hurt others." Usually, extremists feel the slightest nuances of an opposing idea will corrupt the minds and hearts of current like-believers, or the new prospective believers being raised into the fold of their beliefs. This supposedly justifies intolerance. Example: Just 5 years ago, Christians were gathering to burn Harry Potter books, recruiting all who were interested from the college I attended. I don't know why I was shocked. The new target is "The Golden Compass." I'm not shocked anymore, nor am I excusing any other violent or incorrigible acts from other slayers of humanity/humanities. I believe everyone in the sea of life can become overzealous about who the captain of their ship is, even if it's one's own person. Again, Karen's wisdom on faith gets my vote: One's faith should be all that's needed to get through the storms, though I do see too many people creating a human storm to oppress or annihilate other's beliefs. This isn't an act of God to me, it's a destructive act of human disregard, for the power of their god, the power of love, the power of tolerance, and the art of preserving life. everyone needs love, a blessing, some luck, some type of good cheer, some sort of inspiration, and something to smile about, through life, not just on some certain date, and if this were expressed more all through the year, perhaps a holiday wouldn't present an offense. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Sorry Karen, but I've got to call you on this one ... The current exchange between you and Mike are both coming from pretty much non-religious perspectives. It is a discussion about religions (as far as I can see) from the outside. As far as being divisive, this is the Alley, what's NOT divisive here, as topics of discussion? But, as always, I believe that we like each other a lot here, and even in the Alley I suspect there is an undercurrent of mutual respect and affection. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I just wanted to add that I feel that Karen and Mike are both right. The word "Lord" does not historically guarantee a reference to any particular deity. In the ancient Near East, it was a word that could be used to refer to any exalted personage, human or otherwise. However, in a culture as immersed in the Judeo-Christian ethos as our own, and considering the fact that the word "Lord" was transformed to be synonymous with "The One True God" by the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is usually a clear reference to the Christian God. And Karen, for the record, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Stephen |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
"I just wanted to add that I feel that Karen and Mike are both right." Why? I think that both of them were wrong. Sir Balladeer here was again as habitual as always to "ill" judge (has done to people--a list, group--democratic party, now expended to), this time, the Congress. He mainly wanted to say that If you said that you were a Christian, then behaved like one by staying away from earthly things. If Lord allows human to be weak and disillusioning, why can't you? If God has not take Christmas tree away then there must be some usages. Communist countries and Muslim countries are erecting Christmas trees and celebrate the commercial Christmas(could because what US congress was doing). I believe truth will get in through this to some sensitive hearts. And My dear lady SB, I will tell you why you were wrong later. [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-11-2007 12:48 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'I feel religious piety is only good and necessary during the opening of a congressional meeting if all beliefs are given an equal platform of supplication or non-supplication due to non-belief.' Right, but regina, as you point out later, regarding Kennedy, to do that would be to peg yourself as an outsider. And while it's easy to say "who cares what other poeple think," imagine the feeding frenzy at election time... "Candidate so-andso doesn't believe in God... do you really want to vote for him?" The point is, there shouldn't be a situation where an individual has to step out, or decline to pray, and identify themselves as an outsider. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Hey, hush. Good to see you again. quote: Well, first of all, please let me say: There are many God believing Presidents who sucked at running this country. So that doesn't really afford much merit for me. Outsiders and nobodies can be very right for the job, too. Human fortitude is underrated and overlooked all too often for religious stature or churchian affiliation. All I have to say for that is if religious affiliation is a hardcore component in a person's presidential/personal worth, then there's a lot of churches that may be guilty of lawlessness by association. and besides that: I could say I'm any faith, just for faith's sake, and your vote. quote: Very true, and I agree. But since that doesn't seem to be the case, my only resolution is for some type of equality. I know well what it feels like to be an outsider, even from my own family. I'd rather be the "black sheep" than the wolf in sheep's clothing. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So that doesn't really afford much merit for me. Outsiders and nobodies can be very right for the job, too. I'm with you, regina, but obviously Democrat and republican presidential hopefuls don't agree with you, hence the overt and covert pounding of Romney's mormonism.  One of my customers told me she could never vote for Romney because he is a Mormon and Mormons have to wear special underwear and any religion so fanatical as to make members wear special underwear is way too off-the-wall for her. (she should recover from the bugspray in a week or two) |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What I was trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with one religious mannerism (for example Christian instead of Buddhist) being used most instead of another in a public gathering. The English language is used more than other languages as well. How should that be taken as insult to the other languages? It shouldn't. If people take it as an insult, I think it is more like an insult to people that use the English language, for it wrongly blames them simply for using the English language instead of some other language. Likewise a business, etc, may use one manner of uniform for everyone. What insult is that to people that don't wear that uniform? None. If most people present use a Christian mannerism because they are familiar with it, understand it, and are more sentimentally attached to it, and therefore, the overall expression is more Christian than anything else, how and why should that be an insult to those of other religions? [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-11-2007 12:45 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I don't know that that is realistic. Nor do I think it is harmonious with the basic assumptions of our Government, where human rights themselves are said to be based upon, not Government, but a very Judeo-Christian understanding of God (ie, the Declaration of Independence, "endowed by their Creator"). Separation of Church and State to the degree some secularists desire, would require an entire overhaul of Government. I don't think its what the FFs intended at all. The last statement may be startling, but I don't really know that there is a solution. Religion and ideology always create a separation of sorts. Even syncretism ends up trivializing the unique claims of religious traditions where they differ and contradict, by trying to force them (or their adherents) into a generic we-are-the-world kind of religious mood whose highest virtue is "tolerance" ... unless of course you are tagged as intolerant. Then you're simply intolerable. Stephen |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
The founding fathers didn't intend for me to vote, or for a black man to live freely. I think it's important that what they wrote may be different than what they had in mind- that they knew times would change, and their worldview would not last forever. I mean, you might interpret "Creator" as the Christian god... to me, it's my parents. That, to me, is the beauty of what they did- they purposely left it open-ended for interpretation. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
There is nothing in the constitution about voting, or about the treatment of Blacks, per se. But there are principles to guide us. During the pre-Civil-rights era, treating black people as property was a violation of the constitution ... not another interpretation of it. Interpreting the "Establishment of Religion Clause" as a total divorce of religious ideas and government is not merely another interpretation, it is wrong. How can you possess universal rights given by your parents? If they die, do your rights die also? The bottom line is, any transcendent personal rights must come from a transcendent personal God, or the State IS god. And the kind of God which would ever care about personal justice, is a God of the Judeo-Christian kind. Sure some of the founding fathers were deistic, (subtracting attributes from an already-present theology) but they weren't agnostic, else the certainty of personal rights granted by a Creator would never have arisen. Amy, Is there any transcendent reason that you should have "rights" at all? Or is this all mumbo-jumbo for human determination? I'm glad to doubt that the worldview which plants justice higher than human government will not last forever. At least the founding fathers knew the danger of thinking that humanity is the sole arbiter of these rights. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yea? And where does your transcendent personal God come from, Stephen? Before you answer that, you might want to be very certain that my transcendent personal rights couldn't come from the same place. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
The thing is, rights are contingent, whereas God can never be so. Do you disagree? quote: Actually I'm sure they do come from the same place ... or more accurately, person. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You're the one who called them transcendent rights, Stephen. To my mind, transcendent rights are no more contingent than is a transcendent God. You shouldn't confuse the rights, which are not contingent on anything, with the recognition of those rights, which indeed may be contingent on many things. Just as one shouldn't confuse God with the recognition of God, which again can be contingent on many things? The whole point, of course, is that you don't need God in order to justify human rights. If you did, that need would either prove that such rights aren't necessarily inalienable OR it would prove that God exists. Neither proof, in my opinion, will ever be tenable. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm so glad I waited. Thank you Ron. My head hurts again. contingencies of 'The Lord'??? (Big L or little "l"--let me hit the dictaphone again?) it wouldn't have even passed me olde transcript skills. sighing Steve? Y'gotta let people have their own eyes. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
right---rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right Transcendent rights. They are not rights that are given or taken away by government(or other individual or group), but are rights that come from God. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5630 "To my mind, transcendent rights are no more contingent than is a transcendent God." The comment is right. Both of them are not contingent. "You shouldn't confuse the rights, which are not contingent on anything, with the recognition of those rights, which indeed may be contingent on many things." Right Abortion right Homo-right voter's right copy right All granted by human or organizations.---contingent Recognition of right. (except the rights form God) Only happens under the same law. Typical one "human right" one country does not follow another country's "human right" definition....contingent I did not read out that there was a confusion. "Just as one shouldn't confuse God with the recognition of God, which again can be contingent on many things?" God is one. gods are many. People in India can tell you the difference. "The whole point, of course, is that you don't need God in order to justify human rights." That depends on how you define your "human right". "If you did, that need would either prove that such rights aren't necessarily inalienable OR it would prove that God exists. Neither proof, in my opinion, will ever be tenable." ? [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-14-2007 05:17 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Ess~ I’ve insulted myself and others, in many different languages. My primary language is English. Logically, I’ve made more mistakes with its usages than any other language. I have warranted correction, even from you. So, insults and injury can manifest; Ingles a Ingles. And especially when someone shouts at you with this: “Learn English! Or get out (Insert offensive slang term)!” or “Rhyming poetry is inferior to Free Verse!” Which I don’t support either notion, but I don’t feel I can control how other people feel nor can I impose my ideals as being supreme above all others, without suffering the rule of “assumption” or being stunted in my growth as a person due to closed-minded ideals. I’ve never felt blamed for using English, but I have been frustrated for not being able to get my point across, which isn’t a crime, but it does compel me to find a better way to communicate. I do feel that it’s unrealistic for people to be hard-pressed for communication to be devoid of negativity and political incorrectness, because this will never be flawlessly achieved, and I don’t think anyone really wants expression to be that strong-boxed. quote: All I can say is that the history of Christian mannerism isn’t as pretty as any language spoken or any cloak worn, and the crimes against humanity range from persecution to barbaric torture, and massacre to cannibalism, as with many other beliefs or practices. Many people are sentimentally attached to the atrocities committed against nonconformists, and consider “the overall expression” of Christianity to be nothing but a continued negative effort to conform or convert all others. Again, I think it’s humanistic for people to fear and fear alike, or to remove themselves from the fire completely, just to find themselves in some other pot of backlash & persecution. In fact, if one is NOT being persecuted for their beliefs, then one might not be as “on fire” for a specific faith as he/she should be, according to some systems of religion. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Yep. Truly sad and perhaps one of the worst symptoms of intelligence impotence and infertility suffered by politicians. quote: Interesting! Doesn’t she know that some of us ELECT to wear special underwear? What it’s for or who it’s for isn’t any of her business, but maybe she secretly wishes that it was? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: I believe there are some serial killers who have set out to champion this notion. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Who qualify to be a president in not really based on his personal merit but his faith and circles. A president is not working alone. He has his cabinet and all his appointees, which are sometimes very important to the policy making. Saddam had his circle of dictatorship. Gore has his Globe warming care group Bush has his oil interests organizations. That is why I think the candidate faith and view of the society and humans are very important to take into consideration. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
About the rights To be a woman and man is granted with X or Y chromosome. But now, there is a bill waiting to be passed in California which makes gender a self-claimed character. So, the boy/girl in School, man/woman public bathroom signs will be redefined too. So if a man felt like a woman in certain day, he could go to woman's bathroom without any hesitation. And those kind of education will be in elementary curriculum if the bill get passed. And the voting date is 2008. Only the right Governor can veto this kind of Bill. "210.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070510_amended_sen_v97.html one can be kind and fair and self-righteous but if one let them override one's faith or principle, there will be disaster. My thought. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'The bottom line is, any transcendent personal rights must come from a transcendent personal God, or the State IS god. And the kind of God which would ever care about personal justice, is a God of the Judeo-Christian kind.' I guess it comes down to a matter of perspective. I see my rights as inherent (and NOT contingent on anything, as Ron pointed out). I see them as inherent with my humanity- along with my body parts, my ability to reason, etc. I don't think you need God to have rights, just as no government gives right to you... you are born with rights, and you have them until someone tries to take them away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free (can't remember where I heard that quote recently). I don't see how it has anything to do with god. But that's obviously part of your worldview, which is fine, so long as I'm allowed to have mine. You don't think any other gods/deities care about justice or rights? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: How could transcendent personal rights not be contingent upon a transcendent personality? By "transcendent rights", I meant transcendent and universal in relation to humanity, not self sustaining. This definition of transcendence doesn't rule out contingence, it just rules out contingence upon us. quote: I don't believe there is such a thing as personal rights not contingent upon anything. But I will concede that there may be a recognition of those rights without acknowledging the source. I think the framers of our Government felt strongly that to hold such rights autonomously without a recognition of God, would be to eventually undermine them ... that to recognize that they come from above, would see them better served and and protected. quote: It may be a quibble, but you do in fact need God to justify human rights. Are you also now confusing God with the recognition of God? And again, it goes without saying that the authors of the Declaration of Indepedence disagreed with your statement about God and the justification of rights. You call it antiquated perhaps, I say it was insightful and wise. quote: How would that prove that rights aren't necessarily inalienable? And the fact that people believe in a human dignity and ethos that is more than opinion (including corporate opinion), IS a proof of God. Not proof in the sense of incontrovertible or inarguable (again how many western philosophers argued for their own non-existence??), but proof in the sense of 'darn good evidence'. quote: Of course Dear Karen, I know. I'm really not into taking "an eye for an eye", though I've had to pluck mine out a time or two (paradoxically to gain vision). I guess I'm just reminding that signing the papers for such a surgery is sometimes needful. quote: So you get them as you pass the exit door from the womb? Why not hours, days, or weeks before? I'm not wanting to rehash the abortion debate. But I'm wondering if you were going to say 'because they aren't citizens'. Because if you think the kind of rights spoken of in our founding documents are not granted by government, it seems strange that you wouldn't be staunchly pro-life, seeing that legal protection of little ones is now dependent upon a birth certificate. quote: But the whole point of rights is that they are intractable. They do not cease to be when someone violates them. They are still rights. This is the meaning of "inalienable". Remember what Ron about the confusing of rights with the recognition of rights? quote: Well if you are willing to view personal rights as transcendent (not dependent upon age, race, opinion, etc ...) then you are at least leaning in a curious direction. I think it should at least make you wonder where such personal absolutes of justice and rightness come from, if not from the human mind. If you're born with rights, the mind never had a chance to conjure them up or author them like poetry or sentimental fiction. quote: Ideas of justice and rights were present in the pagan gods too, though it was less of a focus even than it was with Greek philosophy. Maybe the distinction can be put like this: Pagan deities sometimes cared about justice and rights like humans might do so. But the God of the Bible is said to be their very source and final judge. Among religious expressions, this personal transcendence is unique. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-15-2007 12:41 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: How can a transcendent personality not be contingent on a prior transcendent personality, Stephen? That is essentially the same question you just asked. And when you answer my question you'll find the answer to yours. quote: Ah, now that's a real pity, Stephen. Proof of God, after all, makes your faith redundant and meaningless. quote: Oh. Okay. You mean like when you look out the window and see all kinds of darn good evidence for a flat Earth? You have a very strange definition of "proof," Stephen. If you want to say that human rights implies the existence of God, we can call that potential evidence and explore where it takes us. If you say that human rights requires the existence of God, that is proof, not evidence, and there is little enough to discuss. You are arguing "If A, then B," and any acceptance of A necessitates an acceptance of B. My contention is that your argument is, at best, illogical and, at worst, incredibly dangerous. I would just as soon not give every non-Christian in the world a good reason to deny the existence of my human rights. My rights, your rights, and their rights, are not contingent on a common faith. That's part of what makes them rights and not privileges. quote: Antiquated? On the contrary, Stephen, I think human rights go back a little bit farther than 1776. I think they go back farther than Jesus, and back farther than Moses. Jefferson didn't invent human rights when he penned the Declaration of Independence, any more than the Greeks invented lightening or the Norse invented thunder. Attributing observable phenomenon to either God, Zeus, or Thor doesn't prove the existence of God, Zeus, or Thor. Personally, I believe human rights is an obvious and very necessary corollary to God's gift of free will; you can't have one without the other. Belief, however, doesn't make it so . . . and much more importantly, being wrong doesn't negate the very real existence of either lightening or human rights. A Christian need only open their eyes each day to see God. He's there in the beauty, in the love, in every small miracle surrounding the greater miracle of Life. Everything that exists, everything good or bad, everything tangible or ephemeral, exists to support and confirm the Christian's faith. Nothing, however, exists to obviate the need for that faith, Stephen. We can attribute those streaks of jagged light in the sky to a powerful god or to the inevitable consequence of a Big Bang, and we'll probably never really know, in this life, which supposition is right or, indeed, if both are right or both horribly wrong. And that's okay, I think, because when we walk out into the storm carrying a big metal pole it isn't going to matter much. The existence of lightning is its own argument. I believe the existence of human rights, whether they stem from God or an exploding singularity, is equally obvious. Every choice we make is an invocation of those rights, just as too many of our choices are infringements of those rights. It's only in recent history that humanity has come to recognize human rights, and sadly, we have yet to find widespread respect for them. We have harnessed the lightening in the night sky without ever once conclusively proving its source. But that was just a baby-step. The journey continues, and I think everyone -- Christian or not -- still has a whole lot of ground to cover together. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
"How can a transcendent personality not be contingent on a prior transcendent personality" It seems a dead cycle but "contingent on" is on on variables not the nonchargeable. The 'prior' will definitely come to an unchangeable end, where one does not use "contingent" but "dependent". ---------------- Stephen: And the fact that people believe in a human dignity and ethos that is more than opinion (including corporate opinion), IS a proof of God. Ron: Ah, now that's a real pity, Stephen. Proof of God, after all, makes your faith redundant and meaningless. ---------------- Dear Ron, I guess that Stephen meant that Human Dignity and ethos were given by God. Because nothing can change them, even when one was a slave under his owner or people under their king. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
And dear Ron, I agree with you on most of what you said. But about human right.contingent on a common faith. is there a common faith? Supposing that I were form Jungle and my god tells me to eat you while your God tells you that murder is a crime. I don't want to give you proof that transcendent right is contingent on recognition of the right. Because there is matter of true God or false god and that is why we are all not converted to eat other alive and they are converted to stop eating humans. Truth prevails. If human right is contingent on anything then that means no right at all. contingent on a common faith. [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-16-2007 01:53 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: A transcendent personality such as God's is transcendent also of time, making a "prior" personality superfluous. I think you're making a categorical mistake in equating my question with yours. I asked how transcendent personal rights (which apply to finite personal beings) could not be dependent upon a transcendent personality. If they are dependent upon themselves as mere concepts, it underscores the question of how they could be personal. (a kind of neo-platonism) If they are dependent upon mortals, it underscores the question of how they could be transcendent. Your rhetorical question of how God's transcendent personality could not be contigent upon a prior personality, obfuscates the whole crux of my question ... namely to ask how finite individuals beings can be thought to have transcendent rights (as most everyone really does). So if you can answer how you can so easily swap a transcendent God with finite man, and call it essentially the same question, then you too will have the answer. quote: Not at all Ron ... unless you're willing to believe in a fideism so extreme that it makes the Bible itself look like a Geometry textbook. Remember that the apostle Paul spoke of "evidence" as well as of faith. quote: You're the one implying the insight of the writers of the Declaration of Independence was on the same level of merely glancing out of a window, not me. As to your hermetically sealed definitions ... even the best "proofs" may be thought as evidence. And the best evidence may be rejected simply because of will. That doesn't change much about the evidence. quote: Many particulars were said to require the centrality of Sun in our planetary system ... That didn't end discussion at all but opened up many more avenues of knowledge. The fatalism and closed discussion you mention is a possibility, but not a necessity, of coming to a conclusion. quote: Again, you're plainly confusing rights with the recognition of rights (what you charged me with earlier). I never said that rights were contingent upon a common faith. I said they were contingent upon God. Of course, like the framers of the U.S. government, I believe that a recognition of this truth is more conducive to preserving the recognition and protection of those rights. quote: lol. Now you're getting it. Of course they do. They go all the way back to the beginning of creation iteslf, and to eternity, to the God who gives them. (and psssttt ... we were discussing the articulation of those rights in the expressions of US government, not because I think the founding Fathers invented human rights, but because it had very closely to do with the subject of this thread) quote: Funny, that sounds a whole lot like my argument. A very necessary corollary? ... Sounds almost like some kind of proof. Where is your faith? quote: You've quite misunderstood me, if you think that I believe that belief makes it so. That correct belief is better is a part of my argument, but human rights are contigent upon God, not human belief. quote: You think Faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive? You speak one moment of certainty, and the next of a leap which makes Kirkegaard look like he had 20/20. Don't get me wrong, Ron, I'm not denying mystery, or even the suspense of faith. But I don't think the Bible, human experience, or reality supports such an extreme fideism as you seem to espouse. I find compelling models of thought in Augustine and Pascal, who both said something amounting to "Believe that you may understand" ... an antidote to the extremes of total fideism on one side, and empiricism / rationalism on the other. Faith corresponds to reality. On the other hand reality does not force faith ... all the while reproving unbelief.quote: No argument here. I'm only suggesting the difference between faith in God and its alternative might be like the difference between holding a lightening rod, and installing a grounding rod. quote: And contrary to the paintbrush I've tried to dislodge from your hand, I agree with this completely. And as intense as our discussions get, Ron, I always enjoy the exchange, with goodwill, Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-15-2007 11:45 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Quick clarification; Jefferson wasn't concerned with attributing rights to the 'creator' because that's where he considered the origin -- but because he wanted to place them in a domain where no man, woman, or government could touch them. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: That's like saying Syria doesn't get oil from the ground because it is the source, but in order to obtain oil. Both reasons apply and contain each other. Unless the Creator is the source, how could they be "out of reach"? Otherwise for Jefferson, you would have sleight of hand. I just don't buy it. Jefferson was at one time a closer-to-orthodox Christan, and at other times a deist. Either way, his belief in God as the giver of rights was insightful and seems to have been genuine. Stephen |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
" You mean like when you look out the window and see all kinds of darn good evidence for a flat Earth? You have a very strange definition of "proof," Stephen." I shall continue along your intention. Don't laugh at "flat earth" period. Absolute curved lines does not exist in math and physics. If you tell me in your art you draw curved lines, I will say that tracking your motion in nano-second will show straight lines. Human observes and frequently adjust to the real truth of the object. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
"If you want to say that human rights implies the existence of God, we can call that potential evidence and explore where it takes us. If you say that human rights requires the existence of God, that is proof, not evidence, and there is little enough to discuss." 1. not all human self-claimed rights belongs to true human rights. 2. Human right is part of human dignity. 3. Human dignity is based on the freedom of human. 4. Human Being's Freedom is granted by God. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Everyone has a different perspective of words. Here’s my offering and I’d appreciate anyone’s corrections or input. quote: I read: ‘The Course of human events.”—capitalized “Course,” translates to ‘When in Life”, to me. “One people dissolve a political connection.” “assuming among the powers of the earth” – having grounds for political independence. “the separate and equal station”—entitled them by “the L of N and N’s G” “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation,”—justification to split from the British Crown. and the cause list is loooong. Preamble: quote: I think there is some confusion as to how the Church took the word “Creator.” Because of the word is in the same sentence with “unalienable Rights.” quote:wiki contradictory terms??? quote:wiki Stephen?? Anybody?? Is this true?? I think the word “Creator,” is an intended break/contrast from an all-encompassing God, and most certainly a clear acknowledgment of inalienable rights to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness, without having to acknowledge any select power source, or having to bow down to any notion of origin. The whole idea of having to “Name” or “Label” a source of inalienable rights, seems illogical to me because it tends to Alienate each and every person from the other, but whether that matters or not may be off the mark. quote:The People. which again, this is a clear contrast to the “Divine Right of Kings.” Is it the will of God to alienate or to make people feel inalienably dependent upon a God power in the human pursuit of independence? I dunno. Lots of angles here and I’m sure I’m missing something. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: To which old Tom would just say -- none of your business Stephen. What is, however, our business -- is what he (or Thomas Paine) wrote as the Declaration of Independence. Regina points out; quote: Which goes to the very heart of the Declaration -- it was a document written for one purpose only -- and it was written to the specific audience of white Anglo men in England who were protestants. The original draft of the Declaration did not even use the word "creator", but instead said: quote: http://www.constitution.org/tj/ddi_01+.jpg In fact -- from Jefferson's writings we get the picture more clearly -- the use of God is a marketing tool, because he knows his audience -- quote: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm In bulk Jefferson refers to Natural Law and says quote: Certainly not a tip of the hat to Yahweh? quote: As to the former -- no, it's not like that at all -- because we can obtain oil from the ground -- a more similar comparison would be the ownership of the oil and the ground -- titles and deeds being made of men -- I'm sure the dinosaurs -- if able -- would like to lay a claim as well. Regarding the latter -- unless you have a considerably long ladder -- how do you purport to reach God? You're not building a ziggerat? But, I think you may be needlessly perplexed by my statement -- quote: I didn't say that Jefferson didn't believe the origin to be the Creator -- but that his motives were not to attribute them as such -- but to keep our hands off them. Difference no? It's that whole separation of Church and State thing that Jefferson was so adamant about. http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_state.htm |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
LB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom "In Section 1, Jefferson argues that the concept of compulsory religion is wrong for the following reasons: * The imposition of anything on a human mind, which God made to be free, is hypocritical and wrong. * "Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free", God never coerced anyone to follow him, and the imposition of a religion by government officials is impious. * The coercion of a person to make contributions -- especially monetary -- to a religion he doesn't support is tyrannical and creates favoritism among ministers. * Government involvement in matters tends to end in the restraint of religion. * Civil rights do not depend on religious beliefs, and what a person thinks is no business of the government's." Jefferson was a learned man. 1. He believed in God. 2. he had the knowledge the history of the development of christianity as a human religion. 3. he knew Church of England. 4. He clearly knew that church was a human organization and there were, have been, are and will be many un-Godly things. 5. That is why he emphasis that faith is between himself and God. His statement no doubt was on the base of his understanding of how God has treated man. Because he would not betray himself. esp on the issue of Rights. my thought. ps why I was thinking that all founding father were Englishmen? [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-16-2007 11:33 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Reb, It's good to see you lively again. quote: Would he now? But if so, I can sure imagine him saying the same to you when you speak so confidently of what his motives really were. And of course, you will doubtless remind me that his writings speak of the desire to protect human rights. But his writings also speak of the Divine as the source of those rights. So his motive, most likely, was a mixture of piety and concern for human rights. To conclude that Tom had both religious and humanitarian motives, is most consistent with the complexity of human nature. quote: Understand that I recognize that Jefferson was no Christian in the traditional sense, though what theology he retained was doubtless Judeo-Christian in origin. I also understand that an appeal to a mostly Protestant populace was a factor in his choice of words in the Declaration. That doesn't mean that his own religious convictions were not expressed therein. With Deism, you get the organizational side of God, if not the interventional. And since Jefferson saw "The Creator" as the source of order and design, he saw human rights in this light. The thing is, as a Deist, he would never have dreamed that rights were arbitrary constructs of the human mind alone. Consider the how the tone of Jefferson's quotes below chime with the "Intelligent Design" movement of today ... "I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma that without revelation there would not be sufficient proof of the being of God - On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses it is impossible, I say for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause, and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator while permitted to exist in their forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view; comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets, and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and were there no restoring power, all of existence might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the hypothesis of a million at least to a unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a Creator, rather than that of a self-existent universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis...." (TJ, Letter to John Adams) quote: Yes, but in the Deist framework, natural law comes from the Creator, and nowhere else. The Machinist (in Jefferson's mind) may be distant, but his engineering decisions aren't diminished in the least. As a sidenote, it is also interesting that "rights" cannot be interpreted as natural law, since it is not an inviolable law that men recognize or acknowledge rights. It seems to be a statement of moral law, emphasizing "ought", but not a natural law merely describing what "is". quote: Surely, within context of his Deism, he meant that nothing is unchangeable in the natural realm. He was still sure that nature received her commands from the outside, as it were. So while I think you've got a point there Reb, I'm still convinced there's more to it. Maybe we're agreeing more than we disagree, with difference in emphasis? I've debated many times, when I've had the creeping realization come that my rival and I actually agree about most things except about which things are most important. I get that feeling now. later, Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Regina: quote: While it may be true that the title "Creator" gives one the feeling of a distancing of the Judeo-Christian God, it is still derived from the unique idea of special creation. You mentioned not having to bow to a "notion of origin", and yet the title "Creator" is reference to just that very thing. quote: I would respond by saying that people are already alienated by their sinful natures. Alienation is not only a pathology surrounding religious exclusivism, but human nature in general. (a confirmation of the doctrine of original sin, I might add). To me, it is not illogical to think that since we have personal ethical "rights", the Creator who gives such rights need be personal too. Impersonal cosmos cares nothing for justice or rights. And if personal, the Creator may have his own "name" as it were. I certainly don't need people to name me, as I already have one. My point is, if God is personal, and there is some objectivity about his identification, he may care whether or not we know his name. Names are so very special. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I stumbled on this wonderful discussion today and I'm sad that we've seemed to run it to exhaustion. I like the golden rule, myself. If I want my own civil rights, it only makes sense that I extend them to others. If I want to extend the notion of civil liberties and human rights beyond that framework and anchor it in authority, then I'm free to try to make my case, as several of you have tried to do. I enjoy the elegance of the minimalist approach, though. If you don't have yours, what right do I have to insist on my own? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Bob K If you don't have yours, what right do I have to insist on my own? Why do you say this? If one gives up one's right, will you give up yours as well? Tom |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, "That's like saying Syria doesn't get oil from the ground because it is the source, but in order to obtain oil. Both reasons apply and contain each other. Unless the Creator is the source, how could they be "out of reach"?" I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, Stephanos. The last sentence, however, might be addressable. James I of England wrote a book called the Divine Right of Kings in the early 17th century. He was a devout man, no question, and probably honestly so; but his thesis was that all rights and privileges flowed down to the people from the King, and that except as expressly granted to them by the King, they had no rights at all. James had a very difficult relationship with his parliament, as you might suspect. And his son, Charles I, was downright paranoid on the subject. He tried to rule solely on the basis of royal power and Divine Right. This was a lesson the English never forgot. Charles I lost his head, the whole Roundhead-Cavalier revolution exploded across not only England but Ireland as well, and Cromwell assumed power as the Lord Protector. As a whole, the English were unhappy with religion messing up their attempts to govern. The whole notion of Rights of Man and their relationship with religion was very touchy. The people who made the most trouble and created the biggest problems were, you guessed it, the Puritans, who were considered a bit on the fringe. The Colonies had this whole mess dumped in their laps. The way they decided to handle it was to be as hands off as possible, and to make sure that nobody got a lock on the influence of religion on government. Today it feels safer, possibly, to insist on the role of God, and the notion that all rights must come from God. I think we have forgotten what an explosive mix the two can be, especially when there is an attempt to assert the rightness of any single religious position. The history of Europe is dotted with the ruins of christian sects that lost out in power struggles with each other. Jews have quarreled with joy and ferocity for even longer. The disagreements among Muslims must surely match those of the other two peoples of the book. It seems understandable, given the history of the enlightenment and Jefferson's fondness and immersion in the anti-clerical culture of France for much of this time, that his sympathies would run heavily in that direction. As twenty or twenty-five years later the sympathies of at least some of the Revolutionary French would look to America for their inspiration. And of course, it is easy for us to look at figures of this magnitude and see only the creatures of our own imaginations. You or I will do that without knowing and only hope the other will be gentle in offering the other viewpoint in an attempt to reach some approximation of reality. My best, Stephanos; BobK |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear TomMark, Who else can offer a correction so gently? You are right, and I got carried away by my own rhetoric. Yet perhaps there is something left there anyway. If I am unwilling to stand up for the rights of others, should I expect them to support mine? If somebody is unjustly jailed or tortured and I say nothing, what am I? I don't like the answers that I come up with, starting with prudent, and tracking through reasonable before heading westward toward cowardly and beyond. Perhaps I'm in the wrong ballpark here? I really don't know. Thanks, though. BobK. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Bob k If I am unwilling to stand up for the rights of others, should I expect them to support mine? No. But your rights is your rights regardless of other people's attitude. If you gave up your right, you should not expect other to give up theirs. They may take the chance to own you as a slave. If somebody is unjustly jailed or tortured and I say nothing, what am I? Then do you know what price you are going to pay? It is not about other's right. It is about your own value. Because only you have high personal value, you are willing to fight for others as be jailed or be kicked out of someplace or be killed. Do you have the right to treat yourself like this? Or do you have the right to fight for others? if you think that your right has to be supported by others? and if the jailed one does not want his right, then do you still want to fight for him? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: In context, I was responding to Local Reb, who implied (in so many words) that Jefferson based rights on God only in order to make sure that they couldn't be tampered with. My argument was to show that Jefferson's understanding of human rights flowed from his religious views ... rather than his religious views being merely a vehicle for his practical politics. Doubtless he was sure that his spiritual convictions could be (and should be) translated into ideology and action; But considering the body of his writing as a whole, the latter was always a result of the former, not vice versa. quote: Well there is no validity to the idea that God mediates rights soley through the King. Else, when the King unjustly denies rights or justice, there is no recourse. No man can claim to be the mediator of human rights. We can cooperate with or violate the rightness of such, but we are not the arbitrator ... hence Jefferson's description of 'inalienable'. Trying to set up an infallible in human role in determining rights is misguided and quite contrary to Jefferson's expression of divinely determined human rights. quote: But Jefferson never spoke of official authority as a "right". Ruling is a privilege based upon one's gifts, performance, and virtue (and service). What was proposed (or imposed) by Charles, deviates significantly from Jefferson's idea of rights being determined by God. quote: The whole notion of the rights of Man is very touchy ... period. History has demonstrated this. quote: Its still quite debatable whether their focus of concern had to do with religion influencing government ... or government imposing upon religion. I believe the focus was more upon the latter. And there is a difference. The contemporary mania to banish religious expression from the public (to the desire even to remove the word 'God' from our coinage) is quite foreign to the original framers of our Government I think ... especially if Jefferson's language can be a kind of guide or sampling proof. quote: I think it felt safer to Jefferson even then. It seems like (at least to me) that he felt that rights do not exist apart from the reality of God ... and that people are more likely to acknowledge them with this awareness and recognition that matter + space + time can never render anything like real human rights. Not meaning to be contrary here, but I think that the framers of our Government recognized at least as much danger in total religious infidelity, as in religious oppression. In more modern times, official atheistic expressions of Government have realized this danger as well. quote: I've always felt that the most valuable of things pose the greatest risks. Given the stakes, I suppose the tumult is unavoidable ... especially if wrongly wielded religion is no better (perhaps even worse since it is no mere denial, but a positive travesty) than irreligion. quote: Here I agree with you ... and welcome that kind of check. I think it is important in this kind of approximation to use examples of his own texts (even those in dialectical tension) to understand what he was trying to say. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I agree completely, Stephen. quote: Stephen, I've seen little evidence of a mania to banish religious expression from the public. Nor does your example qualify as one. On the contrary, if you want to print your own money and put the name of your god on it, no one is going to say you can't. That's within your public rights. It is only when you want to put the name of your god on government money that you run afoul of the very creed you espouse. Why? Because that is clearly government imposing upon religion. In privileging one religion over all others, no religion is safe. If you went to the bank tomorrow and were given dollar bills that had "In Allah We Trust" printed across their face, I suspect you would go ballistic. And rightly so, I think. Trouble is, Stephen, you don't have the right to go ballistic. You gave up that right when you accepted that any religion deserved to be endorsed by government action. Today it's your religion being endorsed. If you really believe it will always be your religion, I fear you're ignoring the lessons of history. Religion freedom cannot simply be a euphemism for Christian Freedom. Because that's not really freedom at all. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: But despite what you say, "In God We Trust" is a somewhat specified religious article ... like "endowed by their Creator". The problem with your statements about divorcing this kind of religious specification from Government is that our very conception of human rights is built upon such a specified religious idea ... ie a personal transcendent God. If you're going to try and take it out of Government, are you going to remove all of it? If you're trying to say that our Government is wholly humanistic with no religious foundations, then I think you are simply rewriting history. And no, I'm not opting for a return to a Jewish Theocracy. But still the bottom line is that our nation's conception of rights is based upon a very specific religious tenet, even if the body of truth from which that tenet comes is dumbed down or partially rejected to avoid a lame attempt at Theonomy. I don't claim to have a solution for the perennial tensions between pluralism and religious truth. But I do know that attempts to divorce specified religious ideas from Government (completely) is like trying to get the white out of rice. And I do know that the intentions of the framers of U.S. Gov. were not so devoid of specific religious assertions as some claim them to be. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Stephen, I'd like to think our government is wholly multiracial, but that doesn't mean I want to rewrite history to hide America's obviously Caucasian foundations. I don't care what color of skin our founding fathers had, nor what religious beliefs they harbored, because the principles and laws they gave us were designed to protect everyone. Not just the white, straight, European Christians who started the ball rolling. So, to more directly answer your question, yes, I would absolutely like to remove all expressions of religious views from our government. Just as I'd like to remove all expressions of racism and every other form of discrimination. That isn't rewriting history, it's recognizing that we must protect our selves today just as we protected our selves then -- by striving to protect everyone. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: Actually in reality, there is no clear difference between "influencing government" and government imposing". Government are made of human beings and we have different religions (god or un-god). When there is a decision to make, we all go asking about our own god. Whose god is more powerful to get to the final...then that god will have the imposing power. quote: You are right, dear Ron. Only Christian's expression get banished. Many others are blooming in public, such as Feng Shui. quote: Very interesting point. Stephen must have given up his religion many times by using foreign money or following the laws of the foreign Government under other gods and un-gods. If you gave money religious power each one holds US cent would believe God. But it is not the case. Then what is the usage of the "In God We trust" on the coin? It is Christian's "pleasure". I guess. quote: You are right again, naturally, Dear Ron. Supposing the new Cabinet 15 members, 3 are Christians , 3 are Muslims, 3 Jews ,3 Buddhas, 3 atheists. Just like Untied Nation. What is the work of United Nation? quote: Do you mean that you want the "non-religious" religion to take over "religious" religion? When you draw on white paper, you see pictures. But white is a color too. It is not the color of human soul though. My thought |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: So you're equating Jefferson's statement of Divinely determined human rights with racism? I've seen you make a stretch before, Ron. But I must say you've quite outdone yourself here. quote: The only difficulty with your willy nilly equation of racism and their convictions about human rights, is that they have emphatically stated that such rights can only be based upon God. Social contract alone, or Government determination undermines any thought of people having inalienable rights. If men determine them, then men can take them away. Without divine determination, the assertion of human rights becomes vapid and illusory. quote: You're only making a strawman here, if you have to constantly mention things like racism and discrimination alongside divinely ordained human rights. Answer this ... why should it be incumbent to recognize the rights of other races and peoples if said "rights" are Government determined, or are only the outcome of a tally, or opinion poll? I can only respond to your desire for total secularization Ron, by saying I'm glad that you weren't a part of the formation of our nascent Government, and that even now you can't remove the religious nature of our national understanding of human rights. And I'm quite sure that no one can, without ultimately undermining them. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And where in the Constitution did you find that, Stephen? Our Law, I believe, makes no such claim. Even in the non-binding rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence there's ambiguity whether Jefferson was referencing God or a god. And while you may not like it much, Stephen, this whole thread is about discrimination. When your government exalts one religion over all others it is no different than exalting one color over others. The others are discriminated against. quote: I agree completely, Stephen. I think I've said the same thing many times. quote: Sorry, Stephen, but the one doesn't necessarily have to follow the other. Human rights is much like solar luminance; the noun necessarily flows from the qualifier. The sun is bright simply because it IS the sun. If it wasn't bright, it would no longer be the sun. Similarly, every human has rights simply because they ARE human. Life imbues them with those rights. Not men, not government, and not a dozen different gods. If you want to argue that Life flows only from God, that's fine with me. That's a different argument, a religious argument not a legal one, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of agreement from many quarters. My rights, however, do not and will not depend on someone's religious interpretations of the day. 'Cause those, I fear, too often change with the wind. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
And quote: Dear Ron, I promise you that I'll pay your trip to post this statement in any Muslim countries and Communist countries. Will you go? I believe they have similar constitutions. Yes? why? No? why? (it does save my money) Religion and politics are not fantasies, they caused war and many peace time death. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: But what you call "rhetoric", was the seedbed from which the whole idea of "human rights above Government" comes. Considering the whole context of the Constitution, present day secularist rhetoric cannot be superimposed upon it, just because the word "God" is absent from the constitution. Secondly, how would you sustain the argument that Jefferson's reference was all that ambiguous? What is a "god" in Jeffersonian thought, as opposed to "God"? quote: As of late, it has been about the discussion of whether human rights are real without God. In a pluralistic society, the tension between recognizing God and not "offending" is always going to exist. But the question of how to approach such problems is quite different than the question of whether there are specific religious ideas bound up in our idea of human rights ... or whether it is wise to deny or try and remove them. quote: You conflate humanity with human rights. You are presuming that rights are instrinsic to humanity ... but is that true if humanity is a product of chance? If rights were inherent in humanity, then the word "rights" (and the explanation) would be superfluous. In denying that real rights come from God, you are only placing humanity above God. God has made the sun go dark before, probably to show us that its brightness is not its own. quote: Only there is no foundation for a legal recognition of rights without God, other than social contract alone, which you've already admitted cannot sustain the idea of rights. quote: So Ron, what DO your rights ultimately depend upon? Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And that, Stephen, is the $64,000 question. Indeed, it's the only question that matters. My rights depend only on my willingness to claim them. I can choose to surrender them, but so long as I draw breath, no one can take them from me. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Self recognition is still a form of recognition. Weren't you the one who drew the distinction between rights and recognition of them? Who or what (apart from yourself) gives you rights to begin with? Surely you think you had some rights 'ere you could insist upon them? If I didn't know you better, I'd think you were attributing your rights to men again ... even if that man happens to be yourself. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It's only about self-recognition to the extent that you specifically asked about my rights. Ask me about your rights and my answer will perhaps center on Stephen-recognition. Stephen, who or what gives you hunger? Thirst? A desire to breath or procreate? Who or what makes you human instead of canine? Who gives you all the qualities of humanness that define you? You insist on considering human rights apart from humanity. It would seem self evident to me that you can't have human rights for a cockroach? Yet if you clearly can't have human rights without a human, you also can't have a human without having human rights. They are inseparable because each comprises the other. You have the rights of a human, Stephen, because you are human. If you were a cockroach, you'd have the rights of a cockroach. It's really as simple as that. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: Dear Ron, tell me how, by evolution, a monkey in the zoo developed the self-recognition of human right. quote: The sun is bright because it is burning and if it is not burning, we still call this celestial body sun. So many unseen or un-sensed yet by human eyes or telescopes are rising in the morning and setting in the evening. They will all have their names, bright or not. Not all suns are bright(blackhole is one of the stage of the sun) and moon is bright by reflect light but we call it moon but sun. quote: since when? quote: what is life? quote: why? why do you agree that you shall be imposed by this thought? quote: you are absolutely right. We shall find the truth. and I have changed my mind. You shall go nowhere because we still need PIPtalk the wonderful site. All I want to say that you can talk whatever you want is because you are standing on a freeland. institutions does not talk. It has to be sounded out and interpreted properly by person. many countries do have freedom of speech in their constitution. But when you really do it, you may have caused social unstable. (or many) So where is the freeland come from? it is there because it is there ? "why do you twist my passion into a string to fit in your thread?" TM |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: this, under many conditions one has to do Cost/benefit analysis. But it is very painful to give up any right under any condition. quote: Do human beings have same right or different right? if you think that right has to be based on recognition? quote: God quote: Human right....I think that it is what we can do for surviving.They are build-in characters. To the extreme like killing for self-defence. Humanity ...what we can do to not hurting others. It is the conscience. also build-in. like no killing for self-defense. quote: People do recognize human right in Dog or children to their stuff animal. quote: I agree. Human right are build-in. quote: I don't see it in reality. How many have dead for fighting for right? (where does humanity play/) quote: absolutely agree. But do we have right to be ungrateful? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
"why do you twist my passion into a string to fit in your thread?" TM |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Ron, it seems to me you've evaded the question. I asked what your rights (not recognition or cooperation with) ultimately depend upon. It might be easier to ask what does an infants rights depend upon, since there is no cognition of any such thing. Can you answer that question without admixing recognition with rights per se? quote: Not at all Ron. Humanity is a given. I merely insist that unless there is someone transcendently above humanity, then there can be no such thing as real "rights". Rights viewed as a mere human characteristic (like the color of one's eyes) begs the question, since it is humanity that has such an awful time with its own "rights". Anything morally obligatory but practically unbinding (justice, equity, rights) cannot be placed in the same category as naked physical fact, as you have done. If part of humanity acts as if there is no rights (either their own, or of others') then by your observation, rights cannot be universal. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I don't know that the question can be given an absolute answer. Short of that, I'd imagine that rights depend first on consciousness. Rights depend upon communication between people, simply to understand there is more than a single conscious experience in existence. And rights depend on an attempt to elaborate the existence of one consciousness with another. I don't know that this elaboration has to be assertion, as the French existentialists would seem to want it. Nor do I know that despair is essential to the process. I think simply that play is enough on the most basic of levels; play and the elaboration of play would be enough to bring about the notion of rights and rules. Presupposing consciousness and communication of course. The discussion seems to be veering wildly away from a discussion of politics and human rights into a discussion of theology. I enjoy theology, I really do; but I don't understand why we must have a discussion of theology before we can talk about politics and human rights. I also enjoy conversations about science. I would feel the same way if somebody insisted on talking about science instead of politics and human rights. Science certainly has as much to contribute to the discussion as religion, you know. We could talk about evolutionary biology. How human power structures have analogues in monkey behaviors that affect mating. How civil liberties may be pro or anti evolutionary trends, depending on how one looks at the passing of of specific gene sets. To some of you the suggestion may sound pretty stupid. To me it's at least as interesting and profitable as the discussion we've been having. In fact, it sounds like pretty much the same discussion from a different direction. Instead of somebody (perhaps Ron?) having to admit you can't talk about human rights without first acknowledging that all rights come from God, somebody'd have to admit (perhaps Stephanos?) that evolution was the more rational factor to consider. It's unfair to ask and unlikely to expect such things from either one of them; and either request seems to me to be an unreasonable precondition for a conversation that compassionate people can reasonably expect themselves to have with other compassionate people in this specific unlikely era. Let us be unreasonable together. We need not stop being thorny, that's half our charm. Perhaps rather more than half of mine. Ron doesn't offer the science argument, of course; I do. Ron's argument is political and libertarian, if I understand it correctly. The underpinnings around assertion of self, though, give away the existential roots of the argument. I think Ayn Rand would disagree with me, and I'm mean spirited enough to enjoy that. She would call them Aristotelian, and she has. No matter. We still need to have our discussion. Perhaps we can continue being stuck where we are. Perhaps, a victory, we can find some new place to get stuck. That's what a democracy is about, isn't it. We keep at it with faith in the process and in ourselves to come out at least as decently as we went in. Maybe better. I look forward to more God, more Libertarian politics, more humanistic claptrap and whatever spice anyone else can throw on the fire. Next time, somebody else please bring the fire-starter and the barbeque. It may be starting to feel too calm around here again. My best, BobK. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: We have to learn or find out where the human right come from? and what it is, right? So where human come from? From God? then what are those rights? From evolution? then what are those rights and how it is evolved out? those questions are scientific and logic and theological as well. Just tell me something. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
BobK: quote: Bob, no one said we had to talk about one thing before we talked of another. A thread allows many concurrent lines. We have already talked about politics, human rights, discrimination, and God. And given the title and subject of the thread I think all are apropos. I have merely been having a debate with Ron about the veracity of the idea of "human transcendent inalienable rights" without God, which I think is mired in subjectivism. But that doesn't mean you or anyone else can't take the discussion wherever you wish. quote: Firstly, Evolution (were I to believe in its scientific veracity) would not do away with the necessity of God. But if you are taking it to mean the theory at odds with the doctrine of Special Creation, it would certainly not be more "rational" regarding the subject of human rights. "Survival of the fittest" in principle, is not the most compatible with the concept of inalienable rights. Stephen |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Stephen: Well, the real-life irony here is that those who are most likely to posit a strong connection between theology and individual human rights are the very people most likely oppose human rights legislation. Stephen, ordinarily I might come down on your side on issues like this one. In the work I'm doing, the legislators who quote Scripture at me are an almost guaranteed "no-vote" on my issue. Regardless of the facts, regardless of the need, regardless of the cost-benefit. Absolutely no chance of a "yes" vote as if the prohibition against my proposal was etched by the finger of God Himself on the stone tablet as an 11th Commandment. My observations ... people know how to opine a strong connection between theology and individual human rights, but they haven't really given much thought to what that means. In practice, its more about being in the same club with people saying the same things than it is about understanding how to apply such strongly professed truths to the benefit of those most vulnerable to human rights abuses. Until I see more application and less abstraction, I don't see how debates like these do anyone much good. Perhaps the a critical missed step is teaching those who espouse such views how to apply them. Then I might be more inclined to listen. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim, Willing to listen? You already know what I'm saying is true. I agree with you about the disconnect between theology and BE-ology, and it is worthy of lamentation. Stephen |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Jim, Whatever you are doing now, I know that you are fighting for the unprivileged and it is human right issue and it should be based on love. If whoever against you, is reading Bible to you to prove that you are wrong, Then to him I shall say that I would love to listen to a dog ruffing out the Scripture than a human preaches without a heart because dog would not turn around to judge me. And God is all about love. keep fighting!!!!! TM |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, "Firstly, Evolution (were I to believe in its scientific veracity) would not do away with the necessity of God. But if you are taking it to mean the theory at odds with the doctrine of Special Creation, it would certainly not be more "rational" regarding the subject of human rights. "Survival of the fittest" in principle, is not the most compatible with the concept of inalienable rights." Evolution is, as a scientific theory, open to experiment and test. You are free to set up any experimental test you wish, debate the validity of the methodology with critics until you come with a mutually acceptable set of replicable procedures and run your experiment. Analyze your data, write up your conclusions and submit them to a peer reviewed journal. If you want your conclusions widely accepted, you'll want that to be a widely respected peer reviewed journal. You need not bother "to believe" in its scientific veracity until it reaches that point, though you may certainly chose to do so. I may be off-base here in my understanding of what the requirements are for a scientific test of a hypothesis should involve. For example, the data should be reproducible and should pass certain statistical tests of reliability, and reproductions of the original experiment should confirm the original findings, But generally, the word "belief" need not come into the picture. The data works or it doesn't. Changes need to be made in the hypothesis or they don't. Talk about belief is from another context. To talk about the "necessity" of God is a large problem in language. Loads of people get along fine without using the concept at all. If you believe in God, then it is possible that you can believe that you are not necessary to God. (I know that God loves man from the Christian point of view; is man necessary to God in some way? I think reasonable people might differ here.) God may be necessary to specific individuals. You may believe that God is necessary to creation. There are other useful and competing theories. My personal preferences run toward the theological, but people often tell me I am foolish. I believe that being foolish and right are not incompatible. When you talk about "special creation," I don't know what you mean. It sounds like the distinction that Einstein drew between "relativity" and "special Relativity," but I haven't brushed up on that in thirty years. Is "special creation" something that has to do with space/time? Does Space/time deform in "special creation" to create the illusion of gravity? I am also not sure what you mean when you say," [I]t [evolution, I think] would certainly not be more "rational" regarding the subject of human rights. " By this I suspect you mean either "social darwinism," which is social policy and hardly science or the "science" of eugenics. I am told that Hitler was an admirer of the early American "science" of eugenics, which (and I hope I'm remembering some other country and some other world than this one) led to sterilizations of mental patients and the retarded in this country. I have NOT taken the time to reconfirm this at this writing, and do not want to mislead by suggesting that I have. In fact, I hope I'm wrong. However, this is somebody's fantasy based on Darwin's work, and not the work of Darwin. I don't hold Jesus responsible for the Inquisition, either. I don't know how one would measure equality in absurdities so large, but both theses stretch a great deal. Near as I can tell, evolution is still out on ruthlessness, and that cooperation may be a much more favorable trait for survival. That is why it's important to preserve a reasonably diverse gene pool, and why when Stephanos uses the phrase "survival of the fittest," he shows how important such dialogues as this can be. My contention is that it is precisely those who fail to understand the need for compassion; and that we are all in the business of life together, that are the ones that are playing with matches while topping off the tank. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
BobK: quote: Evolution (if this means that Darwin's mechanism of random mutation/ natural selection is responsible for the origins of biological forms we see) cannot be tested. As far as I understand, there is no reproducible way to determine if a light-sensitive spot could ever evolve into an eye. It is a theory about origins which involves inference, and a whole lot more 'gap' than many are scientifically comfortable with. Determining that bacteria mutate into drug-resistant strains, or that the size of finch beaks vary with enviormental changes, or that moth wings may change colors, does not provide hard evidence for evolution (as the theory of origins). It is however evidence for biological change among species, once you've been given the forms. In that sense, it's not a question of whether one believes in Evolution, but what is the defintion of Evolution and what powers may be (scientifically) attributed to it. quote: Does this mean that since people think that God is unnecessary, that this will prove to be the case? In a world where God rains on the just and unjust alike (in other words, where his provision does not simply cease to exist, when people think he has), it is precarious to use "getting along okay" as a criteria for determining whether God is necessary. There is a lot of talk about "The Problem of Evil", but one can see that the good things of life also hold perils of their own, in what assumptions we may make concerning them. quote: Man is not strictly necessary to God. But neither does love does always come of sheer necessity. If love may be called a necessity, it is a chosen kind. It is only in that sense can we be "necessary" to God. quote: I might meet a man who tells me that a watchmaker is not required for a watch, that it just "happened" gradualistically and without a guiding mind, and consider him more foolish than you. quote: Well, "Special Creation" is usually a term referring to what Young-Earth-Creationists believe, who take a hyper-literal account of Genesis. My use of the term is different, probably along the lines that Roman Catholic tradition has defined it; having to do with God's creation of humanity as "in his own image". Previous I contrasted this with the belief that human life arose out of random processes. quote: I am referring to Evolution as believed in an atheistic paradigm. It would not be rational to think that irrational matter and irrational processes could give rise to something that had real "rights". quote: Oh, I agree that Darwinism need not be taken as scientific atheism, though he himself hinted at this interpretation, and Huxley and others that followed him expounded it further. Richard Dawkins is probably the most popular of contemporary successors of this interpretation. quote: From an evolutionary paradigm, the persistent existence of ruthlessness and virtue would show that the survival value is inconclusive ... confirming again my statement that "rights" in an atheistic paradigm are subjective, not absolute, not above Government or humanity in any way, in a word, not necessary. enjoying the dialogue, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Okay, this is good I think. Let's see; I'm going to paste in a section of our dialogue from just above here and see if we have an area where we have some agreement, and we can agree on where we have either disagreement or we're missing each other, Okay? "Evolution is," I said, " as a scientific theory, open to experiment and test. You are free to set up any experimental test you wish, debate the validity of the methodology with critics until you come with a mutually acceptable set of replicable procedures and run your experiment. Analyze your data, write up your conclusions and submit them to a peer reviewed journal." And you replied, "Evolution (if this means that Darwin's mechanism of random mutation/ natural selection is responsible for the origins of biological forms we see) cannot be tested. As far as I understand, there is no reproducible way to determine if a light-sensitive spot could ever evolve into an eye. It is a theory about origins which involves inference, and a whole lot more 'gap' than many are scientifically comfortable with. Determining that bacteria mutate into drug-resistant strains, or that the size of finch beaks vary with environmental changes, or that moth wings may change colors, does not provide hard evidence for evolution (as the theory of origins). It is however evidence for biological change among species, once you've been given the forms. In that sense, it's not a question of whether one believes in Evolution, but what is the definition of Evolution and what powers may be (scientifically) attributed to it." Here is the area from the above that I suspect we may agree about: "Determining that bacteria mutate into drug-resistant strains, or that the size of finch beaks vary with environmental changes, or that moth wings may change colors, does not provide hard evidence for evolution (as the theory of origins). It is however evidence for biological change among species, once you've been given the forms." Now, I am not certain that these things provide hard evidence of a theory of origins, although there is I believe hard evidence that these things have happened. It appears we both have agreement on that last point. There may, I believe, and I am reasonably certain you do not, be a beginning to life without a Beginner in the same way that our universe can be of finite size without saying that there needs to be something outside its edges. The math of that one escapes me, but from my reading, I hear that this improbability is true. Until I get better information, I have to go with that. Evolution (if this means that Darwin's mechanism of random mutation/ natural selection is responsible for the origins of biological forms we see) cannot be tested. As far as I understand, there is no reproducible way to determine if a light-sensitive spot could ever evolve into an eye. It is a theory about origins which involves inference, and a whole lot more 'gap' than many are scientifically comfortable with. Determining that bacteria mutate into drug-resistant strains, or that the size of finch beaks vary with environmental changes, or that moth wings may change colors, does not provide hard evidence for evolution (as the theory of origins). It is however evidence for biological change among species, once you've been given the forms. In that sense, it's not a question of whether one believes in Evolution, but what is the definition of Evolution and what powers may be (scientifically) attributed to it. quote: To talk about the "necessity" of God is a large problem in language. Loads of people get along fine without using the concept at all. "Does this mean that since people think that God is unnecessary, that this will prove to be the case?" No, I confess this is not the case. But the reason this is not the case is because the answer to the original question is "no" as well. There is no way to distinguish between the two conditions. But I was not talking about whether God was real. And that was the question you were addressing, I believe. I wish my problem were with that question; I could simply say, "I don't know and see no way of finding out," and be done with it. What I said was that to talk about the "necessity" of God is a large problem with language. "Necessity" is a way of stacking the deck, you see. For whom is this a "necessity?" For many people of belief, yes; and urgently so. People of belief would insist for everybody. I say that you may be taking too much upon yourself, if you insist what others must find of necessity. I am filled with terrible contradiction. I find it hard to live with myself about this sometimes, for I would certainly say to you with utter sincerity that human rights are a necessity, and I have a responsibility to insist on those for everybody. And yet here I am firmly saying I will not accept you insisting on your God for me: That I accept this benevolent necessity. What am I to make of myself here, Stephanos? Perhaps there are different kinds of necessity on different levels of abstraction. This might get me off the hook with myself, but I simply don't know right now. Your insistence on the "Necessity" of God, simply the putting of that into language, you see, gives me fits. You see my problem here? And I am a guy who mostly does believe. What about people who see no necessity and feel none? You are simply wasting oxygen. These people don't care. Or they get upset at you for other reasons. You are fooling around with personal boundaries here, by telling people what they should and shouldn't think, you know. "I am referring to Evolution as believed in an atheistic paradigm. It would not be rational to think that irrational matter and irrational processes could give rise to something that had real "rights"." This still makes absolutely no sense to me. The French Existentialists, Bertrand Russell, many of the Union of Concerned Scientists are atheists and solid and convinced believers in human rights. These folks certainly believe that human rights are rational. Far as I can tell, most if not all of them would sign on to being Evolutionists. Your notion of what's rational and theirs may be very different. Good people come in all flavors. "From an evolutionary paradigm, the persistent existence of ruthlessness and virtue would show that the survival value is inconclusive ... confirming again my statement that "rights" in an atheistic paradigm are subjective, not absolute, not above Government or humanity in any way, in a word, not necessary." I think you're conflating The Theory of Evolution here, which, as I understand it, is a theory that has been tested and forged for over a hundred and fifty years and been modified as needed to fit the data that confirms or disconfirms pieces of it, and Evolutionary Biology, which is a reasonably recent grafting onto the scientific tree. Whether evolution can be adapted to use in this particular fashion is not at all clear, though people are making very free with that particular theory right now. I certainly made use of it earlier in my speculations about the survival value of kindness. I'm not sure that I mentioned human rights, but you're certainly well within the ballpark to assume I might have. Organizational theory talks about two different managerial styles, theory x and theory y. One is authoritarian, top down, and leader driven. The other is democratic, bottom up, and group oriented. Each has its own advantages and liabilities. The two styles run through the species pretty widely. Democrats and Republicans. Saints and Psychopaths. Mommy and Daddy. The overlap is somewhat stretched because each one has something of the other. I think that what's being spoken about here is something like these two trends in humanity. People need both and in balance. I don't think you need to swear allegiance to science or to the forces of God's right to get your very own copy of The Junior Woodchuck's Manual, from Donald Duck Comics; the book Huey, Dewey and Louie always consulted when they ran into Rain Forest Ghosts in Zanzibar or Duck Eating Ants in the Andes. You take your heart and your brain and your friends and whatever other pieces of help you need, scientific method or bible or Tao te Ching and you do what you can. There are atheists who believe in rights, I've named some of them above, and if you look around cautiously enough, there may even be one or two others someplace worth getting to know. All logic to the contrary. I too enjoy the dialogue. Bob I |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Poor God . . . Somehow I think He’ll let me in if I share with Him a pack of cigarettes. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
BobK: quote: Okay, so we agree that natural selection works to the degree that it affects some amount of change within a species. But that is not the main premise of Darwinistic Evolution, which is the theory of Common Descent. Your second point has to do with abiogenesis which has nothing to do with natural selection, since there has to be replicating life already in place. Abiogenesis is not a part of Evolutionary Theory, strictly speaking, though it is taken for granted by many who believe it. Very interesting stuff to talk about, and to question. But perhaps the main point I would like to bring out, is that there is much about contemporary Evolutionary belief (a mixture of a belief in Darwinism, methodological naturalism, and dialectical materialism) which is religious-like in nature. To illustrate this, I'll provide a couple of quotes, one by Michael Ruse (an agnostic who is a proponent of Darwinian Evolution), and the other by evolutionary geneticist Walter Fitch. "One should be sensitive to what I think history shows, namely, that evolution just as much as religion--or at least, leave "just as much," let me leave that phrase--evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts but to recognize them and to see where we can go, as we move on from there." (Michael Ruse, from the AAAS 1993 Boston meeting) and ... "By a metaphysical construct I mean any unproved or unprovable assumption that we all make and tend to take for granted. One example is the doctrine of uniformitarianism that asserts that the laws of nature ...have always been true in the past and will always be true in the future. It is the belief in that doctrine that permits scientists to demand repeatability in experiments. I like the word doctrine in this case because it makes clear that matters of faith are not restricted to creationists and that in the intellectual struggle for citizen enlightenment we need to be very clear just where the fundamental differences between science and theology lie. It is not, as many scientists would like to believe, in the absence of metaphysical underpinnings in science" (Fitch, from "The Challenges to Darwinism Since the Last Centennial and the Impact of Molecular Studies" Evolution 36 (1982)) At least such pre-commitments are being acknowledged, more than they have been in the past. quote: You are right in saying that your insistence upon "rights" is the same kind of insistence as that of God. For when you ask how "telling others how to think" may be justified, my answer is similar to what yours would be for insisting on the recognition of rights. I'm not so sure that your idea about 'different levels of necessity' can change that. But I'm open to hearing more on your idea if you're willing to explain it. I would like to ask you, since you say you "mostly believe", whether it would offend you if the nature of God, were somewhat like the nature of "rights" or morality, in that human acknowledgment is obligatory, or that he is indispensable to human nature? For the Christian belief is that we are not independent beings, but dependent ones. The fact that much current support and help goes unrecognized, and doesn't instantly dry up with our piety, shouldn't be used to deny that. The reason I ask that, is because I think our main problem has always been the desire for autonomy; so the suggestion of dependence rubs us the wrong way. And even though you might imagine that I'm chiding you, I have the same problem ... if not conceptually, practically. For even after one accepts God intellectually as necessary, or even becomes a 'Christian' by personal commitment, there is still the struggle of obedience and trust. quote: I never said that atheists couldn't believe that being moral is rational, or even that they couldn't be moral. But that doesn't mean that their philosophy is able to sustain that idea. Absolute morality of any kind is extraneous to dialectical materialism and must be held in spite of it. The existentialist philosophers saw this too. Since you mentioned the French Existentialists, you may recall that "overstepping rationality in order to find meaning" was one of their main themes. Why? Because in a godless universe, rational thinking cannot arrive at the necessity of moral behavior. They probably inherited this realization from the first Existential writer, Fyodor Dostoevsky, who wrote "If there is no God, all things are permissible". And though they didn't accept God and Christ as the solution (as Dostoevsky definitely did), they accepted the basic dilemma. But tensions existed within their existentialism. And though Sarte once wrote that "Atheism is a cruel and long range affair: I think I've carried it through, I see clearly, I've lost my illusions", he later said during an interview, "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God". Albert Camus also greatly criticized Sartre for his activism, for its philanthropic leaning was somewhat inconsistent with the things he typically wrote. Also, Bertrand Russell's later years were plagued with a profound skepticism (hint ... everything was in doubt, even his very own being and significance). In contrast to his atheism he also once wrote the following: "The root of the matter is a very simple and old-fashioned thing, a thing so simple that I am almost ashamed to mention it, for fear of the derisive smile with which wise cynics will greet my words. The thing I mean—please forgive me for mentioning it—is love, Christian love, or compassion. If you feel this, you have a motive for existence, a guide in action, a reason for courage, an imperative necessity for intellectual honesty" (from 'The Impact of Science on Society') As far as being "good" is concerned, I honestly think that there is no one wholly good except God. But what goodness there may be is due to the fact that we were created in his image, and so the desire for "good" is often there despite wrong beliefs. That is not to say that belief is unimportant, or that it doesn't affect one's morality. quote: I was using the term "Evolution" in the most widely held fashion, the contemporary equation of it with the theory of Common Descent, or Common Ancestry. If you make a distinction between this and Evolution, I am fine with that, and would like to do the same. Though the most popular proponents today (not just lay people) use it in the much more ambitious sense ... the so-called scientific explanation of all of life. quote: Get help from where you may indeed. And inconsistency between someone's philosophy and their beliefs or actions, is certainly no reason for disdain. You bring up many good points and questions, Peace, Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (02-06-2008 12:19 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
