|
 |
September 09, 2003 THE MEDIA VS. THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT....Gregg Easterbrook complained yesterday about the media's treatment of Alabama's Christians:
Needless to say, this is a transparently disingenuous criticism and the media-savvy Easterbrook knows it. The media covered the Ten Commandments story because there was a lot of action, a lot of fast changing news, and lots of photo opportunites. Tax policy, on the other hand, is boring, and there's nothing more guaranteed to kill media coverage then being boring. Still, let's take Easterbrook at his word and see how Alabama's conservative Christians are doing. Here's the box score:
The Christian Coalition and other Christian right groups in Alabama fought Governor Riley's crusade to help the poor from the first day. So tell me again, which one of these two stories makes Christianity look bad and which one shows it at its luminous best? I'm having a hard time deciding. Posted by Kevin Drum at September 9, 2003 11:03 PM | TrackBackComments
Well, on the tax issue, Mammon won. That should give you a clue. Oh, the National Christian Coalition was on Riley's side, btw. Posted by: Linkmeister at September 9, 2003 11:25 PM | PERMALINKOf course, the issue is that Christianity is being made to look bad. The fact that it may, in fact, be bad is just too crazy to contemplate. Posted by: craigie at September 9, 2003 11:44 PM | PERMALINKPardon me, did I say Christianity? I meant, all religion everywhere, at any time. There, does everyone feel better? Posted by: craigie at September 9, 2003 11:45 PM | PERMALINKcraigie, The fact that your argument has nothing whatsoever to commend it may, in fact, not be crazy at all. Kevin, et al, "Christianity" is rather too broad a brush. "Alabama's Christians" are as split on these kinds of issues as "Alabama's citizens"; in that case, sure, there are a lot of fundamentalists and evangelicals, but to simply identify those people on one side--only one side--of the issue as "the Christians" is disingenuous, and I'm sure that you know better. Christians in Alabama, in the US and around the world are as diverse in political leaning as any other demographic group you could throw a dart at. Selecting the high-profile behavior of quite a small number of idiots and assigning it to the however-many-thousands of Christians there are in Alabama looks, I've gotta say, a bit bigoted. Let's just say that it's not your writing at it's luminous best. Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at September 9, 2003 11:55 PM | PERMALINK"All in all, it will be a sad day for us when what most of the human race means by 'religion' disappears. The fine flower of unholiness grows most luxuriantly in the proximity of the holy. Nowhere do we tempt with such spectacular success as on the very steps of the altar." -- C.S. Lewis' Screwtape the Demon (and Lewis is frequently described as a "conservative" Christian, by people who haven't bothered to read him.) That being said, note that the polls in Alabama showed that the economic stratum most in favor of raising taxes on the rich, by a substantial margin, was... the rich! A few days ago, a poll showed Alabama's upper class opposing Riley's amendment by only 14 points, while the state's poor and middle class opposed it by 30 points. (Even the state's blacks were evenly split.) This just proves again that (A) Alabama's politics are seriously deranged by the South's warped history; and (B) the politics of America as a whole are seriously deranged by the fact that we don't have a runoff electoral system that would allow centrists to have a fair chance of election -- so that, when a "conservative Republican" does something UNconservative, liberals still don't trust him to have honest motives. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 9, 2003 11:59 PM | PERMALINKTo be fair, those Christians who took up Riley's cause did so in a way to make one feel much better about the religion as it's practiced in the here and now. And there was a media-savvy hook: Riley, the conservative Christian Republican, voting to raise taxes to care for the least of us; because that's what Scripture says we ought to do. Some newspapers and magazines got ink out of it; more might have helped, to say nothing of television pixels. I mean, when you get snarling spew like this out of the opposition: "No one’s life is a complete waste. Some of us serve as bad examples. And Governor Riley is going to serve as a bad example. Years from now, little baby Republican governors will be told scary stories late at night, around the campfire, about the sad fate of governors like Riley who steal a billion dollars from their people," and "This is a shot across the bow for next year’s decision-making. Every Republican governor who thinks of raising taxes next year will walk past Traitor’s Gate and see Bob Riley’s head on a pike. The voters of Alabama have saved taxpayers from California to Maine billions of dollars," how can you say that it's boring? (Grover Norquist, natch.) Surely some gripping story can be told about the life or death fight that Alabama's public schools pretty much lost? (Ah, well. They were already fiftieth in per capita spending on students. Hard to get much lower in any easily digested fashion, is it?) The voters in the end rejected what they thought was merely a tax hike, to raise money that wasn't earmarked for nondiscretionary spending purposes from now until the end of time; instead, they opted to slice illusory "waste" from a state budget already scraping bone. This should be familiar to Californians, eh? --God help us if we can't figure out how to make an interesting story out of tax policy. Grover Norquist will be laughing all the way to his goddamn bathtub. Posted by: --kip at September 10, 2003 12:02 AM | PERMALINKkip, you got a link for that Norquist quote? I'd love to see that SOB survive without government services like the DMV (which licenses either him or his driver) and the DOT (which surfaces the roads he or his driver use), or the cops and firemen (which protect him and his property when needed) among other essential things government provides. Had Dante met Norquist... Posted by: Linkmeister at September 10, 2003 12:11 AM | PERMALINKThe second Norquist quote is from tonight's NY Times article. (It should be pointed out that dear old Grover is a self-declared Ayn Randian -- that is, a perfectly open psychopath. According to an article on the Democratic party's campaign site, he and Ralph Reed used to drive around Washington DC during their college days jeering at the national monuments and singing old Anarchist songs.) Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 10, 2003 12:27 AM | PERMALINKHaving said that, though, I repeat: the distribution of the vote among different income levels in Alabama shows how freakish tonight's election really was. In any more normal (i.e., less Deep Southern) state -- and with the measure being backed by someone other than a conservative Republican, which left a lot of Democrats with the suspicion that Something Was Up -- it would have done much better. In a normal state where the upper class turned it down by only about 18 points, it would probably have won. (As "Slate" pointed out recently, Norquist isn't an evil genius -- just an evil crackpot, who keeps zigzagging wildly between predicting absolute victory for the Right and absolute victory for the Left within the space of a few years.) Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 10, 2003 12:33 AM | PERMALINKChristopher Luebcke: craigie, The fact that your argument has nothing whatsoever to commend it may, in fact, not be crazy at all. It sounded pretty commendable to me. Easterbrook has long been a tedious and dishonest cheerleader for Christianity. Check out his columns on Beliefnet.com. He seems to be an adherent of some non-denominational, touchy-feely Christianity Lite himself, but never misses an opportunity to diss the media for what he alleges to be its unfair coverage of the Christian Right. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 12:36 AM | PERMALINKThanks for the links, kip. I need to vent further than Kevin's comment box will charitably allow. Posted by: Linkmeister at September 10, 2003 12:56 AM | PERMALINKThere actually is an amazing and hopeful Christian story going on in Alabama: "An Argument for Tax Reform Based on Judeo-Christian Ethics”
says the state’s tax laws are unjust because they place an undue burden
on the poor, while benefiting middle- and upper-income taxpayers.
Easterbrook is a funny guy. He's a leftist on economics; he covered
Mondale's campaign and Union politics favorably (if anything, too
favorably) in the 80s. But he's not very interested in political
economy anymore. To his credit, Easterbrook can write more intelligently and interestingly about science than any other general-publication journalist. His book on ecology and environmental problems, A Moment On The Earth, is simply the best on the subject. I read it as an undergrad and it was by far the best assigned book I ever read. Recently, he's been sounding more and more like Hitchens-a contrarian
leftist increasingly indistinguishable from a hard-right Neo-con.
Easterbrook is not a good writer on science, at least environmental science. Environmental Defense Fund has a debunking of Moment on Earth on its website, and it makes him sound like a complete idiot. The Info-Pollution website has a link to the debunking here I believe he's also written some defense of creationism in the form of intelligent design recently. Again if you want debunking, see talkorigins.org or talkdesign.org. Posted by: crow at September 10, 2003 03:45 AM | PERMALINK"Recently, he's been sounding more and more like Hitchens-a contrarian leftist increasingly indistinguishable from a hard-right Neo-con." Pretty much dead on. Describes TNR in general, actually. Posted by: Henry Shieh at September 10, 2003 04:25 AM | PERMALINKOf course, both Kevin and Easterbrook miss another distinction: Judge Moore is doing exactly what got him elected, whereas Riley is expressly breaking promises he made to get elected and turning his back on virtually his entire record in public life. I saw one TV report the other night that worked this angle while trying to give Riley a sympathetic hearing. Easterbrook's right, though, that the media just isn't equipped to comprehend or sympathize with scripturally-based moral arguments, and hasn't been for some time. Posted by: Crank at September 10, 2003 04:38 AM | PERMALINKWait until Easterbrook migrates his bizarre fixation on the byline on Hillary Clinton's books from his TMQ columns to his TNR blog... Posted by: Jaquandor at September 10, 2003 05:01 AM | PERMALINK"Easterbrook's right, though, that the media just isn't equipped to comprehend or sympathize with scripturally-based moral arguments, and hasn't been for some time." If by "scripturally-based moral arguments" you mean mindless approval of Moses' denunciations of shellfish-eaters or women wearing red dresses -- or of St. Paul's statements that it's immoral to rebel againt an unjust government or against slavery -- yes, they're not, and thank God. As for Moore, he is indeed doing what he was elected to do -- and what he was explicitly elected to do is restrict religious freedom. A lot of people don't understand just how extreme this character is: he repeats constantly that "Christianity predates and overrides the Bill of Rights", and his Rock backs this up by explicitly declaring all 10 of the Commandments (including the four that forbid any non-Judeo-Christian religion) to be "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" referred to in the Declaration of Independence. Lest we forget, Alabama has for some reason always been even fonder of the idea of Christian theocracy than the rest of the Deep South. I still remember reading an account a few years ago of a Jewish family that moved into a small town there, after which their daughter was forced to take part in explicitly Christian (and unconstitutional) school prayers. When they complained to the local school superintendent about this, he drawled, "Well, you know, if y'all would just convert, we wouldn't be having this trouble, now would we?" After that they went to the ACLU, and won. It's wise to remember, Crank, that the South from the very start has been anti-democracy -- it's had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it every step of the way by the slightly more powerful North. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 10, 2003 05:02 AM | PERMALINKFirst NASCAR, now this. Anyone out there want to tell me what it is about Southern "culture" that the rest of us are supposed to look up to? Posted by: JKC at September 10, 2003 05:16 AM | PERMALINKThank you for the info, Crow. I was skeptical about Easterbrook's downplaying of global warming, but I didn't know there were other errors (or intentionally misleading passages?) as well. If he's a so-called scientific-creationalist, then that explains his defense of the Alabama capers. I never bothered to read his book on religion (I'm an Agnostic). As for TNR, I will still read it for John Judis, who seems to get better as his magazine gets ever-worse. Now I am sadder but wiser ); Posted by: Jeanne at September 10, 2003 05:20 AM | PERMALINKMoomaw! Moomaw! Also, a bit iffy - Easterbrook's explanation of how his love of "cheerbabes" and gawking at "cheesecake" jives with his love for Jesus and his teachings. His TMQ column can be very funny and insightful, I just have to ignore parts of it sometimes. (And sometimes entire columns, like his terrible "God and Sports" column a few months ago. Most important day in human history, my ass.) Posted by: bardp at September 10, 2003 05:27 AM | PERMALINKLinkmeister: "Had Dante met Norquist..." Didn't Riley run against the incumbent Democratic Governor on the issue of taxes? Didn't the Democrat say they would have to raise taxes, and didn't Riley disagree and beat him over the head with the issue? Is Riley a worse Christian for having lied to get elected (Every politician in Alabama knows they need to raise taxes) OR a worse Christian because he helped lay the groundwork for the defeat on this tax increase? Alabama's budget crisis should be national news because its so acute. They desperately need money, their constitution doesn't allow them to run a deficit (theoretically), AND all tax increases need to be OKed by referendum. The same Christian coallition that defeated this tax increase voted down a lottery for educational money as well. Posted by: MDtoMN at September 10, 2003 05:36 AM | PERMALINKAnd in the most recent TMQ column, in talking about how Rush Limbaugh is now on ESPN and how Dennis Miller was on MNF, he said that "their respective politics roughly cancel each other out, leaving a net of Pat Summerall." On what planet are Dennis Miller and Rush Limbaugh on opposite sides of the politcal spectrum anymore? I guess that's the "even the liberal" TNR for you. Posted by: Q at September 10, 2003 05:59 AM | PERMALINKI first encountered Easterbrook in his "Best Laid Plans" column outlining military strategy in TNR. I thought the column was pretty good until one day he made a blatant factual mistatement (that the depleted uranium used in tanks in non-radioactive) about a topic that I know something about. I realized after some thought that this was not possibly something he could truly be confused about, so he must have simply lied. So I don't trust a word the man writes. Posted by: Ben Vollmayr-Lee at September 10, 2003 06:18 AM | PERMALINKEasterbrook wrote "Gov. Riley's crusade to help the poor shows Christianity at its luminous best." Um, Easterbrook's spin notwithstanding, Riley's crusade was to help cover a budget gap. His use of christianity was to try to shame christians into passing the tax increase. He failed in that. They refused to be shamed. One might wonder if that also shows christianity in a bad light. Posted by: raj at September 10, 2003 06:58 AM | PERMALINKGo figure the organized Christian right in Alabama want to keep their schools the worst in the nation. Ignorance is working so well for them. Posted by: julia at September 10, 2003 07:00 AM | PERMALINKWhat Easterbrook and his ilk wouldn't even acknowledge, and wouldn't like, is Alabama Christianity practiced by the people at Alabama Arise, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and a variety of local churches that quietly go about serving "the least of these" in a variety of ways. It is not even about 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, and other churches made famous as focal points of the civil rights movement (and there were a number of those). Mainstream media do a poor job of investigating anything these days, and while Susan Hamill is a story deserving of coverage, no one I saw explained that church-based groups have set the stage for this issue by working on tax reform for TWENTY YEARS before this vote. Obviously, the way this happened confused just about everybody. Now the church folk in Alabama who have been working for economic justice for a long time will start again. The rich churches in league with the "big mules" are happy. The pathetic little band of graven image worshipers outside the state supreme court building can do whatever they want. The suspended chief justice can begin to run for his next office. The work for economic justice will go on. Everyone who doesn't recognize that does a genuine disservice to a number of real Christians and to the low income people of Alabama. Charles Posted by: charles at September 10, 2003 07:07 AM | PERMALINK"...church-based groups have set the stage for this issue by working on tax reform for TWENTY YEARS..." What a coincidence. That's about how long it took the Christian-pandering Republicans (starting with Reagan) to decimate the U.S. economy via tax cuts for the rich. God works in mysterious ways. Posted by: chris at September 10, 2003 07:12 AM | PERMALINKIn Easterbrook's world, the media shows its anti-Christian bias by not covering the Alabama's governor's tax increase proposal because it would have meant showing Christianity in a good light. Of course, if the media HAD covered the Alabama tax hike proposal and its supposed Christian underpinnings, Easterbrook would instead have written a blog item about how the only reason the media covered it was to show what hypocrits the so-called Christians in Alabama are for having voted in overwhelming numbers against it. Either way, Easterbrook would've spun the media coverage (or lack of it) as indicating anti-Christian bias. Neat trick. Posted by: Jim E. at September 10, 2003 07:30 AM | PERMALINKMainstream media do a poor job of investigating anything these days Ten Commandments battles as seen as news. For many years they were covered, essentially, as free advertising for the Moral Majority and its ilk, as a battle over "religious freedom" or "our Judeo-Christian heritage". Public perception seems to have changed a good deal, but the story still is "news". I didn't follow the Alabama story much, but it seems to me that if it shone a poor light on Christianity it was only after Judge Moore had the opportunity to show what a real crackpot looks like. If Easterbrook thinks this is a media conspiracy to make his own beliefs look bad he ought to consider what it was like being a Gore supporter in 2000. The difference being that no one had to make up Moore quotes. Posted by: D. Case at September 10, 2003 07:51 AM | PERMALINKI'm sorry, and I hope I don't offend anybody, but frankly, I don't think the media is hostile "enough" towards this sort of thing. I followed the whole 10 commandments...not once did I hear any mention of WHY the 10 commandments are not so innocent. Sure, I heard lots of church-state seperation, and that's reason enough. But nobody went deeper. Nobody did any investigation. The 10 commandments put a lack of belief (or the wrong belief) on the same standard as lying or murder. Think about that. Think about what that says about people. A truely balanced media would have investigated this, and released statistics, where most studies show that non-believers have *LESS* occurence of negative social indicators than believers. And how the 10 commandments are..to be frank...bullshit. And a truely balanced media would have less focused on the Christian angle of the tax debate, and focused to on how regressive both Alabamas...and most local jurisdictions..taxation really is. Sorry if I offended anybody, but the whole idea that the media is somehow anti-Christian is frankly wacko. Their lies get too much respect. Posted by: Karmakin at September 10, 2003 07:56 AM | PERMALINKYou don't suppose the good judge had a christian broadcasting group film the midnight installation of the ten commandments because he wanted publicity, do you? I mean, after he ran for his office as the guy who put them up in his courtroom? And then refused Pryor's help because he wanted a big media fight? I mean, could it be? Posted by: julia at September 10, 2003 08:09 AM | PERMALINKChristopher: I thought I made it clear a couple of times that I was referring to "conservative Christians" and the "Christian right," even though I didn't repeat that phrase every time. And it was Easterbrook who posed it as a question of making "Christianity" look bad, so I didn't have much choice in addressing that. So, to be clear: I have nothing against Christianity. I *do* have something against the Christian right, and I *especially* have something against tub thumping Christian rightists who scream loudly about every social issue they think contravenes their understanding of the Bible but then show rank hypocrisy by demonstrating that they don't understand Jesus' actual intent in the slightest. I think this is a pretty good case study. Posted by: Kevin Drum at September 10, 2003 08:20 AM | PERMALINKI for one salute the Governor. He surely did not do this because he wanted to cater to his base!! Posted by: DC at September 10, 2003 08:31 AM | PERMALINKKevin, apologies if I misunderstood you, and on more careful re-reading of your post it appears that I did. I shouldn't comment when it's so late. Apologies again. Posted by: Christopher Luebcke at September 10, 2003 08:41 AM | PERMALINKI'd add, by the way, that I'm no fan of Moore. And it may well be that some revision to Alabama's tax system is in order. But as for Kevin's comment that people opposed to tax hikes "show rank hypocrisy by demonstrating that they don't understand Jesus' actual intent in the slightest", the most Jesus says about taxes is to pay to Caesar what is Caesar's. Nothing about tax policy. There's plenty of injunction to help the poor and even share your property - but nothing about using the government to force other people to do so. Which is, you know, what tax policy is all about. Posted by: Crank at September 10, 2003 08:50 AM | PERMALINKIn 1858, Abraham Lincoln noted: "It is said in one of the admonitions of the Lord, "As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect". The savior, I suppose, did not expect that any human creature could be perfect as the Father in Heaven; but He said, "As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect". He set that up as a standard, and he who did the most towards
reaching that standard, attained the highest degree of moral
perfection". I've met darn few professed Christians, in my life, that walk the walk of their faith. But plenty, of course, that talk the talk. So its ever been, I suppose, and so it ever will be. Posted by: Sovereign Eye at September 10, 2003 08:53 AM | PERMALINKAh, but do you think Jesus would be comfortable with the poor paying a greater share than the rich? Remember, the federal taxes even a middle class person pays make a larger deduction than $5k. Libertarianism is not a Christian concept. Posted by: julia at September 10, 2003 09:00 AM | PERMALINKWas there really a lack of coverage of Gov. Riley's Christianity-based tax-hike proposal? I pay little attention to politics in other states until they get amusing (the 10 Commandments, the California recall), but I'd heard about it. I seem to recall a generally favorable front-page (under the fold, but front page) piece in what certain people I can't manage to avoid insist on calling the "Jew York Times." The story didn't have the day-by-day unfolding drama of the 10 Commandments story, so it couldn't be covered the same way, but it got the coverage it should have. Posted by: C.J.Colucci at September 10, 2003 09:10 AM | PERMALINKChristopher: I thought I made it clear a couple of times that I was referring to "conservative Christians" and the "Christian right," even though I didn't repeat that phrase every time. Just wanted to add a little aside that we should distinguish between theologically conservative Christians and politically conservative Christians. There's some overlap in practice of course, but they aren't necessarily one and the same. Posted by: JP at September 10, 2003 09:10 AM | PERMALINKfrankly, I don't think the media is hostile "enough" That's another aspect of Easterbrook's disingenuousness. He knows the mainstream media will never "cover" Christianity because Christianity will never be scrutinized. The chasm between left and right in American Christianity is as great as in society at large, on theological as well as social issues. Easterbrook insists that Riley's campaign would put Christianity in a good light. Millions of his fellow Christians seem to disagree. Posted by: D. Case at September 10, 2003 09:11 AM | PERMALINKI've met darn few professed Christians, in my life, that walk the walk of their faith. But plenty, of course, that talk the talk. I can say the same for many of the professed liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and enviromentalists that I know. The world is full of people who talk a big game. Posted by: Kevin G at September 10, 2003 09:18 AM | PERMALINKMaybe I'm misreading them, but I was a little disturbed by a few people in this thread who seemed unwilling to admit that Christian beliefs can sometimes motivate people to do the right thing. There are, you know, Christian leftists who work for social justice. Someone pointed this out above and was immediately followed by a post which pointed out the activities of the Christian right, as though that were some sort of rebuttal. I agree that the Christian rightists have managed to grab the spotlight for the past few decades, but they aren't the only Christians. I'm not asking people to respect the belief system--if you think all religions are based on fundamentally irrational principles, fine. But I get the impression that there are some secularists who go from thinking "All religious belief is irrational" to "All religious believers are crazy" and sometimes even to "All religious believers are potentially dangerous fanatics". That kind of secularism is fanatical in itself. Posted by: Donald Johnson at September 10, 2003 09:29 AM | PERMALINKDonald Johnson: Any belief system that subordinates conscience and reason to sacred scriptures, holy clergy, divine revelation and the like is dangerous, whether it's liberal Christianity or fundamentalist Islam. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 09:53 AM | PERMALINKlinkmeister: "Oh, the National Christian Coalition was on Riley's side, btw." I suspect that was a no-lose hedge. The National group could then claim to have been on the side of the angels, without really having any effect on the proceedings inside the state. It anyone tried to take the argument to the Federal level, I bet the National group would find itself opposed. Posted by: Jon H at September 10, 2003 10:09 AM | PERMALINK"Any belief system that subordinates conscience and reason...." What exactly would be the basis of said conscience and reason.....and does that constitute a belief system of it's own? Posted by: DC at September 10, 2003 10:17 AM | PERMALINKDon P, why the intense personal animosity? No offense, but it seems very peculiar and imbalanced. None of the atheists or agnostics I know take such an extreme position. Posted by: JP at September 10, 2003 10:22 AM | PERMALINKThe "Christian Right" of today is a religious movement that is doomed to failure and irrelevance. Religion, in my mind, is and always has been about sacrifice of material well-being in the name of some higher principle. It's not that Jesus said the government should force people to pay high taxes, its that a true Christian should not be concerned with paying out high taxes, should not organize politically in order to prevent a rise in the tax rate for material reasons. That is the meaning of "give to Ceasar what is Caesar's"--and the Alabama christian coalition obviously has not paid this dictum much attention. Actually, the most vibrant "religion" these days is that of the radical environmentalists, extreme vegans, etc. Even though I don't share many of their beliefs, I think they are generally willing to sacrifice their own well-being (and sometimes even their lives, in the case of tree-sitters) for their beliefs. In this, they are rather like the early Christians, who were also despised and mocked at first. Posted by: kokblok at September 10, 2003 10:35 AM | PERMALINKJP: Don P, why the intense personal animosity? "Personal?" Liberal Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are not "persons." No offense, but it seems very peculiar and imbalanced. None of the atheists or agnostics I know take such an extreme position. No atheist or agnostic you know thinks that religion is a bad thing? Then you need to meet more atheists and agnostics. I assure you that the view that religion is a bad influence is extremely common. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 10:37 AM | PERMALINKDC: What exactly would be the basis of said conscience and reason..... The mind. The brain. Cognition. Emotion. ... and does that constitute a belief system of it's own? Yes. And your point is....? Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 10:39 AM | PERMALINK"Personal?" Liberal Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are not "persons." C'mon, this is a little disingenuous, right? No atheist or agnostic you know thinks that religion is a bad thing? Well, you also said it was dangerous, which goes further than just thinking it's incorrect or wrongheaded or otherwise "bad." And you make no distinctions in the levels of "dangerousness" between different types of religious beliefs - most atheists and agnostics do. And you don't seem to be much of a believer in respectful disagreement - most atheists and agnostics are. Posted by: JP at September 10, 2003 10:44 AM | PERMALINK"Any belief system that subordinates conscience and reason to sacred scriptures, holy clergy, divine revelation and the like is dangerous, whether it's liberal Christianity or fundamentalist Islam." Response: "why the intense personal animosity? No offense, but it seems very peculiar and imbalanced. None of the atheists or agnostics I know take such an extreme position." I don't find the initial statement to be peculiar and imbalanced OR extreme. Don P was just stating an opinion. In fact, it seems pretty on the money to me (from a historical viewpoint). Posted by: chris at September 10, 2003 10:51 AM | PERMALINKJP: C'mon, this is a little disingenuous, right? No, I don't think it's disingenuous at all. An attack on a belief system is not the same thing as a personal attack. Well, you also said it was dangerous, which goes further than just thinking it's incorrect or wrongheaded or otherwise "bad." Well, I think "dangerous" is implied by "bad," but I'll be more explicit: the view that religion is dangerous is very common amoung atheists and agnostics. And you make no distinctions in the levels of "dangerousness" between different types of religious beliefs - most atheists and agnostics do. I do think there are such differences. Some religionists are more fanatical than others. But all religion subordinates conscience and reason to supernatural alleged sources of knowledge (divine relevation, sacred scripture, etc.) and all religion is dangerous because of that. When two different religions make two different and conflicting claims of truth (as they often do), how may we determine which, if either, is correct? Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 10:56 AM | PERMALINKFantastic post!! So right on the money. Posted by: LuigiBob at September 10, 2003 11:16 AM | PERMALINKTo play the devil's advocate...who cares what extraneous reasons Riley ascribes to his proposal for tax increases...his is not the only state facing deficits...he is not the only one proposing increasing taxes. The fact that he uses these extraneous reasons actually makes his proposal less meritworthy of coverage. Posted by: sam jackson at September 10, 2003 11:21 AM | PERMALINKAn attack on a belief system is not the same thing as a personal attack. Yes, this is true in principle, although I'm not sure you've convinced me from a subjective standpoint. But I'll concede it to you so we can move on. When two different religions make two different and conflicting claims of truth (as they often do), how may we determine which, if either, is correct? Scientifically, you can't. Obviously. Every religion appeals to personal experience/revelation/introspection at least in part as a means of verification. No, it's not possible for a third party to determine which person's experience is real. That doesn't mean that all the answers are wrong, nor does it mean that the questions shouldn't be asked. There may be more to life than what's experimentally verifiable. A first party's experiences might not be trustworthy, but they're no less likely to be correct than someone who assumes from the beginning that there's no answer at all. I suppose this could be theoretically dangerous for society. But the danger doesn't come from the "irrationality" of these beliefs, but from the added substantive belief held by some people that they're allowed to coerce others to agree with them. But not all religions hold this belief, and there are "rational" secular belief systems that do. Posted by: JP at September 10, 2003 11:38 AM | PERMALINK1. The media doesn't have an anti-Christian bias. It has a pro-idiot bias. Thus, Roy's Rock. 2. Gov. Riley invoked his duty as a "Christian" to tax the rich of Alabama. How touching. Now, I'm sure that taxes need to be raised in Alabama but it is not because of any religious reason. If it's a "Christian" duty to pay more to the state, does that mean Alabamian Buddhists get off without taxes? Jews? Muslims? The US is a secular, not a "Christian," state (despite what Scalia thinks) and to raise taxes because Christ commands it is about as unconstitutional a reason as I can think of. As for Christianity at its luminous best, I warmly recommend "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion of Princeton University. Both personal and scholarly, it serves, if nothing else, as a reminder that there are plenty of alternatives in Christian worship today that are spiritually rich and that depend not at all upon Bible-thumping or hypocritical meddling in secular affairs of state: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375501568/qid=1063131962/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-9823429-4445722 Posted by: tristero at September 10, 2003 12:02 PM | PERMALINKJP: Scientifically, you can't. Obviously. Well, how can you determine which one is correct using any form of inquiry? If you can't make that determination, why not just admit that it's an open question? Every religion appeals to personal experience/revelation/introspection at least in part as a means of verification. No, it's not possible for a third party to determine which person's experience is real. What reason is there to think that any of them are "real" rather than, say, hallucinations or wishful thinking? That doesn't mean that all the answers are wrong, Right. They could just happen to be correct, by chance. Just as I might happen to be correct if I guess the outcome of a coin toss to be heads, for example. But this isn't a basis for claims to knowledge, is it? And religions do make claims of knowledge, claims of objective truth. That's the problem. There may be more to life than what's experimentally verifiable. A first party's experiences might not be trustworthy, but they're no less likely to be correct than someone who assumes from the beginning that there's no answer at all. I'm not sure what question you're referring to here. If the question is, say, "Is there a God?" or "Is Jesus Christ Lord and Saviour of Mankind?" then I think there are answers to these questions. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either Jesus is Lord or he is not. But I don't see how religion can tell us what the correct answers to those questions are. Christians claim that Jesus is Lord. Jews claim that he is not. Which claim is correct? How do you know? Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 12:50 PM | PERMALINKI can't speak for all atheists but I can offer a few thoughts to cut through the miasma: Religious debates about belief, personal experience, divine revelation, etc., are irrelevant. Theists of all stripes can believe whatever they want. Stand on one leg and squawk like chickens, for all I care. I don't want to get bogged down in a rationalization for your beliefs. What I dislike, as an atheist, is when all these looney beliefs wind up affecting: a) my government; b) my taxes; c) my life. Simple enough. But since a) b) and c) are constantly under barrage by religion (overtly and covertly), I get cranky about it. *Especially* when religion is so incredibly stupid. That's the kicker. Instead of getting all philosophical in the defense of religion, try to see it through an atheist's eyes. Try this one on for size: remember the reaction the world gave those folks who committed suicide because they thought a comet had religious overtones? All laid out in their bunks to meet their maker? I don't see much of a distinction between their beliefs and those of any other religion. The only difference between cult and religion is the number of adherents. Posted by: chris at September 10, 2003 12:52 PM | PERMALINKTry this one on for size: remember the reaction the world gave those folks who committed suicide because they thought a comet had religious overtones? All laid out in their bunks to meet their maker? I don't see much of a distinction between their beliefs and those of any other religion. The only difference between cult and religion is the number of adherents. Yes. The Heaven's Gate cultists. Christianity, of course, also started out as a cult. One deluded man and twelve followers. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 12:57 PM | PERMALINKWhat reason is there to think that any of them are "real" rather than, say, hallucinations or wishful thinking? Possibilities: the trustworthiness of the witness, whether multiple witnesses say similar things, the willingness of certain witnesses to testify to propositions that may be against their material interests. What reason is there to think that any individual's eyewitness testimony is ever "real" rather than hallucination or wishful thinking? They could just happen to be correct, by chance. Just as I might happen to be correct if I guess the outcome of a coin toss to be heads, for example. I don't think this is a very good analogy. Guessing a coin flip is not at all similar to a perception of personal experience. Subjective evidence may be questionable in terms of reliability, but it's qualitatively different from guessing an outcome based on no evidence at all. But I don't see how religion can tell us what the correct answers to those questions are. Christians claim that Jesus is Lord. Jews claim that he is not. Which claim is correct? How do you know? Is this logical? I think you're conflating two questions here. Just because you can't tell which religion, if any, is right doesn't mean that they can't tell us what the answers are. When two eyewitnesses give conflicting testimony at a trial about an event no one else saw, it doesn't mean that they're both wrong. You can choose to presume that they are, but that approach is no more likely to lead to the truth than picking one or the other. Posted by: JP at September 10, 2003 01:51 PM | PERMALINKYou Live You die The worms eat yor ass Get over it. My problem is all the assh*les who are so worried about the next world they are quite willing to screw this world up completely. Religion, the GOP, and Rush are for people who prefer to have others do their thinking for them. I dont need hoodoo voodoo to try to want to make this world a better place. If religion were outlawed all together the world would be a better place. I put religion as either #1 or #2 for the reason for all conflicts throughout the ages, probably #2. #1 is probably the land grab thing. Posted by: Shaun at September 10, 2003 01:55 PM | PERMALINKNothing gets comments like religion. Nothing gets comments like politics. Put them together and stand back, she's gonna blow! Sorry to break up the love, Don and Chris, but to say "Religious debates about belief, personal experience, divine revelation, etc., are irrelevant" is to deliberately miss the point. Such debates are not primarily about any of these things. They are about Truth, and you cannot avoid that. For Don to say "religions do make claims of knowledge, claims of objective truth. That's the problem." is to imply a) there is no such thing as truth, or b) if it exists, we can't know it. Besides the fact that this is in itself an assertion of truth and therefore self-refuting, it is also not rationally defensible on it's face. If there is no such thing as truth, how do you justify you commitment to conscience and reason? If there is no such thing as truth, we have no basis for ANYTHING, least of all reason. We can't even think. How do you know which claim is right? You hold it up to the light, debate it, examine it, see if it fits reality. If so, it has value. If not, chuck it. Not that hard at all. Just takes a little effort. To say "I don't want to get all philosophical" is to simply say "I don't care what your worldview is or what you think", and if that is the case, then why should I care what your's is, or what you think? You can assert religion is stupid, but until you make a rational, reasoned argument for your position, we haven't gotten anything helpful from you. If you want to advance your position, do so with good arguments. Otherwise, you're just running touchdowns for the other team. If you value reason, use it. Posted by: scott at September 10, 2003 02:27 PM | PERMALINK"...the snarling judge and his intolerant followers show Christianity in a bad light; by granting them attention, the media make Christianity look bad. Gov. Riley's crusade to help the poor shows Christianity at its luminous best. Therefore the media ignore Riley." Whether Moore's or Riley's antics put Christianity in a good or bad light is for media *consumers* to decide. Clearly, most Christians in Alabama thought Riley was off-base in his "crusade." And who am I to say that Roy Moore is not some kind of hero? (He's not.) Also, the secular media tends to shy away from those who bring religion into non-religious matters. When Jesus gets the credit for a game-winning touchdown, the response is, "Oooh-kay," and quickly change the subject. Posted by: Grumpy at September 10, 2003 02:29 PM | PERMALINKJP: We distinguish true perceptions from hallucinations by such criteria as consistency, predictability and reproducability. By those criteria, "religious experiences" (divine revelation and the like) seem far more likely to be hallucinations than perceptions. We also have independent scientific evidence that the type of experience commonly attributed to encounters with the supernatural (Gods, angels, demons, etc.) is a kind of hallucination. These experiences commonly occur under conditions known to induce hallucinations by altering the chemistry of the brain, such as sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, hunger and thirst, the infliction of pain and the ingestion of hallucinogenic drugs. In fact, many religious rituals involve the deliberate creation of these conditions. I made the statement about guessing the outcome of a coin toss in response to your (true) claim that religious claims of truth are not necessarily wrong. The point is that the fact that some religious claims might happen to be correct, by chance if nothing else, is not grounds for believing that they are correct, or for having any confidence in them at all. Is this logical? I think you're conflating two questions here. Just because you can't tell which religion, if any, is right doesn't mean that they can't tell us what the answers are. Of course it does. If we cannot verify their "answers" then they're not answers at all; they're just opinions, like aesthetic or moral beliefs. When two eyewitnesses give conflicting testimony at a trial about an event no one else saw, it doesn't mean that they're both wrong. No, of course not. But if their claims conflict, they cannot both be correct. At least one of them must be wrong. So how do we decide? To go back to my example, how do we decide whether Jews or Christians are correct about the nature of Jesus Christ? They cannot both be right, because their claims contradict each other. One of them must be wrong. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 02:36 PM | PERMALINKDon P. wrote: .... Christianity, of course, also started out as a cult. One deluded man and twelve followers... One might argue that Bolshevism started as a cult as well, so I don't think religion holds any privileged standing in that regard. Jesus wasn't marching around in opposition to some band of Roman hyper-rationalists, was he ? Aristotle was the apex of rationality of his time, and yet we can look back now on much of his work and laugh at the prejudices that informed his thought. I am an atheist myself, but I don't think any claim can be made that we atheists and agnostics are paragons of virtuous reason. Anyone who doubts my claim should check out some of the wilder screeds of Madeline Murray O'Hare, or Christopher Hitchens'recent specious defense of right-to-lifers in Vanity Fair (or, come to that, just about anything he has written lately). Empirically, I would say that many "irrational" Christians are just as pragmatic and susceptible to commonsense as any athiest. Why this should be, I don't know, but I offer it as an observation. On the whole, many Christians seem to function in perfect accord with the real world. -JF Posted by: JF at September 10, 2003 02:37 PM | PERMALINKscott: For Don to say "religions do make claims of knowledge, claims of objective truth. That's the problem." is to imply a) there is no such thing as truth, Nonsense. It doesn't imply that at all. The fact that religions make problematic claims of truth says absolutely nothing about whether there is such a thing as truth. or b) if it exists, we can't know it. No, it doesn't imply that either. Besides the fact that this is in itself an assertion of truth and therefore self-refuting, Huh? How is it "self-refuting" by virtue of being a claim of truth? If there is no such thing as truth, how do you justify you commitment to conscience and reason? Your premise is false, as I already told you. I don't deny that there is such a thing as truth. JF: One might argue that Bolshevism started as a cult as well, so I don't think religion holds any privileged standing in that regard. One might, yes. I'm not defending the truth claims of "Bolshevism" either. Jesus wasn't marching around in opposition to some band of Roman hyper-rationalists, was he ? Not that I'm aware of. And your point is...? Is this intended as a defense of Christianity? I am an atheist myself, but I don't think any claim can be made that we atheists and agnostics are paragons of virtuous reason. It seems to me, for the reasons that I have stated, that atheism and agnoticism are far better supported by reason than is religion. Empirically, I would say that many "irrational" Christians are just as pragmatic and susceptible to commonsense as any athiest. I'd love to see this "empirical" evidence. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 02:56 PM | PERMALINKWell, I don't want to drag this any further than necessary into a DonP-a-thon, and away from the subject of Kevin's post, but there are a few claims that I think ought to be addressed: "the view that religion is dangerous is very common amoung atheists and agnostics." "atheism and agnoticism are far better supported by reason than is religion" "If we cannot verify their "answers" then they're not answers at all; they're just opinions..." Here's the segue: since Gov. Riley proposed a "Christian" answer that happened to provide unexpected support for a politically progressive position, he may have received less coverage than you might otherwise expect for something that seems more "man bites dog" than "dog bites man." As for Easterbrook, I think he's way more wrong than right in his claim. But I think it's also true that plenty of coverage of issues that are at least nominally Christian-themed get greater coverage when they fit the notion of Christianity aligned with the political right, and less coverage when the don't fit (i.e. Christianity aligned with the left, or not easily aligned with politics at all). I propose that this is largely a narrativity problem. One story is easy to tell, and one is difficult to tell. It's like the dumb system used for generating TV programs: pilots that fit neatly into existing categories can get positive reviews among test groups, but pilots that defy or break the categories have almost no chance of getting good reviews because the people in test groups aren't prepared that kind of presentation. They like the narrative devices we've all grown accustomed to. No surprise there. For Easterbrook, Christians as rightist vs. Christians as "something else" reduces to issues that make Christianity look bad (intolerance?) and issues that make Christianity look good (social justice?), which in and of itself explains coverage, but I don't think that his reduction is accurate, and I don't his explanation is, either. Posted by: Keith at September 10, 2003 04:23 PM | PERMALINKKeith: If you're a doubter, rather than one who has made up his mind that religion is flat-out wrong, why would your view be that "religion is dangerous"? Isn't this obvious? Doubt, especially about religious claims, is less likely to lead to injustice than belief. And the more certain the believer, the more prone he is to this kind of abuse. To paraphrase what Mencken or whoever it was said, men never kill so cheerfully or wholeheartedly as when they kill in the name of their God. And this doesn't apply just to killing, but to anything else they might do because they think God wants them to. Doubt and uncertainty by their nature invite hesitancy, reflection, self-examination. Certainty and fanaticism do not. "God does not exist" is better supported by reason than "God exists"?!?! Yes, I think so. I think the only kind of God that is consistent with reason is the God of Deism. The kind of personal, involved, caring God proposed by Christianity is very difficult to reconcile with the nature of the world as revealed to us by science and reason. I know many Christians reflexively deny this, but if you pin them down and confront them with issues like the Problem of Evil they will usually eventually admit, after you've cut through all the bullshit, that their beliefs in God and about the nature of God boil down to a matter of faith, rather than being a conclusion reasoned from evidence. This may be a semantic issue, but it is of course possible for an opinion to be an answer! Answers do not have to be correct. Well, I'm talking about "answers" in the sense of "correct answers" here. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 04:52 PM | PERMALINKForget Mencken. The quote I was referring to is from Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 05:01 PM | PERMALINKLet's leave the mainstream media out of it, Kevin, and talk about the blogosphere. What's so exciting to progressives about the Ten Commandments controversy BS other than the opportunity to make fun of Christians? Moore is a opportunistic jerk along with the smarter and more dangerous Alan Keyes. Is anyone really concerned that the Inquisition is about to get underway? On the other hand, there are white Christians in a 90% Christian state taking significant risks to overcome a 300+ year-old history of racial politics. Might that be important to progressives who must confront the "Southern problem" every presidential election and, since Reconstruction, in the House and the Senate? Do secular progressives have any better ideas about how to overcome the deep racial divide that pits working class white against working class black? We've corresponded repeatedly about Alabama tax reform, Kevin, and it was not until this brave effort had been defeated that you chose to mention it. Claim that there are more important things if you want, but why mention the Alabama movement now when Christians like Hamill who tried to do the right thing have failed? Progressive Christians, in the tradition of Dr. King, will keep battling for social justice even when we lose because we believe in what we are doing. Even though we have always and still constitute a majority in the progressive movement, we respect and value secular progressives and progressives of other faith traditions for the important contributions they make to the movement. Surely, secular progressives feel the same. Posted by: Allen Brill at September 10, 2003 05:05 PM | PERMALINKI guess I haven't finished yet. Would anyone care to cite examples to me of progressive successes in the last 50 years in which Christian progressives did NOT play any important role? I submit that other than the much-hated (by the Right) court decisions, the Left has had no significant victories in which the religious left did not play a prominent role. Civil rights, Johnson's expansion of the "safety net" and Vietnam are what I have in mind. Posted by: Allen Brill at September 10, 2003 05:18 PM | PERMALINKOr, you know, Allen, maybe some of us take religion (and government) seriously enough not to want to see them both cheapened by grandstanders pushing ceremonial religion in place of ethics. I don't know who you read, but most of the bloggers I read who are religious were appalled by the situation for exactly that reason. Posted by: julia at September 10, 2003 05:27 PM | PERMALINKAllen Brill: Would anyone care to cite examples to me of progressive successes in the last 50 years in which Christian progressives did NOT play any important role? Gay rights. Women's rights. In fact, virtually all organized opposition to gay rights today comes from Christianity. Virtually the only institutions in our society that still exclude women, and teach the subordination of women to men, are Christian institutions. This includes the largest two Christian denominations in the United States, the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. The South is both the most Christian part of the country, and the least progressive. I don't think that's a coincidence. The most progressive countries in the world (Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc.) also tend to be the least religious. I don't think that's a coincidence, either. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 05:44 PM | PERMALINKJulia, Surely you are not speaking of Susan Pace Hamill as a "grandstander pushing ceremonial religion in place of ethics." If you could possible believe that, I encourage you to check out the very fair piece in TAP: http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/08/wilkinson-f-08-28.html. Advocating social justice while incurring threats to one's career does not strike me as "ceremonial religion." For that matter, whatever was going on in Riley's head, it is hard to argue that he took his position as a matter of political expediency. I don't know who you read either, but one gateway into this discussion among Christians is at gutlesspacifist.com. He has engaged the conservative Josh Claybourn as well. Do you really mean to say that progressives were "appalled" at Christians advocating social justice in Alabama? Posted by: Allen Brill at September 10, 2003 06:07 PM | PERMALINKDon P: "...virtually all organized opposition to gay rights today comes from Christianity." From right-wing Christianity, yes. But the question was about the religious *left*. Around these parts, it's been the Metropolitan Community Church (Unitarians?) who've most often stuck their necks out for gays. Episcopalians are also ruffling some feathers. Whether that's an "important role," we can't say yet, since the success has not yet been achieved. Posted by: Grumpy at September 10, 2003 06:22 PM | PERMALINKMay we respectfully request that the words "Christian right" be banned from the vocabulary? There is nothing Christian about their views--by referring to them as the "Christian Right," they are imbued with a sense of legitimacy that they don't deserve. What to call them instead? The Radical Right. That's what they are...and we all know the word "radical" has negative connotations with mainstream America. The radical right. How appealing! Posted by: TalkLeft at September 10, 2003 06:39 PM | PERMALINKFrom right-wing Christianity, yes. No, from general Christianity. The Catholic Church, for example, which claims fully half of the world's Christians, just issued a particularly harsh statement condemning gay marriage and gay adoptions and urged all Catholics to oppose civil laws providing for these legal relationships. The Anglican Church, supposedly one of the more liberal denominations, is close to schism simply over the confirmation of a "practising" gay bishop. Moreover, all the real growth in Christianity is occurring in the conservative denominations and conservative wings of mainline denominations. Most of this growth is occurring in the developing world. "Progressive" Christians are a dying breed. The But the question was about the religious *left*. Around these parts, it's been the Metropolitan Community Church (Unitarians?) who've most often stuck their necks out for gays. The MCC and the Unitarian Universalists comprise a tiny, tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of the world's (and America's) Christians. (Many other Christians would dispute that the UU "church" even qualifies as a Christian church). Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 06:42 PM | PERMALINKNo, Allen, I was referring to Justice Moore, who is (insofar as I can tell) the only person in this discussion who is promoting ceremonial religion. I think well of the attempt to change the tax structure. I think it's great that people interpreted their religion in a way that had respect for Christ's teachings on the poor. Unfortunately, Justice Moore's kind of Religion is the one which has a headlock on the Republican party, and I don't appreciate their attempts to legislate "morality" in a religious context. I particularly dislike it when their "morality" is in a real sense immoral. Posted by: julia at September 10, 2003 06:48 PM | PERMALINKMay we respectfully request that the words "Christian right" be banned from the vocabulary? There is nothing Christian about their views Nothing Christian about government endorsement and promotion of Christianity? Nothing Christian about opposition to homosexuality? Nothing Christian about opposition to abortion? Nothing Christian about opposition to equal rights and status for women? What planet are you living on? The positions of the Christian right are far more representative of Christianity as it has been understood and practised throughout its 2,000-year history than are the positions of the Christian left (to the extent that there even is such a thing.) Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 06:49 PM | PERMALINKGrumpy provides some good examples. There are conservative congregations here in SC that are cutting off funding for the central church that goes to social programs, seminaries, etc. Do you think that wasn't expected? These people are helping to lead the way for gay equality. (BTW: trying to blame all homophobia on religion is silly. It's more a product of patriarchy reinforced by a fundamentalist reading of religious texts.) Talk Left's idea is intriguing but Falwell, Dobson, etc. loudly claim the Christian label. "Christian Right" remains a useful term because it can distinguish the reactionaries from those Christians who seek social justice. Posted by: Allen Brill at September 10, 2003 06:54 PM | PERMALINKGrumpy provides some good examples. There are conservative congregations here in SC that are cutting off funding for the central church that goes to social programs, seminaries, etc. Do you think that wasn't expected? These people are helping to lead the way for gay equality. Oh please. The involvement of Christianity in the issue of social and legal equality for gay people is overwhelmingly on the anti-gay side. There is just no comparison. As I said, virtually all organized opposition to gay rights comes from Christian organizations. Even superficially non-religious opposition to gay rights, such as the movement in support of Amendment 2 in Colorado, invariably turn out to be organized and staffed by devout Christians. (BTW: trying to blame all homophobia on religion is silly. It's more a product of patriarchy reinforced by a fundamentalist reading of religious texts.) I didn't blame "all" homophobia on religion. Religion reinforces, institutionalizes and perpetuates homophobia. As for the reading of religious texts, virtually all Christian denominations teach, on the basis of their understanding of the Christian scriptures, that gay sex is a sin. There are just a handful of exceptions, like the UCC, and they are tiny. If this is "fundamentalism" then virtually all Christian denominations are today and always have been fundamentalist. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 07:12 PM | PERMALINKJulia: sounds like you and I are on the same page. Don P: you take the worst and make it representative of the whole. From where do you think the idea of female equality received its biggest boost in the Roman Empire? Which ancient civilization began to recognize at least some rights for slaves in the late Bronze and early Iron ages? From our perspective, it's as easy to disparage Aristotle as Moses, Marcus Aurelius as Paul, even Newton as well as Luther. Shall we just laugh at them all and ignore the contribution they have made to human advancement? Such silly claims as: "Doubt, especially about religious claims, is less likely to lead to injustice than belief." do nothing to advance your cause. Don't Stalin and Soviet Russia provide enough of a counterexample to your claim? Atheism was state policy right along with genocide and mass murder. If only the Enlightenment had ushered in an era of peace and justice! It's a good deal more complicated than that. Posted by: Allen Brill at September 10, 2003 07:18 PM | PERMALINKDon, Every day I endure email after email on the listserves to which I subscribe that bash GLBTs. I debate and observe others debate against these individuals and what is apparent is that these gay-bashers do not meet any definition of "Christian" of which I am aware other than self-identification. They do not have any understanding of Christian theology. They know nothing of the Bible except those tiny portions that support their condemnation of others. On the fundamental criterion of "being a Christian," they do not rely on the mercy of any God but depend instead on their own delusions of righteousness. These people make a lot of noise, but they do not constitute any kind of majority in my experience. Re: homophobia. Face it, Don. Homophobia is cultural. When I was growing up, the "fairies" weren't persecuted because the rest of the boys were such good Christians. To the contrary, the least Christian were often the cruelest. I agree that it's perverse when Christians use 2,800 year-old texts to deny GLBTs equality, but there are plenty of folks happy to do it with no basis whatsoever. It is some of the religious texts calling for acceptance of everyone that provide the best arguments against the bigots. I'm an adult convert. The easiest thing for me to accept about Christianity was "original sin." I would agree that "religion" has caused a lot of misery in the course of human history, but to claim that its absence would lead to an end of such misery is naive. Posted by: Allen Brill at September 10, 2003 07:41 PM | PERMALINKAllen Brill: Don P: you take the worst and make it representative of the whole. No, what I'm talking about is absolutely representative of Christianity. I don't see how you can seriously claim that your "progressive" version of Christianity is even remotely representative of Christian belief and behavior either today or historically, either in America or in the world as a whole. And as I said, all the real growth in Christianity is occurring in the conservative denominations and wings. The Catholic Church. The LDS Church. The Pentacostalists. The more "progressive" mainline denominations have been losing members for decades, and even within those denominations it is the conservative wings that are gaining power as they spread to the developing world. From where do you think the idea of female equality received its biggest boost in the Roman Empire? I don't know. I don't think women were treated very well in the Roman Empire, period. I do know that virtually all organized opposition to the legalization and use of contraception and abortion comes from religion. Even today, the Catholic Church, in alliance with certain Islamic countries, is doing its best to deprive women in the developing world of access to contraception and abortion, thus perpetuating their second-class status. Even today, in America, virtually the only institutions that deny equal access to women are religious institutions. It isn't a secular institution that tells women they should "submit to the servant leadership" of their husbands, it's the biggest Christian denomination in America that says that, the Southern Baptist Convention. As for slavery, Christianity was perfectly comfortable practising it for 1,800 of its 2,000 year history. Mark Twain wrote that his mother, a genuinely good person, never doubted the legitimacy of slavery because in all her years of living in antebellum Missouri she had never heard a single Christian sermon criticizing the practise, but only countless sermons assuring her that slavery was God's will. The historical event that produced to the abolition of slavery was the rise of the philosophy of the Enlightenment, with its focus on science and reason and its rejection of religious authority. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 07:42 PM | PERMALINKAllen Brill: Don't Stalin and Soviet Russia provide enough of a counterexample to your claim? Atheism was state policy right along with genocide and mass murder. Of course not. I don't see that doubt and skepticism, or conscience and reason were part of Stalinism at all. Stalin was a fanatic, and in that respect shared the mentality of the many Christian despots he resembles. Nor do I see how you can seriously claim a causal link between an absence of belief in God and genocide. An absence of belief in God does not imply anything about how one ought to treat other people, whereas the doctrines and teachings that are part of organized religion have explicitly justified countless acts of genocide and other atrocities. The Christian Old Testament is largely a catalog of atrocities ordered or perpetrated by the Christian God. The New Testament doctrine of eternal damnation in hell has also justified all sorts of Christian atrocities. And 2,000 years of Christian preaching against Jews created the bone-deep hatreds that led to the Holocaust. Even as recently as the 1960s, the standard Catholic liturgy referred to Jews as "the perfidious Jews." Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 07:53 PM | PERMALINKAllen Brill: I would agree that "religion" has caused a lot of misery in the course of human history, but to claim that its absence would lead to an end of such misery is naive. I don't believe that the decline of Christianity, or other religions, will lead to an end to misery. I don't believe in the perfectability of human beings or human societies. I do believe that the decline of Christianity and other religions has led and will continue to lead to great reductions in human misery, and I think the history of the west during the past 300 years is proof of this. The greatest freedom, the greatest equality, the greatest prosperity occurs where religion has the least influence. The greatest oppression, the greatest inequality, the greatest poverty occurs where religion has the most influence, such as in the Islamic theocracies of the Middle East and Asia. Indeed, those Islamic countries very closely resemble what Europe was like before the Enlightenment, only with the addition, in some cases, of some modern western technology purchased through the sale of oil. Posted by: Don P at September 10, 2003 08:01 PM | PERMALINKWhence came the opposition to that slavery? Were the abolitionists atheists? I would condemn the failure of the preachers in Hannibal to answer their prophetic calling. Modern Christians abhor the exegetical machinations of slavery's apologists who twisted these ancient texts to justify slavery when in fact those writings debate it, limit it and move toward prohibiting it. You act as if mankind had no history. Humans are capable of horrifying brutality toward one another even without theological or ideological justification. What I am looking for is some sort of argument against violence and for justice. For those who believe in the Christian God, there are such arguments contained in the scriptures that they (and I) find persuasive. There are other sources as well outside the Christian tradition worthy of equal respect. When so many in our nation understand themselves as Christians, however, it would be foolish to ignore those sources supporting justice that Christians recognize as authoritative in some vain hope that everyone will awake tomorrow as an atheist. Don, you need to support progressive Christians and hope that our influence waxes in the Christian community. Posted by: Allen Brill at September 10, 2003 08:03 PM | PERMALINKDon, You are not helping your position with this: "I do believe that the decline of Christianity and other religions has led and will continue to lead to great reductions in human misery, and I think the history of the west during the past 300 years is proof of this." Stalin has already been mentioned. "Stalin was a fanatic." But Stalin killed people for being religious. Can you not see the problem here? Posted by: Allen Brill at September 10, 2003 08:22 PM | PERMALINKDon, I don't know where you went, but let's not argue. In the words of another ancient text: "We should be together." (JA: "Volunteers" '69). "Life's too fine to let it die." Posted by: Allen Brill at September 10, 2003 09:23 PM | PERMALINKDoes it really matter? If you claim to be a biblical Christian, there are certain rules you're supposed to follow. If you claim to be an officer of the court or an elected official who swore an oath, there are certain rules you're supposed to follow. Now, whether someone in the Christian Coalition thinks the Bill of Rights is valid or whether someone who works for the government thinks that religion in valid, it seems only fair that you should be able to judge that person according to the way they present themselves. People who claim biblical authority should follow the Bible. People who claim legal authority should follow the law. You don't have to believe in the Bible or the law to think it's seriously messed up when people ignore the thing they claim to represent. Posted by: julia at September 10, 2003 09:35 PM | PERMALINKDon P: ("God does not exist" is better supported by reason than "God exists"?!?! ) (Answers do not have to be correct.) Keith: Ummnn, not so obvious at all. I can't say that I've met a single agnostic whose doubt about the existence of God is based on the fact that belief can lead to injustice. Um, I didn't think you had. The question you asked is why an agnostic would think that religion is dangerous, not why he would doubt the existence of God. And I told you. Read the Pascal quote again. That sums it up in a nutshell. Here's another one I like, from Robert Heinlein: "Men rarely, if ever, manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child." I think the God of Christianity, as described in the sacred texts of that religion and by most of its adherents, fits that description well. He seems considerably more like a projection of all-too-human failings and weaknessnes of his worshippers than like a Supreme Being. Rather, doubt is based on... doubt! No, the doubt we are talking about here--the doubt of an agnostic--is based on the absence of persuasive reasons to believe that God exists. If they thought religion was dangerous, I don't suppose they would remain doubters, who by definition concede the possibility that belief is correct. Whether religion is dangerous is a separate question from whether religion is true. Obviously, one can both doubt that religion is true and also believe that religion is dangerous. That, as I said, seems to be the position of many, if not most, agnostics and atheists. Again, I think the Pascal quote sums up the dangerous nature of religious conviction quite clearly. The subordination of reason and conscience to religious sources of "knowledge" is inherently dangerous. More to the point, unquestioning belief in anything -- religion, scientific socialism, dogs telling you that your neighbor is evil -- can lead to odd behavior. Of course. Unquestioning belief in anything is not a good idea. Science and reason, by their very nature, are endlessly questioning. Religion, by its very nature, inhibits questioning. Doubt is the enemy of faith. Certainly, way more people kill in the name of their country today than kill in the name of their religion. This lets Pascal off the hook (he died long before the rise of nationalism), but what's your excuse? I don't see that that's certain at all, and even if it's true (that more people kill from "nationalism" than from religion) it obviously does not mean that religion does not also motivate people to kill. And I have no idea what you think I need to be "excused" from. You just seem upset that I am attacking religion, but your response is mostly a series of misrepresentations and nonsequiturs. Perhaps so, but largely beside the point. At best, you're arguing that a kindergarten view of God (old white guy with a long beard and all) is unreasonable to you. No, as I just explained (in the very text you quoted) I'm arguing that the kind of God proposed by Christianity--an involved, caring, personal God--is difficult to reconcile with the nature of the world as revealed by science and reason. If you want to claim that the Christian conception of God is "a kindergarten view of God," I won't argue with you, although I would have phrased it differently. As I said, I think the only kind of God that is consistent with science and reason is the God of Deism--a kind of indifferent, uncaring Creator who set the universe in motion and then stepped back. Deism seems to me at least intellectually respectable. Christianity seems to me intellectually indefensible. Posted by: Don P at September 11, 2003 01:04 AM | PERMALINKAllen Brill: You are not helping your position with this: Um, care to explain why? Do you have an actual argument or reason to offer to support your claim above? Stalin has already been mentioned. What about him? I responded to your mention of Stalin. How does disbelief in God imply support for Stalinism? How does disbelief in God imply anything about how people ought to treat one another? But Stalin killed people for being religious. No kidding. So did most of his religious soulmates. In fact, most people who have been killed for their religion have been killed by people of a different religion. Christians killing Muslims, and vice versa. Christians killing Jews and pagans. Catholics killing Protestants, and vice versa. Muslims killing Hindus, and vice versa. Those are Stalin's fellow-travelers. Posted by: Don P at September 11, 2003 01:17 AM | PERMALINKAllen Brill: When so many in our nation understand themselves as Christians, however, it would be foolish to ignore those sources supporting justice that Christians recognize as authoritative in some vain hope that everyone will awake tomorrow as an atheist. I don't ignore Christian sources. I take them very seriously. That's why I am so critical of them. I think Christians who claim that the Christian scriptures support justice are either deluded or dishonest. I think the torturous, contorted "interpretations" they engage in to try and tease out support for liberal, 21st century political and social positions are absurd. And I think that is in part why liberal Christianity is so weak and ineffective. And I don't expect everyone to wake up tomorrow as an atheist. Superstition dies hard. Human beings in general are probably genetically predisposed to some kind of supernatural belief. It will take much time and effort to overcome that tendency, just as it is taking time and effort to overcome other unfortunate human tendencies, like racism and sexism and xenophobia. But we're making progress. America, and the rest of the developed world, is much less religious than it used to be. In the last decade or so alone, according to, for example, the American Religious Identification Survey, the proportion of Americans professing to be Christian has declined by ten percentage points, a stunning rate of decline. During the same period, the percentage professing no religion has more than doubled. I consider these to be very welcome trends. America is following the same path to disbelief and secularism as Europe. It's just a decade or so behind the curve. Posted by: Don P at September 11, 2003 01:36 AM | PERMALINK"But Stalin killed people for being religious." No, Stalin killed people for adhering to the wrong religion. So did the Roman Catholic Church. From time immmemorial. You really should educate yourself. Take a look at the Cathars--the Albigensian heresy. The only reason that the RCC did not kill more people there (they did kill more people elsewhere) is that there were not as many people as Stalin had available to kill. Posted by: raj at September 11, 2003 05:02 AM | PERMALINKDonP writes "The Catholic Church, for example, which claims fully half of the world's Christians, just issued a particularly harsh statement condemning gay marriage and gay adoptions and urged all Catholics to oppose civil laws providing for these legal relationships. The Anglican Church, supposedly one of the more liberal denominations, is close to schism simply over the confirmation of a "practising" gay bishop. Moreover, all the real growth in Christianity is occurring in the conservative denominations and conservative wings of mainline denominations. Most of this growth is occurring in the developing world. "Progressive" Christians are a dying breed." Well, of course. You really do need to understand what is really going on with corporate religion. Like the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican church, etc. It's all about adherents and--I hate to say it--money. In the first world--western Europe--people are rejecting corporate religion, and the corporations' finances are suffering. In the second world--the US--conservative people still give, well, a bit. But in the third world--Africa and other impoverished areas--that's where the battle field is. The battlefield against evangelical christian cults. And the battle field against Islam. It is not a mistake that the RCC has trotted out a bishop from Nigeria--Nigeria of all places--to bloviate on issues regarding gay people. Nigeria--where the RCC is in a life and death struggle against Islam for adherents. Nigeria--where Islam has captured more than a few provinces. Nigeria--where a woman was sentenced to death for becoming pregnant after she was raped. Nigeria, which according to the RCC is to be the touchstone for morality. Posted by: raj at September 11, 2003 05:31 AM | PERMALINKAllen Brill writes "BTW: trying to blame all homophobia on religion is silly. It's more a product of patriarchy reinforced by a fundamentalist reading of religious texts. Quite true. The fact is that more than a few of the people who bash fags--rhetorically of course--do so for reasons other than religion (althought their religion gives them a reason for bashing fags). But they use their religion to support their bashing. Actually, their bashing is based on sexism. It's a complicated issue, but the fact is that homophobes use religious tracts--regardless of how badly translated--to support their homophobia. But it's the homophobes who provided them with the bad translations. Talk about the vicious circle. Posted by: raj at September 11, 2003 05:34 AM | PERMALINKAnyone out there want to tell me what it is about Southern "culture" that the rest of us are supposed to look up to? Rock and roll? Jazz? Blues? Country? The American novel? The detective story? Literature in general? (Monroeville Alabama alone, a town of 7000, gave us Harper Lee, Truman Capote and Mark Childress) Palatable food? WHISKEY!!!??? Hell, judging from five of our last eight presidents, southern politics seem to be popular as well. As a southerner I think that's moronic but there ya go. Posted by: Harry Tuttle at September 11, 2003 07:05 AM | PERMALINKAnyone out there want to tell me what it is about Southern "culture" that the rest of us are supposed to look up to? Rock and roll? Jazz? Blues? Country? The American novel? I guess it's a bit unclear to some, but the fact is that more than a bit of the latter is a reflection of a rebellion against southern "culture." Posted by: raj at September 11, 2003 08:06 AM | PERMALINKDon P: the doubt we are talking about here--the doubt of an agnostic--is
based on the absence of persuasive reasons to believe that God exists. Whether religion is dangerous is a separate question from whether
religion is true. Obviously, one can both doubt that religion is true
and also believe that religion is dangerous. That, as I said, seems to
be the position of many, if not most, agnostics and atheists. Unquestioning belief in anything is not a good idea. Science and
reason, by their very nature, are endlessly questioning. Religion, by
its very nature, inhibits questioning. Doubt is the enemy of faith. I don't see that that's certain at all, and even if it's true
(that more people kill from "nationalism" than from religion) it
obviously does not mean that religion does not also motivate people to
kill. And I have no idea what you think I need to be "excused" from. as I just explained ... I'm arguing that the kind of God proposed
by Christianity--an involved, caring, personal God--is difficult to
reconcile with the nature of the world as revealed by science and
reason. Don, I'm not upset that you're attacking religion. Attack away! Just try to do it more intelligently. Surely you can come up with something better than a formula that reduces to "I fear beliefs that I cannot prove" but only seems to apply to religion. Posted by: Keith at September 11, 2003 09:14 AM | PERMALINKDon P: See what I said about getting bogged down with these people? There's an hour of your life you'll never get back! Although it may have been enlightening to the Doubters. Consider it a public service. In trying to get to the root of why some of my otherwise intelligent agnostic friends don't give up The Ghost, I have found that after much thought, they can't come up with a particular reason. They don't "believe" but they can't not believe. I have come to the conclusion (gained from personal experience) that kids' heads are filled with all manner of scarey visions of burning in hell. If religious boot camps can seed the fertile unformed mind with enough of that nonsense, as adults doubters logically know there's no god but they just can't shake that fear. Even if they can't put their finger on the fact that it is indeed childish fear holding them from reason. Posted by: chris at September 11, 2003 01:19 PM | PERMALINKKeith: By definition, agnostics are doubters, atheists disbelievers. No, that is not what the words mean. "Atheism" is a broad term denoting a lack of theism, a lack of belief in God. The "a-" prefix serves the same meaning as it does in words like "amoral" and "asexual." Atheism encompasses a range of beliefs regarding the existence of God, from mild skepticism ("I am somewhat doubtful that God exists") to firm denial ("I am convinced that God does not exist"). "Agnostic" relates to knowledge rather than belief. It's derived from the Greek word "gnosis" meaning "to know." An agnostic is someone who denies knowledge of God's existence. Thus, agnosticism can encompass both theism and atheism. In practise, though, most theists would probably not describe themselves as agnostic. Many theists inaccurately use the word "agnostic" to describe people who are undecided or who have no belief regarding the existence of God. It may well be that some agnostics fear religion, but my impression is that most of them either don't care very much or want the sort of proof that can't be given, while very very few actually think religion is dangerous. Atheists may feel differently, but I wasn't talking about them. Non-religious people, who may commonly describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, skeptics, secularists, or freethinkers, not only doubt or disbelieve the claims of religion, but also generally believe that religion, and the methods of "inquiry" on which religion is based (faith, divine revelation, sacred writings, etc.), are harmful to human well-being and development. The following statement of belief, from the Council for Secular Humanism, is most broadly representative: "we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation. We reject the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of Moses, Mohammed, and other latter day prophets and saints of the various sects and denominations. We do not accept as true the literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, or other allegedly sacred religious documents, however important they may be as literature." Many non-believers, of course, are much more strongly critical of religion than this. See, for example, here for a list of harsh condemnations of religion, and in particular of Christianity, from such eminent non-believers as Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, John Stuart Mill and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Posted by: Don P at September 11, 2003 03:44 PM | PERMALINKKeith: A God who intercedes in human affairs, causes miracles, etc. is indeed difficult to reconcile with reason. But a God who is involved, caring, and personal in the sense that "not a sparrow falls" without God knowing of it, and in the sense that God may be spiritually available to all, isn't a subject that science and reason are concerned with. What part of "God cares about me" could you not reconcile with the world revealed through science? The world as revealed to us by science and reason shows no clear evidence of design, direction or purpose. The existence of human beings appears to be a fluke, the result of a series of events that seem to have been entirely random. Biological evolution is a violent and chaotic process that shows no sign of direction or purpose and is utterly indifferent to our conceptions of justice and morality. The world is full of evil, both natural (disasters and diseases) and moral (people mistreating other people). It is very difficult to reconcile any of this with the God proposed by Christianity, a God who is supposedly both omnipotent and benevolent, who supposedly cares about and is intimately involved in the personal life of every individual human being. Science and reason cannot absolutely disprove the existence of such a God; they just make him more and more implausible, more and more unlikely. The conflict between science and Christianity will only intensify as science intrudes further into aspects of human nature that religion has traditionally considered its exclusive domain, most especially the human mind. Posted by: Don P at September 11, 2003 04:00 PM | PERMALINKKeith: You really don't see that as certain? Really? How many of the people who died in World War I and World War II, who died in Soviet gulags, in Khmer rouge deathcamps, and in ethnic wars since 1900 were killed in the name of religion? The claim of yours that I questioned was that more people are killed from "nationalism" than from religion. Obviously, killings motivated by ethnic hatred, political ideology, and the fight against tyranny are not relevant to that claim, so why you mention them as if they are relevant is a mystery. You have a habit of doing this. You make a claim, and when the claim is challenged or greeted with skepticism, rather than provide evidence to support it, you cite some unrelated set of facts or assertions, or simply change the subject. That is what I meant about your nonsequiturs. In any case, as I already said, the fact that there are other motives for killing besides religious conviction does not in any way excuse or mitigate the role that religion has played, and continues to play, in causing harm and misery to human beings. Posted by: Don P at September 11, 2003 04:17 PM | PERMALINKDon P: the fact that there are other motives for killing besides
religious conviction does not in any way excuse or mitigate the role
that religion has played, and continues to play, in causing harm and
misery to human beings. Let me repeat the question I asked you before: how many people do you know who have killed -- killed total strangers -- in the name of their country? How many people do you know who have killed in the name of their religion? It's an simple enough question, isn't it? Posted by: Keith at September 11, 2003 05:23 PM | PERMALINK(By definition, agnostics are doubters, atheists disbelievers) Don, I can hardly believe I'm having to point this out, but your definitions seem rather eccentric. Maybe dictionaries are part of your project of continually questioning all forms of received knowledge? You know, when you want to actually converse with other people, it's best to use the accepted definitions of words. You are perfectly free to call those appendages below your ankles "hands" or "eyebrows", but if you want to tell a doctor that you've got a problem down there, you'd be well advised to call them "feet". Posted by: Keith at September 11, 2003 05:46 PM | PERMALINKKeith: . Nationalism is a political ideology, only with a small "p". I don’t agree that nationalism is a political ideology. Nationalism is a devotion to a particular nation, not to a particular political system. A nation doesn't have to be a nation state, just an "imagined community." Well if you’re using “nation” in that very broad sense then it can be a proxy for many things, including a political ideology, a religious ideology, or an ethnicity. That still wouldn’t mean that it’s the same thing as a political ideology. If people are killing or causing misery in the name of some belief system other than religion, then yes, that mitigates the role that religion "continues to play in causing harm and misery". So in your moral calculus, if two people each commit a murder, instead of just one person, the moral culpability of each murderer is mitigated by the other one? What a strange view. Let me repeat the question I asked you before: how many people do you know who have killed -- killed total strangers -- in the name of their country? How many people do you know who have killed in the name of their religion? None and none. And the point of the question is…? Posted by: Don P at September 11, 2003 07:04 PM | PERMALINKKeith: - Agnostic a person who believes that one cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause Yes, that's what I said. What part of "An agnostic is someone who denies knowledge of God's existence" didn't you understand? - Atheist a person who believes that there is no God These statements are false. Atheism encompasses both the belief that there is no God and a lack of belief that there is a God. "Atheism" simply means "without theism." As I said, it bears the same relationship to "theism" as, say, "asexual" does to "sexual." And your last claim above is particularly silly. I guess you've never heard of non-theistic religion. There are millions of religious adherents who are atheists. Buddhism, for example, does not necessarily involve belief in any God. The many Asian religions based around ancestor worship are also atheistic. Posted by: Don P at September 11, 2003 07:17 PM | PERMALINKDon: As to atheism and agnosticism: The point where you declare that your authority to determine the meaning of words is unimpeachable and the dictionary is "false" is the point where all useful debate comes to an end. An interesting position, for someone who professes to believe in reason. Posted by: Keith at September 11, 2003 07:34 PM | PERMALINKHello. I just wanted to give a quick greeting and tell you I enjoyed reading your material online casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 11:13 AM | PERMALINKGay Super Cocks - Average Girls - Bear Lovin - Black Desires - Breathless Boys - Score Land - 8th Street Latinas - Captain Stabbin - Boys First Time - Big Naturals - Cum Fiesta - Tranny Surprise - Street Blowjobs - Real Head - Real Brats - Wet Cream Pies - Facial For A Buck - Adult Movies Matrix - Bus Stop Whores Posted by: Free xxx galleries at June 22, 2004 12:36 AM | PERMALINKPink Chocolate - Oral Lovers - Sexy Smokers - Sexy Redheads - Sexy Brunettes - Sexy Blondes - Red Hot Guys - Voyeur Addicts - Uniform Boys - Under the Uniform - Amateur Freedom - Adult Upskirt - Adult Movie Station - All Petite - Amateur University - Anal Debutants - Anal Passions Posted by: please bang my wife at June 30, 2004 08:48 AM | PERMALINK
http://www.adultcocksucking.com/orgy-top-farmsex-off-dildo-body-early-gynecologist-tit-up-sperma-intercourse-bmp-teen-drink-zoo-stories-bondage-games-xx-sound-rm-anderson.html orgy top farmsex off dildo body early gynecologist tit up sperma intercourse bmp teen drink zoo stories bondage games xx sound rm anderson html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/beauty-beastiality-pixx-beast-animalporn-free-farmanimal-girls-monkey-sex-guy-animalsex-beastialty-links-pic-dogs-havingsex-with-animals-beastiliaty.html beauty beastiality pixx beast animalporn free farmanimal girls monkey sex guy animalsex beastialty links pic dogs havingsex with animals beastiliaty html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/barrymore-shower-bitches-cartoon-maso-xxx-rendesvous-hentai-drew-porno-fellation-golden-horny-dildo-fucking.html barrymore shower bitches cartoon maso xxx rendesvous hentai drew porno fellation golden horny dildo fucking html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/animalsex-clicnic-redheads-model-boys.html animalsex clicnic redheads model boys html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/suck-ponnyfuck-black-bmp-teenage-real-nudes-indian-pictures-livevideo-xx-anderson-livesex-photos-movies.html suck ponnyfuck black bmp teenage real nudes indian pictures livevideo xx anderson livesex photos movies html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/models-cum-men-vagina-realvideo-photo-rm-wet-teens-man.html models cum men vagina realvideo photo rm wet teens man html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/male-only-celebreties-free-transexual-porno-older-bizarre-sex-pics.html male only celebreties free transexual porno older bizarre sex pics html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/porn-freeanimalsex-avis-beast-beastiality-free-wide-open-farmsex-animalfarm-hardcore-animal-vivo.html porn freeanimalsex avis beast beastiality free wide open farmsex animalfarm hardcore animal vivo html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/homos-gays-black-interracial-sex-queers.html homos gays black interracial sex queers html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/big-off-nasty-nude-picture-voyeur-pornography-exhibitionism-ejacuations-japan-voyeurs-japanese-rooms-brunette-show.html big off nasty nude picture voyeur pornography exhibitionism ejacuations japan voyeurs japanese rooms brunette show html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/pics-amputee-beastality-sex-beastiality.html pics amputee beastality sex beastiality html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/backdoors-japanese-com-amateur-hardcore-stories.html backdoors japanese com amateur hardcore stories html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/ejacuation-camp-exhibitionism-moore-woman-blond-voyeurism-livevideo-best-cindy-porn-redheads-penis-sperma-clicnic-rm-jpg-voyeur-spam-pissing-madonna.html ejacuation camp exhibitionism moore woman blond voyeurism livevideo best cindy porn redheads penis sperma clicnic rm jpg voyeur spam pissing madonna html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/password-nudes.html password nudes html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/oral-hidencamera-stroke.html oral hidencamera stroke html http://www.adultcocksucking.com/woman-beastiality-dog-with-older.html woman beastiality dog with older html Posted by: 100 MASTURBER gay transex ressources teen boy partie film nue changiste at August 2, 2004 02:41 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - http://se-par-arri-les-veulent-faire.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/se-par-arri-les-veulent-faire-plusieurs-mannequins-foutre-sur-banquette-hommes-la-re.html se par arri les veulent faire plusieurs mannequins foutre sur banquette hommes la re html http://photo-sexe-pour-lesbiennes-nu-html.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/photo-sexe-pour-lesbiennes-nu.html photo sexe pour lesbiennes nu html http://beastiality-pics-html.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/beastiality-pics.html beastiality pics html http://unlegal-sex-japanese-hardcore-teen-video.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/unlegal-sex-japanese-hardcore-teen-video-free-gallery-nude-teens-samples-amateur-teenage-pics.html unlegal sex japanese hardcore teen video free gallery nude teens samples amateur teenage pics html http://pics-samples-amateur-video-japanese-free.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/pics-samples-amateur-video-japanese-free-teen-gallery-sex.html pics samples amateur video japanese free teen gallery sex html http://chat-pic-gay-and-lesbian-story.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/chat-pic-gay-and-lesbian-story-picture-porn-kissing-free.html chat pic gay and lesbian story picture porn kissing free html http://longest-html.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/longest.html longest html http://oral-deep-fantasy-html.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/oral-deep-fantasy.html oral deep fantasy html http://teens-html.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/teens.html teens html http://teenage-gallery-sex-html.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/teenage-gallery-sex.html teenage gallery sex html http://african-ass-uncensored-fantasy-index-html.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/african-ass-uncensored-fantasy/index.html african ass uncensored fantasy index html http://teenage-pics-asian-teens-teen-sex.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/teenage-pics-asian-teens-teen-sex-chat.html teenage pics asian teens teen sex chat html http://porno-amateur-teenies-russia-japanese-teenage.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/porno-amateur-teenies-russia-japanese-teenage-free-pics-teens-teen-sex-video-chat-samples-movies.html porno amateur teenies russia japanese teenage free pics teens teen sex video chat samples movies html http://nude-free-teenage-amateur-japanese-sex.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/nude-free-teenage-amateur-japanese-sex-video-teens-pics-teen-samples-movies.html nude free teenage amateur japanese sex video teens pics teen samples movies html http://pics-chat-movies-nude-gallery-teen.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/pics-chat-movies-nude-gallery-teen-phorn-teenage-video-teens-sex-samples-free-amateur.html pics chat movies nude gallery teen phorn teenage video teens sex samples free amateur html http://movie-stories-humiliation-slut-chat-video.beauty-beast-beastiality-animals.com/movie-stories-humiliation-slut-chat-video-adult-check-free-site-model-links.html movie stories humiliation slut chat video adult check free site model links html Posted by: Strange Sex Thumbnails at August 12, 2004 05:19 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
