If we allow all that other stuff, how do we draw the line?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'all that other stuff'. Could you give examples?
I listed in the previous paragraph. Everything from laws that treat them special to social conventions.
Post #146: We have religious exemptions for taxes and it is considered rude to challenge someone’s beliefs. Non-religious candidates for public office have had a very difficult time getting elected.
We have non-profit exemptions for taxes, a category that religions fall into. I understand there are some specific tax breaks for churches, but insofar as those exist, I do think they should be changed to be the same for all non-profits. Yes, it's considered rude to challenge someone's religious beliefs and non-religious candidates have a difficult time getting elected. Those are aspects of our culture which can and are changing. I still don't see what 'line' you were taking about drawing with these examples.
What we can and should do is require that any policy decisions they advocate be justified on a basis that doesn't include the fact that their god doesn't like it.
Do you think we should allow people to take their kids out of school because they teach creationism?
Parents are allowed to take their kids out of school and homeschool if they don't approve of the public school for any reason. Their religious beliefs are irrelevant.
Should they be allowed to beat their children because their God said it was okay?
Child abuse is illegal. Their religious beliefs are irrelevant.
These are not isolated extremes. The question is not where the extremes are anyway, the question is, how do we decide where to draw the line.
I'm still not clear on what line you are talking about. The religious beliefs of the parents are irrelevant to the law in examples you give above.
I agree we should take gods out of these decisions. That's exactly what I've been saying this whole thread.
We seem to be in violent agreement here. There's no need to 'draw a line' if we keep god's will out of the justification for our laws.
advocatus, I apologize if I overlooked your presence but I do not recall your being involved in the previous discussions where I wrote about the irrational reaction to religion that I do see here and in other non-theistic groups;
That's because I wasn't an active participant. I felt that the others were saying basically what I would have said, so I just followed along. Part of problem here is that you may have been addressing a particular audience... i.e. those who are active hostile to the idea of religion... which is not me.
Regarding the religious attitude, I quoted Einstein and referred to William James. Read James' book The Varieties of Religious Experience, and his other writings where he describes and chronicles this at length. See also the statements in post #107 from New Columbia Encyclopedia, Tillich and Suzuki. Perhaps I am being unclear or perhaps you are blocking this. I don't know that but I remember when I used to throw up a wall to these same words, so I know what it's like to do it. I appreciate that you use other words that throw some non-theists into a tizzy but maybe you block on religion in particular. I don't know. I'd be clearer if I could but the best you can do, probably, is read James and other writers who have discussed this. I do wonder, though, do you really not appreciate what Einstein was saying? It's abundantly clear to me. So say it leaves you flat if you like but kindly don't say it means nothing, when many people do appreciate what it means.
Uh... no. The Einstein quote has to do with miracles. "You can either say that nothing is a miracle or that everything is a miracle." To me that's a meaningless statement without a lot more discussion. I would have to know how he defines "miracle". There are supernatural miracles and there are secular miracles. To me this is just one more example of a statement that is too broad to mean anything.
Sigh! I guess I'll just have to fade back into the background. I'll keep reading this thread, keep struggling to understand just WHAT you're trying to say. But I have to make one final observation... the fact that this one topic all by itself is already eleven pages long might be enough to convince your that your "definition" of religion is not as standard as you seem to believe it is.
We seem to be in violent agreement here. There's no need to 'draw a line' if we keep god's will out of the justification for our laws.
I'm not sure what else to say. You are dismissing these things as just cultural and saying "they are changing", but there is no way to predict if they will continue to change for the better or not. Police looked the other way for decades while children were abused by priests. The courts haven't figured out how to get around the legal maneuverings of the Vatican, yet. I know there are laws that are supposed to protect them, but the law also allows parents quite a bit of freedom. A child has to be in imminent danger before the state can step in.
Laws alone are not enough. You can't pass a law against being stupid.
I am somewhat offended by a common atheist trope that religion/churches are a universally bad thing, leading people to do evil things. Churches are a human creation that provides an opportunity for people to work together to accomplish goals they cannot as single individuals. Whether their actions are 'good' or 'evil' is always a value judgement, not an objective fact. Write4U's dogmatic and intolerant stance on what constitutes religion and why it is evil is just as repugnant to me as the dogmatic and intolerant beliefs of the church I was raised in.
Beth, I have purposely avoided commenting on your philosophical worldview, because you sounded entirely reasonable to me and as a humanist I have no problem with anyone's beliefs. Please note that this only applies at a personal level. But you brought me up as the "bad guy" in this discussion, a viewpoint which I find naive and ill considered.
My apologies if I have misunderstood or misrepresented your opinion. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I disagree with your assertion that churches where created for the people. IMO the driving force was power and control over the people.
Perhaps that was the driving force. Certainly that was the case for governments. Do you consider governments to be bad for humans in the same way you do churches? If not, why not?
When the churches' actions involved castigation, torture, burnings, beheadings, drownings, flying planes into buildings, IMO, one can make a value judgement about the physical methods used to implement the "good intentions" at a spiritual level.
If you were to apply this same critieria to governments, would a different conclusion result? If so why? If not, why aren't you an anarchist arguing to overthrow governments everywhere?
But now that you have mentioned me personally as dogmatic and intolerant, I should like to have you clarify where exactly I have demonstrated such behavior. Just a link to the post number and a comment will do fine. I am not trying to draw you into this "spritual war of gathering souls".
I've gone back through this thread and found some examples of where you came across to me that way:
Post #116: no matter how you define them, all religions are completely dogmatic and symbolic. The variety is found only in the variety of the dogma, which almost always proclaim exclusivity and alienates all who live by a different dogma.
This seems to me to be a dogmatic and intolerant statement. I think you did back off of it somewhat a little later in the thread though.
Post #116: Religion offers no useful wealth of knowledge (except perhaps in coercive psychology) and it does not get you anywhere. In religion any finding of truth which contradicts the religion is banned and/or burned.
This seems to me to be a very dogmatic and intolerant statement. It is also untrue. Religion offers knowledge many people value and not all religions ban or burn those whose find a truth in contradiction with their interpretation of God's word/will - at least not in modern society. Burning hardly ever happen these days. :)
Post #116: Name me one singular achievement beneficial to mankind which is demonstrably exclusive to religion except fear and guilt, oh and self induced ecstasy.
I don't think fear, guilt and self-induced ecstasy are demonstrably exclusive to religion. You seem to reject positive things churches/religions do because they are not exclusive to religion while being being happy to consign negative things to religion alone. To me, that's dogmatic and intolerant.
Post #129: A religion without dogma is not a religion.
This is a no-true-scotsman argument. You dismiss all those cases that don't fit your narrow definition. Then you proceed to condemn all religion based on this narrow definition.
Post #129: Dogma is religious Law asserting and reinforcing compliant behavior. It is a control mechanism.
This seems to me to be a dogmatic and intolerant statement. I agree that dogma is a control mechanism. I don't agree that it is limited to religion. For example, all forms of Law are control mechanisms. Thus, all governments about control of citizens.
Do you think we should argue for the abolition of government or for the reform of governments when their methods of control are at odds with our ideals?
...
If you believe nothing supernatural exists, why do you have a problem with supernatural spirituality as a general notion rather than a problem with specific activities like policies that start wars and legalize discrimination that result from a specific theistic beliefs?
[Beth, It is gratifying to me to see a new person, taking an active part and making cogent points. (I would like to add that although Write4U seems to be rubbing you the wrong way, so to speak, in the context of this thread, in my experiences and impressions in many discussions in other threads, he is a very intelligent and good person. I suspect that you will discover this for yourself, if you participate in enough threads.)] Thanks for the welcome. I haven't acquainted myself with Write4U outside of this thead, which isn't much really. I'll reconsider.
In regards to your question above, I have a problem with people believing in the supernatural, at all, because it seems to me that it often leads to unnecessary difficulties for individuals on a personal and emotional level, that can in turn, for example, lead to societal development of policies that can in turn lead to things such as wars and legalized discrimination.
Thank you for answering the question. I see this as a biased conclusion rather than an objective appraisal of the evidence available. The evidence that exists indicates that people who attend church regularly are healthier, both mentally and physically, than those who don't. While the cause/effect relationship isn't established, I think it does indicate that there is little or no evidence to support your belief that belief in the supernatural leads to unnecessary difficulties for individuals on a personal and emotional level.
Whether or not this, in turn, leads to societal development of policies that lead to wars and legalized discrimination is even more speculative since it depends on your previous unsupported conclusion above.
I think you can make some very good arguments about certain specific beliefs leading to such outcomes, but I haven't seen any empirical evidence that a general 'belief in something supernatural' will have that effect.
One could counter that there are non-reality based beliefs that can lead to positive societal consequences. It seems to me, however, that the net effect of non-reality based belief systems is negative, and sometimes, profoundly negative.
I think the non-reality based belief that all people are created equal has had some profound positive effects on society and for human beings. I don't think the net effect of such beliefs is so easily assessed one way or the other.
We seem to be in violent agreement here. There's no need to 'draw a line' if we keep god's will out of the justification for our laws.
I'm not sure what else to say. You are dismissing these things as just cultural and saying "they are changing", but there is no way to predict if they will continue to change for the better or not. Police looked the other way for decades while children were abused by priests. The courts haven't figured out how to get around the legal maneuverings of the Vatican, yet. I know there are laws that are supposed to protect them, but the law also allows parents quite a bit of freedom. A child has to be in imminent danger before the state can step in.
Laws alone are not enough. You can't pass a law against being stupid.
Yes, culture is slow to change and yes some children suffer from abuse at the hands of religious and parental authorities and yes, laws alone are not enough. I'm not dismissing those things as unimportant, but as irrelevant to the question at hand.
I don't understand why you appear to be arguing that we need to 'draw a line' regarding acceptable religious beliefs when I see no reason to draw such a line. It seems far better to me to draw our lines regarding what is acceptable behavior and what is not without regard for religious beliefs. Which appears to be your opinion as well. What line do you wish to draw?
The lines I wish to draw are; what is acceptable to teach to children, what is considered intolerant to the level of inciting violence, what legal protections should be provided to religious leaders, can a government official be impeached for basing a decision on a religious standard. Those are in the legal domain. We already agree on the taxing one. Makng that change alone would most likely have the desired affect on the cultural changes I’d like to see.
Here’s a way of looking at this with more a more objective lens. In the 1980s there was a rash of these cases against daycare workers. They were accused of child abuse based on testimony recovered during repressed memory therapy. This is an example of how a science, like psychiatry, can be wrong, but also how quickly it is corrected. Repressed memories are rarely accepted as evidence anymore. If we had continued to allow these accredited experts to practice their therapy without any review, many more people would have had their lives ruined by essentially false testimony.
But there is no similar correction mechanism for what has been going on for generations in Sunday Schools. There is a book in the basement of my church (the church with the pastors who has a married lesbian daughter) that says “we don’t come from monkeys". No one I know has ever used it, but it was certainly used just a couple decades ago. Those children had to deal with that when they left the convines of our little town and our little church. No law protected them from being told that they should believe it or risk going to hell.
That's because I wasn't an active participant. I felt that the others were saying basically what I would have said, so I just followed along. Part of problem here is that you may have been addressing a particular audience... i.e. those who are active hostile to the idea of religion... which is not me.
Uh... no. The Einstein quote has to do with miracles. "You can either say that nothing is a miracle or that everything is a miracle." To me that's a meaningless statement without a lot more discussion. I would have to know how he defines "miracle". There are supernatural miracles and there are secular miracles. To me this is just one more example of a statement that is too broad to mean anything.
Sigh! I guess I'll just have to fade back into the background. I'll keep reading this thread, keep struggling to understand just WHAT you're trying to say. But I have to make one final observation... the fact that this one topic all by itself is already eleven pages long might be enough to convince your that your "definition" of religion is not as standard as you seem to believe it is.
Good grief, don't you see the internal contradiction here? In the first paragraph, this is a particular "audience" of people who are "active hostile [sic] to the idea of religion" but in the final paragraph, the disagreement I get from that audience should convince me that "(my) 'definition' of religion," which I've made very clear is one of many definitions of this multifaceted concept, "is not as standard as (I) seem to believe it is." Seriously, do you not see the contradiction?
Back to the top of your post, if you hadn't been participating in the discussion, then why did you assume I was referring to you?
Finally, Einstein apparently thought his remarks would be understood. They are abundantly clear to me, as I think they are to most people, which is one reason why they are still quoted.
Beth, I may regret this later but your voice is a welcome addition to this group, in my opinion. You’re asking cogent questions and drawing nuanced lines, without getting wrapped up in the melodrama that characterizes so much of the “actively hostile to religion crowd.” In my opinion, this makes your critiques more potent.
To all, look at what is happening with Beth’s participation. She doesn’t seem to have wanted to be involved in an argument; I don’t get the sense that’s why she came here. She can correct me if I’m wrong. But look at what is happening, and let’s think about what that means as it pertains to our attracting people who agree with us on our main issues.
That's because I wasn't an active participant. I felt that the others were saying basically what I would have said, so I just followed along. Part of problem here is that you may have been addressing a particular audience... i.e. those who are active hostile to the idea of religion... which is not me.
Uh... no. The Einstein quote has to do with miracles. "You can either say that nothing is a miracle or that everything is a miracle." To me that's a meaningless statement without a lot more discussion. I would have to know how he defines "miracle". There are supernatural miracles and there are secular miracles. To me this is just one more example of a statement that is too broad to mean anything.
Sigh! I guess I'll just have to fade back into the background. I'll keep reading this thread, keep struggling to understand just WHAT you're trying to say. But I have to make one final observation... the fact that this one topic all by itself is already eleven pages long might be enough to convince your that your "definition" of religion is not as standard as you seem to believe it is.
Good grief, don't you see the internal contradiction here? In the first paragraph, this is a particular "audience" of people who are "active hostile [sic] to the idea of religion" but in the final paragraph, the disagreement I get from that audience should convince me that "(my) 'definition' of religion," which I've made very clear is one of many definitions of this multifaceted concept, "is not as standard as (I) seem to believe it is." Seriously, do you not see the contradiction?No, I don't, because I'm not hostile toward the idea of religion (although you keep insisting that I must be) and I don't follow your... okay your "mulitifaceted concept". I am definitely not saying that religion isn't a complicated subject, or that people don't use it to mean a lot of different things. That's blinking obviouis. All I'm saying is that if we're going to use it in a descriptive way, as in a "religious humanist", we ought to assign it one clear and unambiguous meaning that an ordinary person can grasp without taking a doctorate in comparative theology! But it looks like I'm shit out of luck there. ;)
Back to the top of your post, if you hadn't been participating in the discussion, then why did you assume I was referring to you?
Simple. I didn't.
Einstein apparently thought his remarks would be understood. They are abundantly clear to me, as I think they are to most people, which is one reason why they are still quoted.
Well, I've always known I'm not like most people. :)
The lines I wish to draw are; what is acceptable to teach to children, what is considered intolerant to the level of inciting violence, what legal protections should be provided to religious leaders, can a government official be impeached for basing a decision on a religious standard. Those are in the legal domain. We already agree on the taxing one. Makng that change alone would most likely have the desired affect on the cultural changes I’d like to see.
Thanks for the clarification.
What is acceptable to teach to children? It seems to me a better approach would be to define a line that indicates is NOT acceptable to teach to children rather than trying to define 'acceptable' and everything else becomes unacceptable.
Where would you draw the line regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable teaching for children?
ETA because I missed this question earlier: What is considered intolerant to the level of inciting violence? I agree that it would be nice to have some clarity on where to draw that line. But this line shouldn't be limited to religious teachings. Plenty of political rhetoric rises to a level of inciting violence I find unacceptable.
what legal protections should be provided to religious leaders
Do they receive legal protections now that others don't? I don't think they deserve legal protections based on being religious leaders, but just because I'm not aware of any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Could you give an example of what you are talking about here?
can a government official be impeached for basing a decision on a religious standard
Impeachment only applies to elected officials and I don't think that being religious is currently grounds, nor do I think it should be. I think they could be impeached for incompetence if they make a lot of poor decisions, but basing a decision on a religious standard doesn't mean it is a poor decision.
Why should the religious basis of their decision matter more than whether or not their decisions are good ones that can be justified by other, secular arguments?
Those children had to deal with that when they left the confines of our little town and our little church. No law protected them from being told that they should believe it or risk going to hell.
Do we need to protect children from being told they might go to hell when they are dead? They might hear it on the playground or from their next-door neighbor. Why do you consider this a problem?
Beth, I may regret this later but your voice is a welcome addition to this group, in my opinion. You're asking cogent questions and drawing nuanced lines, without getting wrapped up in the melodrama that characterizes so much of the "actively hostile to religion crowd." In my opinion, this makes your critiques more potent.
Thank you. I do try.
To all, look at what is happening with Beth's participation. She doesn't seem to have wanted to be involved in an argument; I don't get the sense that's why she came here. She can correct me if I'm wrong. But look at what is happening, and let's think about what that means as it pertains to our attracting people who agree with us on our main issues.
I do enjoy arguing actually, but I hate personal attacks. So far, I haven't experienced any here and it doesn't appear common, in which case I may stick around. Thanks for the welcome.
I don't follow your... okay your "mulitifaceted concept".
What don't you understand about it? It's hardly original with me. Have you read Ninian Smart's writings regarding his "seven dimensions of religion," for example? It strikes me as odd that no one has even acknowledged it, even though I've referred to it more than once. Why is that?
All I'm saying is that if we're going to use it in a descriptive way, as in a "religious humanist", we ought to assign it one clear and unambiguous meaning that an ordinary person can grasp without taking a doctorate in comparative theology!
Unless I misunderstand you, you are not a religious humanist, at least by description. So you want there to be an unambiguous descriptive definition of something you don't consider yourself to be a part of.
Whether you consider yourself to be a religious humanist or not, you propose that "we ought to assign it one clear and unambiguous meaning . . ."
1. Whom do you propose should do this? Who do you imagine has the authority to do it? What structure do you propose, if any, for the group that will formulate this definition? On what basis do you believe that such an organization will have any authority? What kind of authority? How long do you anticipate this assigned definition of religious humanism will persist, and who do you think will accept it. Sometimes people have general ideas about things, so I can understand if you haven't thought about the particular mechanics. But what would this look like in general, at least? Or maybe you mean we should come up with a definition among ourselves, here at CFI; but it seems obvious that isn't about to happen. So just what is it that you are saying we should do?
2. For what purpose should we assign this definition to "religious humanist"?
3. On what basis do you think that this is even possible? What organization of a similar character can you point to that has done that? Republicans? Democrats? Liberals? Conservatives? Catholics, even, or Jews or Christians?
4. Assuming there are any groups that have done that, which of them would you offer as models for this undertaking?
5. Do you propose a definition? If so, what is it?
6. If you propose a definition, what tangible advantages do you believe will accrue to us, our organizations and our causes, if any? On what basis?
That's for starters. I have a client waiting.
Do we need to protect children from being told they might go to hell when they are dead? They might hear it on the playground or from their next-door neighbor. Why do you consider this a problem?
Hearing about hell from a kid on the schoolyard and hearing it from an authority figure is very different. I think that is obvious.
I was on my way to a meeting before that last answer, so I rushed it. Really, my position is pretty clear, any claims of supernatural anything should be confined to discussions of mythology and always be qualified as purely speculative. We agree that the opposite end of the spectrum, the fundamentalists and terrorists should be quarantined in some way.
The question of drawing lines is important only if asked of people who label themselves liberal Christians, or non-theistic religious or spiritual but not religious. Once you open the door to any idea of say, the effectiveness of prayer, how do you then draw a line for a parent who is praying for their child instead of taking them to a doctor? How sick do they have to be before it’s abusive to only prayer for them? If that line is drawn anywhere, how did you justify praying as a sensible action in the first place?
It’s much more sensible to draw a clear line. We don’t allow prayer to be led by or directed by the employees of a public school because once you do, the question is, which prayer? There is no fair answer that satisfies everybody. That we still have prayer in Congress and “God" on our money sends a mixed message. We need to clear up these boundaries.
The reason it’s important refers back to your smiling faced comment about people not getting burned at the stake much anymore. Have you been following the death penalty laws against gays in Uganda? These are supported by religious leaders here in the US. The dangers of irrational belief systems are very real and, IMO, they won’t go away on their own.
2. For what purpose should we assign this definition to “religious humanist"?
Just a WAG here, but I'm betting he wanted a definition of the term just so the rest of us know what you are talking about. That is, for the purpose of this conversation. I don't think he was proposing there need be an international body created to regulate the use of the term.
We're all aware that there are different definitions out there. That's a big part of the fuss over there in the Mid-East isn't it? The question is, what do you mean PLaClair? And try to keep it short.
...
If you believe nothing supernatural exists, why do you have a problem with supernatural spirituality as a general notion rather than a problem with specific activities like policies that start wars and legalize discrimination that result from a specific theistic beliefs?
[Beth, It is gratifying to me to see a new person, taking an active part and making cogent points. (I would like to add that although Write4U seems to be rubbing you the wrong way, so to speak, in the context of this thread, in my experiences and impressions in many discussions in other threads, he is a very intelligent and good person. I suspect that you will discover this for yourself, if you participate in enough threads.)] Thanks for the welcome. I haven't acquainted myself with Write4U outside of this thead, which isn't much really. I'll reconsider.
In regards to your question above, I have a problem with people believing in the supernatural, at all, because it seems to me that it often leads to unnecessary difficulties for individuals on a personal and emotional level, that can in turn, for example, lead to societal development of policies that can in turn lead to things such as wars and legalized discrimination.
Thank you for answering the question. I see this as a biased conclusion rather than an objective appraisal of the evidence available. The evidence that exists indicates that people who attend church regularly are healthier, both mentally and physically, than those who don't. While the cause/effect relationship isn't established, I think it does indicate that there is little or no evidence to support your belief that belief in the supernatural leads to unnecessary difficulties for individuals on a personal and emotional level.
Whether or not this, in turn, leads to societal development of policies that lead to wars and legalized discrimination is even more speculative since it depends on your previous unsupported conclusion above.
I think you can make some very good arguments about certain specific beliefs leading to such outcomes, but I haven't seen any empirical evidence that a general 'belief in something supernatural' will have that effect.
One could counter that there are non-reality based beliefs that can lead to positive societal consequences. It seems to me, however, that the net effect of non-reality based belief systems is negative, and sometimes, profoundly negative.
I think the non-reality based belief that all people are created equal has had some profound positive effects on society and for human beings. I don't think the net effect of such beliefs is so easily assessed one way or the other.
Very good reply!
I must admit that my perspective on this matter is not based on empirical studies having to do with church attendance but rather on 1) generalizing my subjective experiences in religious activities (e.g., being unnecessarily terrified as a child, listening to sermons on damnation to hellfire for eternity) to the broader population, and 2) the breadth of historical examples of crimes against humanity perpetrated in the name of religions and/or under the influence of religious beliefs, and 3) an extraordinary amount of contemporary examples, in the world at large, of what seem to be religious influences that sustain discriminative policies or actions toward members of other religions and non-religious persons (e.g., Muslims may be killing Christians, as we speak, in large part, because they are Christians, and vice a versa, to a lesser degree. There are 13 countries in the world where someone can be put to death for homosexuality. There are several states in the USA, today, whose constitutions have provisions to disallow someone, who will not profess belief in a Supreme Being, from holding public office. Various Christian groups effectively establish public policies that can limit some women from having abortions if they so choose. I could go on and on.).
Do we need to protect children from being told they might go to hell when they are dead? They might hear it on the playground or from their next-door neighbor. Why do you consider this a problem?
Hearing about hell from a kid on the schoolyard and hearing it from an authority figure is very different. I think that is obvious. It was not clear to me that you were referring only to authority figures. Thanks for the clarification, but it still doesn't answer the question of why you consider this a problem. Why should children be prevented from hearing from their parents or church officials that they might go to hell?
I was on my way to a meeting before that last answer, so I rushed it. Really, my position is pretty clear, any claims of supernatural anything should be confined to discussions of mythology and always be qualified as purely speculative.
Why should other people's freedom of religion be limited in this manner? Assuming you are still talking about children, this would constitute an attempt to prevent parents from passing their religion on to their children. That seems a direct infringement of their parental rights for which you need a compelling justification.
If you are talking about a more general application to all public spaces, it seems an even worse overreach and infringement of both freedom of speech and religious freedom.
We agree that the opposite end of the spectrum, the fundamentalists and terrorists should be quarantined in some way.
When fundamentalists attempt to inflict laws on our society justified solely on the basis of their religion, I have a problem with that; but the solution to that problem need not and should not require quarantining people based on their beliefs.
Terrorists are another kettle of fish, but their actions are already prohibited by law and they can be sent to prison for their terrorist activities.
The question of drawing lines is important only if asked of people who label themselves liberal Christians, or non-theistic religious or spiritual but not religious.
Why do you say this?
Once you open the door to any idea of say, the effectiveness of prayer, how do you then draw a line for a parent who is praying for their child instead of taking them to a doctor? How sick do they have to be before it’s abusive to only prayer for them? If that line is drawn anywhere, how did you justify praying as a sensible action in the first place?
You are surely not complaining about parents who pray in additional to their medical care. Our courts our currently sorting out when prayer alone constitutes criminal medical neglect. It is a problem, but not for the liberals you mentioned above.
It’s much more sensible to draw a clear line.
Like zero tolerance policies? I'm not so sure about those clear lines being more sensible. They just seem to lead to a different set of problems.
We don’t allow prayer to be led by or directed by the employees of a public school because once you do, the question is, which prayer? There is no fair answer that satisfies everybody. That we still have prayer in Congress and “God" on our money sends a mixed message. We need to clear up these boundaries.
Okay. This is a legitimate complaint IMO. But this 'line' doesn't have anything to do with differences between fundamentalist and liberal approaches to religion. It has to do with government acceptance and sponsorship of religion.
The reason it’s important refers back to your smiling faced comment about people not getting burned at the stake much anymore. Have you been following the death penalty laws against gays in Uganda?
No. I generally don't follow political news outside of the US.
These are supported by religious leaders here in the US. The dangers of irrational belief systems are very real and, IMO, they won’t go away on their own.
You seem to be saying that because the government is doing bad things in Uganda that some religious leaders here support, therefore we should quarantine people who hold supernatural beliefs?
I think I'm probably misunderstanding you, but what exactly is it you are advocating we do with respect to US citizens who publicly support such policies in other countries?
I would add that I am certain that superstitious behavior is a naturally evolved characteristic that humans exhibit. Perhaps belief in the supernatural, in part, stems from this. And I admit that belief in the supernatural can often be benign for most people. (But, clearly it is, often, not so benign, for example, in some persons who have mental health issues.)
The cultural belief that, I agree, is not demonstrably reality based, “All men are created equal.” , is not something that I have thought of as a “supernatural” belief. Rather I would put it in the category of a guiding principle such as “Treat others the way you would want to be treated.” The latter, being the “Golden Rule” is attributed to the historical Jesus, so as I have already admitted, I think that some positives have arisen from a religious orientation.
So would the world be better off if there were no belief in the supernatural? Many of our children in the U.S.A. would not be faced with the very real prospect of having to learn Creationism as a viable alternative to the Theory of Evolution.
I’m not suggesting people’s freedoms be limited. That’s different than saying where my personal boundaries are set and saying what I think is right. We don’t have to pass laws that tell people what to believe but we can create a society where being reasonable is a clearer choice. You are completely resisting all of the reasons we have been giving for the dangers of passing religion on to children, so I’m getting a little a tired of responding to that.
Children should be allowed to decide for themselves what religion they are. They should be taught to think for themselves. Currently we put the parent’s right to teach their kids whatever they want above the child’s right to learn about the real world. You seem to be siding with the parents.
I never suggested phyiscally quarantining anyone based on their beliefs, only on their actions. Again, you are reluctant to discuss how it is legal to teach someone to hate. You are content to wait until they are on the plane with the bomb in their pants. I used the word in a very broad sense. For example, if someone was shouting hate for Muslims in a public park near you, my guess is people picnicking in the area would politely ask them to stop, that’s a form of quarantining. Most people don’t expose their kids to videos of beheadings, that’s a form of quarantining.
I’m not going to discuss what laws should be in place anymore, that is a different issue. It’s a free country. I used prayer in schools as an example of how best to handle the issue, to get you to think about it. I’m not suggesting we take away someone’s right to pray for their kid.
The question is, what does that communicate to them? How do you answer the question from them about why go to the doctor if prayer is an option? Can you see how you doing something that doesn’t have a rational basis is potentially disruptive to teaching them critical thinking? It’s like spanking them because they hit their sister. You can’t teach them to solve their problems non-violently if you use violence.
The reason (some of) you do not understand what I mean by religious humanism has little or nothing to do with my being clear. It has to do with the fact that this is a word you do not like, and do not wish to apply to humanism. I’ve watched you resist it, react to it, get angry about it and even become insulting over it; I’ve watched you ignore answers to your questions, along with questions to your claims. It’s all here for anyone who cares to read it. I’ve watched this go on in our groups and organizations for more than two decades. And others see it too.
Test the proposition. What is a humanist? I’ve seen organizations like ours argue and fight over that, never coming to a concrete definition of “humanist” or “humanism” everyone in the group could agree on. We’ve never had a concrete definition of what humanism is, and never will, because it means different things to different people, humanists and non-humanists alike. And we don’t need to have one because that is not the function these words serve.
Test the proposition. Everybody clamoring for a definition of “religious humanist” post your respective definitions of a humanist.
I can give you my definition of a religious humanist. It is someone whose central concerns are those of human beings and other sentient beings, sees these concerns as central in every dimension of his life, feels passionately about it and acts accordingly. This is not an exclusive definition, and I would probably give you a slightly different answer if you asked me a week or a year from now; but the general parameters will remain the same, unless I come to see something I do not yet appreciate.
That’s my answer to your question. Now, what is your answer to mine?