Why should God bless America?

[Sukerkin]

I don't know quite what to say on this one.

The part of me that becomes ever more convinced that there is no Divine being that made 'all' for his amusement can get quite irate when considering the panoply of horrendous things done at in the name of a thing that does not exist.

That very irritation makes me hold my tongue because I don't wish to aggrivate in turn those that do hold such beliefs dear to their hearts by making light of their convictions.

There does come a point tho' where you have to cry "Enough!". That point is right about now in the history of humanity.

We're teetering on the brink of a destructive global war yet again and this time we are brought there by the 'religiously' inspired actions of those we have hitherto thought of as the 'Good Guys'.

The fact that the un-named 'they' formulated their plans in reaction to another group of religious fundamentalists does not make it right or sensible. The uninvolved masses will still end up just as dead.

How is this Doomsday Waffle relevant to the OP?

If the Western nations persist in allowing extreme notions to pass unchallenged because they are 'religious' then that is simple grease for the slope.

Christian ideals as held by many boil down to "be excellent to each other" (a la Bill and ted). Christian (and other faiths) fundamentalist ideals boil down to "Kill the unbeliever".

It's a choice as to the direction educated people will go but, I hope, not a hard one.

 

[CuongNhuka]

My basic thoughts are as follows, America is not a theocracy. Meaning, America does not get it's ultimate authority from the Pope. Our president is not answerable to a religous authority. We have no law enforcing any religion (at the moment). Infact, we have a law saying (basicy) Congress cann't make the U.S. a theocracy.

Since we were never a theocrcay, we couldn't have "turned from God". Besides, America has not 'religous right' if we did, I would be dead. It's more like a 'religous centris leaning on the right slightly'.

 

[michaeledward]

Tez, I was referring to Michael's original post that started this thread.

Tellner, you understand that the post to which you refer was song lyrics penned by someone other than me? Correct? You did watch the YouTube clip, right?


Although I did reference the 'sin' of using a choir for 'song form'. (A truly horrible thing to do to a full choir).


For the record (as if anyone in this joint was completely aware) my opinions on these topics ... religion and public prayer has no place in the public sector, not even student led, in my opinion. And a woman and her doctor should be able to terminate a pregnancy at any point of their choosing.

I think the paragraph of yours that Tez3 highlighted, threw around an awful lot of second person pronouns, which are quite out of place.

 

[Gordon Nore]

If the Western nations persist in allowing extreme notions to pass unchallenged because they are 'religious' then that is simple grease for the slope.

Sterling observation, IMHO.

I don't want to derail this thread, but the Province of Ontario is currently in a debate about folding independent religious schools into public school boards. Arguments against this proposal have been awfully subdued for fear of offending the faithful. I'll start a discussion about that elsewhere. Back to your regular programming...

 

[tellner]

Sukerkin and CuongNhuka, you've hit on another point I was avoiding. Fundamentalists see themselves and unbelievers to be killed. Of course, the logical extension of that is one fanatic standing in the middle of a terrible pile of dead bodies. Emo Phillips did it really well:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge,
about to jump off. So I ran over and said "stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed
Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879,
or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

Making it personal, I'm a Jew and a Sufi.
My wife is a Sufi and a convert to boot.
She's very pious and serious about her religion.
I'm serious about it, but lazy; the only hope is the whole "Merciful and Compassionate" thing.
Neither of us is a Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant and never will be. Neither of us is a fan of the Ayatollahs or the Wahabites or ever will be.
We don't believe in forcing our religion on anyone or believe that we have a monopoly on The Truth.

The Christian Fundies, the Dominionists, Dispensationalists, Reconstructionists and neo-Calvinists have no place for us in their world. The best we can hope for is a loss of our civil rights and our status as full human beings and citizens.

The Muslim Fundies, the Wahabites and their fanatical Shiite counterparts have no place for us in their world. The best we can hope for is a loss of our civil rights and our status as full human beings and citizens.

Both sets of fanatics consider us to be depraved blaspheming heretics who are worthy only of death. We've heard the Truth as they see it and reject it. For the crime of thinking for ourselves the traditional penalty is death. A G-dly Nation by their standards would put us to death. So it behooves us to support a society built on reason and liberty rather than blind faith and obedience. We can live in a world ruled by the forebrain. We will be murdered in one ruled by the limbic system.

In past ages we could flee. "Maybe that's why," as Tevye says in the last line of Fiddler on the Roof,"we always keep our hats on." Now there is nowhere to go. The world has shrunk to the point where there is nowhere we can go if one or another of the sets of murderous fanatics wins.

 

[tellner]

Sorry Michael. I didn't quite understand what was going on there. It seemed like you were agreeing with the sentiments expressed. I humbly apologize for the mistake. But I firmly support the sentiments I expressed when they are redirected to their proper recipients.

 

[Touch Of Death]

For some reason, I am reminded of when Hillary Clinton sat through a speach by Suha Arafat as she gave an anti- semetic speach worthy of Goebels and said nothing during her following speech- and even hugging Suha afterwards.

I remember talking about it with people at the time. Some of us speculated that with the tension of public speaking, she may not have been paying close attention. There was also speculation that after being ambushed like that, diplomatically speaking there really is little you can do except distance yourself in the future from the ambushers. But I can't recall a statement from the Clintons on why she did what she did. If there was one, it might explain some of the reasons these political hopefulls didn't storm out either.

I just tried a google search, and was unable to find any comment on it from the Clintons. The closest I could find was this from USA Today.



So I know I am not having memory problems.

If anyone can find a site where she gives her reasons for not doing anything as Suha made such a statement, it might give insights into this incident.

I can say that if any of these political idiots come back for a second round with this group, you have to assume that there are ok with the message being said.

Are we sure her people weren't gassed?
Sean

 

[Makalakumu]

The God Delusion and The Virus of Faith

Both of these peices by Richard Dawkins need to be heard in this thread. Dawkins, IMO, puts this nuttiness into is proper perspective and he calls out real culprits who make fundamentalist possible.

Religious Moderates.

Here is more from Sam Harris on that topic.

 

[michaeledward]

UpNorthKyosa, I agree with your sentiments, and most of Mr. Dawkins' thoughts about how religous moderates enable the extremists. However, for an athiest to attack religious moderates gets awfully close to a line I don't like to cross. Both my parents are practicing Catholics, and my father does not believe in macro-evolution.

In this instance, I am blantantly trying to get one of two things to happen.

A - Convert moderate Republicans to moderate Democrats
B - Inspire moderate Republicans to take back their political party

Judge Roy Moore was thrown off of the Alabama Bench. Why on Earth would a Republican Candidate want to give this man the dignity of addressing his questions. He has shown no remorse over his decision (and I think he continues to fight for his statue).

The people who sponsored this debate ARE running the Republican Party, and have been for seven years. These are the people who said the government should keep Terri Schiavo on the machines. These are the people who caused President Bush to withdraw Harriett Miers nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States (Has he ever withdrawn a different nomination,that had opposition? <shrug> I don't think so).

I know in our hectic lives, it is difficult to keep up with all that is going on. But, look to these organizations for the Republican Candidate for '08. They attack 70% of the country and because half of those aren't listening, they get people like Thompson in the race. Eight years ago, in South Carolina, the drove the white hot John McCain to obscurity.

 

[Makalakumu]

UpNorthKyosa, I agree with your sentiments, and most of Mr. Dawkins' thoughts about how religous moderates enable the extremists. However, for an athiest to attack religious moderates gets awfully close to a line I don't like to cross.

Still, it's something we should think about. IMO, Dawkins and Harris are mostly correct, but I think they are painting with a slightly too broad brush. There are religious moderates who do not tolerate this stuff and there are religious people who are mostly harmless. Despite that, I think the point stands.

These are some interesting and different ideas, that I feel need more exposure. Not trying to converty people, just throwing it out there to let other make their own decisions.

 

[CoryKS]

Why should God bless America? I don't know. You make the request, and he can make up his own mind about whether to do it or not. I think it would be stupid, if not impossible, to bestow a blessing or a curse on a group of people if you have to take into account the individual actions of everyone in the group. Why not bless or curse on a case-by-case basis? It's not like he doesn't have the time.

 

[Ray]

I believe:
"There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."
Doctrine & Covenants, 130:20-21

 

[tellner]

The 19th century had Thomas "Darwin's Bulldog" Huxley. Today we have Dawkins. For the most part he's right. I don't personally like Dr. Dawkins all that much. He's abrasive, belittling, superior-acting and hasn't learned that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You catch even more with horse manure, but that's another discussion His scientific perspective had some limitations back when he was working. He lacked the breadth and depth of a Mayr or Gould. None of that signifies. He's got his facts right on this.

No matter how much it offends peoples' sensibilities the fact of evolution is well established. Period.

The theory of evolution is well developed and isn't likely to change radically. Period.

Oh, there's a lot of interesting work at the margins. There's a lot of discussion, much of it quite spirited about particulars. The fundamentals are as incontrovertible as "When you're standing on a piece of floating ice and looking straight up at Polaris you're in the Northern hemisphere."

The only opponents at this point are people who are personally invested in the literal truth of Genesis or the Mahabharata. Their belief is based on emotional conviction rather than reason, so facts and logic will not change it. Their organizations from the ICR and the Creation Museum to the Louisiana Family Forum are at their root intellectually dishonest. I wish it weren't as simple as that, but it is.

Where the new "God Virus" types get it wrong is religion itself. Of course, that's where the Fundies make their biggest mistakes, too. To both of them religion is some variant on "There's a Big Guy in the Sky. He made everything with a Zap about ten thousand years ago. He loves you, but He will smite you if you don't give Him saccharine adoration and do everything He says. Believing this is religion."

Right away the whole thing has been framed in Fundie terms.

If you step back a little and get some perspective it's possible to take a more mature view of the whole thing.

Religion is an impulse that is built into us like hunger, sexual desire or socializing. It can be expressed in many different ways like any of these. Potentially there's as much variety of religious expression and investigation as, oh, cookbooks or porn sites. The fundamental question is how will it be given its voice. Simplistic answers based on dogma force fed on pain of damnation is one way. "Polishing the mirror", working on your own crap to the point where you see thing more as they and less as reflections of your own prejudices is another.

Particular religious dogmas come and go. The religious imperative will not without severe genetic engineering. The challenge is to express it in mature productive ways that serve the search for truth, fulfillment and happiness rather than ignorance, oppression and stunting of human potential.