Govt. Can't endorse religion:
One thing I keep noticing is that some Christians seem to believe that their ability to worship their God is contingent on the government acknowledging that God.That simply isn't true.If God was removed from our currency, Pledge of Allegiance and the 10 Commandments from all public buildings and areas, it would not interfere in the least with the right and ability of Christians to practice their religion. They can still insert God when they say the Pledge, they still can obey the commandments in full. I fully honor their right to do so.The problem is when the government gets into the issue of God, it creates complications. It serves to further the belief that a certain God exists, especially to the young. Now that might be fine with certain Christian parents, but the parents of Jews, Hindus, atheists/agnostics and, indeed, certain Christian parents might not wish for the state/government to further a certain view of God or even Christianity. Of the 10 Commandments, only three have anything to do with modern law: prohibitions on murder, theft and bearing false witness (or in modern terms, perjury). The first four prohibit actually worship of a God other than the Judeo-Christian God. These prohibitions on worshiping other Gods or graven images or honoring the Sabbath or not taking God's name in vain aren't suggestions but commands.James Madison viewed it is imperative to keep religion and state separate: "The Civil government...functions with complete success...by the total separation of the Church from the State," in a letter to Gene Garman. The Treaty of Tripoli states, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." This was a treaty ratified while John Adams was president, ratified by many of the same men who just a decade earlier supported the creation of the Constitution.What are the effects of the 10 Commandments in a public school? Well, it gives the impression to the child that they aren't free to worship another God; after all, isn't the school commanding them to worship this specific God, and how? Even if that impression is wrong, it still persists and will continue to do so along as it is on that wall.How can one possibly state that the 10 Commandments will leave a positive impression for children when it comes to the moral values it imparts, but it won't confuse the child by statements on the practice of worship? Yes, let us teach moral values in schools, but religion isn't necessary to do so.Theft, murder, etc., are wrong because they harm others. We don't need an ancient document to give that knowledge to our children. If some Christians - on their own, and not through the power of the state - want to put up a copy of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, fine - do it during a time where the government allows all citizens to put in different documents, not just ones that are pro-Judeo-Christian.I, myself, would put a copy of Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason," which was a great inspiration for our concept of natural rights and liberty.
Democrats and Christians
Dave Southern is wrong; being a white Christian is not a bad thing. Indeed, most Democrats are white Christians and most Democratic politicians are white Christians.Harry Reid, John Kerry are all white Christians. Virtually every member of the Democratic congressional delegation is a Christian. So, the Democrats aren't anti-Christian.
The difference in the brand of Christianity between Democrats and Republicans on the whole is that the former is less literal and fundamentalist driven than the latter.Second, Mr. Southern is wrong, Christians aren't a minority religion. More than 80 percent of Americans view themselves as Christians, be they white, black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. Does Mr. Southern mean only fundamentalist Christians, who would then be a minority of Americans if considered solely?
If so, then his view of what is a Christian seems very limited. To compare the Democrats to the Nazis - anti-Semitism is over the top, indeed. One, being the fact that Christians aren't a minority and even if we consider only fundamentalist-type Christians, no one is arguing their churches should be broken into, their property confiscated or that it be mandated they wear crosses on their shirts as Jews had to wear Jewish stars on theirs.Now, does Howard Dean oppose the Christian right? Yes, he does. He opposes their opposition to allowing states to have same sex marriage or civil unions if they so choose. He opposes the essential view that the Bible should be the basis for the civil law that covers all Americans.
I urge the Republican Party to reach out to minority groups, non-whites and non-Christians. Heck, even atheists.The first President Bush stated "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." Is this still how the modern GOP still views atheists? I hope not.
I will not get into the rhetoric of comparing atheists as attacked and abused as was done to the German Jews in the 1930s, as Mr. Southern chooses to do so for his brand of Christianity. Lastly, I wonder if Bush I thinks that Ted Williams, baseball player, fighter pilot in two wars and an atheist, wasn't a patriot?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Morality/electoral college/Constitution
Moral Foundation:
It is stated that morality should be included in the creation of civil law, that we, as a nation, need a moral foundation in order to have stability and respect for others.I agree, along as the moral principles have a secular foundation that all aspects of society, the religious and the non-religious, can agree on.Public policy shouldn't have an arbitrary, purely religious reason to it but one that deals with moral principles that do not require an appeal to God/religion.We can all agree that a person shouldn't be murdered, raped, attacked etc. because such things violate the very humanity that each possess, that each person is born with. If this humanity is a product of God or evolutionary processes, it doesn't matter; the fact is that this humanity is inherent in all, a part of our very human nature.
I urge is that those who take a position on an issue - be it abortion, the death penalty, homosexuality - be able to logically state the reasons why they support that position, without an appeal to a deity.Appeals to God often make for lazy thinking. All should be able to state the reasons for their position. If a position can't be defended without a justification, then the moral position seems to lack any true/rationale basis.As a non-religious, I am not opposed to laws/rules that ensure a respect for others, as the Golden Rule states, a rule which is prevalent in many cultures have created on their own. To not create a public policy based on a secular justification puts men/women under the basis of a religious code, that they do not believe in. This would be as bad, as forcing Christians to live under Islamic law, without a justification given why Islamic law is correct than just other than saying Allah says so.Secularism is not in opposition to religion; it is the acknowledgement that not all agree on religion or a religion so we must agree on a common denominator basis for public policy that is based on reducing harm in society and furthering human happiness.
No need for Electoral College
It is often stated that without the Electoral College, all national elections would be decided by population centers New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and a few others. Those three cities, according to 2000 census figures, have a combined population of roughly 14.5 million, or a little more than 5 percent of the 280 or so million people in the U.S.The 16 largest cities have a combined population of only about 10 percent of the U.S. population. That doesn't even include the obvious point: that not everyone in a big city will vote for the same candidate, anyway. Obviously, a few large cities can't win an election by themselves.Some state that small states would have no say under direct popular vote. Most swing states are medium to large states. Smaller states, such as Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Vermont and Montana, in 2000 and 2004 all got ignored by the presidential candidates because they weren't up for grabs. Indeed, if we didn't have an Electoral College, it would be impossible for candidates to pay any less attention to these states.
Big swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio received massive amounts of attention in both 2000 and 2004 from the presidential candidates. Indeed, in our present system of "winner takes all" delegates of a state serves as a disincentive to the minority party voter in a state. It serves to make the vote of a Republican voter in Hawaii or a Democrat voter in Wyoming meaningless. It directly depresses the vote.In Afghanistan, there is instant runoff balloting for the presidency. We can do as well as a nation that just a few years ago was under the Taliban. Our founders made the Constitution for us, not the other way around. It should represent the present needs of Americans.I'm an American first and foremost; my state loyalty comes a distant second, as I assume the same for most Americans. The Electoral College was made in an era where state loyalty was first and foremost. It is time to end the Electoral College or reform
Letter on violation of the US Constitution by Bush
I am amazed that Jack Matthews, whose Letter to the Editor appeared in the Chronicle’s Dec. 21 edition, views the many violations of Constitutional liberties by presidents previous to George Bush as not that important or excusing any misconduct by President Bush.The Alien and Sedition Act was clearly unconstitutional. It imprisoned critics of the Adams administration. There is absolutely no defense of this law, which was immediately repealed when Thomas Jefferson took office. It was unconstitutional for Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and others to engage in unconstitutional violations of basic civil liberties.A history of presidents abusing their authority does not excuse those abuses nor does it excuse any violation of civil liberties that President Bush might have engaged in. Frankly, the president isn’t above the Constitution, and he isn’t above checks and balances on him, be it the judicial branch or the legislative branch. Indeed, the Bush administration’s own justice department stated in a memo that the Bush administration is not obligated to follow any Congressional statute if it interferes with the way the President sees to his policies in the war on terror. While it is extremely important that the President has the tools to fight terrorists, he isn’t a one-man government. Clearly, he and his administration are obligated to abide by federal law, if passed in the past or recently, and judicial approval as mandated by the Fourth Amendment’s protections. And in regards to the guest column by Geoffery Higginbotham, which appeared in the Chronicle’s Dec. 28 edition, I agree with some of his comments, but I have to point out one thing. Congressman’s Murtha resolution on Iraq wasn’t voted upon; it was a Republican resolution. The Republicans knew that few Democrats supported the language of the Republican resolution. Murtha’s resolution wrote for these steps to be taken: “Section 1, The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date. Section 2, A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region. Section 3, The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.”Here is the Republican resolution that was falsely stated as what Murtha and other Democrats wanted, in its entirety: “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately. Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”Clearly, these resolutions didn’t match. If one wants to disagree with Murtha and anti-war Democrats, fine, but let’s be honest.
It is stated that morality should be included in the creation of civil law, that we, as a nation, need a moral foundation in order to have stability and respect for others.I agree, along as the moral principles have a secular foundation that all aspects of society, the religious and the non-religious, can agree on.Public policy shouldn't have an arbitrary, purely religious reason to it but one that deals with moral principles that do not require an appeal to God/religion.We can all agree that a person shouldn't be murdered, raped, attacked etc. because such things violate the very humanity that each possess, that each person is born with. If this humanity is a product of God or evolutionary processes, it doesn't matter; the fact is that this humanity is inherent in all, a part of our very human nature.
I urge is that those who take a position on an issue - be it abortion, the death penalty, homosexuality - be able to logically state the reasons why they support that position, without an appeal to a deity.Appeals to God often make for lazy thinking. All should be able to state the reasons for their position. If a position can't be defended without a justification, then the moral position seems to lack any true/rationale basis.As a non-religious, I am not opposed to laws/rules that ensure a respect for others, as the Golden Rule states, a rule which is prevalent in many cultures have created on their own. To not create a public policy based on a secular justification puts men/women under the basis of a religious code, that they do not believe in. This would be as bad, as forcing Christians to live under Islamic law, without a justification given why Islamic law is correct than just other than saying Allah says so.Secularism is not in opposition to religion; it is the acknowledgement that not all agree on religion or a religion so we must agree on a common denominator basis for public policy that is based on reducing harm in society and furthering human happiness.
No need for Electoral College
It is often stated that without the Electoral College, all national elections would be decided by population centers New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and a few others. Those three cities, according to 2000 census figures, have a combined population of roughly 14.5 million, or a little more than 5 percent of the 280 or so million people in the U.S.The 16 largest cities have a combined population of only about 10 percent of the U.S. population. That doesn't even include the obvious point: that not everyone in a big city will vote for the same candidate, anyway. Obviously, a few large cities can't win an election by themselves.Some state that small states would have no say under direct popular vote. Most swing states are medium to large states. Smaller states, such as Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Vermont and Montana, in 2000 and 2004 all got ignored by the presidential candidates because they weren't up for grabs. Indeed, if we didn't have an Electoral College, it would be impossible for candidates to pay any less attention to these states.
Big swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio received massive amounts of attention in both 2000 and 2004 from the presidential candidates. Indeed, in our present system of "winner takes all" delegates of a state serves as a disincentive to the minority party voter in a state. It serves to make the vote of a Republican voter in Hawaii or a Democrat voter in Wyoming meaningless. It directly depresses the vote.In Afghanistan, there is instant runoff balloting for the presidency. We can do as well as a nation that just a few years ago was under the Taliban. Our founders made the Constitution for us, not the other way around. It should represent the present needs of Americans.I'm an American first and foremost; my state loyalty comes a distant second, as I assume the same for most Americans. The Electoral College was made in an era where state loyalty was first and foremost. It is time to end the Electoral College or reform
Letter on violation of the US Constitution by Bush
I am amazed that Jack Matthews, whose Letter to the Editor appeared in the Chronicle’s Dec. 21 edition, views the many violations of Constitutional liberties by presidents previous to George Bush as not that important or excusing any misconduct by President Bush.The Alien and Sedition Act was clearly unconstitutional. It imprisoned critics of the Adams administration. There is absolutely no defense of this law, which was immediately repealed when Thomas Jefferson took office. It was unconstitutional for Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and others to engage in unconstitutional violations of basic civil liberties.A history of presidents abusing their authority does not excuse those abuses nor does it excuse any violation of civil liberties that President Bush might have engaged in. Frankly, the president isn’t above the Constitution, and he isn’t above checks and balances on him, be it the judicial branch or the legislative branch. Indeed, the Bush administration’s own justice department stated in a memo that the Bush administration is not obligated to follow any Congressional statute if it interferes with the way the President sees to his policies in the war on terror. While it is extremely important that the President has the tools to fight terrorists, he isn’t a one-man government. Clearly, he and his administration are obligated to abide by federal law, if passed in the past or recently, and judicial approval as mandated by the Fourth Amendment’s protections. And in regards to the guest column by Geoffery Higginbotham, which appeared in the Chronicle’s Dec. 28 edition, I agree with some of his comments, but I have to point out one thing. Congressman’s Murtha resolution on Iraq wasn’t voted upon; it was a Republican resolution. The Republicans knew that few Democrats supported the language of the Republican resolution. Murtha’s resolution wrote for these steps to be taken: “Section 1, The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date. Section 2, A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region. Section 3, The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.”Here is the Republican resolution that was falsely stated as what Murtha and other Democrats wanted, in its entirety: “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately. Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”Clearly, these resolutions didn’t match. If one wants to disagree with Murtha and anti-war Democrats, fine, but let’s be honest.
Morality/Same Sex marriage/God
Morality:
Some state that morality comes from God. I believe that morality, as the book "The Moral Animal" argues so well, has its origins in natural selection.Members of a species that have some degree of cooperation are more likely to survive than ones that don't. The reason we are moral is to reduce harm to us and others and ensure our happiness.Morality that doesn't have that purpose is arbitrary. Right/wrongness don't have a basis in a belief in God. Morality has to supersede a God or it is just the whims of that God. It must be based on real needs of intelligent beings, such as us. Morality is to recognize the suffering of others.
The idea that without a belief in God in a society there would be moral anarchy and chaos is disproven by the fact that the rate of crime by nonbelievers or atheists in society is, in fact, below the rate of the general population. There are very few (but some) atheists in our nation's prisons, and few arrested have been atheists at the time they committed their crimes. If one convinces a Christian there is no God, would that person commit crimes tomorrow? No, because a Christian or an atheist feet empathy towards one fellow person which is the very basis of morality.Now, maybe Vidal, Dawkins and even I might be out of step with the majority but weren't Galileo and Copernicus also out of step for their time with the majority?
Same Sex Marriage:
It is also true that in the 1950 South most Southerners opposed integration, and the majority of Americans in 1850 opposed women's right to vote. In Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, it took the Supreme Court to uphold the rights of the minority to attend good, integrated schools.If the 14th Amendment and its' "Equal Protection Clause" did not protect gays from being discriminated against, then it does not protect atheists from marrying Jews, Catholics from marrying Baptists or blacks from marrying whites because that wasn't the intent of the writers of the 14th amendment originally.Do we want to take such a narrow view of the law and allow the states, if they so wish, to determine who can marry? Do we want to be able to say to the short that they can't vote, to the skinny that they can't run for office?
All would be allowable by the majority to implement with a limited view of "equal protection."Unless there is an inherent harm in allowing equal protection, such as allowing brothers to marry sisters, which would increase the number of birth defects, there is no reason to deny gays the right to marry. AIDS would decrease under more stable gay relationships, another plus in its favor.Our nation and government is made for all citizens: Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, men, women, gays, whites, blacks, etc., and should not just reflect just the beliefs of those who wish to implement their religious beliefs into law when there is no secular reason for that implementation.Our nation is a history of progress and an extension of rights and liberties, since its beginning women, non-property owning men, blacks have gained the right to vote.Blacks and whites have gained the right to marry each other. Let's continue that progress forward and not hinder it.
God:
If God was removed from our currency, Pledge of Allegiance and the 10 Commandments from all public buildings and areas, it would not interfere in the least with the right and ability of Christians to practice their religion. They can still insert God when they say the Pledge, they still can obey the commandments in full. I fully honor their right to do so.The problem is when the government gets into the issue of God, it creates complications. It serves to further the belief that a certain God exists, especially to the young. Now that might be fine with certain Christian parents, but the parents of Jews, Hindus, atheists/agnostics and, indeed, certain Christian parents might not wish for the state/government to further a certain view of God or even Christianity.
Of the 10 Commandments, only three have anything to do with modern law: prohibitions on murder, theft and bearing false witness (or in modern terms, perjury). The first four prohibit actually worship of a God other than the Judeo-Christian God. These prohibitions on worshiping other Gods or graven images or honoring the Sabbath or not taking God's name in vain aren't suggestions but commands.James Madison viewed it is imperative to keep religion and state separate: "The Civil government...functions with complete success...by the total separation of the Church from the State," in a letter to Gene Garman. The Treaty of Tripoli states, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." This was a treaty ratified while John Adams was president, ratified by many of the same men who just a decade earlier supported the creation of the Constitution.What are the effects of the 10 Commandments in a public school? Well, it gives the impression to the child that they aren't free to worship another God; after all, isn't the school commanding them to worship this specific God, and how? Even if that impression is wrong, it still persists and will continue to do so along as it is on that wall.How can one possibly state that the 10 Commandments will leave a positive impression for children when it comes to the moral values it imparts, but it won't confuse the child by statements on the practice of worship? Yes, let us teach moral values in schools, but religion isn't necessary to do so.Theft, murder, etc., are wrong because they harm others. We don't need an ancient document to give that knowledge to our children. If some Christians - on their own, and not through the power of the state - want to put up a copy of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, fine - do it during a time where the government allows all citizens to put in different documents, not just ones that are pro-Judeo-Christian.I, myself, would put a copy of Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason," which was a great inspiration for our concept of natural rights and liberty.
Some state that morality comes from God. I believe that morality, as the book "The Moral Animal" argues so well, has its origins in natural selection.Members of a species that have some degree of cooperation are more likely to survive than ones that don't. The reason we are moral is to reduce harm to us and others and ensure our happiness.Morality that doesn't have that purpose is arbitrary. Right/wrongness don't have a basis in a belief in God. Morality has to supersede a God or it is just the whims of that God. It must be based on real needs of intelligent beings, such as us. Morality is to recognize the suffering of others.
The idea that without a belief in God in a society there would be moral anarchy and chaos is disproven by the fact that the rate of crime by nonbelievers or atheists in society is, in fact, below the rate of the general population. There are very few (but some) atheists in our nation's prisons, and few arrested have been atheists at the time they committed their crimes. If one convinces a Christian there is no God, would that person commit crimes tomorrow? No, because a Christian or an atheist feet empathy towards one fellow person which is the very basis of morality.Now, maybe Vidal, Dawkins and even I might be out of step with the majority but weren't Galileo and Copernicus also out of step for their time with the majority?
Same Sex Marriage:
It is also true that in the 1950 South most Southerners opposed integration, and the majority of Americans in 1850 opposed women's right to vote. In Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, it took the Supreme Court to uphold the rights of the minority to attend good, integrated schools.If the 14th Amendment and its' "Equal Protection Clause" did not protect gays from being discriminated against, then it does not protect atheists from marrying Jews, Catholics from marrying Baptists or blacks from marrying whites because that wasn't the intent of the writers of the 14th amendment originally.Do we want to take such a narrow view of the law and allow the states, if they so wish, to determine who can marry? Do we want to be able to say to the short that they can't vote, to the skinny that they can't run for office?
All would be allowable by the majority to implement with a limited view of "equal protection."Unless there is an inherent harm in allowing equal protection, such as allowing brothers to marry sisters, which would increase the number of birth defects, there is no reason to deny gays the right to marry. AIDS would decrease under more stable gay relationships, another plus in its favor.Our nation and government is made for all citizens: Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, men, women, gays, whites, blacks, etc., and should not just reflect just the beliefs of those who wish to implement their religious beliefs into law when there is no secular reason for that implementation.Our nation is a history of progress and an extension of rights and liberties, since its beginning women, non-property owning men, blacks have gained the right to vote.Blacks and whites have gained the right to marry each other. Let's continue that progress forward and not hinder it.
God:
If God was removed from our currency, Pledge of Allegiance and the 10 Commandments from all public buildings and areas, it would not interfere in the least with the right and ability of Christians to practice their religion. They can still insert God when they say the Pledge, they still can obey the commandments in full. I fully honor their right to do so.The problem is when the government gets into the issue of God, it creates complications. It serves to further the belief that a certain God exists, especially to the young. Now that might be fine with certain Christian parents, but the parents of Jews, Hindus, atheists/agnostics and, indeed, certain Christian parents might not wish for the state/government to further a certain view of God or even Christianity.
Of the 10 Commandments, only three have anything to do with modern law: prohibitions on murder, theft and bearing false witness (or in modern terms, perjury). The first four prohibit actually worship of a God other than the Judeo-Christian God. These prohibitions on worshiping other Gods or graven images or honoring the Sabbath or not taking God's name in vain aren't suggestions but commands.James Madison viewed it is imperative to keep religion and state separate: "The Civil government...functions with complete success...by the total separation of the Church from the State," in a letter to Gene Garman. The Treaty of Tripoli states, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." This was a treaty ratified while John Adams was president, ratified by many of the same men who just a decade earlier supported the creation of the Constitution.What are the effects of the 10 Commandments in a public school? Well, it gives the impression to the child that they aren't free to worship another God; after all, isn't the school commanding them to worship this specific God, and how? Even if that impression is wrong, it still persists and will continue to do so along as it is on that wall.How can one possibly state that the 10 Commandments will leave a positive impression for children when it comes to the moral values it imparts, but it won't confuse the child by statements on the practice of worship? Yes, let us teach moral values in schools, but religion isn't necessary to do so.Theft, murder, etc., are wrong because they harm others. We don't need an ancient document to give that knowledge to our children. If some Christians - on their own, and not through the power of the state - want to put up a copy of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, fine - do it during a time where the government allows all citizens to put in different documents, not just ones that are pro-Judeo-Christian.I, myself, would put a copy of Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason," which was a great inspiration for our concept of natural rights and liberty.
Letters dealing with religion/atheism
Letter on atheists being know it alls:
Jay Lloyd ("," March 12) asks Robert Jensen, "Do you truly believe that you know everything there is to know about the universe?"
I must ask the good pastor, how sure is he that Vishnu doesn’t exist, since he doesn’t know everything about the universe? I doubt the pastor is on the fence on whether this deity exists or not.
Atheism can be simple non-knowledge of God, which is weak atheism. Strong atheism can be a statement (based on various arguments or lack of evidence) why gods or a particular god doesn’t likely exist.
Most Christians know only strong atheism. This is the problem when many Christians presume to debate positions that most atheists don’t hold: They ignore the arguments of actual atheists and end up creating strawmen.
Atheism isn’t about purpose or meaning, just nonbelief in god(s). Humanism (the predominant philosophy of most, though not all, atheists and even some theists) states that laws and rules are for the benefit of humankind. This frees humans to make society better without any concern for whether they are following religious doctrine.
US founded on Christian ideals?
Some say we are a nation founded upon Christian ideals. Really? Thomas Jefferson stated, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law," in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper. In a letter to Major John Cartwright, "The common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed." One cannot state that the God of Christianity or any notion of God (and his moral rules) are true, just because without that God there is no true moral foundation. Atheists do not believe that the Bible is the pure objective word of God, so they do not view Christianity or any deity based religion as having a true foundation of morality to follow. The Bible is a guidebook (along with others) for moral guidance.Plato stated 2,300-plus years ago (using Socrates as a character), is something moral because it comes from God or does morality supersede a God? If the former, then it is essentially the whims of a God and God can change his mind about morality, if the latter then God is just a conduit for morality.If God is inherently moral and cannot be immoral, then morality is still independent of God and has a separate existence of its own.Atheism or, more specifically, humanism is not about just making up moral rules as you go along. It is about empathy, respect for others, respect for their happiness. Atheists are called moral relativists or situational ethicists, but cannot the bombing of Hiroshima or killing in self-defense be considered just these things? After all, normally it isn't considered moral to kill a fellow human being, but most people think it was OK to kill Japanese civilians in 1945 in order to save more lives later on, or that it is OK to kill in self-defense a person mentally insane individual who is trying to kill you.No person in the world sees issues in pure black/white lenses. All weigh decisions carefully when making choices on what to do, just as President Truman did in 1945, and I believe he made the right decision even if a really hard one.What about the decrease in religious beliefs leading to increased violence in American society? Violent crimes, such as per capita murder rates, have seen a decline in the past 35 years, especially from 1960-1999. Teen pregnancy rates have declined in the last 30 years. Black/white relations are improved. Fifty years ago, segregation was the norm in many parts of the nation. The environment is cleaner since the early 1970s, thanks to the efforts of Americans on this issue. We must remember, in many ways, America is getting better.I believe Christians can be logical/rational while believing in God, and I do not dismiss what an individual says just because they are a Christian.What is important is that when biblical writings are applied to this world, it is done in mind that not all are Christian believers.
Jay Lloyd ("," March 12) asks Robert Jensen, "Do you truly believe that you know everything there is to know about the universe?"
I must ask the good pastor, how sure is he that Vishnu doesn’t exist, since he doesn’t know everything about the universe? I doubt the pastor is on the fence on whether this deity exists or not.
Atheism can be simple non-knowledge of God, which is weak atheism. Strong atheism can be a statement (based on various arguments or lack of evidence) why gods or a particular god doesn’t likely exist.
Most Christians know only strong atheism. This is the problem when many Christians presume to debate positions that most atheists don’t hold: They ignore the arguments of actual atheists and end up creating strawmen.
Atheism isn’t about purpose or meaning, just nonbelief in god(s). Humanism (the predominant philosophy of most, though not all, atheists and even some theists) states that laws and rules are for the benefit of humankind. This frees humans to make society better without any concern for whether they are following religious doctrine.
US founded on Christian ideals?
Some say we are a nation founded upon Christian ideals. Really? Thomas Jefferson stated, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law," in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper. In a letter to Major John Cartwright, "The common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed." One cannot state that the God of Christianity or any notion of God (and his moral rules) are true, just because without that God there is no true moral foundation. Atheists do not believe that the Bible is the pure objective word of God, so they do not view Christianity or any deity based religion as having a true foundation of morality to follow. The Bible is a guidebook (along with others) for moral guidance.Plato stated 2,300-plus years ago (using Socrates as a character), is something moral because it comes from God or does morality supersede a God? If the former, then it is essentially the whims of a God and God can change his mind about morality, if the latter then God is just a conduit for morality.If God is inherently moral and cannot be immoral, then morality is still independent of God and has a separate existence of its own.Atheism or, more specifically, humanism is not about just making up moral rules as you go along. It is about empathy, respect for others, respect for their happiness. Atheists are called moral relativists or situational ethicists, but cannot the bombing of Hiroshima or killing in self-defense be considered just these things? After all, normally it isn't considered moral to kill a fellow human being, but most people think it was OK to kill Japanese civilians in 1945 in order to save more lives later on, or that it is OK to kill in self-defense a person mentally insane individual who is trying to kill you.No person in the world sees issues in pure black/white lenses. All weigh decisions carefully when making choices on what to do, just as President Truman did in 1945, and I believe he made the right decision even if a really hard one.What about the decrease in religious beliefs leading to increased violence in American society? Violent crimes, such as per capita murder rates, have seen a decline in the past 35 years, especially from 1960-1999. Teen pregnancy rates have declined in the last 30 years. Black/white relations are improved. Fifty years ago, segregation was the norm in many parts of the nation. The environment is cleaner since the early 1970s, thanks to the efforts of Americans on this issue. We must remember, in many ways, America is getting better.I believe Christians can be logical/rational while believing in God, and I do not dismiss what an individual says just because they are a Christian.What is important is that when biblical writings are applied to this world, it is done in mind that not all are Christian believers.
Morality/Mitt Romney/Religion
VTech shooting
After the horrible killings at Virginia Tech, there are once again calls for religion to be taught in schools.
Teaching morality is fine, but not all individuals in schools are Christians or even religious. To force the children of the nonreligious or non Christians to undergo a Christian religious education fundamentally violates their free exercise of religion.
Moral rules can be taught without referring to a specific deity. Not harming one's fellow man is a universal rule worldwide. Teaching this would honor the beliefs of students who aren't of the majority religious belief.
Romney, hypocrite
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has stated that we needed elected officials who are “people of faith.” I guess he thinks an atheist combat veteran with a degree in government could not be trusted to be a county clerk.
An atheist believes one must use one's own reason and common sense for problem-solving, be it in everyday life or in the Oval Office. Many religious people do this every day but use religion to support governmental policies such as those who oppose same-sex marriage or the right to die.
For a nation of 300 million people, appeals to religion won't do. Not all Americans would agree with policies based solely on the Bible or another religious book.
An atheist president might believe rights don't come from a god but are the result of evolutionary forces that produced a man who needs, desires and yearns for liberty. If God is true, it doesn't require our country to elect a person to keep telling us that God is true.
Foundation for our morality
Helen Doss wrote, “The last six commandments are the civil law.” But Thomas Jefferson wrote to Dr. Thomas Cooper in 1814: “For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.”
So, the Ten Commandments aren’t the source of our law.
Second, not all religious individuals believe they are worshiping the one true God, as Doss asserts. Some are polytheists and worship more then one God, such as Hindus. The Ten Commandments are obviously about the God of the Old Testament, no other god. To state that it can be applied to other religions is absurd.
Yes, society does need laws, but we are a secular state set up to support a secular government. That was the view of our founders, who stated in the Treaty of Tripoli that the “United States government was not founded in any sense on the Christian religion.”
After the horrible killings at Virginia Tech, there are once again calls for religion to be taught in schools.
Teaching morality is fine, but not all individuals in schools are Christians or even religious. To force the children of the nonreligious or non Christians to undergo a Christian religious education fundamentally violates their free exercise of religion.
Moral rules can be taught without referring to a specific deity. Not harming one's fellow man is a universal rule worldwide. Teaching this would honor the beliefs of students who aren't of the majority religious belief.
Romney, hypocrite
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has stated that we needed elected officials who are “people of faith.” I guess he thinks an atheist combat veteran with a degree in government could not be trusted to be a county clerk.
An atheist believes one must use one's own reason and common sense for problem-solving, be it in everyday life or in the Oval Office. Many religious people do this every day but use religion to support governmental policies such as those who oppose same-sex marriage or the right to die.
For a nation of 300 million people, appeals to religion won't do. Not all Americans would agree with policies based solely on the Bible or another religious book.
An atheist president might believe rights don't come from a god but are the result of evolutionary forces that produced a man who needs, desires and yearns for liberty. If God is true, it doesn't require our country to elect a person to keep telling us that God is true.
Foundation for our morality
Helen Doss wrote, “The last six commandments are the civil law.” But Thomas Jefferson wrote to Dr. Thomas Cooper in 1814: “For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.”
So, the Ten Commandments aren’t the source of our law.
Second, not all religious individuals believe they are worshiping the one true God, as Doss asserts. Some are polytheists and worship more then one God, such as Hindus. The Ten Commandments are obviously about the God of the Old Testament, no other god. To state that it can be applied to other religions is absurd.
Yes, society does need laws, but we are a secular state set up to support a secular government. That was the view of our founders, who stated in the Treaty of Tripoli that the “United States government was not founded in any sense on the Christian religion.”
Flag Burning letters/Military Spending
Flag Burning
The decision by in the House of Representatives to vote for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning/desecration is most unfortunate. Never in our nation's history have we had an Amendment to actually limit any of the Bill of Rights. Remember, freedom of speech isn't just spoken/written words but actions that communicate a message.
It is great to love and respect the flag, but it cannot be enforced at the point of a jail cell. That is not what free democratic republics do. That is not what a nation that wants to be a model to the Middle East in what freedom is.
When we work to protect our symbol, but by doing so, limit our rights to do so, we lessen the value of that symbol. Troops did not fight for the flag as, but the values, and spreading of those values, that that flag represent. For Danes, the Dutch, the French, Koreans, our soldiers fought to bring freedom from tyranny.
That is what America is truly about. Not, creating a hate crime type Amendment which doesn't necessarily punish a burning (burning old flags as they are retired would be OK), but only if done as a form of speech. Some consider wearing a flag on a jacket as desecration; are we going to prosecute them? Indeed, such an Amendment is more likely than not to increase the now pretty much non-existent act of flag burning by making the act legally taboo.
Did our "intelligent" members of Congress realize this obvious point? What is next, a Constitutional Amendment to ban desecration of a picture of the Washington monument or the White House? The founders must be rolling in their graves.
Flag Burning again
I have to disagree with William Tresider. Thousands of Americans didn't die to protect the flag. They died in the service of America.They died to bring liberty to the peoples of France, Belgium, Netherlands and Korea. They died to stop the British Navy from forcing American sailors into the British Navy. The American flag, though a beloved symbol is not the reason we fight wars. It is symbolic. To reduce the freedoms of Americans by changing the U.S. Constitution reduces the value of the flag because it symbolizes an America with just a tad less freedom. In the U.S. Constitution not one Constitutional Amendment limits the rights of Americans, to do so now goes against the very spirit of our Constitution. Indeed, if we want to ensure that flag burning/desecration is rare then we cannot make it illegal because it makes it “forbidden fruit.” I was in the military and I love the flag and that is why I don't want the rights it symbolizes diminished.
Military Spending letter
I must take issue with a June 3 opinion piece about the need for our current level or an increased amount of military spending ("Spending 'too much' on defense? Preposterous"). Robert S. Dudney feels that we can spend more, citing a reduction in spending from the Reagan years. He must remember we are no longer living in the Cold War era. Indeed, Russia is a probationary member of NATO.
We spend more on the military than the next eight or nine nations combined, and most of those nations are our allies. China is no threat to our shores. Iraq and Iran have technology decades inferior to ours. No nation on Earth is even close to invading us.
In regard to the war on terrorism, one or 10 more aircraft carriers in either ocean would not have stopped Sept. 11. We have environmental needs, millions without health insurance, trillions in debt to pass on to our grandchildren. Now is the time to close unnecessary military bases and cancel projects that are fiscally irresponsible, such as the Osprey helicopter with the minor problem that it keeps crashing.
Meet our foreign needs, fine, but let's not let campaign contributions from defense contractors distract us from other concerns.
The decision by in the House of Representatives to vote for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning/desecration is most unfortunate. Never in our nation's history have we had an Amendment to actually limit any of the Bill of Rights. Remember, freedom of speech isn't just spoken/written words but actions that communicate a message.
It is great to love and respect the flag, but it cannot be enforced at the point of a jail cell. That is not what free democratic republics do. That is not what a nation that wants to be a model to the Middle East in what freedom is.
When we work to protect our symbol, but by doing so, limit our rights to do so, we lessen the value of that symbol. Troops did not fight for the flag as, but the values, and spreading of those values, that that flag represent. For Danes, the Dutch, the French, Koreans, our soldiers fought to bring freedom from tyranny.
That is what America is truly about. Not, creating a hate crime type Amendment which doesn't necessarily punish a burning (burning old flags as they are retired would be OK), but only if done as a form of speech. Some consider wearing a flag on a jacket as desecration; are we going to prosecute them? Indeed, such an Amendment is more likely than not to increase the now pretty much non-existent act of flag burning by making the act legally taboo.
Did our "intelligent" members of Congress realize this obvious point? What is next, a Constitutional Amendment to ban desecration of a picture of the Washington monument or the White House? The founders must be rolling in their graves.
Flag Burning again
I have to disagree with William Tresider. Thousands of Americans didn't die to protect the flag. They died in the service of America.They died to bring liberty to the peoples of France, Belgium, Netherlands and Korea. They died to stop the British Navy from forcing American sailors into the British Navy. The American flag, though a beloved symbol is not the reason we fight wars. It is symbolic. To reduce the freedoms of Americans by changing the U.S. Constitution reduces the value of the flag because it symbolizes an America with just a tad less freedom. In the U.S. Constitution not one Constitutional Amendment limits the rights of Americans, to do so now goes against the very spirit of our Constitution. Indeed, if we want to ensure that flag burning/desecration is rare then we cannot make it illegal because it makes it “forbidden fruit.” I was in the military and I love the flag and that is why I don't want the rights it symbolizes diminished.
Military Spending letter
I must take issue with a June 3 opinion piece about the need for our current level or an increased amount of military spending ("Spending 'too much' on defense? Preposterous"). Robert S. Dudney feels that we can spend more, citing a reduction in spending from the Reagan years. He must remember we are no longer living in the Cold War era. Indeed, Russia is a probationary member of NATO.
We spend more on the military than the next eight or nine nations combined, and most of those nations are our allies. China is no threat to our shores. Iraq and Iran have technology decades inferior to ours. No nation on Earth is even close to invading us.
In regard to the war on terrorism, one or 10 more aircraft carriers in either ocean would not have stopped Sept. 11. We have environmental needs, millions without health insurance, trillions in debt to pass on to our grandchildren. Now is the time to close unnecessary military bases and cancel projects that are fiscally irresponsible, such as the Osprey helicopter with the minor problem that it keeps crashing.
Meet our foreign needs, fine, but let's not let campaign contributions from defense contractors distract us from other concerns.
Religious interference in Science/Flag Burning
Need for Vaccine:
I think most Americans would agree that seat belts are a good thing because they reduce deaths/injuries from car accidents. Most Americans would agree that bike helmets are a good thing because they also do the same thing. Most would agree that basically any safety device that lowers the number of dead and injured Americans is a good thing.
What then with the opposition by some, specifically on the Christian right, to the great news that a vaccine for cervical cancer is being developed? Gene Rudd, of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations and an opponent to this vaccine, stated, "It sends the wrong message. Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence."
Now, abstinence is a good thing just as bike safety and driving an automobile responsibly. But, one doesn't oppose seat belts, helmets and airbags under the guise that it would send a wrong message to youth on responsible driving and bike safety. Abstinence is an important message to give because with it there is no risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant just as without riding in a car or being on the streets there is no risk in getting in an automobile accident. But, abstinence is a means to an end, the lowering of pregnancy and STD rates. When abstinence becomes the ultimate objective even over ending cervical cancer. then priorities are misplaced.
Under this logic, the more types of STDs the better to scare the kids not to have sex, be damned if a few children might die in the process. Because frankly, some will die in the process from cervical cancer or other STDs just as some teens will die from unsafe automobile driving. Some might not like this fact, but in the course of human history there was not an hour that went by without scores of teens in the world, even in the most religious of nations/cultures, having sex.
How many Americans, after watching their loved ones die from disease, would state they were glad there was no vaccine available to stop it?
Flag Burning
Mr. Dan Davis states in response to a letter of mine on opposition to a Constitutional Amendment which would outlaw flag desecration, "For every person that shares your opinion, I believe there are thousands of real Americans that don't."
According to Gallup, in a poll, 63 percent of Americans favor a flag burning Amendment which would outlaw the act. While, this of course is a majority it does not equal thousands of Americans who agree with Mr. Davis vs one who agrees with me that we shouldn't outlaw flag desecration. Indeed, it is less than a 2:1 ratio in support of Mr. Davis by the public.
Is Mr. Davis implying that the one-third plus of Americans who agree with me, aren't "real" Americans? That, one-third of America is "what is wrong with America?" Are the 131 Congressional members who courageously supported free speech in the Constitution, not "real Americans?" What about those members of the military (who are in the minority position in the military on this issue of course) who happen to agree with me, are they not, "real Americans? Do they need a dose of patriotism, too?
Mr. Davis chose to engage in a personal attack on my patriotism, and the millions of Americans who agree with me. I am weary of my patriotism and those who agree with me on certain issues, attacked. I know the flag is a symbol Mr. Davis; I thought I was quite clear on that in my previous letter. I just thought that the substance of the Constitution is more important than its symbols.
Now, you might disagree, fine, but to question my patriotism and to imply that I wasn't a "real American" is the lowest level of political rhetoric. Unfortunately too many on the right choose to engage in this very tactic. I hope for that to one day end. I do not ever question the patriotism of those I disagree with. I understand that to be an American means a free exchange of ideas. I do not advocate that people burn flags anymore than I advocate that people join the KKK, but I support their right to do so.
I think most Americans would agree that seat belts are a good thing because they reduce deaths/injuries from car accidents. Most Americans would agree that bike helmets are a good thing because they also do the same thing. Most would agree that basically any safety device that lowers the number of dead and injured Americans is a good thing.
What then with the opposition by some, specifically on the Christian right, to the great news that a vaccine for cervical cancer is being developed? Gene Rudd, of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations and an opponent to this vaccine, stated, "It sends the wrong message. Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence."
Now, abstinence is a good thing just as bike safety and driving an automobile responsibly. But, one doesn't oppose seat belts, helmets and airbags under the guise that it would send a wrong message to youth on responsible driving and bike safety. Abstinence is an important message to give because with it there is no risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant just as without riding in a car or being on the streets there is no risk in getting in an automobile accident. But, abstinence is a means to an end, the lowering of pregnancy and STD rates. When abstinence becomes the ultimate objective even over ending cervical cancer. then priorities are misplaced.
Under this logic, the more types of STDs the better to scare the kids not to have sex, be damned if a few children might die in the process. Because frankly, some will die in the process from cervical cancer or other STDs just as some teens will die from unsafe automobile driving. Some might not like this fact, but in the course of human history there was not an hour that went by without scores of teens in the world, even in the most religious of nations/cultures, having sex.
How many Americans, after watching their loved ones die from disease, would state they were glad there was no vaccine available to stop it?
Flag Burning
Mr. Dan Davis states in response to a letter of mine on opposition to a Constitutional Amendment which would outlaw flag desecration, "For every person that shares your opinion, I believe there are thousands of real Americans that don't."
According to Gallup, in a poll, 63 percent of Americans favor a flag burning Amendment which would outlaw the act. While, this of course is a majority it does not equal thousands of Americans who agree with Mr. Davis vs one who agrees with me that we shouldn't outlaw flag desecration. Indeed, it is less than a 2:1 ratio in support of Mr. Davis by the public.
Is Mr. Davis implying that the one-third plus of Americans who agree with me, aren't "real" Americans? That, one-third of America is "what is wrong with America?" Are the 131 Congressional members who courageously supported free speech in the Constitution, not "real Americans?" What about those members of the military (who are in the minority position in the military on this issue of course) who happen to agree with me, are they not, "real Americans? Do they need a dose of patriotism, too?
Mr. Davis chose to engage in a personal attack on my patriotism, and the millions of Americans who agree with me. I am weary of my patriotism and those who agree with me on certain issues, attacked. I know the flag is a symbol Mr. Davis; I thought I was quite clear on that in my previous letter. I just thought that the substance of the Constitution is more important than its symbols.
Now, you might disagree, fine, but to question my patriotism and to imply that I wasn't a "real American" is the lowest level of political rhetoric. Unfortunately too many on the right choose to engage in this very tactic. I hope for that to one day end. I do not ever question the patriotism of those I disagree with. I understand that to be an American means a free exchange of ideas. I do not advocate that people burn flags anymore than I advocate that people join the KKK, but I support their right to do so.
Filibuster/Same Sex Marriage-One is definately a good thing, 2nd,maybe not
Filibusters
Republicans and Democrats both filibuster (not get 60 votes to end debate in the Senate) opposing bills on Iraq troop surge resolutions. Didn’t the GOP state that filibusters were bad when used against judicial nominees? Are filibusters bad or not or are they only bad and unconstitutional when it goes against their interests? Also, didn’t the GOP block 60-plus Clinton judicial nominees from getting a vote?
On another issue, Americans are told to listen to the troops and support them but isn’t an officer in the military in big trouble for refusing to go to Iraq? Why isn’t he not supporting himself? I think he should be punished. If you believe a war is wrong. then stand up for your convictions, but be ready to take your punishment.
Do any conservatives who support the war in Iraq really care what those military members who object to the war, such as this gentleman, care about? If you don’t then “support the troops” becomes a really hollow term.
If 80 percent of the soldiers in a war disagree with a war that doesn’t necessarily change our policy. The troops do as they are ordered, they don’t set the policy, though we should hear their opinions on the conduct of the war.
Another issue is how our war veterans are treated in Walter Reed hospital and other VA centers, in often horrible conditions. If this was a Democrat in the White House wouldn’t this be a bigger story on conservative talk radio? It seems with a Republican president it isn’t considered as important.
I am glad many conservatives are condemning Ann Coulter for using a slur for gays, the “F” word. She says she was just calling John Edwards a sissy by her usage of that word, that it was a joke. Fine, whatever is her rationale. I hope this is a positive trend and that conservatives can reach out to gays in America and not imply they are a threat to mom, apple pies and Chevies. In fact, many gay people make great apple pies and do drive Chevies and indeed they as a whole, do have moms!
Lastly, New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias, among other U.S. attorneys dismissed recently for various reasons, has been dismissed because as he states he refused a request by two Republican congressmen to speed up a probe of possible Democratic wrongdoing to improve GOP election chances. Now, the president can do this, but if true, dismissing a U.S. attorney for such thoroughly partisan reasons is an affront to the idea of justice.
Yes to same sex marriage
Marriage is said to be defined as being between one man and one woman for thousands of years. Well, tradition isn't a defense of keeping the status quo. For thousands of years governments were defined as monarchies or tribal chieftains. Until the early 20th century a democracy was men and not women being able to vote. In this country for several hundred years marriage was regarded by state law, depending on the state, or by custom as between those of the same race. Should we go back to banning interracial marriages? Tradition, or only a limited view of that tradition only serves to reduce rights/freedoms of a group is not good thing to keep.
Another argument I have heard is the idea that societies that have openly embraced homosexuality have been conquered. Well, in reference to the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire fell because it was overextended in its borders that became harder and more expensive to defend. There is extensive research on this very fact. If he is referring to homosexuality in Greece indeed the ancient Spartan warriors were some of the greatest warriors to ever live although they had relatively high rates of homosexuality.
In terms of the argument that heterosexual marriage rates in such nations as the Netherlands has declined because of the recent legalization of same sex marriage in the Netherlands, there is a confusion. Marriage rates for a variety of reasons have declined in the Netherlands long before same sex marriage became legal in that nation. Finally, the argument that consists 'if two women or men can get married, why not a man and a dog?' This is an absurd red herring that could have been used to oppose at certain times interracial marriage or even the right of women or blacks to vote. After all the reasoning could have went, 'if women or blacks can vote, why not dogs or palm trees'? Dogs, peacocks and especially a palm tree is not an adult who can give consent, emotionally and intellectually to a marriage contract. To compare two men or two women who love each other and want to marry each other to a person and a palm tree is an insult to the reader. The use of the slippery slope is often a lazy argument especially when it taken to absurdities. Same sex marriage won't lead to the "disintegration" of society anymore than interracial marriage, right of women to vote, right of non-property holding men or blacks to vote did. Same sex marriage or unions would be up to the church to recognize if they so wish (just as new Canadian law would do on this issue). If a church doesn't want to recognize same sex marriage just as it doesn't want to recognize a same sex marriage, that is fine. It is their right. What has to be safeguarded is a separation between civil/state marriage and religious marriages. The government/state should allow all its taxpaying citizens, gay or non-gay the right to marry the person that they love.
Republicans and Democrats both filibuster (not get 60 votes to end debate in the Senate) opposing bills on Iraq troop surge resolutions. Didn’t the GOP state that filibusters were bad when used against judicial nominees? Are filibusters bad or not or are they only bad and unconstitutional when it goes against their interests? Also, didn’t the GOP block 60-plus Clinton judicial nominees from getting a vote?
On another issue, Americans are told to listen to the troops and support them but isn’t an officer in the military in big trouble for refusing to go to Iraq? Why isn’t he not supporting himself? I think he should be punished. If you believe a war is wrong. then stand up for your convictions, but be ready to take your punishment.
Do any conservatives who support the war in Iraq really care what those military members who object to the war, such as this gentleman, care about? If you don’t then “support the troops” becomes a really hollow term.
If 80 percent of the soldiers in a war disagree with a war that doesn’t necessarily change our policy. The troops do as they are ordered, they don’t set the policy, though we should hear their opinions on the conduct of the war.
Another issue is how our war veterans are treated in Walter Reed hospital and other VA centers, in often horrible conditions. If this was a Democrat in the White House wouldn’t this be a bigger story on conservative talk radio? It seems with a Republican president it isn’t considered as important.
I am glad many conservatives are condemning Ann Coulter for using a slur for gays, the “F” word. She says she was just calling John Edwards a sissy by her usage of that word, that it was a joke. Fine, whatever is her rationale. I hope this is a positive trend and that conservatives can reach out to gays in America and not imply they are a threat to mom, apple pies and Chevies. In fact, many gay people make great apple pies and do drive Chevies and indeed they as a whole, do have moms!
Lastly, New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias, among other U.S. attorneys dismissed recently for various reasons, has been dismissed because as he states he refused a request by two Republican congressmen to speed up a probe of possible Democratic wrongdoing to improve GOP election chances. Now, the president can do this, but if true, dismissing a U.S. attorney for such thoroughly partisan reasons is an affront to the idea of justice.
Yes to same sex marriage
Marriage is said to be defined as being between one man and one woman for thousands of years. Well, tradition isn't a defense of keeping the status quo. For thousands of years governments were defined as monarchies or tribal chieftains. Until the early 20th century a democracy was men and not women being able to vote. In this country for several hundred years marriage was regarded by state law, depending on the state, or by custom as between those of the same race. Should we go back to banning interracial marriages? Tradition, or only a limited view of that tradition only serves to reduce rights/freedoms of a group is not good thing to keep.
Another argument I have heard is the idea that societies that have openly embraced homosexuality have been conquered. Well, in reference to the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire fell because it was overextended in its borders that became harder and more expensive to defend. There is extensive research on this very fact. If he is referring to homosexuality in Greece indeed the ancient Spartan warriors were some of the greatest warriors to ever live although they had relatively high rates of homosexuality.
In terms of the argument that heterosexual marriage rates in such nations as the Netherlands has declined because of the recent legalization of same sex marriage in the Netherlands, there is a confusion. Marriage rates for a variety of reasons have declined in the Netherlands long before same sex marriage became legal in that nation. Finally, the argument that consists 'if two women or men can get married, why not a man and a dog?' This is an absurd red herring that could have been used to oppose at certain times interracial marriage or even the right of women or blacks to vote. After all the reasoning could have went, 'if women or blacks can vote, why not dogs or palm trees'? Dogs, peacocks and especially a palm tree is not an adult who can give consent, emotionally and intellectually to a marriage contract. To compare two men or two women who love each other and want to marry each other to a person and a palm tree is an insult to the reader. The use of the slippery slope is often a lazy argument especially when it taken to absurdities. Same sex marriage won't lead to the "disintegration" of society anymore than interracial marriage, right of women to vote, right of non-property holding men or blacks to vote did. Same sex marriage or unions would be up to the church to recognize if they so wish (just as new Canadian law would do on this issue). If a church doesn't want to recognize same sex marriage just as it doesn't want to recognize a same sex marriage, that is fine. It is their right. What has to be safeguarded is a separation between civil/state marriage and religious marriages. The government/state should allow all its taxpaying citizens, gay or non-gay the right to marry the person that they love.
morality/10 commandments
There is more to morality than faith
As a non-religious person, I constantly hear that atheists and other non-religious individuals are moral relativists or situational ethicists.
Yes, I agree that moral positions should be contingent on the situation. I believe that it is moral to shoot someone who is about to murder you. I do not think it is moral or ethical to kill in robbing a bank. I think, that the faithful religious individuals would agree with me on those situations. They would agree that, dependent on the situation, they would weigh competing issues. Indeed, most traditional absolute values folks would agree the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was OK, because it saved more lives than it cost. But, ironically, only the secular left is called moral relativists while in truth both sides weigh moral judgments based on each situation.
The conservative Christian right often support the death penalty, which means the taking of a life (and a possibly innocent one even though convicted) and has no or little qualms over this moral relativism or situational ethics.
Morality is not the commands of a God or a religion -- it is the weighing of the possible actions of a situation and seeing which action one takes has the best possible consequence for all participants.
To appeal to religion for moral truths gives up the ability of one to examine what is an actual, good and just decision to make.
10 Commandments:
The Ten Commandments is in the news again with the recent Supreme Court case. The 10 Commandments I hear is the basis for our rights. Really? The first four prohibit worshiping other Gods, taking thy Lord's name in vain, honor the Sabbath and no graven images. These four Commandments if codified into law would violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Government has no right in telling individuals who to worship and how to worship their God, if they have a God.
The Ten Commandments are prohibitions, not statements on rights. As rules to live by, moral rules long predated the Ten Commandments. All cultures have the same basic prohibitions on theft/murder. Why? Because it violates the universal "Golden Rule." This Rule is what we should base our laws/morals on.
Is the Ten Commandments a foundation for our system of government? Thomas Jefferson wrote "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law," in a letter to Thomas Cooper in 1814.
"The common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed," Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Cartwright 1824. We should heed the wisdom of Mr. Jefferson once again.
As a non-religious person, I constantly hear that atheists and other non-religious individuals are moral relativists or situational ethicists.
Yes, I agree that moral positions should be contingent on the situation. I believe that it is moral to shoot someone who is about to murder you. I do not think it is moral or ethical to kill in robbing a bank. I think, that the faithful religious individuals would agree with me on those situations. They would agree that, dependent on the situation, they would weigh competing issues. Indeed, most traditional absolute values folks would agree the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was OK, because it saved more lives than it cost. But, ironically, only the secular left is called moral relativists while in truth both sides weigh moral judgments based on each situation.
The conservative Christian right often support the death penalty, which means the taking of a life (and a possibly innocent one even though convicted) and has no or little qualms over this moral relativism or situational ethics.
Morality is not the commands of a God or a religion -- it is the weighing of the possible actions of a situation and seeing which action one takes has the best possible consequence for all participants.
To appeal to religion for moral truths gives up the ability of one to examine what is an actual, good and just decision to make.
10 Commandments:
The Ten Commandments is in the news again with the recent Supreme Court case. The 10 Commandments I hear is the basis for our rights. Really? The first four prohibit worshiping other Gods, taking thy Lord's name in vain, honor the Sabbath and no graven images. These four Commandments if codified into law would violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Government has no right in telling individuals who to worship and how to worship their God, if they have a God.
The Ten Commandments are prohibitions, not statements on rights. As rules to live by, moral rules long predated the Ten Commandments. All cultures have the same basic prohibitions on theft/murder. Why? Because it violates the universal "Golden Rule." This Rule is what we should base our laws/morals on.
Is the Ten Commandments a foundation for our system of government? Thomas Jefferson wrote "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law," in a letter to Thomas Cooper in 1814.
"The common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed," Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Cartwright 1824. We should heed the wisdom of Mr. Jefferson once again.
Pledge and God
Letter on the Pledge:
If the Pledge of Allegiance had stated, "One Nation, under no God" then those who are religious (as they should) would object to that Pledge and there would be cries of violations of their rights. But, since it states "One Nation, under God" atheists and liberal minded theists are supposed to just brush it aside and move on. Don't be so easily offended, they are told. But, if the Pledge did state we positively we were not a nation under God, would the supporters of the current Pledge just refrain from repeating those words or would they take it to the Courts?
The government must be neutral on this question.
A 5-year-old doesn't grasp, intellectually, that he/she has a Constitutional right of free exercise of having or not having a religion. God existing or not, should be left in the marketplace of ideas; this is the idea the Court out west affirmed. A child has the right to add any words they so wish to the Pledge; what is not allowed is one that violates a neutral position.
God in the pledge isn't necessary for it to be a patriotic exercise. Michael Newdow, the man who brought this suit, represents millions of like minded individuals who do not believe the government should take a position on this issue. The lumping in of atheists already (by some) with communists I find something out of the McCarthy era. The vast majority of atheists/nonbelievers are not communists. Ayn Rand, a prominent atheist, was a strong supporter of capitalism.
God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't further the patriotic exercise at all, it divides us as Americans while the purpose of the Pledge was to unite. That is how it was for 60 years, since its original form until the 1950s. The Lemon test states there cannot be an unnecessary entanglement of religion, well, a division of Americans definitely meets that test.
The Founders believed in this principle also. James Madison in 1819 stated, "The Civil government's functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State." Thomas Jefferson said in the Danbury Letter, "Erecting the wall of separation between church and state is absolutely essential in a free society."
Letter on response to govt. promotion of religion:
In response to the letter by Debbie Nessamar earlier this month, Ms. Nessamar I don't ask not to be offended, I ask the government not to favor religion or limit the rights of nonbelievers to be free of government coercion. The Courts never outlawed prayer in school; they outlawed government-organized prayer and Bible readings.
Any child can pray in a school. Atheists parents do indeed have a right not to see their tax dollars used as a promotional tool to further religious belief they don't agree with, as do the parents of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and even those Christians who don't like a government-sponsored prayer. No person, no matter how much of a majority their religion is, has a right, implicit or explicit, guarantee by our Constitution to promote or endorse their religion as true over others.
Ms. Nessmar also wrote, "Government leaders malign their peers for service that reflects personal convictions and beliefs." Well, I watched both major party conventions in 2004 and did not see anyone malign their peers for their religious beliefs. Both had speakers who talked about their personal religious beliefs. Indeed, of the 535 congressional delegation there is not one avowed atheist in the halls of Congress. Fifty-two percent of Americans state they would not vote for a qualified atheist for office.
The first President George Bush, while vice president in 1987, stated, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." Where was the outrage?
I wonder if President Bush knows that his fellow World War II fighter pilot Ted Williams was an atheist. I wonder if he realizes that thousands of atheists have fought in combat for our nation. Christians state that atheists/nonbelievers and those of other religions are just easily offended.
Well, I have strong doubts if the Pledge of Allegiance stated, "one nation, under no God," that they would just brush that off. They would call it unconstitutional, as they should. All I want is government neutrality on religion.
If the Pledge of Allegiance had stated, "One Nation, under no God" then those who are religious (as they should) would object to that Pledge and there would be cries of violations of their rights. But, since it states "One Nation, under God" atheists and liberal minded theists are supposed to just brush it aside and move on. Don't be so easily offended, they are told. But, if the Pledge did state we positively we were not a nation under God, would the supporters of the current Pledge just refrain from repeating those words or would they take it to the Courts?
The government must be neutral on this question.
A 5-year-old doesn't grasp, intellectually, that he/she has a Constitutional right of free exercise of having or not having a religion. God existing or not, should be left in the marketplace of ideas; this is the idea the Court out west affirmed. A child has the right to add any words they so wish to the Pledge; what is not allowed is one that violates a neutral position.
God in the pledge isn't necessary for it to be a patriotic exercise. Michael Newdow, the man who brought this suit, represents millions of like minded individuals who do not believe the government should take a position on this issue. The lumping in of atheists already (by some) with communists I find something out of the McCarthy era. The vast majority of atheists/nonbelievers are not communists. Ayn Rand, a prominent atheist, was a strong supporter of capitalism.
God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't further the patriotic exercise at all, it divides us as Americans while the purpose of the Pledge was to unite. That is how it was for 60 years, since its original form until the 1950s. The Lemon test states there cannot be an unnecessary entanglement of religion, well, a division of Americans definitely meets that test.
The Founders believed in this principle also. James Madison in 1819 stated, "The Civil government's functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State." Thomas Jefferson said in the Danbury Letter, "Erecting the wall of separation between church and state is absolutely essential in a free society."
Letter on response to govt. promotion of religion:
In response to the letter by Debbie Nessamar earlier this month, Ms. Nessamar I don't ask not to be offended, I ask the government not to favor religion or limit the rights of nonbelievers to be free of government coercion. The Courts never outlawed prayer in school; they outlawed government-organized prayer and Bible readings.
Any child can pray in a school. Atheists parents do indeed have a right not to see their tax dollars used as a promotional tool to further religious belief they don't agree with, as do the parents of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and even those Christians who don't like a government-sponsored prayer. No person, no matter how much of a majority their religion is, has a right, implicit or explicit, guarantee by our Constitution to promote or endorse their religion as true over others.
Ms. Nessmar also wrote, "Government leaders malign their peers for service that reflects personal convictions and beliefs." Well, I watched both major party conventions in 2004 and did not see anyone malign their peers for their religious beliefs. Both had speakers who talked about their personal religious beliefs. Indeed, of the 535 congressional delegation there is not one avowed atheist in the halls of Congress. Fifty-two percent of Americans state they would not vote for a qualified atheist for office.
The first President George Bush, while vice president in 1987, stated, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." Where was the outrage?
I wonder if President Bush knows that his fellow World War II fighter pilot Ted Williams was an atheist. I wonder if he realizes that thousands of atheists have fought in combat for our nation. Christians state that atheists/nonbelievers and those of other religions are just easily offended.
Well, I have strong doubts if the Pledge of Allegiance stated, "one nation, under no God," that they would just brush that off. They would call it unconstitutional, as they should. All I want is government neutrality on religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)