civility and religion

[Guest Guest]

Funny stuff, there, "Guest."

You might as well be saying that your mind's made up and you can't be bothered with the evidence.

The Constitution does not forbid the expression of religious opinions in class.

 

If it did, then you should be promptly asking yourself what constitutes a "religious" opinion (good luck pinning that down).

Not a bad question to ask yourself in any case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, you're hardly in a position to be criticizing someone else for having made up his mind in advance. The law is clear, whether you choose to acknowedge it or not. There is no doubt that "you belong in hell" is a religious opinion as a matter of law. As a matter of values, it is of the worst kind in my opinion and the opinion of many others.

[Guest A. V. Blom]

Funny, from my readings of the New Testament, I get a different four letter word. 

LOVE.

I guess where you stand on a particular subject often depends upon where you sit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read the Old Testament, and get back to me. Love IS contradicted by just about anyone in the Bible, including Jesus' unmitigated racist views. Calling a woman of another race a 'dog' is not 'love' in my book...unless we speak of the love of an abusive father.

[Guest A. V. Blom]

Right, so take the next step and figure out the implications for a government founded on a multicultural ideal.

Your point? Multiculturalism CAN exist within a single ethical framework.

And just in case you're interested in clearing up your misconceptions (if it's not just oversimplification) a bit, you can go here:

http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/The%20Econom...s/CAKTQB89.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It WAS an oversimplification, but your article does little to discredit my original words. The justification still came down to 'my faith is better than yours', on BOTH sides of the conflict. I realize the nobles often had other motives (like winning new lands), but it was exactly those crusades with made the strength of the Crusades with the masses.

[Guest Guest]

Read the Old Testament, and get back to me. Love IS contradicted by just about anyone in the Bible, including Jesus' unmitigated racist views. Calling a woman of another race a 'dog' is not 'love' in my book...unless we speak of the love of an abusive father.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry - did I SAY Old Testament. Oh no, I said NEW TESTAMENT. That's right, change the argument as you see fit.

So you can boil an entire text into the word Obey and you must be right. And I can boil an entire text down into the word Love and I must be wrong. So I guess for you to be right, I MUST be wrong.

Maybe the abusive father comment adds more depth to your Obey interpretation versus my Love interpretation.

[Guest Guest]

I'm sorry - did I SAY Old Testament.  Oh no, I said NEW TESTAMENT.  That's right, change the argument as you see fit.

So you can boil an entire text into the word Obey and you must be right.  And I can boil an entire text down into the word Love and I must be wrong.  So I guess for you to be right, I MUST be wrong.

Maybe the abusive father comment adds more depth to your Obey interpretation versus my Love interpretation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh? You're the one who changed the argument, not A V Blom. Blom said bible, not just new testament, in his original post that you reponded to. Reread it yourself Here.

Only thing is that in your response you sneakily changed the subject from bible to new testament. Why would you want to do that and leave out the old testament specifically?

Last I checked, the old testament is part of the bible, whether you like it or not. So why did you change the argument to new testament when Blom was talking about the bible? And then you have the nerve to accuse Blom of changing the argument when he merely brought the argument back to its original scope?

[Bryan]

Your point? Multiculturalism CAN exist within a single ethical framework.

What about those whose culture does not agree with the single ethical framework?

Our way or the highway?

It WAS an oversimplification ...

Good; at least you're aware of it.

[Bryan]

Bryan, you're hardly in a position to be criticizing someone else for having made up his mind in advance.

Oh, really? On what topic is my mind made up regardless of the evidence?

Be careful not to snare yourself.

The law is clear, whether you choose to acknowedge it or not. There is no doubt that "you belong in hell" is a religious opinion as a matter of law. As a matter of values, it is of the worst kind in my opinion and the opinion of many others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just said "'you belong in hell.'"

Is there no question that you were offering a religious opinion?

Or might we wish to consider the context?

[Guest Guest]

Huh? You're the one who changed the argument, not A V Blom. Blom said bible, not just new testament, in his original post that you reponded to. Reread it yourself Here.

Only thing is that in your response you sneakily changed the subject from bible to new testament. Why would you want to do that and leave out the old testament specifically?

Last I checked, the old testament is part of the bible, whether you like it or not. So why did you change the argument to new testament when Blom was talking about the bible? And then you have the nerve to accuse Blom of changing the argument when he merely brought the argument back to its original scope?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ummm, MY response became MY post and I specifically highlighted (and I'll type slowly so you can understand) the N-E-W T-E-S-T-A-M-E-N-T. I chose the New Testament because it relates more closely to Christianity. So ... how does saying that when I read the New Testament, the one word I derive is Love result in my "sneakily" changing the subject. Can you not handle an innocuous stray comment that a person can derive anything positive out of the Bible? Apparently not, and that is very telling about your character.

[Guest Guest]

Ummm, MY response became MY post and I specifically highlighted (and I'll type slowly so you can understand) the N-E-W T-E-S-T-A-M-E-N-T.  I chose the New Testament because it relates more closely to Christianity.  So ... how does saying that when I read the New Testament, the one word I derive is Love result in my "sneakily" changing the subject.  Can you not handle an innocuous stray comment that a person can derive anything positive out of the Bible?  Apparently not, and that is very telling about your character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If your response became YOUR post, using the same logic Blom's response to your response became HIS post. Then why couldn't HE change it to old testament just as YOU changed it to new testament?

You changed the subject to new testament yet you complained when Blom changed it to old testament. Apparently you think what is OK for you to do isn't for Blom.

That is even very telling about your character.

And can you not handle that a person can derive anything negative out of the Bible? Apparently not, another telling sign of your character.

[Strife767]

You just said "'you belong in hell.'"

Is there no question that you were offering a religious opinion?

Or might we wish to consider the context?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How retarded can you be?

Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is

your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in

his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been -

it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal?

That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days

(???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it

really is, then to Hell with me. (emphasis added)

Just the fact that you're still whining about "context" when the context is so damned obvious shows just how empty your stance is.

Can't any of your fundies _ever_ just admit you're wrong in the face of a mountain of evidence? ...On second thought, never mind...you guys reject the ToE, after all...

[Bryan]

How retarded can you be?

You disagree that the context should be considered?

Or do you just have a problem understanding reductio ad absurdum?

Just the fact that you're still whining about "context" when the context is so damned obvious shows just how empty your stance is.

That's no more logical than the idea that your refusal to actually consider (with actual, reasoned discussion) the context therefore means that you are wrong.

Can't any of your fundies _ever_ just admit you're wrong in the face of a mountain of evidence? ...

You telling me it's "obvious" is a mountain of evidence (while you refuse to discuss specifics)?

On second thought, never mind...you guys reject the ToE, after all...

I believe in a change in the frequency of alleles over time.

How do you define evolution so that I reject it?

Or were you just trying to change the subject (I hear fundies do that all the time).

[Bryan]

I should have pointed out to Strife how his initial quotation is at variance with the one he tried to peddle off as "obvious" in its meaning as he interprets it.

Strife:

"There is no doubt that "you belong in hell" is a religious opinion as a matter of law."

Strife, quoting a transcript:

"'Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is

your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in

his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been -

it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal?

That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days

(???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it

really is, then to Hell with me.'"

He added emphasis to "then it really really is, then to [h]ell with me."

So, with the context added (what we have of it here, anyway), we see that Paszkiewicz does not press for the student to accept his view ("it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is your prerogative"), the statement is explicitly presented as a personal opinion ("the way I see it is this"), and he did not in this instance refer to anyone going to hell save for himself ("if I reject that ... then to hell with me").

But once Strife condenses all that, we end up with "you belong in hell"--presented as a verbatim quotation, mind you--as a religious opinion as a matter of law.

How silly of me to be concerned about context.

[Guest Guest]

If your response became YOUR post, using the same logic Blom's response to your response became HIS post. Then why couldn't HE change it to old testament just as YOU changed it to new testament?

You changed the subject to new testament yet you complained when Blom changed it to old testament. Apparently you think what is OK for you to do isn't for Blom.

That is even very telling about your character.

And can you not handle that a person can derive anything negative out of the Bible?  Apparently not, another telling sign of your character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are such a dullard. How about for once coming up with your OWN argument? I refuse to have a battle of the wits with someone who is unarmed.

[Guest Guest]

How retarded can you be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice way to talk.

[Guest Guest]

How retarded can you be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice way to talk.

[Guest Guest]

Oh, really? Why don't you take a look at this, then?

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html <-- Religious societies are less moral than secular ones. Also singling out the "bible belt":

I'd love to, but you fundies just won't go away.

Ironically, many people consider atheism "radical."

Oh, really? Do tell.

No. On a personal level, if one wants to go to a church/temple/whatever and pray on their time or whatver, that's fine. But on a societal level? It contributes nothing. At least shopping contributes to the economy. And practicing sports is good for health, which means overall lower health care costs. Pray all you want, but don't act like you're doing society a service by sitting in a church one or more times a week. You aren't.

I bet I know what your definition of "lost" is.

I was right.

I have a better one:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." --Albert Einstein

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. My opinion is that we believe in "GOD" because we need a sense of security. We need to believe that there will be something more to our own mortality. We need need to cling on to the belief that we will be with our loved ones one day, that makes us feel better. It in some way keeps us going. It fills that empty hole that consumes us when someone passes.

[Strife767]

Nice way to talk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If he wasn't so arrogant with the idiotic attempt at sarcasm I replied to, I wouldn't have talked that way. You reap what you sow--another line from the bible many fundies seem to forget all about when it comes time to be an apologist for a fellow bible-beater.

[Guest Guest]

You disagree that the context should be considered?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In what context is telling a captive audience of public high school students that they belong in hell if they don't share the teacher's religious beliefs appropriate?

[Strife767]

I agree.  My opinion is that we believe in "GOD" because we need a sense of security.  We need to believe that there will be something more to our own mortality.  We need need to cling on to the belief that we will be with our loved ones one day, that makes us feel better.  It in some way keeps us going.  It fills that empty hole that consumes us when someone passes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard something very interesting on the radio a few months ago (for everyone's information, it was a 'regular' talk show late at night, nothing politically or religiously driven one way or the other), and the host had on this guy who made a very interesting point about 'the biology of God.'

That is, he made a pretty good point about the invention of creator religion as being a primitive response that came about around the time we started to become self-aware. It makes sense to believe that it could be kind of a knee-jerk reaction to one's initial realization of one's mortality, and what's more, it would explain theism from a biological/psychological perspective. Most ironic of all, if this is right, it would strongly suggest people (in a sense) _evolved_ to create gods etc. in order to deal with reality.

Pretty neat hypothesis if you ask me.

[Guest Guest]

I should have pointed out to Strife how his initial quotation is at variance with the one he tried to peddle off as "obvious" in its meaning as he interprets it.

Strife:

"There is no doubt that "you belong in hell" is a religious opinion as a matter of law."

Strife, quoting a transcript:

"'Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is

your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in

his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been -

it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal?

That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days

(???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it

really is, then to Hell with me.'"

He added emphasis to "then it really really is, then to [h]ell with me."

So, with the context added (what we have of it here, anyway), we see that Paszkiewicz does not press for the student to accept his view ("it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is your prerogative"), the statement is explicitly presented as a personal opinion ("the way I see it is this"), and he did not in this instance refer to anyone going to hell save for himself ("if I reject that ... then to hell with me").

But once Strife condenses all that, we end up with "you belong in hell"--presented as a verbatim quotation, mind you--as a religious opinion as a matter of law.

How silly of me to be concerned about context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paszkiewicz specifically said that if you reject his belief system, "you belong in hell." He phrased it as rejecting Jesus' gift of salvation, but the idea of Jesus offering salvation is his belief system. Many people don't believe Jesus offered a gift of salvation, or was in any position to do so. The only way you can even make the argument you're making, Bryan, is to accept literally interpreted Christian theology absolutely and without question, which of course is precisely what the state's representatives (including its public school teachers) may not use their positions of authority to promote. That is held by law to be an establisment of religion in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. Have you bothered to ask any lawyer about this?

Regarding Paszkiewicz's statement "it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is your prerogative":

1. It doesn't matter that it's his personal opinion. All religious beliefs are personal opinions. The establishment clause forbids the state from promoting them, and that includes the state's representatives, in this case David Paszkiewicz. Moreover, if you really listen to what he was saying and how he said it, it is very clear that Paszkiewicz states these opinions as fact. He gives more leeway to Christians in other denominations, but once anyone is outside the boundary of what he considers Christianity, Paszkiewicz consigns that person to hell. The veneer of "prerogative" is paper thin, or less. It's not just a violation of some technical right, it's disgusting.

2. Paszkiewicz tried to make it sound like he was being open, but what he was saying is "You're free not to agree, but if you don't agree, you belong in hell." Come on, Bryan, you're too intelligent to be defending this.

[Guest Paul]

I should have pointed out to Strife how his initial quotation is at variance with the one he tried to peddle off as "obvious" in its meaning as he interprets it.

Strife:

"There is no doubt that "you belong in hell" is a religious opinion as a matter of law."

Strife, quoting a transcript:

"'Teacher: You know, it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is

your perogative. But the way I see it is this: he's done everything in

his power, so much so, that he went to a cross that I should've been -

it was my sin, he was innocent! But you saw the Mel Gibson portrayal?

That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being

beaten off of his back. God himself sent his only son to die for days

(???)...on the cross. That's the idea. And if I reject that, then it

really is, then to Hell with me.'"

He added emphasis to "then it really really is, then to [h]ell with me."

So, with the context added (what we have of it here, anyway), we see that Paszkiewicz does not press for the student to accept his view ("it's up to you to reason it out, and the outcome is your prerogative"), the statement is explicitly presented as a personal opinion ("the way I see it is this"), and he did not in this instance refer to anyone going to hell save for himself ("if I reject that ... then to hell with me").

But once Strife condenses all that, we end up with "you belong in hell"--presented as a verbatim quotation, mind you--as a religious opinion as a matter of law.

How silly of me to be concerned about context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I neglected to log in. The response to Bryan is mine.

[Guest Paul]

I agree.  My opinion is that we believe in "GOD" because we need a sense of security.  We need to believe that there will be something more to our own mortality.  We need need to cling on to the belief that we will be with our loved ones one day, that makes us feel better.  It in some way keeps us going.  It fills that empty hole that consumes us when someone passes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is revealing that the highest murder, alcoholism and divorce rates, and the lowest educational achievement scores, are all in the so-called Bible belt. These are facts that are becoming too obvious to ignore.

Again, this is not an attack on Christianity or religion per se, at least not by me. It is simply an observation of some very important facts. I don't think it's an accident. When we examine the psychology and philosophy (if it can be called that) of hard-line fundamentalism, it's not hard to see the damage it does to the thinking process. The implications go to a particular kind of religious thinking, which I believe is dangerous and destructive, not to religious thinking in general.

Several distinctions are important here. One is the distinction between literalism and symbolism. Another is the distinction between religion and theism. Then, on a continuum, it's important to look at how open each individual is to factual information that may not fit with his or her belief system. I think it's important we be aware of these distinctions if we are to make any sense out of what is going on in our culture, and perhaps even in our own lives.

Some of the people posting here seem to have no concept of any of this. This, too, chills me to the bone. These hard-liners vote, and they elected the current president --- twice.

[Guest Paul]

I just posted a line about George W. Bush that requires some clarification. I would have pulled it back if I could, but since I can't do that, I'll admit to probably having created an impression I didn't intend, and try to make amends.

I'll start by acknowledging my biases. I am one of millions of Americans who can't even stand to look at the current president. He strikes me (and has from the beginning) as an arrogant spoiled brat who doesn't belong anywhere near power, let alone the presidency. My sister's priest has the same reaction: If Bush appears on TV, this priest will turn off the set, turn the channel, or ask someone else to do it.

Having said that, I recognize that many Americans voted for Bush for a variety of defensible reasons: either they didn't like the alternative, or they are long-time Republicans, or they thought Bush would be stronger on defense, etc. My comments are not directed against them (much as I still can't stand Bush).

The point I intended to make is that tens of millions of Americans voted for Bush precisely because he thinks he knows everything, doesn't give a hoot about the facts, and thumps the Bible the loudest. (Good grief, haven't they read Matthew 6:1-8?) Voting for Bush for those reasons has emboldened him to act according to his worst and most irresponsible inclinations. It is largely because of this in-your-face, the-facts-don't-matter attitude from the radical right that our country is more divided now than perhaps at any time since the Civil War. That is what I was referring to, and I hope it's obvious to most people that this sort of politics has to be stopped.

It's relevant here because many if not most of Paszkiewicz's defenders are thinking and posting along the same lines. That's why I referred to folks who think in that way as having elected Bush twice.

Moral of the story for me: If I have to explain my own pithy comment, it wasn't very pithy.

[Guest Guest]

You are such a dullard.  How about for once coming up with your OWN argument?  I refuse to have a battle of the wits with someone who is unarmed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I used my own argument to demonstrate how absurd your argument was. You're just too dim to realize that.

Now you got your feelings hurt? Go cry to your god then.

[Guest Paul]

I used my own argument to demonstrate how absurd your argument was. You're just too dim to realize that.

Now you got your feelings hurt? Go cry to your god then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's easy to blame the non-theists along with the theists when the argument degenerates to this. However, the reason this is happening is that theists like Paszkiewicz have assumed that it is their right to force their beliefs on the rest of us. We're fighting back, and I say it's high time. All respect to all respectful theists, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or whatever. But we've had enough of the arrogance from the fundamentalists.