Re: "Keep God out of our democracy"? was Re: The West's Flirtation with Atheism Appears to be Over
zencycle
> As most of the atheist responses have been irrational
> and abusive, it looks like it will have to be up to a
> woman to present some reasoned debate on the other side, again;
>
> "Keep God out of our democracy"
> Carmen Lawrence, The Age July 2, 2009
>
> http://images.theage.com.au/2009/07/01/613233/wbOP0207-200x0.jpg
> Religion and politics. Photo: Dyson
>
> "In the joined up internet world, it has been impossible
> to ignore the latest political-religious-sex scandal
> in the US. After going missing for seven days, avowed
> Christian and Republican Governor Mark Sanford initially
> claimed he had been hiking in the Appalachians, then
> admitted he had really been in Argentina visiting a
> woman with whom he was having an affair. While an
> admission like this would provoke a reaction no
> matter who the politician — just ask Bill Clinton —
> it has resulted in a particularly sharp response
> from the public because Sanford, like many in the
> Republican Party influenced by the fundamentalist
> Christian moral movement, has depicted himself as
> a bastion of morality, solid on family values.
> It appears to be this contradiction between his
> public and private morality that has generated
> sustained calls for his resignation."
>
> Jesus was among the first to denounce hypocrisy.
>
> He attacked the religious hierarchy of his time
> for their addiction to the letter of the Law, rather
> than it's spirit, he then demonstrated the point by
> challenging those who were without sin, to cast the
> first stone.
>
> That should have been a warning to those religious
> believers who think they are holier than thou.
> And it is a constant delight to the public when
> those who use religion as part of a political
> pogrom are caught out breaking their own dogmatic
> standards, and are destroyed by their own hubris.
>
> What goes almost unnoticed is that the values they
> espouse remain, the obvious fact that humans are
> weak and not perfect remains, it is the hypocrisy
> which brings the wowsers undone.
>
> "Perhaps it is partly out of a desire to avoid being
> labeled frauds when they stray from absolute
> fidelity that Australian politicians, unlike
> their American counterparts, have worn their
> religious beliefs lightly, eschewing ostentatious
> displays of their faith or the use of religious
> precepts to justify or shape their policy positions.
>
> It is a cultural trait.
> Australians are, or were, less likely to show
> ostentatious political views, less likely to wave
> flags and beat drums, less given to overt
> nationalism and cheerleaders, and even more reticent
> about themselves than our brash American cousins.
>
> It is only in recent years that we have imitated the
> American styles of politicians wearing flag pins on
> their lapel, and having the flag prominently displayed
> behind them in interviews.
>
> But times change, and now Australian films and musical
> artists show a frankness which others have, at times
> found refreshing.
>
> "While religion has not been entirely absent from
> Australian political debate (it did, after all
> lead to a split in the ALP), by and large
> politicians have preferred to justify their
> values and decisions by reference to their
> political philosophies, rather than their
> religious beliefs. Australians, in any case,
> seem wary of appeals to religious authority;
> research shows they are increasingly unlikely
> to claim Christian religious affiliation or
> to engage in religious practices."
>
> That wariness should remain. Similar to
> other Westerners, Australian are not attracted to
> religious organizations, are unlikely to go to
> church, but are interested in spirituality.
>
> Their wariness stems from observing the hypocrisy
> discussed above. Religion can become the captive
> of those who would exploit it's appeal to curry
> favor with the people and gain political power
> and influence. This is the continuing problem
> which those of faith must contend with.
>
> It was the exercise of such corrupted, political
> influence in the "Church" of his time that Jesus
> confronted when he overturned the tables of the
> moneylenders in the Temple. And it was the challenge
> to those Commercial interests and Political power
> which cost him his life.
>
> No one is going to crucify a gentle carpenter who
> preaches Love and has a mere 12 followers.
>
> But critique the power structure and you are in danger.
>
> And power, as the Holy Roman Empire shows us,
> will infiltrate any popular area of human activity.
>
> In Australia, Football used to be a game for amateurs,
> now it is a multi-billion dollar industry where
> players and media rights are traded and politicians
> want to be associated with it, even becoming patrons
> and owners of clubs.
>
> Some actually love the game, others just play their
> own game of power and influence and money.
>
> Religion suffers from the same threat of corruption.
>
> But it should be more capable of resisting it, and the
> secret is separation of Church and State, an innovation
> implemented by the Religious themselves!
>
> "But a recent study by Melbourne political
> scientist Anna Crabb provides some confirmation
> for the idea that this deliberate separation of
> religion and politics may be dissolving
> — at least among MPs."
>
> That is a different matter.
>
> Religion always has influenced society and thus
> the people and thus their representatives. And
> that has been enormously beneficial.
>
> Religious leaders should critique political actions,
> such as illegitimate invasions, torture and terror.
>
> We would be outraged if Muslim leaders did not condemn
> terror, as the vast majority of them do. In fact the media
> often ignores their condemnations and demands they make them.
>
> But the Church cannot be allowed to *wield* political power.
>
> "Her analysis of the parliamentary speeches
> of prominent federal politicians between 2002
> and 2006 showed that MPs were increasingly
> likely to appeal to religious beliefs to
> explain their positions."
>
> What that obviously indicates is that canny
> politicians realize that those religious values
> are of increasing importance to the society,
> and so they want to be seen as aligned with
> them. Some are genuine, some pretenders.
> The public are not always adept at distinguishing
> between them, as they are not well versed
> in any of the religions.
>
> "While the conservatives
> were the most prone to make such references,
> Labor members, including Kevin Rudd, came
> close to matching them. It may be that some
> of this increase was ephemeral, stemming, as
> some have argued, from the shock of the
> events of September 11; research derived
> from terror management theory shows that
> we are all inclined to retreat to a shared
> world view when threatened."
>
> I don't understand that argument. We are
> no more threatened by terrorism than by
> the automobile, which kills far more people.
>
> While Hamas rockets frighten people, they are
> not a threat to the State of Israel.
>
> "Certainly many of the religious references
> in the speeches Crabb studied were made
> during debates about terrorism and seemed
> to originate in an interpretation of the
> attacks as a "clash of civilisations" between
> the Christian West and fundamentalist Islam;
> a discourse that saw religion used to divide
> the virtuous, "us" from the murderous "them".
>
> Islam has *grown* in the West during this period!
>
> This is because people have looked at it and
> discovered it is not a manual for terrorism,
> but condemns it.
>
> Mohamed was famous for introducing rules of war,
> the importance of negotiated peace and the absolute
> preference for diplomacy.
>
> "At the time, I listened with alarm as MPs
> lined up to claim Christian identity while
> seeking to justify the Howard government's
> decision to join then US president George
> Bush in the attack on Iraq."
>
> As we all did. As Pakistan's war against the
> Taliban shows, Islam is more threatened by
> Islamic fundamentalists than we are.
>
> What happened then is what always happens,
> politicians, needing popular support for their
> political wars, make appeals to widely held
> religious views, and thus pervert and distort them.
>
> "However, I think there's more to it than this.
> While the very public embrace of religion as
> justification for particular policies may still
> be confined to a minority of members, there is
> a risk that religious reasoning, not subject to
> the usual rational challenges, may grow in
> significance. As political philosophies have
> been eroded in favor of a pragmatic market-based
> materialism, and as the parties look more and
> more alike, elected representatives are often
> unable to explain why they make the decisions
> they do. Religion offers a possible way out,
> even if many of those espousing religious codes
> to justify their political stances have only
> the haziest notions about scripture and theology."
>
> Sadly true. But it was religion which gave us the
> teaching "The Love of Money is the Root of All Evil"
>
> Clearly the answers are there, and whenever politicians
> attempt to cloak themselves in the respectability of
> religion for less than spiritual reasons, they should
> be reminded of what the scriptures actually say.
>
> Hence the powerful response to hypocrisy, against
> Sanford for posing as a morals crusader, while being
> immoral, and Bush, claiming to be a Christian, but
> torturing and murdering hundreds of thousands of men,
> women and children who had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
>
> "No matter — very few others have a clue either.
> What is important is that the MP appears principled
> and upright, yet not so devout as to arouse
> suspicion in a largely secular society."
>
> As in every other area, people need to be well
> informed in order to assess the sincerity of
> politicians. In this case they need to
> know what religions actually say, and then
> ...
>
> read more »
zencycle
> As most of the atheist responses have been irrational
> and abusive, it looks like it will have to be up to a
> woman to present some reasoned debate on the other side, again;
First off, I need to identify as an affirmed atheist in order to
qualify the following comments:
I dont' believe nataraja and fagsnads are one in the same. The
similarities in verbosity and re-pasting aside, the only thing I've
discerned in this thread that could be interpreted as anti-atheist is
the fact that she points out a shift in Australian politicians
rhetoric aimed at placating their ignorant majority electorate with
religious references, just as they have US. While she may have
specifically maligned atheism/atheists in other threads, I don't see
it here. That alone convinces me this is not the same person. Fagsnads
would _never_ have been able to refrain from writing "MURDEROUS
ATHEIST REGIMES....BWAHAHAHA!".
Lines like this:
> Religion suffers from the same threat of corruption.
.........
> But the Church cannot be allowed to *wield* political power.
Seal the deal, for me anyways.
However, It should be noted that her reference to hopefully-soon-to-be
ex-governer sanford reveals the clear distinction between personal and
religiously based morality:
> What goes almost unnoticed is that the values they
> espouse remain
To extend the thought, 'the values they espouse remain, with or
without the religious foundation'. I'm an athiest, and have been
faithful to my wife of 15 years for the entire 18 that I've known her.
I was an atheist before I met her, I insisted that the justice of the
peace who performed our wedding service make _no_ references any
alleged supreme being. the that effect, a religious person would
correctly assume that my marriage has not been recognized in the
'eyes' of any god(s).
The concepts of fidelity and commitment are established within me as a
moral fundamental _without_ the need for a religious entity. If I were
to stray, I would be no less a personal hypocrite than sanford, the
major distinction being, I've never enforced my moral values on anyone
else, unlike sanford and his socially conservative republican ilk. It
is this _public_ hypocrisy that should be the basis for excluding
religion from the sphere of politics and government, not the personal
religious faith (or the lack thereof) that guides ones public moral
values. I have no problem with a poiltician asserting his faith as a
guiding factor in his personal morality, but I have a big problem when
they make decisions affecting the public based on their dogma.
Richo
> On Jul 1, 10:33 pm, Nataraja <ana...@shiva.com> wrote:
>
> > As most of the atheist responses have been irrational
> > and abusive, it looks like it will have to be up to a
> > woman to present some reasoned debate on the other side, again;
>
> First off, I need to identify as an affirmed atheist in order to
> qualify the following comments:
>
> I dont' believe nataraja and fagsnads are one in the same. The
> similarities in verbosity and re-pasting aside, the only thing I've
> discerned in this thread that could be interpreted as anti-atheist is
> the fact that she points out a shift in Australian politicians
> rhetoric aimed at placating their ignorant majority electorate with
> religious references, just as they have US. While she may have
> specifically maligned atheism/atheists in other threads, I don't see
> it here. That alone convinces me this is not the same person. Fagsnads
> would _never_ have been able to refrain from writing "MURDEROUS
> ATHEIST REGIMES....BWAHAHAHA!".
>
Then again Fags has made the occasional initial reasonable sounding
first posts too - like
"lets all celebrate the universal declaration of human rights" -
although that one came after weeks of posts saying all atheists are
murderous scum of course.
Its a game - a ploy - start out sounding potentially sane - suck a few
people into a conversation and then all his subsequent posts were
"Murderous Scum Pigs!!!!" and gross distortions and misrepresentations
of others posts - irrespective of how others try and converse with
him.
Nataraja has said the same thing about "atheist regimes" as fagsnads -
minus the abusive language vulgarity and the "Bwahahahaha"'s
Nataraja starts threads - then fags does all the follow ups - looking
to me like the natajara persona is the bait.
I *suspect* its the same individual with two troll personalities.
Just a working hypothesis at the moment -I have no proof yet.
I need to catch the fagsnad personality posting as nataraja to clinch
it - if it is the same individual he has done a good job at keeping
them separate so far.
Mark.
zencycle
>
> I *suspect* its the same individual with two troll personalities.
> Just a working hypothesis at the moment -I have no proof yet.
> I need to catch the fagsnad personality posting as nataraja to clinch
> it - if it is the same individual he has done a good job at keeping
> them separate so far.
I don't have the tools here to track IPs, certainly I would stand
corrected if the evidence presented itself.
One of the reason I am leaning toward the side of 'not' is I've seen
his other sock puppets - morton lucifer was his most recent - and I
really don't think he's smart enough to change his persona that
drastically. Not that nataraja is _that_ far removed, but still far
enough that I'm sure faggsie couldn't pull it off.
But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Richo
Understood - I am perfectly open to being proved wrong on this also.
Mark.