Happy Blasphemy Day

[Beavah]

Beavah can't throw lightning, alas. However, he does have an unusual aptitude for attractin' it (and other meteorological phenomena) when out camping.

 

Beavah would never call Thor a myth to a genuine believer, just to be respectful. I don't think there really are any of those left though, eh? Just like I don't think da anthropological term "cult" when referrin' to things like da reverence Catholics feel toward Mary is appropriate in polite company.

 

Just part of bein' respectful, is all.

 

Beavah

[Trevorum]

I knew you would show up pretty soon!

 

The followers of Asatru are quite sincere in their worship of Thor. They are mostly found in Norway and such like, but there are probably here in the US. Maybe even in BSA, I don't know.

 

To be sure, I would not impugn the beliefs of anyone in a sacred setting such as a church, or even a secular setting with particular religious trappings such as a spaghetti dinner hosted by a church. It would be rude to insist upon ones own beliefs in such a setting. At camp, I say grace along with everyone else, out of respect and courtesy. However, I would have no problem standing up in a town meeting and stating and defending any of my beliefs that are different from others, ( e.g., that there is no great demon). I would expect no less of you.

 

[AZMike]

Can't have a tug-of-war 'thout someone at the other end of the rope.

[Beavah]

Ah, but in a public settin' would yeh stand up and call Muhammed a False Prophet, or da Jewish prohibition on pork a bunch of superstitious nonsense?

 

I doubt it. I figure despite your protestations yeh are probably a fine and respectful fellow.

 

I find in public settings it's nicer to share your own positive beliefs, rather than dissin' on someone else's beliefs in a negative way. Da problem with words like "myth" or "cult" is that their common-use meaning outside of academe is disparaging to those with deeply held religious or cultural beliefs.

 

And, like it or not, angels are an aspect of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theology, arguably also in Hindu and Buddhist faiths. Satan and fallen angels aren't quite as strongly held, but they are an aspect of Christian and Islamic theology and tradition, and yeh can find aspects of that belief in the Talmud in Judaism and in other faiths as well.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I think stupid ideas (and particularly stupid ideas that are dangerous) should be pointed out as being stupid, whether they are religious ideas or not. Deferring to religion gets you things like dead kids who were prayed over instead of taken to a doctor.

[AZMike]

"Deferring to religion gets you things like dead kids who were prayed over instead of taken to a doctor."

 

Not deferring to religion gets you things like partial birth abortions and eugenics.

[packsaddle]

Gad, I guess this thread has been 'brought back to life'.

 

OK, "Muhammed a False Prophet, or da Jewish prohibition on pork a bunch of superstitious nonsense?"

So what was Muhammed wrong about in his prophecy? Or better yet, what are the characteristics which define 1) what a prophet is? and 2) what it takes to make them a false one?

Could Jean Dixon qualify as a false prophet?

 

As for the pork thing, THAT isn't and never was a bunch of superstitious nonsense, at least in the sense that in retrospect there seems to have been a legitimate public-health relationship to pork. Of course, today that practice is quaint, perhaps charming.. but unnecessary. At least its harmless.

 

But I agree with Merlyn, perhaps not in the same terms. I'm about to thoroughly enjoy stripping students of some more illusions. It's one of the most satisfying things I do, to see those 'lights' come on and to see their faces when they realize that there's a better, more interesting way to think about things than the way they had. After that, I almost have to hold them back. I'm really looking forward to it.

 

AZMike, I certainly do credit religion with a modicum of emotion surrounding the abortion topic. But with respect to eugenics, do you really think that is a result of the absence of religion? You might want to check out a little book, "Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" by Christine Rosen. It's published by the Oxford University Press and you can probably find a used copy cheap. While there was indeed a great deal of religious opposition to the ideas of eugenics, there were also some religious leaders who embraced it, "Christianity must be a religion less concerned about getting men to heaven than about fitting them for their proper work on earth."

The internet is your friend. Here is an interesting link as well:http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_54-60.pdf

 

I also note that in the days of slavery, the Bible was used to justify that 'peculiar institution' in the South and as a result there were attempts to breed slaves just you might livestock (shades of Dred Scott).

 

But, AZMike, since you bring it up, what is your objection to eugenics? Do you think this is a bad thing? Why?

[CalicoPenn]

While walking through the wilderness, Linus was interrupted in his reveries by a burning bed of petunias. Linus was about to smother the flames with his Blanket when he was brought short by a powerful voice emanating from the flames. It was the voice of the Great Pumpkin and Linus trembled before it.

 

The Great Pumpkin said "Linus, I want you to build me an Ark" Linus asked "Why, oh Great Pumpkin". The Great Pumpkin replied "I will soon destroy the heathens of the world with 40 days of rain and 40 nights of snow." Linus asked "Is that because the dinosaurs all caught small pox from us and died off before they could finish the job?" The Great Pumpkin replied "Let's not talk about that. Oh heck, I'm getting too old for these kinds of special effects extravaganzas. Look, why don't I just give you a couple of stone tablets with some rules to follow - mankind will just ignore them anyway, but it'll make me feel better." Linus asked "Couldn't you just write them on a piece of papyrus? I've already got one hand full carrying this Blanket".

 

The Great Pumpkin sighed, and said "So be it - Behold!" And in an instant, the burning petunia patch was replaced by a single tree, and on that tree was a single piece of paper with 10 rules, typed, in 12 point elite, single spaced. Linus read the rules and they were thus:

 

1) Thou shalt have no Pumpkin before me - not even one of those cute blue moon pumpkins.

 

2) Though thou shalt have the right to bear arms, thou shalt not use pumpkins for target practice, or for catapult ammunition.

 

3) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's pumpkin.

 

4) Thou shalt observe pumpkin day and keep it pumpkiny.

 

5) Thou shalt not steal pumpkins.

 

6) Thou shalt not use turnips as a substitute for pumpkins when making Jack-o-Lanterns.

 

7) Look, just use canned pumpkin when making pumpkin pie - it's so much easier than making the filling from scratch.

 

8) Thou shalt not take the Great Pumpkin's name in vain.

 

9) Thou shalt honor thy pumpkin patch and keep it watered.

 

10) I'm a busy pumpkin - just fill in the blanks yourself: "Thou shalt not _______ or _______ to______ and ______ or _______ if ______ and _______ by ______ on ________, understood?"

 

Linus gazed upon the list and wept tears of joy, which he wiped away with his Blanket. He gathered the villagers and read them the list. Sally walked away laughing, Lucy conspired with Snoopy to steal Linus' Blanket, Charlie looked for Patty to start a baseball game, even though it was hockey season, Marcie and Woodstock went back to reading Proust, and Schroeder played selections from the Pumpkin of the Opera on his toy piano.

[AZMike]

packsaddle: "AZMike, I certainly do credit religion with a modicum of emotion surrounding the abortion topic."

 

Well, duh.

 

packsaddle: "But with respect to eugenics, do you really think that is a result of the absence of religion?"

 

The absence of orthodox Judaeo-Christianity? Oh, heck yeah. The absence of that thing that likes to call itself religion, or spirituality, or whatever, but is really just modernity wrapped in religious garb? Well, that thing does think very highly of eugenics, or abortion, or "Marriage Equality," or any other kind of claptrap.

 

Eugenics was indeed quite the thing among liberal Christians in the early part of the last century, just as the fad for homosexual marriage (or marriage equality) is now. If you are willing to ignore traditional teaching and cut your theological fabric to the pattern of the times in the hopes of greater popularity, or creating heaven on earth, you tend to be very open to that kind of nonsense. In the 1920s, it started gaining favor among some members of the more liberal Protestant denominations, such as the Unitarians and Congregationalists, and spread (not all, by any means) to some of members of the "mainline" Protestant denominations. The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, and the Evangelical Protestants largely stood against the evil of eugenics. The minister who wrote the quote you give below, who was also devoted to any number of other liberal causes, would have probably felt right at home protesting in front of a Chik-Fil-A, if they had any then.

 

packsaddle: You might want to check out a little book, "Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" by Christine Rosen. It's published by the Oxford University Press and you can probably find a used copy cheap. While there was indeed a great deal of religious opposition to the ideas of eugenics, there were also some religious leaders who embraced it, "Christianity must be a religion less concerned about getting men to heaven than about fitting them for their proper work on earth." The internet is your friend. Here is an interesting link as well:http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_3/j20_3_54-60.pdf "

 

I am somewhat familiar with this "Internet" of which you speak, but as my only computer is a vintage Commodore Vic 20, it takes me some time to connect to it. Generally, my scholarship is based on "books."

 

Such as Rosen's book, which I read a while back. It was not well-reviewed at the time, as I recall, as she focused mostly on the before mentioned denominations. It's pretty egregious to write what purports to be a history of religious reaction to Eugenics, and only devote a couple of paragraphs to G.K. Chesterton, surely the most vociferous (and gifted!) Christian apologist to oppose the evils of that movement, or to devote so little space to Pope Pius XI and his encyclical, "Castii Connubii (On Marriage)." which laid the bulwark for the Church's attack on the Eugenics movement in America and Europe. The stance taken against Eugenics by people like Bishop Galen and Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Germany kind of has to be considered a real moral stance, since the Nazis killed people who contradicted them, don't you think? (Although we saw an example of that kind of progressive intolerance this morning, sadly.)

 

BTW, if you still read books, may I suggest you devote some time to his landmark little tome, "Eugenics and Other Evils?" Look, you can even download it on your Internet Machine!

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25308

 

Much better reading than the grim little eugenics articles by H.G. Wells.

 

The author of the link you provide (who is primarily known for his writings as a Young Earth Creationist, BTW - a view I don't happen to share, although you might), even makes the same point - it was members of the progressive, liberal denominations that accepted Eugenics dogma, not the orthodox. In case you didn't happen to read all the article to which you linked.

 

The same author makes his views even more clear in another article, also available on your Internet Thing-Um-A-Bob:

 

 

Much of the opposition to the eugenics programmes came from the religious community. Conditions such as feeblemindedness and mental illness, they reasoned, could not have been inherited because these people were part of God's creation, and God stated in Genesis that when He created Adam and Eve they were perfect. The cause of these conditions must be something other than mankind's innate inherited genetic program. Catholics were especially critical in that they believed that man's spirit, not his body, is paramount, and God does not judge persons according to IQ tests or skull shapes, but according to his or her spiritual attributes.

 

And many genuinely retarded persons were likeable, friendly, outgoing, and non-aggressive; a good example is many of those who are diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. Much of the criticism was against evolution itself; most eugenicists believed that humans came from lower beasts' and if this idea was wrong, then the very foundation of the eugenics movement was flawed.

 

The conflict between Christianity and eugenics was also due to the latter's conflicts with the major doctrine of Christianity; that mankind through sin had fallen from his once high state, which markedly contrasts to the doctrine of eugenics, which teaches that mankind has risen from a lower state. The eugenics movement was directly at odds with both Christian and Jewish teachings, and this fact was not lost on those in the movement; many were openly critical of Christianity, and large numbers, including the Darwins (Erasmus, Charles and Leonard), Galton, Huxley, Davenport, Wells and Pearson were open agnostics.

 

The founder of eugenics, Francis Galton, was not only an agnostic, but also openly hostile toward religion.

 

'While he tolerated Louise's (his wife) practice of religion in the home, he rarely missed an opportunity to gibe at the clerical outlook.'

 

Those who advocated the eugenic approach called their opposers sentimentalists' and the 'natural ally' of the sentimentalists was 'the preacher'.

 

 

Read the whole article here:

 

http://ed5015.tripod.com/BEugenics72Bergman73Potter77.htm

 

 

packsaddle, again: "I also note that in the days of slavery, the Bible was used to justify that 'peculiar institution' in the South and as a result there were attempts to breed slaves just you might livestock (shades of Dred Scott). "

 

I note that the abolition movement was largely made up of Christians, while agnostics and atheists, with a few noble exceptions, either stood silent or actively supported that peculiar institution. While people like the Reverend Wilberforce fought to make he African slave trade illegal, people like Richard Dawkin's ancestors made millions off the blood of African slaves. Richard Dawkins lives in a 400-acre ancestral estate that was purchased at that price, and despite his claims that religion is responsible for slavery, I don't notice him offering to sell the place to pay reparations.

 

Christianity is the first movement to declare a slave the equal of a free man, Christianity is responsible for the end of slavery in Europe, Christians (the Church Fathers, in fact) were the first to speak and write against the institution of chattel slavery and take direct action to end it, the largest slave rebellion in America was led by Catholics, and the civil rights movement in the 20th century was largely led by Christian ministers, who explicitly used biblical imagery to change people's hearts and minds.

 

packsaddle: "But, AZMike, since you bring it up, what is your objection to eugenics? Do you think this is a bad thing? Why? "

 

Gosh, surprisingly I object to viewing people as animals who can be bred or culled to enhance what someone decides is "racial hygiene." I don't think society or the state can decide who is fit to live or die, I don't think babies should be killed in the womb that protects them, I don't think they should be killed right after delivery, and I don't think they should be killed up to one year after birth at the whim of the mother, as some modern eugenicists have stated. I don't think we should be able to kill someone who is old because he no longer contributes to society (as another prominent "bio-ethicist" has argued), and I don't agree with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, that is appropriate to use abortion specifically to reduce the number of African-Americans in our society (as she lectured to the Ku Klux Klan, who responded with great approval), who wanted to create "a race of thoroughbreds," and who wanted "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control."

 

And anyway, I fail to find support in the Scout Oath or Scout Law for forced sterilization or murder of "the unfit," "the useless," or the racially "undesirable" - do you?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Not deferring to religion gets you things like partial birth abortions and eugenics.

 

Deferring to religion isn't the only way to be opposed to partial birth abortions and eugenics.

 

However, religion appears to be the only way that e.g. a parent could rub water on their child while mumbling pleas to invisible beings and successfully argue that they have given their child sufficient medical care. I don't know of any other rationale that might protect such a parent from criminal charges of neglegence -- if the parent was, say, a quack medicine promoter they wouldn't get away with it. But say it's some kind of religious ritual and way too many people think might be effective.

[packsaddle]

No. I mostly wanted to understand what your reasoning is. You expanded on it nicely, thanks.

Do you support socialized medicine?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[AZMike]

Depends on what you mean by "socialized medicine."

[packsaddle]

I'll use the concept in the sense that I've seen it expressed by persons in these forums. In that sense it is access to medical care that is either paid for by tax dollars, or subsidized by tax dollars, or actually owned and run by government. This would, I guess, include any care that results from a variety of welfare programs, medicare, medicaid. Things like that. And, of course, the new law...that probably goes with the other stuff. I have read references to all these things at different times in the sense that they, to a variety of extents, are 'socialized'.

Do you support these?

[AZMike]

Merlyn: "Deferring to religion isn't the only way to be opposed to partial birth abortions and eugenics."

 

Ultimately, yes, deferring to religion - that is, accepting its premises on some level - is the only way to be opposed. The platform of the morality you argue from is one that recognizes the intrinsic worth and dignity of the human being. A non-religious viewpoint - that we are fulminating flesh-bags full of percolating chemicals slogging around with some sparks going off inside that may or may not offer the flesh-bag a picture of an objective reality outside the confines of said flesh-bag, and are the only the result of the random brute collisions of atoms - does not yield that viewpoint. I'm sorry, but it really doesn't. Flesh-bags of chemical reactions don't care about other flesh-bags full of chemical reactions. Sparks going off in the brain can't give any assurance that ANY thoughts are "true," as Plantinga proved, not even (or especially) naturalism.

 

"However, religion appears to be the only way that e.g. a parent could rub water on their child while mumbling pleas to invisible beings and successfully argue that they have given their child sufficient medical care. I don't know of any other rationale that might protect such a parent from criminal charges of neglegence -- if the parent was, say, a quack medicine promoter they wouldn't get away with it. But say it's some kind of religious ritual and way too many people think might be effective."

 

And secularism is the only way that e.g. a mother could ask a doctor to sever her baby's spine with a pair of scissors as he or she exits the birth canal. I don't know of any other rationale that might protect such a parent from criminal charges of homicide - if the parent was, say, a stranger they wouldn't get away with it - but say it is the mother's right to choose and way too many people think it might be moral.

 

But ultimately, arguing from religion isn't the only way to be a quack. One only has to look at those who vehemently oppose the vaccination of children, which includes a good number of secularists, or those who argue that genetically-modified foods are somehow unhealthy for you, or that any statistics on the negative aspects of having gay parents must be erroneous, or that nuclear power is riskier than other forms of power, or that fracking must be unsafe for the environment, or that animal testing cannot be applied to humans, that the labor theory of value is correct, that acquired traits are inheritable, etc,, etc.

 

Which also raises the question - why should I have to defend the beliefs of a denomination that is not my own (and I'm not sure to which religious practice you make reference above - Christian Science?) I don't argue for the claims or practices of Islam, or Scientology, or Buddhism, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, just my own, although I defend the right of others to believe what they want, with an obvious exception of placing a child in harm, as you offered in your example. If you feel it is necessary for me to defend "religiosity" as an ideal, by the same token you would be required to defend the pedophilic atheism of Sartre, the sanguinary atheism of Robespierre or the Marquis de Sade, the power-worshipping atheism of Nietzsche, the decadent atheism of Onfray, or the genocidal atheism of Pol Pot, Mao, Hoxha, or Stalin. I doubt you follow the bent of any of those atheists, and I wouldn't expect you to defend all the "denominations" of atheism.

 

To paraphrase the tired atheist wheeze, you believe in zero religions, I just believe in one more...

[AZMike]

"I'll use the concept in the sense that I've seen it expressed by persons in these forums. In that sense it is access to medical care that is either paid for by tax dollars, or subsidized by tax dollars, or actually owned and run by government. This would, I guess, include any care that results from a variety of welfare programs, medicare, medicaid. Things like that. And, of course, the new law...that probably goes with the other stuff. I have read references to all these things at different times in the sense that they, to a variety of extents, are 'socialized'.

 

Do you support these?"

 

Could you be a little more specific (or at least, less vague)? Are you asking if I believe the government should provide some share of the health care for certain specified groups?