![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thatcrazycajunYou may recall the recent flap over President-elect Barack Obama's inviting right-wing mega-church pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his swearing-in ceremony. You may also recall he has simultaneously invited Atlanta's own Rev. Joseph Lowrey to give the benediction, bookending his inauguration with icons of both sides in the never-ending political struggle.
Now several major groups of atheists say neither one of them should be invited, nor should the word "God" even be mentioned in what is supposed to be a secular government's installation of its chief executive. And they've filed a lawsuit in federal court to show they're dead serious about it; CNN reports the story here. Warren and Lowrey are both named as defendants, as are Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (who will administer the oath of office) and just about everyone in charge of the whole shooting match.
There is a case to be made that prayers and other invocations of deity in the ceremony may be a violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause and of the "wall of separation" the Founding Fathers set up between church and state (unless you believe Pat Robertson's cries that the wall is "a lie of the left"). And it's not as if the prayers and such have been part of the ceremony since the country's founding; the tradition, not mentioned or required anywhere in the Constitution or federal statutes, was instituted in the 1930s by Franklin Roosevelt. The lawsuit argues that inclusion of prayers and appeals to divine providence constitutes unjust and deliberate exclusion of those Americans whose belief system includes no room for the existence of God (Chris Hitchens, call your office), or of the Protestant Supreme Being Warren and Lowrey represent. Even the oath of office itself is not legally written to include "so help me God"; FDR added that too.
But while the US may not officially be a "Christian nation," some conservative scholars have made fairly substantive arguments, backed up by the Founders' own writings, that they intended that government be separate from religion but not wholly ungoverned by its precepts. They claim (with, admittedly, some justification) that liberals and atheists have taken policy and law too far to the other extreme when they file suits such as this to remove God utterly from the public square.
Bottom line: Too many Americans believe in some sort of God, and that any President, Democrat or Republican, will urgently need His/Her help to govern effectively (especially given the catastrophic problems we face today), and our new President will be one of them. I don't believe he wants anyone to be or feel excluded, but I think the "freedom from religion" crowd is gonna lose this one; they're too vastly outnumbered by believers...some of whom sit on the federal bench. And being one of that crowd myself (albeit agnostic rather than atheist), I think it's a damned shame...but my experience has left me far too little hope for any other outcome.
Besides, who knows? Maybe He/She really is up there and might be listening.
Now several major groups of atheists say neither one of them should be invited, nor should the word "God" even be mentioned in what is supposed to be a secular government's installation of its chief executive. And they've filed a lawsuit in federal court to show they're dead serious about it; CNN reports the story here. Warren and Lowrey are both named as defendants, as are Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (who will administer the oath of office) and just about everyone in charge of the whole shooting match.
There is a case to be made that prayers and other invocations of deity in the ceremony may be a violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause and of the "wall of separation" the Founding Fathers set up between church and state (unless you believe Pat Robertson's cries that the wall is "a lie of the left"). And it's not as if the prayers and such have been part of the ceremony since the country's founding; the tradition, not mentioned or required anywhere in the Constitution or federal statutes, was instituted in the 1930s by Franklin Roosevelt. The lawsuit argues that inclusion of prayers and appeals to divine providence constitutes unjust and deliberate exclusion of those Americans whose belief system includes no room for the existence of God (Chris Hitchens, call your office), or of the Protestant Supreme Being Warren and Lowrey represent. Even the oath of office itself is not legally written to include "so help me God"; FDR added that too.
But while the US may not officially be a "Christian nation," some conservative scholars have made fairly substantive arguments, backed up by the Founders' own writings, that they intended that government be separate from religion but not wholly ungoverned by its precepts. They claim (with, admittedly, some justification) that liberals and atheists have taken policy and law too far to the other extreme when they file suits such as this to remove God utterly from the public square.
Bottom line: Too many Americans believe in some sort of God, and that any President, Democrat or Republican, will urgently need His/Her help to govern effectively (especially given the catastrophic problems we face today), and our new President will be one of them. I don't believe he wants anyone to be or feel excluded, but I think the "freedom from religion" crowd is gonna lose this one; they're too vastly outnumbered by believers...some of whom sit on the federal bench. And being one of that crowd myself (albeit agnostic rather than atheist), I think it's a damned shame...but my experience has left me far too little hope for any other outcome.
Besides, who knows? Maybe He/She really is up there and might be listening.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 09:03 pm (UTC)I'd rather there were no prayers at all - I *do* believe in strict separation - but to have only Protestant ministers is also problematic from my point of view.
Surely, if there are two opportunities for prayer, they could make one of them non-Christian? Otherwise, it does say to religious non-Christians that this is, indeed, not their nation.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 09:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 06:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 09:17 pm (UTC)Seriously, why not invoke Wotan or Zeus? Any sort of invocation that specifically includes a limited selection of deities is exclusive. Why not hold the ceremony skyclad, rather than in secular garb? The proper role of religion in government is near nil (I'll allow for the symbols the Armed Forces use on slain soldier's monuments, as well as chaplains with the forces themselves -- provided they don't attempt to convert "nonbelievers"). The word "god" (or "God") is problematic, and the less it's used in official ceremonies, the better.
This is not because I don't hold religious beliefs -- it's because I do, just not the ones in line with the leaders of the megachurches who whine whenever anyone else's beliefs are allowed for.
(icon used in protest of excessive Judeo-Christian religious influence on MY government)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 09:26 pm (UTC)I otherwise completely agree with you
Although I'd be happy never agreeing with Christopher Hitchens.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 09:51 pm (UTC)So yes, I do believe that there is an unbroken and studyable culture that can be so described. As far as modern religious beliefs, the two are clearly separate, though folks outside their aegis see the relationship more clearly than that between, say, Judaism and Islam, or the Tao and the Greek polytheistic tradition (if there is such a relationship).
Sorry for the pedantic stance; I understand why you say what you do, and I felt the need to explain why and how I disagree.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 10:47 pm (UTC)Dr. Whom, Consulting Linguist, Grammarian, Orthoëpist, and Philological Busybody
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 11:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-01 06:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 01:46 am (UTC)Somewhere back in the mists of my youth, I was told a joke about an older bishop, priest or some such issuing instructions to a new young pastor about how he could lead his flock. These included the admonition: "The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are under no circumstances ever to be referred to as 'Dad, Junior and the Spook'!" :-)
I wish I could remember the rest of it, but that one still clings like ossified chewing gum to the underside of the old wooden school desk that is my memory.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-21 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-24 05:04 am (UTC)I'll admit I've been a "recovering" Catholic since the middle 1960s, but unless Catholic doctrine has changed quite a bit, my understanding of their ranking system is as follows -
Number of God(s) - one, somehow simultaneously divided into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost / Spirit, the second of whom became also human at some point.
Next level(s) down - angels; powerful spirits, but not the omnipotent, omniscient, omni-etc. God. Satan / Lucifer is one of these; he disagreed with and challenged God on something which I don't remember, and lost. I would guess these and Satan's fellow fallen angels are the lesser demigods referred to, though I don't recall any of the angels, fallen or otherwise, being called demigods.
Down one more level - humans, including Mary, the woman who miraculously was used so that God the Son could become human, and saints, some / most of whom are believed to have miraculous power(s).
As I said, my understanding dates to the 1960s, so I'm open to correction from anyone with more current / accurate knowledge.
Ann (agn)O.(stic)
no subject
Date: 2009-01-24 03:40 pm (UTC)Personally, I tend to believe in only a few saints, particularly Saint Vidicon and Saint Leibowitz.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 10:20 pm (UTC)Although.... if it is the sense of the Commander-in-Chief-elect that there needs to be prayer said over the Inauguration, I know who I want to do the praying.
She's a Q'ero Mesa Carrier (Andean shaman), born and raised in West-by-god Virginia (Baptist, I think), and came to her path via a pretty twisty path which I think included Wicca... and I've heard her pray many times; there was one point I considered her my minister. When she Calls Space she uses a fair sampling of about everything in the book... and while it's like nothing you've ever heard before, she has a way of making people comfortable with it.
I'm with you, I think if the State is going to do religion, it ought to recognize them all, or none of them.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 11:27 pm (UTC)IIRC, the phrase "separation of church and state" came about from one of Thomas Jefferson's writings; nowhere is that phrase used or mentioned in the Constitution. (I saw this from a video from the Wallbuilders organization years ago.)
no subject
Date: 2009-01-01 02:47 am (UTC)(And, FYI, I don't believe there is such a thing as an agnostic. Read up on the history of agnosticism - it's nothing but a huge cop-out. I say this - ahem - respectfully.)
Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-21 01:58 am (UTC)Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-21 05:33 am (UTC)Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-21 11:45 pm (UTC)I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word. I'll quote here from the OED:
You wrote, "I honestly do not think there is any major difference between being without spiritual knowledge and being without theological belief". Even to put the question in that way is to prejudge it. To speak of knowledge implies knowability, which in this case I hold to be impossible. Someone who says to me "I know that God exists", or "I know that there is no God", is saying that I am wrong, period, whereas someone who says to me "I believe that God exists / that there is no God" is saying that we disagree. That's an important difference.
You also wrote,
"'Belief' has nothing to do with it - both agnosticism and atheism, as I understand them, involve an absence of belief, a disbelief, and people who label themselves as such are generally unbelievers, not believers."
You equate absence of belief with disbelief. That is an error, as perhaps I can demonstrate with a less fraught example:
Q1: Is Henry in?
A1a: No, he isn't. (disbelief: I believe [not X].)
A1b: I don't know. (absence of belief, nonbelief: I do not believe X.)
Q2: Is there a God?
A2a: No. (disbelief)
A2b: I don't know. (absence of belief, nonbelief)
In case 2, there is an additional serious question of whether or not it is possible to know the answer, but it doesn't affect the difference between answers a and b in each dialogue.
OED again:(#2 there is seriously loaded, and the examples range all the way from 1577 to ... 1827.) A good friend of mine calls himself an atheist, but what he means by that is rather different from both of these. He told me that he considers the existence question as undecided (and maybe as undecidable; I don't remember), but that he chooses to live his life as if there is no God. In other words, agnostic in belief, atheistic (OED #1) in practice.
And all of that is apart from my first point. I don't care what Huxley's intentions may or may not have been, I don't know whether or not there is a God. I have had some experiences that have led to to me believe yes (but which I have never considered as evidentiary), and many thoughts that have led me to believe no, but overall I don't know. I don't think the question is decideable, but I'm not convinced either way on that, and I don't feel any need to have a position. I sum that all up in a sig line:
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-22 05:27 am (UTC)What is Atheism?
"What is atheism?" is usually the one question never asked of most atheists. Most people do not ask this question because they already have their own ideas about what atheism is and what atheists are. Where these ideas originate vary.
Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God" and/or "denial of God." Some dictionaries go further and say that atheism is "wickedness," "sinfulness," "heathenism," "paganism," and "immorality." Some dictionaries even say that atheism is the "doctrine that there is no God." At least The American Heritage ® Dictionary says "God and gods" after the word "doctrine," but that does not detract from the fact that use of the word doctrine is incorrect.
The fact that the dictionary's definition uses the phrase "there is no God" betrays the theistic influence in defining the word atheism. If dictionaries did not contain such influence, then the definition would read, "A belief that there are no gods." The use of god in singular form, with a capital G, is indicative of Christian influence.
In addition, using words like "doctrine" and "denial" betray the negativity seen of atheists by theistic writers. Atheism does not have a doctrine at all and atheists certainly do not "deny" that gods exist. Denial is the "refusal to believe." Atheism does not "know there is a god but refuse to believe in him" (or her). That would be like saying that you know Big Foot exists but you refuse to believe in him. If the evidence of gods was insurmountable and provable, and atheists still refused to believe, then that would be an act of denial.
Speaking of the original meaning, the word atheism comes from the Greek atheos, which means "without god." The original meaning of the word, based on its Greek origins, mentions nothing about "disbelief" or "denial." A short and single-word definition would be "godless."
end of AA definition. Me talking again.
This definition is not perfect either, especially the bit about "a belief that there are no gods," which is still not correct, and you can see where they go on to argue against the idea that it's a positive belief, as opposed to an absence of belief, which is what it is. Agnosticism is nothing more than atheism with another name. They are one and the same. The "atheist" that the dictionary writers invented is a straw dummy set up by non-atheists.
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-22 09:06 am (UTC)Thanks to our culture and our education, we all have the concept of "God" or "gods" in our heads. You'd have to be feral not to, I think. Given that fact, if A equals "gods exist" there are three possible positions, "I believe A", "I believe not-A" or "I do not know." Agnostics take the third position. Atheists, almost always in my experience, argue from the second position, whether they call it a belief or an absence of belief or whatever. The positions are quite different, but both of them (all three of them, actually) are centred on the truth or falsehood of the proposition "gods exist," and as far as I as a layman can see both of them are positive beliefs in relation to that statement. To have an absence of belief in relation to that statement you would either have to be totally unaware of the concept of "gods", or simply not have thought about it, and one thing I have noticed in my ongoing dialogues with various atheists is that they think about God or gods an awful lot. Funny that.
And speaking of original meanings, "doctrine" means "thing taught" or "body of instruction." And another thing I've noticed about atheists is that many of them really want people to be taught about atheism. So I think there's a doctrine there as well.
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-22 03:04 pm (UTC)I don't care what Huxley's intentions may or may not have been, I don't know (or believe that I know) whether or not there is a God. I have had some experiences that have led to to me believe yes (but which I have never considered as evidentiary), and many thoughts that have led me to believe no, but overall I don't (feel that I) know. I don't think the question is decideable, but I'm not convinced either way on that, and I don't feel any need to have a position. By the AA definition and what I can figure out from your comments on it, I am not an atheist. Please reply -- or withdraw.
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-22 03:55 pm (UTC)"Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to a presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being."
Smith goes on to point out that there are both theistic and atheistic branches of agnosticism. Maimonides is cited as an example of a theistic agnostic. The explanation is rather lengthy, so I won't type it all here, but I highly recommend the book.
I have heard it said that agnosticism can be a form of religious belief, in that the agnostic believes the existence and/or nature of a particular deity is not and can never be known. If this definition is true, and if atheism is also a belief, then I suppose I am neither, and most of the other atheists in American Atheists are also not atheists, because our position is not based on any sort of faith or belief. I think religious people like to call something that is not a belief a belief because they are unable to think outside the tight little box that their religion is wrapped in.
Here's another helpful bit from the AA website:
"Is Atheism a belief system or religion?
Theists usually define atheism incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion.
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of "without gods." That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled "Atheism Defined," it would only be one sentence long.
Let us look at the different definitions of religion and see if atheism belongs in any of them.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
No atheism resides in that definition. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural power or powers.
2. Beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
Atheism does not have a spiritual leader and atheism does not have any rites or rituals (practices) around such a spiritual leader. Atheism requires no initiation, no baptism, there is no Atheist Bible (Koran, Vedas, etc) to read, no rituals that atheists must go through to join an Atheist Church (temple, mosque, synagogue, sect, etc), and no central beliefs that all atheists must adhere to in order to be "true atheists."
The common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Every atheist is as unique as a fingerprint when it comes to his or her individual philosophy, convictions, and ideals."
And yes, I am a member of American Atheists, mostly because when I get reactions from people, like, "Oh, you're not really . . ." I can show them the membership card in my wallet, and also because I support the legal efforts they are making to keep church and state separated. And because they're good people.
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-22 04:34 pm (UTC)I may now have a better understanding of your motive for the paragraph that sparked my response. You wrote: The words "cop-out" and "respectfully" are mutually exclusive. Unless you intend to troll, don't use them together. Whether intentional or not, that was snarky and insulting.
That statement might be justified if you assume that your/AA's definition of "atheism" is the only correct one, and that therefore there is no need or room for the term "agnosticism". Such an attitude would be -- ahem -- disrespectful of others who do not share your (minority) definition. I respect your use of that definition for yourself. I refuse to let it constrain my description of myself.
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-22 06:48 pm (UTC)Yes, atheists are a minority, but we would prefer not to let the theistic majority define what we are, because they are incorrect, both with regard to the original meaning and derivation of the word, and with regard to accuracy as to what people who call themselves atheists actually think.
Having read what Emerson said about a foolish consistency, I also refuse to be locked into a single definition. Some words represent thoughts that are sufficiently complex to require multiple definitions. One definition of atheism I have seen is existing without the interaction of an actual supernatural deity. I don't necessarily agree with this definition, but I do like it, because it increases the number of atheists dramatically.
My personal opinions (aside from those expressed by others which I have quoted here) may be found in the 2 essays on my website, "Why I Am A Secular Dolphinist (And You're Not!)" and "Finding Spiritual Tupperwareness." I am particularly fond of Spiritual Tupperwareness, where your soul stays fresher longer and you can save it for later. The first bit of the second essay, by the way, is my defense when others accuse me of attacking their religion. For some reason, I've been accused of that once or twice, generally by people who are attempting to attack my unreligion.
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-23 01:13 am (UTC)I appreciate your sentiment and empathize with it.
However, both as a language scientist and as a filker, I am unavoidably aware that minorities cannot, in general, control the majority's use of even their own terms. We cannot control other people's use of our names for our own groups, and it is futile to insist. But that is not "defining what we are". We know what we are. Having to explain, over and over and over again, that a filker is not "a writer of parodies", period, or that an atheist is not "one who denies the existence of God", is as inevitable as death and taxes. Sorry to bring you the bad news, but there it is.
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-23 05:34 am (UTC)Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-23 08:23 pm (UTC)The case with the word "atheism" is rather different, in that many atheists -- incl. you, I think -- are defining the word rather differently than its previous uses. That means you can't claim historical precedent, but you still have a moral claim.
But none of this usually works. Cf. Jubal Harshaw on the title "Doctor". Something like this:
"'Doctor', pshaw! The word's become meaningless since they start giving out 'doctorates' in folk-dancing and comparative basket-weaving."
"But the medical degree hasn't been watered down."
"Time they called it something else, then, to distinguish it."
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-24 01:06 am (UTC)Robert Anton Wilson was a self-proclaimed agnostic. I always wanted to meet him, just so I could ask him, "How do you KNOW you're an agnostic? I mean, are you 100% certain? What if you're actually a misinformed porcupine who thinks he's an agnostic?" Unfortunately, Wilson has moved on to an alternate plane of existence and/or nonexistence. One of Wilson's linguistic annoyances that I enjoyed was his attempt to remove "is" from the language.
Skepticism - it will never work. How can it?
One of the tenets of my personal logic system is that contradictory statements are often simultaneously true, given the right circumstances. I can see where this may be something of a radical departure from most other logic systems, but it's very effective in songwriting.
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-24 09:07 am (UTC)You haven't addressed my point above. Taking the two definitions of religion above, point 1 merely defines atheism as not theism, which we knew, and point two defines it as "not another kind of religion," which we also knew. Neither definition excludes the possibility of its being a belief, which--see my point above--it must of force be. You believe not-A.
Another way to state the difference between atheism and agnosticism might go a bit like this: you can be an agnostic from cold, i.e. you can see all the evidence (or lack thereof) on both sides and decide you don't know. But to be an atheist, to have reached that conclusion, requires a prior consideration of the possibility that there might be a god or gods, in much the same way as to be a Satanist requires a prior acceptance of Christianity. Atheism, unlike agnosticism, is a reaction to (or rather away from) religion.
The universe is the perfect poker player: it sits across the table from us, looking inscrutable, and we can't tell if there is a King in its hand or not. The agnostic does not know. The atheist has decided there is not. Both are seeing a lack of evidence, but the conclusions are different.
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-24 03:50 pm (UTC)With this in mind, let me quickly define my view of "belief" vs. "knowledge. "Belief" is a form of knowledge that is obtained by just making stuff up out of thin air. This requires clarification.
First, imaging there is a statement that can be tested and is either true or false at a given moment, such as "The Albertson's supermarket on Broadway and Alameda in Denver offers jars of peanut butter for sale." This statement is true or false, In addition, a person may either know or not know this, and they may believe it or not believe it, and additionally it may or may not be of interest or concern to a person.
There are a finite set of possibilities here with regard to a single person:
1. True, knows, believes and cares.
2. True, knows, doesn't believe, cares.
3. True, doesn't know, believes, cares.
4. True, knows, believes, doesn't care.
5. True, knows, doesn't believe or care.
6. True, doesn't know or believe, cares.
7. True, doesn't know or believe or care.
8. False, knows, believes and cares.
9. False, knows, doesn't believe, cares.
10. False, doesn't know, believes, cares.
11. False, knows, believes, doesn't care.
12. False, knows, doesn't believe or care.
13. False, doesn't know or believe, cares.
14. False, doesn't know or believe or care.
OK, now imagine that whether there is peanut butter at Albertson's becomes a major issue in theology, and that for some reason it's not possible to just go there and check on the peanut butter supply.
Which of these 14 positions are theist, atheist and agnostic respectively?
My answers:
Theist: 1, 3, 4, 8, 10 and 11 are various types of theists, because they believe. All the rest are atheists because they don't believe. 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 and 14 are agnostics, because they don't care. Note here that there is some intersection between agnostics and both theists and atheists, but there is none between theists and atheists.
That's my definition. I am still an atheist, and I still don't believe anything you tell me I believe, TYVM.
Do you believe in peanut butter? Clap your hands for Peter Pan!
Re: Telepathy?
Date: 2009-01-24 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 06:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 08:16 pm (UTC)Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-22 01:30 am (UTC)If anyone is the defendant here, it should be Obama, because he invited the two speakers. They are at most accessories, or accomplices. The intent, and the action, was his, and if they want an action to succeed, it needs to be against him. And I'm betting they know that.
Personally, I think this is a complete load of nonsense and a puerile distraction from important work that needs to be done, but then I'm not American and it's up to the American people how they treat this new president. I also feel, and have tried to say a few times, that the more you push against religion the more power you give it, and things like this just force me to wonder whether that's the way some atheists want it. After all, if religion wasn't a threat, who would bother about atheism?
Re: Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-22 02:19 am (UTC)And actually, the suit was filed weeks ago, before Inauguration Day; you're seeing posts from this blog about it now, I suspect, because I was rereading it yesterday and posted a reply to one of my other friends, which snowballed into more new responses. But your points about religion vs. atheism are well taken and thought-provoking; the notion of religion as atheism's bête-noire had never occurred to me, and it bloody well should have. I don't think I agree that the suit was "nonsense," but then I can't speak with objectivity on this issue as previously noted.
Re: Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-22 08:43 am (UTC)I didn't know that about the suit, so sorry for misunderstanding, but it still seems to me like shooting themselves in the foot. Here comes Obama, who is not the Second Coming (or atheistic equivalent, whatever that may be*) but compared to the last guy doesn't actually look too bad, and before he's even sworn in, let alone put a foot into the Oval Office, they're going to start hacking at him for not being good enough for them?
I count myself as neither religious, atheist, nor agnostic, which may not make a lot of sense on the face of it but means mostly that I don't feel I can settle into a label. Agnostic seems to imply the belief that it's impossible to know whether God exists or not, and I don't believe that: I just think none of us knows yet. But I usually seem to find myself on LJ arguing with atheists rather than with religious people, for various reasons, which is probably as irritating to them as it is to me.
And I can't be objective about Obama either, because I've been waiting for so long for some glimmer of (what to me looks like) hope from America. I was expecting fundamentalists and conservatives to be slinging mud at him (actually, I was genuinely afraid one of them would sling a bullet) but I didn't expect him to be attacked from what purports to be the side of reason. Which is why I loosed off as I did. Sorry.
*Richard Dawkins in a gigantic Japanese mecha with anti-belief rays, possibly.
Re: Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-23 08:25 pm (UTC)Oh, god, yes. I was so relieved when we reached Election Day, and the nomination victory, and Inauguration Day without violence!
Though the fear is still there... I remember just where I was when I heard of John Kennedy's murder, and Martin's, and Bobby's. The memory brands you.
Re: Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-24 09:19 am (UTC)Fortunately, I already knew by that time that there were better people in the world. Just not enough of them. Or so I thought then.
Re: Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-22 04:00 pm (UTC)Re: Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-22 10:52 pm (UTC)Re: Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-22 11:32 pm (UTC)There. That's one of the things I do - throw out cultural referents (and words like "referents") and just assume that others will know what I'm talking about. You know, Boy George - he had a hit song called Karma Chameleon. But I know there may be people on LJ who were not paying attention to pop music in 1983 and might just go "huh?"
I actually took (and dropped out of) 2 or 3 separate logic classes in college, trying to complete my then-minor in philosophy, and absorbed enough to know my style of thought tends to coincide infrequently with classical either/or logic. I always see multiple alternatives where others imagine there are only two. For example, on the question of a supernatural deity - well, there have been thousands of them that people have written of, and in some ways I see each of them as a separate question, while in others I tend to group them all together. I'm sure that in some people's minds, at one time in history, Osiris was quite real, and that somehow in Jungian terms, that reality makes up a part of the collective unconscious. Things we imagine do have a form of real existence, as detectable electrical impulses in our brains, and who is to say this sort of reality is less real than the solid-object reality that most of us share? Recognizing this existence enables me to respect the reality tunnels of others without having to travel in them extensively.
Not sure I'm making sense here. I've had a bad cold the past three days and my though process may be clogged.
Re: Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-23 08:15 pm (UTC)Re: Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-24 12:28 am (UTC)Re: Good gods. If you'll pardon the expression.
Date: 2009-01-24 12:54 am (UTC)You find guidance in MY political views? I don't know whether to be flattered for me or worried for you. :-) Whatever gods there be know I have some far better informed and more sensible people than myself right here on my own friends list, let alone in the meatspace political world at large. But thank you for the kind words; and knowing your own songwriting talents, I bask in your respect for my modest gifts. And I'm glad I could add to the happiness in your world.