Bcuz it needs a new thread... Glenn Beck is a Mormon!?!Political/Religion Disclaimer

[Hallen]

The part that bothers me about mixing religion and politics is that it weakens the arguments and it inserts an image of "belief without facts".

It weakens the arguments because it just ends them. In other words, there is some salient point under discussion, but it ends because somebody says "because it comes from God" or "because God wants it that way". That's not an argument. That's a belief.

Second, the lefties out there love to hate religion. Anything given in a religious context is immediately dismissed as fantasy. It gives them the opening to disregard everything you have said even if everything else was backed by fact.

The example that comes to mind is what is a "right". I've heard several of the right wing pundits say that all rights come from God. OK... what if you don't believe in God? Better yet, we know that God does not have a direct influence on us, or, if he does, then it is so undecipherable to us that we can't recognize it. So to say that rights come from God, or that morality comes from God, it weakens the arguments.

They need to make a case for their points without adding God. In writing, we call it Deus ex machina, the hand of God. It's what you do if you've written yourself into a corner and need something miraculous to save the day. It's a let down to the reader.
The same holds true to arguments.

There are a lot of people out there that hate and fear religion. I am not saying to pander to those people, many of them are idiots. However, if you make your arguments about politics or the way things should work using rational, well documented and researched arguments, then you'll win more minds.

I also get super sick of Beck's rants, just as I am totally sick of most of Micheal Savage's rants. Their conspiracy theories and other side topics do nothing but damage the image and credibility of the conservative movement. They do hit on a grain of truth from time to time, but they often miss the real importance of what they are talking about. You can be both flamboyant and entertaining without being a whacko. The best of the bunch so far has been Bill O'Reilly. He's more sane and makes good points, but still throws in too much religious context.

Religion can be the foundation of your life. I understand that. But to ignorantly say that "we deserve it because God loves us" or things of that nature, only prove to many other people that you're not right in the head. If you believe that, then obviously everything else you believe in is bunk, from the perspective of an atheist.

A more convincing argument is that people created God to provide a vehicle for our own emerging humanity and our belief that life is sacred and important. That every person has a right to live their life without persecution. That's the way that politics should be approached. There is a right and a wrong and we know what that is. Maybe God gave that to us, maybe we gave it to God. It doesn't really matter when the discussion is about why health insurance reform democrat style is a bad thing.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^ So you are saying you are a writer?

[Hallen]

Here's a fire starter. This an excerpt (spelling?) from a book I'm reading and found very insightful. Bear with me, I'm reading and typing it all out. Apologies if it's a bit long.

There's more if anyone's interested. I enjoyed Carter's quote and would normally have put that alone, but the back dialogue was intriging. Thoughts? Opinions?

Funny, that's along the lines of what I wrote just now, I hadn't seen your post.

There's one big difference here in what I think and what they said. I do not advocate keeping religion completely private. It is a private matter, but that doesn't mean that you have to hide your religion or that you can't say things like God bless you, in a public place or in government. What these guys are saying is that religion has no place in public people, rather than religion has no place in political argument.

You have to argue from your perspective. If God is a part of that, it's OK. Nobody should check in their moral compass prior to going into politics even if that compass comes from God. My point was that "because God says so" is not a convincing or necessarily relevant argument.

Also, from what I have seen, the atheist and scientists fall into the trap of moral relativism. In other words, if your culture says it's OK to rape 12 year old girls, then it is not a bad or evil thing. Well, that's complete crap. Moral relativism is complete crap. We have certain beliefs and those teachings, like or not, do mostly come from religion. Whether that was driven by a real God, or by people who put words into God's mouth doesn't really matter. There are certain things that are universally held to be wrong. No amount of "culture" can change that.

So, the argument that "all people should be treated equal" that the left spouts is just as inane and unprovable as "Because God says so". You need to provide real and substantial arguments and facts in a political situation.

[Hallen]

^ So you are saying you are a writer?

No. I like writing and have studied it a bit.
I'm a product manager and retired military pilot. :)

[Farbin Kaiber]

I was just joshin' ya.


"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Matthew 6:5

Just because it's part of you, there is no reason to overtly boast so people think you are saintly. You can talk of it, but it's not the end all, be all to everyday interactions, nor civil debates, God is not a Get-out-of-Jail-free card if you don't have a valid argument.

[ck_taft325is]

I'll post the rest of this little point as I think it's pertinent considering Hallen's response.

"How can Carter make such a claim? Let's begin by asking what religion is. Some say it is a form of belief in God. But that would not fit Zen Buddhism, which does not really believe in God at all. Some say it's belief in the supernatural. But that does not fit Hinduism, which does not believ in a supernatural realm beyond the material world, but only a spiritual reality within the empirical. What is religion then? It is a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should their time doing. For example, some think that this material world is all there is, that we are here by accident and when we die we just rot and therefore the important thing is to choose to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you. Notice that though this is not an explicit, "organized" religion, it contains a master narrative, an account about the meaning of life along with a recommendation for how to live based on that account of things.

Some call this a "worldview" while others call it a "narrative identity". In either case it is a set of faith-assumptions about the nature of things. It is an implicit religion. Broadly understood, faith in some view of the world and human nature informs everyone's life. Everyone lives and operates out of some narrative identity, whether it is thought out and reflected upon or not. All who say "You ought to do this" or "You shouldn't do that" reason out of such an implicit moral and religious position. Pragmatists say that we should leave our deeper worldviews behind and find consensus about "what works"-but our view of what works is determined by (to use a Wendell Berry title) what we think people are for. Any picture of happy human life that "works" is necessarily informed by deep-seated beliefs about the purpose of human life. Even the most secular pragmatists come to the table with deep commitments and narrative accounts of what it means to be human.

Rorty insists that religion-based beliefs are conversation stoppers. But all of our most fundamental convictions about this are beliefs that are nearly impossible to justify to those who don't share them. Secular concepts such as "self-realization" and "autonomy" are impossible to prove and are "conversation stoppers" just as much as appeals to the Bible.

Statements that seem to be common sense to the speakers are nonetheless often profoundly religious in nature. Imagine that ms. A argues that all of the safety nets for the poor should be removed, in the name of "survival of the fittest." Ms. B might respond, "The poor have the right to a decent standard of living-they are human beings like the rest of us!" Ms. A could then come back with the fact that many bioethicists today think the concept of "human" is artificial and impossible to define. She might continue that there is nor possibility of treating all living organisms as ends rather than means and that some always have to die that others may live. That is simply the way nature works. If Ms. B counters with a prgamatic argument, that we should help the poor simply because it makes society work better, Ms. A could come up with many similar pragmatic arguments about why letting some of the poor just die would be even more efficient. Now Ms. B would be getting angry. She would respond heatedly that starving the poor is simply unethical, but Ms. A could retort, "Why says ethics must be the same for everyone?" Ms. B would finally exclaim: "I wouldn't want to live in a society like the one you are describing!"

In this interchange Ms. B has tried to follow John Rawls and find universally accessible, "neutral and objective" arguments that would convince everyone that we must not starve the poor. She has failed because there are none. In the end Ms. B affirms the equality and dignity of human individuals simply because she believes it is true and right. She takes as an article of faith that people are more valuable than rocks or trees-though she can't prove such a belief scientificially. Her public policy proposals are ultimately based on a religious stance.

This leads a legal theorist, Michael J. Perry, to conclude that it is "quixotic, in any event, to attempt to construct and airtight barrier between religiously grounded moral discourse... and [secular] discourse in public political argument." Rorty and others argue that religious argument is too controversial, but Perry retorts in "Under God? Religious Faith and Liberal Democracy" that secular grounds for moral positions are no less controversial than religious grounds, and a very strong case can be made that all moral positions are at least implicitly religious. Ironically, insisting that religious reasoning be excluded from the public square is itself a controversial "sectarian" point of view.

When you come out into the public square it is impossible to leave your convictions about ultimate values behind. Let's take marriage and divorce laws as a case study. It is possible to craft laws that we all agree "work" apart from particular worldview commitments? I don't believe so. Your views on what is right will be based on what you think the purpose of marriage is. If you think marriage is mainly for the rearing of children to benefit the whole society, then you will make divorce difficult. If you think the purpose of marriage is more primarily for the happiness and emotional fulfillment of the adults who enter it, you will make divorce much easier. The former view is grounded in a view of human fourishing and well-being in which the family is more important than the individual, as is seen in the moral traditions of Confucianism, Judaism and Christianity. The latter approach is a more individualistic vew of human nature based on the Enlightenment's understanding of things. The divorce laws you think "work" will depend on prior beliefs about what it means to be happy and fully human. There is no objective, universal consensus about what that is. Although many continue to call for the exclusion of religious views from the public square, increasing numbers of thinkers, both religious and secular, are admitting that such a call is itself religious"

Again, thoughts, opinions, comments?

[ck_taft325is]

I was just joshin' ya.


"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." Matthew 6:5

Just because it's part of you, there is no reason to overtly boast so people think you are saintly. You can talk of it, but it's not the end all, be all to everyday interactions, nor civil debates, God is not a Get-out-of-Jail-free card if you don't have a valid argument.

Exactly - PERIOD. I misread a few things you said ;)

I agree 100% with Hallen on falling back on "Because God said so...". Anyone that overtly dislikes the Bible and anything anyone that believes i it or what they say accordingly is against the morality and teaching of the Bible, which, to myself, seems a bit foolhardy as the Bible speaks continually on the respect for human life, being a servant to your neighbor and over all making strides to be a "good" person.

The people associating themselves with Christianity or what have you, are generally the problem. BUT, something to keep in mind, a true Christian is the first to admit they are a hypocrite. The first to admit he sucks in most ways and is no better nor before anyone else on this rock. They have humbly admitted the weakness of being human and turned to God for help with being hopeless. Despite if you share these beliefs, I do believe there's common ground in the morality of the Bible. There are grey areas that RELIGIOUS people, not "faithers", like to push their own additions and such upon others. Not unlike though, that of the other side pushing their own "morality" on people. I.e. a woman's "right" to choose etc. (For example as this is not the discussion at hand)

Ironically, as soon as you associate yourself with Christianity, those who don't hold YOU to a higher standard as they claim (just by association) you do to everyone else.

[ck_taft325is]

Oh and I'd just like to point out... we're discussing religion AND politics in the same thread and no one's dropped a personal insult or taken offense.

Mmm.

[Farbin Kaiber]

It's because we arn't the guys that are causing the ruckus to require a subforum.

[dinanm3atl]

I just can't watch Beck. If I am bored and want a lul I can do it... and I am a "Fox News Watcher". And religion to me is a joke. Organized religion has created/started most wars. It has killed the most people. I understand it has a place in certain human lives but for me I can do without.

[Farbin Kaiber]

When people see there is a difference between "Religon" and "Faith", we will be getting somewhere.

[ck_taft325is]

I just can't watch Beck. If I am bored and want a lul I can do it... and I am a "Fox News Watcher". And religion to me is a joke. Organized religion has created/started most wars. It has killed the most people. I understand it has a place in certain human lives but for me I can do without.

I would challange that despite that I'm not for Religion. But first, you have to define religion for me as you see it.

Religion is bad. But it's not God that makes religion bad. It's people. So if what you're saying is people that use God as a scape goat for their religious beliefs and have thus started Wars and killed untold thousands upon hundreds of thousands of people throughout human history then yes, I agree. People have done terrible, despicable things in the name of Religion. But to blame the "religion" (i.e. faith or God) is a disrespect to those that have been victims of the people who commited these crimes.

[dinanm3atl]

People's blind faith, in this case being duped by prist speaking for 'god', went and marched from Europe to the Middle East to take back a sliver of land. And it was repeated multiple times. Thou shalt not kill... unless it is 'for god'. I just do not agree with 'religion' at all. I am talking about somes total blind faith in this religion or that religion.

I am fine with someone having faith. Believing in religion. That is their choice. I just do not agree with it. It is the same thing in my opinion those that walk into a voting boot, check the "R" box and walk out. Be smart. Read up. Make up your own mind. I know too many that just 'religion says this' and that is what they belieev.

[ck_taft325is]

People's blind faith, in this case being duped by prist speaking for 'god', went and marched from Europe to the Middle East to take back a sliver of land. And it was repeated multiple times. Thou shalt not kill... unless it is 'for god'. I just do not agree with 'religion' at all. I am talking about somes total blind faith in this religion or that religion.

I am fine with someone having faith. Believing in religion. That is their choice. I just do not agree with it. It is the same thing in my opinion those that walk into a voting boot, check the "R" box and walk out. Be smart. Read up. Make up your own mind. I know too many that just 'religion says this' and that is what they belieev.

Very true. Heh, I swear one of the most untalked about "commands" (if you will) in the Bible is "question everything". I didn't say, "question everything BUT this or that".

Thou shalt not murder. Killing is sometimes a drastic step people are put in.

Question if you don't mind... is your rub with just "Christianity", "Religion" in general or specific mind sets regarding one or both?

There's a huge flux in anti-religion that's so vehement and blind to reason that frankly, it's Religious in nature. For example, when I was anti-religion, which I still am but in actuality at that time it was anti-Christian due to bad experiences from legalistic and religious types, it went so far that one day I realized I was being exactly what I accused every Christian of being. I was telling them they were wrong, I was right and that it was wrong to disagree. They were stupid and blind and only I knew what is or is not logical despite their own experiences and knowledge on any matter. I was every religious person that had looked down, condemed me, etc etc... religious tendancy is (I believe) in everyone to varied degrees and how we go about it does not justify it. Just as we all have faith in truth-claims that we cannot prove with facts in every facet of life yet we have to discern and judge right and wrong on a daily basis. It's a fine line from saying, "religion's not for me" and essentially saying everyone that participates in faith is below you. Ironically, this is one of the key issues that non-Christians hold against Christians (rightfully so 95% of the time).

[Farbin Kaiber]

^ At those times, people could not read, nor write, they were trusting to their religous elders because they were schooled to be able to dissemenate the info contained within the bible.

We, can and do read, so there is a large group of people, more now than ever that can and do make their own decisions regarding those things that were once locked away behind knowledge.