religion and politics

[Thats my opinion]

There are many ways to look at the historic divisions among religious bodies. In our generation this divide is showing up in pointed examples of the gulf between right-wing evangelicals and left-wing progressives. A couple of generations ago it was fundamentalists and modernists. Similar debates have gone on since the inception of Christianity.

While each of the characterizations had linguistic validity during a specific historic period, I suggest that there is another way to look at the issue. On one hand there have always been those who viewed Christianity—and I assume other religions— as belief in the absolute truth of doctrinal statements. The early writers of our historic creeds centered not only on the nature of doctrine, but also on the proper way doctrine was worded. In Nicea, Jesus was declared to be the same substance as God, not simply similar substance. At the same time there were others who saw Jesus as the servant working in roadside monasteries and in a multitude of simple ecclesial communities, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving sight to the blind and offering good news to the poor. While we might like to think that there were Christians simultaneously affirming both perspectives, a clear division most often existed. Heretics were not burned at the stake because they welcomed strangers, but because they varied in how they saw the sacraments.

Today’s division takes a similar shape. On one hand there are the literalists who insist that the nature of right religion as described in the Bible—or at least in specific passages they choose to quote—is the essence of faith. Believing is a matter of adherence to biblical or ecclesial truths. On the other hand there are those who affirm that the Bible, and all religious sensibility, defines actions to be taken in today’s world.

The question arises as to the appropriateness of either persuasion being involved in electoral politics. Certainly there is no place for religious dogma or doctrine as the basis for political action. We have discussed this in previous columns. But on the other hand, can those who advocate action on behalf of the left out, the poor, the segregated and ostracized justify their political support of these causes flowing from a religion-based ethic? Both evangelical conservatives and socially active liberals have a perfect right to be part of political discourse. Issues of justice, care of the nobodies, equal opportunity, support of the marginalized—or opposition to these matters—is not the sole perspective of any religion or religious group, but is shared with a great variety of persons of different religious faiths and those of no faith. Atheists, agnostics, humanists of all sorts affirm, or deny, these values. They are not sectarian, and therefore, as social perspectives they have a proper place in any political discussion.

Conservative religionists have every right to support capital punishment, war, anti-gay marriage laws, etc. as long as they do not insist that these positions should become law because of the priority of doctrine. Once these matters are proclaimed to be religious dogma and therefore must be obeyed by society, a dangerous border has been crossed. Is religion, therefore, a set of doctrinal absolutes, or is it a moral compass which points those of many persuasions to responsible ways to live and to relate to one’s neighbors?

Perhaps the first amendment of the Constitution puts it most clearly. It details a prohibition from establishing a religion as part of the nation’s legal identity, but
guarantees the free right of religious practice. Calling for economic justice or affirming the rights of Gays and Lesbians is not asking that some religious doctrine becomes law. Insisting that schools teach creationism because it is Biblical, clearly violates the establishment clause. Working for a just society, or even the opposite, may flow from a religious sensitivity, but is speech protected by the free exercise clause.

[dmallind]

1. Not much room for disagreement there, but the reality is less clear.

Religion is obviously a major motivation for political and social actions. It can be benign or malicious. Soup kitchens are established in large part by religious groups. Clinic bombings and gay bsshings are though in even larger part.

The problem becomes when we move from pesonal actions, good or bad, to universal laws, good or bad, based on this motivation. A small but significant minority is denied full rights of citizenship, from marriage to visitation to probate, because of laws that are not expressly religious like creationist teachings, but which nevertheless are in place absolutely entirely because of religious motivation. There is not a single secular argument against full gay rights, and none are even put forward for show. Our precious 1A is powerless to prevent this and other obvious but not expressed religious establishments.

[Thats my opinion]

4. You are right.

Although I think clinic bombings are rare and soup kitchens are ubiquitous--I don't know of a community without them. For most of us I know, while we might have come late--as has everyone else, to the rights of Gays, we have been deeply involved in the justice movement. I spend a great deal of time and effort working in my state about the marriage issue. The community where I live and the church I attend are open and affirming, not only in theory but also in practice. But there is yet much to do, and we are involved doing it. What is your group doing about the matter? What are the positive steps you are taking where you live?

[cleanhippie]

5. My UU Fellowship is heavily involved in social justice and immigrant issues.

My congregation is made up primarily of Humanists and Atheists, with a smattering of believers in alternative spirituality. The funny thing is, we are involved in these issues because its the right thing to do, not because we believe in a deity or a religion, or because we read it in a book and our interpretation of it says we should.

Go figure.

So my question to you is: What is your point?

[Jim__]

2. Tax issues complicate the question.

Certainly the 1st amendment gives everyone the right to speak out on any issue. I believe that tax exempt organizations have certain limitations placed upon their participation in the political process - I know a tax exempt organization can't endorse a candidate in an election, I'm not sure what other restrictions apply. This restriction seems to complicate the question of a tax exempt organization, while not explicitly endorsing a candidate, supporting all of his policies and opposing the policies of his opponent.

I believe this can raise some issues for tax exempt religious organizations participating in the political process, not over any question of religious rights, but over the concerns dealing with tax exemption status.

[Thats my opinion]

3. The law is very clear

I am on the board of a liberal think tank (The American Institute for Progressive Democracy) We are a dedicated progressive group deeply interested in issues. We speak and write about them from a clear perspective. But we do not endorse candidates, and we are within the law. Nor do we fly the banner of the Democratic Party, even if we are all liberal Democrats. We are a non-profit. There are hundreds of npos on every side. The law gives them a tax exception as contributing to the nation's fabric. The law specifically includes the religious institution as a legitimate ngo.
www.taipd.org

[Jim__]

6. It's not nearly so clear as you pretend.

The IRS (updated as of July 2011) on lobbying:

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

...

Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation i.e. lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.

And all political activity is strictly prohibited - but not so clearly defined.

[cleanhippie]

7. So what is your point?

My UU congregation is made up primarily of Humanists and Atheists, with a smattering of believers in alternative spirituality. The funny thing is, we are involved in these issues because its the right thing to do, not because we believe in a deity or a religion, or because we read it in a book and our interpretation of it says we should.

Go figure.

So my question to you is: What is your point?

[Thats my opinion]

9. I am very well acquainted with the UUA.

I find everyone of them I have known to be sensitive, well-motivated and right on the issues. And their welcome is uncompromised. I have also realized that they do have a common agenda on social issues and spend a lot of time reinforcing one another. They are more than a neutral club. I don't think our perspectives come from some sign in the sky. Believing that something is the right thing to do is as socially conditioned as anything else. We don't get it at birth. We are taught by something or someone or some group about what is the right thing to do. And all of us have different sources. I celebrate yours.

So best to you and your group, I am a big fan.

What is my point? Come on. Among other things I am replying to a series of very aggressive questions. Also other outlets for which I write have asked similar questions.

[cleanhippie]

10. Perhaps you can list these questions, then?

There have been so many threads where you stated you were going to answer, I do not even remember what it is you are supposed to be answering.

Can you list the questions you were asked and show how this OP pertains to answering them?

[Thats my opinion]

11. No. It would be a waste of everyone's time nt

[cleanhippie]

12. So you are just not gonna answer them afterall? I guess you HAVE just been wasting our time.

But I think we all knew that to begin with.

[Thats my opinion]

19. If I thought you were interested in a rational thoughtful

conversation between a couple of people who respected each other and really wanted to look at what the other was thinking, I might try But everything you write has only one objective. "How can I put down religion?" So you search the internet for religious horror stories. What a time waster. You take anything I write and try to find another way to slam religion. Then you slam me for not being willing to respond to your loaded questions as you try to lure me out so that you can fine loopholes to attack. I may have a perspective, but I'm not stupid, and I'm not interested.

[darkstar3]

20. Still on that soapbox...

[Goblinmonger]

37. You make it sound like the respect

flows from you but not back to you.

Questioning people when they post about the merits of religion is NOT the same thing as putting down religion. I personally believe it shows intellectual weakness if you think that way. EVERYTHING needs to be open to inquiry and question. You don't seem to want that where religion is involved and you seem like you were probably much happier when atheists just shut up and stayed in the closet.

[cleanhippie]

40. I thought YOU were. But judging by the bulk of your posts, you want to lecture, not converse.

You have been asked question after question after question, and when you DO respond, its not with an answer, but a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with what was asked of you.

You are a total hypocrite.

[onager]

8. I'll take "the bleeding obvious" for $200, Alex...

n/t

[darkstar3]

13. Little problem:

"Calling for economic justice or affirming the rights of Gays and Lesbians is not asking that some religious doctrine becomes law."

It is when the reason that you give your support to these just social causes is entirely religious.

"Insisting that schools teach creationism because it is Biblical, clearly violates the establishment clause."

And you're not insisting that economic justice is Biblical?

[cleanhippie]

14. Stop attacking Thats My Opinion. Your questions are offensive.

Don't you see that?

[darkstar3]

15. Not to mention:

Unduly confrontational
Teabagger-like
strident
anti-Christian

And a whole lot more adjectives besides. This tent is clearly not big enough for those who say such things to want me in it.

[cleanhippie]

16. +1

[rrneck]

17. When the leaders of a religious organization

inspires its members and instills in them a sense of emotional unity they are doing religion.

When those leaders exhort the faithful to some political action or act as a voice for them to government they are just another lobbyist group looking to feed at the government trough.

This holds true whether they are trying to enforce the law, defend the borders, help the needy or end social injustice. Those are functions of a secular government implemented at the will of the people. Liberal churches have no more business mucking about with the responsibilities of government than conservative churches and they do just as much damage.

Grover Norquist is laughing his ass off at the lot of you.

[laconicsax]

18. You have again dodged a question put to you. Please answer it here.

You say that "conservative religionists have every right" to promote and work toward their agenda goals provided that they "do not insist that these positions should become law because of the priority of doctrine." According to you, "once these matters are proclaimed to be religious dogma and therefore must be obeyed by society, a dangerous border has been crossed." I agree that there is a line that has been crossed, but the question put to you previously is why you seem to declare it acceptable when progressives do it.

Liberals and progressives often promote our causes using arguments drawn from the Bible or from their interpretation of Christianity in the exact same way that conservatives do with their causes. Why is it acceptable for liberals and progressives to argue that our causes are 'what God wants' but unacceptable for conservatives to argue that their causes are 'what God wants'?

You didn't answer this question as promised. I'm sure this was an oversight, so please answer it here.

[Thats my opinion]

21. No, you just didn't want to hear an answer.

So you are willing to write off the humanistic people who agree with you just because they might have a religious motivation. That's very sad and counter-productive for answering the real challenges facing the nation.

[laconicsax]

22. I want an answer. Why can't you just provide it?

Why is it acceptable for liberals to frame their arguments with an appeal to religion, but not for conservatives to do so.

For me, there is no difference in act and I very much would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. You promised an answer with this post, but have neglected to do so.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laconicsax]

24. If I didn't want to hear it, would I badger you for an answer?

Love the ad hominem, by the way.

[cleanhippie]

41. WOW! So much for that respect he has been yammering about.

He is such a hypocrite.

[rrneck]

26. You are among the worst I've seen.

Your incessant self promotion and your efforts to insinuate your religion between the people and their government is laughably obvious. And the pity is that you seem to be one of the leading lights of liberal religion in this country.

What role should religion play in modern society?

You can run but you can't hide. There will be precious few running with you.

[Thats my opinion]

46. May its just not the answer you want, because it is hard to attack

The question arises as to the appropriateness of either persuasion being involved in electoral politics. Certainly there is no place for religious dogma or doctrine as the basis for political action. We have discussed this in previous columns. But on the other hand, can those who advocate action on behalf of the left out, the poor, the segregated and ostracized justify their political support of these causes flowing from a religion-based ethic? Both evangelical conservatives and socially active liberals have a perfect right to be part of political discourse. Issues of justice, care of the nobodies, equal opportunity, support of the marginalized—or opposition to these matters—is not the sole perspective of any religion or religious group, but is shared with a great variety of persons of different religious faiths and those of no faith. Atheists, agnostics, humanists of all sorts affirm, or deny, these values. They are not sectarian, and therefore, as social perspectives they have a proper place in any political discussion.

Conservative religionists have every right to support capital punishment, war, anti-gay marriage laws, etc. as long as they do not insist that these positions should become law because of the priority of doctrine. Once these matters are proclaimed to be religious dogma and therefore must be obeyed by society, a dangerous border has been crossed. Is religion, therefore, a set of doctrinal absolutes, or is it a moral compass which points those of many persuasions to responsible ways to live and to relate to one’s neighbors?

Perhaps the first amendment of the Constitution puts it most clearly. It details a prohibition from establishing a religion as part of the nation’s legal identity, but
guarantees the free right of religious practice. Calling for economic justice or affirming the rights of Gays and Lesbians is not asking that some religious doctrine becomes law. Insisting that schools teach creationism because it is Biblical, clearly violates the establishment clause. Working for a just society, or even the opposite, may flow from a religious sensitivity, but is speech protected by the free exercise clause.

[rrneck]

53. Wrong.

"But on the other hand, can those who advocate action on behalf of the left out the poor, the segregated and ostracized justify their politica support of these causes flowing from a religion-based ethic?"

Is religion, therefore, a set of doctrinal absolutes, or is a moral compass which points those of many persuasions to responsible ways to live and to relate to one’s neighbors?

Calling for economic justice or affirming the rights of Gays and of Gays and Lesbians is not asking that some religious doctrine becomes law.

"Calling for economic justice" based on one's religiously based "moral compass" is to demand that government do what it is designed to do: enact laws that require all citizens to abide by. Your weasel words cannot hide the fact that you want a theocracy just as much as any of the others. And you want to be as big a cog in that theocratic machine as you can be.

[laconicsax]

62. Repeating a non-answer doesn't make it an answer.

What's the difference between the religious right saying "God wants us to kill the gays" and the religious left saying "God wants us to love everyone"?

This is the question you keep avoiding. Please answer it.

[skepticscott]

63. Is it really your opinion

There is no difference between saying "I advocate this position based on reason and evidence, because it is the right thing to do", and saying "I advocate this position based on reason and evidence, because it is the right thing to do, and because god wants us to."? Are those exactly the same, and if not, which is preferable?

[trotsky]

25. What laconicsax said.

Several of us have been asking you now for months - if it's not OK for the right wing to push their agenda based on their religion, why is it OK for liberals to do so? As others have already noted, you still don't answer this - but instead just reinforce your apparent double standard.

Please note - at no time has ANYONE said that you personally can't have religious reasons for taking the stances you do. NO ONE HAS EVER ADVOCATED DENYING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE THEIR FREE SPEECH. Got it? You'll have to drop that straw man now, OK?

Liberal and progressive stances are true because they are the reasonable, rational positions to take. Not because Jesus told you to. By insisting that however, you are doing the same thing the right wing does, and worse - you are contributing to the acrimony and gridlock. How can one compromise if one's position is the Word of God?

[Thats my opinion]

27. I guess you didn't read my long reply.

[laconicsax]

28. You didn't answer the question.

You merely reinforced why it's wrong when the religious right does it withou referencing the religious left.

I put the question to you quite clearly in #18, but you chose to respond with personal attacks. If you don't have an answer, just say so.

[trotsky]

33. I assure you I did.

That is why I still have the question: why do you criticize the right wing for doing the same thing you are?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

29. Progressive stances should be taken

because they're the right thing to do rather than because they stem from some ethereal religious authority. Once you begin advocacy in the name of your religion, whether it's liberal or conservative advocacy, you begin down the slippery slope towards religious authoritarianism.

It's frustrating that you either don't understand that or purposefully ignore the inherent problems with your stance.

[tama]

30. Golden rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

As can be seen from the link, the Golden rule is generally shared among worlds religions and philosophies, including secular humanism ("atheists stand for the Golden Rule in its fullest meaning and significance. I believe that any rule or belief which violates this principle is discarded by most atheists as immoral," http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ought.html) AND Christianity.

As basis for social ethics Golder (and/or Silver) rule is also the fundamental ethical axiom of politics. Now, if progressives hold the view that certain policies advocated by Evangelicals are in conflict with the Golden rule, why is not OK, in Christian context, to remind that Golden rule is the foundation of also Christian ethics - and it is "heretical" to claim otherwise, and why advocate that Golden rule and policies based on it should be derived ONLY from secular philosophies?

Christian:
I support Golden rule and policies based on it.
Secular humanist:
I support Golden rule and policies based on it.
Atheist anti-religionist:
I support Golden rule and policies based on it. But you can't quote Jesus (or any other religious authority) to support policies based on Golden rule. You can only quote Secular humanism, or there will be slippery sloap towards religious authoritarianism.

How is the stance of Atheist anti-religionist different from a Evangelical Christian who claims that the Golden Rule can only be quoted from Jesus and nobody else? Is any claim of intellectual property and copyright of the Golden rule - whether secular, Christian or other - in accordance with the Golden/Silver rule itself?

[trotsky]

32. The Golden Rule, in its basic form, is somewhat flawed.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

What if you are a masochist?

[tama]

34. Are you a masochist?

Perhaps you could present your own philosophical analysis of your what-if -schenario re Golden/Silver -rule?

Now to more serious question, do you accept the Golden/Silver rule as common ground for both religious and secular ethical philosophies, or generally for all ethical world views?

[trotsky]

35. Considering your obvious bias against those who do not wish to have religion...

be the basis for laws in this country, I'm not interested in elaborating anything further.

[tama]

36. Cheap ad hominem escape

Your opinion of my "obvious bias" is unfounded - I have no such bias - and also impolite (in terms of Silver rule). You don't like others telling you what your opinions/believes/biases are, so why do you treat me like you would not like to be treated?

Perhaps by "obvious bias" you refer to my criticism (and perhaps even ridicule) towards behaviour, thought models and world views of the self-identified atheists on this board? And/Or is your group-identity with atheist group so strong, that if I am not uncritical of typical world views held by atheists, then I must be against them? With us or against us, no third way?

Should not irrational behaviour and thinking models be criticized even - and especially - when they manifest among group of people claiming to think and behave rationally?

For example, many atheists on this forum seem to believe that the hypothesis that mental phenomena reduce to classical physics in brain is a scientific truth, when in reality it is not even a theory, and they push that belief often very strongly and ridicule any-and all disbelief in that hypothesis as irrational and non-scientific. From my point of view, as a non-believer in that hypothesis, the behaviour of people with such belief is often irrational and unscientific preaching, and I do criticize it on rational scientific basis,

In your opinion, does self-identity as a rational and sceptical atheist with a scientific world view exempt one from rational critique? Or do values of rationalism and scepticism call for rational and sceptical and scientific scrutiny of world views and belief systems held by such self-identities?

[trotsky]

39. I am merely following the golden rule.

Treating you the way you treat "atheist anti-religionists."

Tell me one thing first: do you believe that a law should be based either solely or primarily on a religious belief?

[tama]

43. Which religious belief?

It is my opinion that Golden/Silver rule is a worthy philosophical foundation for social policies and behaviour, both us secular principle and religious belief.

It is also my opinion that rules derived from this or that book and given religious interpretation, e.g. banning onany, should not be imposed on anyone outside the community of book worshippers. Golden rule of wishing to be treated according to the Silver rule, both as individuals and communities.

It is also my opinion, that what may be interpreted as "universal truth" of "scientific and technological progress" should not be imposed over communities that prefer to hold to their traditional ways of life. Stalin murdering thousands of shamans and modern technocratic oil industry continuing to steal and poison the land of shamanistic tribes in the name of technological progress is a violation of the Golden/Silver rule and hence immoral.

This is what I mean by false dichotomy, both religious and scientific belief systems can lead to violation of the Golden/Silver rule, but it can be also shared by both religious and scientific world views.

[trotsky]

51. And we're right back to the po-mo dilemma.

You don't want to force any worldview on any other (trying to put rational inquiry on par with varying forms of mysticism as worldviews), yet we have to figure out how to live by common rules.

Let me know when you can solve that dilemma. You'll be the savior of po-mo philosophy, because no one has been able to do it yet.

[tama]

54. Non-sequitur

Only one talking about post-modernism has been you and frankly I don't understand what it has to do with this discussion.

I'm suggesting that common rules should be derived from the most common ethical principle attested among religious and secular philosophies, namely the Golden/Silver rule. If you have a better idea, please share your thoughts.




PS: I try not to confuse rational inquiry and mysticism with worldviews. In my world view rational inquiry represents the reductionistic mode or aspect of thinking and experiencing and mysticism, intuition etc. is related to the holistic mode or aspect of thinking. Rational reductionistic aspect of thinking can and does come to conclusions about the limits of rational thinking, and holistic experience of course does not or should not exclude reductionist mode of thinking. They are not in conflict, just two modes or aspects of thinking and experiencing.

[trotsky]

55. Yet even your "Golden/Silver rule" isn't perfect.

That's all I pointed out.

Yes, I realize you view "reductionistic" thinking as "just another worldview" - classic po-mo. Even if you don't want to use the term, that is what you're pushing. Good luck.

[tama]

56. Should it be perfect?

And if so, why?

And if you can answer that, could you now please suggest a perfect solution?

***

As for the post-modern OT, why would I not wan't to use the term where it is applicaple? For me post-modernism was fun and refreshing some 20-30 years ago when I was teenager intrested in poetry and a young university student studying classics, and some essays by e.g. Derrida gave me great aesthetic pleasure. But that was then, been there, done that, now is now, and what interests me much is good balance between reductionistic and holistic modes of thinking and experiencing. Rational redutionistic/analytical axiomatic thinking leads to marvels like Gödel's proof of impossibility of Hilbert program of reducing math to logical formalism. And many many other forms of infinite regress. Accepting these limits of reductionistic/analytical thinking, where next? How does holistic experience feel? What happens, e.g. if I just concentrate on the proprioceptic sense to feel how this body is and happens?

[trotsky]

57. I never said there was a perfect solution.

You offered up the golden rule as if it were one, or at least as if there were universal consensus on it. There isn't. If you don't have a perfect, universal rule then you have to acknowledge a system that we will have to agree to live under to determine what the correct moral decision is for society. But you've already ruled out the possibility of such a system.

So you have a dilemma on your hands. Good luck.

[tama]

58. There is a saying

that perfect is the worst enemy of good. Golden rule does not have to be perfect in order to be good axiomatic foundation of ethics. The fact that it is nearly (but not absolutely) universally accepted makes it easier to share as axiomatic base of dialogue concerning ethical deductions, no need to reinvent the wheel.

I totally fail to follow the logic of you sentence "then you have to acknowledge a system that we will have to agree to live under". How does that follow from lack of a perfect universal rule?

The language of your sentence rings my anti-autohritarian anarchist bells and brings to mind patriarcal authority and other sky-daddy fantasies. Instead of being subject under the rule of some sky-daddy fantasy, I like to live as an organic PART of an inclusive organic whole, like biosphere of Mother Earth, which I like to believe is more/something else than the sum of it's parts.

Could it be that our apparent mutual misunderstandings arise from that you are used to think in terms of ideal of authoritarian centralist representative democracy? I was also once a member of a trotter party, if anything can be concluded from your nick, left it after seeing that centralist and representative system don't work in practice. My political ideal is and has always been participatory non-hierarchical democracy.

[trotsky]

59. LOL

I will leave you with your thoughts now.

[tama]

60. Why not

correct me If I've made false assumptions about your opinions and attitudes? I do like to have my theories about other peoples falsified, because there is allways the chance of nice surprise. :)

[trotsky]

31. This is so very well stated.

Far, far better than I've been able to manage in dozens of posts to TMO. Thank you.

[Thats my opinion]

61. well put nt

[Goblinmonger]

38. This is much the same style of hypocrisy that I have engaged with humblebum about

When you don't like what people think, it is wrong for them to do it.
When you like what people think, the same tactics are suddenly fine and dandy.

If you are going to condemn the religious right for doing things because of religion (a religion you don't seem to like) then why is it OK for progressive Christians to tell me that what MLK did was BECAUSE of his religion and use that as a selling point for religion being fantastic. If MLK did what he did because of religion (which I don't agree with by the way), then isn't he doing EXACTLY the same thing that you rail against the right wing christians for doing in this piece?

And, again, you and everyone in the country can believe and do whatever they want in regard to religious beliefs. I couldn't give two shits if you did.

[cleanhippie]

42. Its pure, unadulterated cognotive dissonance. Its where reality conflicts with beliefs...

In this case, the argument has boiled right back down to the NTS, and that reality is hitting them square in the face and they simply cannot deal with it because it directly conflicts with their beliefs.

Its actually pretty sad to watch.

[tama]

44. So there is no right and wrong?

Just total laissez faire relativism?

Not even relativistic ethics based on Golden/Silver rule?

[NMMNG]

45. Are you hinting at that "objective morality" stuff?

Because there's no such animal.

[tama]

48. There is a big difference

between "objective morality" and generally shared ethical principles like Golden/Silver rule.

[Goblinmonger]

47. How did I even come CLOSE to advocating that?

My whole point is that the OP complains about something that one group does but feels it is fine for another group to do the same thing.

Hey, I think the right wing fundies are fucking crazy. But that's not the point. The OP should just come out and say that they are fucking crazy and that their religion is wrong. But then that puts him in the same place in his mind as us evil atheists and that just won't sit well because he's better than that. When in reality, he thinks the same thing about other religions that we do but just can't admit it. So he comes up with some bullshit standard (they shouldn't use religion to advocate for things in the government) when he is JUST FINE with progressive Christians doing the exact same thing.

[tama]

49. Your post

among others, raised the question, and a question is not a claim about you advocating anything but just a question. AFAIK most secular humanists/atheists share the ethical axiom of Golden/Silver rule with most of worlds religions, including Christianity.

IMO it can be argued, quite convincingly, that many policies advocated by right wing fundies violate the Golden/Silver rule, and are thus immoral and "heretical" in relation to secular ethics, Christian ethics and any and all "good old" religious and philosophical ethics.

[Goblinmonger]

50. But the OP has posted on occassions

that it is good for Progressive Christians to bring their religion/morals into the political sphere. The question from many of us is why he thinks it is OK for one group to do and not for another. Many of us want a secular government free from ALL religious intervention.

[tama]

52. I'm aware of that

Couple points, 1) political realism in todays America, especially if you are interested in partisan politics and winning the seat of precidency. Both Clinton and Obama used and use lot of religious rhetorics in support for their progressive policies and could not win without.
2) Do you think it is wrong for a secular humanist, discussing with christians, state that he believes that Golden/Silver rule is a good ethical guideline for politics on philosophical grounds, and then remind the christians that he is conversing with that the Golden rule is also the ethical corner stone of their religion - as well as any other religion worth mentioning?

[Thats my opinion]

64. I know you can read, Please do--again! What is in caps and what follows

The question arises as to the appropriateness of either persuasion being involved in electoral politics. Certainly there is no place for religious dogma or doctrine as the basis for political action. We have discussed this in previous columns. But on the other hand, can those who advocate action on behalf of the left out, the poor, the segregated and ostracized justify their political support of these causes flowing from a religion-based ethic? BOTH EVANGELICAL CONSERVATIVES AND SOCIALLY ACTIVE LIBERALS HAVE A PERFECT RIGHT TO BE PART OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE. Issues of justice, care of the nobodies, equal opportunity, support of the marginalized—or opposition to these matters—is not the sole perspective of any religion or religious group, but is shared with a great variety of persons of different religious faiths and those of no faith. Atheists, agnostics, humanists of all sorts affirm, or deny, these values. They are not sectarian, and therefore, as social perspectives they have a proper place in any political discussion.

Conservative religionists have every right to support capital punishment, war, anti-gay marriage laws, etc. as long as they do not insist that these positions should become law because of the priority of doctrine. Once these matters are proclaimed to be religious dogma and therefore must be obeyed by society, a dangerous border has been crossed. Is religion, therefore, a set of doctrinal absolutes, or is it a moral compass which points those of many persuasions to responsible ways to live and to relate to one’s neighbors?

[darkstar3]

65. The religious do have every right to SUPPORT whatever they want.

No one has stated otherwise. But this is a secular democracy. Religious reasons are not sufficient basis for any kind of law, so when you take your ideological support of an issue to the next level and take action while stating flatly that your religious beliefs are the sole reason for doing so, you do no one any favors.

Furthermore, you're crossing the dangerous line that you mention in your post, but you simply refuse to see it because you have so much invested in seeing the conservative members of your own faith as the "other."

[trotsky]

66. Please read what is IN CAPS in post #25. n/t

[rrneck]

67. The individuals have that right.

Religious organizations do not. Exhorting individuals to political action through any morality, dogma, feeling, attitude, persuasion, perspective, position, direction, vision, thought, worldview, sense, hunch, or random heebie geebie based on any religious sensibility is unconstitutional.

Any religious leader that purports to speak for any like minded group is just another lobbyist, and an especially skeezy one at that since he has direct influence over the opinions of those he represents.

How do you justify your advocacy of a political relationship and your efforts to solicit others to you cause based on your religious sensibilities?

Are your religious sensibilities described and defined by a sacred text?

Do you advocate action from government based on your study of that sacred text?

[Goblinmonger]

68. So are you saying

that "capital punishment, war, anti-gay marriage laws, etc" are JUST issues of the conservative religionists?

Because it seems that way. All the "good" things you say that liberal religionsists support are not just part of their religion but are things that EVERYONE supports. But the bad things aren't so. Those are things just the religionists support?

Color me confused. Or perhaps that's you.

[Thats my opinion]

69. we may be near an agreement

of course those positive social issues are things many people believe to be right. And we come to them from a variety of perspectives--not just religious. But many religious people come to them out of their sense that compassion and justice, peace and equity are deeply rooted in Christian faith, as well as in places and humanistic sensitivities many non-religious people access. No matter where they come from, they are all learned behaviors. And EVERYONE doesn't support them--religious and non-religious.