Given that atheists (and agnostics and liberal Protestants) are so obsessed about and fearful of the possibility of modern, Western, secular, liberal democracies being taken over (at any moment) by churches and turned into Iran-style theocracies, I have been wondering what the right response is to such and idea and where it is actually coming from. The possibility of Canada or the US suddenly turning into a Christian theocracy is probably lower than Richard Dawkins' little green men coming back to check on whatever became of that life they created and left on planet earth billions of years ago.
How does this anti-theocracy rhetoric function? When is it employed? For what purpose? The anti-Morman commercial I commented on in the last post was a last-minute, desparate attempt to sway the voters in California and keep them from standing up for natural marriage in the face of the revisionist attempts to reject natural marriage and create artificial marriage. The liberal forces were afraid of losing so they resorted to bigotry and scare tactics - not to mention emotional manipulation. (You ought to remember this the next time you are confronted with an appeal to theocracy as the reason you must allow secular liberals to have their own way.)
But why is it that every religion is a threat to the public order and those who take religious views that do not fit snugly into the grid of traditional religions have a free pass to impose their views on the rest of us? Why do those who believe a man can marry a man just because the State says it is possible (even though it is metaphysically impossible) have the right to impose their ethical, metaphysical and religious views on us by taking over the education of our children and teaching them their creed? How is that separation of church and state? I call it an "atheistocracy" run by atheist mullahs and I find it oppressive.
Religions come in many forms and the denial of the existence of a theistic god is no barrier to a movement of ideas being called a religion. If Buddhism can be a religion, why not atheism? A strong case can be made from the history of western ideas that atheism in the West is a Christian heresy and, if it is a heresy, what else could it be but a religion?
So here is my proposal: let us launch a campaign for the separation of atheism and state. When people propose public policy and demand changes to laws based on a philosophical belief in atheism, then we have to rule those people out of order and demand that they accept our beliefs as the basis of public policy and law. Then, with the shoe on the other foot, they will get to experience first hand how it feels to be marginalized and vilified while another group implements its agenda over their heads.
Maybe, if the experience is unpleasant enough, they might then be amenable to a rational discussion of how everyone's religious and philosophical views should be allowed into the public square. Maybe then they won't be so quick to try to run Christians (and Mormans and Jews and Muslims) out of the public square just because they are religious. After all, why should atheistic philosophy be allowed to determine marriage laws and theistic philosophy not be allowed to do so? Let the debate be open and fair. But don't tilt the playing field so that religion is ruled out and atheism given a free ride.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
" The possibility of Canada or the US suddenly turning into a Christian theocracy is probably lower than Richard Dawkins' little green men coming back to check on whatever became of that life they created and left on planet earth billions of years ago."
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html
"The anti-Morman commercial I commented on in the last post was a last-minute, desparate attempt to sway the voters in California and keep them from standing up for natural marriage in the face of the revisionist attempts to reject natural marriage and create artificial marriage. "
Fallacy of naturalness- natural does not make something moral.
" The liberal forces were afraid of losing so they resorted to bigotry and scare tactics - not to mention emotional manipulation."
It is bigotry to show that others are bigots?
"But why is it that every religion is a threat to the public order and those who take religious views that do not fit snugly into the grid of traditional religions have a free pass to impose their views on the rest of us? "
Because their views are based on reality.
"(even though it is metaphysically impossible)"
Wow... I have never seem a dumber statement. You do realize that metaphysics has no application here whatsoever?
"How is that separation of church and state? "
Because it has religion and government seperate. Not all morality is religious.
"I call it an "atheistocracy" run by atheist mullahs and I find it oppressive."
And criminals find "policracy" and discover it is oppressive.
"If Buddhism can be a religion, why not atheism?"
For the same reason that theism is not a religion.
"A strong case can be made from the history of western ideas that atheism in the West is a Christian heresy and, if it is a heresy, what else could it be but a religion?"
Which explains how it occurs in other cultures, how exactly? Or are you arguing that it is the universal faith, stumbled upon by completely seperate individuals accross time and space?
"So here is my proposal: let us launch a campaign for the separation of atheism and state."
And how would that work?
"When people propose public policy and demand changes to laws based on a philosophical belief in atheism, then we have to rule those people out of order and demand that they accept our beliefs as the basis of public policy and law."
Fine, name the laws that require that. Oh, right- none of them.
"Then, with the shoe on the other foot, they will get to experience first hand how it feels to be marginalized and vilified while another group implements its agenda over their heads."
Atheists aren't marginalized in the US?
"Maybe, if the experience is unpleasant enough, they might then be amenable to a rational discussion of how everyone's religious and philosophical views should be allowed into the public square."
Which is why slaver is still legal, right? Oh wait- we crushed the dissenters with bayonets.
" After all, why should atheistic philosophy be allowed to determine marriage laws and theistic philosophy not be allowed to do so?"
Because you are complaining about SECULAR philosophy, not atheistic philosophy. There is no such thing. And if you dump secularism you have a theocracy by default.
Not to mention that not all theists agree. You know, the Anglican Church for starters. Or are you going to set up an inquisition to discover who are true Christians?
"Let the debate be open and fair. But don't tilt the playing field so that religion is ruled out and atheism given a free ride. "
Reality is biased, not the playing field.
Samuel,
Marriage is rooted in natural law, which is denied by modern social constructivists. If you believe you create reality by your will, fine. But your Nietzchean beleifs will be opposed by those who do not share your religion.
I notice your religion is very dogmatic about reality, which is odd since you also seem to believe that individuals create it by will.
Oh, come on, you have seen dumber statements. Can you even define metaphysics?
It is true that not all morality is religious. Hitler's wasn't. Stalin's wasn't. Don't try to pretend that only religious people do evil and all we need to do is supress religion to make the world good. (See the 20th Century). Of course an atheist can have good morality for the same reason a Christian can have bad morality. Humans are noterious for being inconsistent.
Theism is a religious view; it is an opinion about God and the ultimate just as atheism is.
I was not discussing atheism in other world cultures, but merely making the point that the God denied in Western atheism is the Christian God. Atheism in the 18th century was serious and had a lot to do with theodicy, unlike the incoherent babbling of people like Richard Dawkins today.
Laws allowing abortion arise out of an atheistic worldview, as do laws re-defining marriage. Non-atheists sometimes agree with such laws, but all that proves is that people can be inconsistent. Logically, atheism is fundamental to any worldview in which individuals create their own reality because in so doing they replace God (who actually did create reality).
Are the Anglicans you are referring to still theists? We don't need an inquisition to determine who true Christians are. The Bible, the Creeds and Tradition will do just fine.
Thanks for illustrating my point. Anybody who defends the attack on the Mormans ought to be ashamed of himself. It is obvious who the intolerant exclusivists are in this debate. You are free to hate as you wish; just make sure you keep such opinions to yourself and out of public policy.
"Marriage is rooted in natural law, which is denied by modern social constructivists. "
Fallacy of appeal to nature.
"If you believe you create reality by your will, fine. But your Nietzchean beleifs will be opposed by those who do not share your religion."
No, but we DO create social contracts by dint of agreement.
"I notice your religion is very dogmatic about reality, which is odd since you also seem to believe that individuals create it by will."
We don't create reality. We DO create laws.
"Oh, come on, you have seen dumber statements. Can you even define metaphysics?"
wiki-
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world.[1]
So it investigates how things work. It doesn't say wheter or not they are possible.
"It is true that not all morality is religious. Hitler's wasn't."
Which Hitler seems to disagree with. I'm taking his over yours.
"Don't try to pretend that only religious people do evil and all we need to do is supress religion to make the world good."
Did I say that? Nope.
"(See the 20th Century)"
Which part? Communism? Who is that remotely rational?
"Of course an atheist can have good morality for the same reason a Christian can have bad morality. Humans are noterious for being inconsistent."
How am I being inconsistant?
"Theism is a religious view; it is an opinion about God and the ultimate just as atheism is. "
no it isn't. Religions are beliefs that deal with an individuals transendant purpose in life. Theism doesn't.
"I was not discussing atheism in other world cultures, but merely making the point that the God denied in Western atheism is the Christian God."
Ever heard of Spinoza?
"Atheism in the 18th century was serious and had a lot to do with theodicy, unlike the incoherent babbling of people like Richard Dawkins today."
What does that mean?
"
Laws allowing abortion arise out of an atheistic worldview, as do laws re-defining marriage."
Which is why abortion was legal until 1830. Or marriage was redined twice in US history.
"Non-atheists sometimes agree with such laws, but all that proves is that people can be inconsistent."
You do realize that this is known as "brushing away evidence"? You have made your beliefs non-falsible.
"Logically, atheism is fundamental to any worldview in which individuals create their own reality because in so doing they replace God (who actually did create reality)."
I don't create reality- stop strawmanning.
"Are the Anglicans you are referring to still theists? We don't need an inquisition to determine who true Christians are. The Bible, the Creeds and Tradition will do just fine. "
Which is why all Christians agree... oh wait, they argue over EVERYTHING. And Anglicans are theists.
"Thanks for illustrating my point. Anybody who defends the attack on the Mormans ought to be ashamed of himself. It is obvious who the intolerant exclusivists are in this debate. You are free to hate as you wish; just make sure you keep such opinions to yourself and out of public policy."
I wonder what you would have been like inthe 60s... probably the target of "Letter from Birmigham Jail".
Samuel,
You seem to think marriage is just something people get together and vote into existence. It has no roots in nature and nature has no design. If people construct marriage in this way, then people can construct reality and law any way they please. So how can you oppose racism, if the majority vote for it?
MLK Jr. opposed it on the basis that God created man in his image, which makes all men equal and racism wrong. But all you have to go on is the law. Yet the law prior to the 60's was racist. MLK could challenge it on the basis of natural law and rights rooted in Divine creation. But you have no basis to challenge racist laws. All you know about is positive law. If everyone believed what you believe, movements for social justice would be impossible.
And this is why we need separation of atheism and state. Once atheism and relativism come to predominate in a society, no justice is possible. It is just a matter of the strong oppressing the weak and making laws to justify it. No appeal to natural law or Divine law is then possible. Any revolution in such a situation is nothing more than a clash of will and a fight to the death. Even if a revolution is successful under such circumstances it cannot be said to be just. It just means that a different group temporarily has the title of "The Strong" and they can rule until they too are overthrown. A rather bleak set of prospects, is it not?
Marriage is a legal contract. As such it is ENTIRELY socially determined.
The reason that racism is bad is because it is an immoral action.
You do realize one of the two main civil rights groups was SNICK... which was secular.
Yeah, movements for equal treatment would be impossible. It isn't like a bunch of people managed to get the law changed on entirely secualr grounds... oh, wait- they DID. They got the country to recognize that equal protection under the law applies to EVERYONE.
Or are you going to claim the Supreme Court of the US judges using natural law?
First, arguing from consequences is a logical fallacy. Second, that is false. Although the Soviet Union may not have been a great place to live... it didn't disentigrate into "strong prey on weak".
How do I justify social justice? Because it increases human happiness- always a worthy goal. You know- I justify my actions because they are moral.
Post a Comment