Category: 
One of the main things I see at the root of these attempts for a theocratic state is sciolism. Last year for this blogswarm, I wrote two posts on this subject. To get things started off this year, please allow me to draw your attention to those two posts again. I think they’re worth an honest read and some further consideration in light of the way the religious right has stepped up attempts at undermining our Constitution with religious dogma over this past year.
Let’s see how embedding both of these posts within this one works….
[[17]]
[[18]]
- Technorati Tags:
- blog against theocracy
- anti-theocracy
- religious hegemony
- separation of church and state
Greetings. I have read your posts and I hope that you know by now that I do so with a very open mind. And sheesh, this comment is longer than you post I think! That makes my head hurt.
I hope that you will offer me the same respect and read mine, which is posted at my blog, on the carnival and at MPS.
Personally I need to further digest a lot of what you said- you have worked hard and it shows in your writing. I like that. You have a sharp mind and intellect and you use them wisely.
That said - I will bring up a couple of things… My goal is to enter into an exchange or conversation here; being right is not my thing. Me- I don’t know shit. Me – I believe in a lot of things and freedom of thought and expression are among them.
From your post: “They know the Word of their God is inspired. They know He died for their sins. They know He rose from the grave. And yet, somehow, they wrap it all up and refer to this supposed knowledge as faith, implying that their knowledge may well be unfounded!”
Not so fast- I took in what you wrote before that -”One of the things which continually strikes me as I discuss “faith” with my religious friends, is that they tend to forget the entire premise of faith: that that in which they believe might well not be true.”
I could be wrong, but I am wondering if you are presuming that what you believe is true.
The fact is – say what you will, none of us will ever know for sure unless there is something “out there”, which we won’t find out about until later.
At best we are nothing more than collective agnostics, at least in my observation.
We belly up to the table and we take our chances. That is about it.
You know I respect you and I admire your journey into atheism… I am always glad when someone wants to go deeper and really explore what they believe, no matter what that is.
However, I can’t help but wonder if you don’t believe that the world would be better religion free? That is surely the position of many atheists and it is a position that is almost more confusing to me than that of the most fundamentalist Christian.
I said almost!!
Why is everyone so God damned concerned about eradicating anyone? (Did FranIam just say God damned on Good God damn Friday! Well yes she did!)
That is my problem with these conversations. End game. Zero-sum, end game. It seems so fruitless at times. I wish I knew a better way.
However, that is just how I see it. I am never sure of what I know- I am always exploring what I believe.
And there is the rub. Know what? If one lived in another era of history, one would “know” with certitude that the world was flat. If one were talking about what one knows regarding science or technology 20 years ago, one would “know” very differently today.
That is the real rub I think with both knowledge and belief – they are evolutionary (look at that FIA throw around these terms!) and as such, one never really truly knows anything.
I’ve spent enough time at places like Pandagon to know the big complaint against Christians by heart : though I agree with Charlie Barkley - Christians fundies ain’t.
http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/ is whole ‘nother kettle of fish, as is http://masbury.wordpress.com/ who I note is being trolled.
Thought you might like a change of pace and see what some intelligent people thought : even though they’re believers !
Was it something I said? Hoping for conversation…
Fran:
OF COURSE i believe that what i’ve written is at least based in provable, measurable Truth. there’s a good deal of science behind evolution, for example. people just like to pretend that it’s okay to confuse theory with theorem. as well, there are a lot of stories in the bible—major stories about supposedly well-known and popular figures—for which there is no anthropological, archaeological or historical evidence. and to explain many of those stories and events as “truth” requires the setting aside of any common sense or logic whatsoever. whereas the scientific approach doesn’t seem infested with these errors. certainly, later science might change or alter perspectives on the past, or bring to new light things that were missed, but it doesn’t go explain itself away as a function of “God’s Will.”
the sentences you quoted from me, specifically where i talk about how they address their faith as knowledge (”They know the Word of their God is inspired.” etc), i’m not talking about real knowledge. i’m talking about the juxtaposition of how they express faith AS knowledge, which actually only serves to undermine their faith. and that it is a product of willful ignorance—of sciolism—to do so. faith is actually a beautiful thing (see, not only do i not deny that, i express it directly!), but when faith is convoluted into an expression of knowledge, therein lies the root of a problem that spans from the undermining of faith through to the apparent belief that religious dogma should be codified in law.
i do not perceive this world that you see, FranIAm. i’m not aware of “everyone so God damned concerned about eradicating anyone”. in my world, there are proper places for those who want to carry on the Christian or Jewish or Islamic delusion. such is no worse, and in the proper context, no more harmful, than groups of people who join together to read books, play games, or participate in any other endeavor which essentially amounts to organized escapism from the realities of this world. i’m not out to eradicate anyone. but i will fight, vehemently and strongly, not to have anyone’s religious doctrine codified.
Oh Commander, how I would like to be having this as an actual conversation!
I hear you loud and clear and as I re-read my own comment I see how my own words sounded the second time around. Dear me.
Anyone who can say this - (see, not only do i not deny that, i express it directly!), - gets my, well um, vote? Bad election humor.
Anyway, I very much loathe those who walk around in some great state of “knowing” something. I try to live my faith and beliefs, but it is my faith and not some provable equation, about that I am very clear.
As for the eradication part, what I mean are Christians who want to wipe out all but their own brand of Christianity just as (if I have read my Sam Harris’ correctly- I have not read Dawkins yet and sorry, I have to draw the line at Hitchens. He is an idiot to me.) Harris and Dawkins call for an end to religion, as if that would make the world a better place.
Maybe it would, but I am doubtful. That may be another conversation for another day. Anyway that is what I am talking about and it goes far beyond the two examples that I put here.
There are certainly many- but hardly all, Muslims who would decry all the rest of us as infidels, there are ultra-Orthodox Jews who would love to see their version of the Messiah come and smote us all down, there are Hindu extremists in India who attack Christians and Muslims.
That is what I mean- I think if there were no religion, somewhere something else would captivate humankind’s propensity for violence, hatred, power and control. All of which makes me sound way more cynical than I really am, but I think that it is true.
It is very hard for us to express anything int he space of a blogpost or a comment, but I hope that you do know that I want to keep the conversation going. I always believe that there is something for me to learn, something new to know.
That said, I will say that what I said about “provable” things still holds for me. I don’t ever expect or even need to prove that God exists for me, but the things I can prove and do prove (you know, like evolution and shit like that. i am not a literal bible believer by any stretch and I know that you know the difference.) But I do know that certain things that we can know and prove are all subject to change. As a result, while I respect and promote science and technology, I can’t all but hang my own hat on that.
But you can and I respect that you do and I hope that it is my respect and desire for mutuality that comes through in these words. Of all the BAT posts, I must say that I have found yours to be the most provocative indeed!
For that I say thank you. Now I must run- as you can imagine, this is a pretty busy weekend for me.
Hope you can come on by and see what I have to say on the topic at either MPS or my own place!
I feel like I have sounded like a pedantic asshole. So not what I wanted to do.
Shit.
Oh this stuff can be hard to discuss, even with the best of intentions.
I am sorry.
no worries. this is a difficult subject for one who still believes in their religious teachings, and you are indeed the general audience i was writing to. thank you for your kind words about what i’ve written.