Posted on 12/24/2009 7:49:55 AM PST by Former Fetus
You can equate them with anything you want but what you can't do is equated the sheer number of murders committed by atheist governments with any religion including the whackjob jihadists. The jihadists are pikers compared to the 100 million killed by atheist governments in the 20th Century.
I think the key phrase here is "consider themselves". Note the distinction Heinlein makes:
"a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence"
I don't believe he's saying that someone can't apply both reason and faith to their life, just not at the same time regarding the same subject. In the past, I've asked people of faith to suppose (strictly for the sake of argument) that they were presented with well-reasoned arguments and strong verifiable evidence that the underpinnings of the faith were incorrect. If that was the case, would they acknowledge since their faith had no rational basis that it should be abandoned? In every case, the answer was "no". Thus, Heinlein's point.
My principal point remains, however, that to go out of one's way to deliberately mock another's beliefs at a time when they are most vulnerable to such mockery is an act of rudeness and intolerance. It should be beneath well-adjusted adults. Would you agree with that?
I agree. Even though I'm an atheist myself, I would never put up such a sign...although I still maintain that as long as the State invites people to put up whatever display they wish (such as the one in question in this discussion), they shouldn't discriminate between the displays. I don't want a government bureaucrat determining which messages about religion are officially sanctioned...and I certainly don't think people have the right to set fire to such displays because they're offended by them (as advocated on this very thread).
Well, enough of this for now. I'm off to my sister's for Christmas dinner. I'm not a Christian but I love the secular aspects of the holiday!
Due to lack of ability rather than lack of motive.
You, like the athiest, are speaking in generalities. I was speaking with one specific example for each of his assertions, to refute his generalization. If religion enslaves minds, as he posited, then clearly the absence of religion frees minds. This could not be further from the truth with Communism, under which religions and the religious are persecuted, and minds are enslaved en masse.
Conversely, he asserted that religion "hardens hearts". If that is true, then why are churches, synogogues, and yes mosques the largest sources of charitable donations and services on the planet, far outweighing any government involvement?
The atheist pogroms were low tech affairs. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the other radical atheists managed quite nicely by hacking heads etc, etc.
An unanswerable question well asked. Merry Christmas.
Well, the Constitution talks about religion in two places:
1. “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust” (Art. VI)
2. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (First Amendment).
Thanks to the founders, we have a secular government. But the majority of the citizens are Christian.
Those who use the religious test as a sign of a secular government are ignoring the context in which it was written. The point was to avoid preferences to specific denominations or a state church (remember that when Article VI was written there was no 1st Amendment yet) not to make the government completely secular. Electing an atheist or (if they had been present) a Hindu or Muslim to office would have been as bizarre an idea to the people of 18th Century America as the idea of electing the President of NAMBLA to the Senate is to us, so they didn’t need to spell that out.
Plus, there’s a great difference between a completely secular government and a theocracatic government, but too many people seem to believe that we have one or the other, not a nation established as Christian and structured to be tolerant. For example, the deist president of a secular nation would not have transferred money to missionaries out of the treasury, and there would not be numerous Founder quotes discussing the need for religion and morality in the governing process.
In light of this quotation, do you have any comments on
(1) the text on that sign in Illinois?
(2) the people who agree with the text?
When in doubt, quote Heinlein:
“A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion — any religion — is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason — but one cannot have both.”
This quote is both illogical and irrationale. Of course a person can think both rationally and with faith.
Further, I’m a Christian because I have faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man and came to save us. However, if somebody provided me with unquestioned evidence that Jesus Christ was a fraud...my faith would cease instantly.
I think the belly of laughs is on Heinlein. He seems to reserve a low opinion of the thinking skills of people of Faith, when those opinions should be reserved for himself.
“they...became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,”
***
Merry Christmas!
I never said there was.
Of course, it is written in pretty explicit English.
I know. Just sayin' is all.
Of course, it is written in pretty explicit English.
Yes, but if the Framers didn't need to tell their readers that English was the official language, perhaps they also didn't have to tell everyone that a government founded by states that were over 99% Christian led by a bunch of guys who spoke repeatedly about the need for religion and morality in government was a Christian government.
Well no, there's one more. You missed the one where it specifically refers to the little baby Jesus.
Atheists are by definition religious, because "There is no God" is a faith statement. It's not something that can be verified by any method except being personally omniscient.
Perhaps, but can you name me any government that was based on atheistic principles that did not murder its own citizens?
They wanted to leave that up to the states if they wished.
Ah, that's why the 80-90% of us who are Christians here in the USA have wiped out all the other houses of faith and kept Jews, Muslims and Mormons from serving in government. Oh, wait...
And in the case of this specific incident, that's why the guy went after the Festivus Pole and Menorah...oh, wait...
What would people like you do if you didn't have Christianity around to whine about?
Indeed. The majority of murders under Pol Pot were carried out with pick axes, because they didn't want the overseers wasting ammo.
No, Heinlein had a razor sharp mind. The problem is that he had a blind spot. Paul described this in the 3rd and 4th chapters of 2 Corinthians, calling it a veil that prevented people from seeing the truth of the Gospel. Also, in 1 Corinthians 1, he wrote: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.