BS: History of US radical religious right

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 10:32 AM

"That was but one drop of politics."


               But what do you do with countries that are run by religious leaders like Iran and Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: DougR
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:45 PM

Bobert: You're NOT an Astronaut?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 07:04 PM

Israel is not run by religious leaders, Rig. It's run by political zealots who serve a political cause called "Zionism"...a cause which primarily has to do with establishing a Jewish political state in the lands that the Jews lived in about 2,000 years ago before the Romans scattered them across the ancient world. Jewishness is not a religion. It's a cultural designation. Many Jews are self-proclaimed atheists. Also...some of the most orthodox religious Jews are openly opposed to the political cause of Zionism (although you seldom hear about their views in the press).

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:56 PM

Well, I just don't know what's to be done about it!

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 08:56 PM

Actually, archaeologists are now saying that the Romans never did actually scatter the Jews across the ancient world. In fact, they are now saying that most of the biblical account of Jewish history is fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:05 PM

Ecatly what I've been sayin', LH...

Religion is gettin' a bad rap here... There are no radical religious right folks... Lotta radical righties, tho...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:40 PM

That's not the case. While those who comprise the government of Israel are for the most part not religious extremists, there certainly are religious extremists in Israel who have their own agendas that, while they are often synchronous with the agendas of the government there, they are not always, and sometimes they even cause problems for the government. And the radical religious right in the US are very religious, and it really is not correct at all to suggest that they are not. They may be practicing a religion that other religious people don't agree with, or find distasteful, but they are strongly religious nevertheless.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 09:44 PM

When one refers to Christians as just "Christians", but one refers to Jews as "the Jews", that really does come across as anti-Semitic. Is there a reason that Christians are just "Christians" to the poster in question, but Jews are always, "the Jews"?

And how would we stamp out religion without even bigger violations of human rights than are committed by the worst religions? And if we can't do it without that, then what, really, is the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 12:59 PM

"'Christians are just "Christians" to the poster in question, but Jews are always, "the Jews"?'"

             There are a lot more Christians than Jews, and Jews display more tribalistic behavior. In fact, they talk of themselves as tribes.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:16 PM

Christians also exhibit tribal behavior. They talk in terms of tribes as well. They give it a different label, "denominations".

Tribalism has caused the prevalent wars in the Middle East and ireland. These are basically and fundamentally religious wars. What the military in the US is doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a religious war against Islam. McChrystal and others are doing it.

Carol I wish someone would correct you on the term "atheism". It is not a religion.
That's a ploy by the religious right to discredit atheists as fundamentalists. Sheer propaganda.

Education and enlightenment is the only solution to the assault by the religious right or left.

Mythology has always been used as a political weapon.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:21 PM

But they don't all think and act alike. One can't paint them with a broad brush like that. There are as many different kinds of Jews as there are different kinds of Christians. Not all Jews behave in a tribalistic manner and not all of them refer to themselves as tribes. The term "the Jews" is a racist term because it doesn't take these things into account and therefore doesn't treat them as human beings but rather as a collective consciousness, which they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:22 PM

Atheism requires belief just as any other religion does. That makes it a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:25 PM

I should add to my last post. Belief alone wouldn't make it a religion. But belief that everyone must agree on in order to be one (there is no God) makes it a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 01:40 PM

". . . and Jews display more tribalistic behavior. In fact, they talk of themselves as tribes."

That's historical, Rig. Judaism had its beginnings when all the earth's people were tribal. I don't know of any modern Jew who considers Jews to be tribal, save in retrospect. And the same goes for Christians.

Get current.

And as to Christians being "just 'Christians,'" at latest count, there were about 150 some odd denominations that call themselves "Christian." Major ones are first Catholic, then as a result of the Reformation, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and on and on, all the way to Kingdom of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and things too weird to mention. Even among Lutherans, there is the German Lutheran, the Swedish Lutheran, the very conservative Missouri Synod, the much more liberal ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), and a couple of others. All of these churches claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, but they split over differences of opinion on various major or minor theological matters—and sometimes over differences in political opinion.

So, to consider "religion" in general, or "Judaism" or "Christianity" as all some kind of giant monolith is just plain ignorant. It's especially erroneous to assume that all Christians are radical right-wing. The right-wingers seem to make a lot more noise, and the news media tends to focus on them rather than the far less outrageous liberal Christians, who actually comprise the majority.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 02:31 PM

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone in this thread has said they consider all Christians to be radical and right wing.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 03:51 PM

Perhaps not on this specific thread, Carol, but I've heard people claim it, and I have read a lot of blanket statements to that effect posted by Mudcatters, some of whom are inhabiting this thread.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 03:55 PM

"All the Christians I know try to improve themselves every day and try to improve the lives of others." - you must not know any from the Southern US, then...

"Atheism is a form of religion and requires belief just like any other religion." - Nonsense. That is like saying that baldness is a hair color. Where is the belief that isn't a logical conclusion, but faith in the absence of evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 04:00 PM

Perhaps I am wrong about how atheism is defined, then. My understanding is that atheism is the belief that there is no god. Is that not correct?

Certainly there is no proof that there is no god, and certainly the absence of proof that there is a god is not proof that there is no god. So if people who self describe as atheists believe there is no god, how is that different from the belief that there is a god? I don't see any difference myself. It's all belief one way or the other, and such belief is required in order for one to be an atheist. In the absence of such a belief, one would be an agnostic rather than an atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 04:54 PM

As for these so-called religious Jews who run Isreal??? Who really knows their hearts... But one would be hard pressed to find a scriptural basis for thier policies toward the Palestinians... That's why I challenge the concept of radical "religious" right...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:07 PM

"Nonsense. That is like saying that baldness is a hair color."

                  Great line!

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:09 PM

Actually, Israel Shahak has found a lot of scriptural basis for how the Palestinians are being treated, and there are rabbis currently employed by the government who are serving as rabbis for the IDF who are using scriptural teachings to whip up a lot of fervor for killing and displacing Palestinians, and the complete elimination of all Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. These people are not representative of all Jews, but they are a significant and very powerful force in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 05:24 PM

It may be emotionally satisfying to come up with a line like that, but it is not accurate. The absence of a belief in god is not the same thing as absence of belief. It would be accurate to say that calling agnosticism a religion is the same as saying baldness is a hair color, because agnosticism doesn't involve belief in the absence of proof.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 06:10 PM

Major ones are first Catholic, then as a result of the Reformation, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and on and on, all the way to Kingdom of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and things too weird to mention.

Don missed out the second largest Christian denomionation after the Catholics - the Eastern Orthodox, with over 200 million adherents.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 09 - 10:06 PM

Didn't really miss it, Kevin. I just didn't want to spend the afternoon listing the whole roster. Also, there's Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and perhaps other schisms I'm not aware of. In the late 14th, early 15th century, for example, the Roman Catholic church had two papacies: one in Rome and one in Avignon.

It wasn't my intent to give a complete history of the Christian religion in all its variations.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:51 AM

Besides, there's a new one born every minute, so it would be impossible to name them all.

    "...agnosticism doesn't involve belief in the absence of proof."

             Actually, an agonstic is someone who would be an atheist, but who simply doesn't want to deal with the issues. If there was proof, how many atheists would there be. There isn't proof because it defies human reason for there to be proof.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 08:53 AM

Eastern Orthodox includes Greek and Russian orthodox and there are various other national versions - they aren't in schism with each other.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 01:48 PM

If there was proof, I imagine that most agnostics would be atheists. But until there is proof, atheism will be a religion and agnosticism will not.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 01:57 PM

Wrong, CarolC. There is evidence - but there is *never* **proof** of ***anything*** in science. You might as well say that since gravity is a theory, falling down is a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 02:00 PM

People fall for religion all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 02:29 PM

Falling down doesn't require belief. At least not in the sense that most people understand belief. If it did, then falling down would be a religion. But it doesn't, so it's not.

But there is no more evidence of the absence of a god than there is of the existence of a god, so people who believe there is or isn't, and who have stuck a name on their belief, and who must share the belief in order to apply the name to themselves, are religious people.

Religion (from Wikipedia):

A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 03:38 PM

Atheism means simply lack of belief in theism. Agnostics can be atheists as well.
There is no proof that can be determined one way or another. "You can't prove a negative" is a logical fallacy.

The idea that atheists agree on any particular idea is nonsense. They all have different reasons for their atheism and none of those could be said to be religious in any sense.

There is the so-called institutional atheism of Communism practiced by Stalin but this runs counter to the free thought concept of atheism. Stalin, himself, had liturgical beginnings and attempted to make a religion of Communism. It couldn't and didn't work.


Dictionary definition
atheism
noun
nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism.


So you see there are different forms, not a monolithic view as there is in religion
since in that there is a belief in a supreme being or a god.

The acceptance of any form of religion is not atheism.

Once again, the enablers of the concept of religion can't accept the idea that it doesn't have to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 03:51 PM

Websters defines atheism as...

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

That's why there are two different words for belief in the non-existence of god (atheism), and lack of belief in a god (agnosticism).

The roots of the word agnosticism are a (without) + gnosis (knowledge).

The roots of the word atheism are a (without) + theos (god).


Agnosticism is the acceptance of a lack of knowledge of god, and atheism affirms the non-existence of god.

Someone who acknowledges that they don't know one way or another if there is a god may call themself an atheist, but they are really an agnostic.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 04:46 PM

I was speaking of the schism between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, Kevin.

The "Great Schism," or divide between the East and West happened in 1054, when Pope Leo IX and Eastern Patriarch Michael I excommunicated each other. The primary cause was a dispute over papal authority. The Eastern churches denied that the pope had any unique authority over them. There was also a dispute over the Nicene Creed. While the Western Church stated that the Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son, the Eastern Church believed the Holy Spirit to be only of the Father.

It is from this kind of disagreement that schisms are made.

Really, as I said, I did not intend to write a detail history of Christianity. That's already been done by a number of scholars and historians, far better than I would be able, or care, to do.

My whole intent was to point out that there is no one "Christian Church" or Christian body of belief, therefore it is erroneous--and misleading--to regard the Christian religion as one single entity.

Clear enough?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 05:12 PM

I love that they each excommunicated the other. I can just hear the Monty Python sketch about it...

"I excommunicate you, you stinking son of elderberries!!!"

"No! No! I excommunicate you first, you farting mother of hamster dung!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 05:46 PM

What's a real snort is that within 150 years after the death of Jesus, there were some 82 bishops, all claiming to be actual, or at least spiritual descendants of the original twelve apostles, and each with his own ideas about what it was all about. They were "excommunicating" each other right left and center over some pretty ridiculous stuff. It wasn't until the Emperor Constantine "saw a vision" and became a Christian (or usurped Christianity) that things started to gain a little cohesion—at least temporarily.

Constantine declared, "Dogma is what I say it is!!"

Suddenly, rather than being at odds with Rome, Christianity had the power of the Roman state behind it.

The Closing of the Western Mind : The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, by Charles Freeman, Alfred A. Knopf, New York (2003)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 05:53 PM

Yes, Constantine should have gone back where he came from, or something. He was the beginning of the end.

I agree that dogma approaches religion a lot more closely than not believing in anything godlike does.

But you do not *have* to have faith to be an atheist. Any sensible person can look at the mountain of replicable data that requires no supernatural explanation, and at the belief in the supernatural in the total absence of actual replicable data, and conclude that there is no need for a supernatural explanation. See, no faith involved!

CarolC, what replicable data do you know of that actually is evidence *for* the supernatural? I don't know of any, at all. So you have a mountain on one side and nothing on the other, and you think it takes faith* to decide that the other is therefore much more likely to be wrong?

Also, do not confuse disbelief in yes with belief in no.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 05:55 PM

And lest I be corrected yet again, Constantine felt that Rome was too far from what he considered to be the center of things, so he moved the capitol of his empire to Byzantium, hence "Constantinople" (later, Istanbul).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 06:22 PM

People with a bias will define words and concepts in ways that support their arguments. An Atheist will say that there is no replicable data to support the assertion that there is a god. A person who believes in a god will say that all of life and all of reality is replicable proof that there is a god. It's all semantics, really, and how one defines the words and concepts will be ultimately shaped by the beliefs they hold. Neither one can prove the other wrong, or themselves right.

Disbelief in yes is definitely a belief in no. Webster's definition of "disbelief"...


Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Date: 1672

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

But as I said before, if someone acknowledges that they don't really know one way or another (disbelief in yes), they are an agnostic rather than an atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 06:30 PM

Actually, I need to modify my last post. A disbelief in yes is not the same thing as an acknowledgment of a lack of knowledge either way, so that would not be agnosticism. A disbelief in yes is a rejection of yes, and agnostics don't have any beliefs about yes one way or the other. They understand that they simply have no way of knowing on way or the other. Anyone who thinks they do know one way or the other in the absence of proof is practicing belief.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 06:33 PM

If somebody says the don't know one way or the other, they are saying that the impossible might be true. And Mrrzy is right. It's takes no faith not to believe in god.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 06:45 PM

But it does take belief to say there is no god. Atheists say there is no god. Agnostics say they don't believe there is a god, but they don't believe there is no god, either. They simply don't have any belief one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:16 PM

The agnostics I know simply don't want to get caught up in a debate like this, so they shrug they shoulders and refuse to take a position. I don't blame them, but I think if you could really pin them down they'd come down on the side on no god.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:16 PM

The back & forth of some of the recent post is why I approach it all as I do.

I simply refer to myself as a 'skeptic'. Using the principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", I look at claims about BOTH science & religion with the same basic attitude. "Show me why you claim these things."
Generally, science does better than religion when providing support for claims..........and when problems arise, science is generally (if done right)self-correcting. Religion ummmm... takes awhile

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:18 PM

No, atheists do not believe in god.

CarolC, you say "A person who believes in a god will say that all of life and all of reality is replicable proof that there is a god."

In other words, there is no scientific evidence for deity. Just what we atheists have been claiming. Funny how we agree, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:23 PM

No, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a god. But that doesn't prove that there is no god. So to say that there is no god requires belief. A real scientist would say that the absence of proof is not itself proof of anything. They would say that the absence of proof of a god is not proof of the non-existence of a god. They would say that the question requires further study.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Oct 09 - 07:28 PM

I'll just say, "There sure don't seem to be no god around here, or anywheres else for that matter."

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 12:27 PM

Of course no proof of god isn't the same as proof of no god, but considering that proof has been being sought for millennia and never, ever found, can lead one to conclude, logically, with no faith involved, that they aren't there to be discovered.

Like we've said, when there are mountains of actual data on one side, and nothing but beliefs -not even a molehill- on the other, it isn't rational to say the question has to remain open for ever. At some point, it makes sense to not believe in the other.

Which is *not* saying that there is proof of no other. It's just saying that when you look at reality, there is no rational reason to continue to believe in deity.

Which should be fine with the believers, since after all, belief is *supposed* to take faith. I don't understand why they (the believers) insist that their belief be considered rational - faith isn't, and that is what belief in deity takes, and that is apparently the way the mythical deities want it anyway, so why argue about the data?

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 12:54 PM

A scientist would never say that. There are too many questions that science can't answer. Science is not in the business of shutting out possibilities. Science is in the business of finding things out. In science, the lack of an answer is not considered an answer. In science the lack of any scientific evidence of a god doesn't answer the question of whether or not there is a god, so the question remains an open one. Anyone who decides that the lack of an answer is itself the answer and who, on that basis concludes that there is no god, is practicing belief.

It's also not accurate to say that there are mountains of data on the other side. There is no data that says there is no god. There is not even any data that suggests that there probably is no god.

Personally, I am not suggesting that any belief is rational, not belief in a god, nor the belief that there is no god. Belief is, by definition, not rational. It is belief. Neither side of the issue is any more rational than the other. They are both equally guilty of engaging in belief in the absence of proof, and neither is any more rational than the other.

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 02:01 PM

The problem with the radical religious right is that it may be enabled by more moderate religious believers. There is a lot of sweeping the dirt under the carpet.

Otherwise The Family would have been brought out sooner and censured by the US Congress, Senate and the White House.

A National Day of Prayer in Washington is an example of how this agenda is being
perpetrated by so-called "moderates".

Rushdoony/Ron Paul connection is very interesting. Leviticus prevails in Libertarianism.
"Theocratic Libertarianism"

Ahmansen has a big theater in L.A.

Francis Shaefer invaded the Left with Jimmy Page and Bono. Back to the moderate enablers. Shaefer and Operation Rescue. "He created a monster".

Subject: RE: BS: History of US radical religious right
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Oct 09 - 02:06 PM

The problem with your theory, Carol, is that there is a mountain of evidence that says that any god that has been defined can't take place scientifically. There is not even weight for both sides of the equation. You can prove that the concept of god as has been expressed by anyone is not consistent with scientific knowledge that we know today.

To follow your logic, Santa Claus may actually exist today in the North Pole.
There is "no evidence" that he doesn't exist.

There is no "evidence" that any myth isn't real.

Again, "you can't prove a negative" negates your argument.

Frank