BS: Confessions of Pete Stark

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:32 PM

Are other people allowed to think differently than you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:40 PM

Of course, I have no standing to tell other people what to think. But I think the planet is doomed if mankind doesn't shrug off the scourge of religion. If we didn't discover anything else form 9/11 and the aftermath, I think we should have learned that.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:43 PM

It doesn't sound like a very tolerant view to me. Religion = scourge. Hmmm....

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bee
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:51 PM

" ...articulate a positive statement of worldview, personal philosophy, values, or beliefs without necessitating the negative view of others' worldview, personal philosophy, values, or beliefs" - WYSIWYG.

Very well then: that is not what I thought we were discussing, but I will attempt just that.

I believe we should not hurt each other or ourselves, that we should be caring, not only of other humans, but of the earth and every living thing.

I believe it should not matter who we sleep with, who we marry, what our families look like, how we dress, where we live, what pastimes we enjoy.

I believe I am no better than you, and you are no better than me, except as our actions reveal us.

I believe we should strive, individually and collectively, to respectfully make a good life available to all humans, enough food, enough health care, enough shelter, enough education: enough.

I believe we should extend that striving outside of our species, respecting the place every creature has in nature, and attempt to right some of the damage already done.

I believe people should be free in their thoughts and beliefs, respecting that others will have different thoughts and beliefs, and not attempt by force or deceit to change the beliefs of others.

I believe there are no gods as humans have proposed.

There you go. Do I live up to that? Not half enough, but it is my philosophy, what I strive towards morally.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 01:09 PM

Susan....what I 'think' Bee is getting at is the difficulty that secularists often have in discussing questions and issues that affect ALL persons with 'many' theists. (Is that sentence clear?)

   The problem, such as it is, is not with ALL theists, as there are many who simply practice their religion and concern themselves very little with those who do not share certain beliefs. That is, they are not concerned with converting, proselytizing, preaching, imposing rules, public 'witnessing'...etc...etc..

(and Bee, Susan is most assuredly that type...she lives her religion, but is not concerned with whether you do or not.)
There are however, many, many of the other type....who DO wish to see non-theists either converted or controlled (and perhaps punished).
...and therein lies the problem. We non-theists must deal with each 'believer' separately-- some who do not try to impose aspects of their religion on us, and some who do.

This is quite a dilemma at times, as there is a clear link between most of the believers, and some issues arise where they automatically are 'on the same side' of a question. They say "politics makes strange bedfellows", and this certainly applies to religions also! There are people who really do not like each other who at least profess a belief in God, Jesus and the wisdom and 'truth' of the Bible.

...so...when confronting public issues..
(whether to allow the 10 Commandments to be displayed in stone in public building-
whether to allow or encourage prayer in schools or before sporting events-
whether Faith-Based groups should receive tax money to do NON religious outreach..[some doubt that it is possible to totally keep religion out of the process])...etc..etc...
...it is difficult to have the dialogue when many of the parties have a foot in two or more camps,

As Bee said, " I don't generally argue against someone's theology, but try to explain how that theology, or the practice that stems from it, impacts people who don't hold those beliefs."

We theoretically have 'separation of church & state', but we have **SERIOUS** church leaders of various groups who categorically state that they favor church control and presence in all matters of state, much as it works in Muslim countries....and since the title of this thread notes that rarity...a congressman who is not religious...I will hazard a guess that this 'might' affect his being re-elected.

The fact is that there are many able, intelligent folks in this country who simply do not even attempt to run for public office, because they KNOW that if religious affiliation is brought up, they would be rejected out of hand, no matter their other qualifications. (Dwight Eisenhower had to go out looking for a nice, innocuous church to join when he became a candidate).

This situation (the simple fact that holding any significant public office usually requires a declaration of religious belief) DOES "impact people who don't hold those beliefs"....and other things do also, making a dialogue in some areas quite awkward...even between theists and non-theists who agree on almost everything else. And, as we have seen, it even affects HOW to conduct the dialogue.

Remember the Paris peace talks over Vietnam?? They debated for an interminable period of time over the shape of the table so that no one would be perceived as being favored! Here we have an arduous back-and-forth over whether it is possible to conduct the debate from a neutral stance....when, of course, there ARE no totally neutral stances.

I have posted before...several times...that the rule OUGHT to be:

"If the situation became such that there were only 17 Christians in the country, they should not be harassed or intimidated, and should be allowed to practice their religion freely within the laws.....and the same sort of rule should apply if there were only 17 atheists!"

   There is, of course, this silly notion that such things are just a matter of majority rules and if you can garner enough votes, no matter by what means, you get to impose, if not belief, at least behavior, on the minority. I don't like this attitude...and I am saddened that well-meaning folks on both sides will tacitly support that attitude when their 'side' seems to be favored.

How DO we get past this standoff when it is so hard to even agree on how to debate?

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 01:12 PM

Wesley--No, I don't suppose it is very tolerant. But I think mankind has two choices, either outgrow his dependency on religion or perish.

       If you were drowing in a lake, and somebody told you it wouldn't be considered very tolerant to get out of the water, would you stay in the lake and drown?

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 01:17 PM

(by the way...I typed all that BEFORE reading the "we are in danger" thread started by tarheel, and including the quote by Georgiansilver....I rest my case)

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 02:56 PM

Riginslinger - Let me respond with a question very much like yours. If red bicycles had bells and blue bicycles had whistles - which would you choose to ride?

Also - There's only two things in this world that I really hate and thats bigots and Baptists.

What thought processes you show here don't make you appear to be any different that the people you consider to be a scourge.Not better - not worse - just exactly the same. Perhaps if you were to actually talk about what you felt and what you believed in - and told us what you're doing to make the world a better place I'd have more of an interest in your views. But you keep skating around the issues and sitting on the fence.

I'm late - we're burning heathens down at the church tonight and it's my week to bring the matches.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 03:19 PM

Wesley--I don't think your question is anything like mine. In the case of red or blue bicycles, which ever choice you make, you end up with a bicycle. In the scenario I spelled out, you end up with life, or you end up with death. That might mean the same thing to you, if you believed in an afterlife, but...

          Further, I don't think I'm sitting on the fence. What I am saying--in response to the discussion about finding common ground and being tolerant--is, I'm not sure there is any common ground. It looks to me like, humanity is either going to come to the point where they will actually deal with reality, or they won't. If, in the end, they don't, I don't think mankind will survive as a species.

          You can call me a bigot, but I'm certainly not a Baptist.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 06:12 PM

Susan,

Secularists generally don't have "beliefs". They are non-believers. They don't find it necessary to articulate "beliefs". Many of us however are enthusiastic about seeing social justice and peace in the world. There have been many "secularists" who have worked tirelessly toward these ends with the goal of improving the conditions of men and women.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: GUEST,Annie P. from Omaha
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:18 PM

Too bad this has become a thread where a Christian tries to set the terms of discussion.

Celebrating the fact of Stark's statement is what interests me, not whether it's possible to make Susan comfortable.

There are many of us who live in this Christianist culture who have no need to affirm or reject any part of the theistic discussion; we live our lives, and celebrate every step toward a view more broad than the one which ends up at God.

What you don't see, Susan, is what you don't get.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 08:38 PM

Yes, you're right Annie P., it seems like we've lost track of what we set out to discuss here, the political courage of Pete Stark.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM

We need more politicians like Pete Stark. He represents true diversity in the US, not some warmed-over trumped-up religious inspired treacle that brings a lie to the so-called Brotherhood of Man. Let's see the religiously inspired show the same tolerance toward secularists, non-believers as we do to them. Let them practice what they preach.

In the meantime, as an American, I think people can believe whatever they want so long as it doesn't do harm to others. Unfortunately, religionists have in the majority have done considerable harm and continue to defend those extremists of whatever faith for continuing atrocities.

I still believe in the Separation of Church and State intended by Jefferson, Madison and even Adams.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 01:35 PM

Here's some interesting thinking.

Let's see the religiously inspired show the same tolerance toward secularists, non-believers as we do to them. Let them practice what they preach.

In the meantime, as an American, I think people can believe whatever they want so long as it doesn't do harm to others. Unfortunately, religionists have in the majority have done considerable harm and continue to defend those extremists of whatever faith for continuing atrocities.

OK-- bash the "religionists" in the same post where you call for tolerance. The usual result would be a polarized "religionist" reacting to this post by asking how many dead (aborted) babies you counted in your statistics, and the polarized secularists responding "tolerantly" be defending the "right" of abortion instead of understanding the pain they had caused with such an inflammatory post.

Yeah, there's no need to "seek to understand rather than to be understood." Better just to fling unsupported opinion as if "we" all not only "know" all thes same facts but should see them the same way and therefore DO see them the same way.

We ALL want to be "understood," but there's nothing "comfortable" about any of this, is there?

Yeah, why even try to reach greater understanding, or create a climate where it might eventually be possible-- we (human beans) prefer to fight.

I'm convinced.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 08:10 AM

"attempt to present a positive statement of their beliefs instead of the more common (but seriously worn-out) bashing of theists and/or theology."

Nuh!

Which is remarkably similar to the beliefs of the 'Anti-Evolutionists'...

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:18 PM

Susan

"OK-- bash the "religionists" in the same post where you call for tolerance."

I do call for tolerance. Religion has historically to answer for the crimes it has committed in society. Not all religionists do this, there are some who are moral people. There are those who do no harm in their belief system. Unfortunately, they enable those who do harm to survive.


" The usual result would be a polarized "religionist" reacting to this post by asking how many dead (aborted) babies you counted in your statistics, and the polarized secularists responding "tolerantly" be defending the "right" of abortion instead of understanding the pain they had caused with such an inflammatory post."

The right to "abortion", I prefer to call it "pro-choice" is an inalienable right. The right of women to keep from being crushed by the rock of religious paternalism is as important as the Black Civil Rights movement.

As to causing pain, religionists have been doing this to years to secular humanists and conveniently step away from this act by hiding behind some dogmatic dictum. Religion has caused pain to many and this must be faced by those who claim morality in light of their belief system.


"Yeah, there's no need to "seek to understand rather than to be understood." Better just to fling unsupported opinion as if "we" all not only "know" all thes same facts but should see them the same way and therefore DO see them the same way. "

There is nothing in religion that can claim supported scientific facts. I think that secularists can be sympathetic to cultural memes and how they turn into delusions without denegrating the person behind the belief.

"We ALL want to be "understood," but there's nothing "comfortable" about any of this, is there?"

Ultimately, being understood is about behavior and actions. Professing beliefs that can't be proven or disproven is easy.

"Yeah, why even try to reach greater understanding, or create a climate where it might eventually be possible-- we (human beans) prefer to fight."

The greater understanding is not necessarilly on the side of religion. Historically, it has obscured scientific understanding and placed the believers in a defensive posture that enables them to lash out angrilly when problems with their belief system are presented to them. Understanding is not always clear but in order for there to be a kind of understanding, the religious believers must accept their responsibility for muddy waters which lead to auto-de-fe's, gay-bashing, slavery, the destruction of women's rights, the trashing of science, the terrorism of anti-choice and the promotion of war and hypocritical greed, not to mention the fanatical behavior of suicidal terrorists and unrestrained "Dimionists".

"I'm convinced."

I'm not convinced of anything rigid. I believe that if science could show unequivocally the existence of a god, many secularists would be open to the idea and would change their minds. Unfortunately, religionists have created the climate whereby this question is not allowed in their arena. They refuse to apply scientific methods to determine this question.
Stephen Jay Gould referred to this as "NOMA", (no overlapping magesteria) where religion and science must in his mind always remain apart and science has no claim to question religion.

It's strange that whenever religion is questioned, the believer becomes sensitive and accusatory of the questioner somehow claiming that the sancrosanct belief is being attacked. And yet, the reverse behavior by the religionist toward the secularist is usually never respected. At least not in the USA where a secularist non-believer can never successfully run for government office.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 05:48 PM

I don't know. The religious-right seems to be on the run now. Maybe a new dawn is breaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:43 PM

"a new dawn is breaking."

Swaggart dropped his pants again?

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bee
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:49 AM

Getting back to Pete Stark, he has received more support and approval than he expected. From the San Fransisco Gate:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/18/BAG7SONBNL1.DTL

However:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/03/cwas_religion_t.html

"Concerned Women for America Director of Legislative Relations Mike Mears told Cybercast News Service.
"The founding fathers ... founded this country on godly principles," Mears said. "Fifty-one of the 56 signers [of the Declaration of Independence] had a Christian worldview and [Stark] wants to change that and celebrate - basically - godlessness."

"I think a Christian worldview is proper for a politician to have," he said. "I want them to be looking outside of themselves for answers to big issues."


...and assorted quotes from the Traditional Values Coalition: Sample: "It is time for religious members of Congress to push back. A simple declaration of a belief in God by members of Congress on the House floor will be greatly informative for the American people."

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/03/tvcs_religious.html

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:50 AM

"I want them to be looking outside of themselves for answers to big issues."

       Looking outside of themselves for answers seems to me to be the biggest part of the problem. It they just applied a little common sense and followed their individual consciences the country would certainly be a better place.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:21 AM

Everybody talks about what the Founding Fathers did. Jefferson was a Deist who did not believe this was a Christian nation. Tom Paine also did not believe this. He was imprisoned for writing "The Age of Reason".

The Founding Fathers for the most part were propertied white land owners who gained office by their wealth, though less than their British counterparts, but let the poor young white men fight the Revolutionary war. Blacks, Indians and women were always second-class citizens. In some respects, things haven't changed. The poor still fight the wars.

None of the Founding Fathers could be said to be really "Christian" in the way the Right-wingnuts claim, but many mouthed a lot of pseudo-religious platitudes. There were times when people were forced to pay taxes to Christian organizations and some were arrested for not going to church despite Tom Jefferson's warning in the First Amendment.

There has always been this conflict between the classes based on religious and patriotic platitudes to defend the wealthy.

Today, The Dominionists are dangerously attempting a "palace coup" and the Christian Nationalists although a minority group are gaining support from members of the GOP.

The moderate Christians who claim immunity from the Dominionists are very much like the moderate Muslims. Neither group is screaming loud enough about the takeover of their religion and its alliance with corporate interests, theocratic or military dictatorships.

Religion as well as patriotism may be "the last refuge of scoundrel".

Frank Hamilton