BS: secular humanism

Subject: BS: secular humanism
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 07:13 PM

"We're putting the evolutionists and secular humanists on notice," says Ham, who has lived in America for 18 years. "We're coming to take back what rightfully belongs to God's word - what rightfully belongs to the Christian faith."

As a secular humanist threatened now on both sides by Muslim and Christian fundamentalism, I'm looking for someone, some political grouping or something! I can join to fight this backward step to the Dark Ages. There are many of us, but unless we get some organisation going soon, we'll be swamped by the righteous, and that always leads to slaughter of the innocents. Where can we go to organise defence?

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 07:47 PM

I did not now I was a secular humanist until I was 15 and the hospital required I put a religion on my wrist band. I wrote secular humanist. It surprised both my parents.

IF intelligent design fails or not, the religious right is now pushing thier educational Bill of Rights. It will require that all professors will be required to offer an opposing point of view.
SOunds Socratic on the surface doesn;t it?

This has become state legislation as the result of 3 anecdotal incidents in which Christian right wing conservative students said they were frightend, scared and intimidated by liberal professors.
They felt segregated and discriminated against. These kids were scared to talk...or so they profess.

Secularism is now being attacked as if is a belief devoid of knowing right from wrong. The FM dial is filling up with Christian Rock which my 5 year old never fails to point out "I don't like that!". Fiath based everything is not good enough. What is good enough are US military academy's that practice religious, race and sex discrimination to the point of murder and rape.

Yes I am like a recording but whatever the humanist will say the religious right will turn it around and use it as thier own accusation against the left.



If a secular humanist says "we are being attacked by the religious right and are scared for our jobs, ourselves and our children", the right will claim that the godless liberals are crazy whiners and have made this a terrible world that only God can set right again.

The right has now been able to turn back domestic violence laws so that a person in the military will not have to face charges or have a criminal abuse record IF THEY ONLY GO to a Christ in Action "say you're sorry" meeting.

Bill Bennet tells us crime can be reduced via black genocide.
Bush said at his press coference yesterday he is dissappointe with blacks. Afterall he did with no child left behind and appointing people of color to his cabinate the balck voters did not turn out in the numbers he had hoped.


The religious movement is serious.
The RWcons are as serious as a judge (who incidently has never been a judge before but do the right favor for your boss and you too can have a top notch job) and are willing to prosecute people for: non faith, wrong sex, wrong politics, and eventually the wrong faith.

Yep serious as a judge.

got any suggestions?

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: gnu
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 08:48 PM

.... "Where can we go to organise defence?"

Vote.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 08:52 PM

Erasmus, call your office.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Peace
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 08:54 PM

Start here!

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:01 AM

Even in the largely- irreligious UK, the government is handing over state schools to Christian activists. While it's amusing to hear Christian fundamentalists complaining about Moslem fundamentalism, the power of the religious right is growing alarmingly. They will overreach themselves eventually, but the potential for damage in the meantime is huge.

Here's a British organsiation to go with the link above:

British Humanist Association

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 09:47 AM

You don't have to start a new organization; just look around for those that already exist.

American Atheists
American Humanist Association
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Atheist Alliance
Council for Secular Humanism
Freedom From Religion Foundation
International Humanist and Ethical Union
NoBeliefs.com (Freethinkers)
Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism
The Brights

Hint: Go to one of these web pages and then use Google to find "similar pages." It's really easy with the Google Toolbar.

Aternative method: Use something like this as your search argument in Google:
related:http://www.secularhumanism.org/

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 10:19 AM

"Secular humanists" are not synonymous with atheists. It doesn't mean they have no beliefs. It means they choose to hold their beliefs privately and want others to hold their beliefs privately. They want a civil society in which religion doesn't take a front seat. a brief definition

Secular humanism is a position, it isn't a religion. Those who hold this position want a general public (legislative, educational, and social) venue that isn't dictated by the religion of one or two groups of people. They crave a true separation of church and state, and they hold the humanist beliefs that are meant to benefit all, regardless of their declared religion. Unfortunately, there are too many industrial religions that are threatened by "and justice for all" or "and access for all" or "and reasonable conditions for all" that are stated or implied in seminal American founding documents and their amendments.

Guest, unless you sign on as a regular member or a guest with a consistent name, you are not contributing anything worthwhile to this cause of yours, as laudable as it is. You might get terribly ironic and decide to call yourself Cassandra, but call yourself something or you will be lost in the arguing mix of guests. Pull up your socks, get yourself a name, and take your cause seriously.

Seriously.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Seiri Omaar
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 10:47 AM

"Listen to me people
I have the sight
Won't you have the ears to hear the truth
Won't you have the strength to stop this fight
Which can only lead to the flames
And to the endless night."
~"Kassandra", Eileen McGann
Ironic indeed!

Click here
Useful links at the bottom of the page.

Cheers, Seiri.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:37 AM

Bravo on your exposition SRS.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:40 AM

Good one, SRS. Bien dit!

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:16 PM

I heard an interview with Gloria Steinem many years ago. She told of being transported across a campus to where she would speak, and saw a group waving signs that said "Gloria Steinem is a Secular Humanist!" She was pleased to see these signs, then saw their faces, and realized they were turning the term into an accusation.

It's time to take back some territory. And probably time to read some Marx.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: pdq
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:36 PM

Starting in the United Sates and Great Britain, we produced a new religion in the 1960s.

The religion is called Hip and its followers called Hippies.

Primary Sacrament: smoking pot

Essentially polytheistic, the deities are: electric guitar players

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 01:00 PM

Of course it is not a religion.
But it was still cool to put it on the hospital wrist band.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 01:33 PM

Don, I should clarify, as with the Steinem remark above: it isn't a religion, but it is TREATED like a religion by those who want to put their religions in charge. It's the straw man in this argument, the "religion" it is okay to discriminate against. "They're bad, we're better. We're moral, we're righteous. They have no god, so they can't have morality." (Morality is a term that didn't start with christianity, by the way, it was co-opted). Can't beat up on minorities, women, or organized religions (in theory) but no one is out there defending this amorphous group of citizens with a homogenous wish for a secular state.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:02 PM

I have always felt that the kind of morals that rested on codes of agreement arbitrarily imposed -- such as when to eat what, how long a skirt should be, which words must be banned, and other finicky Grundyisms -- were anathema to the inherent ethical sense of the the individual spirit. I believe that justice is not a code but an innate power of perception, as are aesthetics and (when undampened) the sense of ethics and right action.

But these powers are easily buried by dumping blame, invalidation, and the sewage of reactionary opinion all over them until their used is untrusted by the owner.

Unfortunately, children are easily dumped on in this way, carpeted with random and untried opinionation; and they have to suck it up, since their existence is dependent on very large bodies with (sometimes) very small brains telling them what to do. Kind of like growing up being raised by a meat-eating dinosaur. It may keep you alive long enough to grow large, but do you really want to base your code of ethics on their instruction?

A

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:02 PM

I have always felt that the kind of morals that rested on codes of agreement arbitrarily imposed -- such as when to eat what, how long a skirt should be, which words must be banned, and other finicky Grundyisms -- were anathema to the inherent ethical sense of the the individual spirit. I believe that justice is not a code but an innate power of perception, as are aesthetics and (when undampened) the sense of ethics and right action.

But these powers are easily buried by dumping blame, invalidation, and the sewage of reactionary opinion all over them until their use is untrusted by the owner.

Unfortunately, children are easily dumped on in this way, carpeted with random and untried opinionation; and they have to suck it up, since their existence is dependent on very large bodies with (sometimes) very small brains telling them what to do. Kind of like growing up being raised by a meat-eating dinosaur. It may keep you alive long enough to grow large, but do you really want to base your code of ethics on their instruction?

A

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:46 PM

Sorry for the double post. Perhaps it was worth saying twice? :)


A

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: GUEST,A Face in the Crowd
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:59 PM

Never met a Fundamentalist that a bullet wouldn't stop. And Americans don't take kindly to anyone who tries to tell them what to do--so the very noisy religious fringes can only push so far before people start to push back.   Don't misunderstand me-- I am not advocating this, I am only pointing it out--

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Piers
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:05 PM

I have been wondering why you were bothering to add 'secular' to 'humanism', but I see - from a quick google - there are deep confusionists who call themselves 'christian humanists'.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Grab
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:20 PM

Guest AFitC, the Americans I know personally are rightly like that - good, sensible people. However I'm aware there are areas of the US where the "very noisy religious fringe" are seen as the role models, and everyone else feels ashamed they can't live up to the same high moral standards as their idols. Idols like Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, et al. I know a few Brits like that too - I'm considering investing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster T-shirt for the next gathering they're likely to be at, since I can't hack much more religious music. Ho hum, such is life.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:22 PM

Donuel, when I was faced with that question in hospital many years ago I put "Leeds United" but now I'm an aetheist.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 07:21 PM

As the guest who started this thread,I appreciate the opinions. I knew about the Humanist Associations, I suppose what I need is some sort of political party/organisation that doesn't evoke God at every turn. Here in the UK we have a labour Govt backing religious schools, something my Labour voting father would have found completely unbelievable. The Tories and the Liberals also evoke God at every opportunity. Who speaks for us, the majority of the British who do not believe in magic and superstition?

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 10:40 PM

The same tough call here. Who in their right mind would run for office if they don't practice a religion and have the backing of the holy rollers in town--they'd be smeared by all of the self-righteous christians. "Holier-than-thou" is a real problem in politics.

That is not to say that all people who practice a religion act this way. I can say emphatcially that they don't. But those who do act this way act as though they speak for all. There are people gullible enough to believe them.

Today on one of the news talk programs on NPR they were enumerating the problems that are beginning to heap upon the Bush administration. Voters are beginning to grumble.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Piers
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 04:38 AM

The SPGB is probably the only avowedly atheist political party in existence.

Not only have we consistently advocated world socialism - a fully democratic society based upon co-operation and production for use -, opposed every single war, opposed every single government and been a democratic and leaderless organization since 1904. We have consistently stated that religion is guff and an anti-social force. This was massively controversial in the early days of the party. The Socialism and Religion (1911) pamphlet is still popular, and recent editions of our journal contain pieces on religion (e.g.
here,
here and here).

See also here.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 06:01 AM

I feel so sorry for my fellow humanists who are in America. In Australia the situation is OK-ish despite our tedious little Christian Bush-loving grey turd of a Prime Minister. I wish you all the best in combating religious stupidity and turning America into a sensible country.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 06:18 AM

Interesting theme, and would like to say a lot about humanism and false fundamental creeds - but I never answer anonymus threads.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 12:00 PM

Well, Wilfried, there are a number of us here who aren't anonymous who are also discussing the topic. Talk with us. What's your take on this?

Personally, I think all of this religiosity suits big business just fine. It's a buffer between what is actually happening in the U.S. between business and government, a smoke screen, as it were. I'm not going out into the lunatic fringe when I suggest that Bush is a handmaiden of big business, who despite the plea for a trained workforce, still want to keep them as stupid as possible. (This is in a very permeable nutshell in which I have encapsulated this idea, but I have some other stuff to do this morning, so will expand on the topic later if anyone is interested).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 12:18 PM

The very few times I have been required to state a religious preference so as not to leave a form with a blank space, I have put something like "Reformed Druid"...it makes the point.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 12:25 PM

SRS I was with you on your first exposition of Secular Humanism and your urge to 'Guest' to 'grow a pair' and get a name.

However, I don't know what good you expect to get out of Marx that can't be gotten from a lot better sources. Marx was deified and turned into something pretty nasty for a pretty long time, which was treated as a religion even though it claimed to be atheistic.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 01:56 PM

robomatic, I'm speaking from the position of one who has read theory. Marx is perfectly acceptible today as another POV in philosophy and literary discussions.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 02:22 PM

Guff? Wow!!! I haven't heard that word used in a long time--though more recently than 1911--

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 02:44 PM

Peter,

I am "comfortable" as both a humanist and an athiest.

In fact the person who conducted our wedding ceremony was Madelin Murry O'Hare's son.
As you know she was a famous atheist who turned up missing and presummed dead.

Comfortable is probably the wrong word since it is a challenge to hold these beliefs. My creed is seemingly more feared by my neighbors than they are of the muslim woman who lives nearby.

The double standard is palatable. If Bill Frist says stem cell research is good, he is not bad since he is still a god fearing blah blah.
If I say stem cell research is good I am not good because I am a godless blah blah.

With the behavior of my son's principal lately I am becoming more suspect that non believers and their children can and will be punished by the people of faith. I would prefer to believe that stupidity and two faced ass holes are the main cause of silly disputes. But then again it seems they go hand in hand quite often.

The most these people can do is bear false witness against their neighbor or kill them. But their God will forgive them.



(:p)

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 03:28 PM

Let's see. . . I consider myself a religious person, albeit in a non-traditional sense; but I do hold my beliefs privately and believe in the right for others to do the same. So what does that make me?

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 03:54 PM

A religious, albeit in a non-traditional sense; that holds their beliefs privately and believes in the right for others to do the same, kinda person







































;?

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Amos
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 04:11 PM

Bush has also been reported as having avowed that the reason he went into Iraq, the reason behind his military adventure in Afghanistan, and his reason for seeking peace between Palestine and Israel is because God, addressing him by his first name (which is George), told him to go forth and do these things.

This makes a lot of sense. I have been getting some very dramatic suggestions myself, of late, from Harvey, lately, my large rabbit friend. He, too, addresses me by my first name. Don't tell George; he wouldn't like the suggestions Harvey is making. But I don't care; I am getting my marching orders from a higher plane, and mere mortals would be well advised not to stand in the way of Harvey's Plan.


A

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 04:18 PM

We choose to call ourselves various things according to our beliefs, and we are, without-our-say-so, called things by others who want to pigeonhole us. Calling someone what they want to be called is the most courteous way to interact, but those who want to diminish the agency of others will try to make the labels they apply to others negative, memorable, and sticky (as in, hard to shake). It makes it much easier to lead the rest who haven't thought it out for themselves. Jingoistic approaches to smearing the ideas of others is de rigurer for conservative zealots and those who can't win an argument on its merits. Best to not discuss the facts or issues at all, just smear your opponents.

Secular humanism isn't an opposite to religion. These aren't simple binaries to be set out for an up or down vote (as the Bush administration is so fond of calling for). Secular humanism says you can have your religion and a civil society, too, as long as you don't mix them together.

Rather than set a noose in the trail for someone to trip on, just tell us what you choose to call yourself.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 10:36 PM

Ummm "Secular humanists" are not synonymous with atheists. It doesn't mean they have no beliefs. " - Excuse me? Atheists don't have no beliefs, if you'll forgive the double negative... they believe quite strongly, I would say to the point of knowing, that the natural world is all there is and there is no need to posit any supernatural forces. In other words, it's not that they don't believe in god(s), they believe there aren't any.
I know of secular humanist groups who WANT to it to be defined as a religion so that they can get the tax exemptions...

Anybody going to the Atheists In Foxholes brouhaha in DC on Armistice Day?

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 10:46 PM

You're right--it's a rejection of the monotheistic religions for the most part. It was a shortcut on my part to jump straight to the "have no belief's" statement. "Have no interest whatsoever in organized religion" would work better.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:01 AM

Abortion.
Astrology.
Blair.
Bush.
Phelps.
Time to revive this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:04 AM

Why, are you proselytizing?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:11 AM

He's probably pushing back--the proselytizers have had their say recently.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM

Sorry for the tardy response.Something came up.
No, WYSIWYG I'm not proselytising,which would be superfluous in matters relating to free thought.
It is very much as Stilly River Stage says.
Just felt the need to remind people that there are alternatives,possibilities & choices.
Consider the "Christian Right" if they have now reached the stage where they are scared of a bare-breasted statue, is their any reason why we should fear them?
I would argue that at a level the answer may be yes.
This is because their Political influence is getting very strong.
"The sleep of reason produces nightmares."
The victories of the enlightenment were hard won.
A return to the values of the dark ages is not an appealing prospect, but it doesn't have to be this way.
If that makes sense you are not alone
The Moral Majority is neither Moral nor a Majority.
Anyone else still thinking on similar lines?

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Pied Piper
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:07 PM

In the UK people that regularly attend Church, Chapel, Temple, Synagogue, and Mosque make up only 10% of the population, lets say 10% (probably a lot less) of these are the wilfully ignorant, who choose to ignore evidence because it invalidates their beliefs. That leaves about 1% dangerous self-indulgent moral cowards, a very small minority.
Of cause being the gobby self-righteous rantors that they are, they are disproportionately represented in the media.
The situation in the US is probably not as good but I can't see the rabid snake-handlers making up more than 10% of the population at the very outside.
Here in the UK if more than 250,000 people claim they are of a certain religion in a census then the religion becomes an official religion for legislative purposes and gets the same rights as other religions. At the last census Jedi became an officially recognised religion by this mechanism. Though I don't believe in God I don't see my atheism as a religion any more than my Afatherchritmasism or my Atoothfairyism, but given the situation if next time round we put Atheist in the religion section maybe we can get the same rights as the religious.
Taking things a little further I think we'll need some form of distinctive head gear that we will maintain it is are right to ware at all times. Might I suggest a see-through plastic Bowler (Derby) hat.
If all this is successful I will be running secret camps in the lake district where the religious virtues, such as turning into a mob at the drop of a hat, hypocrisy, and self-righteous-indignation will be taught, along with the use of readily available accelerants for the purpose of burning national symbols.



PP

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM

This is the official line: the Census does not provide recognition to any religion in the official statistics nor does it attempt to define religion. The list that you can see by checking out the pdf file above is merely a list of possible answers that people have been known to put in the box marked religion.

As such, Jedi Knight is not officially recognised as a religion on the basis of the census.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:22 PM

Just felt the need to remind people that there are alternatives, possibilities & choices.

Well, thanks, PF-- that's interesting, because whenever some people hear a Christian do exactly that, it's called proselytizing. I'll just refer them to this thread next time it comes up. :~) Or maybe some of my secular humanist friends will beat me to it. :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:23 PM

Now I just put down "none" when asked for my religion.

In the past I've put FRIZBETARIAN on my hospital wrist band.

They believe that when you die your soul gets stuck on the roof...

Art

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:24 PM

Indeed the criteria for recognition of a religion under British law are so difficult to meet,that Rastafarians have repeatedly failed to qualify since inception.
The "Jedi" thing was just impressionable fanboys believing their own propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:55 PM

I'm happy to proselytise secular humanism - it's called rational discourse. Christians tell me they have an imaginary friend, and I sigh and start talking about our need for gods.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM

Our problem is the Xian right raise money for lobbying and organising to bring their beliefs into our lives. There is no counter otganisation for secularists to oppose these practices. We have to organise like a political party I feel before it's too late. Maybe we should become a political party? How to combat their organisation and wealth is the question i think needs to be addressed quickly.Soon in the UK they will be establishing more and more faith schools bringing in the madness of American fundamentalism. More and more kids will be brainwashed. We need to establish secular schools, but does the legislation coming in allow that as we profess no faith?

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:54 PM

There is a Humanist Party in the U.K.(www.Humanistparty.org.uk)
Though I sometimes wonder if we won't end up with a situation where every person in Britain who is of the "Left"( in the broadest possible sense of the term) might end up with a party each.
Every year the number of such parties seems to increase but the membership doesn't.
As far as our own Schools go that would be divisive.
Also we have a State Religion & an unsympathetic Government.
WYSIWYG.the alternatives,possibilities & choices include Christianity.
It is for the individual to evaluate what is right for them.
I am not down on Christianity per se (I am very happily married to a practicing Christian)
However I don't think many Christians could give an impartial or objective inroad into Humanist thought.
The original message in this thread is a reminder of that.
The term "Proselytising" has developed negative connotations now.
"Believe exactly as I do or burn in hell." is not a great pair of options.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: PoppaGator
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:18 PM

The fundamentalist-right kooks VOTE, in large numbers, and often vote on a single-issue basis, while most of the rest of us don't.

The cynical neocon ruling class takes full advantage. All they have to do is declare their "moral" position (which usually involves stomping on other people's rights, or at least demonizing some unpopular minority as a scapegoat), and they are given carte blanche to start wars based on lies, to appoint their frat brothers to critical positions of authority, to grant huge no-bid contracts at the first sign of a massive human tragedy, etc.

Not all of these right-wing bigwigs are hypocrites ~ I'm sure a fair number of them actually are believers, pretty much as they present themselves to the public ~ but I have no doubt that many of them are the most cynical and dishonest type of opportunists. I'm sure that there is more than one bigmouthed antiabortionist who has paid off an ex-girlfriend or two or three to "get rid of a problem" by terminating a pregnancy. I know of one such case personally: in this case, the father who has never met nor acknowledged his son, born in defiance of his wish to arrange for an abortion, is not a politician, but he is a prominently sanctimonious citizen and highly visible "pillar of the church." This asshole may indeed sincerely believe that abortion is wrong, but he has chosen to keep his nasty secret rather than effectively atone for his sin by contributing to the support of his own flesh and blood.

What a shame that so many good salt-of-the-earth people are so easily and cynically manipulated to vote in direct opposition to their own interests, economic and otherwise.

As for myself, I'm a believer (albeit an unconventional one), definitely not an atheist (How can they be so sure that there is no spiritual realm? Isn't it faith, of sorts?). However, I certainly do consider myself a secular humanist. And I am reasonably certain that I share this orientation with the US "Founding Fathers," most of whom were Deists who may or may not have attended church occasionally.

Subject: RE: BS: secular humanism
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:44 PM

PoppaGator like myself Leo Strauss (Intellectual father of the U.S. Neocons)was an Atheist but he advocated a pretence of religion amongst his students because this had political advantage.
This was not a new idea it goes back at least as far as Machievelli but I believe it shows you are right to speak of the "Cynical & dishonest type of opportunists." in their midst.
BTW You might like to read a post by Paul Burke on a recent thread about belief in god for a view of spirituality which might impress you.