BS: Confessions of Pete Stark

Subject: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 09:28 AM

It was encouraging to see Pete Stark come forward and to announce he was skeptical about a supreme being.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: bobad
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 09:34 AM

"On March 12, 2007, Stark became the first member of Congress to openly acknowledge that he did not hold a "god-belief"[3] and that he identifies as a Unitarian.[4] He wrote, "I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."[5]

Stark is a peace advocate. He also supports increasing the availability of health care, revitalizing the economy, and protecting the environment."

Hear! Hear!

From Wikipedia.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bee
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:07 AM

Pharyngula had a piece about him yesterday. Unfortunately, the man is seventy-five and likely will retire in a year or so, and the only three other elected officials willing to admit to their godlessness were very low level in terms of influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:11 AM

Once again I renew a friendly invitation to secularists:

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

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:14 AM

Here's one example showing it CAN be done, without any negative reference to whatever belief system one may have rejected:

... theory provides a model of what a human being can be like in the area of his/her interaction with other human beings and his/her environment. The theory assumes that everyone is born with tremendous intellectual potential, natural zest, and lovingness...

From www.rc.org

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:15 AM

For those of you like myself how havn't heard of him - he represents California's 13th district in Congress.

Pete Starks website

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bee
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:24 AM

Susan, not one of the comments so far posted in this thread made negative or 'bashing' remarks against any particular faith, unless you count the quote from Stark himself: "I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."

Most of us secularists are not interested in 'bashing', but in preventing religious beliefs such as the commonly held religious prohibition against homosexuality from becoming law. This often requires strenuous argument with people who, because they believe 'God said so', are extremely unwilling to live and let live, and we have only to look to certain Islamic states to see how well that works.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:30 AM

Bee,

My invitation to make the attempt was not a criticism of what had been posted, but a genuine invitation to try a different approach than the usual sh*t-flinging these sorts of threads have always become here at Mudcat.

I renew the challenge to make one's case without giving in to the felt need to argue God with believers-- and believe me, the case would be so much stronger if people didn't let the rigid religious right drive the agenda by responding to it negatively. In fact, people could make a lot more hay with them by using their stated beliefs to respond to their positions, if they didn't allow themselves to be drawn into a He Said/She Said debate on belief itself.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:43 AM

There are a vast number of ways of conceiving of spiritual meaning or purpose in life. They do not all necessarily involve the concept of believing in "a supreme being".

If there were a supreme being, would it have to be seen as separate from oneself?

And if so, how would that be likely or even possible?

People operate on a great many assumptions, most of which they have thoughtlessly acquired when quite young from their parents, their society, their culture.

Most of those assumptions are arbitrary. Most of those assumptions are open to question, but most people never question them and they usually get upset if someone else does.

The one thing people are most afraid of admitting is this: how little they really know. This is particularly true of our highest authority figures such as scientists, doctors, politicians, military leaders, business leaders, and religious leaders. What they know is the tiniest fragment of what is out there to know.

They lack humility. They are afraid to admit to how little they know.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bee
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 11:01 AM

Susan, if I say, to a group of people of faith who firmly believe God says homosexuality (using that as an example; it isn't the single difficulty) is a sin, and that marriage cannot be entered into by same sex couples, that I don't think that their belief is a good reason to make laws against same sex marriage, or indeed, same sex relationships, I won't get anywhere no matter how I couch my argument, because that set of people of faith believes a supreme being to whom they owe first and full allegiance has set the resolution of the matter in stone.

How can my human argument, however reasoned and polite, compete with that of the supposed creator of the universe in these peoples' minds? This leads to feelings of futility in secularists like myself, and some of us then resort to the usual primate poo-flinging to express our feelings. I have had many polite discussions with theists, but eventually, it is I who must give up, because the person of faith will not see my point from behind the veil of his desire to please the invisible.

I recently had a long discussion with a lovely and intelligent man regarding the various scriptural references to women as lesser beings. The man is essentially a feminist, and he made an admirable effort to construct an apologetic interpreting these scriptures as supportive of women as equals to men, but with differing roles within the church only. Where it fell down for me was where the role of the man was to be the 'spokesperson' to God for the family, and he could not explain why, women being equal, they were not to take on that role. He could not see why I saw that as a problem, that if God himself defines one gender as more desireable to speak with than the other, we have a problem. I gave up politely, but I could have allowed my frustration with his blindness to surface in open anger.

The moral of that anecdote is as I have been trying to say: faith often makes people apparently blind.

As an aside, there are faith groups (The United Church of Canada, for example) who embrace same sex couples, but they are few.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 11:13 AM

LH,

I think people confuse religious belief with justification for how others ought to make decisions. This springs mostly from the very active and successful PR campaign of the RRR (Rigid Religious Right) to appear to promulgate religion when what they are really promoting is political action camouflaged under a thin veneer of belief. Or sometimes they're doing the reverse-- it's actually just a shell-game but people fall for it all the time.

I don't think they're afraid to admit what they don't know-- IMO they just are so urgent about their politics that they use religion to justify them. Lefties do it too-- use values to justify action-- but a little less effectively in recent times, so it's the righties that get the attention.

And it all turns on mutual negativity.

Mutual positivity can actually be sparked from ANY belief system, and can be quite compelling with far more return and far less effort than negativity.

Another frequently-made assumption that is just not correct is that theists and humanists are opposite and therefore mutually exclusive and therefore in opposition. First, even if the first two parts of that chain-assumption were correct, it would not logically have to follow that the end conclusion is true, because people are smarter than whatever conditioning they can be whipped into evincing.

But each link in that chain is factually erroneous. Example: I started as a radical humanist, by most people's standards. I am, now, also a believer. I have not had to fudge at ALL on the humanist core beliefs I brought to that experience of faith, not do I find any reason to fudge on the religious side in order to accommodate the humanist orientation. I am truly both theist and humanist, in equal balance.

Yet both humanists and theists have, in many instances, seen only an enemy where in fact they have a potential friend, and a tireless and creative strategist, to boot.

Under the negativity there is usually urgency. When people zoom out a tad on their upsets, the world is much more handle-able.

Someone asked me recently what are my thoughts about some of the well-publicized upsets among churches in the Anglicanm Communion. I wrote a long and I hope helpful reply, but the short answer would have been that tonight as every Wednesday in Lent, our area parishes will get together in fellowship for a Lenten meal and brief worship. We have icy mountains between us in the wonter, even an "easy" winter. We all look forward to the Lenten series and are eager to be together.

The food and the liturgy are the same week after week, whether hosted by the most conservative parish in the bunch or the most liberal-- because one benefit from the Anglican approach can be that we can choose to focus on our commonalities and relationships rather than on our politics-- whether they be church-politics of worldly-politics. But then, we're rural folk-- we know that when the house catches fire, it will be the neighborly volunteer who drives the fire truck or passes the buckets of water from the creek. Politics don't enter into THAT.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 11:18 AM

Bee, we cross-posted. I probably would have won that argument, because I would have taken it further using Biblical points and I would not have given up in frustration. Think about martial arts and how they the opponent's force not in direct opposition, but in a more effective manner.

And YOU would have won that argument, exactly as you conducted it, with many Christians-- at least, the ones not already voting as you might like them to vote.

Don't let the RRR fool you into thinking they are the majority just because they say they are. Their pants are on fire!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bee
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:12 PM

Susan, at least for me, the point is not necessarily to win arguments, but to clearly see the other's position, and have them see mine, and hopefully come to an agreement that satisfies both without infringing on the rights of either.

Using the long suffering same sex couple as an example again: there are a few churches willing to welcome and marry them. There are many churches which will not. That works, no one is forced or outrageously limited in choice. But if a prohibitive law is passed, due to religious beliefs of voters (never mind the RRR), that, IMO, is not right, it is persecution based on god belief. There is no doubt in my mind that there is danger of this happening, and I fear most mainstream churches will not fight for the rights of those they deem to be anti-god.

My dear mum is the nicest, most devout person in the world; I know she would take in, feed and clothe a starving gay person, but she very nearly left the church over its pro same sex marriage stance. Which is to say, it does not matter how intelligent, tolerant, loving, a theist is: their buck always stops at the pronouncement of god, beyond which no human argument can penetrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: bobad
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:20 PM

Does anyone think Pete Stark's announcement will have any effect on the religion in politics issue in the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:21 PM

... it does not matter how intelligent, tolerant, loving, a theist is: their buck always stops at the pronouncement of god, beyond which no human argument can penetrate.

Bee, I'm sorry you and your mum didn't see eye to eye, but what I am saying is that there is a basis in theology from which to argue your point. To base your efforts on anything else will not get you very far. Seeing all theists and all theology from the narrow view isn't working, right?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:51 PM

"Does anyone think Pete Stark's announcement will have any effect on the religion in politics issue in the US?"


      Probably not, but he must have been Stark raving mad to have rendered him self Stark naked.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:52 PM

Everyone has various rock-solid assumptions based on faith, and no amount of argument will sway them when it comes to those assumptions. This is true of non-religious people, religious people, and people who can't be simply fit into either of those two categories.

It is only someone else's assumptions that normally seem "irrational" to people in any of those various groups. They don't realize that their own assumptions may be similarly arbitrary.

We all act to some extent on faith, faith that is based on assumptions so deeply imbedded in our consciousness that we are probably not even aware that they are only assumptions, not certainties.

To put it another way, every civilization bases itself on its own prevailing set of popular myths...and believes in them implicitly. The same is true of every religious and non-religious hierarchichal structure.

A few examples:

Most people believe that germs "cause" disease. That's an assumption. There may be another cause entirely, and the germs may be part of the involved phenomena that are observable, but not the cause. If, however, you believe implicity that germs cause disease, you'll get downright angry that I should even suggest that!

I don't know whether or not germs truly cause disease. I'm willing to consider it a possibility. I do not consider it a certainty.

Many Christians believe that the Bible is "God's Word". As such, they consider it an unimpeachable source of Truth. They make that assumption. It's only an assumption. I don't necessarily buy that assumption.

Other people buy the popular "theory of evolution" and various other scientific theories the same way....as unquestionable gospel. Same deal. I don't necessarily buy those assumptions either, though I think they may be partially correct or at least offer some useful perspective on something.

UFOs. Almost everybody jumps to fast conclusions about that one, based on their assumptions. Their assumptions ain't worth much, given their lack of real knowledge or personal experience! That's all I'll say about it.

And so on, and so on...

It's all up for grabs. If people would just admit that they don't KNOW the whole truth about these things, and be willing to discuss alternative possibilities in a relatively calm and unprejudiced way...life would be a lot more interesting and our relations with one another would be a lot less disrespectful.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bee
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:35 PM

"but what I am saying is that there is a basis in theology from which to argue your point. To base your efforts on anything else will not get you very far. Seeing all theists and all theology from the narrow view isn't working, right?" - WYSIWYG

But Susan, why must my point be argued from a theological basis? I am not a theist. Surely my point can and must be argued from a secular stance, from the premises of logic, reason and humanity. Your stance is exactly what I am objecting to, and the point I am trying to make. Theists will not respond to argument outside of theology. And I am 'outside of theology', although, by background and through interest I know a fair amount of theology, and am likely more biblically well-read than many theists.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

Would you enjoy someone proselytizing to you in response to your position? If you are presenting your argument as, basically, an argument agsinst their beliefs, then the respect factor is already gone before you can try to weave it. If you want to see things from their perspective, why not try to enlarge their understanding from that starting point if it can be done?

Wouldn't it be a powerful argument to suggest that God, as they know Him, agrees with your viewpoint and that therefore the issue transcends their own limited, human view?

If your agenda is to remove their faith before gaining agreement, that is a self-defeating effort. On the other hand, letting them know that faith and humanism can agree is a much easier task. You might be surprised how far a non-oppositional conversation could lead.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:43 PM

PS Bee-- (I'm multitasking today)

the point is not necessarily to win arguments, but to clearly see the other's position, and have them see mine, and hopefully come to an agreement that satisfies both without infringing on the rights of either.

Me too. That's what I'm desribing, but I am not sure it's getting in very far before you reject it as being merely more of what has already frustrated you.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: bobad
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:49 PM

It's best for non-theists to not discuss theology with theists and vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:01 PM

Well, that's a good way to prevent people from learning from one another. It can be done without harm, if one knows how to do it.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:01 PM

But everyone wants to be "right". And "live and let live" falls by the wayside.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:01 PM

wow. A Democrat who doesn't believe in God. Who would have ever thought it possible?

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:13 PM

Democrats and Republicans both believe in one thing: getting elected.

If professing faith in God assists them in that objective, you will find most of them doing it on frequent occasions. If not, you won't.

Canadian politicians, for instance, don't tend to talk much about their faith in God when making speeches, because it wouldn't be considered particularly relevant or appropriate by the majority of Canadians. It would strike them as a bit odd. That's not because most Canadians don't believe in God, it's because they don't believe in purposefully dragging religion into the political arena as a form of emotional pressure tactic against one's opponents. It would be seen as embarrassing and inappropriate behaviour.

And thank God for that! (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:17 PM

A slight aside here but still relevant: My mother was a devout fundamentalist and there were a good many things that to her mind were just not debatable.

But I have always respected her response to something I said one day, half facetiously.

I said, I tell myself that since every one of the people who have ever lived eventually died, if they can do it, so can I - and then I realize, they couldn't do it, it killed them. Do you see my dilemma?

And she said reflectively, Yes. I see it.

She had put aside her instinctive impulse to 'preach' and actually listened.

Put a sock in it, John H. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bee
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:24 PM

"Would you enjoy someone proselytizing to you in response to your position? If you are presenting your argument as, basically, an argument agsinst their beliefs, then the respect factor is already gone before you can try to weave it. If you want to see things from their perspective, why not try to enlarge their understanding from that starting point if it can be done?

Wouldn't it be a powerful argument to suggest that God, as they know Him, agrees with your viewpoint and that therefore the issue transcends their own limited, human view?

If your agenda is to remove their faith before gaining agreement, that is a self-defeating effort. On the other hand, letting them know that faith and humanism can agree is a much easier task. You might be surprised how far a non-oppositional conversation could lead.

~Susan

I'm in a bit of a hurry - theist or nontheist, supper must be got ready!

So, briefly: 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. (After all, the Devil, we are told, can quote scriptures, so arguing theology with theists can backfire.)

I think we are arguing around each other a bit; I'll try to get back to this later, if you are interested.

-Bee

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:48 PM

Bee, I'd like to hope we're on a good footing and may eventually learn something from one another. I'm off to a busy evening as well, so enjoy yours! :~)

PS, I've said this before and I'll say it again-- I have no desire to convert Catters. I'm already surrounded by potential parishioners, as a clergy spouse in a small town-- so my non-believer friends are a welcome and IMO necessary respite! I've already sworn my best Catter pal to never, ever convert (or not to tell me, if he does).

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:53 PM

The original meaning of secularist was someone who was for a separation of religion and state. A theist could easily be a secularist as well.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: GUEST,Marion
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:04 PM

Susan, here's a hypothetical situation that may help you to understand how your advice to frame our arguments in theological terms comes across to an agnostic/atheist etc.

Suppose you live in a society where government and law are heavily influenced by astrology. And suppose that you personally don't consider astrology to be a valid basis for law or decision-making (I'm guessing that this second bit is in fact true of you, which should help you imagine how non-Christians feel about the influence of Christianity).

Now, suppose somebody explains to you that you and your gentleman friend should not be allowed to marry because your signs are incompatible. How would you respond to this?

Would you study up on astrology and then develop an argument about how a certain star's course indicate that your signs actually can be compatible?

Or would you say something along the lines of "astrology is your belief, not mine, and you don't have the right to force your beliefs on me"?

Personally, I'd go with the second option, because it would be absurd and hypocritical for me to base an argument on astrological principles. And I'd have the same problem with basing an argument on the Bible. If I want to cite an authority, I'll cite one that I believe to be valid.

Marion

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:23 PM

Ebbie,

Just pointing out the obvious. *BG*

Marion, I agree. Finding common philosophical ground can't very easily be accomplished when only one side gets to define the terms.

I would say, however, that when it comes to policy making (as with Pete Stark or any other elected official) someone is going to force someone -- not toward their beliefs but toward their behavior. And nobody really minds this. We are somewhat protected by some vestiges of republican democracy -- that is, we are unlikely to be forced toward something that we can't agree upon without having first persuaded a majority of that behavior's practical sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 03:28 PM

Good point, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 04:02 PM

"A theist could easily be a secularist as well"

I think that this would describe me.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 04:19 PM

I have had success in relationship building and mutual alliance commitments with people whose "side" I understood well enough to speak to them in terms they understood, within their own frame of reference and beliefs, and upon a base of having studied their perspectives to one dregree or another in advance. Quite often, folks hold positions that are contrary to their own stated "belief system." When that happens, and it's pointed out in loving, non-accusatory terms that indicate some understanding for the complexities their "system" presents, the result has often been concord.

It does not mean that I subscribe or pretend to subscribe to their beliefs; it means that I respect that they ARE valid beliefs for that other person, and that there is a route to common ground, often, because of those beliefs.

Right now we're discussing spiritual beliefs, but I think maybe you could see what I am saying if we talked about it in terms of other types of values or beliefs. It holds true between Dems and Repubs, and it holds true between African Americans and "white" folk, it holds true between teachers and administrators and between teachers or administrators and parents of "troublemaking" students; it holds true between women and men. If the conversation has the element of respect for whatever difference there may be betwen two people, the amount of common ground is often quite surprising to one or both parties.

Another area of common ground has been seen, whenever relationship has been put first, between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews. The number of people sincerely willing and able to sustain that effort may be small, but it is known historically, nonetheless, similarly to what I have known from my own experience.

It isn't easy, it isn't neat, and it doesn't always feel comfortable; but hopeful results can be seen.

If that has not been your experience, I can understand why that seems hard to fathom, and I am certainly not saying that one MUST communicate on that basis-- merely that it can be done, and with surprisingly gratifying results for far less effort than one might estimate looking at it without having had an experience of it.

I didn't invent it; there is a lot of nonviolent communication theory and practice as well as other theoretical bases that have underpinned such an approach. I am lucky, that I happened to participate in such relationship building led by others with experience and skill, which I then put into practice, as best I could, in settings in which I exercised some leadership... and as I am still sometimes called upon to do in the settings in which I now move.

Again, I ain't telling anyone what to do, but I am pointing to what CAN be done.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 05:16 PM

Sounds about right to me...

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 10:03 AM

I wonder if there is a consensus around the following, which although often referred to as the Prayer of Saint Francis, can be secularized as follows:

I choose to become an instrument of peace.
Where there is hatred, I choose to sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, confidence;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy...

... That I may not so much seek
to be consoled, as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: bobad
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 11:50 AM

That pretty well sums up secular humanism.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 12:09 PM

I don't find that surprising, or scary. How do most SH's feel they and their peers do on that most of the time-- reflect it, or fall short? Which do SH's prize more-- the effort or success at the effort? Do you generally see yourself from the view of that which you can presently do, or that which you hope to be able to do?

It pretty well sums up the basics of trying to live as a Christian, as well. Is that surprising and/or scary? (Of course we fall short.) I think (speaking just for me), I don't expect to "achieve it" but I find great value in the effort to live it to the best of my undertanding at any given point in time, and I look for (work for) the increase of that understanding and the ability to live it.

As I have said, I am both, but in this thread of course I acknowledge that I am writing particularly from my Christian perspective (because that's the side I'm intentionally choosing for present personal development). I don't generally differentiate those views in my mind or in my writing-- is it helpful to others, in my writing at Mudcat, when I try to?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 09:16 AM

For those who are afraid that people who believe in the Easter Bunny are incapable of rational thought, where would we take that discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 09:22 AM

Did you ever believe in Santa Clause?

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 09:34 AM

That prayer of St Francis was quoted by Margaret Thatcher on being elected PM for the first time.

So much for any intrinsic merit it might have.

(BTW, St Francis was a political manipulator first and foremost anyway).

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 09:46 AM

Just because Thatcher used it doesn't make it less resonant with a large number of people or less noble a human effort to emulate. Geez, a friendly effort at defining a consensus sure runs into a lot of crap around here. I didn't offer it to get people to approve of Margaret Thatcher, or to manipulate, but to see what some of the self-defined SH's around here, some of whom are my good friends, might have to say about life as living it looks from their view.

RS, I've noted before that your points are seldom factually supported or on point, so I'm not sure what to make of that Easter Bunny remark.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bee
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 10:24 AM

I don't define myself as a secular humanist, although I suppose many of my views would support that definition. There have been arguments that Humanism is too dismissive of other animals and of the planet itself, preferring to look only to the welfare of humans - speciesism, I guess. The Fransican prayer quoted, while it can't very well be argued against by any 'good' person, perhaps isn't very representative of the saint himself, who was a friend to all creatures (leaving politics out of it for the moment - centuries old religious politics is a deep, deep dark valley to enter).

Going back a ways in the conversation, this:

"If the conversation has the element of respect for whatever difference there may be betwen two people, the amount of common ground is often quite surprising to one or both parties" - WYSIWYG

...is what I was trying to get to, but previously Susan seemed intent on insisting that non-theists must argue in terms of theism to gain respect or understanding. There wasn't the suggestion that theists might try to see the points made by non-theists, which is surprising, in the light of her knowledge of communication theory and strategies.

Interestingly, on another thread here this morning, a Christian castigated non-Christians for using scripture to attempt to undermine Christianity. This 'devil may quote scripture' mindset further complicates dialogue, as it suggests non-theists are not believed truthful if they do not argue theology, and not believed truthful if they do. Which goes a long way towards explaining the odd fact that in the US, a person professing any faith is trusted over any atheist.

I find, hard as I try not to unduly insult theists, and Christians in particular, as I am surrounded by them, the same courtesy is not extended to me as an unbeliever. Christians often casually insult the godless, without even thinking about it, or even realizing they may have hurt someone they may actually like. The Christian 'club' is so large that many seem unable to realise there are still a few 'outsiders'.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 10:33 AM

Bee, you've strung an awful lot of assumptions together, there. I invited you to think about something pretty large-- you've dismissed me and the invitation out of hand. I would have enjoyed the discussion, had you entered into it.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Bee
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 10:42 AM

Susan, could you explain that last post? I am surprised at your accusation, as I don't see where I've done any of those things. All I tried to do was continue my argument regarding the difficulty of using theology to debate with theists on social (or any) issues.

The last two paragraphs of my post are not directed solely towards you, although they support my point, but are a general response a thread elsewhere which blamed non Christians for all that's wrong with the world, pretty much.

I am sorry if I have unintentionally upset you.

-Bee

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM

Speaking of Thatcher...

Dear Mr. Thatcher,

I have been a loyal user of your Always maxi pads for over 20 years and I appreciate many of their features.

Why, without the LeakGuard Core(tm) or Dri-Weave(tm) absorbency, I'd probably never go horseback riding or salsa dancing, and I'd certainly steer clear of running up and down the beach in tight, white shorts.

But my favourite feature has to be your revolutionary Flexi-Wings.

Kudos on being the only company smart enough to realize how crucial it is that maxi pads be aerodynamic.

I can't tell you how safe and secure I feel each month knowing there's a little F-16 in my pants.

Have you ever had a menstrual period, Mr. Thatcher?

Ever suffered from "the curse"?

I'm guessing you haven't. Well, my "time of the month" is starting right now.

As I type, I can already feel hormonal forces violently surging through my body.

Just a few minutes from now, my body will adjust and I'll be transformed into what my husband likes to call "an inbred hillbilly with knife skills." Isn't the human body amazing?

As Brand Manager in the Feminine-hygiene Division, you've no doubt seen quite a bit of research on what exactly happens during your customers' monthly visits from "Aunt Flo".

Therefore, you must know about the bloating, puffiness, and cramping we endure, and about our intense mood swings, crying jags, and out-of-control behaviour.

You surely realize it's a tough time for most women.

In fact, only last week, my friend Jennifer fought the violent urge to shove her boyfriend's testicles into a George Foreman Grill just because he told her he thought Grey's Anatomy was written by drunken chimps. Crazy!

The point is, sir, you of all people must realize that America is just crawling with homicidal maniacs in Capri pants... which brings me to the reason for my letter.

Last month, while in the throes of cramping so painful I wanted to reach inside my body and yank out my uterus, I opened an Always maxi-pad, and there, printed on the adhesive backing, were these words: "Have a Happy Period."

Are you f***ing kidding me?

What I mean is, does any part of your tiny middle-manager brain really think happiness - actual smiling, laughing happiness - is possible during a menstrual period? Did anything mentioned above sound the least bit pleasurable?

Well, did it, James?

FYI, unless you're some kind of sick S&M freak girl, there will never be anything "happy" about a day in which you have to jack yourself up on Motrin and Kahlua and lock yourself in your house just so you don't march down to the local Walgreen's armed with a hunting rifle and a sketchy plan to end your life in a blaze of glory.

For the love of God, pull your head out, man!

If you just have to slap a moronic message on a maxi pad, wouldn't it make more sense to say something that's actually pertinent, like "Put Down the Hammer" or "Vehicular Manslaughter Is Wrong", or are you just picking on us?

Sir, please inform your Accounting Department that, effective immediately, there will be an $8 drop in monthly profits, for I have chosen to take my maxi-pad business elsewhere.

And though I will certainly miss your Flex-Wings, I will not for one minute miss your brand of condescending bullshit.

And that's a promise I will keep... Always.

Best,

Wendi Aarons
Austin, TX

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 10:52 AM

Wesley--Yes, I can vaugely recall believing in Santa Claus, but I think reality struck at the age of something like 7 or 8 years old.

   "RS, I've noted before that your points are seldom factually supported or on point, so I'm not sure what to make of that Easter Bunny remark."

       Okay, Susan, here's a fact. There are people who believe in the Easter Bunny. They might only be five or six years old, but they are believers.

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:18 AM

So what do you believe in?

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 11:41 AM

Bee, you haven't upset me, I'm just momentarily discouraged. "I am surprised at your accusation" is an example of what I find so discouraging-- the gulf is so wide I don't even know where to start. I'm not here to practice communication theories, but to communicate and, in the effort, hopefully work out more of what I think and learn more about what other people think. I come here like everyone else, not to make conversions either to faith or to how to build alliances. I'm opinionated like so may of us, and I contribute opinions. I'm certainly not here to accuse-- I don't have that right.

Once again I renew the invitation to articulate a positive statement of worldview, personal philosophy, values, or beliefs without necessitating the negative view of others' worldview, personal philosophy, values, or beliefs. Not so that you can DEFEND them but so that I might SEE them. So far Mudcat has not proved a place where that can occur, except as bobad responded to a post of mine upthread and only then when I presented a possible view.

RS, I challenge you, too. Tell me what IS, from your view, not what ISN'T, from your view.

It's easier to get defensive with me, I guess. THAT is discouraging.

This challenge, this invitation-- Anne Frank was able to do it, why can't anyone else, these days?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Confessions of Pete Stark
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 12:31 PM

Susan--here is my view--I don't see any differnce in believing in a supreme being, than in believing in the Easter Bunny.

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