Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
For God's Sake
by Paul Krugman
Reposted from the NYTimes Editorials
In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. "Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure," he wrote, "and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order."
Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide "Christian leadership to change the world," boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.
Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university's law school. She's the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.
The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It's also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.
But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to "dispel the myth of the separation of church and state." And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.
Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent's government school, was the federal government's chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham.) And it's clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.
For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department's civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.
Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of "intelligent design by a creator." He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.
One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.
There's Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?
Or there's the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen's faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.
And there's another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.
You see, Regent isn't a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It's run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God's punishment for America's sins.
Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson's TV show "The 700 Club." Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians," not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. "Well, I totally concur," said Mr. Robertson.
The Bush administration's implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right's strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.
Next week Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at Regent's Executive Leadership Series.
In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. "Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure," he wrote, "and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order."
Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide "Christian leadership to change the world," boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.
Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university's law school. She's the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.
The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It's also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.
But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to "dispel the myth of the separation of church and state." And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.
Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent's government school, was the federal government's chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham.) And it's clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.
For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department's civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.
Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of "intelligent design by a creator." He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.
One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.
There's Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?
Or there's the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen's faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.
And there's another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.
You see, Regent isn't a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It's run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God's punishment for America's sins.
Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson's TV show "The 700 Club." Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians," not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. "Well, I totally concur," said Mr. Robertson.
The Bush administration's implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right's strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.
Next week Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at Regent's Executive Leadership Series.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, April 13, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 82 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #31552 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 13, 2007 at 8:24 am
For Gods sake!!! Can't we just leave Helian in peace? Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
3. Comment #31553 by VanYoungman on April 13, 2007 at 8:25 am
Krugman sure knows how to spoil the opening of trout season. Other Comments by VanYoungman
4. Comment #31554 by RascoHeldall on April 13, 2007 at 8:30 am
It strikes me that if this Claude Allen character was prepared to steal other people's property, it is clear that he didn't really believe in God. If he did, he'd be prevented from committing the offence by the knowledge that such an act would result in him going to Hell, and this would surely be sufficient deterrent against any crime. Speaking personally, I know that if I thought there was a possibility of my roasting in flames for all eternity when I died, I wouldn't so much as swear, let alone steal!So it is obvious Allen, and presumably many others of his ilk, don't really believe in the drivel that they preach. So why do they do it?
Other Comments by RascoHeldall
5. Comment #31557 by etny on April 13, 2007 at 8:38 am
From European background and culture, I moved to the US 10 years ago, only to see the takeover of the US government by right-wing Christian fanatics. This has been a truly painful, almost surreal experience. How bigotry, raw hypocrisy, cult-like medieval thought came to rule the most powerful and "greatest" democracy in the world is simply astounding.Now I know that the US could turn into a theocratic dictatorship in a heartbeat.
In this context, one can understand why Dawkins' and Harris' books are such hits in the US. They are the antidote to this deadly epidemic.
They are food for the resistance, for both seculars and smart believers.
But I am keeping my French passport handy, for the day those millenarian religious hypocrite fools realize their master plan.
Other Comments by etny
6. Comment #31560 by denoir on April 13, 2007 at 8:50 am
The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It's also a story that tends to go under-reported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.
To me it seems like a perfectly natural consequence of democracy applied to population where a large portion is really nuts.
Perhaps some American here can enlighten me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it roughly half of the US population believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that Jesus will come back within their lifetime (i.e. armageddon).
The people that hold those two beliefs are crazy. And not in the generic 'delusional' sense, but really dangerously crazy. Due to their large numbers, it is only natural that they are strongly represented in a democratic political system. As a matter of fact, I'd say that their influence is relatively small compared to the proportion of the population that they represent. Creationists outnumber evolutionists, yet evolution is generally taught in schools etc
Other Comments by denoir
7. Comment #31562 by etny on April 13, 2007 at 9:06 am
Denoir, you are correct.And things are worst than that. A mere 50% of Americans actually vote to elect their president.
Right wing Christo-nuts are a motivated bunch, so they weigh heavily on the election. And once one of them gets elected (Bush), things unravel fast. Wars of choice, retooling of the judiciary with like-minded apparatchiks, faith-based cronyism, etc...
Other Comments by etny
8. Comment #31563 by Helian on April 13, 2007 at 9:18 am
For Gods sake!!! Can't we just leave Helian in peace?
Stew, bubble!
But I am keeping my French passport handy, for the day those millenarian religious hypocrite fools realize their master plan.
Sheesh! Once upon a time, when another ravenous and tyrannical oppressor was trying to subject us to their weird "apostolic succession" cult, Lafayette came from France and struck the shackles from our hands at the point of the bayonet! Now, at the first sign of trouble, these poltroons want to go the other way and skedaddle back to France! Thanks a lot, etny! I'll think of you with tears of gratitude running down my cheeks as I'm being frog marched off to Sunday school.
Other Comments by Helian
9. Comment #31564 by etny on April 13, 2007 at 9:27 am
Hey Helian,By then, Europe will under shariah rule.
Canada, anyone?
Other Comments by etny
10. Comment #31565 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 9:32 am
I've got to admit I have considered moving on too. But the right course is not always the easy course. I am going to stay and keep voting and boring my friends and family with my opinions and trying to convince them that just because most people get brainwashed as a child doesn't mean that they are right. On the other hand, if anyone wants to set up a meeting point ala Atlas Shrugged, it might not be a bad idea to have a plan B. Canada should be considerably warmer in a few years so that sounds like a good idea.
Other Comments by Phaderus
11. Comment #31566 by Rtambree on April 13, 2007 at 9:40 am
>By then, Europe will ruled by the Shariah.Great! Let's play Crusaders all over again - this time with nukes instead of swords.
Other Comments by Rtambree
12. Comment #31567 by johntfiorito on April 13, 2007 at 9:45 am
more fun from the Texas Republican Website...check it out...it is incredible..."Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
Texas Sodomy Statutes - We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy
the docs where this came from can be seen in their entirety on this web site....
http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=library_home
Other Comments by johntfiorito
13. Comment #31569 by troyreynolds86 on April 13, 2007 at 9:47 am
We should also remember that Bush may not be an isolated election anamoly. If the religious right was truly the defining drive for his election then whatever influence they had before is much greater this time via appointments and political favors and that type of influence can become very established indeed. How many judicial appointments did he hand out after all. These carry weight long after halfwit ass is removed from power. I doubt that the religious right will ever have the power to radically alter the constitution, but altering interpretation can be just as harmful. Addedly, however unlikely, there may come a time in this country when just being a open athiest in the US is dangerous. Must we forget that nearly every society that has ever existed before us has collapsed, so are we right to assume that this one will last forever.Other Comments by troyreynolds86
14. Comment #31570 by WilliamP on April 13, 2007 at 9:52 am
Funny thing, I was just applying to law schools this past year and guess who invited me to apply. Yup, Regent. I'm clearly not a Christian, but I was invited to apply anyway. I thought about it too. I could do some damage to the school, and probably get a good scholarship too. The only problem is that I don't think I'd be able to keep a straight face for three years. It would be a funny situation, you have to admit; like a sitcom or something.Other Comments by WilliamP
15. Comment #31571 by AtheistAcolyte on April 13, 2007 at 9:56 am
Phaderus, I suggest New Zealand, or otherwise somewhere far away from the complete nuclear self-destruction of homo religioso.Let's set up on one of the tiny, uninhabited Hawaiian islands.
EDIT: Sorry, that should be "nukular"
Other Comments by AtheistAcolyte
16. Comment #31572 by laks.84 on April 13, 2007 at 9:56 am
hmm...Canada isnt a safe bet either.. religious fundies are already exerting their right to follow their religion..
A father sued a local day care coz they were'nt providing "HALAL"ified food to his 2 years old child!!
Recently jehovah's witness couple denied blood transfusion to their sextuplets cuz their beliefs forbid anybody from accepting blood from another human being!!
Wat abt Australia? nope, that mufti is down there...
Wat abt poland? nope nope
What about the artics? : Maybe!!
Other Comments by laks.84
17. Comment #31575 by jshuey on April 13, 2007 at 10:39 am
"I was invited to apply anyway. I thought about it too. I could do some damage to the school, and probably get a good scholarship too."Unfortunately William, you'd end up with a degree that only qualified you to work in a Republican government.
Other Comments by jshuey
18. Comment #31580 by WilliamP on April 13, 2007 at 11:01 am
you'd end up with a degree that only qualified you to work in a Republican governmentYou know, I should have mentioned that I don't think that I could keep a straight face working in the Justice Department under any administration that would hire a Regent Law graduate either. I mean, come on!
By the way, I'd like to thank the NY Times for allowing this posting. Usually you have to pay to read writings by columnists like Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman; and those two are the only ones worth reading on a regular basis. For those of you who read the NY Times regularly, and feel the same way about Maureen Dowd as I feel, here's a great link for you from the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/most_e_mailed_list_tearing_new
Other Comments by WilliamP
19. Comment #31584 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 11:07 am
"The Bush administration's implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right's strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over."Danger? What danger…..?
Could one of you 'brighty bright naturalist' types explain to me what this supposed 'danger' is and why people (in general) should be afraid?
I know I'm not afraid of any 'right wing christian' group just as I am not afraid of any 'secular humanist' group.
For whatever reason people take it upon themselves to impose their particular 'world view' on others….. always have and as far as I can tell, probably always will. And of course then your dead……… oh well.
Listen, I don't care what you believe or how you choose to act; the implication of your particular ideology bears no consequence in reality. Morality is a sham and I implore anyone to produce sound rational evidence that suggests 'evil' is anything more than a personal bias. What is the basis of your 'self-imposed' moral code of conduct?
Danger my ass!
Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster
20. Comment #31586 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 11:17 am
AtheistAcolyte,NZ sounds like a good idea, I'd like to think that there are too many of us to fit on any one of the Hawaiian Islands, but I'd take them as well. In fact how about the entire south Pacific. We could set up our own cargo cults, become benevolent dictators and finally use religion for our own ends.
In fact, from the point of view of control, religion sounds like a pretty good idea.... Oh wait, I guess thats why it sucks.
Other Comments by Phaderus
21. Comment #31588 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 11:26 am
Spaghetti Monster,Your right, evil is only a personal bias, but then again, we are people, so personal bias is a valid reason.
As a society, we get together and decide what is moral and acceptable behavior and expect everyone who benefits from the society to follow those rules. I think that many of the people on this forum just don't want make believe gods and questionable literature to have such a strong impact on that decision making process.
Other Comments by Phaderus
22. Comment #31590 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 13, 2007 at 11:43 am
Could one of you 'brighty bright naturalist' types explain to me what this supposed 'danger' is and why people (in general) should be afraid?People in general, like to do what they want, with a minimum of interference from others. A secular government is the best garantor of that.
As to your other comments, if you are content to live in anarchy, kudos. Personally, I prefer my world more ordered, uniform and agreed ground rules, fairly applied to all. No God required.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
23. Comment #31591 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 11:49 am
As to the "danger", just look at any country now or in the past controlled by a theocracy: anywhere in the mideast now, spanish inquisition, etc. and you will see that the danger of a theocratic government is that they burn heretics like us at the stake. If you don't think that could happen here and now, you must not have read the article at the top of the page.If I may let my inner geek out and quote:
Luke: I'm not afraid!
Yoda: You will be. You will be.
Other Comments by Phaderus
24. Comment #31593 by Naturalist1 on April 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Enty...comment #10..I don't know where you are located...but perhaps a little info for you. Here in Canada we currently have a Homophobic, Going to Church Every Sunday, "Born Again" Prime Minister who has been known to end his speeches with,"And God Bless Canada". Sound familiar? The Christian Right in Canada pulls this guy's chain here too. And..he is about to call a general election and will probably win a majority government this time....Scary. Other Comments by Naturalist1
25. Comment #31596 by laks.84 on April 13, 2007 at 12:24 pm
oh how could i forget Mr prime minister Harper?you're right!
Other Comments by laks.84
26. Comment #31597 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 12:29 pm
"Your right, evil is only a personal bias, but then again, we are people, so personal bias is a valid reason."Comment #31588 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 11:26 am
Valid.... as in "sound" or "just" or "well-founded"..... no doubt the validity of imposing ones particular 'world view' onto another backed by the notion that we are 'people' is debatable. Don't get me wrong…… of course, as a society there must be rules and regulations to follow…. As you stated; laws are enacted (in society) to protect personal property and possessions inherent in a free-market. Taxes pay for infrastructure and education etc. etc….. But, if a group comes along that shares a particular ideology…. Christian, secular or other….. and collectively in a peaceful and law abiding manner tries to influence others to 'convert' to their world view…… where's the danger in that? What makes one 'self-imposed moral code of conduct' more dangerous than others?
Before you go off the deep end…. were talking about ideologies or 'belief systems' that typically have the best interest of society in mind. I'm not talking about what YOU consider societies best interest; I'm talking about the collective interest of the 'group'. I know it's 'in fashion' to call people who believe in 'God' crazy these days….. to which I say; He who says there is no God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense. I wait for his definition, and when he has set this forth after his own fashion, I am certain, beforehand, of being able to say to him, "I agree with you, there is no such God"; every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined. But I digress….. what we're talking about here is the supposed 'danger' of the Christian right….. Like I said before…… danger my ass.
Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster
27. Comment #31599 by Helian on April 13, 2007 at 12:40 pm
But I digress….. what we're talking about here is the supposed 'danger' of the Christian right….. Like I said before…… danger my ass.
"Incipient theocracy" may be a bit of a stretch, but the last time the Christian right managed to grab serious political power in the US, they put over Prohibition. Drinking "champagne" made out of apple jack and wood alcohol for a dozen years may not be a "danger" in your book, but it's enough to make me sit up and take notice. Let's just say that such antics can be classified as "serious inconveniences."
Other Comments by Helian
28. Comment #31600 by etny on April 13, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Naturalist1... Sorry to hear that.Who would have predicted that the 21st century would begin with such a dreadful cocktail of religion and politics. What's this all about?!
I suspect Dawkins' book is also a big hit in Canada.
Other Comments by etny
29. Comment #31602 by stereoroid on April 13, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I know the print versions of NYT editorials require subscription, but if you listen to podcasts they're freely available. The RSS URL you put in to your "podcatcher" software (like Juice Receiver or the web-based podnova.com) is: http://www.nytimes.com/services/xml/rss/nyt/podcasts/krugman.xml for Krugman's column.
Replace "krugman" with the names of other columnists for their podcast columns: friedman, dowd, brooks, kristof & rich are the others I listen to. (Hope I haven't given the game away..!)
Other Comments by stereoroid
30. Comment #31603 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 12:55 pm
"Here in Canada we currently have a Homophobic, Going to Church Every Sunday, "Born Again" Prime Minister who has been known to end his speeches with,"And God Bless Canada." "Scary"Comment #31593 by Naturalist1 on April 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm
See what I'm saying………?
This person thinks it is "scary" that the Prime minister of Canada says "God Bless Canada" and (I'm guessing) it is equally "scary" that this Prime Minister doesn't particularly agree with the life style choice of the homo….. (no doubt this person will be deeply hurt, saddened and angered that I used the word 'homo').
But what is this fear…… Of course you'll say…. what about the 'Christian crusades' (ummmm, when did that happen again…..) Ahhhh, indeed but… but… but… these 'Crazy Christians' will no doubt lead us down the path of the crusades all over again….. little old church ladies will be beating the 'un-faithful' to death with their walking sticks….. Or perhaps, the atrocities we bestow upon ourselves as a collective species will (and are) be justified in the name of 'God'….. making it all too easy to point to the belief in 'God' as the reason we (humanity) commit such horrible acts of violence. (see 9/11 and the on-going war in Iraq). But I do wonder…… if I live to see the day when religion and 'God' go the way of (for the vast majority) Santa and the tooth fairy……who or what will replace 'God' as justification for murder and war……? I just have this strange feeling that global acts of violence and war aren't going to disappear / or even dissipate with the absence of 'God'.
I could be wrong….. But I'm not going to get all fucking bent out of shape about it……
Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster
31. Comment #31604 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 13, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I'm not talking about what YOU consider societies best interest; I'm talking about the collective interest of the 'group'.Whats in the collective interest of "the group", as you so quaintly put it, is to be largely left to our own devices, unless we interfere with others.
I know it's 'in fashion' to call people who believe in 'God' crazy these days…..
Is it? By Christ, we are making progress:-)
to which I say; He who says there is no God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense.
ROTFL. This is dumbest, most ingenous thing I've heard in months, and I've heard a lot!! It's not up to the Atheist to define your God for you, you lazy prick. You define it, and we'll knock it down:-) Thats how it works.
LOL .... Really:-) A new wrinkle, I sort of like it:-)
But I digress….. what we're talking about here is the supposed 'danger' of the Christian right….. Like I said before…… danger my ass.
You certainly DO digress. Only an idiot could fail to see the obvious danger of religious zealots of any stripe a few steps removed from the strings that control the most powerful nation state the world has ever seen. An idiot or a disingenous, and rather clever God botherer. I've got you firmly pegged as the latter:-)
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
32. Comment #31605 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 13, 2007 at 1:01 pm
who or what will replace 'God' as justification for murder and war……? I just have this strange feeling that global acts of violence and war aren't going to disappear / or even dissipate with the absence of 'God'.I could be wrong….. But I'm not going to get all fucking bent out of shape about it……
Let me point you to the Dogma lesson to clear this point up. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYqWTgwVx9k
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
33. Comment #31606 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm
People should be able to believe what they want, and people should be able to peacefully present their point of view in order to persuade others to follow that point of view. But when the government is controlled by people who think it is acceptable to force others to follow their point of view, that is the end of freedom. Other Comments by Phaderus
34. Comment #31607 by Fedler on April 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm
"But I do wonder…… if I live to see the day when religion and 'God' go the way of (for the vast majority) Santa and the tooth fairy……who or what will replace 'God' as justification for murder and war……? I just have this strange feeling that global acts of violence and war aren't going to disappear / or even dissipate with the absence of 'God'."Agreed. Just as I don't feel global acts of violence will decrease if we all drop to our knees, bow and claim allegiance to a god. I, for one, would at be willing to try a different path for humanity, one without the litmus test of religious biases. It may fail miserably, but it's better than staying stagnant.
If the horse you're riding dies, get off.
Other Comments by Fedler
35. Comment #31608 by Graham on April 13, 2007 at 1:17 pm
You have to look at the bigger picture. Religion, like nationalism and extreme political ideologies are all dogmas that divide people. Reducing emphasis on the dogmas like religion that divide people whilst encouraging more cooperative behaviours will decrease tensions in the long run. Other Comments by Graham
36. Comment #31609 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 1:32 pm
"An idiot or a disingenous, and rather clever God botherer. I've got you firmly pegged as the latter:-)"Comment #31604 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 13, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Ahhhhh, yes…. I think I could safely 'fit' into any one of those characterizations.
That's fine with me……. I live within the comfortable confines of my own apathy and indifference. Something I owe to this thing called 'life'. However, I must admit, I do find it mildly entertaining to visit sites like this (religious, political and/or philosophical – not to mention scientific; this site hits the mother load) and watch the pandering and posturing on matters that often times require the sacrifice of reason. I do believe in 'God' Mr. World Citizen….. if that makes me 'delusional' I guess I'm o.k. with that…….
BTW….. I don't click on links…… sorry.
Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster
37. Comment #31610 by Bremas on April 13, 2007 at 1:36 pm
PhaderusFunny you should mention Atlas Shrugged. I just bought it last night. Don't spoil it:-)
Other Comments by Bremas
38. Comment #31611 by J.C. Samuelson on April 13, 2007 at 1:40 pm
A couple observations:"Could one of you 'brighty bright naturalist' types explain to me what this supposed 'danger' is and why people (in general) should be afraid?"
I agree with you, at least in the sense that I think this piece is somewhat alarmist. The last thing we need is more fear-mongering.
"I don't care what you believe or how you choose to act; the implication of your particular ideology bears no consequence in reality."
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding you here. Ideologies tend to motivate people to act in certain ways, which definitely appears to have an impact in reality (as in, the world-at-large). Or, are you saying the ideology of Muslim extremists has had no impact?
Help me out here.
"I implore anyone to produce sound rational evidence that suggests 'evil' is anything more than a personal bias."
There is none. It is entirely a personal - and on a grander scale, cultural - bias. The only "absolute" seems to be that everyone has an idea of what they think "evil" is.
"...collectively in a peaceful and law abiding manner tries to influence others to 'convert' to their world view..."
No danger at all, unless that same collective manages to get legislation through government bodies to impose things that are detrimental to society at large, prevent advancements that would benefit everyone, or possibly even persuade a society to make war on another on a religious basis. Abstinence only education, for example, leaves children largely ignorant of sex. This has been demonstrated as having an adverse affect on their behavior in the sense that when they do engage in sexual activity - in spite of being told not to - they're more likely to use fewer safeguards or try riskier (from a health standpoint) acts. There are plenty of other examples, such as stem cell research, Muslim clerics issuing pogroms and persuading others to do violence (which is completely legal in those countries where it happens and is "peaceful" to the extent that it is not violent in itself to speak that way), and anything else you can think of that causes harm and/or affects the happiness and suffering of other people.
"...were talking about ideologies or 'belief systems' that typically have the best interest of society in mind."
Osama bin Laden, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and many, many others believe they have society's best interest in mind.
"He who says there is no God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense."
Conversely, he who says there is a God, without having defined God in a complete and absolute manner, simply talks nonsense.
"...who or what will replace 'God' as justification for murder and war……? I just have this strange feeling that global acts of violence and war aren't going to disappear / or even dissipate with the absence of 'God'."
You may be right, but without the dogma associated with some types of religious faith, there will be one less reason to hate your neighbor. It's not really faith that's the issue; it's the dogma.
"But I'm not going to get all fucking bent out of shape about it..."
Neither will I, but I also refuse to ignore the reality that dogmatic believers represent ideals that have long since been consigned to the dust heap of history. I personally see a problem with backward thinking. You may not, and that's your choice.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
39. Comment #31613 by Fedler on April 13, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I wouldn't say I've ever seen a lack of reason on this site, rather just different perspectives. From the atheist perspective, belief in a god is 'delusional' to an extent. Before I began to think about it seriously, the lack of belief seemed unthinkable to me, too. Other Comments by Fedler
40. Comment #31615 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 13, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I do find it mildly entertaining to visit sites like this (religious, political and/or philosophical – not to mention scientific; this site hits the mother load) and watch the pandering and posturing on matters that often times require the sacrifice of reason.Pompous too. Nice:-)
I do believe in 'God' Mr. World Citizen….. if that makes me 'delusional' I guess I'm o.k. with that…….
Really? Wouldn't you prefer to be sane? Do you literally think you might be delusional, and just not care? Or do you think, we just think you're delusional, and you couldn't care less what we think? That might almost make sense.
By all means define your God, and lets have a look. Who knows, maybe you are actually worshiping the one true God, and will convince us of it? Be sure to define all the characteristics in explicit detail, plus how you know that this is so. Take your time, there's no rush:-)
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
41. Comment #31617 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Bremas,I won't spoil anything important, but Dagny is a hottie. I WISH I was John Galt.:)
Other Comments by Phaderus
42. Comment #31618 by Bremas on April 13, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Just read some of the other comments
regarding conversation between Phaderus and AtheistAcolyte on meeting place.
I live in Hawaii. Nice, but probably no good. Like NZ suggestion.
There used to be a rumor that the captians of US ballistic missile submarines had an informal agreement to meet in NZ after missile release due to global wind patterns.
Other Comments by Bremas
43. Comment #31619 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 2:01 pm
"Before I began to think about it seriously, the lack of belief seemed unthinkable to me, too."Comment #31613 by Fedler on April 13, 2007 at 1:48 pm
This is where you and I differ. I have put a lot of serious thought into what and why I believe the things I do…….. rather painful at times.
BTW…… you say "unthinkable"….. I don't get it. How can any thought be 'thought' while being 'unthinkable'. Indeed there is the known and unknown……. But doubt is always present.
Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster
44. Comment #31621 by drbreakfast on April 13, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I typically enjoy reading Krugmen and share his alarm with regard to Bush's religious zealots. But one of the chief problems here in the States is that so few in the media are willing to truly take on the nutty beliefs bundled in that "philosphy" known as the Christian faith. This is why Sam Harris and RD are truly correct in being equally critical of the religious moderates as well as the fringe Christians.While most of us here recognize religion as being as intellectually and factually sound as astrology, Holocaust denial "scholarship" and other fantasies, no one in American mainstream media is willing to be critical of "mainstream" religious beliefs. Indeed, virtually every mainstream review of Harris' and RD's books on these questions basically take the position of the books being "too aggressive" and dismiss them because, the reviewers will allege, there is no recognition by Harris and RD that religion has been a force for good.
Of course, if you actually read the books, Harris and RD do acknowledge that many people have acted with kindness and charity because of religious convictions. However, despite the fact that these may be motivated by their religions to do good, this in and of itself does not validate the truth of their beliefs. While the analogy is not perfect, it's a little like saying, "hey this guy who was stone cold drunk did the wonderful thing of buying me a sandwich at the pub because I mentioned I was hungry. Therefore, having a bunch of drunks roaming around is a good thing for feeding the hungry."
BTW, a little off-topic, but I'm surprised that there has been no posting on this site about Kurt Vonnegut's passing. Vonnegut was a long time atheist and made several public remarks about his atheist outlook. I will miss his wit. "So it goes."
Other Comments by drbreakfast
45. Comment #31622 by Fedler on April 13, 2007 at 2:09 pm
@Spaghett MonsterI didn't mean any disrespect, I may have just been careless with my words. Our individual searches have just led us down different paths, that's all.
I used 'unthinkable' as a way to say inconceivable, since religious belief was just a 'given', something that wasn't questioned. It's definitely thinkable, just not always comprehensible.
Other Comments by Fedler
46. Comment #31625 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 2:20 pm
"By all means define your God, and lets have a look. Who knows, maybe you are actually worshiping the one true God, and will convince us of it? Be sure to define all the characteristics in explicit detail, plus how you know that this is so. Take your time, there's no rush:-)"Comment #31615 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 13, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I will take good care to do nothing of the kind, for a God defined is a God dethroned. Again, every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined.
But I will entertain your other question….. (which is much more interesting)
You ask:
"Really? Wouldn't you prefer to be sane?"
I must say….. that question made me chuckle (thanks, seriously)….
Well, I'll assume that you believe yourself to be one of the 'sane'…… and I'll admit that the few exchanges we've had this fine day - doesn't really provide ample enough information for me to completely discern your 'mental veracity'….. but, from what little I can gather….. if you're 'sane'…… my answer would be no…. I do not wish to be 'sane'.
Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster
47. Comment #31626 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 2:21 pm
drbreakfast,I agree with your post, especially about Vonnegut. Cat's Cradle was one of the first books that started me looking at the reality of religion. He was the Mark Twain of the 20th century.
Excellent points against Spaghetti Monster's ramblings by everyone above but I fear it is all for naught. Whether he knows it or not he is apparently a follower of Eris and enjoys sowing chaos for chaos' sake. He contributes nothing of value and constructive efforts directed toward him are wasted. I recommend ignoring his ignorance.
Other Comments by Phaderus
48. Comment #31627 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 13, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I will take good care to do nothing of the kind, for a God defined is a God dethroned. Again, every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefinedCanny ... you see the trap. Though how you can see it and still worship .... well whatever mysteriously undefined and indefensible creature you beleive in is the real mystery.
You don't have to be like me to be sane, and you wouldn't be the first to question my sanity:-) However, if God is nonsense, or at best meaningless to our lives, wouldn't you like to explore that possibility? Don't you think you owe it to yourself, or at the very least your children. If religion is total tripe, do you want to risk infecting your kids with it?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
49. Comment #31628 by Jimill on April 13, 2007 at 2:36 pm
WilliamP, you know, the one way to fight this serious threat is to infultrate Regent and destroy it from the inside. It's quite obvious that something has to be done to counter this. Other Comments by Jimill
50. Comment #31629 by The Spaghetti Monster on April 13, 2007 at 2:37 pm
"I recommend ignoring his ignorance."Comment #31626 by Phaderus on April 13, 2007 at 2:21 pm
That's fine with me Phaderus….. I recommend that posters 'pay close attention' to your ignorance….
Knowledge being indefinitely progressive, I can believe that I shall one day know that of which I am now ignorant……. I presume you believe ignorance is lost upon you……
Good for you…… you must be an exceptionally bright "brighty bright"…..
seacrust out.....
Other Comments by The Spaghetti Monster
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #31549 by Philip1978 on April 13, 2007 at 8:12 am
Good grief, I have never been one for conspiracy theorising but I can just imagine a load of religious nutters getting together to take over America to make it a christian nation then bugger around with the world. Technically it already is in motion after dear old god has been prodding george to slap a few muslims about for their oil but what a(n) (in)complete bunch of idiots. Making the world a christian one, somehow I can't see that happening!
Other Comments by Philip1978