Christianity and Orwell
I know there aren't many traditional Christians posting on these boards, but I'm wondering about how Christians think of 1984. There was a particularly Orwellian statement made in another thread, and it got me thinking. Do Christians even see the parallels between their religion and this book?
Has anybody noticed that it's "common knowledge" that America was founded as a Christian Nation? It's hard to imagine a more effective and blatant propoganda campaign than the complete revision of history that's been perpetrated by the far right.
Do Christians recognize the doublespeak when they talk about free will? Do they recognize that defining good in terms of God and defining good in terms of the state is only a difference in words, not content?
Now for the really pointed question. For the few Christians who do get it -- who do see the parallels -- do they think it's ok because it's their god, and do they really approve of totalitarianism so long as it's for Jesus?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Room 101 for you, traitor.
Very similar sentiments to my contention that central message of the 'Garden of Eden' story is that you must give absolute, unquestioned obedience to the Boss, under threat of extreme punishment, thus justifying every Dictator since.
This apart from the idea that it is justified to punish the descendents of people who offended you, this justifying all the eternal ongoing ethnic conflicts we have seen.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Exactly.
The reason I was wondering about this is that I read 1984 in high school like everybody else, but I was also a Christian. I never even thought about any of the connections mentioned so far. I mean... it was just not there. It wasn't that I thought about it and rationalized it away. I just didn't think about it.
The thing is, I was a teenager. Granted, I was a very smart kid, but I'm perfectly willing to admit naivety or inexperience, or whatever else, if I was just too dense to see the connection. What I'm afraid of, though, is that it was more 1984 at work. That is, I was programmed so well that I never even considered the connection because, well.. there just couldn't have been one because Christianity is right. And we were never at war with Eurasia.
Do you think a significant number of Christians could read 1984 and simply never even see themselves? Or do you think it's not quite as Orwellian as all that, and they're just rationalizing it away or dismissing it?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I was a devout christian as a teen when I read 1984. I never saw the connection either. That programming is very strong.
Hearing Dawkins refer to god as a dictator was the 1st time I ever had a perspective shift that would allow me to see such a connection. The connotations that accompany the title Dictator just don't jive with how a devout christian views god. To christians god is a benevolent, loving father, not dictator. I can't see many practising christians being able to make the perspective shift needed to see god as a dictator and christianity as a dictatorship. I imagine there might be a few since rationalization can be taken to some amazing extremes, but I think most christians reading 1984 simply never see the parallel.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
Like... um... Big Brother...
Geez. This is just rattling around my brain particularly noisily right now. I think it also might have something to do with the blatant propoganda I'm seeing in the McCain/Palin campaign. They aren't even trying to justify their claims. They're just making shit up. And everybody seems to believe them. I feel like Winston (It was Winston, right? It's been many years since I read it.) after his awakening.
In other words, Christianity really is an Orwellian state. Wow.
And to think it could become the government...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Theist : Depends on your definition of free will. In Christian theology, humans are free to do what is natural to them, which is sin, but even that is constrained to a certain degree. We believe you are a slave to sin, until God frees you. ~~~
RRS Hamby: Wow. That is freakishly Orwellian. I wonder if dude's ever read 1984. ~~~
Me:
.... From around Post 68 at,
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15587?page=1
Atheism Books.
Never discount the power of truthiness! It is mind boggling to see people with at least an average IQ so sure Obama is going to have Bin Laden in the Lincoln bedroom and turn our currency into something Zimbabweans would love to have.
I know I often think the worst of people. If they would just stop proving me right I swear I would stop it. Honest. I work for an investment advisor and watch otherwise intelligent people with decades more life experience than I screw themselves over financially all the time. Then I go visit Dad and hear former Mennonites who are absolutely the nicest people you could ever meet repeating lines from Limbaugh and friends - never realizing just exactly what they are saying.
Some guy on digg was referring to "fascist liberals" the other day. It just made me laugh as I see christainity as the perfect vehicle for bringing fascism. They see secularism as fascist though. Rationalization at it's finest!
(I don't know how to easily insert a picture, but it is the Palin one I was thinking of here.)
{EDIT: Just use the little picture of a mountain and the sun slightly above and right of the U button on the top panel. HD}
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.
Yep, it was Winston Smith! He was naturally more questioning than the average person.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever." George Orwell, 1984.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I haven't read 1984 so I can only comment on the parallels that will attempt to be drawn, but on a broader scope I do see a connection between Atheism and totalitarianism. So let's see how well are these parallels thought out.
Well right off the bat we have a lot of problems. We could of course argue whether it's common knowledge that the US was founded as a Christian Nation. We could argue whether there is some far right propaganda campaign to say so. All are arguable points. But what I want to point out is the assumed error of propaganda being posted on an atheist propaganda site.
So hmmm... so it's wrong to define good in terms of something. But it's ok for the atheist to define good by something. hmmm... yeah..
Well I can't answer this one since I don't see any parallels just some rambling thoughts that can be turned right back on atheism. Better luck next time.
Want to expand on that statement?
Want to expand on that one too?
Where did we say that?
Here?
Obviously not.
How about: it's wrong to define good by whatever an authority tells you is good?
You already admitted that you haven't read the book, and yet, your evaluating its content. Better luck next time? You dumbass, you don't even know what we're talking about.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Jesus Fucking Christ, you ignorant twit! You just said you haven't read the book. You have no fucking clue what I'm talking about. The scary thing is that this sentence, in a nutshell, proves EXACTLY what I was saying in the OP.
For those not afflicted with doublethink, do you see what I'm talking about? This twit sees totalitarianism in atheism! Despite the fact that it's logically impossible to derive anything from atheism, and despite the fact that a simple course in logic 101 would demonstrate this conclusively, he has accepted the statement that atheism connects to totalitarianism. It has nothing to do with reality. It has to do with what he believes because what he believes is right because if it wasn't then it wouldn't be what god said because god said it and it is true because it's true.
Anybody else see how this works? Doublethink in action. He's not going to consider that it's possible that there is a propoganda campaign by the far right to revise history. Despite the fact that the Republicans have had it as a talking point for eight years straight, and that every single candidate has mentioned it in speeches, and it's all over Fox News (oh yeah... I forgot... Fox isn't the voice of the Republican party. They're fair and balanced.) the only possible way to work this out is to believe that there isn't a propaganda campaign.
Did I say anything about wrong? I mentioned equivalence.
You just lost pretty much all chance of getting any respect from me. You haven't read the fucking book! How the fuck could you see parallels when you have no fucking idea what I'm talking about.
Why don't you read the damn book and then come back to this thread. It's an easy read. One or two days.
God Damn It, it pisses me off when people prattle on about their beliefs in the same sentence as admitting their ignorance. Dude, if you don't know what you're talking about, why don't you fucking say, "Wow... I've never read that book, so I have no idea how to answer the question. I'll pick it up and read it, and then be back to comment."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
That was prescient of him weren't it.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Show me what isn't god you idol worshipers. Check out thermodynamics .... Idol worshiping I reject. All is one, as nothing can be separated, as NO Master, No Idol is rational .... nor logically possible.
Here we are in 2008, as the old book by Orwell , "1984", described rather well ....
Atheism Books.
There was a good book by Sinclair Lewis called "It Can't Happen Here. " It was written in the 1930s and very prophetic of the 1980s and later religious right.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
The fact is that so many atheists want government to take the place of god in being every one's imaginary provider is what drives to and keeps people in right-wing Christianity. Christians are convinced that the atheist agenda is a one world government that controls all buying and selling to force a social order where everyone becomes wards of the state. To read many of the posters here plays right into the fears of 1984 type atheist-socialist world order.
The prophecies of the anti-Christ and the mark of the beast plays right into their fears of a worldwide socialist/communist revolution, where everyone will have the same wealth and no liberty.
It's too bad today but if you stand for individual liberty and common sense approaches to help the poor and people with problems, you are labeled a right wing loon in the atheist community.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
While attempts by government to control everything are doomed to fail as the Soviet Union demonstrated, the idealogical opposite of getting rid of regulations, Free Market Fundamentalism, has now been shown to be fatally flawed as well.
The only path with any hope is that of the rational middle ground, where decisions are based on observation of what seems to work, a readiness to introduce rules to damp down the excesses of greed, with some mechanism for objection and repeal or modification of rules which seem to be causing more harm than good.
Rejection of irrational beliefs, whether of the 'wisdom of the market' or of 'the dictatorship of the collective' would seem to be more consistent with Atheism, I would think. Soviet Russia may have been officially Atheist, but it was not free of dogmatic insistence on the correctness of a grand simplistic theory (Marxism).
We now see that the knee-jerk rejection of any government involvement in regulating society as bad, because it smacks of 'socialism', as leading to another set of problems...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
From the time of its release (1949) up until the fall of the Berlin Wall, 1984 was much more popular with the right wing than it was with the left. At this time religion was just beginning to be injected into politics with the fervor with which we've become familiar, and anything from Orwell, himself a former devotee of socialist movements, was a hit with Western politicians who saw Stalin for the monster he was. As a consequence, Animal Farm and 1984 were both promoted for high school age readers in the post-McCarthy era and beyond. This came at a time when any member of Congress in the United States was a very visible religious believer and the same was true on down the public ladder. The link between God and totalitarianism was either not perceived or not considered.
Take a look at Cecil B. Demille's introduction to The Ten Commandments and you'll see something very similar. DeMille walks out on to a stage and talks about the evils of totalitarianism and the need for private citizens to assure that their rights are guaranteed--so that they might with a free conscience follow the will of God as enumerated from Mount Sinai. The contradiction is not grasped or at least, not hinted at throughout the film.
This is to be expected. The history of the state of Israel as told in the Bible gives us the exact same thing. The Jews are led out of the Pharaoh's servitude so that they might have God's rule (mediated by means of the bloody judgments of Moses). They expand their holdings in the Promised Land in the time of Joshua and the Judges (again, God holds the real power), but taste defeat when God relents to their demand for a true King. They're spiteful towards their Babylonian captors but happy serfs of the Persian Emperor Cyrus, who is at least a monotheist (of sorts). The rule is simple. Totalitarianism is okay, just so long as it's approved by the Most High. There were plenty of American Catholics who believed along with Father Coughlin that Hitler's war of conquest in Europe was a just Christian War in the model of Augustine.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
There are plenty of fun parallels in Animal Farm, too (which I've always thought to be a much more enjoyable read). Moderates, just FYI, you are Boxer the horse.
Then there's the matter of the rules that were written in stone and hailed as absolute by the leadership... but, somehow, the list of them always seemed to grow shorter. Hm.
Regarding the parallels with 1984 I think are the strongest, I've got just three words for Christians:
Ministry of Love (or, alternatively, 'Love is hate')
Christians, you constantly describe your deity as being a loving and glorious entity - yet your most persuasive argument for getting people involved in your faith hinges on him being hateful and deranged!
Read my damn lips: Hell means God hates people. If he didn't want to throw people into eternal hellfire he wouldn't do it because there is absolutely no good, ethical reason at all for an all-powerful intelligent agency to do this!
You're worshipping hatred and spite. You just label it 'love'.
I've also got three words for Muslims:
Ministry of Peace (or, allternatively, 'Peace is war')
Muslims, you describe Islam as a peaceful religion - yet your fundamentalists aren't marching around blowing kisses, throwing-up peace signs and handing-out flowers. They're blowing themselves up to kill anyone who isn't a muslim, because anyone who isn't a muslim is an infidel plotting against Islam and is therefore preventing peace for flourishing.
Your message puts you into a state of perpetual war against everyone. Even if the world converted to Islam, there would still be gradients within the faith, so people would be blowing themselves up in in a martyr's fight for 'true' Islamic doctrine. If your religion were actually peaceful, it would not advocate martyrdom and violence against anything outside of it!
You're worshipping war. You just label it 'peace'.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I have nothing to add to that Kevin. Well stated.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Ironically that view on Islam could lead to more war (War in Iraq anybody?) but you know....
Pineapple,
Realistically speaking, who started the Iraq War? Who threw-in the catalyst for it?
Answer: The fundamentalist muslims who flew the aircraft into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11.
The Bush administration acted on the catalyst to invade Iraq (Iraq itself having done nothing), but there should be no question in the objective and rational observer's mind that the entire chain of events was started by Islamic radicals. A view in strictly in opposition to the Islamic religion had nothing to do with the war itself; Bush had a personal vendetta to settle with Saddam, Cheney had vested financial interest in taking control of Iraqi oil and the Neo-Cons as a body had an ideological interest in using terrorism as a shiny new enemy image (now that communism has started to lose most of it's effect in this area) to show the American people that they need to be protected against (and that they - the Neo-Cons - are the only men suited for this task).
Cap'n, just out of curiousity, did you ever happen to read Animal Farm?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Well.. actually.. depending on what "Iraq War" you're talking about, it had nothing to do with "religious fundamentalism" and completely to do with the protection of economic interests (or humanitarian ones, whichever).
See Iraq War I.
Set off, not by terrorist attacks, but by a relatively secular rulers invasion of a neighboring country for a collection of non-religiously-based reasons. The international reaction to such an invasion was also, I believe, non-religiously-based.
I noticed more Orwellian thinking by the religious right lately - they seem to be saying it's a violation of THEIR freedom when the courts won't allow them to outlaw gay marriage.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
...Then reason I ask if you've read it or not, Cap'n, is that lately you've been defending your position as innocuous. If you care to follow a metaphor, it's easy for me to demonstrate that this is wrong.
Boxer the horse was a hard-working individual of high character, but low intelligence. He did not agree with the violence at the farm that the pigs perpetuated or the demonization of Snowball, but regardless, still held that Napoleon was right. By insisting that the farm just needed to hold together and refusing to realize what Napoleon's actions meant about his intentions, Boxer enabled and protected the pigs and effectively held them in power.
The fundies are really just using you, and you can't get past the God doublethink to realize it. When the chips are down, you, Eloise and every other moderate that helped to cement their bigotry and intolerance in place will be sold-off like the rest of us in exchange for their great, glorious trip to see their lord.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I love when theists effectively prove my point for me.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Bush
The question now is of course WHY they flew (Hint: U.S military presence in Saudia Arabia..), you said the Muslims target everyone. This is clearly not the case.
and what the fuck did Hussien have to do with it? The only way Bush could link Hussien to Bin Laden is that they're both Muslim.
I do recall good 'ol W said we needed to reform arab society to prevent future 9/11s. Do you think Bush could have rallied up the support for Iraq without 9/11? Portraying the Muslim Hussien of aiding the Muslim terrorists?
No. Read 1984 it in like grade 10 though, and pretty much forgot what happens.
Cool thread RRS, yo Bob, outlaw greed ...
Geezz caring EXC, you no loon, don't hurt your head, besides anyone with an opinion gets called shit. Me god knows ....
Atheism Books.
Never read it.. I don't read many fiction books, except.. well, I have read like.. 30 fiction books.
This statement has been made many times, it appears. The problem I have with it is that no one cares to define what they mean by "Christian Nation." Certainly you, Hamby, can think of at least one sense in which this label would be fitting to our nation?
Not understood. Perhaps I need to have read the book.
Me? No, never. At the very heart of the Christian message, as I understand it, is the ability to freely will and to live your life in accordance with that free will--i.e., totalitarianism is the antithesis of "christianity."
Of course, that statement is predicated upon my understanding of the word totalitarianism and its implications.
Of course I could see god as a dictator. The term "god" really has no definition at all... and so, with a couple flips of a twitch I could add or take away characteristics of "god" to make it more inline with the term "dictatorship." But, to equate my understanding of "god" with "dictator" is as much a stretch of definitional imposition as it would be to equate the word "baby" with "dictator."
Could be, I suppose.
"Liberal" is another one of those things that is hard to pin down definitionally. The phrase "fascist liberal" is not inherently contradictory--although, I would agree that it is probably used without much thought, or perhaps without much understanding.
One possible, non contradictory, definition of "fascist liberal" would be "an individual in overbearing favor of concepts of maximum individual freedom as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."
The important part of this phrase is "as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties." That part of the definition is a matter of personal opinion, and many people disagree as to what it pertains to. A libertarian, who I imagine has very different ideas of "civil liberties" than a liberal, would find it very "overbearing" or "fascist" to say that the "government protection of civil liberties" should extend to restrict a persons ability to sell or not sell his property on a discriminatory basis.
See the Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act.
Then again, the preceding argument is predicated on many assumptions about words "liberal," "fascist," "libertarian," "civil liberties," etc. Which, I suppose, is part of the problem with regard to attacking something like this.
Nevertheless, I would agree that the phrase is in no way productive.. especially without further definition.
Explain further. I'm not entirely sure it's true, but I've definitely not attempted it. Are you saying that "atheism," itself, is non-derivable? Or that because "atheism" is a non-belief, and as such is non-derivable (i.e., all non-beliefs are non-derivable)?
Despite the fact that I have never read it, I feel that I can comment on certain issues of this thread because it is apparent what the issue is. Of course, that doesn't not mean that I can address all issues.
Example?
This position just doesn't exist on a mainstream level.. the closest that has come to it has been Ron Paul's ideas with regard to the elimination of the Federal Reserve. As long as a person is in favor of keeping the Federal Reserve he/she cannot profess to be a "Free Market Fundamentalist."
While "Free Market Fundamentalism" may in fact be flawed, we just haven't had a modern example of it--at least not to my recollection.
Feel free to correct me on this one.
What has been shown by countless instance, however, is that deregulation is not per se good.
Government = regulation. What else would it be?
The issue, as you somewhat stated, should be, IMHO, finding the balance of regulation and nonregulation that maximizes "goodness."
Mine doesn't hinge on that.
I'll let those who believe such talk of such beiefs.
That's a rather broad brush to paint all muslims with.
Silliness.
It happens sometimes.
Rhad, I have no problem with the observation that America is a nation filled with mostly Christians who have legislated large swaths of their dogma, but I will not even entertain the twaddle that is passed as history. The original documents that still exist, and can still be viewed by anybody with a mind to do so report clearly and unequivocably that America was founded specifically as a nation devoid of religious connection or affiliation. That was the fucking point. Separating church and state.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
...See what we mean by doublethink?
Pineapple wants to argue that Bush started the war (in order to defend a worldview that sees the current Iraqi occupation as something other than a war started by religious extremists), while fully acknowledging that without the events of 9/11 serving as a catalyst the Bush administration could not have launched the offensive.
...And part of this, of course, is a matter of ignorance. It's obvious as to why they flew the aircraft into the buildings - the hijackers even wrote down why they did it in personal journals. They were killing infidels and securing their ticket to paradise.
You might try reading the parts of the Q'ran that specify that, yes, all infidels deserve to be killed - and that doing so makes one worthy to enter paradise.
I'd like everyone to take a moment to look at the topic of this post. Then the OP. Then go and read what any of the theists to post here so far have wrote about what they've read of Orwell's work.
Repeat as necessary to get an idea of where this discourse is likely to head.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
My original point was that your view of Islam (reference your initial post..) helped fuel the support for Iraq, and ironically the U.S presence in Iraq would likely increase the likely hood of another terrrorist attack.
What a naive view of suicide terrorism. Notice how that offers no explanition as to why they did it? Why attack America? Why the WTC? Do you have any idea of how terrorist pick their targets?
You might want to try looking at the facts. The terrorists pick their targets very carefully. Why the attacks in U.K? Do you think that has anything to do with U.K presence in Iraq? Bin Laden even offered a peace treaty with any nation that withdraws their troops from the Arab Pensuila.
So it is much more complicated than the "kill t3h infidels"
Uh. Yes, it does offer an explanation. In fact, it offers the explanation gvien by the terrorists. They did it to become martyrs and kill infidels. I've said this, what, three times already? I thought you were an academic, Cap'n?
You say something like this, having called me naive?
The majority of terrorist attacks/suicide bombings are concentrated on Israel, actually (...ever hear of this place called, 'The Gaza Strip', by chance?). There were a series of hotel lobby bombings in Saudi Arabia not that long ago, there were whole areas of France set on fire by Muslim demonstrators not that long ago, there was a movie director (Van Gogh) who was ambushed and had his throat cut, there were the Madrid train bombings...
There's also that whole Sunni vs Shiite civil war thingy happening in Iraq as we speak. Oh, and there's the matter of the Iranian president, who happens to feature on a phone-in television show in his country where he encourages young boys to grow-up to be martyrs and kill infidels.
EDIT: We also might bother to look at what building the terrorists decided to hit with the aircraft - which was also the same building they bombed years earlier. The World Trade Center. You don't think this particular landmark was picked for a reason?
Yup. Looks like the U.K. and U.S. have really been singled-out by Muslim suicide bombers, and suicide bombing isn't the direct result of religious indoctrination.
Idiot.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
*sigh*
Al Qaeda has never conducted an attack on Israel. Funny that eh? They select targets with troops in the Arab pensula. Tha Madrid bombings were a call for Spainish troops to withdraw from Iraq.
All the attacks on Israel were conducted by groups from Lebanon and Palestine, which coincidently I'm sure, are currently being occupied by Israel. Funny that too eh?
Now explain the Bin Laden offering to halt attacks on countries that withdraw from the Arab pensula.
Oh and the WTC is a symbol of U.S capatilism, now why the pentagon? Oh yeah, it represents the military power of the U.S who are putting troops in their home land.
Notice how the U.K attacks came AFTER the U.K Presence in Iraq? Did you know Al Qaeda terrorists are 10 times more ikely to come from nations with Americian military presence?
Moron.
So you can ascertain of no historical argument can be made that would account for a nation not devoid of religious connections or affiliations?
Now, I don't care for the establishment of state churches, but if we are talking about the founding of our nation, there was no clear disconnect between church and state. Perhaps on the federal level, but the again, I'm not sure that proves your point. The states were left to do whatever they want--that is, if I remember correctly.
Now, if we are talking about how it stands today, it's still hard to make the argument that from a constitutional standpoint this is suppose to be a nation devoid of religious connection or affiliation.
That may be how some want it, but there is no constitutionally textual or historical proof to positively conclude that claim. I mean, the fact that the first congress after the passing of the constitution setup a cleric to open with prayer would at least add some credence to the argument that the "separation of church and state" was not understood in the same way that people understand it today.
What about the Treaty of Tripoli and the fact that the exact words "wall of separation between church and state" are from Thomas Jefferson?
And all the anti-Christian quotes by founding fathers:
here
(note these are by famous people in general but some are by founding fathers. ) Ever read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine? It was a scathing direct attack on Christianity he wrote while thinking he was going to be guillotined.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
Amen.
Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.
First Continental Congress
Mine was before yours. I win. j/k.
My point is not to say that it was clear one way or the other.. that all facts point one way or the other.. merely that it's not as clear as many people claim.
[edit] Here is another important question.. one that might also throw some interest into the conversation (although I still feel this is an overall minor point in this thread). If this idea of "separation between church and state" was so deeply ingrained within the founding fathers mind, did they not restrict individual states from doing the same? Those states were restricted from doing other things by the constitution...
Yeah Matt .... one of my old bands I named Thomas Jefferson, only because Thomas Paine wasn't as well known. My late dad taught his 5 kids this stuff, me the oldest.
Atheism Books.
Uh-oh. The most grievous error a theist can make:
Attempting to use numbers.
So, Cap, I suppose you'll have no problem explaining how you reached this conclusion?
...Explain your bald claim that Bin Laden said something?
Uh. No.
How about, instead, you post the exact quote he used and then cite the source that you got this quote from, so that your argument actually has - y'know - susbstance.
...The second most grievous error a theist can make:
Attempting to follow lines of reasoning.
Go back and read my posts in this thread, Cap'n. Every last one of them.
Done that? Good. Now: How many times did I mention Al Qaeda?
Answer: 0 times.
The 9/11 hijackers were associated with Al Qaeda, but motivated by religious faith. This is rather well-documented (...Not that documentation is ever much of a barrier to theists). They were Islamic extremists.
As to your claims that Osama Bin Laden is militarily and politically motivated, rather than religiously motivated, it really appears that history and international intelligence is rather divorced from them.
Moreover, your assertion regarding the Madrid bombings is outright wrong; they were not conducted by Al Qaeda members and had nothing to do with Spain's forces directly in Iraq. In fact, the Guardian more or less confirms exactly what I stated.
And, hey, look! Al Qaeda took credit for this one and even outright said that it was because of the friggin' cartoons!
So? Finished defending the Islamic extremists, yet? Or shall we smash-up your arguments some more?
Oh, well. If you insist...
Is Iran being occupied by Israel? And what about the funny things Hamas has in it's founding charter?
Actually, the occupied territories Israel currently holds are Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian; the Lebannon territories were given back in 2000, and the 'Palestinian territories' (The Gaza Strip) are a bit of a misnomer; Palestine is not, and never has been, a state. The conflict that established Israel well over half a century ago gave the Jews in the region more or less exactly the same territory that they now control (and it's notable that even now, after the unilateral Israeli withdrawl from Gaza, Hamas terrorist attacks continue).
Take a look at the various Arab states surrounding Israel. Which ones support the attacks on the Jews, which ones do not? Which ones have more secular policies, which ones have more religious policies? Notice a pattern there, Cap'n?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Said the pot to the kettle.
k
As quoted by Robert Pape in Dying to Win: The stragetic logic of suicide terrorism page 57.
Emphasis mine. Better source than wikipedia don't you think?
Which kinda strengthens my point. Who's preventing it from becoming a state Kev?
Here's something else to chew on:
During the 1982-1986 suicide campaign against Israel, (41 attackers total, 38 with data.)
27 (71%..) were with groups opposed to Islamic fundamentalism (communist/socialist groups..) and only 8 were with groups asociated with it. (Group Islamic Jihad..)
page 205 Dying to Win: The stragetic logic of suicide terrorism
I'll look more into the Spain bombings later
Whoops forgot this:
page 112 Dying to Win: The stragetic logic of suicide terrorism
Lots of wrong thinking fuels terrorism, and Imperialism is also one. All nations are guilty. Innate greed is an ignorance, a root of "evil" .... Competition vs Cooperation are the yin yang of reality. A buddha message was too find the "middle". The middle has no war, no competition, no love/hate as cooperation rules ... a place of balance, of understanding, to be awake, enlightened .... as all is ONE.
Atheism Books.
LoL!
Yes, Cap'n. One book written for the general public, dealing with subject matter Dr. Pape curiously did not submit for peer review in the academic community, is far better than multiple articles from wikipedia that are well-cited.
Just how well-cited? Well...
Huh. Over a hundred and twenty so far, and that's just dealing with Al Qaeda. I even directly linked you to The Guardian article...
- "But his organization, Hamas, is of course dedicated to the destruction of an entire country and infamous for its suicide attacks." (Mann, Jonathan. "Reaction to Killing of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin", CNN, March 22, 2004.
- "This dismal place was (and remains) a breeding ground for Hamas, the fundamentalist group now infamous for their suicide bombings." (Andersen, Mark. All the Power: Revolution Without Illusion, Punk Planet Books, 2004, ISBN 1888451726, p. 178)
- "And Hamas, infamous for suicide bombings and other attacks that killed more than 250 Israelis in recent years, rejected Abbas' appeal for peace with Israel, and threatened to continue its campaign of violence." (Tiebel, Amy. "Analysis: Tough Mideast Bargaining Ahead", Associated Press, November 27, 2007.)
Best known and infamous for suicide attacks:...Well over 500 total. Heh, kind of funny; these articles contain more citations than Pape's book contains case studies.
You're begging the question. It doesn't 'strengthen' your point at all; it completely contradicts what you said. Palestine is not being occupied by Israel, because there's no state to occupy! There never was.
Hilarious. You ignore the rest of what I cited, then go with Pape's cherry-picked single four year period where you might be able to argue that there were more secular suicide bombers hitting Israel (I would still contest Pape's 'research'), and that apparently is substantial evidence that Islamic extremism was not the motivation behind acts of terrorism like 9/11.
Tell you what, sweet cheeks, you go look-up the Madrid train bombings; in the meantime, here's a little something for you to puzzle over:
Pape's 'campaign' date cut-off? 1986.
The founding of Hamas by Ahmed Yassin? 1987.
My. That's a rather curious thing, isn't it?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Care to back up this claim?
Oh yeah and noticed how you didn't address the issue?
Israel troops are still present in what they percieve as their homeland.
Strawman. I brought that up since you mentioned Israel, and to mention that some of those who commited it for the secular groups were Muslim. Ergo they did not do it for paradise, but for other reasons.
On what grounds?
He likes to do a little thing called collecting data. That was a campaign with enough data to study.
It was not peer-reviewed science.
Anyway, Cap, we're getting further and further away from the topic of this thread. Do you have anything to say about Orwell's work?
Oh, wait. You already answered that.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Aw, Kev, I didn't read the thread very closely, but it appears that you didn't cover the
Ministry of Truth (or Ignorance is Strength)
At a certain point, all theists will tell you that they believe in their religion because of faith! If you have to use faith, then you're obviously full of crap. All faith means is that you lack evidence for your belief, but you're going to wallow in your delusion anyways because it makes you feel comfortable.
If you have faith that evolution is false, then you obviously don't know anything about natural selection. You have faith that radiometric dating is false because you don't know shit about dating the age of the Earth.
Yet, nowadays, this has unfathomably become a virtue, (thus, ignorance is strength) when believing in something unreasonable makes you righteous and courageous.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Well, to be honest, I'm not sure that the Ministry of Truth draws parallels with religion as strongly as it does with politics. The Bible was not, afterall, a Stalinist attempt at 'retouching' history - it was an explanation from ignorance on how the world works. The key element here (IMHO) is obedience; the decrees from the Ministry are so infallible, so to (double)speak, that even history would be wrong to correct them.
There's definately an edge of 'don't question the word of the divine' there, but only to a certain degree. The Ministry would not likely declare radiometric dating as flawed - it would champion it's use, then distort the findings of scientists.
Of course, given that we're interpreting fiction and then using it as an analogue to religion, I imagine there's room for variety in interpretation.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I love this thread. Honestly, this makes me so happy I'm giggling like a school girl. I'm not going to really interject much because things are going very well without me, but I wanted to answer a quick question for Rhad.
Observe:
P: There is no god.
C: Therefore, ?????
See? Nothing can be derived from atheism. In order to reach any conclusion whatsoever, you need another premise. Since no other premise can be derived from atheism, it is certain that Premise 2 will be derived from something other than atheism. That means that any conclusion involving atheism must be made in conjunction with another source.
To restate, it is logically impossible for anything to follow from atheism alone. Any conclusion that derived from atheism as a premise must also contain at least one other premise that is NOT atheism.
EDIT: Or, to put it even more precisely:
~G
Therefore: ?????
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism