The Problem With Marriage

It’s been a while since I last wrote a serious article on the issues that face us today. I didn’t know what I was going to write about, as there were so many good topics out there to cover. Especially with the advent of all the activity on Capital Hill this week. Everything from torture, to expenditures in the war in Iraq, to corrupt politicians, to the Republicans possibly losing both of the Houses in Congress this come November. I chose none of them. Instead, I was randomly clicking through blogs on WordPress, when I came across a post about the “sanctity” of marriage. It seems that the article was written in response to the issue of same-sex marriage, and the author was rather irate at the fact that anyone would want to institutionalize this type of marriage. He even went on to compare the downfall of the Roman Empire with the fact that homosexuality was an accepted cultural norm within the Roman culture (patently false).

This is a touchy issue for a lot of people, for reasons that are extremely religious in nature. The cries of “One Man, One Woman”, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, and other ignorant, slightly homophobic remarks arise. The problem with these people, though, is that they do not seem to realize that there are two aspects to a marriage. These would be the religious, and the legal. Neither does it seem to these people that the institution of marriage is just as embedded into historical processes as other institutions. In other words, they would like you to think that the customs of marriage that are prevalent in society right now are the same customs that have been in place for thousands of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our very concept of marriage has changed throughout the years, just as our concepts of virtually every other thing has.

If you look at history, especially at the context of marriage as it has been practiced throughout the eons, you will notice that first and foremost marriage was a contract that was intended to cement property. Indeed, the whole purpose for hundreds, if not thousands, of years was to solidify control of land, property, an businesses, whether mercantile or agricultural. Hence, the adoption of the customs of dowry, and groom-gifts. It has been only in the past two hundred years or so that the current, romantic idea of marriage based in love has taken root in western society.

The problem, though, is that in this day and age, most people cling to the idea of the nuclear family with a father, a mother, and two kids living in a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence. While admirable, and to be envied by those who are living that dream, this dream is becoming more and more difficult to achieve. Notwithstanding, even those who are heterosexual suffer calamities in the form of divorce. It matters not whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or one of the other parties. It does not matter if they are Christian, Atheist, or Pagan. The notion of marriage, and the family, has underwent a severe revolution within the past sixty years or so. Now, people are more likely to live in blended families, or with only one parent. If the idea of marriage was to create and protect the nuclear family, and if conservatives really wanted this to endure, then current laws on divorce would never have been enacted. However, it seems those with cooler heads have prevailed, as there will always be cases where abuse, either sexual or physical, is present, and the marriage needs to be dissolved. There are cases where infidelity is committed, and depending on the person’s religious or moral views, the marriage needs to be dissolved. The causes of a divorce are rampant, and making marriage a tighter institution, binding without compassion, is needlessly cruel and uncompassionate. Morality in the case of marriage cannot be legislated. It can only be reinforced by education, and the support of a community that knows what a good marriage is, and how to make it last. (Hence, the whole idea of having witnesses present at a marriage, as it is viewed that a marriage can only be upheld through the support of friends and families.)

Continuing on from there, there are other factors at work. What has been touched on so far is only the social. What about the religious? Should a religious interpretation of marriage be made into law? The very beginnings of marriage were not very religious in nature at all. It was the advent of Paul, who, in his epistles, created the idea of marriage with a religious aspect. Before this, most marriages were contractual affairs between families. Even after the advent of Paul, most marriage of the upper echelons of society were nothing more but the transference of goods and properties desired to keep the social status and wealth of the two respective families intact, or to augment them. Where is the religious undertones in that? Indeed, the very nature of a religious marriage between two peoples as it is currently encapsulated in society can be traced back to Puritan views of the institution.

Be that as it may, the one thing that is the pride and joy of America is the separation of the state from religion. The government could not, because of the separation clause, legislate which marriages were to be legal, and other that weren’t, based on the factor of religious ideas to the application of marriage. While this country has a long and varied history on the differing acts that have been passed that touched on this issue, the one thing that is clear is that marriage, as conceived of by the government, was an issuance of a certificate that legally recognized the union under the tax codes, and through the years, bestowed benefits upon those in such a marriage in the form of tax breaks, transference of Power of Attorney, and sundry other legal matters. In effect, there is, and was, a dichotomy within the institution. There were those factors that were completely legalistic in nature, and then there were those that were religious, and were handled by the couple’s respective churches.

In this day and age, this is desirous to have. The whole reason why the Gay Right’s Movement is rallying behind the idea of marriage for themselves is because too often a couple will be restricted in their activities of things that can be performed. For instance, if one person in the relationship were to fall ill, the other has no recourse when it comes to visiting the ill person, or in executing affairs of estate that have been left to the other because of the first’s debilitating illness. Also, when a couple has been living together, own property in tandem, and lives as a married couple of the heterosexual persuasion, why would they then be expected to contribute more in taxes then the heterosexual marriage? When a couple becomes married, there is an estimated 1,044 different tax benefits that they then receive. Do we, as a society, really want to legislate discrimination in such a form? Is that what liberty is about?

The fact of the matter is that people can become married in our government without even stepping foot into a church. All they have to do is perform their blood tests, and then sign the marriage certificate. That’s it. Nothing more. The rest of the ceremonies attending a marriage are wholly religious in nature, and divorced from the legal realities. Those who would like to ban same-sex couples from receiving the benefits of marriage are after nothing more but introducing more and more elements of theocracy into our government.

After all, who really is destroying families? From my vantage point, the vast majority of families that are disrupted have been the fault of heterosexuals. I’ve yet to read a case of a gay or lesbian person that has single-handedly disrupted even one family. Not to mention that the “sanctity” of marriage is a farce. In a day and age where people get married to boost ratings on a television program, or get married and then divorced twelve hours later, there really isn’t that much that can be considered “sanctified” by the institution.

Books I Claimed To Have Read

I got tagged by Ollysk2, over at 10,000 Reasons To Doubt the Fish. In this particular version of tag, you are supposed to replicate the post and answer the questions that are put forth to you. Unfortunately, being a bit addled last night when I posted my responses, I put it into his comment’s section. Oh well. For now, I will replicate the post (Replicator! Gah, I just reminded myself that SG-1 is in its final season on Sci-Fi right now 😦 ) with two responses. One response will be serious, the other one will delve into my extensive reading of pulp Fantasy and Science Fiction novels.

A Book That Changed Your Life – The serious response would still have to include two books. Those would be the King James Version of the Bible, and the other would be Atheism, the Case Against God by Smith. The first book I grew up reading, memorizing, and breathing every single day up until I was the age of sixteen. The next book I read when I was eighteen, and completely changed the way that I viewed philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, and rationality. While the extant of my progression away from the fundie camp will not be delved into here, I will say that for awhile there were thoughts and reasons that were floating around in my head that I hadn’t a framework to conceptualize yet. The latter book did that for me. Now, the smart aleck response to this would be Green Eggs and Ham by the venerable Dr. Suess. That book, and One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish are still on my bookshelf. (What? You don’t have the books you learned to read still?)

A Book That You’ve Read More Than Once – Most definitely The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien. I still read those books every single spring. Love them! Of course, the other books that I’ve read more than once would be the Wheel of Time by Jordan. Yep, I’m one of those people who re-read the entire series every time a new book comes out.

A Book You’d Want On A Desert Island – I’d like something along the lines of How To Get Rescued From A Desert Island For Dummies, so I guess my old Army Handbook that I still have from Basic. Everything you need to know in order to survive in the wild…

A Book That Made You Giddy – Here, both the serious and the smart response would be Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. Also, you should check out the Discworld Series by Pratchett. Nothing, and no one, can stand up to Granny Weatherwax! And that’s just the way it should be.

A Book That You Wished Had Been Written – This would definitely be something along the lines of a combination of a thesis on the Human Genome Project and the Human Brain Mapping Project. By combining both of these into a holistic whole, and by understanding thoroughly what is going on, we would understand so much more about human consciousness, the mind, and how and why we think. Perhaps, after this is done, most of those pesky questions about ‘free will’ and ‘internal morality’ can be put to rest, as philosophy can only get you so far without solid premises to base your reasoning on.

A Book That Made You Sob – There are several. Then again, I’m a softie when it comes to animals. Any book where an animal dies will have me reduced to tears like a crying three year old little girl. That being said, the one that had the most impact on me was Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. I read it the first time, and bawled my eyes out at several stages of the plot-line.

A Book That You Wished Had Never Been Written – Like I said in the comment’s section of Olly’s Blog, generally I do not approve of censorship. The only cases where I actually like censorship is where someone has been hurt, or coerced. Other than that, if I could erase one book from history, it definitely would be the Revelations of St. John. This book has caused more irrationality, fear, and fear-mongering than any other book written in the west for the past, oh, three thousand years or so. Most of the theologies that the fundies adhere to in the present day and age can be attributed to Millenial Dispensationalism, which is a direct result of this one book. Not to mention the irrational and improper types of interpretation that fundies have to go through in order to tie this book to the Book of Daniel, and you can see why I say this. If only Left Behind could really be left behind.

A Book That You Are Currently Reading – This changed since last night. Now, I’m reading Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design by Michael Shermer. Nick should be posting an article on why he does not believe in evolution any day now, and I thought it would be best to brush up on current ID arguments, and why they are not as scientific as the Discovery Institute (alas, based here in Seattle) would like to purport them to be.

A Book You Have Been Meaning To Read – This is still Bleak House by Dickens. One of these days…

And now, I think I will tag Matt from Matt’s Notepad, and Ben from Welcome. Oh, and Nick, from the Christian Right, since he’s so cool. Well, that, and the fact that he didn’t slap me for giving his wife some several naughty admonitions on how to handle him… 🙂

1,000 Hits

Yep. This blog got its thousandth hit sometime this afternoon. I never thought that would happen in a little under six weeks. Looks like I picked correctly when I chose to go with WordPress!

Bill Clinton’s Interview with Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday

Finally, we have a Democrat who is able to get in front of the news media and completely eviscerate those pundits whose main claim to fame would be the spewing forth of propaganda rather than balanced, unbiased journalistic research.

Watch the interview for yourself and see what I mean. Some people, especially those with extreme right-wing blogs, have said that Clinton freaks out during this interview. I don’t see it. Instead, I see a balanced, calm demeanor that not only answers the question, but answers the underlying subtext as well.

Compare that to Bush’s interviews last week, where it seems he’s ready about to blow a gasket at any time.

(Edit- Youtube took the video down. I’m now in the process of putting up a new link to the Google Video clip.)

Biblical Morality

In the discussions on this blog, the one thing that keeps coming to the forefront again and again is the concept of morality. Especially in the area of metaphysics. During the discussion of whether a rational basis exists for the belief in a transcendent god, the one premise that has been brought up is that if one does not believe in God (specifically the Christian God), then one is condemned to live a life of amorality. However, such an assertion lacks in regards to be a cogent, coherent analysis of the areas of morality and ethics.

The line of ‘reasoning’ that they use is flawed and contradictory, as shall be seen.

1. They make the assumption that there is a God.
2. They then assume that this God is the Christian God.
3. After this, another assumption is made that absolute morality emanates from this God.
4. Then this God inspired the infallible Bible, which begs the question of Inerrancy.

From the fourth point, they then begin the assertions of Absolute Morality is only to be found in the Bible, and can only be recognized by following the Christian path. Of course, another statement that begs the question is the assertion of Absolute Morality, which they conveniently forget to define. To this date, the slogan of Absolute Morality has been touted in fundie circles over and over again, yet even a little time spent on Google and certain academic, theological databases reveal that not one essay, not one philosophical argument has been offered that shows what this morality is without resorting to tautology.

Of course, when you take away the position of Absolute Morality, most theists will declare you as an inhumane, self centered person intent on ignoring the truth in order to satisfy your own lusts and sins. This attack is nothing more but an attack based in fear and ignorance. First, there are reasoned, logical arguments that do not resort to logical fallacies in order to support their positions in regards to absolute moral truth. The reason why most theists ignore these, however, is because these arguments do not resort to the unknown (a definition of God which turns out to be contradictory in most circles of theodicy, or resort to statements that morality can only come from this unknown in philosophical terms) in order to propagate their reasoning on what morality is, how it is to be achieved, and how to live by it.

Indeed, when the argument is looked at in its entirety, a rational person would have to conclude that this is the irrational response of a person who has invested much emotional energy into the construction of their metaphysics, but cannot be relied on to utilize reasonableness in assessment of their own claims. For instance, there is no consensus among theists about the attributes of God. Is it omnibenevolence? If so, then why is the scriptural writ of choice for Christians so vague when it comes to this absolute moral standard? If a person holds truth, but refuses to clarify that truth for the betterment of his fellow man, especially in areas where loss of life may be incurred through ignorance of this truth, then the person is guilty of murder through omission. If God is omnibenevolent, then where are His proclamations regarding gene splicing, genetic mapping, stem cell research? Is God omnipotent? If you know how to swim, and stand on the bank of a stream and watch a child drown, you are guilty of allowing that child to drown when you had the opportunity, the means, and the knowledge in how to save him. However, this Omnipotent God that the theists posit allows millions to die from natural causes every year. Remember the tsunami last year? Remember Hurricane Katrina?

This argumentation of the contradiction in terms between Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence has been discussed for centuries, with the theists always resorting to defending untenable positions. However, if we look at the Bible for attributes that belong to God, we find that many of the attributes are similarly contradictory. It should be no surprise, then, that if a theist is relying on a text that is irrational and contradictory, then his arguments for the existence and definition of God will likewise be contradictory. For example:

Ezekiel 6:12 He that is far off shall die of the pestilence; and he that is near shall fall by the sword; and he that remaineth and is besieged shall die by the famine: thus will I accomplish my fury upon them.

Nahum 1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.

Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Isaiah 45:6-7 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Numbers 11:33 And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.

I Kings 22:21-23 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. 22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

II Thessolonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

So much for the idea of Omnibenevolence being an attribute of God. The Christians own scriptures are riddled with these, and dozens of other, contradictions when it comes to the exact attributes of God. The reason why these particular quotes were cited is because these are excerpts that are usually ignored in most Christian circles, as they tend to undermine their credibility when it comes to citing God as the author of Absolute Morality. Here, we see that God, according to the Bible, causes deafness, dumbness, inflicts sickness and disease, delights in lying to his followers, cause people to lie and to believe lies, is the author of evil, is vengeful, is jealous, is wrathful, and so on and so forth, all contrary to what the typical fundamentalist would want you to believe. These quotes, though, are in direct contradiction to the quotes that fundies usually espouse, which should illumine a rational person to the fact that the inerrancy doctrine is seriously flawed.

With such gaping holes in the Inerrancy Doctrine, one wonders how the Christian then goes on to argue for absolute morality in the Bible? The problem is that they can’t, but they do not want you to know it. The fundamental supposition that is false within a Christian Fundamentalists worldview is the fact that Absolute Morality is never defined. It is, to them, an unproven assertion that is brought out from time to time to attack others that do not adhere to their philosophical viewpoints.

Now, a more liberal interpretation of the Bible does not adhere to such fallacies as the fundamentalists. In their interpretation, there is an explicitly defined sense of what morality is, that is independent from the conception of God. The rational basis for the dichotomy of the argument is lest that Good becomes Evil, and Evil Good; for if there is no difference between the two, and they are defined arbitrarily by anything or anyone purporting to be God or speaking for God, then deception sets in, and the people are led down a rapacious path that is irrespective of moral standards and ethics. Only through reasoning what Good and Evil stand for can a person be relatively assured that his actions are righteous.

Of course, if there is a standard of Absolute Morality according the Bible, I have yet to see it. Maybe someone else can elaborate the argument?

Political Religion

I’ve known for quite some time now that the Religious Right is very active in politics. Anyone who lives in the US and does not realize this is either living in a cave, or a server room. (This is not a joke, as anyone who works for a Fortune 500 IT company can testify.) Usually, I have no problem with people of whatever religious stripe to become active in politics. The line in the sand that is crossed repeatedly, and which gets my dander up, is when they then use political power in order to silence others. Today, this is being done through the auspices of the IRS.

From the article:

Stepping up its probe of allegedly improper campaigning by churches, the Internal Revenue Service on Friday ordered a liberal Pasadena parish to turn over all the documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year with references to political candidates.

For those of you who do not pay much attention to the tax code as it applies to non-profits, an organization that has the status of a 501(3)(c) Non-Profit organization can only remain as such as long as the organization refrains from politics. This includes endorsements of politicians, Political Action Groups, and so forth. However, if you read the news on a daily basis, there is almost continual support among certain far right groups such as Focus on the Family and others for GOP candidates, positions, and programs. This includes “Voter Guides” on prospective candidates, usually with erroneous or outright false information on them, designed to depict any Democratic Challenger in the most negative light possible.

This is nothing new. This has been going on since the formation of the Moral Majority back in the ’70’s. The problem is compounded today with the usurpation of power in the Executive branch, thanks to proponents of the ‘Unitary Executive‘ theory of government that is guaranteed to make our Founding Fathers roll over in their graves. Combined campaigning for GOP candidates within the auspices of a church, the funneling of currency to Faith Based Organizations that only support George W. Bush, and now the attack on those churches that have taken an anti-war stance bodes ill for the future of this Republic.

To combine it all into a nutshell- only those organizations that support policies that are in opposition to this administration are being investigated. Those non-profit organizations that continually flout the tax code in the area of expected behavior of a non-profit, tax exempt organization that support the administration are ignored. For crying out loud, the whole reason why the church is under investigation is because of a sermon about Christian values of peace!

Sound familiar? Remember Pastor Chan Chandler? This is the pastor that told his Democratic leaning members of his congregation that voting for John Kerry was a sin, and that they should leave his church. Remember the fiasco between Karl Rove and James Dobson? If a tax-exempt organization is supposed to refrain from endorsing candidates, then why is the GOP consulting far right wing groups before nominating a person?

This continuation of events will only lead to tyranny, for religious people of all flavors.

Rejoinder Comments on Morality

Well, after waiting several days, I finally figured out what was going on with the discussion that had started within the article ‘Atheism and Morality‘. It seems that Akismet, that wonderful utility that captures and flags spam, had been a little overzealous in capturing comments from other people, as well. Which, I guess, would explain why they myriad comments I’ve left on other blogs around WordPress have not appeared within my Comments menu item. I hope that this problem finally has been fixed.

For the purposes of this article, I will be quoting from several layers deep from the discussion, akin to what you normally find in a spirited listserv or Usenet discussion. While this format is not the most ideal for blogs, I think that it is pertinent that all see exactly what is taking place in regards to the break down of rational discussion and apologetics. June, an avowed fundamentalist, seems to be making the same errors over and over again. I think I detect a hint of frustration in the posts that have been left by June. While this whole discussion began with myself making a comment on one of her articles, things have spiraled out of control ever since. With the beginning debate on Biblical Slavery, I have restricted myself to just debating the virtues of atheism, Biblical Slavery, and morality. Morality, by necessity, needs to be discussed when contemplating the slave trade, especially when the crux of the debate hinges on the fact that the Bible never condemns the practice, but sets up rules and regulations in order to live with it. This, of course, has been my premise of immorality within the Bible, something that June even tacitly admitted that the Bible never condemns the practice. However, because of the discussion on morality, which tangentially also brushed up on the issue of atheism, June then began to assert that atheists, in a nutshell, are amoral. Yes, I know, this was never said outright, but I plan on proving this through expository analysis of the posts that have been left on this blog.

To begin with, starting with the post ‘Atheism and Morality‘, I wanted to clear up a few myths. Go ahead, re-read the article to freshen your minds on what was, and was not, stated. Now, here is June’s first posting on the matter:

You put forth these arguments; and, sure, they sound great on the surface; but they themselves are nothing but straw men.

Why didn’t I quote more? Because of one thing- June’s use of the term “straw men”. I have, over and over again, pointed out logical fallacies that are embedded within certain theistic arguments. Sometimes, as Nick can testify to, I’ve gone overboard and been rather patronizing and condescending, upon which, when pointed out, I’ve immediately apologized. However, the one thing that I cannot stand is a blatant logical fallacy that is embedded in an argument. (Trust me, making a rational, logical thesis is extremely hard work, as it forces you to use critical thinking skills and not to resort to assumptions.) I have pointed out the New True Scotsman Fallacy, the Straw Man Fallacy, the Bifurcation Error fallacy, Begging the Question, Tautology, and so on and so forth. I’ve even provided links to these fallacies to the pertinent Wikipedia articles that give a brief overview of what they look like. The reason why I stopped quoting there is because it appears that June still does not know what a Straw Man fallacy is. Be that as it may, here is a quote from Wikipedia:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponents position.

That’s it. In the article, I made no straw man arguments that I can detect. I wasn’t even debating about the Christian theology. Instead, I was clearing up myths and misunderstandings that a lot of fundamentalists have about atheists and atheism. It seems that this escaped June.

To continue with June’s comments from the article:

1. The Catholic Church (the original version, at least) is not Christianity. Why is that? Well, it’s because they devalue Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

Why did June state this? I believe that it was in reference to this quote from the article:

The most successful communist regime in the world today, and by far the oldest, is the Catholic Church. Most Christians are uncomfortable with that fact, because they have been conditioned to only think of Communism in terms of a caricature of atheism.

Now, where in the article was I tacitly discussing the Catholic Church? Yes, that’s right, dear readers, it was only discussed in the context of communism. Specifically, it was discussed in the context of communism not being an atheist only framework for government, as there are many, many theistic implementations of that that can be wrought in the world, and organizations that are both theistic and communistic. However, two fallacies were deployed here: the No True Sotsman Fallacy, and a Red Herring. The discussion was not about the Catholic Church being Christian, but that of communism having many different flavors; hence the Red Herring fallacy. The No True Sotsman fallacy by her denial that Catholics are Christians. Which is the reason why I replied with:

Irrelevant, not to mention off-topic and arbitrary.

Junes response to this was:

I’m sorry; but you are completely ignoring what I have said by writing it off as nonsense; but that only shows me how unwilling you are to see the truth because I made great points in there.

Maybe, just maybe, after she reads this post, she will realize why those points were considered irrelevant. I’m hoping she goes to the links cited, and really reads and tries to understand the fallacies so as not to repeat them again. In the context of discussing Morality, Slavery, and the Doctrine of Inerrancy, yes, I will ignore those points, as they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If they do, then please reword the argument so that a simpleton like me, someone who appreciates rationality in a post with an adherence to logic, can follow it.

Now, going to her most recent comment, skipping the irrelevant parts of Catholicism for reasons already stated, we have:

That was the point of those examples of injustices against fundamentalists. If you had read it, you would know that I asked you what I can tell these atheists to show them how they are going against the principles of atheism to prove definitively that what they are doing is wrong. I can point to the Bible. What can you do? Granted, these articles don’t explicitly say that the people who arrested them are atheists. But that’s a little bit difficult to specify. These arrests, though, are a result of assaults on Christians in the political realm which are a result of free thought on the part of liberals.

To begin with, I would say that the most important principle for an atheist would be that of Reason. The majority, if not all, of the atheists in the world came to their conclusions regarding the concept and existence of God through lengthy deliberations, reasoning, and weighing of the evidence. Without the capacity to reason, and more specifically, to employ critical thinking skills in the realm of religion, most of the people that you know would still be following the antecedents and rituals of their forebears. The concept or morality is a concept that stems from reason. For instance, if you had clicked on the links and actually read the articles on Aristotle and Plato, not to mention the essay pertaining to materialist ethics, you would have known this.

Another point to make in reference to this paragraph is the fact that you posit no moral structure, no reasoned ethic, no logical argument for what morality is. The purpose of the debate was if slavery was moral or not, and if the Bible had explicitly banned it. As you have not answered that question, I can only surmise that it is because you have not thought out a well reasoned structure for the basis of morality in your own life. You keep saying that you can point to the Bible for morality, but I can quote verse after verse where the most immoral acts are condoned by the God of the Bible, and call them immoral. Why? Because of reason. Because I, as a rational creature, with the capacity to reason, can come to conclusions based on empirical evidence and in keeping with the doctrine of reasonableness, can make moral judgements. However, since you point out your vitriol time and time again about moral relativism, but without defining exactly what absolute morality is, I believe that you yourself do not know. Please post on this. Here is an essay on Absolute Morality from the atheistic perspective.

And just for fun, because you are being so vague, is human sacrifice moral? Reason and rationality say that it is immoral, but it seems that it was pleasing unto the God of the Old Testament.

After this, in June’s most recent comment, we get to the fact of numerous citations being quoted purportedly about “atheists” who are oppressing fundamentalist Christians. However, all of the quotes in the comment were from Fundamentalist organizations that had no links to the original Reuters or AP wire articles. That may be just as well, as it seems that June still hasn’t read the original article where I posted:

We can see that atheism does not equate to immorality. Neither does theism. Morality is defined, regulated, and ruled by other ideas and concepts.

Since June seems to be confused about the issue, I even posted again:

In the links provided within the article there were clear examples and logical arguments showing the dichotomy between God and morality. One does not necessarily follow from the other, another point that you ignored. The examples provided showed there is no correlation between theism and morality, just as there is no correlation between atheism and morality.

So, let me clarify again: What are your standards of morality, how do you come to them, and are they logical? Do they contradict each other? Are there logical fallacies in play? Instead of addressing this issue, you posted link after link of articles that only proved my point. (I’m just as outraged as you in some of those articles, as I firmly believe in Patrick Henry’s statement,”I may not believe what you say, sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”) Perhaps if you address the situation at hand? Of course, rather than addressing the issue, you wrote:

Quite frankly, you wouldn’t be able to prove to a Communist that what he is doing is wrong though. How would you tell the following Communists that this action is wrong?

Again, we can ascertain that Communism is wrong through reason. The a priori maxim of ‘Each man has a right to his own life’, with all of the corollaries, show that communism is wrong. This is not the point, though, as communism being equated to atheism was a myth that was dispelled in the article. On this point June then goes in further:

It’s wrong because you say so? It’s wrong because someone else says so? It’s wrong because they wouldn’t like it?
First of all, who are you to tell them what to do? How do you truly know what right and wrong are? Second, so what if they wouldn’t like it if it was them? There’s nothing really wrong with doing things to people that they themselves wouldn’t want done to them.

This is yet another Straw Man argument. June has over and over again equated atheists as being amoral; that they have no capacity to know what right and wrong are, and that atheists firmly believe in all instances that the ends will justify the means for the purposes of furthering their own egoism. June seems to not have grasped the rationality behind morality, and seems to be supporting the notion that the only way to tell right from wrong is adherence to the Bible. If this is the case, then how do we know if the Bible is right or wrong? Given June’s supposition, one can infer that atheists, and indeed others that are not Christian, do not know what right and wrong are, and cannot know this, but must blindly follow the dictates from Scripture in order to be assured that what their actions will follow a righteous path. This logic leaves June in a bind in defending slavery as wrong, though, as all people, Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Pagan, and so on, believe that slavery is a vile, immoral institution.

The more pertinent point, though, is that we are again dealing with a level of recursion that needs to be addressed. Is God good because He says He is good? If that is the case, then we are back to the method of ‘Might Makes Right’. However, if God commanded people to start slaughtering those others that did not believe upon Him, either through ignorance, or because they are of a different religious stripe, then would God still be good? Of course, through the process of reason, a rational person would say ‘No!’. Then, we can see that God is not the progenitor of Good, but Good and Evil are transcendent moral facts that are themselves separate from God. If anyone purporting to be God, as defined in this instance as having the property of Omnibenevolence, but does or commands immoral acts, then we can safely assume that this would be a false god. June still hasn’t written a thesis about his/her conception of morality and how to define it. I’ve given several links already on ethics and morality, all mutually supportive of each other as each is based within the methods of reason, and all of them explaining, within a larger epistemological framework the concepts of Good and Evil.

I suspect that June has not posted such reasonings because of a lack of understanding of Epistemology, and the larger aspects of Ethical reasoning in regards to that which is true and false.

Wrong doesn’t exist in the atheist world. If it’s wrong for the individual, it’s wrong. Period.

In discussions such as these, I’m always amused be people who make an unproven assertion, but then try to distract from it by ending the statement with ‘Period’. There is no supporting evidence, no supporting reasoning; we are to accept June’s statement blindly. June, you need to prove that atheism is equated to amorality. I’ve done my fair share of giving you some links to begin researching this topic, but it seems you want to keep on propagating a myth. (Which is a polite way to put it, as I believe that it is a bald face lie, although not an intentional one.)

On the Bible and Morality:

You demand that I prove that the Bible is the authority; but if you read what I wrote, I clearly state that it’s wrong for me.

Okay, here I’m a confused. Do you mean that Biblical morality is wrong for you? Do you mean the Bible as a whole is wrong for you? I couldn’t find the antecedent this statement was in reference to, so I’m kind of out of the loop on this point.

I was refuting your assumption that I follow these moral codes because I will go to Hell otherwise. Here it is again:

Quote Myself:
I follow the morals of the Bible because it has proven itself to be the Word of God to me. And God’s morals are good. I follow them because they make the world a better place, not because they save me from a lake of fire because they do not.

June, you have skirted the issue over and over again: How can you tell if the morals are good or not? If they are defined to be good arbitrarily by a transcendent being, then how would you know that human sacrifice is bad? If the Bible condoned human sacrifice (theoretically, and yes I’m aware of the hermeneutics that have been employed to excuse the previous example cited of human sacrifice in scripture, but I find them to be weak and irrational), then a person would be put in the unfortunate position of having to defend human sacrifice as Good, because of the assertion that all Good and Evil is defined de facto by God. However, here, in this sentence, you have shown that you do know what right and wrong are, and that you have some method of expounding upon it. Please elucidate this for the rest of us.

But this is supposed to be an analysis of atheistic beliefs, not Christian. You charge me with skirting the issue when it is you who is doing so.

I’ve provided link after link for the basis of morality, all without resorting to positing the unknown in order to know what is moral. I’ve requested that June does likewise. To date, the only thing that has been accomplished has been the changing of the subject again and again, in an adversarial manner, to keep from showing where June’s moral center is grounded. Let me state again: Can June post a logical, rational thesis on morality? Especially in the context of the original debate, which was the Scriptural justification of slavery? (And the side issues pertaining to the Doctrine of Inerrancy.)

When it comes to atheism, June has not done a very good job. June has posted myth after myth, all refuted, on how fundamentalist view atheism. Like I stated in the original article:

No argument should be based in ignorance, or a willful distortion of other’s worldview that you yourself may not hold. Such is the death of wisdom; true wisdom comes in the form of knowing how little you know, and striving to add to your knowledge with the tools that you have available.

To continue with June’s comments:

Unless I find that you are misconstruing Christianity, which was the point of those quotes.

This I find to be funny, as the original article was posted to refute June’s distortions of atheism. The only point that was made in regards to Christianity was in refuting that a political ideology logically followed being an atheist. This has been proved false, but then June thinks I was misconstruing Christianity. The points that were raised in this respect have been refuted over and over again. The intent of the article was not a description of Christianity, but a description of Atheism, and what one should expect from it. Again, this seems to be beyond June’s ken.

Please read my quotes and the text right above them. I am asking you for your opinion on them. Since it seems like you agree with them, I will just go ahead and tell you where I got them from.

Here, we see that June is still engaged with the Red Herring Fallacy. Let me state this: it matters not how many links you post, as for each link that you post in support of fundamentalists being oppressed, I can post another link to an atheist being oppressed. It matters not as both of them lend credence to what has already been stated: Theism or Atheism is not correlated to morality! Reason is. However, it seems dodging the arguments seem to be the order of the day in this thread.

You can post links to books claiming that the Nazi leadership was Christian just because they were trying to win over a Catholic Germany; but private personal comments among friends and family state the contrary. I don’t know whether or not Hitler was atheist. He did use symbols of Hinduism and Buddhism for his flag; but one thing is clear. He wasn’t Christian.

Again, we are back to the ‘No True Sotsman’ fallacy. As far as his being Christian or not, I do not know. Neither, I believe, will it ever be proved one way or another as far as what his personal religious beliefs were. While the comment that was posted is very interesting, I cannot ascertain what the context was. However, it is an undeniable fact that the leadership of Fascist Germany was Christian. This, again, proves that you are moving from point to point in a Red Herring Fallacy. Please post your thesis on morality, specifically on how it applies to Biblical justifications for slavery.

On the point of evolution, Herbert Spencer was trained as a minister, and was a prominent philosopher of the 19th century in England. However, his misapplication of Darwin’s theory of evolution to the social sciences is egregious, as has been discuss here. It seems that Fundamentalists want to confuse the issue between Darwin’s theory of Evolution, and Spencer’s theory of Social Darwinism, as it benefits them to keep the waters muddied to prevent others from seeing with the clear eyes of rationality. Be that as it may, it has little to do with morality in the context of the Doctrine of Inerrancy, and the Biblical justifications for slavery. Again, the fallacy of the Red Herring is present here.

One thing that I want to touch on before I end this article:

What’s your definition of immoral?
You can’t give me one. If you did, you would be advocating the oppression of free thought.

Where on earth did June get this idea? This is patently false, deceptive, and not to mention another unproven assertion, as there is no definition of free though, and an irrational supposition that freedom to think would be oppressive to others. Here is a good starting definition of what exactly FreeThought is:

Freethought: The right to entertain any opinions that commends themselves to the judgement of earnest and honest seekers of truth, without his being made a victim of social ostracism in this world, or without his being threatened with punishment in some other.

This does not mean that any opinion goes. Only those premises which are supported by evidence and reason should be entertained by the FreeThinker. This not only extands to atheists, but to theists as well. How one can conclude that FreeThinking means anything goes is quite beyond my grasp. (ie, illogical, irrational, and another myth that Fundamentalists like to tout when debating the concepts of Atheism.)

Theocracy Ascendant

“This Republican party of Lincoln has become a party of Theocracy.” — Rep. Shays (R-CT)

“Theocracy means God is in control, and you are not.” — Rod Parsley

“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”–Randall Terry

“We want…as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996.” –Pat Robertson

“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” — George H. W. Bush

“I hope I live to see the day, when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!” — Rev. Jerry Falwell

“There should be absolutely no ‘Separation of Church and State’ in America.” — Dave Barton

“So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.” — Gary North

“Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the bible. Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and public lives do not belong in office.” — Beverly LaHaye

“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after. World conquest.

That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.” — George Grant

I could have gone on and on with the quotes, as the Dominionists in our society have not been shy about making it known exactly what they want. However, let’s reflect on what makes our country great. Some may say that it is a democracy, and this is what makes it great. I, however, think that is of secondary importance. What really makes America great is the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in history had the liberties and rights of man been encapsulated within a document meant to protect all. While the first draft of the Constitution was by no means perfect, the Founding Fathers created a mechanism in order to amend it and bring it closer to perfection. Hence, the outlawing of slavery, the granting of equal rights to women, due process, and other amendments. Indeed, it is the idea of Liberty that has made this nation great. The second most important characteristic of the Constitution is the limitations of the three branches of government, and the checks that they each applied to the other two. Thirdly, the idea of representative democracy.

However, our system of government is under attack by people who want to impose their vision, their values, and their (im)morality on the rest of us. Specifically, they want to impose their vision of Christian Fundamentalism in the Charismatic flavor on the nation. They would like to abolish teachings of science that contradicts their views of the world and universe, criminalize and execute gays and lesbians, marginalize people of other religious viewpoints to their own. That last is the most important, as they consider all forms of Christianity aside from their own to be perverted, blasphemous doctrines designed to confuse ‘the very elect’. This would mean the trivialization of Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, and so on. Only those who hold to the doctrines according to the Pentecostal Movement, the Word of Faith Movement, Dominion Christianity, Prosperity Doctrine, and other ‘fringe’ doctrines of the Charismatic movement would be deemed worthy in this new world order that they would like to establish in this country.

Don’t believe me? Look at the Terry Schiavo case. Do you think that Congress has more information, more intellect, more pathos when it comes to cases that are as complicated as this one case was? Do they have any right to bring the federal government intruding into a State’s Right matter? That was only the latest taste that actually made it onto the news waves. Look at the Faith-Based Initiatives that George W. Bush enacted. To date, all of the money that has flowed out of his office for these initiatives have only gone to those Christian associations that campaigned, promoted, and helped him in his bids for the presidency. No Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, or Buddhist charity working with the poor, the elderly, the convicted, or the terminally ill have received any funds from this bureaucracy.

What did the Founding Fathers actually say in reference to the type of government they wanted to see in action?

“The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'” — James Madison, February 27, 1811

“The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.” — George Washington

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion …” — from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, June 10, 1797

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” — Thomas Jefferson, in his historic Danbury letter, January 1, 1802

“The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of church and state.” — James Madison, March 2, 1819.

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” — James Madison, in “Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785

“The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.” — George Washington

 

 

”History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”—Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

 

 

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.” -Benjamin Franklin

 

 

“All national institutions of churches, whether Christian, Jewish, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.” — Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

 

 

 

 

Red State or Blue State

In the vein of similar ‘tongue planted in cheek’ satire as was previously posted on Nick’s blog, here is a definitive list of how to differentiate whether if you are living in a Red State or a Blue State:

Blue States:	Home of good schools
Red States:	Homeskooled good
Blue States:	Want a big tent for their Party.
Red States:	Wears a big tent to her party.
Blue States:	Favor electric cars
Red States:	Favor electric chairs
Blue States:	Concerned about ballooning deficits’ effect on capital markets turning gains into thin air
Red States:	Concerned about whether it’s demons that make balloons float in thin air
Blue States:	Dream of making enough money to kite and swim with Czechs in Biarritz
Red States:	Dream of kiting enough checks to swim in Schlitz
Blue States:	Favor institutionalized health care for the poor
Red States:	Favor institutionalizing the poor
Blue States:	After the 9/11 attacks, put coffins in the ground
Red States:	After the 9/11 attacks, put magnetic flags on the car
Blue States:	Forget that God did not give Adam a Steve
Red States:	Forget that not only did God give Abraham three wives, He gave Solomon 300 concubines
Red States:	Enormous Hummers that serve as the engines for Arab oil
Blue States:	Provide the “tax” part of “tax and spend”
Red States:	Provide the “spend on a new 8-lane highway to link a Wal-Mart to the Olive Garden” part of “tax and spend”
Blue States:	Believe we’re all brothers and sisters under the skin.
Red States:	Don’t mind if we’re brothers and sisters under the sheets.
Blue States:	Fighting to clean up skid row
Red States:	Fighting to clean up skid marks
Blue States:	9/11 survivors mourned at night as the television coverage showed those killed
Red States:	Mourned television coverage of 9/11 that killed that night’s “Survivor” show
Blue States:	Concerned about global warming
Red States:	Don’t like to travel and are too fat to fit in an airline seat anyway, so glad to hear that the tropics are coming to Texas. Yee-haw!
Blue States:	Follow Jesus, but doesn’t believe in Him
Red States:	Believe in Jesus, but doesn’t follow Him
Blue States:	Want to repeal the Patriot Act
Red States:	Want to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation
Blue States:	Looking for a method to weaken China every day
Red States:	Sold everyday china for a weekend of meth
Blue States:	Favor drafting annoying laws on assault rifles
Red States:	Assault annoying in-laws with rifles after being drafted
Blue States:	Want the right for everyone to worship as they choose
Red States:	Want the right to choose everyone’s worship
Blue States:	Champion women wrestling with the right to choose
Red States:	Choose women’s wrestling championships
Blue States:	Want a rational energy policy
Red States:	Want policy of energetic irrationalism
Blue States:	Used benefits to assist victims on account of attacks
Red States:	Used attacks to benefit Toby Keith’s bank account
Blue States:	Watched friends in New York die in foxy attacks on America
Red States:	Attack New York on Fox for not being friends of America
Blue States:	Believe God loves us and gave everyone free will to be different
Red States:	Believe God willed us to freely hate everyone different
Blue States:	Believe absence makes the heart grow fonder
Red States:	Believe abstinence saves the tart from plunder
Blue States:	Believe in Mr. Darwin’s theory of “Evolution”
Red States:	Believe in Mr. Jesus’ “Talking Snake” theory
Blue States:	Slave to pay inheritance taxes
Red States:	Inherited slaves
Blue States:	Buy art
Red States:	Collect Beanie Babies

Interesting News Articles

I was cruising the web, when I thought I would post some more interesting news articles that touch upon some of the issues that have been discussed on this blog. Nothing like getting a new perspective on matters, eh? (No, I’m not Canadian, but I am Norwegian on both sides of my family, and grew up in a little town that was about a hundred clicks south of the Canadian border in the Upper Midwest.)

First is an article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press that elucidates the illusion of a battle raging between Science and Faith. Some people who are regular readers of this blog know that I hold fundamentalists in disdain. That being said, I think I must emphasise that it is only fundies that I hold in disdain. The rest of Christendom seems to get the fact that science does not challenge God, but magnifies Him, whether if it is Evolution, Mathematics, Physics, or Anthropology.

June’s article on Gas Prices is a great starting point for researching the huge difficulties in economics, politics, and sociology when it comes to understanding the dependence the world has developed on the petrochemical industry. It is an indisputable fact that some companies have been negligent in their responsibility to safe-guard the pollution that inevitably develops from refining oil, as well as the negative impacts our exhaust has on the environment and weather patterns. However, the best remedy to this, as I stated in her comments section, is to support those companies that are doing something about it! The Stirling Heat Engine, while and old technology, is promising for the future in new and inventive ways to pave our way to energy independence. There is an interesting article in Discover Magazine about the new industry that is growing out of the frustration a lot of people are experiencing in regards to high energy prices. They had another one on a company combining Stirling Engines and Solar power to become the biggest producer of alternative energy in the nation, but for some reason I can’t find the article right now. I will post it when I remember the title of the article.

The latest rage in the literature is discussing Genomics and its application to cure disease. However, Proteomics is the way to go! Just look at this list of people to watch out for in the biological sciences from Discover. Also, look at this introduction to the field, courtesy of Wired.

In anticipation of Nick‘s article on Creationism and Evolution, I thought a little history about the Intelligent Design movement would be in order. Also, another great overview ofCreationism’s Legal Woes from a different perspective.

In Linux news, check out the new Gnome 2.16 Desktop Environment! While I use KDE, Gnome is the DE that most people that are fairly new to Linux see, as it seems that Ubuntu is the most widespread of all Linux OSes out there. Also, it seems that Gnome is the force behind the new XGL and Compiz 3D Desktop Interface, an interface that puts Windows Vista to shame. It does more than Vista, on hardware that even XP would have problems running on! Click on the Desktop Interface link to drool! 🙂

Speaking of Microsoft, it seems that their Live Search is now out of Beta Testing. While I normally do not like MS or their products (I used to work for them before I went into the Army), I will grant you that fair competition is a great thing. Maybe Google will find a way out of the morass that their Google Ad Sense program has become. Personally, I used the Live Search a few months ago, and was not impressed.

That should be enough until tonight. As usual, comments are a blogger’s best friends, so type away! 🙂