In 1998 Pastor Governor Huckabee attended a Salt Lake City Southern Baptist Convention to speak and promote his book, Kids Who Kill: Confronting our Culture of Violence. Coincidentally, along with Huckabee’s book, an anti-mormon book titled “Mormonism Unmasked” was sold. This book teaches Bible-believing Christians how to witness to Mormons (read: convert) and it attacks Mormons by essentially arguing that “at their core the Mormon doctrine of God is polytheistic [and] the Jesus of the LDS is not the same Jesus as found in the New Testament”. Nice. So much for ecumenicism.
But back to Huckabee – The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette covered his speech in which he exposes his Christianist motives. He said:
The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity. And the reason we have so much broken humanity is because sin reigns in the hearts and lives of human beings instead of the Savior.
So crime and poverty exists because people don’t have Jesus in their hearts? Because no Christian has ever committed a crime.
I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.
The real answers for whom, Mike? So the answer to government’s failure is Jesus? No, sorry. I don’t know the answer, but I’m confident it is not Jesus. If Jesus shows up and lends a hand – that’s cool. But let’s try to come up with a rational, Earthly answer and not count on Jesus.
He finished the speech saying:
I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.
I stress the last part because “reclaiming America for Christ” is the catch slogan of the late Dominionist D. James Kennedy’s ministry. In 2006, Huckabee addressed D. James Kennedy’s aptly named “Reclaiming America for Christ” Conference.
To give an idea of what the conference is all about, Kennedy is quoted in 2005 conference literature as stating:
As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government … our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors – in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.
Rolling Stone says further:
At Reclaiming America, most of the conference is taken up by grassroots training sessions that supply ministers, retirees and devout churchgoers with “The Facts of Stem-Cell Research” or “Practical Steps to Impact Your Community with America’s Historical Judeo-Christian Heritage.” “We’re going to turn you into an army of one,” Gary Cass…promises.
So the person who may win the Republican nomination wants to “reclaim America for Christ”. Scary. It might bare repeating this statement from the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen…
I don’t know where Mike et. al. got this idea to “reclaim” anything. When did this nation belong to Christ in the first place? And why does Huckabee think Jesus should get reclaiming privilege over Vishnu, Odin, Allah, or Quatzecoatl?
Some would call this Christian Supremacy.
The folks folks who have had Madeleine Murray-O’Hare jammed up their respective kiesters for forty years now
are becoming restive. Many people of the Judeo-Christain persuasion in USA are now deeply troubled which road we are going down. The institution of the family has been destroyed, the sanctity of life has been diminished, the sanctity of belief has been scorned and demeaned. The pillars and foundations of America have been vilified.
<
p>And now you are wondering why this diminutive upstart with a message is gathering steam? Look back a few thousand years. History has a habit of repeating itself.
<
p>I am a firm believer that no government shall establish a religion, however SCOTUS has gone way beyond the intent of this clause, and it just may be that it is about to come back and bite them in the ass. USA may look very different eight years from now.
<
p>Re Huckabee. He has a message. And—-it is not falling on deaf ears.
I’m not wondering, I’m just observing. I’m not really surprised — after all, as I’ve noted before, Huckabee, alone among the Republican candidates, can credibly claim to be an authentic religious conservative, and supposedly that’s who votes in the GOP primaries.
<
p>I still don’t think he has the money or the organization to go much beyond IA and SC, but we’ll see. He could well end up as Rudy’s VP.
politicis and religion are a very dangerous mix. That being said, Judeo-Christian America has been put upon for years now by the nuts on the other end of the spectrum, aided and abetted by the ACLU. At this point in the election cycle, focus is on the bible belt, so the candidates appealing to those folks will get the most ink and face time. We have a very long way to go yet. Huckabee, I believe, will disappear off the screen in NH, but you never know.
You can’t win office in this country – in ANY party – unless you raise your eyes to heaven and call Jesus your savior. Yeah, the poor Christian victims. Just TRY calling yourself an atheist and stand for election. You can’t even win dogcatcher.
<
p>The reason this is an issue, and Huckabee appeals, is that a certain segment of the strongly voting Repbublican votes ONLY with their religious brain (see Dominionist explanation in post). The majority of this country, once they see exactly what sort of president he would be (desiring to eliminate the separation of church and state, which most RELIGIOUS Americans support), he’ll make a terrible nominee. IF the public actually finds out about his far-far-right leanings. With the way the media punts on its duties, I’m not so sure.
I do think it is fair to say that certain segments of the left have developed a deserved reputation for attacking relatively trivial religious expression through their preferred means of politics: litigation. The bozo who took the Pledge of Allegiance to the 9th Circuit. Oh, no, there’s a decalogue at the courthouse! A wreath at City Hall!
<
p>I’m not sure which is cause and which is effect, of if there is even a cause-effect relationship, but the church/state separation absolutists have added an awful lot of fuel to this particular fire.
… who wants to sue about God in the pledge, there’s 10 who want to get elected to School committees so they can put creationism in schools. I’d be careful about weighing into the argument on the basis of quantity.
expressed disbelief that the development of the notion of “religion under attack” is thoroughly unprovoked. It is not.
<
p>I expressly did not assert that one is cause and the other is effect. Indeed, at this point there is a feedback loop, such that each is both cause and effect.
<
p>For that reason I believe that the crazies who screech about Christmas decorations, the pledge, and “In God We Trust” on the currency are about as helpful to the national discourse as these “dominionists.”
<
p>BTW, weren’t the Dominionists a bad-ass race of bad guys on Star Trek?
First, a couple of people you might happen to know does not constitute a movement. And insofar as left-leaning people who are atheists have that attitude, they do NOT want to legislate people into it, but rather persuade. Read Harris. And by the way, religion is one of the FEW, the very FEW, areas of our society we aren’t even allowed to have a fraking discourse about. The INSTANT someone says “hey, maybe you can question religious belief” they are an attacker. I’m sorry, I learned in school that a discussion meant that you are allowed to question something.
<
p>Second, no one has attacked religion as an institution. And the ACLU is as interested in protecting the FREEDOM of religion as it is the separation of church and state, or any other constritutional right.
<
p>However, secularism IS under a serious and credible threat.
<
p>RE the pledge, or reciting the Our Father at a city council meeting, or under god in the pledge, they are minor, but still small attacks on secularism. Ones that primarily came into being in the 50s (ie not f-ing traditions that go way back) when stupid people were paranoid and propagandizing against Communism. So yeah, maybe minor, but it’s hardly an attack on RELIGION to want to remove them…those concerned with the pledge or the saying on the money are instead trying to right an attack on secularism perpetrated only a generation ago.
I also just realized you compared people who want “under god” taken out to Dominionists. Seriously, you ought to think about that statement a little further.
<
p>Frell! Unbelievable.
They are both wild-eyed crazy people who love to pour ever more fuel onto culture war fires.
…
<
p>One (supposed ‘group’) wants to take some words off of our money and the other group wants its religious teachings enshrined in our Constitution. I’d say one is seriously more ‘wild eyed’ than the other, considering the relative weight of the consequences if either got their way.
<
p>End of “God” on our money <> end of our democracy
Biblical Law in the Constitution = End of the Constitution as we know it.
<
p>Please don’t equivocate these two positions as equally crazy.
…As far as I’m concerned, “IN GOD WE TRUST” on the currency and coinage refers to the god Mammon. And, yes, that’s the god in whom Amerikaner place their trust.
<
p>I’m actually amazed that the nitwits who put that slogan on the currency did not recognize that. Or, maybe they did.
…Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
and does! Behold his wedding registry, 30 years after getting married!
Although they vare both crazy. I equate the people as equally crazy. Both take positions solely to get a rise out of someone else, and fancy themselves on some absurd crusade to save America from the other.
To want to go BACK to the tradition of not having those things on our money or in our pledge.
<
p>It might be inane, minor, or trivial (though you can argue it’s not that trivial) but it is not crazy. It was crazy to put them on there in the first place, though these dominionists want to do much, much worse than that small imposition of religion on state.
Opposition–particularly oppisition through the courts– of what amounts to no more than ceremonial deism is indeed crazy, particularly when all it does is provide grist for for the mill of the religious right. It is like the two sides are just engaging in performance art. The whole point is to produce polarization.
<
p>Again, it is a self-reinforcing loop that is in the interests of only those involved in partisan politics. It energizes the supporters of Huckabee, and, judging from this thread, it energizes the Democratic base as well.
<
p>I wasn’t equating the threat posed by the two positions. I am aware of the threat, though I just view it as a continuation of W. I was responding to a comment upthread expressing disbelief that these right wing nuts are, in part, a backlash against the liberal-led reinterpretation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution over the past 40 years.
who struggled to find her confidence in a very Christianized society and family, I can tell you it is NOT trivial when you are the only person in a room who does not stand and recite the Our Father at a city council meeting and you stick out like a sore thumb. It is also very uncomfortable to have to recite the pledge and hear it there as well (and to be the only one deliberately skipping it). What it amounts to is subtle (and not so subtle) peer pressure, in effect, and it’s no where near trivial for that person who is “outcast” by civic life because of officially imposed religion. Even imposed in such a small and “trivial” manner.
<
p>That said, I do understand it is not the worst thing our society and government imposes on its citizens. Especially since Bush, the USA PATRIOT Act, condoned torture, spying on Americans without a warrant…etc. BUT I do not fault those people who are adamant about trying to hold the government to its Constitution and trying to remove those things.
Well, D. James Kennedy’s Ministry is worth about $37 Million, holds conferences on the subject, and host major presidential candidates as speakers – and that’s just one guy! That doesn’t account for all the Robertsons and Falwell’s and minor players we’ve never heard of.
<
p>Can the entire “take God of money / out of the pledge” movement claim to have the same pull as 1 D. James Kennedy (let alone the pull of the whole Dominionist movement)?
<
p>Do the money/pledge people want to be involved with conception rights, gay rights, and the FCC? Or profiting from war like Dominionist and Blackwater CEO Erik Prince?
<
p>Do the money/pledge people have any influence in who is elected president?
<
p>The answer to each question is no. Even if I were to grant you the premise that Dominionist ideas and the money/pledge removal ideas are equally kooky and poisonous (I don’t think they are), no case could be made that the money/pledge lobby can equal the power, money, influence and voice resemble the magnitude with which the Dominionists peruse their goals. The money/pledge people are so insignificant that they wouldn’t appear on the same radar as the Dominionist monolith.
<
p>It’s like comparing orchards of apples to bags of oranges.
expressed disbelief that the development of the notion of “religion under attack” is thoroughly unprovoked. It is not.
<
p>I expressly did not assert that one is cause and the other is effect. Indeed, at this point there is a feedback loop, such that each is both cause and effect.
<
p>For that reason I believe that the crazies who screech about Christmas decorations, the pledge, and “In God We Trust” on the currency are about as helpful to the national discourse as these “dominionists.”
<
p>BTW, weren’t the Dominionists a bad-ass race of bad guys on Star Trek?
Certain segments of the RIGHT have developed a deserved reputation for attacking the ABSENCE of religious expression through their preferred means of politics: email chains.
<
p>I’ve gotten far too many email forwards telling me I shouldn’t even think of saying Happy Holidays. Nor should I ever forget that Jesus is the reason for the season.
<
p>I’m thining about joining or creating a movement to end Christmas as a national holiday. Everyone should open, as they do on Passover, Ramadan and Talk Like A Pirate Day. Wouldn’t it make much more sense for things to close on a national voting day than Jesus’ birthday? If Jesus is the reason for the season, that is.
It is, after all, a stolen Pagan holiday, is it not?
<
p>If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, the early RCC learned…
Well, there certainly is both an historical and religious precedent:
<
p>
<
p>Read Rob Boston’s full article here.
interesting article
<
p>The War on Christmas was started by Christians!
The real story behind Huckabee is the Republican party’s lack of a clue about who they should be, post-Bush. R’s are desperate for a compelling leader who is not associated with Bush’s failures. Rudy sounds too much like W to be considered safe. People look at Huckabee and say, “Hey, a staunch Republican who doesn’t remind me of George Bush at all. Awesome!”
<
p>But in the end I don’t think Huckabee has the political wherewithal to be the nominee. McCain is, and will emerge as, the R’s best option.
Huckabee’s rise is impressive, but it’s a shade too soon. You’re just starting to hear about movement for McCain on the ground, which is the timing every campaign shoots for…
People invoke Judeo-Christian to sound ecumenical (supposedly “This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principals”, etc), but I really don’t hear many Jewish folks making the same rumblings that the vocal Christian folks make. When speaking of America, “Judeo-Christian” is really just a talking point – it really means just “Christian”.
<
p>
<
p>…she’s been dead for over a decade. Your complaint is really rather silly. And, when she was alive, she was little more than a nudge, whereas these Christian Dominionists, Reconstructionits, Fundamentalists, and so forth, are exerting real political power. And they’re advocating killing people.
You see, David had the lion’s den…modern far-right Christians have secularism…don’t you see…
<
p>That segment of the religious right are perpetual victims, they have a need to be seen as the downtrodden…because Jesus likes the downtrodden…easier to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich to get to the Kingdom you know…nevermind that the superchurches are using Christianity as an imperative to becoming rich…
<
p>That segment of the religious right are perpetual victims…
<
p>is one of the hallmarks of conservatives, and I don’t mean just conservative christians. The “I’m a victim” fantasy is rampant in movement conservatism and is preyed upon by those who want to keep the movement conservatives in their fold. Consider, for example, their perpetual mantra regarding the “war on Xmas” or the “they want to keep (my) religious symbolism out of the public square”–while they ignore the fact that they want to keep other peoples’ religious symbolism out of that same public square.
Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den, not David.
since CCD. Thanks be to Zeus!
Lots of Christians really do believe that Satan is a sort of anti-god, active in everyday life, undermining the upright, and dragging poor souls to perdition.
<
p>They believe that and so they look for it.
<
p>They look for it and so they find it. It’s as if you already knew 9/11 was caused by a conspiracy. Every detail out of place would be automatically sinister. Thus, their world. Everything non-Christian is suspected of being anti-Christian.
Who is the source of this tendency in Christian thought.
“History has a habit of repeating itself.” No one prays to Greek gods anymore.
<
p>Institution of family destroyed? How? Where? By whom? I’m happily married. And I don’t feel my marriage or my family are threatened. Aren’t there studies that “bible belt” states have a higher rate of divorce than “heathen” states? What is worse, me cheating on my wife and getting divorced or shennanigans by preists and televangelists?
<
p>The sanctity of life diminished? If you mean religious sanctity: ok. And good for that. But if you mean the basic wonder, respect and love for human life has been lessened, I’m not buying that for a second.
<
p>Sanctity of belief scorned and demeaned? Religions have been scorning and demeaning each other since the big bang. Just because the people now calling nonsense don’t have their own made up story to push doesn’t mean they don’t have standing.
<
p>The pillars and foundations of America have not been vilified. If people want to take their religion public, it looses it’s “untouchable status.” If someone is offended by someone calling their beliefs nonsense, they shouldn’t use them as the basis for how the entire nation is ruled.
“No one prays to Greek gods anymore”…not exactly true…!
Does Zeus have a birthday we can take off? If possible, I’d like it to be in the summer, so I can maybe make a long week out of it at the beach. Plus, no worries about the celebration being derailed by bad weather or cancelled flights.
I like the idea. And when you wake up, sunburned and hung over with a splitting headache, people will just smile and nod with appreciation. In your tribute to the great Zeus, you have reenacted the birth of Athena. What devotion!
We can still have music for the new holiday, but not the same old songs.
<
p>We can start the sing-a-longs with this one.
… its July 8th or December 26th or something like that. 😉
… then I choose Bachus. Then we can have a real Bachanalia. ;
martinis of course!
unfortunately it coincides with Dec. 25. But the celebration goes on for (ta da!) twelve days.
One objection early Christians had to encounter was the fact that their religion was so new unlike the ancient ones already practiced. I don’t remember if it was Celsus or Porphyry who asserted this, but it was something early Church Fathers (Origen, Tertullian, etc.) had to answer.
…
<
p>I wonder how much the pushback of religious conservatives is a reaction to the waning of Religious institutions in American Civic life. Its almost as if people are looking for government to ‘pick up the slack’. It used to be that being ostracized from one’s church had real social and civic consequences, but nowadays its not as hard to ‘get along’ without investing one’s social worth in one’s church membership. So could it be that this cultivates an attitude of “If the church can’t shame people into prescribed behavior, we as a church need to do what we can to enshrine our prescribed behavior in the law.”
<
p>Not sure if this really leads anywhere. Just idle speculation.
<
p>Thoughts?
…I don’t know. It might seem that way because to some observers like myself this movement seemingly cropped up over night.
<
p>However, the more one looks into this, the more one sees many seeds of this movement planted in the 70s and 80s. D. James Kennedy has been talking about it since the early 80s.
<
p>I think its been percolating for a while and some opportunists seized the moment. I mean, when you think of temperance and the Dominionist idea of Manifest Destiny, these ideas are as old as time.
… parts of the movement in “Kingdom Coming”. I was more wondering what motivates the front line activists. I suppose a certain amount of motivation is derived from just following the lead of their leaders though.
Your diary consists of a bunch of scary quotes about people no t associated with Huckabee then one speech that is at best vaguely related to some of the same general ideas.
<
p>Some context for the quotes would be nice:
<
p>
<
p>That’s from the same article you linked to. So what Huckabee is saying not that he would abolish government and replace it with the Church, but that if people voluntarily engaged in acts of charity, whether from a religious motivation or not, that would reduce the need for government services. Now you may argue that this is unrealistic, but to say that he wants to institute Biblical Law because he is lamenting the decline in charitable giving is absurd.
<
p>Furthermore, you have to consider the context in which the address is given, to a convention of preachers. To tell preachers that the answer to social problems is in strengthening the Church is motivational. It gives them hope that the work they are doing is making a difference. If he had given the same speech in an address to the Arkansas Legislature, for example, it would be cause for greater concern.
He’s not associated with groups he’s trying to motivate?
<
p>He’s not associated with the beliefs of a guy when he invokes the guy’s language? And speaks at gatherings in that person’s honor?
<
p>It’s not like they stole a clip of him from YouTube and showed it at their meeting. He actually accepted an invitation and spoke to the group. He actively associated himself.
<
p>I could buy your argument about honing his talk to fit the audience if there were room for wiggling. But he doesn’t say “we think it would be nice if more people considered our view as a part of the solution.” He says “we need to take this nation back for Christ.”
<
p>There’s quite a bit of difference there. I don’t think he’s being ambiguous at all. And though I do not agree with what he says at all, I respect and appreciate his honesty and refusal to waffle to the audience of the day, a la Mitt. I’m sure his supporters appreciate that as well.
Huckabee’s a Southern Baptist preacher and he was speaking at the Southern Baptist Convention.
<
p>The original post to this thread wasn’t just a random collection of quotes and citations. I think it clearly and effectively connected some dots on Huckabee to give a big-picture look at his motivation and beliefs.
<
p>I have no idea what the relationship is between Dominionists and Southern Baptists as a whole. But after this post, I get an idea what Huckabee’s relationship is with them.
so I thought that “speaks at gatherings in that person’s honor” referred to the 1998 SBC speech that the quotes were from. If he did recently speak at a D James Kennedy event, tblade’s case is stronger than I previously believed.
And I do not know to what degree Huckabee has Dominionist. He said at least once that he wants to “take back this nation for Christ” and I believe him. I am confident in saying that Huckabee is courting Dominionist votes and money. I’m also confident in saying that if a Dominionist thought Huckabee was “one of us”, he would not disabuse that person of that notion. I suspect that, like Bush, Huckabee will place quite of few Monica Goodling types to very important positions.
An excellent and interesting post. The Dominionists occupy one of the spookier corners of Christianity.
<
p>Which is the strongest statement we safely assert at this point?
After watching this creepy, creepy speech of his, I can totally see him espousing those beliefs…
…but I I think it can only be 100% accurate to say we don’t fully know Huckabees position on Dominionism (he may or may not be one, and if he is one, is he a weak or strong dominionist), but he is surely trying to appeal to the very rich and very motivated voting base. And on the off chance Huck is does not have Dominionist leanings, many people he appoints certainly will, if not for ideological reasons then it will be for patronage reasons.
So crime and poverty exists because people don’t have Jesus in their hearts? Because no Christian has ever committed a crime.
<
p>I think it works in a wonderfully unfalsifiable manner: with Jesus in one’s heart, one doesn’t commit crimes; if one does commit a crime, it’s evidence of Jesus not being in one’s heart.
Many years ago, this nation was in bad straights… The Great Depression had us by the balls. The president (FDR) pushed through a very ambitious program to put the country to rights and in the process put a paradigm of what government could/should do in place that lasted a couple generations.
<
p>However, starting in the mid 1960s, another voice was heard. Conservatism; a reverting to pre-FDR forms of governmental support gathered steam. The social unrest of the ’60s wed the social and fiscal wings of conservatism together; culminating in the “Reagan Revolution” of the early ’80s.
<
p>Having won the war, the conservative movement went about dismantling the social network put in place by FDR and his successors in a way they described as “Starving the Beast”. Cut off it’s funding, and it will cease to exist. Since no one likes to pay taxes, and the vast majority of people are too dumb to realize that 2 and 2 make 4, people voted for those who would cut their taxes and just assumed that when hard times came again, someone would be there to bail them out.
<
p>And now that hard times are here, government can’t (witness FEMA and Katrina as one of a number of examples). So, who do these people turn to? Why the church, of course! There’s a ready made social structure to help care for those who need help.
<
p>And so, the fiscal conservatives now recede and the social conservatives step forward… Any one who can show hurting person how they’ll be helped will get a receptive ear… regardless of whether that help destroys the basis that this great country was founded on. The social conservatives now seek to entrench their fundementalist christian world view to provide the support system that government used to provide. Without regard for the completely un-American nature of their actions.
<
p>Sorry for the length of this missive… I was listening to a Moyers Podcast on Katrina and when he interviewed people about the struggles they’re having rebuilding their lives and the problems they’re having getting help to do so; I couldn’t help wondering who these people voted for? Did they vote for the people who took the safety net away? And if so, are they smart enough to realize that they were ‘had’? Or did the govt’s inability to respond only confirm what they voted for? Without a viable government, who would these people turn to? Hence the history lesson above.
Dominionists, while allied with and supportive of fiscal conservatives, are in it for the destruction of our country as we know it. They want a Christian interpretation (and a conservative Christian one at that) of our Constitution, and to throw out our history of separation of church and state completely. They are primarily equivalent to the Taliban, or the Iran mullahs, they want to legislate morals to far-right “Christian” standards, outlaw gays, divorce, you name it.
<
p>Even the idea of Huckabee working with these folks in any serious manner (nevermind the evidence that he agrees with them) and becoming president should make us all, even most religious conservatives, shudder. If you think Bush was “guided by” his version of God, wait til a Dominionist gets hold of any power.
I am not a believing Christian, but I feel that Jesus had a very powerful message, largely ignored. The power of that message does not depend on miracles or virgin birth, none of which I believe in.
<
p>For me, the two most inspiring sayings of Jesus are:
<
p>”Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
<
p>”Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of my children, you have done it unto me.”
<
p>These teachings are in fact diametrically opposed to what so-called “Christian” conservatives such as Huckabee believe and practice. They are teachings of love, not intolerance and hate.
<
p>In our recent history, we have seen genuine Christians (who were also true patriots) make a difference. I am thinking of Martin Luther King, the Berrigan brothers, Father Drinan, James Carroll, Dorothy Day, Desmond Tutu. (I’m sure I’m leaving some good people out).
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” was inserted by more than one scribe in more than one place in earlier versions of John. Meaning, it was a wonderful folk tale, but not part of the original book of John. See Misquoting Jesus by the biblical scholar Bart Ehrman.
<
p>Otherwise, I agree with the sentiment behind your post.
And a fairly quick read for anyone interested.
But it seems like a guilty pleasure.
…they let you borrow books for free! Not really free, you pay for it in other ways. But if you’ve already paid for it, why not use it, lol. I’m just giving you a hard time, sorry. I’d lend you my copy if it wasn’t already spoken for several times over.
<
p>However, if you want a nice overview of Ehrman’s argument go to iTunes and type in Ehrman. There is a free video podcast from Stanford University of Ehrman giving a lecture on the topic of his book. It runs an 1:40, but the last part is Q&A. One need not watch the whole thing to get a good flavor of the subject. It’s also available on YouTube in 10 parts.
Thank you for the offer, o Cyber Person.
<
p>I know very few people over 30 who use the library, but there are out of print books I want to read (Keddie’s book on Iran for example) that might take me there. I hate having the choice of deadline or fine, and renewing makes me sheepish. (“Not keeping up with your reading there, kaybush. Too much time on BMG?” “I — I — I’ve been busy with work. I’ll finish it this time I promise.” “Well, Mr Kaybusch/Ms Kaybusch, ten is the limit. We cannot let you renew again.” “I promise!”)
<
p>The Ehrman lecture (on You Tube) is fun.
We had so many books we promised not to buy any more. Then I got onto the library thing. They have nline searches, there are two on my way to and from work that are linked to my town library, so I can use them both. You can reserve online and renew online (no face to face guilt).
<
p>And then I started getting interested in the environment and recycling. I realized the library helped not only save me money and space, but the earth as well. So I patted myself on the back.
<
p>I really wanted to get Al Gore’s book, but I thought it would be sort of “rock star taking a private jet to a concert promoting environmentalism” hypocritical to buy it. So I’m waiting to take it out of the library.
<
p>So any time you have to pay a late fee or feel guilty about renewing because you didn’t read the book fast enough, think of how you’re helping save the earth.
<
p>And I’m older than 35!
With teachings such as “Love your enemies,” “Turn the other cheek,” etc. I don’t think it is possible, for example, to be a genuine Christian and support the death penalty, or the other vengeance-oriented aspects of our criminal justice system.
<
p>”An eye for an eye…” was, if I am not mistaken, actually a call for restraint rather than a invitation to go out and blind and maim those who offended you. “An eye for an eye… AND NO MORE”
<
p>I intend to look up the book you mentioned. As an aside, I enjoyed James Tabor’s “The Jesus Dynasty.” James Tabor is (from Wikipedia): Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He takes quite an unorthodox approach to Christianity, claiming that Paul and his followers created a very different religion from what Jesus intended. Perhaps the most provocative statement in his book is that Jesus, as a practicing orthodox Jew, would never, even symbolically, call on his followers to drink his blood or eat his flesh.
…Christianity, or what passes for Christianity, is what self-described Christians claim it to be or assert that it is. Christians have allowed their religion to be defined by the haters and the money-grubbing preachers. Some have tried to change that (Rev. Barry Lind of Americans United, Rev. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance) but not enough to make a difference.
The author of the initial post is clearly very polemical and likely an agnostic or atheist since he/she clearly has no clue about what “taking the nation back for Christ” means or basic tenets of Christianity that conflict with Mormonism.
<
p>Taking the nation back for Christ basically means governing the nation using Christian principles but it does not mean turning the nation into a Christian nation. Essentially what Huckabee is saying is that religion has the answers, government does not, and the way to solve national problems were he to lead is to turn to his faith first. Bill Clinton said similar things back in 1992 so clearly the article is merely polemical and overreacting to varius ideas.
<
p>Now granted running the nation with full biblical princples would be a bad idea, especially considering the Book of Leviticus (which condemns homosexuality the chapter after it lets the Israelites know how to ward off skin diseases) but after Christian principles such as love they neighbor and blessed are the poor would be a sigh of relief from the Bush years.
<
p>Also on your point about Mormonism
Ecumenism merely means finding common ground amongst people of faith, it does not mean ignoring the glaring theological differences between those faiths. Talks between Anglicans and Catholics have been productive but they are stopping short of communion because Catholics recognize two infalliable doctrines regarding Mary the Anglicans dislike. But since both are trinitarian they are both Christian.
<
p>Mormons are in fact polytheistic, they belief that there was a God who created God and that he has created us so that one day we too can become Gods. They believe Christ walked in North America among Indians and their Bible has been significantly altered according to the whims of Joseph Smith. So in that respect they are not Christians, neither are Jews, it does not mean we cannot get along with them in an ecumenical spirit it does mean however that they are not objectively speaking Christians.
<
p>Also on your point about Mormonism
<
p>the Jesus of the LDS is not the same Jesus as found in the New Testament”. Nice. So much for ecumenicism.
<
p>from anything I have written here. I know nothing about Mormonism except that they construct marvelous temples (I was in the one in DC shortly after it was opened in 1975 or ’76) and some people consider it a UFO cult–hence my earlier reference to planet Kolob.
<
p>BTW, as far as I can tell, more than a few Christian sects are polytheistic as well. Recall the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost? That’s at least three.
…but the phrase is a Dog Whistle, a political code word destined for trained ears. When you, jaconway, hear “reclaim America for Christ”, you hear something benign. But you aren’t the intended target of the message. The case is made above and elsewhere that the phrase has clear Christian Supremacist implications.
<
p>On LDS being polytheistic – I’ve posed this directly to LDS folks and they say that they are monotheistic. The polytheistic argument is an argument used to by certain Christians to delegitimize the LDS Church. I’ve heard “Bible-believing” Christians assert the same argument about Catholicism. They criticize Catholics for deifying Mary and praying to Saints for intercession as praying to more than one God. If LDS is monotheistic, than Catholicism is monotheistic (For the record, I say they are monotheistic).
<
p>I don’t think it is wise for on brand of Christian to accuse another of polytheism. And why would a Baptist conference promote a book calling the LDS Church liars? When Catholics attend gatherings are there anti-Congregationalist slandering the United Church of Christ? I would think that it would be more Christian to have a book promoting one’s own theology instead of a book attacking another’s theology, no?
Having now argued about how crzay and inflammatory the secular extremists are, I will note my agreement that the “reclaim” phrase might be, like “culture of life” a “dog whistle” phrase. I don’t necessarily agree that it is because I’m not sure that I trust Rolling Stone to get the nuances right, particularly out on the fringe in terra incognita.
<
p>Regardless of whether Huckabee is a dominionist, he clearly is of the new Big Jesus, Big Government branch of the GOP, and seems to be the least influenced by the old libertarian, business conservatives. It remains to be seen if that gives him enough gas to get to the nomination.
Re: Raj
<
p>Only to the ignorant would the Trinitarian God be considered polytheistic, clearly its acknowledging that God can be both a physical being on Earth through Christ, a powerful force hence the Holy Spirit, or a being in heaven hence the Father. An omnipresent, ominicient, and omnipotent God would be able to be all of those things.
<
p>Christians, Catholics included, believe in this, and its an eternal God that has existed for all time.
<
p>Mormons belief very distinctly that this God was in fact created by OTHER GODS meaning that they believe that MORE THAN ONE God has existed and by definition that is a polytheistic belief even if the only believe that one God exists now. Moreover they belief that every Mormon will one day become a God and belief that they will become Gods a very polytheistic/animist belief that is uncharacteristic to Christianity.
<
p>All Christians including Catholics acknowledge the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God and hold no other books to be Holy. Mormons have the Book of Mormon and a Bible that was retranslated by Joseph Smith. Objectively they are not Christian, historically and you can look to the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to discover this, they did not view themselves as Christians. It was only in the 30’s that they began to acquire mainstream political views and wanted to re-enter the mainstream that they had self exiled themselves from did they started calling themselves Christians.
<
p>RE: tblade
<
p>Certainly most fundamentalists do not believe Catholics are Christians and they also don’t believe most non-fundamentalists are Christians either, also most Catholics, including the Pope, do not believe Congregationalists are full Christians either becuase they reject the “one true Church”, moreover while the RCC has not published any recent attack books you can look to the Council of Trent and various Reformation era encylicals that denounced Martin Luther as a Satanist or priests who claimed he was the anti-christ to see attacks on Protestants.
<
p>Re: centralmassdad
<
p>I would agree that it would be interesting to see Huckabee win the nomination since it would be the final nail in the coffin of the modern day GOP and hopefully spin the moderate wing, the business-libetarian wing, Demward and hopefully moderate the Dems as well.
The trinity is not part of the original biblical scriptures. it was a later addition, like too many dearly beloved bits of the bible. See my comment above on “casting the first stone”.
<
p>it’s not enough to read the bible in it’s current form. you need to know a little about the editorial wringer it’s devotees have put it through before you start lobbing terms like “ignorant”.
read the old testament, and you will see that there is an assumption of more than one god. why do christians deny that their religion includes acknowledgment of multiple gods? you can believe that yours is the biggest, meanest daddy on the cloud, but you’re not being true to the operator’s manula if you keep talking like there’s one and only one.
The Catholic Church does not insist on the inerrancy of the text, but allows for contextual interpretation. Thus, an argument that the Bible contains refernces to this or that will generally be met by a Catholic with a shrug and a “so?” and precipitate no crisis of faith.
<
p>The Catholic Church places emphasis on the works of a number of theologists, in addition to the text of the Bible. The Trinity is implicit in the Biblical stories of existince of the Creator, Jesus Christ, and the Pentecost, and has been a part of the Church’s teachings since the Council of Nicea in 325.
<
p>The Church’s allowance of interpretive authority outside the text of the scripture is one of several points of departure with the Protestant denominations, which generally insist on the concept of sola scriptura.
Regarding the acceptance of the concept of the Trinity across denmoniations: I don’t think this is enitely true. Unitarians, for example, rather explicitly reject the concept.
I didn’t know that about the RCC. A very interesting and important difference. Thx for bringing it to my attention.
<
p>A nitpick: I’m not sure it’s appropriate to refer to unitarians as a denomination, as if they are a flavor of Christian. To my knowledge, they’re not necessarily Christians, although individual members can be. Correct me if i’m wrong.
I have been so informed, earlier today. But are all Unitarians affilaited with the non-creedal UUA?
Grew out of liberal Protestantism, but is NOT a Christian denomination. That said, some individual UUs (and individual UU churches) do have stronger affinity for Christianity than others. (There’s a UU Christian Fellowship that happily coexists with the UU Pagan Fellowship, UU Buddhist Fellowship, and others.)
Who is Baptist (not sure what specific church) who chided me once that the family Bible in most Catholic homes is opened only on the occasion of births, deaths, and marriages for the purpose of making an appropriate notation one one of the blank pages set aside for that purpose. It is not an unfair characterization.
i find that a sad and disturbing statement. it tells me that there are more catholics out there than i realized who blindly follow their clergy. therefore they believe in other men’s interpretations of god, not god itself. why have a bible at all, if you’re not going to read it?
And I thought you said you were no longer Baptist. 🙂
<
p>The answer is that Catholics regard the Mass, and, more specifically, coming together as a community to celebrate the Mass, to be at least as important as the Bible, and indeed the most important aspect of our faith. Moreover, Catholics acknowledge sources of authority other than the Bible, including certain the work of certain theologians (rather in the same manner that Jews look to the Talmud in addition to the Torah), what we refer to as the “natural law” (I think you probably have a passing familiarity with this one, alas), the pronouncments of Church Councils, and certain papal prounouncments. Different Catholics place different degrees of emphasis upon each of these, much to the consternation of Church officials.
<
p>And historically, because the Catholic liturgical tradition is significantly older than most of the Protestant liturgical traditions, from a time when few were sufficiently literate enough to read a Bible or anything else. In this way, the Roman Church is more similar to the Eastern churches than to the other Western denominations.
<
p>This all stands in contrast to the Protestant theory of sola scriptura reflected in your comment, and is the basis of a rather ancient debate between these strands of Christian tradition.
<
p>I do not feel consrained to “blindly follow clergy” — a phrase that sounds like centuries-old propaganda– any more than a Baptist feels constrained to execute anyone who works on Sunday, as required in Exodus. Raher, I feel bound to inform my own conscience by carefully considering the teachings of the Church with regard to a particular matter, along with other relevant information, before reflecting and making my own decision, which does not necessarily comport with the aforementioned teaching. (Again to the consternation of Church officials.)
<
p>I am not an unusual Catholic in this regard. This is why the opinion of the Catholic congregation does not necessarily align completely with the official position of the Church on, for example, any of the modern “hot button” issues. Indeed, I recall reading that support for marriage equality among Catholics who regularly attend Mass was in the 40s percent range (long since lost the link, sadly). This is why I have argued here that hyper-confrontational tactics that lump all Catholics into “blindly following the clergy” (e.g., the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence”) to be profoundly counter-productive.
but i do like the american baptist emphasis on independent thinking. it’s not so different from “the american way”.
What you are referring to is the American Baptist Convention. That is very different from the other baptist conventions that operate in the US. There are a number of them; I was raised in an ABC church in Cincinnati.
<
p>Actually, Billy Graham, who was predominantly of the Southern Baptist tradition, believed that way, too. But the Southern Baptist Convention has been taken over by conservative radicals, and Billy’s son Franklin has pretty much joined them, despoiling Billy’s legacy.
the ABC and SBC are very, very different. the latter is authoritarian and male-centric, whereas ABC congregations each decide how conservative/liberal they wish to be and don’t systematically exclude women from the pulpit or other weighty posts. “baptist” isn’t a very precise term.
It struck me on the drive home that this concept of Christian dominionism, if that is the right way to refer to it, is rather profoundly un-Christlike. The Christian Gospel contains pretty strong language cautioning that the spiritual world and the material world do not mix, and should not be mixed.
<
p>I assume that these people are members of a Protestant church. It strikes me that they seem to be seeking to form exactly the thing that the Roman Catholic Church once claimed to be, and against which the intelluectual founders of Protestantism justifiably rebelled.
<
p>In a sense, then (the pre-16th century sense) these folks are more Catholic than the pope.
Read Deuteronomy 5:6-21
<
p>Particularly 7 you shall have no other gods before me.
<
p>Do you not really understand that there is a presumption there that there may be other gods, but those gods cannot be before the Lord of the Jews?. If you do not understand that, you are sadly in need of biblical education.
But engaging anyway.
<
p>Who gives a crap? The older scriptures of the Bible generally present the God of the Chosen People to be one of many. The monotheistic concept emerges over time. Therefore the more recent scriptures don’t have such references.
<
p>Most people I know that keep the commandments regard the first commandment to relate to one’s priorities in life, rather than as a specific injunction to make sure that Baal is scupulously kept in second place.
… see an etymological analysis of the original text in its original language before concluding what presumptions are implied. I’m not 100% confident in what the text actually says vs. the english I’m reading, never mind what it implies.
<
p>….you will never see an “etymological analysis” of the original text, because you will never see the original text. Aside from the fact that the original text was (probably) in Arimaic–bits and snatches of which can apparently still be recited phonetically in Mel Gibson’s film The Passion for the Cash–the sad fact that you have is that apparently the books have been so adulterated since they were originally inscribed on scrolls as to be virtualy worthless.
<
p>Another of my little stories. A little over a year ago, in response to a challenge on a conservative gay(!) web site, I went rooting around a cited passage on the Net Bible which is available through bible.org–you may find it interesting to go there someday, it is extensively footnoted. The cited passage was from the gospel according to John, so it wasn’t particularly ancient. According to Bible.org, which is not particularly liberal, but not conservative either, the cited passage was found nowhere in any original manuscript. It was a later-added adulteration.
<
p>And that’s one reason why I refer to the book as the Wholly Babble. In addition to the well-over a hundred internal inconsistencies in what has been passed down to us. Go to infidels.org if you are curious.
<
p>BTW, the “do not have any other gods before me” phrase also occurs in Exoduct 20:2-17. Now, you tell me, if that does not imply the presumption of other gods, why the “before me” language, in both books? Continuing from Exodus You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God pretty much sums it up.
… but I don’t know in Aramaic / Other. That’s my point.
<
p>What if a more accurate translation came out “I am the first and only God and you may not worship others. Worshiping other Gods displeases me.” Now your implication isn’t there. Knowing how badly many of the translations went and what they miss (I read somewhere that Eve from Adam’s rib is actually a pun) I won’t presume that the version that gets quoted on the internets is authoritative. Thats why there are scholars who study such things. So I wouldn’t presume that the original text implied anything. I would agree that the translation (accurate or not) implies it, though.
I am the first and only God and you may not worship others. Worshiping other Gods displeases me
<
p>…by eliminating the “before me” part. “Thou shalt have no other gods.” But the “before me” part is in the formulations in both Exodus and Deuteronomy.
… seems an odd way to put it. It’s anachronistic for English. I’ll bet there is more to the translation than that. When I see phrases like that it piques my interest in wondering “I wonder what a scholar of the original language in its ancient form would have to say about that translation.” Much like with the law, while I have no problem conjecturing as a laymen, I wouldn’t want to hold any firm conclusions without consulting a lawyer first.
Go to Bible.org, Netbible tab, and look at the footnotes in the relevant passages of Exodus and Deuteronomy. I sincerely am not going to do your research for you, although, in fact, I have. I’m just not going to copy them here.
…, are we in violent agreement? Do you disagree with what I have said here on this thread/branch? If so, what and why?
You are one of the few people here who seem to be intelligent on this subject matter, and I am cross-examining you.
<
p>It would be a mistake for you to take it personally.
My only point was that, in response to people asserting the meaning of specific parts of the Bible, that it is wise to be careful about such assertions given the time periods, translations, anachronisms, missed cultural references, and any other of a myriad of linguistic pitfalls one is usually oblivious to when quoting an English translation of the bible. I think, but am not sure, that you agree here.
<
p>Specifically addressing the assertion that the “no other” / “jealous” god implies acknowledgment of other gods, I merely advised caution on the above grounds. You seem to have found a source that goes into some detail and then seemed to object when I didn’t take your faith in this source’s correctness at your word. Your objection to not doing research for me is improper. I would point out that if it was your intention to rebut the necessity for the caution I advised (in this specific case) because of what you had learned from your sources, then the burden is not on me to duplicate your research. The burden is on you to provide it to me.
<
p>I have looked at your site and the notes. Without quoting them here (maybe later tonight when I’m not… ahem… working) I would say that they seem to bear me out on my point. The notes from the Exodus citation in particular seem to indicate that it is indeed possible to translate the text in such a way that does not imply muti-theistic acknowledgment. Of course (to make a small joke) I don’t know this source or the its notes from Adam. I don’t have any basis for weighing its credibility either. Also, its just one source. So in the spirit of caution which I previously advocated, I’ll have to take it with a grain of salt for now.
“Only to the
ignorantnon-Christian would the Trinitarian God be considered polytheistic.”“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
This has been a very interesting discussion and as a (somewhat) liberal Christian I want to weigh in. I am deeply saddened and outraged by the way the Christian right has hijacked my religion making it seemingly unrecognizable to many of us and downright frightening to many non-Christians. The purest form of Christianity, at least of which we have records, is found in the Gospels, but many insist more on following St. Paul rather than Christ Himself. Do you all realize that abortion and homosexuality, two issues the Christian right loves to harp on, are NEVER addressed by Jesus Himself?
<
p>I remember a few years back some people in Montana got all upset that a private organization had erected a cross on private land, albeit very visible to the surrounding area. These people felt that a message of hatred and exclusion was being conveyed and I remember wondering what had gone wrong. The message and example of Jesus is very much the opposite: love not hate, inclusion not exclusion. Unfortunately, this is not what one senses listening to the so-called “Christian” right.
<
p>I for one would not mind true Christian principles driving some of our policies as a careful read of the Gospels makes Jesus actually seem more sympathetic to our side. At a recent DNC training the trainer recounted how a reporter once asked him what his favorite speech of all time was. He replied it was the Sermon on the Mount. The reporter replied, “So you must be Christian,” to which the trainer said, “No ma’am, I’m a Democrat!” Christianity has also been used in this country to good ends such as abolition and the advance of civil rights.
<
p>On the public role of God I think both sides need to give a little. The very secular side needs to acknowledge that God references in the Pledge and on coins are just symbolic, and more importantly reference the abstract God of the Declaration of Independence rather than a specific Judeo-Christian God. The right needs to heed the already cited words of the Treaty of Tripoli and numerous other writings of the framers showing how unanimous their agreement was that the USA was NOT founded as a Christian nation. That being said I think Christmas needs to remain a public holiday just as a practical matter. If things stayed open, but we allowed Christians to take it off, a lot of things would have to close anyway for lack of staff.
<
p>Finally, I want to briefly introduce a rather liberal Christian denomination. I belong to the United Church of Christ, which consistently takes positions of inclusion and welcoming in the way we believe Jesus would have us do. We have even endorsed full marriage equality, I believe the only Christian denomination to do so. If you are interested check out http://www.ucc.org.
<
p>(Sorry I got so long-winded.)
You have conveyed the point in a better way than I have.
<
p>I know and respect the UCC, though I think the UUA may have also endorsed marriage equality.
Also for the record the UUA is not Christian and at least their can be no argument there as most Unitarians do not view themselves as Christian. So the UCC is the only Christian denomination to do so.
<
p>I used to be of the mainline liberal Protestant variety, but more recently as I have argued with more conservative Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical friends and as we have had ecumenical Bible Study id endorse a religious middle. The religious right focuses solely on divisive social and cultural issues trying to force the culture to reflect the church, something the Bible specifically condemns. The religious left too openly embraces secular culture and modernity forcing the church to reflect the culture, again something the Bible condemns. When Christ said render unto Caeser he argues that we must be active civic participants but he also said render unto God what is Gods which means that while we should be politically active our Churches should not. The instrument of the citizen, voting, running for office, etc. is open to the Christian but not to the Church which is Gods body on Earth and should only be considered with affairs of God.
<
p>Mainline protestants have made too many accomadations with modernity which and have disregarded that which is ancient and sacred for what is culturally relevant. So I would propose yes we have social services, we advocate for universal healthcare and a more peaceful foreign policy, we advocate for alternatives to abortion and provide them, we advocate against the death penalty and euthanasia, but we also keep our own policies, we only marry Christian men and women but we also endorse equality and fairness in the public sphere. And I think Christianity and America would be better off from a more amicable seperation and a more definitive allocation of duties.
Most modern UUA churches are non-creedal, and while recognizing wisdom within Christianity, they draw from many faiths. Considering them Christian in some ways minimizes their depth of thought.
Sure the two fall under the same umbrella of Unitarian Universalism today, it wasn’t always so.
<
p>Wikipedia on Unitarianism:
<
p>
<
p>Unitarianism has a strong background in the history of Massachusetts, as Harvard Divinity School was Unitarian through much of the 1800s. And the list of Unitarians is quite impressive: President Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Paul Revere, and President William H Taft to name a few.
<
p>Universalism:
<
p>
<
p>Long story short, Unitarianism and Universalism merged to form Unitarian Universalism 1961 here in Boston.
some UUers think of themselves are christians, some don’t. some are even atheist or agnostic or come from other religious traditions. so…it is not correct to refer to UUs as a christian denomination. it is a distinct religion whose members are free to call themselves christians…or jews…or zeusniks…or nothing at all. do i have it right?
Although, If I remember correctly, under the congregationalist model, some UU congregations can and do choose to be Christian-centric, specifically some of the historically older congregations that were Unitarian Christian before the UU merger. I get the impression that the Christian-centric UU services resemble to a degree mainline Protestant services.
Each UU and each UU congregation really has its own personality. The church my wife goes to is decidedly in the “ecumenical” mold — I actually coordinate the Buddhist meditation group there. I also have a family friend who works at King’s Chapel in Boston — with its spiritual roots still firmly planted in the Anglican church it once was.
Unitarianism grew out of Congregationalism and caused some nasty splits in some Massachusetts towns. I believe Harvard and Yale became Unitarian and Congregationalist respectively. An interesting indication of a town’s religious history is whether a Unitarian or Congregational Church occupies the prime real estate adjacent to the town common. Today the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) and United Church of Christ (UCC) – the denomination to which most Congregational churches belong – get along quite well and some local churches dually affiliate with both denominations. Presumably these churches lean more Christian than those that are just Unitarian. I understand that a running joke among Unitarians is that UCC stands for “Unitarians Considering Christ”!
… technically co call it a “distinct religion” either. I’d call them a distinct congregation of possibly disparate religious beliefs. Is there a proclamation of religious (as opposed to societal) beliefs that members must concede to to be a member?
… UUs do consider themselves to be a separate denomination from Christianity, although they readily acknowledge their Christian roots. (Carrie would be more than happy to explain further, I’m sure.)
<
p>The closest thing to a “credo” are the Seven Principles “which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:”
<
p>
<
p>Under that broad rubric, a UU can pretty much believe whatever he/she wants. In fact one of our good friends knew the UU church was for her when she came across a flyer entitled “Can I be an atheist and a UU?.” (The answer is “yes,” btw.)
One of the most remarkable/inspiring programs in UU that I’ve been privy to watch is “Coming of Age.” Carrie was a mentor in the last cycle. (It’s sort of like the UU version of a Bar Mitzvah.)
<
p>
<
p>The key part of the program is the for each young adult to formualte his or her own “credo statement” — which is then presented to the congregation in an affirmation ceremony at the end of the 2-year program. It’s really amazing what these young men and women come up with, and how hard they work to come to know themselves. The results really do reflect a great divesity of spiritual belief.
I’ve observed part of one of these COA events, and it was wonderful. I happened to be a guest at a UU church one sunday when some young people were talking about their service experience. It was clear from their stories that they understood the beauty in giving and sharing and what it means to be part of a community. They were lovingly and joyously embraced, figuratively, by the congregation. It was quite moving. I’ve never seen anything like it in all the endless protestant services i’ve attended. protestants want to bring you to christ. this UU church wanted to bring their kids into the fold of humanity. i think you can tell which resonates best with me. i choose not to be a member of any religion or congregation, but i do appreciate much of what the UUs do.
I personally adhere to the Groucho Marx school of religious affiliation, not particularly caring to belong to any church that would have me as a member; that said, I guess I consider myself a “UU by marriage,” and know my wife’s church pretty well. (We’re acutally listed together on the UUA’s mailing list, and I haven’t bothered to correct them!) I’ve really grown to respect the tradition over the year’s she’s been a member.
<
p>Carrie’s actually a part of her church’s growth task force which is trying to deal with a rapidly expanding congregation. One of the main reasons for the church’s growth is that a lot of young couples are seeing the value in bring their children up in an ecumenical environment that allows them to make their own decisions about spirituality and religion. UU particularly makes sense for mixed-faith couples who want to give their kids a spiritual education without necessarily giving preference to one tradition above another.
It’s also worth noting that the UU symbol is most definitely not a crucifix — rather a flaming chalice.
<
p>In fact there was a bit of a to-do over the recent re-design of the UUA chalice logo as many think it bears too strong a resemblance to a Christian cross.
<
p>Compare old:
<
p>
<
p>v. new:
<
p>
… here is a failure to communicate. My fault. Certainly they are distinct, but the question is are they a distinct religion. It seems to me that to be a religion, the group would have to be organized around a religious framework. My understanding is that their agreed upon framework is non-religious. It espouses many tenets and, but they do not assert any specifically religious tenets. The very fact that one can be an athiest and adhere to the credo in its entirety is demonstrative of this, unless one expands one’s definition of religious in some what that could include atheism. How could an atheist belong to a group whose members define themselves with specific religious tenets?
<
p>Simple mistake, but there’s a very significant difference:
<
p>Atheism is, by definition, simply disbelief in God; it makes no statement one way or the other about religion, although in a Western context we often conflate that point. I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that Shinto, Buddhism, Taoism, etc., aren’t religions despite being non-theistic if not explicitly atheistic.
<
p>I guess I’m curious to know what in your mind qualifies as a specifically “religious” tenet or framework, and how that necessarily relates to belief in God.
… that what we have here is a definitional disagreement on terms. Specifically “religion”. I assumed theism in its definition, you did (and presumably do) not. We are in agreement. Assume my definition and you appear to agree with me. Assume your definition and I agree with you. So in principal we appear to agree,… the rest is semantics.
<
p>”Religious” tenets, for me, are faith dependent in nature. “Live right” is not, by itself, sufficient to be a religious tenet. “Live right because [insert deity/deities] demands it” is. “Live right for reasons that do not require faith” is not. “Live right for reasons that do require faith” is. I suppose this means that I am expanding ‘atheist’ by definition to include criteria of faith beliefs in addition to theistic beliefs, but then I don’t believe the word is an apt description for anything in particular anyway (Harris has more on the issues with the term here and here, with video here.
I am not attempting to snark, and apologize if the following comes across that way.
<
p>Does “atheism” not connote an affirmative belief in the non-existence of a supreme being?
<
p>In that respect, atheism requires faith, in a sense, because the existence of a supreme being is no more susceptible to being disproved than it is to being proved. Elsewhere on this blog, self-described atheists have cited the maxim that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof, and that atheism therefore need not disprove anything, but this seems to me to be a cop-out that is a simple product of one’s point of view.
<
p>Atheism is different then from simply not giving a darn one wayb or the other.
… as it is commonly used, to bolster my non-belief in astrology. So it is too with deism.
… if you can easily understand the first assertion (above) then it should be easy to imagine the second.
Atheism requires no faith at all because atheists only believe in something when there is rational proof upon which to predicate that belief. Should proof of a god be offered that has been subjected to some commonly accepted rational or scientific process or scrutiny, then atheists, by their own definition, will believe. In other words, atheists, by their very nature, reject the notion of faith–in anything. Faith means nothing; faith is fairytale, whether we are talking about god or Thor or the Easter bunny.
<
p>Moreover, atheism is no more an affirmative belief system or religion than baldness is a hair style or not collecting stamps is a hobby.
<
p>This from the American Atheists might help you:
<
p>
<
p>To which I say, ummm, amen. lol
Is the absence of God scientifically verifiable?
It’s not the absence that requires proof, it’s the presence. Consequently, the burden of proof is not on the atheist. In other words, it is the obligation of the believer to prove their god does exist or, at the very least, attempt to define their “god” so that there is something substantive to talk about.
<
p>As someone so succinctly put it once, we are all atheists when it comes to another person’s god. I just believe in one less god than you.
Atheism is more than simply saying that there’s no proof for God’s existence, it’s an active belief that there really is no God. This is a proposition that demands as much evidence as the proposition that there really IS a God. If you want to unequivocally assert that we know anything about God’s existence/nonexistence (or about anything at all, for that matter), each side better be prepared to back it up. (I really have no dog in this fight, myself.)
<
p>Perhaps a more honest approach would be skeptical agnosticism — the position that there is insufficient evidence to justify a belief in God’s existence (however we care to define that proposition), and thus the whole question is not a particularly helpful one.
Sure, some atheists actually do actively believe and assert that no God exists, but not all. It’d be incorrect to term athiesm as the active belief that no god exists. The base definition to cover just about all atheists is lack of belief in God or Gods.
<
p>I agree that an active belief that God doesn’t exist requires evidence; one might say “I believe that no gods exist based on ______________”. But if it is one’s position that no evidence exists suggesting neither a god’s existence or its non-existence (in other words, no evidence one way or the other) then the only position that person can hold is a lack of belief in a god or gods, since active belief requires evidence.
It’s not a dichotomous choice — believing either that there is or there is not a God. One other option would be to acknowledge that one doesn’t — and very well might never be able to — know the answer to that question, simply because either position is impossible to prove. This would be the agnostic perspective.
<
p>Of course there’s always the non-theistic approach — i.e., that the whole question is irrelevant (see “Invisible Dragons” below).
<
p>
Of course. More than a third way. There can be many different ways.
<
p>I didn’t intend to set up a dichotomy. I work with the base assumption that atheism starts as a lack of belief of gods and gods. That is the only true blanket statement that we can apply to virtually every atheist. Beyond that, there is a diversity in atheistic thoughts and beliefs.
<
p>An additional position might be to say that it is impossible to even form a concept of God, therefore it is useless to even talk about weak atheism, strong atheism, non-theism, agnosticism etc. All I am saying is that I don’t think that there is anything we can say that atheists do actively believe, therefore the only working definition to accurately encapsulate atheism is to describe the belief that is lacked.
<
p>
However, to mince words, I maintain that lack of belief in the existence God is better described as non-theism; atheism is more accurately a belief in the non-existence of God. I don’t think the two are one in the same, even if people use the terms interchangeably to cover a range of beliefs (or lack thereof).
<
p>There is no burden of proof for lack of belief, naturally; but if one professes a belief in the non-existence of God, he/she should be subject to the same burden of proof as one who professes belief in God’s existence. That’s just intellectual honesty, IMHO.
… your linguistic distinction is very useful. I don’t think many of what you call non-theists would think to describe themselves in a one word description as anything other than theists, however. Just more evidence that definitions have not been really agreed upon in the general conversation, although we are certainly making progress here.
<
p>That you mean “atheists” rather than “thesits” here?
<
p>I agree that definition of terms is crtical. It’s also important to understand how the useage of a particular word may have evolved and to understand that our common use may not be — um — definitive.
Speed kills, even while typing.
… I don’t know that the Iranians haven’t used time travel to change history, but it seems best to go on with life under the assumption (until proven otherwise) that they havent.
<
p>No it isn’t. You don’t get to redefine the terms to suit your rhetorical purposes.
<
p>I gave you straight from American Atheists the definition of atheism. There it is.
<
p>
<
p>This is gibberish. If you assert something, it is YOUR job to prove it, not mine to disprove.
<
p>
<
p>Clearly. The burden of evidence is on those who claim the existence of god. I am not asserting there is no god, I’m asserting there is no evidence for god. Consequently, I cannot believe that a god exists. If you or anyone can provide evidence that a god exists, the question is moot. The very nature of god, however, and the inability of humans to agree upon what god is makes the argument one of futility. So, yes, under the current circumstances, you are never going to be able to verify the existence of a god, ergo I will never believe that a god exists. I am not trying to convince you there is no god. I am only trying to convince you that there is no evidence for a god. Faith, by its very nature, precludes the need for evidence. I cannot argue factually against faith.
<
p>
<
p>Well, we can disagree. I don’t believe in anything that can’t be verified through customary scientific inquiry.
But I’ll try to give a coherent response:
<
p>I am not redefining terms for rhetorical purposes, although I will concede that we seem to have different understandings. By way of analogy, there are many self-avowed “Christians” who are anything but Christian in the sense that they follow the teachings of Jesus. The point is just because someone identifies as an atheist or a Christian or whatever doesn’t mean that they have a full or accurate understanding of the term.
<
p>Atheism, very strictly speaking, is a philosophical position about the existence/non-existence of God (or gods). The assertion of atheists — by definition — is that God does not exist. The atheist’s proposition must be subject to the same degree of scrutiny as the theist’s: if one demands proof of a for the theist’s belief that God does exist, an atheist must be equally prepared to show proof for his belief that God does not exist. (Again, I want to draw an important distinction between lack of a belief, and disbelief.)
<
p>
<
p>I have no dog in this fight — I’m just trying to hold both sides to the same degree of intellectual rigor.
<
p>I can accept that there is no evidence for a god; I can accept that you do not believe that a god exists. However, the latter does not necessarily follow from the former — there’s a leap in reasoning. One can take the same lack of evidence and just as easily be agnostic or non-theist. (Or even throw reason to the wind and be a theist despite it all!)
<
p>Finally, I also want to make a quick comment about faith. Faith is often understood pejoratively in the West — the common understanding is that it refers to belief in something without (or despite) evidence. As you say, “Faith means nothing; faith is fairytale, whether we are talking about god or Thor or the Easter bunny.”
<
p>This is very limited and limiting view of faith. Buddhist teacher Sharon Salzberg has a book which goes into this in some detail, and I offers her words for your consideration:
<
p>
…
<
p>”The point is just because someone identifies as an atheist or a Christian or whatever doesn’t mean that they have a full or accurate understanding of the term.”
<
p>Not also that it isn’t clear that there is an ‘accurate’ common understanding of the term meanings either. It seems, as evidenced by the thread, that proceeding in conversation with such terms without being more specific can lead to misunderstandings.
<
p>Which is why American Atheists, as I offered, should be used as a resource for accurate information about atheism. It is not helpful or constructive for people to substitute their personal definitions of atheism for the actual definitions and beliefs of atheists as outlined by the organization that speaks for atheists in this nation. There is plenty of information available on that website and in their publications should you choose to do some research.
<
p>A person’s understanding of atheism as it’s currently understood today in this nation should be informed by the collective writings and statements of American Atheists and not what people reconstitute from past philosophy classes or the musings and writings of non-atheists.
<
p>And for the record, I completely disagree with Salzberg’s conclusion regarding the definition of faith. She seems to be moving the goal posts in order to advantage the “faith-based” team. Exploration, investigation, and open-mindedness are all avenues by which one arrives at a belief which is verifiable, and the notion that wisdom is somehow more consistent with faith is utterly bogus. Wisdom, as a concept, does not speak to faith or verifiable beliefs. I think drawing equivalencies between faith and belief in the context of this particular conversation is unproductive.
I see no reason to give American Atheists the last word on atheism any more than I would give the Roman Catholic Church (or the Southern Baptists, or whomever) the last word on Christianity. It’s one perspective, but certainly not an absolute one.
<
p>Our “goalposts” are never truly fixed — they are merely a point of reference. But if we choose not to play by each others symantic “rules” at least for arguement’s sake, so be it… but then further discussion becomes pointless.
<
p>As for wisdom and faith…. I think the English-language/Western perspective lacks some of the nuance of the Buddhist perspective. Faith (alternately “confidence” or “conviction”) is indeed essential to the cultivation of wisdom (“understanding” or “discernment”) — which actually does arise through investigation and exploration, principally through the practice of meditation. But again, that’s just another perspective, and individual results may vary.
You would, however, give the last word on Catholicism to the Catholic Church, wouldn’t you?
<
p>You may dismiss the role of AA in America if you choose, but it’s the closest approximation to a “voice” that we can achieve. You are free to reject that, of course, and substitute your own perspective. Atheists, active ones at that, however, will view your perspective as skewed and lacking facts, and that’s okay, too.
Must I supply evidence that no Cookie Monster exists? or no unicorns? or no other fanciful creations of the human imagination?
<
p>Why would the evidential requirements for “no unicorns” be higher than the evidential requirement for “no god”?
And now we get into the nitty gritty of what “existence” itself means. I think most of us can conjure up a mental image of Cookie Monster or a unicorn. So, do they “exist” or not? In some senses, they certainly do. (As always, how we define our terms is critically important.)
<
p>The problem seems to be a disconnect in matching our conceptual world (i.e., the idea of a unicorn) to the world of verifiable evidence. If someone maintains the belief that unicorns really are frollicking in some remote forest, the burden of proof is certainly on them to show evidence for that belief.
<
p>Proving a negative (the nonexistence of unicorns) is a slilghtly different matter — you have to try to falsify the opposite hypothesis, that unicorns exist. Obviously this is a near impossible task, as the hypothesis would require infinite testing in order to be falsified. (As they say, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”)
<
p>For example think of the scientific “truths” that no one today would think simply sprang into existence at the moment of their discovery — the existence of subatomic particles, for instance. If someone in 1492 wanted to debate the existence or non-existence of protons, neutrons, and electrons, there would be little verifiable evidence to support the view that they exist. One might just as well speak of invisible dragons.
<
p>The existence of subatomic particles could be verified only when we developed both the appropriate conceptual framework and the scientific means for perceiving them — even though it’s probably safe to presume that protons were just as much in existence in 1492 as they are today.
<
p>Coming back to the main qeustion, it seems to me that the most reasonable conclusion is that we simply don’t have sufficient evidence to make definitive statements one way or the other regarding the existence/nonexistence of unicorns — or God — and for the most part and for practical purposes it’s doesn’t make a rat’s whisker of difference. If theism is a helpful tool, so be it; if atheism is helpful tool, so be it; if the question is neither here nor there, so be it.
<
p>The problem in my view arises when people attach unqeuivocally to one view (theism) or the other (atheism) without a) holding the opposing view to a higher standard of proof, or b) providing evidence to support their own position.
In my tradition, doubt is an essential ingredient of faith.
<
p>….some people who consider themselves to be atheists do not, as you wrote in your first sentence, actively believe that there is no god. What they do is to go merrily on their way, with the belief that, until evidence is produced that indicates that there actually is a god, there is no particular reason for them to believe that there is one. Or two, or three, or four….. I suspect that even Richard Dawkins would acknowlege that one cannot prove that god (by whatever definition) does not exist.
<
p>I, personally consider myself to be an agnostic, although some might consider it atheism. I have no idea whether or not a god exists, and, quite frankly, I don’t care enough to search for evidence for the existence of one (etc). The odd fact is, however, that those who actually do wish to believe that a god exists are not interested enough in the subject to search for evidence, either, to even try to substantiate their belief. I interpret that as suggesting that they want to believe, but they don’t want to know and that they are afraid that their failure to provide evidence will damage the basis for their beliefs.
celestial teapot and Carl Sagan’s dragons deal with your question, as well.
<
p>Precisely — but that doesn’t actually disprove the existence of invisible dragons either, it merely claims that the question is not relevant.
<
p>Think of it this way: We take the building blocks of matter — electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc. — for granted today because they ARE detectable by modern scientific means. (Actually, “invisible dragons” is quite a nice metaphor for subatomic phenomena, I think.) Presumably these things existed long before our ability to verify them scientifically, and did not just spring into being overnight. So, if someone back in, say, 1700 were to say that he did not believe in the existence of protons because there was no evidence of their existence, would that person be correct? Where is the burden of proof?
… of terms. When the average person refers to an atheist, he or she may be referring to either of the following:
<
p>1) One who actively asserts the non-existence of God as a matter of fact.
<
p>2) One who asserts that the existence of God has not been proved satisfactorily and posits that it is best to operate under the assumption that God does not exist. Technically this person does not “know” that God doesn’t exist, but operates that way.
<
p>The argument in various comments above is semantic on this point. The fact that this term (which I abhor) can be used in either mode creates the confusion. One must agree on the meaning of terms before conversation can be meaningful. When it becomes clear that the meaning of terms used in conversation are not congruent, it becomes necessary to clarify what is meant in order for the conversation to remain meaningful. Call the atheist1 and atheist2 if necessary I guess.
<
p>It is important to point out that basing one’s assertion on a specific definition of a term is not invalid or deceptive (switching meanings in mid argument, however, is). Indeed, it is necessary for arguments to use terms with meaning. The pitfall is in not being explicit in that meaning leaves open the possibility that not all readers assume the exact same meaning. As I said before, if it becomes clear that this is what is happening, declarations that the argument is invalid are premature. Instead what is necessary is to just be more explicit. This is pretty much what happened below in our conversation about religion.
I have to say that I find you the most rational and reasoned contributor to this site. Bar none.
… I guess my philosophy professors from college have demonstrated their skill.
There are at least two routes around the objection that atheism requires faith. The first is an attack on the coherence of religious notions of god. All manner of human cognition are projected onto a supreme being and one quickly ends up in some uncomfortable philosophical corners when one tries to pursue them. Omnipotence and omniscience are hard enough to untangle. Mix in benevolence and you’ve got some real trouble. The conclusion of that attack is that religious belief is logically incoherent.
<
p>A second attack is to point out that the belief in the supernatural or a god appears to be rooted in most human cultures. Socio-biologists might even supply an account of it. However, one should be precisely dubious of things one wants to believe, e.g. the Laffler Curve. In fact, a rajian cross-examination of the contemporary beliefs around of 4 BC to 30 AD turn up miracles by emperors, religions like Mithraism with some striking similarities to Christianity, and scrolls with similar sets of teachings. The conclusion of the second attack is that religious belief is preposterous.
<
p>That’s just two flavors: analytical philosopher or ancient historian.
In a sense, everything comes down to symantics, no?
<
p>As for faith-dependent tenets, how would you interpret the following?
<
p>Observation 1: Human existence involves suffering
Observation 2: Suffering is subject to cause and effect
Observation 3: Suffering ceases to exist when its causes cease to exist
Observation 4: Steps 1-8 for ending the causes of suffering
…observations or steps require a belief in the supernatural? Then I’d say it’s not religious in that manner.
2) Why does religion necessarily entail a belief in the supernatural?
I would say that the various denominations, worldwide, exist on a spectrum between theology and philosophy, and that the boundary between theology and philosphy is not as clear as many thesists and atheists might imagine.
<
p>Thanks for your contribution to this interesting discussion.
…
<
p>1 – Self evident.
2 – This depends entirely on what is semantically meant by ’cause’. A tree falls on my leg… sure thats a cause. I will myself into sadness (actors can do this quite effectively)… is that my will a cause? What if my natural neutral state is to be in the mood of sadness? Can it be said there was a cause? Is it existence itself? Also note the wide variety of what could be called ‘suffering.
3 – First, its semantically more correct to say that suffering ceases to happen when causes are eliminated. I’m not convinced this is necessarily true. I suppose this could depend on the semantics of number 2 above, like the will and neutral state examples.
4 – I’m still not conviced suffering is something we should want to eliminate in the first place. Much of the struggles one goes through (in life individually, or as a society, or even as a species) generates suffering, but those struggles also generate much of what we would call progress, be it learning (don’t touch the hot stove, those types of red berries make you sick), to technology (I sweat and toiled long and hard, but now I have shelter). I also think that suffering has a spiritual component. Could it be said that a human who has never suffered understands the human condition on a realistic or spiritual level? I don’t think so. My opinion.
… that none of my conjectures above required faith. Reason, experience and evidence will suffice.
The point is that these four “observations” are a thinly disguised version of Buddhism’s “Four Noble Truths.”
<
p>Buddhism is generally recognized as the 6th largest religion in the world, based on number of adherents. You (correctly, I might add) say yourself that “none of my conjectures above required faith. Reason, experience and evidence will suffice.” This begs the question of you: By your rationale would you consider Buddhism to be a religion or not?
… no. It should be noted that I do side with Harris on this in that the pursuit of the spiritual need not be religious by my definition. Defining them as separate is useful in that it makes the distinction clear. Historians have pointed out that westerners’ use the term religion when describing their first encountering non-western, non-theistic groups may be described an act of misunderstanding what they were witnessing.
Yes, spirituality and religion are not necessarily one in the same. One can certainly be spiritual without being religious, and there are plenty of instances of religion being devoid of spirituality. I’d also agree that Eastern religion/spirituality is problematic from a Western mindset because it fails to fit neatly into any of our conventional pigeonholes.
who call themselves UUs because they wish to participate in a spiritual community united around common values. Atheists are very much welcomed under the UU umbrella if they subscribe to the principles listed in your comment.