Secular folks should worry.

[Res Ipsa]

LOL! Claiming victim status and then more allegations about people who do not believe in God based on sheer bigotry. That's not a "debrief" -- that's quadrupling down.

What you do to nonbelievers is every bit as bad as Trump siccing his mob of sycophants against anyone who opposes him: threats of violence and actual violence. You accuse them of outrageous things like wanting pornography in public school libraries (without any evidence that the librarians and other school officials are nonbelievers), which is exactly what leads to a barrage of threats that leads them to quit those jobs. You claim to be all about civility, but your words promote thuggery and mobocracy.

It is you -- the guy who portrays folks who don't share your believes as existential threats -- who is driving the divide wider and wider.

I found it enlightening, but I suspect you weren't among the enlightened.

Thanks for your thoughts, Res Ipsa. Not sure that you actually read my post in detail…but anyway…I know you have your point of view. I do respect that.

Regards,
MG

Typical passive aggression.

As is also typical, you misrepresented the article you quoted from. Here is how you characterized it:

It is that ultimate result of the human condition in which the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims, that we ALL ought to be concerned with. THAT was the point of the article. But then we steered towards a discussion as to whether or not the very premise of the article could be trusted and/or the results really had any basis in reality.

That was not the point of the article at all. In fact, the point was exactly the opposite of what you said it was:

Human rights treaties commit nations to freedom of religion or belief (including freedom of nonbelief and nonreligious beliefs). Any constraints on freedom of religion or belief should be the minimum compatible with the survival of a liberal, tolerant, democratic open society. In addition the European convention on human rights includes a commitment to the principle of nondiscrimination.

From this it appears to follow necessarily that the state, the law and the public institutions we all share must be neutral towards different religions and beliefs. On questions of profound disagreement and deep sensitivity where there is no agreed way to establish the truth or falsehood of the claims made variously by Christians, Muslims, humanists and everyone else, it is quite wrong for the state to throw its weight behind any one particular religion or belief. This neutrality is what is meant by secularism. It is a political principle applicable to states: a secular state may be supported by religious believers and be the home of widespread religious belief. Indeed, secularism is the best guarantee of freedom of religion or belief – but the enemy of religious privilege. It must be distinguished from a secular society, a term that suggests a society that has distanced itself from religion.

This is author's description of "secularism" which, unlike you, he has no problem defining in a couple of sentences. As he defines it, the term refers to a political principle, nothing else, that applies solely to government. It requires strict neutrality as to religious belief, and includes humanism and atheism. It's much more akin to what we mean by separation of church and state than anything else -- something you claim to believe in, although what you mean by it is unclear.

Your expressed concern, that "the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims" is neither stated nor implied in the article. You just made that up. One of the major criticisms in the article is that "secularism" has been made into made into a boogeyman by religious folk, which is exactly what you have repeatedly done in this thread an in others on the board.

You conceded upthread that you were using "secularism" as a stand in for some undefined thing that nonbelievers believe: some undefined existential threat. The author of the article defined "secularism" as a political theory of how the state should function -- one that protects both believers and nonbelievers alike. If we were all "secularists" as meant in the article, there would be no need to worry about whether a political leader was accountable to a God because the leader would be committed to neutrality toward religious belief and unbelief.

The one paragraph you quoted says nothing different. It occurs in the context of a discussion about how the state should act in terms of neutrality. The state should not consider arguments of the form: God, therefore X or Not God, therefore X. This is a view of government that protects religious rights, regardless of whether the people in the government are believers or not. If this doesn't represent your notion of separation of church and state, I'd like you to explain what you mean when you say you are in favor of that separation.

This dichotomy becomes evident on a board such as this. And when you have majority voices using whatever means necessary to drown out the minority voice(s) you have the perfect example of ‘uncivil society’.

People of faith represent the majority of people in the United States, and have an outsized monopoly on elected offices. Our voices have been completely "drowned out" in terms of legislation privileging religion and the religious. But I guess the real "crisis" is being "outnumbered" on a small, obscure message board.

Anyway, yes, Res Ipsa, this was an interesting and even enlightening thread. If nothing else, we have a record of two differing world views being laid out for others to see and observe.

Well, why don't you show us how enlighten you were. Can you write a description of our respective world views in a compare and contrast fashion that accurately describes my world view?

[Res Ipsa]

LOL! Claiming victim status and then more allegations about people who do not believe in God based on sheer bigotry. That's not a "debrief" -- that's quadrupling down.

What you do to nonbelievers is every bit as bad as Trump siccing his mob of sycophants against anyone who opposes him: threats of violence and actual violence. You accuse them of outrageous things like wanting pornography in public school libraries (without any evidence that the librarians and other school officials are nonbelievers), which is exactly what leads to a barrage of threats that leads them to quit those jobs. You claim to be all about civility, but your words promote thuggery and mobocracy.

It is you -- the guy who portrays folks who don't share your believes as existential threats -- who is driving the divide wider and wider.

I found it enlightening, but I suspect you weren't among the enlightened.

What comes after quadrupling down? MG with his bigotry is back again.

I think it's either quintupling or octupling, depending on the mathematical progression.

[MG 2.0]

And here you are. Absolutely nothing to add to the conversation.

Regards,
MG

You quintupling down on your bigotry isn't a conversation.

But, conversation isn't what you're here for, so feel free to carry on expressing your victimhood by yourself. Drumming up attention is hard work, so put your back into it, man!
: D

And so it goes…

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

DARVO
- Doc

Filling up bandwidth/space with superfluous fluff.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Well, that was … something.

I feel like I need a debrief. Or a beer.

Probably both.

Yes, that was something, indeed. To start a thread and within the span of a few days be called a racist, a bigot, a supporter of pedophilia, and being labeled as “retarded” and an idiot was an eye opener as to the extent that secular atheists will go to in order to distort and/or dispose those views that run contrary to their worldview. I am none of those things, but certain posters will twist words and context in order to make what they will ‘the truth’.

I would recommend that anyone who has been a non participant in this thread and you are coming across it for the first time, read it with open eyes and fairness. There is a great divide between those that believe in God and those that don’t. The argument in the OP article referred to is whether civil society (a society in which we all get along and every voice is heard and valued) can continue as each generation moves towards a secularistic non belief in God.

Posters in this forum seemed to believe that I am somehow against free thought and/or separation of church and state. Not at all.

Here is an interesting article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-atheism


There is much food for thought in this defense of secular thought and practice. One thing in particular was of concern to me.

What secularists do say is that in debates on public policy purely religious arguments should carry no weight. In a Voltaire-like defence of freedom of expression, we absolutely do not wish to suppress or forbid such arguments being voiced – but we do say that by convention they should count for nothing in the minds of politicians and decision-makers. By all means let the religious argue, say, against assisted dying with warnings of a slippery slope – an argument we can all understand and assess – but if they argue that life is the gift of God and that it is not for us to take it away, then in the process of public decision-making their words should be ignored. Such arguments cannot be legitimately admitted in a society where there are so many competing beliefs that reject its very premises.

It is those “competing beliefs” that might be a concern to all of us. Including secularists. We have examples in history where large swathes of humankind were exterminated because of those competing beliefs. Civil societies ceased to exist.

It is that ultimate result of the human condition in which the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims, that we ALL ought to be concerned with. THAT was the point of the article. But then we steered towards a discussion as to whether or not the very premise of the article could be trusted and/or the results really had any basis in reality.

Rather than discussing the type of society we ALL would want to live in as we think about the world our grandchildren will grow up in.

Do we want a totalitarian government? Of course not. Do we want a governing establishment that does not value the essential value of life within and without the womb? We’ve already slid down the slippery slope in some respects where we have seen the value of life diminished. And on the whole it’s not by the religionists. It’s the secular humanists with “competing beliefs” that have held sway. If we have a myriad of examples throughout history of societies in which competing beliefs have resulted in large scale death and destruction of individuals, families, and religious beliefs…ought we not to be concerned that this could happen within our country/society?

Some (mostly secular humanists) say no. Others say yes, it is a concern we ought to pay attention to (mostly religionists)..

This dichotomy becomes evident on a board such as this. And when you have majority voices using whatever means necessary to drown out the minority voice(s) you have the perfect example of ‘uncivil society’.

Anyway, yes, Res Ipsa, this was an interesting and even enlightening thread. If nothing else, we have a record of two differing world views being laid out for others to see and observe.

I appreciate the opportunity of being the minority voice. And no, I don’t accept the accusation that I’m a bad representative of my faith. That’s simply a concoction made in order to smear my good name and the good name of the LDS Church.

There, that may wrap things up.

Regards,
MG

Res Ipsa, you are misrepresenting what I said vs. what the article said.

Regards,MG

[Marcus]

Why not respond directly to his post then?

Thanks for your thoughts, Res Ipsa. Not sure that you actually read my post in detail…but anyway…I know you have your point of view. I do respect that.

Regards,
MG

Typical passive aggression.

As is also typical, you misrepresented the article you quoted from. Here is how you characterized it:

It is that ultimate result of the human condition in which the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims, that we ALL ought to be concerned with. THAT was the point of the article. But then we steered towards a discussion as to whether or not the very premise of the article could be trusted and/or the results really had any basis in reality.

That was not the point of the article at all. In fact, the point was exactly the opposite of what you said it was:

Human rights treaties commit nations to freedom of religion or belief (including freedom of nonbelief and nonreligious beliefs). Any constraints on freedom of religion or belief should be the minimum compatible with the survival of a liberal, tolerant, democratic open society. In addition the European convention on human rights includes a commitment to the principle of nondiscrimination.

From this it appears to follow necessarily that the state, the law and the public institutions we all share must be neutral towards different religions and beliefs. On questions of profound disagreement and deep sensitivity where there is no agreed way to establish the truth or falsehood of the claims made variously by Christians, Muslims, humanists and everyone else, it is quite wrong for the state to throw its weight behind any one particular religion or belief. This neutrality is what is meant by secularism. It is a political principle applicable to states: a secular state may be supported by religious believers and be the home of widespread religious belief. Indeed, secularism is the best guarantee of freedom of religion or belief – but the enemy of religious privilege. It must be distinguished from a secular society, a term that suggests a society that has distanced itself from religion.

This is author's description of "secularism" which, unlike you, he has no problem defining in a couple of sentences. As he defines it, the term refers to a political principle, nothing else, that applies solely to government. It requires strict neutrality as to religious belief, and includes humanism and atheism. It's much more akin to what we mean by separation of church and state than anything else -- something you claim to believe in, although what you mean by it is unclear.

Your expressed concern, that "the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims" is neither stated nor implied in the article. You just made that up. One of the major criticisms in the article is that "secularism" has been made into made into a boogeyman by religious folk, which is exactly what you have repeatedly done in this thread an in others on the board.

You conceded upthread that you were using "secularism" as a stand in for some undefined thing that nonbelievers believe: some undefined existential threat. The author of the article defined "secularism" as a political theory of how the state should function -- one that protects both believers and nonbelievers alike. If we were all "secularists" as meant in the article, there would be no need to worry about whether a political leader was accountable to a God because the leader would be committed to neutrality toward religious belief and unbelief.

The one paragraph you quoted says nothing different. It occurs in the context of a discussion about how the state should act in terms of neutrality. The state should not consider arguments of the form: God, therefore X or Not God, therefore X. This is a view of government that protects religious rights, regardless of whether the people in the government are believers or not. If this doesn't represent your notion of separation of church and state, I'd like you to explain what you mean when you say you are in favor of that separation.

This dichotomy becomes evident on a board such as this. And when you have majority voices using whatever means necessary to drown out the minority voice(s) you have the perfect example of ‘uncivil society’.

People of faith represent the majority of people in the United States, and have an outsized monopoly on elected offices. Our voices have been completely "drowned out" in terms of legislation privileging religion and the religious. But I guess the real "crisis" is being "outnumbered" on a small, obscure message board.

Anyway, yes, Res Ipsa, this was an interesting and even enlightening thread. If nothing else, we have a record of two differing world views being laid out for others to see and observe.

Well, why don't you show us how enlighten you were. Can you write a description of our respective world views in a compare and contrast fashion that accurately describes my world view?

Quoting yourself and saying 'nuh-huh' isn't a response.

[Res Ipsa]

Yes, that was something, indeed. To start a thread and within the span of a few days be called a racist, a bigot, a supporter of pedophilia, and being labeled as “retarded” and an idiot was an eye opener as to the extent that secular atheists will go to in order to distort and/or dispose those views that run contrary to their worldview. I am none of those things, but certain posters will twist words and context in order to make what they will ‘the truth’.

I would recommend that anyone who has been a non participant in this thread and you are coming across it for the first time, read it with open eyes and fairness. There is a great divide between those that believe in God and those that don’t. The argument in the OP article referred to is whether civil society (a society in which we all get along and every voice is heard and valued) can continue as each generation moves towards a secularistic non belief in God.

Posters in this forum seemed to believe that I am somehow against free thought and/or separation of church and state. Not at all.

Here is an interesting article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-atheism


There is much food for thought in this defense of secular thought and practice. One thing in particular was of concern to me.



It is those “competing beliefs” that might be a concern to all of us. Including secularists. We have examples in history where large swathes of humankind were exterminated because of those competing beliefs. Civil societies ceased to exist.

It is that ultimate result of the human condition in which the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims, that we ALL ought to be concerned with. THAT was the point of the article. But then we steered towards a discussion as to whether or not the very premise of the article could be trusted and/or the results really had any basis in reality.

Rather than discussing the type of society we ALL would want to live in as we think about the world our grandchildren will grow up in.

Do we want a totalitarian government? Of course not. Do we want a governing establishment that does not value the essential value of life within and without the womb? We’ve already slid down the slippery slope in some respects where we have seen the value of life diminished. And on the whole it’s not by the religionists. It’s the secular humanists with “competing beliefs” that have held sway. If we have a myriad of examples throughout history of societies in which competing beliefs have resulted in large scale death and destruction of individuals, families, and religious beliefs…ought we not to be concerned that this could happen within our country/society?

Some (mostly secular humanists) say no. Others say yes, it is a concern we ought to pay attention to (mostly religionists)..

This dichotomy becomes evident on a board such as this. And when you have majority voices using whatever means necessary to drown out the minority voice(s) you have the perfect example of ‘uncivil society’.

Anyway, yes, Res Ipsa, this was an interesting and even enlightening thread. If nothing else, we have a record of two differing world views being laid out for others to see and observe.

I appreciate the opportunity of being the minority voice. And no, I don’t accept the accusation that I’m a bad representative of my faith. That’s simply a concoction made in order to smear my good name and the good name of the LDS Church.

There, that may wrap things up.

Regards,
MG

Res Ipsa, you are misrepresenting what I said vs. what the article said.

Regards,MG

How?

[MG 2.0]

Your expressed concern, that "the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims" is neither stated nor implied in the article. You just made that up. One of the major criticisms in the article is that "secularism" has been made into made into a boogeyman by religious folk, which is exactly what you have repeatedly done in this thread an in others on the board.

As I said, you are mishmashing what I presented as my OWN thoughts and opinions with other unrelated sections/parts of the article.

Nice try there Mr. Lawyer.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You conceded upthread that you were using "secularism" as a stand in for some undefined thing that nonbelievers believe: some undefined existential threat.

I clearly defined what the risks are in regards to the gradual slide towards secular humanism and the non belief in God.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Your expressed concern, that "the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims" is neither stated nor implied in the article. You just made that up. One of the major criticisms in the article is that "secularism" has been made into made into a boogeyman by religious folk, which is exactly what you have repeatedly done in this thread an in others on the board.

As I said, you are mishmashing what I presented as my OWN thoughts and opinions with other unrelated sections/parts of the article.

Nice try there Mr. Lawyer.

Regards,
MG

Typical ad hominem.

Let's review your words again:

]It is that ultimate result of the human condition in which the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims, that we ALL ought to be concerned with. THAT was the point of the article.

Those are your words. Quote the part of the article where the author says or implies that we all should be concerned about an elite composed of unbelievers being in charge of society and the military.