Should U.S. Federal or State Laws be Based on the Bible?
So, here it is, just a regular Tuesday in March of 2021, and I have been called out on C99% as a bad person for my strong beliefs in a secular government, and some of you apparently agree that is wrong of me, since you rec'd the insult directed at me.
Can I get an Amen?
Who is willing to explain this? Who here thinks we should base our laws on the Bible?
Yesterday, someone quoted some rando lawmaker saying that what is legal or not should be based on what the Bible says or doesn't say, and called this "straightforward" thinking, followed by the word "No?" (Implying everyone has to agree with this thinking.)
I answered: NO. And I explained that this is because making laws based on the Bible is NOT 'straightforward' in the least -- in fact, I called it a "dangerously stupid idea" -- and I stand by that.
Yes, I am fully (and painfully) aware that we already have (far too many) laws on the books that are based in the bible, or at least on some groups' interpretation of what they think the bible demands.
And I have always been opposed to that. Always. And I always will be. The Bible should *never* be used as a reason to make anything legal or illegal.
I am actually stunned that even a few people here think it's a good idea to toss aside secular government and go with some idiot's biblical beliefs as the basis of what laws should be implemented in this country.
I stand against religion in government. And I stand against those who try to shame me for that.
Comments
Freedom from religious control of government is a core principle
I would really hope that this is something we could agree on. But I guess not.
Religion controls far too much of our lives as it is. Most of the time I just let it roll over me and carry on without dwelling on it, because otherwise I would drown in the religious sea our world is awash in. But there are times when it really pisses me off to be called a bad person because I believe in secularism. This was one of those times.
To be really clear
I did not call you a bad person.
WOW did you misunderstand what was going on!
Being on the right side for a stupid reason still beats being on the wrong side for a "rational" reason.
You don't have to, and you can't, and you shouldn't, try to thought-police other people.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
That is hilarious, coming from you
Since I'm not doing that, what is your point? It wasn't me who said that basing laws on the Bible is "straightforward, no?" I answered the question. NO. It is not straightforward, it is wrong. And I said why I think that. And then I got scolded for not agreeing that this is a great idea. Now you stop in here to repeat that and scold me some more. Color me not surprised.
Not me.
Who said we should? Who shamed you?
I am lost. Just saying.
I feel c99p becomes a private club whose members engage in circular fire shooting.
https://www.euronews.com/live
You can check my comment page if you care to look at it
I have summarized the issue here.
Who said it, is not the point.
The point is whether it's a good idea to base laws on the Bible. I am glad you don't think so.
Sorry I am too tired to check your document page
I am out of the loop and just answered the question, because it seemed to me to have an obvious answer.
Sorry. No offense meant. Forget my comments. Total waste of time.
Have a good evening, if it's evening at your location.
Tschüss.
https://www.euronews.com/live
There are many who can't imagine morality without scripture
I used to go round and round with a design/ engineering/ philosophy instructor a few years back. He would always posit that without "God" the isn't any morality. He would say "If there isn't any god, then why shouldn't I kill you?" I would respond with a few questions like "Why do you like you need to kill me?, Why do feel like you need someone to prevent you from doing so?", "For the same reason, that you wouldn't want me to kill you", and usually I would just end with "Nothing, you have to decide for yourself, if that is right thing to do..."
He also didn't believe in global warming, would blame it on "sunspots" (totally debunked).
Ultimately, as an atheist, I can understand why people would have religion in their lives. I can appreciate that someone would use their private faith to inform whatever public policy that they could influence. I don't however think that "the Bible" should be used as the prescription to directly inflict public policy.
In almost all of the cases of Bible based public policy, it is quite discriminatory and inflicts a huge amount of damage on minorities (of ethnicity and faith).
I view mostly Born-Agains, Evangelicals and Dominionists as some of the least trustworthy members of society. Their "forgiven" status, seems to in their own minds, put themselves above any ethics any of us mere mortals would consider just.
Thank you - excellent comment!
I really appreciate you taking the time to post a serious reply. To me this is really not just a throw-away, nothing topic.
The idea of government and laws being based in any religion actually just really frightens me. Too many witches burned, people beheaded for 'sins' and so forth.
Theocracy is the deepest fear I have of what could potentially happen to our society if/when the empire falls. Or if for any reason we allow the basic commitment to secular government, above any and all expediency, to slip away more and more.
That is why this all set off an alarm bell for me. We are too close already, for my comfort.
I had a friend that went religious
She had been raised in the episcopal church and her father had been the priest her whole life, but met someone from that religion and joined in with both feet. (Feelings? Seriously autocorrect that’s what you thought should go there?)
She had lots of unsolved emotional problems and became (oh hell) she quit eating. That. The church filled all those places where she was empty and I could no longer talk with her about anything without her bringing up the lord over and over. Me? I went with the therapy route and left the CC.
Lots of people need some type of structure in their lives and they choose the one they’re comfortable with. It’s fine until they decide that every one around them must too. But look at how much influence religion has over our laws already. I was flabbergasted when Utah passed medical marijuana, not so surprised when they took out the good stuff in the bill. Mormons don’t do drugs or drugstores like this idiot inside my iPad insists.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Re: “If there isn’t any god, then why shouldn’t I kill you?”
Did this instructor not recognize the inherent value in life? Or is the singular value of any of us only in being god’s creation? And what then of the rest of creation that he seemed indifferent to?
I realize you’re not obliged to address these questions. The maddening closed-circuit of illogic is one of the most pernicious outcomes of religious doctrine.
His argument...
...was that, without god, you couldn't derive any morality, without an absolute "moral center" (if you will) everything is arbitrary.
I guess my counter-argument is: It is arbitrary, or at least it is relative to whatever is the "normally accepted view of society", which is/can be quite arbitrary.
So if killing is not moral, and god created everything, is it moral or immoral for animals to kill for food? Is it moral to kill to defend?
Is it moral to kill to feed one's offspring that can't feed themselves?
Is it moral for a single mother to steal to feed her children if she has no other methods of doing so?
Is it moral for a single mother to prostitute herself to feed her children if she has no other methods of doing so?
There's no easy answers, you don't need to answer, just think about how murky situations can get in the struggles to survive in the face of adversity.
I thumbed up both your comments
Cuz I agree that no law should be made because of the bible. But that’s not what happened with the quote from Texas. Lots of people do take their clues for life from it and the guy was just pointing out that it didn’t say it was bad so let’s just make it legal.
But then maybe he would have said that it’s against the bible so I can’t in good faith legalize it if it did. The insanity thing is that the Bible nor Jesus said anything about abortion, but the Christians make sure that it’s hard to get one cuz gawd loves all little babies. Even the ones that have no chance at a normal life, and lots of pain and suffering for all involved, but no you can’t do it just because I said so for it goes against gawd and all that’s holy.
Best bet is just not to use it for laws.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Thanks snoopydawg
Again though, to be clear, this is the issue:
The reason this is not "straightforward" and is in fact a huge problem, is because of what ELSE the bible says and doesn't about this and that. If we base THIS law on "because the bible doesn't say it's not allowed" then you have to accept that as the basis for any and all OTHER things to be legal or not based on that same reasoning. That is what the "guy from Texas" said -- that he bases his *lawmaking* on the bible.
That is a problem.
Let's say, for example, that some other lawmaker decided to say that we as a country must feed all the poor because the bible says to. Great, right? But what about the one who wants to make slavery legal because the bible condones slavery all over the place. Or rape should be legal, because the bible doesn't say it's wrong. Oops! Now what? You cannot pick and choose if you go down this path.
See, the reason to feed the people is not the Bible. If we believe that living beings should not go cold and hungry, then we should have laws to give them food and shelter. If we believe that adults should be able to use plants that grow out of the ground without government interference, then we should not have laws that control our use of such plants.
The *bible* is NOT a good reason to do anything, when it come to laws and government, at least. That is a core principle, and to me it does not make sense to say "I will compromise on that principle in cases when the bible may be interpreted to agree with my preferences." That is dangerous ground, is my point.
I agree with CS but...
the Christians will respond to your assertion the Bible doesn't say anything about abortion with "Thou shalt not kill.".
That is why they keep pushing the definition of what is a life. To make it murder.
Simple answer.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick....NO.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Exactly, PN
You said it, man. Thanks.
I am a strong believer in the separation of Church and State.
I am a Texan, the land of Evangelicals elected to the legislature by other Evangelicals. They seldom do a damn thing right. But making marijuana legal, for any reason, is a miracle in this state.
If that is the politicians straightforward, simple remedy to a horrible injustice, I could not care less. If a politician offered up a rationale of science as his rationale to do the same legalization, a complicated way of supporting his rationale, it would likely flop here in this state.
I just want marijuana legalized.
Period.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Nothing wrong
with freedom from prosecution for the seed of plenty.
Damn it, now I'm hungry.
May you partake of the blue dream haze.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
His bible-based law flopped anyway
This law was proposed in Texas back in 2014, and it completely failed to gain any traction. The guy who proposed it isn't even a lawmaker anymore.
The implication that this approach is somehow ok because it worked to get cannabis legalized in Texas is completely false. It didn't work.
Beyond that, I'll just say that my belief in the separation of church and state is not dependent on what law is being proposed. It is a core principle, and as such it's not something I can or will toss aside for expediency.
I understand your core belief and applaud it.
You seem to think we disagree when we absolutely do not.
If one guy will not kill me because of the Bible, and another guy will not kill me because he doesn't want to waste a bullet because they are hard to replace, I just don't care, given I get the same benefit and same result. I am looking at legislative results, not rationale, as long as Bible language isn't in the bill.
As long as the outcome is the same, I don't care.
We did pass a law legalizing medical marijuana. The problem has been implementing all the agency rules to dispense it. The legislators were supposed to write and implement them in some set amount of time. Several years have passed, and they are still not implemented.
At least cops are sometimes turning a blind eye to people with a joint in their pocket. s. And our Attorney General imposed a rule upon the upon the Child Protective Services that takes pot smoking out of the picture when they are removing kids from a home environment with drugs. Nowadays, it must be other drugs.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I just want to know
what does the Bible say about koolaid? Good/bad, useful, not kosher, what?
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Being as they've been drinking the koolaid
for over two millenia I think it's Bible approved.
I most certainly do not...
However, I do think we should be tolerant of others beliefs.
Back in the 90's I was knee deep in state education reform. Those were the days of Eagle Forum and the idea that "secular humanism" was a religion that was going to replace Christianity in the schools. Social engineering was the claim.
I asked, "Regardless of the approach, aren't all schools social engineering?". I also questioned "secular humanism" as a religion, by asking if they had ever been to a service or seen a hymnal of secular humanism?
None the less, I can appreciate the deep christian faith of Bro. Cornel, MLK, and others. Hence my comment of tolerance.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
That depends on the beliefs in question.
In my opinion, tolerance is over-rated, but then again I think most of you who say that don't actually believe it. A few thought experiments.
Should we tolerate these beliefs (a tiny sample for your consideration):
...
Which of these beliefs should we tolerate? And what does that look like, exactly? Are we allowed to disagree with bad ideas?
Also, LO, as I have mentioned to you in the past
I had a good friend who was a young man (early 30s) when he committed suicide, because he was in the process of finally coming out of the closet as a gay man and had told his extremely religious family, who roundly rejected his sexuality and brought huge pressure on him from his entire family, church, and in particular the pastor who convinced him with a lifetime of deep conditioning that his soul would burn in hell for eternity if he didn't overcome his orientation and marry a woman, have children, and live according to God's Law. My friend worked hard to escape the hell on earth that his family and church created for him, but in the end they broke him. Completely. He died because of their religious beliefs and indoctrination of a child for his entire life.
So... no, I don't think we have to tolerate every stupid idea, even if it is based in precious religion.
To Summarize…
Some religious whackadoodle said "pot should be legal because [religious-related reason]."
And you responded "NO NO NO NO NO", because [anti-religious reason].
Wait! What?
You're right: he's wrong on the why… but the result is good, isn't it?
What is our goal here?
I totally agree with you that laws should not be made to conform with some random religious belief. But if the result of the religious reason matches rationality (granted the rarity of that event), and the religious reason doesn't get codified in the law (as it wouldn't here), then why not accept an ally when they present themselves?
I loathe how we (on the left) are addicted to phrases like "we need to", "we have to", "it's imperative that". But wouldn't it be beneficial to our cause (legally available MJ) to accept support freely (if unconsciously) given? My religious practice includes the instruction "Use what you have." This could be the essence of "what we have", even if it comes from a blighted source.
Should we deprecate help because we don't like its provenance?
“We may not be able to change the system, but we can make the system irrelevant in our lives and in the lives of those around us.”—John Beckett
No, try again please
This should be easy, because I actually wrote words in my post to express exactly what I am saying:
Your "summary" completely misrepresents what I said. I do not have an "anti-religious reason" as you claim -- in fact, many religious people actually support secular government too.
But to answer your, um, point... as if I haven't already:
The "result" of this thinking would be a society in which our laws are based on the bible. That is not something I want or support.
Do you? That was the question.
Let's say I'm troubled by subjunctives
I don't think you'll find anybody on this website who really wants the Xtian hegemony to write our laws.
I just found that your argument against the whackadoodle was basically ad hominem.
I don't find it likely that:
“We may not be able to change the system, but we can make the system irrelevant in our lives and in the lives of those around us.”—John Beckett
Agreed.
Taking it a step further, NOBODY needs to tell me why they want it legalized.
Again, I would raise hell if the actual bill contained religious language.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Again: This post is not about weed, Texas, or any specific law
I do not understand why you keep insisting on going off the topic and focusing on that particular issue. That particular law is 100% a moot point because as I already told you above, it died a long time ago. I have been fighting for legalization for years! I was part of the first wave in Arizona way back in the 1990s, when we actually did pass a voter referendum to legalize -- and our state legislature decided "the voters were confused" and they refused to implement the law the citizens themselves had passed. Welcome to politics, for me it was a harsh lesson in what we were up against. It has been decades and the fight is far from over, here in AZ and across the country. The ongoing bullshit "drug war" is a massive fucking problem that needs to be fixed and nobody really talks about it. You do not need to tell me how much it means to get any law passed that makes any progress.
This essay is not about that. Can you possibly respect that, and try to grasp what I am talking about, which is the principle of a secular government -- in all areas of law.
It feels to me like we do have a fundamental disagreement about this, but I could be wrong ... however, it is impossible to tell if we cannot even speak the same language or talk about it fairly. I have said again and again what the core of it is, and you and a few others seem to take a perverse pleasure in just being jerks about it, talking about other issues to make it appear that I don't want to work for full legalization yesterday, when I have in fact donated to many and strongly supported every campaign to legalize and make progress in any way possible. That is *not* what this essay is about, nor why this is important to me, which I have explained in a lot of detail if anyone cared. Please try to understand what I am saying.
So now the thing is to wave the hand and say "oh you idiot, nobody actually supports this idea" ... even though a number of you did and apparently do support it, as long as the "result" meets your preferences. As I have said I think that sets a dangerous precedent for lawmaking. It does not matter whether the law says "because the Bible" -- what matters is what the law requires of us as citizens. Like say laws that favor mothers over fathers in custody fights. If that law exists because lawmakers think the bible ordains it, that is wrong. That is why I feel we have to take a stand against basing our laws on what the bible says. In rhetoric as well as in the language of the law.
So... you said before that we don't actually disagree, you just "could not care less" if it's because of the Bible, as long as you get what you want. I think it does matter what the basis of those laws is. So that is why I feel we have a disagreement. If we do, then so be it. But I wish at the least it was clear what the argument even is.
No one is being a jerk
We focused on the marijuana part because it’s part of the original comment. I did and that’s why I said what I did. Every person responding has said no they don’t want rules made based on the Bible. Why aren’t you seeing that?
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
There is not one word in my essay about marijuana
Not one word. I was very specific that this was not about that.
But you know what, I am exhausted. I give up. Happy?
See ya...
[ETA: I had no problem with your earlier comments, I said thank you and I felt they added to the discussion. Just for the record. The people I feel are being jerks to me are the ones who are making me out to be an enemy of legalization when that is not what I said in any way. Thanks. That is as a good place as any to leave it.
I am sincerely sorry for misunderstanding this
I misread something somewhere and responded to that.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Thank you again snoops,
I sincerely appreciate you saying that. I logged back in just to tell you that. I'm glad I did. I guess this is not going to be a night of getting any sleep, whatever good intentions I might have had!
I am glad you did too
Your voice is too valuable to lose and I was afraid you had been pushed to that. Hope your night was restful.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
You brought this up over the pot law.
You specifically mentioned that your essay was derived from another essay and comments. They were about pot.
I am using the specific Texas congressman's religious rationale that you used to launch this essay.
If all you want from the commenters is either "yes" or "No". then say so.
You gave so many examples of instances of goofball religious rationale in your reply to LO, so did you go off topic?
According to your new rule for commenters, let me say this "no".
I won't dare go off topic. That's all. Makes for a fabulous comment thread, ya think?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Please feel free to leave me alone then
I tried to make a sincere effort to get past the BS to have a possibility a real discussion with you on this, but you clearly are not interested and you are in here just to personally attack me. Fine.
I think that is not in the spirit of why we are here on this site, so perhaps you can find a better use of your time?
Not a personal attack.
Not even a disagreement. Just a different approach.
And different reaction.
Rest well, friend.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Nope. I take on the *idea*, not the person who said it
That is exactly the opposite of ad hominem.
I didn't even mention the person who said it originally, nor the one who brought it here. I am challenging the idea of basing laws on the bible. Do you agree with that idea, or don't you? It's a simple question, I think.
Good grief!
how many times do I have to agree with your that the Xtian hegemony should not write our laws?!?
“We may not be able to change the system, but we can make the system irrelevant in our lives and in the lives of those around us.”—John Beckett
Once is good, thanks!
I just wanted to make sure you understand and are responding to what I am actually addressing, and not keep dragging all of this other unrelated stuff about marijuana into it.
No
I should have just said no and left it at that. I doubt anyone thinks it’s a great idea to make rules based on the Bible.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
@snoopydawg oh a great many
oh a great many Americans think we should do that and NO we should not respect people's beliefs when they are patently delusional.
Thank you so much
I am getting ready to sign off and go to bed. I am so tired.
But I had to just say thank you for speaking up. I agree completely and appreciate you saying this. I can go to sleep feeling a little better that some of you here do get it. I know that. It is easy to forget when there is a pile on. Thanks again.
I do respect beliefs I do not necessarily share
that arrive at a good solution to a terrible problem. But, delusionals do not get the time of day from me.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I guess the here was omitted
I meant to imply that. Of course there are people who live by the Bible. I’m not naive.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Well, since that someone was yours truly...
Sorry to come late to the discussion but I have to say that you are misconstruing or misrepresenting what was said to you.
For context, this came up in a discussion about MJ legalization/decriminalization and specifically that Virginia had just passed some form of legalization and that all the Republican legislators there had voted against it.
In response, I posted links to an article from marijuanamoment.net about how Republican legislators were on board with and/or leading MJ decriminalization or legalization in ten states. And I specifically mentioned (and linked to an article on the same site) about a proposal a Republican Texas legislator had made back in 2014 that struck me then as the most sensible one I had heard (and haven't heard better since) regarding Texas cannabis laws.
The proposal being to simply eliminate all Texas laws criminalizing or prohibiting marijuana, period.
This struck me as ironic in a good way because the State Rep. in question was an evangelical Christian (I am not) who was nevertheless promoting a far simpler and overall better solution (from my perspective, anyway) than any number of cannabis activists - and who arrived at it informed by his brand of Christianity. He proposed that cannabis be subject to "whatever rules there are governing tomatoes". Or, presumably, oak trees, daisies, crab grass...
In describing his proposal as "straightforward" I was referring to the substance, not how he arrived at it.
As contrasted, for example, with my former Oregon congresscritter, Earl Blumenauer, who (in addition to continuing to perpetrate that most embarrassing of Oregon political traditions: bow ties) claims to be all about legalization and delisting cannabis as a Controlled Substances.
Yet, what he proposes as a replacement for the current system is all 'tax and regulate'. Which would be good, I guess, if we were somehow under-taxed and under-regulated. All those feeling that way please raise your hand.
and since CS in AZ responded (in part) with:
I, seeing that there appeared to be an agreement on substance, even if arrived at from different directions or perspectives, chose to see the glass as more than half full.
And so found this bit:
To be a bit, umm, over the top and fundamentally counter-productive - especially since this was not an attempt to impose restrictions on others but to remove them. Not exactly what I'd call a 'pro-unity' response.
So, to be clear, I don't support Moslems imposing Sharia law on Mormons, or Hindus prohibiting Texans from consuming steak, foot-washing Baptists from preventing immersion Baptists from doing baptisms their preferred way, etc.
But people do have a right to their religious/spiritual/philosophical beliefs, and people and their inherent rights are supposed to be the source of legitimacy on which government rests... so they are certainly entitled to their point of view about how society should operate - those who are overtly religious as much as those secular.
links from marijuanamoment.net here and here
Cheers,
BR
PS - I don't see anything to suggest that 'secular' is somehow inherently less prone to fanaticism than 'religious' - see: Critical Race Theory.
Wow CS... how many times did you come to battle on my
behalf against the religiously righteous at Daily Kos? Remember the good old days of Wee Mama (Episcopalian priest from Iowa who runs the hall monitor programs at DK for those who don't know) spouting platitudes (is it kind, is it necessary, is it bullshit) and then denigrating my character behind the scenes simply for questioning the premises of the religious ideas offered up in diaries?
So now I'm here for you.
For anyone else on the issue of the Bible and separation of church and state who doesn't get it....Having read the complete bible cover to cover over a summer, I can surely say that there is not one idea that needs to be codified into law because the book constantly and completely contradicts it's own teachings just about every other page. The protagonist of the book (called God) is a monster in the Old Testament and a snake in the New Testament. He creates a "system" now called "salvation" that is morally repugnant because it's divisive and exclusionary. Any morality to be found in the book is not a new idea, but based on even more ancient ideas for other philosophies.
So, if anyone thinks the Bible should be used as a basis for anything done in our secular God-less created government, they are sorely mistaken.
And, if anyone thinks that the ideas (deeply or shallowly held) of any religion are to be afforded any more respect than any other ideas, they should think again. If you claim something ridiculous, it deserves not only scrutiny, but some teachable ridicule as well. If you want your ideas to be respected, then make them respectable.... meaning they are solidly based on evidence and not mythology and superstition.
Anyone who knows anything about the amount of time that CS put into supporting me during the religious madness at DK knows why I will always stand at her side when it comes to this topic.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
With my deep gratitude Fishtroller
I cannot say thank you enough for posting this comment, especially right now. I guess it speaks to my lack of sleep last night and my emotional vulnerability at this moment, but your comment left me with tears of pain and joy mixed together running down my face. I have withstood the rest of it without losing any tears until now, but your remembering and supporting me is the final straw! hahaha... funny, I can take the anger and insults and even the lies, but someone simply being kind and also getting me is worth the world!
Oh yes I remember Wee Mama and those good old days quite well. She brought both you and herself to my attention one day when she posted some really out-there attack against you, claiming you had said this or that awful thing... and as I am wont to do, I checked! I found out she was lying about what you'd said. That *really* pissed me off! She was dogging you like it was her job, and she was relentless. Day after day, BS piled on BS. Man, I hate bullies, and that goes triple for religious bullies.
My tolerance for the religious majority and their default privileged status waxes and wans, but it is always wearing me down on some level to live in a world run by people who believe insane things and make decisions for us all based on those beliefs. This is a *major* hot button, one that I really need to keep solidly covered and locked in secure location somewhere in the my mind where it cannot get tripped. Putting a lid on it. Isn't that what we always do in the end?
If you're a nonbeliever, it's important to be a Good atheist, doncha know.
[video:https://youtu.be/8RjXHXIVL9g]
Good Atheist
Like the joke from Ireland during The Troubles. A paramilitary group stops a car and asks the driver "are you Protestant or Catholic". The driver replies "neither, I'm an atheist.' The reply was "but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist."
After all, everyone, even non-believers, has to believe in something. /rolleyes
As soon as someone speaking in the public square on matters of politics/policy starts dragging religion into their spiel, my attention wanes. No matter what lies David Barton (and Congress, the executive branch and the Supreme Court buy into) cooks up, this is a secular country and religious beliefs have no place in making policy. They may be congruent or opposed to a secular purpose/argument, but they are irrelevant to the discussion. If someone wants to make a case to the large portion of the population that aren't "believers" or their particular type of believer, they should present the argument without loaded religious language.
Oh, CS.... I'm so glad my words held such meaning for you.
I was just so pissed when I wrote that post because I saw you getting some of the same stuff I went through... although I would say that Wee Mama was a champ when it came to devious nastiness. The censoring of non-conformist ideas is so strong now within the Dems that they are managing to get Pepe Le Pew banned. It's obscene! I do not have any patience anymore for religion, religious beliefs and being told I need to "respect" all of it. I would not have been as patient with Wolf Blitzer as that woman was! I won't ever forget those experiences at DK. In fact, those democrats became the beginning of my exit from the party. But most of all I will remember your coming to my rescue with long diatribes against not only Wee Mama, but the administrators of that site.
When you are or become an atheist, it's like Neo in the Matrix waking up in a pod and realizing that the whole world is hooked-up to a machine that is feeding them imaginary dreams. It's downright scary. It ain't gonna change in our lifetime, however, I get some hope from the numbers of people who are leaving religion all over the world.
Be well and be happy.... and darn it...get some sleep!
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
If there's any book
I would agree that needs to be burned, it would be the bible!
Heck, when I was younger and would run out of rolling papers, I would use pages from a pocket bible I stole. (snark)
Remember, the very 1st thing banned in the Bible is Knowledge.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
I eat an apple every day... on purpose!
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin