Looks like academics have a little Friedmanphobia going too ...
Karl Hallowell wrote:
I see two related problems here. First, I bet everyone has run into people that think a) your soul needs "saving", and b) their belief system is the only way to do it. Second, in the US, people who are proposing things like intelligent design (by supernatural beings) and creationism tend to be evangelical christians. That probably accounts for a lot of the hostility right there.
Steve wrote:
"...their negative stereotypes are justified because they have formed a perception that Christians are "hateful" people intent on imposing a theocracy on the United States."
Yeah just like those other hateful Christian believing bastards who wrote stupid stuff like,
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
or this hateful kind of thing,
"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
What a bunch of BS, how could ANYONE live under such religious nonsense. There are, of course, other examples of the Judeo-Christian ethic that formed our country. Those two came immediately to my mind.
What floors me on this debate is that the people who generally say that Right Wing Christians are planning a Theocracy, are themselves pushing Secular Humanism or Gaia (near) worship.
They've taken prayer out of schools, and the Ten Commandments out of court houses. Yet they think think they have the right, and duty, to teach that it's OK for Tommy to have two Mommies. They have a right that allows near naked Gay guys and girls to march in the St Patty's Day Parade, or Fourth of July Parade.
If you believe that the GLAAD numbers are right, ONLY 10% to 12% of the population is in fact Gay. How does that small percentage get to force their ideals on the majority?
Similarly, I'm all for being green and environmentally sound. But shoving environmental issues, like Global Warming, down the throats of the general populace is NOT what our country was founded on.
Are there Crazy Christians who want to take over? Absolutely, but most of them are easy to spot. They have shaved heads, Swastikas on their pick-up trucks and shotguns at their churches. But they are not the majority. They are in fact feared by Evangelical Christians too. But the skin headed nuts are no more militant than the uber GLAAD crowd or the rabid enviro-Nazis.
The average Evangelical Christian doesn't want anything but to be left alone to raise their kids as THEY see fit. They tend to vote for candidates that support their ideals. They don't go to court to bypass the laws, to force their ideals on the populace at the drop of the hat.
That's the other sides M.O.
Personally, I am a Christian. I was raised Catholic and I went to Catholic Grade School. Those are my beliefs. I don't go to church much anymore. Because of my health I just can't sit there for the entire service. But when I do go to church, I go with my wife to a small congregation of, GASP, Evangelical Christians. For about 10 years we attended a Presbyterian church.
I'll be 54 soon.
In none of those churches, in all those years, in any school class or study situation, at any point have I heard the kind of hate and slander against ANYTHING that the Christians disagree with, like I hear from the other side. More often than not I hear things like I believe and stood up for. As a veteran I stood up for and protected ALL speech and ideal in America. I may not agree with you, but I took an oath to defend your right to say it, up to and including laying down my life for your rights.
When was the last time you heard of the enviro-Nazis putting forth a veteran as a spokesman, or even the GLAAD folks doing so? I've never seen that. Even from those gay men and women that entered the military under "Don't ask, Don't tell".
I don't want Gays or environmentalists killed or imprisoned. I don't even want them muzzled. Most Christians don't want that. But they, nor I, want to be dictated to about what we can say or believe.
Jonathan wrote:
Karl Hallowell wrote: I see two related problems here. First, I bet everyone has run into people that think a) your soul needs "saving", and b) their belief system is the only way to do it. Second, in the US, people who are proposing things like intelligent design (by supernatural beings) and creationism tend to be evangelical christians. That probably accounts for a lot of the hostility right there.
I meet people like that sometimes. Some of them are evangelical Christians. Some of them are leftists. The evangelicals tend to be nicer people than the leftists. Why would an intelligent person generalize from the behavior of a few proselytizers to all religious people? It's obvious that very few religious people proselytize in our society. And to those who do one can always say, "no, thanks." Meanwhile secular proselytizing (against global warming, smoking, etc.) is rampant, often rude and intrusive, and doesn't seem to bother the theophobes. (Nor are they bothered by overt anti-evangelical or anti-Catholic bigotry.)
Robert wrote:
Wait, if you are a God-Fearing Christian, are you a theophobe or not?
Mike Puckett wrote:
I think that would be a Deiophobe Robert.
And I think the phrase "God-Fearing" would be more correctly expressed in the modern venacular as one who profoundly respects, not physically fears, God.
Robert wrote:
I think that would be a Deiophobe Robert.
Is it kosher to mix Latin with Greek?
God/god is theos in Greek and deus in Latin, right?
I bet you're saying that theophobia would be fear of religion, but no, it means fear of God. I understand what you are saying about the changing meaning of words, but I think a lot of people who say "I'm a God fearing Christian" are quite literal about their fear. (And they probably should be, given their belief system. Fear could be an appropriate and even helpful reaction to an all-seeing all-powerful presence who could smite you and then decide you deserve eternal damnation. Seems pretty old testament to me, but getting those two halves of the bible reconciled is a challenging task!)
Mike Puckett wrote:
"Fear could be an appropriate and even helpful reaction to an all-seeing all-powerful presence who could smite you and then decide you deserve eternal damnation."
Of course most Non-Fred Phelps Christian Doctrine is that one damns oneself and that God damns no one. Whether one choses to ask God to rescue I.E. redeem you from said damnation or not is the crux (or crucifix) of the issue.
It was always explained to me as a profound respect and not a physical fear and this was by Bible-thumping Southern Baptists. Remember, the KJV of the Bible was written in middle-english.
Robert wrote:
Steve said: "There are, of course, other examples of the Judeo-Christian ethic that formed our country."
Hey Steve,
Mike's comment reminded me of the connection between Deism and the founding fathers. Steve, the quote from the Declaration of Independence that you cited does not necessarily show any evidence of the Judeo-Christian tradition. A majority of the founding fathers were Deists, who believe in a clockwork universe set in motion by a God who then steps out of the way and doesn't interfere with mundane things like galaxies and humans, and that's contrary to the Jewish and Christian traditions.
One more quick comment about the Declaration of Independence. Steve, in the introduction to the Declaration, which you quoted above, Thomas Jefferson,a Deist, used the the term "Nature's God" in conjunction with the phrase "Laws of Nature". (Just scroll upward to see it in Steve's comment.)
"Nature's God" is a term used by Deists. As far as I know, it isn't used by Christians. :-)
David Summers wrote:
Robert, I've never heard anyone use god-fearing with the modern English translation - at least in my church God is our father, and loves us. And he is called the "God of nature", as in "the god of nature suffers" - not exactly "Nature's God", but close enough.
I think you are getting a little too hung up about differences in theology. At least in my church, we believe that good baptists are just as good as good mormons, which are the same as good budists, etc. We all are trying to improve ourselves and while we each obviously believe that our doctrines are closer to the "truth" than the others, that is hardly a reason to dislike or disrespect each other. So I'm not sure that it matters if the signers of the Declaration where Deists - presumably such things are cleared up quite quickly once we die...
Josh Reiter wrote:
Steve wrote:
"I don't go to church much anymore. Because of my health I just can't sit there for the entire service......I'll be 54 soon."
Jeez dude, your 54 and already in that poor of health? Do yourself a favor and don't get all worked up over an entry on an internet blog. Sounds like you don't deal to well with the stress.
Josh Reiter wrote:
Robert wrote:
"......founding fathers were Deists, who believe in a clockwork universe set in motion by a God who then steps out of the way"
This is known as pre-established harmony. Descartes' theory of Mind-body duelism suggested that the soul was a purely immaterial substance that had no measurable dimension. Of course, one then wonders how a immaterial substance gains control of a physical substance in the form a body. Gottfried Leibnez suggested a form of parallelism called pre-established harmony. To use an analogy, God created a music video called the Universe. So, in the editing room he synced a separate video track (physical substance) and separate audio track (immaterial substance)at the beginning of time. Then God hit the play button, folded his hands behind his head, and sat back to enjoy his work.
One has to keep in mind that in the Founding Fathers time practically everyone had some idea of a soul and belief in a diety of some kind. So, there wasn't much consideration for atheists when it comes to the wording of the Constituion. Although, their are writings of Thomas Jefferson in which he clarifies his position on the separation of church and state. While in the Bill of Rights it says that people have Freedom of Religion this also implies that people have freedom from religion if they so wish.
Finally, I'd like to point out that academics are people who have no doubt buried themselves in a number of philosophical studies. To a philosopher nothing is more frustrating then to enter into discussion with a fundamentalist who sums up the position of their statements with, "This is my opinion because that is my faith, end of story." To them, that is like talking to a brick wall because in essence that person is saying, "I don't know". So, I can imagine why they tend to treat evangelicals like idiots.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Josh Reiter wrote:
"Jeez dude, your 54 and already in that poor of health? Do yourself a favor and don't get all worked up over an entry on an internet blog. Sounds like you don't deal to well with the stress."
So you haven't experienced real health issues, bad luck, and/or aging. Good for you, now stop whining about other people's troubles; more likely than not you'll get yours soon enough.
I got mine early at 29 --five years ago-- despite being healthy then (squash, gym, and jogging at the time with previous military service, some manual labor and a physically active childhood with scouting, swimming, and tennis).
Note to self: today I didn't verbally abuse someone acting like a dipshit (ok, ok, a few words slipped through ^_^)
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on June 20, 2008 3:13 PM.
Fear of the eldest Cosby child?
Looks like academics have a little Friedmanphobia going too ...
I see two related problems here. First, I bet everyone has run into people that think a) your soul needs "saving", and b) their belief system is the only way to do it. Second, in the US, people who are proposing things like intelligent design (by supernatural beings) and creationism tend to be evangelical christians. That probably accounts for a lot of the hostility right there.
"...their negative stereotypes are justified because they have formed a perception that Christians are "hateful" people intent on imposing a theocracy on the United States."
Yeah just like those other hateful Christian believing bastards who wrote stupid stuff like,
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
or this hateful kind of thing,
"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
What a bunch of BS, how could ANYONE live under such religious nonsense. There are, of course, other examples of the Judeo-Christian ethic that formed our country. Those two came immediately to my mind.
What floors me on this debate is that the people who generally say that Right Wing Christians are planning a Theocracy, are themselves pushing Secular Humanism or Gaia (near) worship.
They've taken prayer out of schools, and the Ten Commandments out of court houses. Yet they think think they have the right, and duty, to teach that it's OK for Tommy to have two Mommies. They have a right that allows near naked Gay guys and girls to march in the St Patty's Day Parade, or Fourth of July Parade.
If you believe that the GLAAD numbers are right, ONLY 10% to 12% of the population is in fact Gay. How does that small percentage get to force their ideals on the majority?
Similarly, I'm all for being green and environmentally sound. But shoving environmental issues, like Global Warming, down the throats of the general populace is NOT what our country was founded on.
Are there Crazy Christians who want to take over? Absolutely, but most of them are easy to spot. They have shaved heads, Swastikas on their pick-up trucks and shotguns at their churches. But they are not the majority. They are in fact feared by Evangelical Christians too. But the skin headed nuts are no more militant than the uber GLAAD crowd or the rabid enviro-Nazis.
The average Evangelical Christian doesn't want anything but to be left alone to raise their kids as THEY see fit. They tend to vote for candidates that support their ideals. They don't go to court to bypass the laws, to force their ideals on the populace at the drop of the hat.
That's the other sides M.O.
Personally, I am a Christian. I was raised Catholic and I went to Catholic Grade School. Those are my beliefs. I don't go to church much anymore. Because of my health I just can't sit there for the entire service. But when I do go to church, I go with my wife to a small congregation of, GASP, Evangelical Christians. For about 10 years we attended a Presbyterian church.
I'll be 54 soon.
In none of those churches, in all those years, in any school class or study situation, at any point have I heard the kind of hate and slander against ANYTHING that the Christians disagree with, like I hear from the other side. More often than not I hear things like I believe and stood up for. As a veteran I stood up for and protected ALL speech and ideal in America. I may not agree with you, but I took an oath to defend your right to say it, up to and including laying down my life for your rights.
When was the last time you heard of the enviro-Nazis putting forth a veteran as a spokesman, or even the GLAAD folks doing so? I've never seen that. Even from those gay men and women that entered the military under "Don't ask, Don't tell".
I don't want Gays or environmentalists killed or imprisoned. I don't even want them muzzled. Most Christians don't want that. But they, nor I, want to be dictated to about what we can say or believe.
Karl Hallowell wrote:
I see two related problems here. First, I bet everyone has run into people that think a) your soul needs "saving", and b) their belief system is the only way to do it. Second, in the US, people who are proposing things like intelligent design (by supernatural beings) and creationism tend to be evangelical christians. That probably accounts for a lot of the hostility right there.
I meet people like that sometimes. Some of them are evangelical Christians. Some of them are leftists. The evangelicals tend to be nicer people than the leftists. Why would an intelligent person generalize from the behavior of a few proselytizers to all religious people? It's obvious that very few religious people proselytize in our society. And to those who do one can always say, "no, thanks." Meanwhile secular proselytizing (against global warming, smoking, etc.) is rampant, often rude and intrusive, and doesn't seem to bother the theophobes. (Nor are they bothered by overt anti-evangelical or anti-Catholic bigotry.)
Wait, if you are a God-Fearing Christian, are you a theophobe or not?
I think that would be a Deiophobe Robert.
And I think the phrase "God-Fearing" would be more correctly expressed in the modern venacular as one who profoundly respects, not physically fears, God.
I think that would be a Deiophobe Robert.
Is it kosher to mix Latin with Greek?
God/god is theos in Greek and deus in Latin, right?
I bet you're saying that theophobia would be fear of religion, but no, it means fear of God. I understand what you are saying about the changing meaning of words, but I think a lot of people who say "I'm a God fearing Christian" are quite literal about their fear. (And they probably should be, given their belief system. Fear could be an appropriate and even helpful reaction to an all-seeing all-powerful presence who could smite you and then decide you deserve eternal damnation. Seems pretty old testament to me, but getting those two halves of the bible reconciled is a challenging task!)
"Fear could be an appropriate and even helpful reaction to an all-seeing all-powerful presence who could smite you and then decide you deserve eternal damnation."
Of course most Non-Fred Phelps Christian Doctrine is that one damns oneself and that God damns no one. Whether one choses to ask God to rescue I.E. redeem you from said damnation or not is the crux (or crucifix) of the issue.
It was always explained to me as a profound respect and not a physical fear and this was by Bible-thumping Southern Baptists. Remember, the KJV of the Bible was written in middle-english.
Steve said: "There are, of course, other examples of the Judeo-Christian ethic that formed our country."
Hey Steve,
Mike's comment reminded me of the connection between Deism and the founding fathers. Steve, the quote from the Declaration of Independence that you cited does not necessarily show any evidence of the Judeo-Christian tradition. A majority of the founding fathers were Deists, who believe in a clockwork universe set in motion by a God who then steps out of the way and doesn't interfere with mundane things like galaxies and humans, and that's contrary to the Jewish and Christian traditions.
If you don't believe me, google "founding fathers" and "Deism", or see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States
One more quick comment about the Declaration of Independence. Steve, in the introduction to the Declaration, which you quoted above, Thomas Jefferson,a Deist, used the the term "Nature's God" in conjunction with the phrase "Laws of Nature". (Just scroll upward to see it in Steve's comment.)
"Nature's God" is a term used by Deists. As far as I know, it isn't used by Christians. :-)
Robert, I've never heard anyone use god-fearing with the modern English translation - at least in my church God is our father, and loves us. And he is called the "God of nature", as in "the god of nature suffers" - not exactly "Nature's God", but close enough.
I think you are getting a little too hung up about differences in theology. At least in my church, we believe that good baptists are just as good as good mormons, which are the same as good budists, etc. We all are trying to improve ourselves and while we each obviously believe that our doctrines are closer to the "truth" than the others, that is hardly a reason to dislike or disrespect each other. So I'm not sure that it matters if the signers of the Declaration where Deists - presumably such things are cleared up quite quickly once we die...
Steve wrote:
"I don't go to church much anymore. Because of my health I just can't sit there for the entire service......I'll be 54 soon."
Jeez dude, your 54 and already in that poor of health? Do yourself a favor and don't get all worked up over an entry on an internet blog. Sounds like you don't deal to well with the stress.
Robert wrote:
"......founding fathers were Deists, who believe in a clockwork universe set in motion by a God who then steps out of the way"
This is known as pre-established harmony. Descartes' theory of Mind-body duelism suggested that the soul was a purely immaterial substance that had no measurable dimension. Of course, one then wonders how a immaterial substance gains control of a physical substance in the form a body. Gottfried Leibnez suggested a form of parallelism called pre-established harmony. To use an analogy, God created a music video called the Universe. So, in the editing room he synced a separate video track (physical substance) and separate audio track (immaterial substance)at the beginning of time. Then God hit the play button, folded his hands behind his head, and sat back to enjoy his work.
One has to keep in mind that in the Founding Fathers time practically everyone had some idea of a soul and belief in a diety of some kind. So, there wasn't much consideration for atheists when it comes to the wording of the Constituion. Although, their are writings of Thomas Jefferson in which he clarifies his position on the separation of church and state. While in the Bill of Rights it says that people have Freedom of Religion this also implies that people have freedom from religion if they so wish.
Finally, I'd like to point out that academics are people who have no doubt buried themselves in a number of philosophical studies. To a philosopher nothing is more frustrating then to enter into discussion with a fundamentalist who sums up the position of their statements with, "This is my opinion because that is my faith, end of story." To them, that is like talking to a brick wall because in essence that person is saying, "I don't know". So, I can imagine why they tend to treat evangelicals like idiots.
Josh Reiter wrote:
"Jeez dude, your 54 and already in that poor of health? Do yourself a favor and don't get all worked up over an entry on an internet blog. Sounds like you don't deal to well with the stress."
So you haven't experienced real health issues, bad luck, and/or aging. Good for you, now stop whining about other people's troubles; more likely than not you'll get yours soon enough.
I got mine early at 29 --five years ago-- despite being healthy then (squash, gym, and jogging at the time with previous military service, some manual labor and a physically active childhood with scouting, swimming, and tennis).
Note to self: today I didn't verbally abuse someone acting like a dipshit (ok, ok, a few words slipped through ^_^)