And unless you are here strictly to batter me over the head with YOUR religious beliefs (or lack thereof), I take umbrage at such an assumption.
In fact, before I start de-constructing your post, I thought perhaps you might find the definition of "secular humanism" refreshing. It appears to me that you are not familiar enough with it to successfully form your argument on such a nebulous concept:
Secular Humanism is a non-theistically based philosophy which promotes humanity as the measure of all things. It had its roots in the rationalism of the 18th Century and the free thought movement of the 19th Century.
Some factors that most Humanists share:
Either they do not believe in the existence of a deity, or they don't really care about the topic.
They believe that excellent codes of behavior and morality can be created through reason.
Humans created the Gods and Goddesses in their own image.
They are very concerned about human rights and equal opportunities for all.
They tend to be at the liberal end of the spectrum on such controversial topics as abortion access; equal rights for gays, lesbians and bisexuals; same-sex marriage, physician assisted suicide, separation of church and state, etc.
>>>>>how much easier life is when you just let people believe what they want to believe about God or spirituality without banging them over the head with a hundred tons of intellectual condescension.<<<<<
My motto has always been to let people do what they want, and believe what they want. It is only when I have people proselytizing ME that I object. In fact, I made a point in my post that religion simply has no place in government. That is how the makers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence wanted it to be: NO establishment of a specific religion, and that everyone had the right to believe what they wanted to believe.
>>>>>atheists take too much pride in their "elite" status as the tiny minority that gets it: it blinds them-and just like that episode of South Park, proves, that even when you take God out of the equation, people are still so fucking hopelessly petty in their arrogance and their willingness to divide and sow suffering for the sake of their own ego, with or without any crazy god talk to justify it.<<<<<
Citing an episode of "South Park" in an argument about religious freedom, and keeping religion out of our SECULAR government? Puh-lease. :eyes: I never said I was an elitist, and I gave no indication of such in my post. Whether I am an atheist or not is irrelevant (hint: secularism is NOT a code word for atheist, believe it or not!). And I don't think I sounded "petty" in that post (OTOH, I AM being petty and smarmy in THIS post). I simply indicated that RELIGION has NO PLACE in decisions in government. Now, if you want to show me exactly where in my post I said anything to the contrary, please do. I would LOVE to hear it. In fact, here is my entire post (I have done you a favor and highlighted different passages which you obviously didn't read all that well):
Regardless of what Obama says. he has to realize there is a large percentage of "us" secularists who will be voting for him, and who will be making sure that religion does not creep into his agenda. When someone runs for public office, his or her religious preferences must be relegated to the background while civic duty is performed without prejudice. We already know damned well what a "religious" man has done to the office of president, and who has failed in every way possible to "unite" the country, or even bring some dignity to it (hint: the poster boy of the intellectually stupid, GWB himself).
There was a decision today in California where doctors were told they could not discriminate on the basis of their religion to treat a patient who is a lesbian. One woman had been treated for PCOS, and had told her doctors ahead of time that she was trying to get pregnant: when her condition was treated, two doctors told her they would not do artificial semination for her because of her gender preference.
Are we to assume that Obama is going to use his personal beliefs to impose similar sanctions when he wins the presidency? Are we to assume that neither of the two major candidates is going to uphold the constitution and keep their religious beliefs from coloring those decisions they have to make?{Note: perhaps we need an emoticon for rhetorical phrasing)
It is absurd to think that they would do such a thing, but it does make me a bit shaken by the possibility that it could, conceivably, happen.
>>>>>It's odd, because, pragmatically on a political level, having some respect for people's religious faith is generally a very good political practice (if atheists are so smart, how come they are incapable of the political pragmatism of an inclusive attitude towards religious faith?).<<<<<
Uh, no, I think you took a wrong turn somewhere along the line. Progressives are the only ones CAPABLE of having an open-mindedness about religion. If you are trying to say the opposite, I think you missed the exit for another website. It's an insult to EVERY progressive to say WE'RE the intolerant ones--and if you spent much time reading DU, you would know that.
>>>>>The hard secular view turns off a lot of people -even a lot of people that are actually pretty secular in their life style (like me), because it is arrogant, because it ignores the beauty of spiritual interpretation of human existence which is moving in it's elegance even if not wholly supportable by empirical evidence (some of us can find beauty and meaning in religious parable without ascribing reality to it -it is not real in the physical sense, but it is real in so far as it a kind of language to communicate profound psychological phenomenon that clearly motivate very real human behavior).<<<<<
Hard secularism does NOT exist--you are either secular or you are not. Religion in its formal sense is not the same as spiritualism. In fact, I know more spiritual atheists than I know those who claim to be highly religious and who are truly spiritual. Do not confuse spirituality with religiosity--the comparison is offensive. We cannot say that those who are not Xtians don't have spirituality. That attitude is the very reason why many of us are so turned off by those on the religious wrong side. I shouldn't nitpick, but considering the tone of your post, I would like to make a comment on the grammar (and I say this as someone with a degree in English) in the last sentence above. It is not only atrocious, but nearly incomprehensible. Are you trying to rack up points in some obscure vocabulary contest?
>>>>>So if you're so much smarter than all the mouth-breathing retards that believe in God, and we should automatically distrust anyone with religious faith -as though they are all so arrogant as so ready to impose their belief structure on you (while at the same time, you would mock their most cherished beliefs and have all recognition of these beliefs barred from the public as though it really were something to be ashamed of), then maybe we should disavow our respect for the many religious (liberal) leaders who have (do I really have to name them?), over the centuries, sacrificed greatly of themselves to improve the lot of the average human being, and many times accomplished amazing tasks that seemed beyond possibility because the profound psychological strength and endurance granted them by their faith made it possible.<<<<<
A run-on sentence! First of all, NO progressive would EVER use the word "retard" in an essay for public consumption, nor would it ever be considered! And yet again, you try to push the meme that secularists, progressives and non-Xtians somehow are the ones with tolerance issues. As you are trying to push irrelevant and wrong assumptions throughout your post, you are only showing that you are the one suffering from intolerance, and it is most likely that you are neither a progressive (who would have the common decency to frame an argument without insulting as many groups as you have) nor a liberal.
>>>>>in other words, a million sheisty snakeoil salesmen seem like a small price to pay for one MLK.<<<<<
If we are to settle for some shysters (note spelling) who are trying to get rich from the population's blood, sweat and tears, we would be as evil as those who try to connive us. Even Martin Luther King would find himself such a compromise unacceptable. There might be such a thing as forgiveness, but remaining vigilant for those who attempt to deceive us is also prudent.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(365 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
