To me, (British, atheist) it all looks pretty wierd /scary.
So I'm picturing a world in which Creatonism is the only theory in town, abortion is illegal, contraception is only available if you're married, censorship is at 1950's levels, all schools are attached to churches, the sixties may as well not have happened, science and philosphy are almost dead, etc.
There are upsides in my scenario; people are not crazy for bling and cosmetic surgery, opression of women is overt instead of covert, arguably allowing them to be happier b/c not endlessly striving to be something they cannot, i.e. Hollywood perfect. Most people are sure of themselves and their place in the world, are good to their neighbours and not plagued with existential doubts. Are there any other potential positives? Is even that one realistic?
Or do you think that removing the separation of church and state would have the opposite effect? Is the religious right powerful b/c people think that the separation guarantees they cannot become too powerful? (in face of all the evidence AFAICS).
We don't have separation here, of course, and yet dogmatic religiosity is relatively rare here (even Blair's weak-tea-and-cake Christianity being rather more fervent than your average).
So how would it be?
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:18 (twenty years ago)
― The Damp Is Rising (kate), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:23 (twenty years ago)
― _, Monday, 21 November 2005 14:24 (twenty years ago)
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:27 (twenty years ago)
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:27 (twenty years ago)
― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:32 (twenty years ago)
However, even a deeply unserious novel should be rooted in something believable, imo. Hence the desire to discuss.
x-post
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:35 (twenty years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:41 (twenty years ago)
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:45 (twenty years ago)
― elmo (allocryptic), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:46 (twenty years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:47 (twenty years ago)
Thing is, I wanted to start a thread on a related topic after reading that amazing Pullman article in the Guardian Review at the weekend. But just thought it would be incendiary.
― The Damp Is Rising (kate), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:48 (twenty years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)
― The Damp Is Rising (kate), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243
the Founders stopped short of giving their Christian religion a position of legal privilege. In the tradition of the early church, believers were to be salt and light. The First Amendment insured the liberty needed for Christianity to be a preserving influence and a moral beacon, but it also insured Christianity would never be the law of the land.
This ought to call into serious question a common tactic of the so-called Religious Right. "We were here first," their apologists proclaim. "Our country was stolen from us, and we demand it back." Author John Seel calls this "priority as entitlement."
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:53 (twenty years ago)
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5097
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:55 (twenty years ago)
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:56 (twenty years ago)
But, here I go again,Here I go again,Here I go again,Here I go,Here I go again...
* in the 1987 version this word is changed to drifter.Davids management thought that hobo could be confused with homo!
xpost :(
― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:56 (twenty years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 14:57 (twenty years ago)
The sad fact of the matter is that cultural authority was not stolen from us; we surrendered it through neglect. Os Guinness pointed out that Christians have not been out-thought. Rather, they have not been around when the thinking was being done.
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 15:07 (twenty years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 15:09 (twenty years ago)
And then you can write the sequel where corruption in the church leads to unrest and revolution and then there is no more religion allowed in the U.S., and it becomes a crime to organize for religious purposes - although home study is still allowed.
― D.I.Y. U.N.K.L.E. (dave225.3), Monday, 21 November 2005 15:21 (twenty years ago)
Nairn, how do you think the position of the Founding Fathers feeds into the current situation, beyond this argument of 'priority as entitlement'?
Even if it could be established that the US was intended to be a Christian state - structurally rather than philosophically - that wouldn't be a valid argument for rejecting the separation at this point in history. And I'm still not clear what difference it would make. With someone like Bush in power, the Christian right has a lot of influence already.
I picked out the passage on thinking, because whilst I'm not opposed to organised religion per se, I am opposed to dogma. The Right frighten me not because they have a spiritual side and beleive that Jesus saves, but because they think everyone else should live by their moral code, and that the code should never be questioned. This leads to persecution of dissenters, something, it seems to me, America should be inherently opposed to.
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 15:48 (twenty years ago)
― D.I.Y. U.N.K.L.E. (dave225.3), Monday, 21 November 2005 15:56 (twenty years ago)
priority of entitlement is how it shouldn't fit into the current situation.
here's another article from the same site that might be relevent for you:http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5248
Your inital comment of "science and philosphy are almost dead" kind of bugged me. Much of the Great philosophical and scientific thought of history has been directly or indirectly infulenced by Christians or Christian ideas. Look at Issac Newton "We count the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever! " or Einstein.
"If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this." - C. S. Lewis
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 15:56 (twenty years ago)
xpost
― D.I.Y. U.N.K.L.E. (dave225.3), Monday, 21 November 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)
"priority of entitlement" is how it shouldn't fit into the current situation. The point is not to reject seperation. The point is to reject a rigid wall of seperation and "the power of the truth freely spoken and freely heard."
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 15:59 (twenty years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 16:01 (twenty years ago)
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/index_docu.html
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 16:07 (twenty years ago)
Yah, I think I get that.
The comment about science and philosophy, well, I'm afraid that actually is bone fide bigotry on my part, because I personally don't see how you can seek the truth if you think you already know it, and the principles of scientific enquiry *seem to me* to require that theories can be demonstrated to fit the knowable facts, even if they can't be proven. But I *know* there are lots of religious types in science and philosophy today, not just through history. What I don't know is if they are the kind of extremists I'm talking about here. Please don't think I'm accusing all religious people of being closed-minded.
Would it be in the interests of a right-wing theocracy to encourage independent thought & scientific research? I'm googling at the moment and trying to find out if any modern-day theocracies have any kind of track record on producing scientific advancements or new philosophical ideas.
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 16:11 (twenty years ago)
The point is to reject a rigid wall of seperation and not to reject "the power of the truth freely spoken and freely heard."
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 16:12 (twenty years ago)
I personally don't see how you can seek the truth if you think you already know it, and the principles of scientific enquiry *seem to me* to require that theories can be demonstrated to fit the knowable facts, even if they can't be proven.
Christians don't think they already know the Truth, they think God know's it and has revealed some of it. There is a much greater motivation to seek Truth for the Christian than the Secularist. They are seeing God's revelation and giving Him glory in seeking Truth. What is the motivation of the Secularist?
The Right frighten me ... because they think everyone else should live by their moral code, and that the code should never be questioned.
The Right ? Christian. It is more related to conservativism. In the U.S. looking to traditional values often means Christian values because of how Christian ideals were present at the formation of the country. Really a Christian should be just Biblical and not totally Conservative or Liberal. Or, Rather they could be Liberal in that everyone should be free to be a Christian if they are call to be, and Conservative in that the Bible is unchanging and held as God's word. How this relates in the politics of a democracy is not totally relavant. Yet a Christian is often moved to follow God. God speaks throught the Bible, So, a Christian often votes Biblically. (Many Christians do not.)
The moral code is not really relevant for salvation either. It is an after-effect that many Christians are called to follow a moral code, but inital salvation is just a belief in Jesus as savior. A Christian should show more love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control than strict adherence to a moral code. That is what a Pharisee is, just look at some of Jesus's teachings about Pharisees to see how unchristian this is.
there's more I can say about this topic, but I'll wait for some responses
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 16:45 (twenty years ago)
― Occam's Reznor (ex machina), Monday, 21 November 2005 16:49 (twenty years ago)
ok, everytime I use the word Christian I am talking about my view of what a Biblical Christian is. My view is not totaly accurate, but I try to base it on the Bible and whenever the Bible contradits it. Let me know.
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 16:53 (twenty years ago)
http://www.christianforums.com/f366-semper-reformanda-reformed.html
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 16:56 (twenty years ago)
http://www.christianforums.com/f74-questions-by-non-christians.html
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 16:58 (twenty years ago)
This works for Christianity too, right?
― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:07 (twenty years ago)
― Occam's Reznor (ex machina), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)
My protagonists are vilified because they are gay, promiscuous, hedonistic, vain, creative, confrontational and curious. I wanted to push them right outside society, so society, in the novel, becomes defined by what it's *not*. I needed a history for this society, and a model I could work from. People on the American Christian Right, those mentioned in the British media and those I have talked to on discussion forums, seem to take the 'moral code' standpoint, and fit the bill perfectly. I fully accept that this may have as much, if not more, to do with them being Conservative as with them being religious.
As for what motive a secularist has to seek the truth, I think seeking the truth is an inherant human drive. We are curious animals; we want to know. And there is a great deal of wonder in the world, whether you attribute that wonder to a deity or not. But that's getting off topic. If you want to debate the relative merits of atheism vs. theism, better start another thread ;)
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:19 (twenty years ago)
A bigot is someone "obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions."
An Atheist is someone "obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of their own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions."
A Christian is someone "obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of God's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions."
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:21 (twenty years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:22 (twenty years ago)
REFERENCE PLEASE
― Occam's Reznor (ex machina), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:23 (twenty years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:24 (twenty years ago)
― Occam's Reznor (ex machina), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:27 (twenty years ago)
Atheism, Rationalism, Secular Humanism, Secularism, Freethought, Skepticism, Sceptism, etc.
A thought system that is based on Man's own ability to reason Truth holds themselves (Man) as superior and correct in reason and are prejudiced (a distrust resulting from a preconceived opinion based on their fundamental beliefs) against anything that says Man is not the revealer of Truth, but a differing opinion that God is.
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:34 (twenty years ago)
o.O
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:34 (twenty years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)
Also, look up "Deism," if you wanna check the whole "american founding fathers' religous bits".
But i'll toss out the usual relevant links:
-Slacktivist's take on the Left Behind series, conservative evangelicals, his series on Creationism, "Bush is Not Lord
-George Lakoff's take on the conservative mindset, and other related topics. Also, check out his book Moral Politics, which goes pretty far in explaining how american politics & religion function.
Religion conservatism functions a bit differently over on this side of the pond, since there's more of the mindset that this is "God's Country," which boosts up the whole nationalistic side of things.
And if you want sci-fi about this, check out Joe Haldeman's recent works.
― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:44 (twenty years ago)
Same motivation that everyone else has. It's called curiousity.
"and where does trust in Man's reason come from?"
It's called science and little thing called evidence. It beats the fuck out of faith in a book written by men 2000+ years (and re-written at various times since.)
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 21 November 2005 17:57 (twenty years ago)
― Spink, Monday, 21 November 2005 18:01 (twenty years ago)
Some people fight for stuff just for the sake of confrontation, some people argue because they honestly think something is right, and others do it just because they cant stand being told what to do.
Its a silly cycle of nonsense in which we all suffer.
― Spink, Monday, 21 November 2005 18:05 (twenty years ago)
x-post - Alex dealing with the Truth question it seems (I basically agree) - going out for milk now, laters
― Zora (Zora), Monday, 21 November 2005 18:08 (twenty years ago)
My answer to this question (before I saw what the question entailed) was going to be that de-separation of church and state would totally and rapidly lead right back to dramatic re-separation of church and state! Because if that wall came crashing down in any dramatic way, the immediate follow-up question would be which specific sects and forms of (one supposes) Christianity are going to be privileged by the crossing -- which struggle seems like a quick and amusing way to remind people why the protection of religious minorities in a useful thing. (It's very easy for Christians to butt heads against that wall based on this notion that they're part of a "Christian" nation and a "Christian" majority -- but really, pretty much all of the people who would actually say that are members of a specific religious minority, one that in post-secular society would be revealed as exactly that.)
― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 21 November 2005 18:08 (twenty years ago)
― Spink, Monday, 21 November 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)
And never forget that most of these folks were started as a political group, not a religious one(Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson running for President 13 years ago, Ralph Reed as lobbyist now running for state office, etc).
― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 21 November 2005 18:22 (twenty years ago)
Science and evidence often claims that Man and his reason evolved from nothing. Where does the trust in something evolving from nothing come from?
assurance that God has already sorted all of that stuff out for him.
Yes, but a lot of the sorting is done by God working in and through the Elect. From John 15:16 "You did not choose me; I chose you and appointed you to go and bear much fruit, the kind of fruit that endures"
Here's a article about the meaning of "Separation of Church and State"http://www.probe.org/content/view/1150/88/
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 18:22 (twenty years ago)
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/901742/scarecrow_oz.gif
― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 21 November 2005 18:33 (twenty years ago)
Similarities are uncanny...
― Spink, Monday, 21 November 2005 18:36 (twenty years ago)
Positive neutrality insists that religious ideas should never be forced to hide themselves behind secular ones in order to participate in the public square. The government is not being neutral when it endorses a secular idea over a religious one in our schools or in other social programs. While many Americans are unhappy with the government's current bias against religious beliefs, it remains to be seen if they are ready for real religious freedom that would allow full participation in the public realm by all faiths and philosophies.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/86/151/
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 18:43 (twenty years ago)
― Occam's Reznor (ex machina), Monday, 21 November 2005 18:54 (twenty years ago)
― Spink, Monday, 21 November 2005 19:05 (twenty years ago)
― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 21 November 2005 19:14 (twenty years ago)
― Spink, Monday, 21 November 2005 19:21 (twenty years ago)