Pharyngula

Posted by: Doug | June 18, 2009 5:28 PM

So they say a progressive secular majority is impossible (although the Founders were clearly a secular, progressive majority) so we should just give up.

Yeah, that's the inspiration I like to hear from an organization. Makes me want to join up knowing that they'll surrender their values at the drop of a hat.

Posted by: James Sweet | June 18, 2009 5:35 PM

I would like to propose that we pass a law allocating federal funds for an American Piracy Institute, because my Pastafarian beliefs tell me that global warming is caused by a lack of pirates. If anybody criticizes this proposal as being inane or stupid, they are a bigot.

Posted by: mikespeir | June 18, 2009 5:43 PM

"...a total separation of religion from politics has been discredited"

Wow! I did no know that. I suddenly feel so silly.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | June 18, 2009 5:46 PM

Despite growing secularization, a secular progressive majority is still impossible, and a new two-part approach is needed--one that first admits that there is no political wall of separation. Voters must be allowed, without criticism, to propose policies based on religious belief . . . .

Whisky. Tango. Foxtrot.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: DireLobo | June 18, 2009 5:46 PM

I'm not an organizer of NN, though I do know some of them and I am a fan of the annual event. I too am amazed at the concepts and language used to describe this panel. However, maybe PZ didn't notice, but on the NN page there is a blurb from the panel moderator, Frederick Clarkson (see http://www.talk2action.org/user/Frederick%20Clarkson) who basically says HE doesn't agree with the panel description and he implies that he will have "more to say" about the declaration later.

"I have agreed to appear on a panel. But I do not agree with the premises of the panel, "A New Progressive Vision of Church and State, as described. As a matter of fact, that is why I am going... I expect that I will have more to say about this before and after the conference. But in the meantime, here it is for your consideration."

Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the comments on this page (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/6/17/184514/127) agree with PZ and question the declaration.

I'm not saying here is no beef with the NN organizers, but I think PZ should have included this info in the original post to illustrate that this opinion is by no means universal among NN followers and contributors.

Posted by: arekkusu | June 18, 2009 5:49 PM

You sad saps are fighting a loosing battle.

Posted by: Jefrir | June 18, 2009 5:58 PM

God speaks english english

Posted by: DireLobo | June 18, 2009 5:59 PM

I'm not an organizer of NN, though I do know some of them and I am a fan of the annual event. I too am amazed at the concepts and language used to describe this panel. However, maybe PZ didn't notice, but on the NN page there is a blurb from the panel moderator, Frederick Clarkson (see http://www.talk2action.org/user/Frederick%20Clarkson) who basically says HE doesn't agree with the panel description and he implies that he will have "more to say" about the declaration later.

"I have agreed to appear on a panel. But I do not agree with the premises of the panel, "A New Progressive Vision of Church and State, as described. As a matter of fact, that is why I am going... I expect that I will have more to say about this before and after the conference. But in the meantime, here it is for your consideration."

Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the comments on this page (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/6/17/184514/127) agree with PZ and question the declaration.

I'm not saying here is no beef with the NN organizers, but I think PZ should have included this info in the original post to illustrate that this opinion is by no means universal among NN followers and contributors.

Posted by: Sastra | June 18, 2009 6:02 PM

Voters must be allowed, without criticism, to propose policies based on religious belief. But, when government speaks and acts, messages must be universal.

Huh? I don't understand this. Voters can propose laws based on their religion (for example, all stores must close on the Sabbath), and those laws can be passed by Congress, and infidels will have to follow those laws or face fines or imprisonment-- but hey, that wouldn't be government speaking or acting. No, that would have nothing to do with the State mandating a narrow, sectarian viewpoint.

Government speech only involves platitudes in mottos and pledges. That's where it becomes involved.

Promoting and accepting religious images as universal will help heal culture-war divisions and promote the formation of a broad-based progressive coalition.

I encounter this a lot from liberal spiritual and religious folk. They seem to think that all religious disagreements can be resolved by playing around with words, and care only about the sort of superficial consensus you try to get at a dinner table or birthday party, so that nobody has a bad time. Argument by redefinition. Acceptance apologetics.

"Tell you what, let's all agree that God is whatever is important to us, and that way we're all together. Okay? Let's just say that 'spirituality' means caring about love and beauty, and that way we're all spiritual. Okay? The power of prayer is about being calm and focusing on self-improvement. Would that be okay? Or not. That's okay too. Take what you need, and leave the rest. Whatever you need. Find your path. Everything is good."

Daniel Dennett calls this "belief in belief." They don't care what you believe about God: they don't even particularly care what they believe about God: all they know is that it's very, very important to believe in God. We value the attitude of belief.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 18, 2009 6:04 PM

One nation under allah
One nation unde cthulhu
One nation under god
One nation under poseidon
One nation under the santa clause
One nation under b'al

Equally unverifiable supernateral fariytales
Ia!Ia!

Posted by: God is great | June 18, 2009 6:04 PM

Jefrir ....

whut = what in my dictionary.

Posted by: BigMKnows | June 18, 2009 6:08 PM

@ Souther Baptist # 17

You scientists are very impolite.

Aren't you familiar with the concept of respect for your betters, ie Christians

Right, because calling yourself better than us is polite. Breathtaking inanity.

Posted by: Chayanov | June 18, 2009 6:11 PM

Sounds like they're proposing that we should go with the tyranny of the majority. How very progressive of them.

Posted by: Holbach | June 18, 2009 6:15 PM

That is The Southern Bumpkin Baptist @ 16; not you Sastra.

Hey, how about a reply so we can determine if you are ripe for some good religion bashing.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2009 6:19 PM

Aren't you familiar with the concept of respect for your betters, ie Christians and most certainly The Lord God Almighty.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | June 18, 2009 6:20 PM

Holbach,

for real, or a Poe?

My vote's Poe, based on #28, but I'm lousy at spotting them.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 18, 2009 6:21 PM

"'God' can refer to the ceaseless creativity of the universe and the objective validity of human rights. Promoting and accepting religious images as universal will help heal culture-war divisions and promote the formation of a broad-based progressive coalition."

Yeah, that should be as acceptable to religious dogmatists as same sex marriage.

Posted by: Susan | June 18, 2009 6:25 PM

I went to NN last year, and I'm on their mailing list. They had a deal a couple of months ago where you could organize your own session-- you had to do all the work, contacting the panelists and getting them to agree to sign on, develop a program and everything (ie: this wasn't just "submit a suggestion and we'll take care of it if it's good") and, if it all checked out, they'd get you a room and a time-slot. This smells like one of the sessions that slipped in under that kind of a distributed workload / inclusiveness initiative, the idea of a particularly devout attendee. I wondered if they were going to end up with a session or three along those lines, just because someone with a wacky idea was willing to do a lot of work.

Posted by: Southern Baptist | June 18, 2009 6:27 PM

What is poe ?

Some disrepectful science speak to good Christian folk.

We will pray for you tonight in our Bible study.

Posted by: Helena Handbag | June 18, 2009 6:28 PM

Hell, I'm just a lurker, and I can tell "Southern Baptist" is a fake troll.

I was brought up as a Southern Baptist, and you, sir, are no Southern Baptist. I outgrew it (getting 'felt up' repeatedly by a guest preacher certainly hastened the process) but I know the type inside and out and you ain't it, although your crappy spelling and dimwitted logic are a good imitation.

Go back and hide your light under a bushel, mkay?

Posted by: Incertus (Brian) | June 18, 2009 6:31 PM

Voters must be allowed, without criticism, to propose policies based on religious belief.

No no no a thousand times no. I don't want to be able to propose a secular policy without criticism. We don't get anywhere if we aren't willing to have our positions tested and retested and confronted.No set of ideas ought to ever be privileged in this way.

Posted by: Rick R | June 18, 2009 6:32 PM

PZ- "it reeks of the Jim Wallis/Amy Sullivan camp of liberal theocrats"

THANK YOU. For all of Wallis' criticisms of the religious right, he is just another theocrat.

Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 6:37 PM

We will pray for you tonight in our Bible study.

christerspeak for fuck you

Posted by: Bob Carroll | June 18, 2009 6:38 PM

Right on schedule, the left-leaning wackaloons show up to remind us that not all political insanity comes from the right. Still, these days the violence seems to be exclusively from the right. Thanks to these weak-minded losers for the reminder. Lest we forget...

Still, Southern fried baptist sounds like a Poe, although more restrained than most. He (or she) should really learn to use more CAPS and exclamation points!!!!

Bob

Posted by: Holbach | June 18, 2009 6:41 PM

Southern Baptist posing as a Bumpkin: or reverse.

Will you honestly reveal yourself, or will you continue to post moronic comments to arouse stupid replies to what you are? Fess up, and either quit wasting our time, or more fruitfully, gear up for an onslaught of awesomeness, as expressed by Kung Fu Panda.

Posted by: Southern Baptist | June 18, 2009 6:42 PM

Timothy (46)

Anger is a secular vice.

Prayer will relieve your sad vilent feelings with your world.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 18, 2009 6:47 PM

PZ, et al:

Kossacks really aren't that liberal. Markos himself is about power/access more than principles. In the past, he has himself, or allowed his flunkies, to either boot, or freeze the accounts of people who were too liberal (including me), too independent-minded (including me) and too Green (including me). (This is the man who claimed there were secret liberals inside the CIA, to boot.)

So, Nutroots Nations is just a weathervane in the breeze following The One's plan to expand faith-based initiatives.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 6:54 PM

Anger is a secular vice.

what if it's the righteous anger of the Lord?

does God need his own vice cops?

Posted by: Southern Baptist | June 18, 2009 6:55 PM

Timothy et al - well you will find out as we approach the end of time……many of you are deceived because satan has blinded your eyes………but it is still not to late for you to know that you dont have to be decieved……….mocking God and said that satan doesn’t exist shows that you are not aware of what Jesus said……may the Lord open your eyes for you to see……..Please know i am not trying to belittle you only to let you know we dont have much time left here on earth…..the devil knows his time is short

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 6:56 PM

Are there no other native English speakers here?

what were you saying about non-sequitors earlier?

The policy itself is and should be open to scrutiny and criticism

funny, I thought that's exactly what we were doing - criticizing a very bad policy idea.

Posted by: Toto | June 18, 2009 7:03 PM

I think the originator of this panel is Bruce Ledewitz, former Yeshiva student and now a law professor at Duquesne University, who wrote "Hallowed Secularism: Theory, Belief, Practice" (ISBN = 0230614027).

He writes for Religion Dispatches and the Huffington Post, and is pushing the ideas that secularism has to compromise with religiosity, and that secularists must recognize the value of the Wisdom of the Ages, including Sin and Obedience. He is one of those very annoying people who claims to be a secularist but can justify all sorts of religious nonsense.

One of the panel members, Vic Walczak, was one of the ACLU attorneys in Kitzmiller. I expect that he and Frederick Clarkson will rip this idea to shreds.

Posted by: Butter | June 18, 2009 7:05 PM

Uppity:

No one is free to do anything without criticism. As you are demonstrating, by criticizing us, and getting criticized in return. That's how speech works. Neat, huh?

Anyway, what could possibly justify such a right?

And the source and merits of a proposed policy aren't entirely separable, especially when the people proposing it are claiming its source as its biggest merit! E.g.: Proposed policy: No rights for queers. Justification: God hates fags. Source: Bible says so. When the well of proposed ideas is a known sewer of lies and bigotry, we get to be wary of new brown matter dredged out of it.

Posted by: chaos_engineer | June 18, 2009 7:10 PM

Responding to trolls on the Internet makes Baby Ceaseless-Creativity-of-the-Universe cry. Also His twin sister, Baby Objective-Validity-of-Human-Rights.

So the people who are doing this (and you know who you are) are violating my religious freedom. Please stop. Thanks in advance!

Posted by: Uppity | June 18, 2009 7:14 PM

Don't worry Uppity, based on your past posts your credibility is somewhere between that of severely visually impaired person giving eyewitness testimony at a trial, and a piece of dogshit laying on the curb. Consider that what you have to say will be ignored before you even say it. Then you will have achieved wisdom. But, that is beyond your meager mind.

Since you don't have the acuity to deal with my argument, you attack me and say nothing else (as Lincoln is purported to have said, better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt, I guess). Meanwhile, the rabble chimes in to babble on about how right and smart y'all are. Par for the course here.

Posted by: Sastra | June 18, 2009 7:17 PM

Uppity #36 wrote:

As I understand the description, it's deemed legitimate to propose policies based upon religious belief (e.g., that theft is wrong), but such policies must be defended universally rather than on religious grounds.

You could be right -- but if that's what they meant, then they certainly didn't express it very well. On the contrary, it sounds like they're complaining about the secularization of political rationalization.

I don't think what you call "hate religion meme" is getting in the way of interpreting their clear meaning. Your reading may be plausible, but so is PZ's. Opposing a specifically "religious opposition to war" on its merits would seem to entail arguing about what God really wants.

Posted by: Southern Baptist | June 18, 2009 7:21 PM

Holbach (66)

not far from 666 very appropriate for you.

Rudeness is typical of you lot.

My prayer group did say when they suggested I came here, as a form of pennance. I would see how hurtful and hateful the new athiests are.

Thankyou Holbach and the like every word you type only makes me even more resolute in my faith and superiority over you Satan/scince worshippers.

It is never too late to take Jesus in to your hearts.

A start would be to renounce your tenures, and get proper jobs.

Posted by: littlejohn | June 18, 2009 7:23 PM

Southern Baptist, seriously, if you're a Poe you've got to do it a lot better. A good Poe is funny.
You just sound confused. PZ has a policy of banning trolls who quote scripture, as you have been doing.
Please get funnier, or admit you're really a kook.
Otherwise, I vote for banishment. And for shit's sake, don't pray for us. That's also grounds for banishment, or at least it ought to be.
PZ, are you paying attention to this idiot?

Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 7:31 PM

Please know i am not trying to belittle you

only makes me even more resolute in my faith and superiority over you

So which one is it, liar?

I would see how hurtful and hateful the new athiests are.

All high and mighty you tell us we are under the sway of satan, and then cry about how mean WE are?

Every abusive asshole who lives plays the victim card.

Posted by: Southern Baptist | June 18, 2009 7:34 PM

I am NOT a poe (looked it up).

I AM a sincere believer.

I am not trying to be funny.

You science types are certainly not humourous either, just bitter and twisted.

I WILL still pray for you it is my duty and I will not be told
when I can and can't quote scripture.

You quote your god that jerk PZ often enough and darwin , dawkins et al.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 18, 2009 7:39 PM

I will not be told when I can and can't quote scripture.

Oh, but you will. Keep it up; see what happens. It'll cause an somewhat annoying renumbering of the posts, but you'll be gone.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2009 7:42 PM

Since you don't have the acuity to deal with my argument, you attack me

You science types are certainly not humourous either, just bitter and twisted.

You quote your god that jerk PZ often enough and darwin , dawkins et al.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 18, 2009 7:45 PM

I am not trying to be funny.

It's unavoidable for you.

Posted by: Ty | June 18, 2009 7:46 PM

"I am not trying to be funny."

And that is the only way in which you are not failing.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 18, 2009 7:50 PM

If they agree with the President's view as expressed in the speech, they shouldn't be criticizing the quoted description as "bizarre" (except for the part about the definiation of God, which I agree is bizarre). It doesn't say what PZ seems to think it does.

It's bizarre because, as PZ points out, that's the way things work (in theory) now and the way "progressives," including the most vocal atheists, have agreed/argued that it should work. PZ says this in his post. The "Voters must be allowed, without criticism" line, therefore, if it is simply reiterating Obama's and others' views, is taking issue with whose arguments or with what existing situation? Voters are allowed to do this, and there's no progressive atheist contingent arguing against it that I've seen. Have you considered that either their thinking or their writing is simply confused?

Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 7:51 PM

We are working in GODs name, and can not be stopped in our work.

Oh, but you can! While you're wasting your time here, you're not godbothering someone else.

Did I mention that you're an abusive asshole?

Posted by: Southern Baptist | June 18, 2009 7:56 PM

I think I can understand your anger and inadequacies.

If I lived in a country where I was part of a small discredited community, rather than the moral majority , I too might be a bit bitter and twisted too.

Maybe some of you would be happier over in Europe where you would be a slightly less insignificant fringe group.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 18, 2009 7:58 PM

Speaking of Obama, once again, Just.Another.Politician.™ isn’t wearing very many clothes, as Joe Nocera shows us in detail in breaking down Obama’s regulatory “reform” package, which won’t touch banks “too big to fail” nor “designer” derivatives

Posted by: Southern Baptist | June 18, 2009 8:04 PM

Wowbagger you're not very bright are you ?

Multiple registrations, multiple Ip addresses , multiple people,

and the silly little bagger has to resort to profanities
how pathetic you are

Posted by: Stygian | June 18, 2009 8:05 PM

Southern Baptist, are you honestly trying to win over support for your views? If so you need to learn proper methods of persuasion. You can't alienate your audiance right off the bat and then continue to insult them at every opportunity. If you were at least polite about it, I'm sure that you wouldn't attract nearly as much hate. Try to at least understand the people you're talking to instead of imediatly classifing them as your "lesser's".

Posted by: Sastra | June 18, 2009 8:06 PM

Uppity #80 wrote:

Only if you conflate "church and state" with "religion and politics." The description uses "religion and politics" and PZ gets his panties in a bunch about "church and state." They are quite different concepts (obviously).

Not obviously, no. Same with "God and government."

The war (or any other policy consideration) should stand or fall on whether it makes sense. Irrespective of my religious inspiration, without a universal basis undergirding it, it ought to fail (consistent with the description). I'm astonished that anyone could read it differently.

When people explicitly and openly bring a religious rationale into a policy debate, the argument is not necessarily going to confine itself to secular grounds. To most people, their religion "makes sense" -- and if religion and politics are no longer separated, then whether or not the person bringing up the religiously-inspired issue is theologically correct is now in the public square, and up for rational debate. And here we go: who is right about God?

I understand (and agree) that a religious or sectarian motivation is not relevant if there is a prior agreement that any such argument must still gain a universal, secular consensus -- and make as much sense to someone without your religious beliefs, as it does to someone with them. The problem is that I think this prior agreement can be stated to the effect that "religion and politics ought to be separated."

Encouraging politicians and citizens to inject religious language and reasoning into policy arguments which are nevertheless supposed to appeal only to shared secular values is, at best, asking for trouble. Perhaps I 'read it differently' because I don't share your optimism.

Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 8:07 PM

I too might be a bit bitter and twisted too.

First thing you've written I would agree with.

Posted by: Holbach | June 18, 2009 8:09 PM

southern Bumpkin @ 71

You will have domne more than penance when we get through with you, in fact, you'd think you went to your imaginary hell and back with all the incendearies hurled at you and your imaginary god.
The only thing you are definitely resolute in is your state of insanity from which you will eventually resolve into irretrievable madnes, thanks to that imaginary god thing in your skull and your now inability to recover any semblance of lucid rationality.
How in the name of all that is rational can you consider yourself superior to persons that do not suffer from delusional madness due to a belief in non-existent things? To believe in such imaginary dreck only marks you as an inferior cretin on a scale lower than slime mold. There are people in insane asylums with legitimate mental impairments who are not lucid enough to realize this, yet they are superior to you because you have caused your insanity by introducing imaginary things to an already sappy brain just prone to religious derangement. You feel superior to a person of sound mind who harbors no such delusional dreck? Are you mad? Are you aware that you are mad? No, you are the inferior dolt, lashing out at your betters because you can see and understand that they are superior to you. You sad, disillusioned moron.
I would not put your jeebus into my toilet, let alone my heart. My tenure is to expose religious morons like you to the full weight of blatant reason and get you to call on your imaginary god for assistance. You will die waiting for your god, and once you are dead, your god dies with you. The worms will show no remorse for your passing, but will consume you and your god.
Oh, by the way, I do have a proper job: I am an exorcist, and I am coming for you.

Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 8:14 PM

Oh, by the way, I do have a proper job: I am an exorcist, and I am coming for you.

And that twit called us humorless...

Posted by: echidna | June 18, 2009 8:17 PM

Southern Baptist,
You don't seem to realise that Pharyngula commenters are an international bunch. Many of us are deliriously happy to not live in godbot-country.

Like other Godbots, you see anger where there is only laughter at your inanity.
What many of us dislike is stupidity, and you, I'm afraid, are soaking in it.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 18, 2009 8:18 PM

s: as PZ points out, that's the way things work

Nice to see you joining the naturalistic viewpoint. Or was that just because it conveniently happens to align with your pre-established ideoplogy?

Are you high, Ranum? I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll note, though, that that phrase was followed by "(in theory)," because in practice religiously-inspired policies and proposals generally get a special pass in terms of reduced criticism and demands for evidence of actual effects. That's the reason the topic came up in the first place - religious people have claimed that this situation, in which "because our god said so" is considered a valid political argument, is correct.

Anyway, you're a twit for whom I have no patience. Stop buxxing about me like a little fly.

Posted by: Southern Baptist | June 18, 2009 8:21 PM

Holbach ,

Rather appropriate you claim to be an exorcist, as you are probably the most evil here, and taht is saying something.

You claim I'm delusional (ie do not see reality), but then you go on to claim I see your reality "lashing out at your betters because you can see and understand that they are superior to you". Either I can't see reality or I can.

Logic 101 silly little Holbach.

I'm off to the prayer meeting soon. Maybe I'll get my son to take over. A good bit of home schooling home work for him.

Posted by: kamaka | June 18, 2009 8:27 PM

I'm off to the prayer meeting soon. Maybe I'll get my son to take over. A good bit of home schooling home work for him.

Home schooled, huh? See, I got it right when I pegged you as an abusive, controlling asshole.

Poor kid.

Posted by: woozy | June 18, 2009 8:30 PM

Good Gobs! I'm usually criticized in these parts for my sensitivity but this takes mush-headed sensitivity to an absurd pablum.

This ... mush ... only makes sense (and then its just plain wrong) that one's religious beliefs is inseperable and indistinguishable from any other aspects of one's being. This akin to saying a Christian has to view crossing the street as a reflection of his eternal love of Jesus, a conservative has to view it as a reflection of obeying and respect of order, and a liberal must view it as a great equalizer bringing mankind together.

Church and State seperation is a simple idea; governments, laws, policies, etc. must not reflect or endorse established religous doctrines. Doesn't say anything about the individuals making the goverments, laws, and policies not having any religious beliefs themselves. Pheh!
====
Yeah, yeah, God as cosmic muffin... why ya atheists gotta be so ornery? God is just good without the extra "o"; how can you have a problem with that? Everyone has to believe in some form of God.

Maybe we should insist "evolution" can mean whatever people want it to mean; in particular the growth and thought every person must go through toward maturity? Who has a problem with that? Everyone has to believe in some form of evolution.

Posted by: maus | June 18, 2009 8:37 PM

"I'm off to the prayer meeting soon. Maybe I'll get my son to take over. A good bit of home schooling home work for him."

Nobody believes you are sincere, or what you purport to be. Give up, nobody here really cares either. The arguments are boring and hardly unique or insightful. They're too dullwitted to get annoyed with either.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | June 18, 2009 8:45 PM

Holy crap.

The old liberal vision of a total separation of religion from politics has been discredited. Despite growing secularization, a secular progressive majority is still impossible,
So, if it were possible to have a secular majority in the United States, the separation of religion and politics would be credible?

and a new two-part approach is needed--one that first admits that there is no political wall of separation. Voters must be allowed, without criticism, to propose policies based on religious belief.
Without criticism? Okay, first, under a paradigm that separates church and state, voters are allowed to propose whatever they want for whatever reason they want. If they were not allowed to do so, their own free speech and free exercise of religion would be infringed. More importantly, though, if what they propose either officially establishes a religion or infringes on somebody else's equal rights, it violates the paradigm and should be struck down, no matter what majority supports it. Most importantly, nobody gets to propose anything without facing criticism.

But, when government speaks and acts, messages must be universal. The burden is on religious believers, therefore, to explain public references like "under God" in universal terms. For example, the word "God" can refer to the ceaseless creativity of the universe and the objective validity of human rights.
Oh, jeez! What a silly semantic game. I see what they're doing here. They're butchering what President Obama said before he took office -- that while it is a practical impossibility to expect individuals' proposals not to be influenced by their own private moral codes or religions, participating in a secular government requires them to translate their ideas into universal, rather than religion-specific terms.

This does not mean proposing something in the name of god, and then backtracking the definition of "god" into meaninglessness. It means that if your religion considers something immoral, and you want to make it illegal, you can't just bring up your religion as the sole justification. Instead, you must explain, in secular terms, why your ideas are the best policy for everyone.

For instance, you might think that god frowns upon sexual molestation of children. But it's not enough to say, "God doesn't like it," and then to say, "However you conceptualize god, that is" if you want to make it illegal. You have to explain something to the effect that all people have equal rights, one of them being the right to control his/her body and only have sex on a consensual basis. Children cannot consent to sexual activity, by definition, and thus, having sex with them should be outlawed.

Promoting and accepting religious images as universal will help heal culture-war divisions and promote the formation of a broad-based progressive coalition.
Rubbish! Religious images are not universal, and that's the fucking problem!

Posted by: Holbach | June 18, 2009 8:47 PM

Southern Bumpkin @ 111

Are you going to pray to your imaginary god to come down and smite us? Gee, what if a lightning bolt strikes your house of insanity and incinerates the lot of you. Who will you blame? It will be too late to blame your god, and that intelligently designed lightning bolt could give a crap what moron you babble to.
You are going to let your son take over? You should be arrested for child cruelty for knowingly subjecting him to a system of pure reason and mind-boggling invective being hurled at him by this site. The arrest warrant will also include insanely indoctrinating a minor to insane tales of horror and perpetual damnation by an imaginary god that only resides in your demented brain. Babble to your god as much and as often as your deranged brain can withstand the insane strain. You are alone. There is no god. Poor you.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | June 18, 2009 8:48 PM

Oh woe is me! A mean ol' Poe is hurling insults at us. Whatever shall we do?

I guess we could use multisyllabic words in our posts until his head explodes from trying to look them up in his Reader's Digest Enhance Your Wordpower dictionary.

Dude, at least go talk to a friggin' Baptist first.

Posted by: Southern Baptists | June 18, 2009 8:53 PM

117 - there ARE a lot of suckers here.

Look back at some of the comments .

QED.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | June 18, 2009 8:54 PM

The old liberal vision of a total separation of religion from politics has been discredited.

Sure, that's why the Republicans are trying to disconnect themselves from the religious right. James Dobson is whining because he's losing (not loosing) his power because the GOP is distancing themselves from him.

Voters must be allowed, without criticism, to propose policies based on religious belief.

Any proposed political or governmental policies should be subject to criticism. The proposal's basis is as eligible for criticism as any other part of the proposal.

But, when government speaks and acts, messages must be universal.

This almost sounds like "your either with us or with the terrorists." Governmental actions and speech should be reviewed critically.

Posted by: Tengrain | June 18, 2009 8:57 PM

I must not have gotten the memo. I thought we were still going for Separation of Church and State.

Thanks, Kos, for setting us all straight!

Regards,

Tengrain

PS - I keep saying it: Sooner or later you become what you once mocked, Kos.

Posted by: John Morales | June 18, 2009 9:03 PM

[meta]

Holbach, you're in fine fettle in this thread.

Mollyworthy for mine.

Posted by: Anri | June 18, 2009 9:10 PM

Hi, Southern Baptist!

Being from the Third Coast myself, I'll attempt to be polite and ask you, just so we know what you're angry *at* when you say that science equates with the devil:

Can you define science?

In other words, what, exactly, are you unhappy with in science?
Can you give us some examples?
I will, as a courtesy, remind you that you will get a better reception if you site your sources when listing examples.

Thanks in advance!
(Assuming you haven't left, of course.)
I would also be perfectly happy with answers from Son of SB, either.
Thanks!

Posted by: SC, OM | June 18, 2009 9:13 PM

SC, OM writes: Are you high, Ranum?

If fact, I am. My bad...

Apology, if such that was, accepted.

I thought you were arguing from the morality of the collectiveor the natural/past; I was mistaken, never would you be such a hypocrite.

I'd ask you to explain, but you're making my head hurt. About to have a cocktail, though, so perhaps I'll be able to follow it after that, when my head is less clear...

Posted by: connecticut man1 | June 18, 2009 9:18 PM

Have they lost their frigin' minds? That is asking for an entire session wasted on lies and insanity.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 18, 2009 9:26 PM

SC, OM writes
Apology, if such that was, accepted.i

I dunno if "I was free-associating in a disassociative stare" is, either. But it's as real as I can do for you, in this objective reality.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 18, 2009 10:03 PM

Promoting and accepting religious images as universal will help heal culture-war divisions

Funny, I'm not feeling particularly healed. Try again, godbots!

Posted by: DaveL | June 18, 2009 10:26 PM

Also, their whole load of crap about the separation of church and state is unworkable unless there's a secular progressive majority boils down to this:

"The minority should roll over and surrender its rights... unless that minority ever happens to be us, in which case everyone should have individual rights protected by the constitution.

Posted by: woozy | June 18, 2009 10:30 PM

owlmirror # 132:

I am not sure whether your intent here is satirical or ironic or what, but answering as though it were a genuine question:

The first part you you quoted (why ya atheists gotta be so ornery? God is just good without the extra "o"; how can you have a problem with that?) was meant to be ironic mimicry of arguments we've all heard a million times.

The second part (Maybe we should insist "evolution" can mean whatever people want it to mean) was an exercise in wouldn't-it-be-fun-to-switch-the-tables-and-use-their-tactics fantasy.

Both were irritation of the "God as cosmic muffin" so you can't really have a problem with religion argument. (Which I always interpret as a "you don't really have a choice to be an athiest" argument.) I've had debates with Christians trying to convince me my belief in the laws of nature equivalent to believing in God ("both higher forces that control the universe-- that sounds like God to me-- nudge nudge") and with touchy-feely spiritualists who don't want to do without a friendly higher power ("God means the creative process of the universe and all our integrated roles within her").

I did have someone, a woman I was dating whom I'd known for five days, actually give the "God is good without the extra 'o'" argument. "I want you to tell me that if one defines 'God' as the same as 'good' then you believe in God, because if you don't believe that you might as well walk out on me." She was *seriously* surprised when I actually did get up and walked to the door. She spent the entire night trying to understand why I'd be so adamant.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2009 10:45 PM

When one single solitary POE can run a 150 post thread.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 18, 2009 10:59 PM

Hmm, it looks like the 'sub' function is making the text really, really small. I like people to be able to read my Pratchett-esque footnotes, dammit!

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 18, 2009 11:04 PM

Question:

When do you know it's a slow night on Pharyngula?

Answer:

When one single solitary POE can run a 150 post thread.

Silly old goat, why must you show off how little you understand of human life. Right now, in the northern hemisphere, it is early summer. It is pleasant outside in many places. Many of us do have real lives and have interests other than the net. It will be slower on this blog for a few months, untill the weather turns cold and most of us are hiding inside.

Get a life. You just might begin to understand many of us.

Posted by: Uppity | June 18, 2009 11:33 PM

If your argument wasn't self refuting, I would have done so.

If it was, you'd have explained how. Since you didn't, we know this is a phony face-saving attempt.

that it was inspired by religious tripe is indeed irrelvant.

That it is FILLED with religious tripe, however, IS.

Exactly.

The "Voters must be allowed, without criticism" line, therefore, if it is simply reiterating Obama's and others' views, is taking issue with whose arguments or with what existing situation? Voters are allowed to do this, and there's no progressive atheist contingent arguing against it that I've seen.

Then you haven't read this thread. Try posts 99 and 120 for starters.

I understand (and agree) that a religious or sectarian motivation is not relevant if there is a prior agreement that any such argument must still gain a universal, secular consensus -- and make as much sense to someone without your religious beliefs, as it does to someone with them.

Which is precisely the President's position. It's the description writer's position too (at least based upon the words written).

Encouraging politicians and citizens to inject religious language and reasoning into policy arguments which are nevertheless supposed to appeal only to shared secular values is, at best, asking for trouble.

It can complicate matters, sure, but would you rather advocate that MLK and the Berrigan brothers should have been forced to sit down and shut up?

If a policy should stand or fall on its merits, then it will need to have more going for it than religious inspiration. That's entirely the point.

Exactly.

What Obama and others are arguing should be the case in practice is that ideas and proposals, regardless of their inspiration (and no classes of inspiration get any special treatment) should be defended on a concrete basis, using reason and evidence.

It's what I'm arguing too.

Prayer meetings are on Wednesday night, you faker.

Today that's typically true. But a few churches still meet on Thursdays, as a vestige from when prayer meetings were Tuesday/Thursday, except in lib-ruhl churches, which only gathered for prayer on Wednesdays.

The proposal's basis is as eligible for criticism as any other part of the proposal.

Then let's press those religious folk and ferret out when they're acting on religious impulse so we can stamp it out. Perhaps legislators ought to have to swear an oath (or affirmation, of course) that their thoughts were pure and that they had no religious impulse behind their vote. M'kay?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2009 1:17 AM

Exactly.

so what the fuck are you jabbering on and on about?

have you EVER seen a piece of legislation enter committee, that was "inspired" by religion, that WASN'T full of religious nutbaggery?

It's inevitable when the legislation is "inspired" by religious claptrap to begin with.

Posted by: bric | June 19, 2009 2:27 AM

Religion = politics. The rest is icing.

Posted by: Malcolm | June 19, 2009 2:37 AM

Ichthyic,

It froze outside overnight here in Wellington.

damn northerner!

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2009 3:02 AM

Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the U.S.

do you really wish to examine how that came about, and who resisted it?

since you volunteered it, you go first.

The hate religion meme is obscenely strong in this one.

and the farce is strong with you, obviously.

Posted by: Southern Baptist | June 19, 2009 3:37 AM

Holbach -

I refer you to #125 + #138, and get a dictionary and look up sucker or maybe gullible.

I know because of talk by your fans of Mollys, you're getting carried away, with flowery rhetoric or being a somewhat poe yourself , ie pretending you believe I'm a SB when I'm clearly not, + even you must see that. Save it for a real SB.

Boring night in godless England here, and I was tired so not v.good poe. Apologies.

I'll come back on when there's something interesting, in true ID

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2009 4:04 AM

I picked easy ones off the top of my head that had huge religious support.

and huge secular support.

which do you think actually was written into the legislation?

why?

If you want more current examples, visit any number of churches (of varying political points of view) in the days leading up to an election and look at the literature.

How does that support your case?

seriously, the US is simply incapable of handling itself as a political system WITHOUT separation of church and state.

Actually, I know you are.

you've been full of nothing but baseless assertion all day.

care to move beyond it at this point?

Posted by: Uppity | June 19, 2009 4:38 AM

and huge secular support.

Ultimately, at least.

which do you think actually was written into the legislation?

I've read the statute.

why?

Because it was good policy.

How does that support your case?

Because in the vast majority of cases, religious people are supporting policies on secular grounds for which they have religious motivations (as they should). It's the "universal" language the description had in mind that PZ foolishly had the hissy fit about to start this thread.

seriously, the US is simply incapable of handling itself as a political system WITHOUT separation of church and state.

I agree. Religious people and organizations need protection from the state just like the state needs protection from the church. Indeed, I have little doubt that if many of the folks here were ever given any real authority, religious people would be repressed in a heartbeat. I'm reminded, as I often am here, of the closing couple of paragraphs of the Whittaker Chambers review of Atlas Shrugged, highlighted by these famous lines: "Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber — go!'"

Posted by: Andyman | June 19, 2009 5:17 AM

Southern Baptist

Hurry up and fuck off to your Bible Study. It should be obvious that we don't need your "help". If Christians are right (unlikely) and there is a Hell, well, I've had a good life.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | June 19, 2009 6:01 AM

Southern Baptist, moral majority?

People who celebrate the murder of doctors because those doctors had the temerity to do something legal that they didn't like, get to call themselves moral now?

You know, the right to lifers, who are pro-gun, pro-war, anti-healthcare and pro-death penalty.

How about that "moral" catholic Bill Donahue. Nice guy, accused victims of priests who like kiddy rape of overdramatising their trauma, is he part of this "moral majority"?

And how about all of those nice "moral majority" chappies who go on about how "moral" a majority they are, while supporting war crimes and torture? Who will slam the blue-collar criminal who robs banks, but will somehow find it in their hearts to forgive and forget, the second the criminal in question is either their favoured elected official or preacher.

Or when it is in fact you breaking the law quite knowingly and bringing creationism into the public school science class.

The "law is the law" right up until the verdict is one you don't like. Then we get "activist judge" or somesuch crap.

Moral. You being moral is all about other people's sex lives and nothing to do with your own actions. Defend marriage from the gays who actually want to get married, while divorcing your second wife. Make the teenaged mother carry the baby to term, but once the kid is born? "We aren't socialists."

And do you know what pisses you off with science? Science is basically honest. A scientist, if they are practicing good science, will go out and gather evidence before making a claim. They don't just make shit up like you are fond of doing, they will go out and actually find the evidence.

And to ensure that this happens, the scientific community has peer review, where biases, that includes "Faith" by the way, are minimised as it is shown that anybody from any ideological background can reperfom the experiment, or see the same evidence, and find the conclusion reasonable.

Lots of errors are made by scientist, but for the most part? They are honest errors, and for a scientist to be caught in a lie as opposed to an error? For a scientist to be caught producing false results? The scientist is shamed, and their career ends.

It is one of the most potent forms of anti-bullshit we have, and for bullshit artists like you, that is one hell of a threat.

So you peddle your woo, you celebrate that you have the majority, you have a professional class dedicated to shuffling shit so it don't stink so much (Theologians), a many millenia old profession dedicated to selling the shit (Priests), TV channels, heck the president of the USA can't be seen to be too secular, the list goes on. Mega-churches and advertising for God so prevelant it is almost invisible, and is actually tax free.

And do you know the one group to have grown across the board in the USA? The one religious grouping* to achieve that? Us. The sceptics. The nonbelievers. We have the young, and we will continue to because for all of our flaws, for every bit of our "nastiness" or "shrillness", we have the facts.

You can spend billions in marketting your fairy tales, you can polish them up, claim all sorts of wonders for them, try to make disagreeing with them "impolite", but they remain fairy tales.

*Before anybody says "But we aren't a religious grouping" it is for want of a better term. If you can think of a better term, substitute it.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 6:45 AM

The "Voters must be allowed, without criticism" line, therefore, if it is simply reiterating Obama's and others' views, is taking issue with whose arguments or with what existing situation? Voters are allowed to do this, and there's no progressive atheist contingent arguing against it that I've seen.

Then you haven't read this thread. Try posts 99 and 120 for starters.

Fool. They're reading it differently than you (a reading that gives the writers of the blurb the benefit of the doubt that they're not not idiots). If it is understood as you do, it's stupid to say because it's not a "new progressive vision" at all but merely a restatement of existing positions, misleadingly framed as a new departure with dramatic language like "Voters must be allowed..." If it's understood as others do, it's stupid and wrong.

Encouraging politicians and citizens to inject religious language and reasoning into policy arguments which are nevertheless supposed to appeal only to shared secular values is, at best, asking for trouble.

It can complicate matters, sure, but would you rather advocate that MLK and the Berrigan brothers should have been forced to sit down and shut up?

Because not wanting to actively encourage people to do something is the same as wanting to force them to stop. Right. How about encouraging people to make reasoned and evidence-based policy arguments?

If a policy should stand or fall on its merits, then it will need to have more going for it than religious inspiration. That's entirely the point.

Exactly.

...What Obama and others are arguing should be the case in practice is that ideas and proposals, regardless of their inspiration (and no classes of inspiration get any special treatment) should be defended on a concrete basis, using reason and evidence.

It's what I'm arguing too.

But it doesn't appear to be what this freakin' blurb is arguing. They appear to be encouraging (their fellow) religious "progressives" to redefine their parochial abstract concepts as universals without affecting the substantive content of their arguments (as PZ noted and chaos_engineer cleverly riffed on above), and encouraging others on the left to embrace this.

You haven't responded to my request to define "makes sense."

Because in the vast majority of cases, religious people are supporting policies on secular grounds for which they have religious motivations (as they should). It's the "universal" language the description had in mind that PZ foolishly had the hissy fit about to start this thread.

Citation very much needed for this bullshit assertion.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | June 19, 2009 8:12 AM

Because in the vast majority of cases, religious people are supporting policies on secular grounds for which they have religious motivations (as they should). It's the "universal" language the description had in mind that PZ foolishly had the hissy fit about to start this thread.

If you have secular grounds what do you need to bring your God into it for?

Its because you don't actually have good secular grounds.

The law is the law for everybody, theist and atheist. If you want to forcibly impose your beliefs on ME, then you had better have a damn good reason for it.

And "My imaginary friend says" is no good reason.

Posted by: Felix | June 19, 2009 8:34 AM

Statistically (I analyzed this), we need 1.43 posts announcing that someone was POEing a thread, pointing out every single post by that person, per post of that person, until people realize that serious responses are a waste of time and anger.
Holbach, nothing personal, I like your posts, but this is the second thread where I've seen you incessantly debating a POE, a troll, a not real persona, after just about everyone else got it. Seems to be a weak spot of you. I don't blame you for having a lot of good anger and little patience for real godbots, but please try to look closely and think about who you're talking to. Why do I care? I have no idea. ;) cheers mate.

I once started a poe persona on rdnet, announcing beforehand what I was going to do within the next posts, for how long I felt like it and people were willing to debate. It was some fun, and I started understanding the fundie mindset much better than before - this certainty of conviction, that everything I said and believed was Truth and that I had the personal backing and attention of the Creator of Everything. That I could never run into a dead end or be cornered in the discussion, because it was simply irrelevant if I made any logical sense or had any evidence. All I needed were True Assertions. It got scary, and I stopped it.

Posted by: astrosmashley | June 19, 2009 9:04 AM

The old liberal vision of a total separation of religion from politics has been discredited. (by whom? How?) Despite growing secularization, a secular progressive majority is still impossible (In what way?), and a new two-part approach is needed --one that first admits that there is no political wall of separation (That’s true…there is no “inherent” wall…that’s why we had to put it there). Voters must be allowed, without criticism, to propose policies based on religious belief (Whose?). But, when government speaks and acts, messages must be universal (It’s called secularism). The burden is on religious believers, therefore, to explain public references like "under God" in universal terms ( Right…the burden is on the religious…and furthermore, why would one would bother to do so?). For example, the word "God" can refer to the ceaseless creativity of the universe and the objective (OBJECTIVE?...Really?) validity of human rights (Or Don Ho’s hairline one month before he died). Promoting and accepting religious images as universal will help heal culture-war divisions and promote the formation of a broad-based progressive coalition (because it’s worked SO well in the past)

Posted by: Uppity | June 19, 2009 9:14 AM

Uppity, what do you mean that religions need protection from the government? Are you suggesting religions need special protection?

I think the phrase "special protection" is dubious in that the Religious Right likes to attack the gay community for allegedly seeking out "special rights." However, the Framers gave religion both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause (which provides that the government may neither advance nor inhibit religion, per Lemon v. Kurtzman). That's pretty good protection. Free speech helps too (as in cases allowing church groups and student religious groups to use public facilities similarly to other groups).

re: Atlas Shrugged. What's that got to do with anything said here?

Like Rand, many here are abso-bloomin-lutely certain that they're right and, further, that they're superior to those who don't see things the way they do (it's obvious after all). Seeing your opponents as inferior is a recipe for oppression of the first order.

If it is understood as you do, it's stupid to say because it's not a "new progressive vision" at all but merely a restatement of existing positions....

You obviously haven't been involved in many First Amendment cases. There are still people who want to say (for example) that a church can't rent a school on the same basis as the Chamber of Commerce, that a religious club can't use school facilities on the same basis as the chess club, that secular and religious charities don't deserve the same tax advantages, etc.

How about encouraging people to make reasoned and evidence-based policy arguments?

In church, I'd use religion-based arguments. But in Congress, I'd have to make a good secular argument. I can oppose torture on religious grounds, but if I want my view to prevail as a matter of policy, I must offer other reasons.

Citation very much needed for this bullshit assertion.

I have no idea what is being asked for.

If you have secular grounds what do you need to bring your God into it for? Its because you don't actually have good secular grounds.

So MLK didn't actually have good secular grounds to support the civil rights movement?

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 9:41 AM

If it is understood as you do, it's stupid to say because it's not a "new progressive vision" at all but merely a restatement of existing positions....

You obviously haven't been involved in many First Amendment cases.

Your inability to remain on topic and follow a train of logic is giving people in the legal profession a bad name.

There are still people who want to say (for example) that a church can't rent a school on the same basis as the Chamber of Commerce, that a religious club can't use school facilities on the same basis as the chess club, that secular and religious charities don't deserve the same tax advantages, etc.

This has zero to do with the subject at hand. (Incidentally, it was a topic of discussion on a recent thread. I will link to it if you wish.) Show me where PZ or the commenters disagreed with Obama's statements about how all arguments are of course allowed but all should be defended in terms of secular arguments.

How about encouraging people to make reasoned and evidence-based policy arguments?

In church, I'd use religion-based arguments. But in Congress, I'd have to make a good secular argument. I can oppose torture on religious grounds, but if I want my view to prevail as a matter of policy, I must offer other reasons.

Exactly. Other grounds. Not your religious grounds disingenuously reformulated. This panel is, and we here are, supposedly talking about what constitutes a progressive vision for political action.

Religious arguments are either indefensible politically or like adding lace to a submarine. Consider an instance in which Obama made, IIRC, a lame case for the "universalization" of religious arguments: global warming. What does religion substantively add to these discussions? Why should "progressives" encourage people to frame their arguments in terms of religion, as opposed to secular values/reason/evidence?

Citation very much needed for this bullshit assertion.

I have no idea what is being asked for.

Evidence for your claim that "in the vast majority of cases, religious people are supporting policies on secular grounds for which they have religious motivations."

Still waiting for the definition of making sense...

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 9:52 AM

I can oppose torture on religious grounds,

Love this example.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | June 19, 2009 10:01 AM

Oh and by the way Uppity, you racist pig, are you saying the MLK, or the black community of that era would have happily gotten lynched if they were atheists?

And do you know why I call you a fucking racist? Because ultimately you would not expect a white atheist to put up with the shit the black community did, yet you use MLK to try and make it sound like black atheists did?

Sounds racist to me.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 10:14 AM

Well said, Joe Bleau @ #184.

we all agree this is bad:

Legislator thinks to herself: Sweet Baby Jesus hates poverty. Proposes legislation: Resolved: In the name of Sweet Baby Jesus, we shall outlaw poverty!

Although I would clarify that neither I nor the vast majority of the people here think it should be disallowed in any way (as the blurb implies, and Uppity suggests, we do) - just that it's dumb and not to be recommended or encouraged. At the same time, the second option has been supported, but I've seen no one arguing that it should be forcibly, um, enforced. (I know you weren't saying anything different - just trying to cut off Uppity's pinheaded misreadings at the pass.)

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 10:41 AM

@ SC # 189

In following the thread, I found it hard to take a sincere look at Uppity's arguments from the get go, or think that he was interested in engaging in a sincere debate, when the very first line of his very first post is: "More than usual amount of inanity here."

I simply thought "asshole"... and moved on.

Hee. I guess I thought "belligerant and intellectually-dishonest asshole, no doubt, with possibly an interest in engaging in sincere debate."

Also, it may be a matter of honing arguments and skills (as when I mentioned global warming above). Blog commenting might be a form of collective cold reading, in which we look for substance, meaning, and fodder amidst the ephemera, snark, and marginalia. Could be productive - who knows? In any case, I'm an argument addict. Like a moth drawn to the flame...

:)

Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 11:02 AM

SC @189,

Isn't is amazing how some folks are so quick to leap from "wow, you really dislike X" to "wow, I just bet that if you were in charge you would outlaw X and throw anyone who espouses X into gulags and sponsor special '2 minutes of hate' sessions where the population is forced at gunpoint to meditate on the pure rotten evil of X"? I can't help but to see it as pure projection of authoritarian longing.

The reason that I find this discussion really interesting is that I can actually see, from a purely pragmatic perspective, some merit in the position that the panel seems to be arguing for. Giving it the most favorable reading possible, all it really seems to say is something like this:

"Look, folks, religious people are never gonna shut up about their religion, but many of them still have good ideas. We're probably better off not insisting that they shut up about their religion, and instead try to get them to agree, at least while they are on the record, to water it down to the point where it least it can't be objected to on competing religious grounds".

From a practical standpoint, this might not even be wrong.

But if one ever only takes the pragmatic view, it's hard to see from whence the momentum will come that will systemically change what's wrong with the picture in the first place (assuming that you think that there is something wrong with the picture in the first place, which might very well be the case with both our friend Uppity and the blurb writer). And so, again, I end up asking myself:

Why the Bloody Hell is it so hard for religious people, particularly "liberal" moderate progressive people who at least pay lip service to the idea of church/state separation, to set aside their religious images and symbols and language and not constantly drag them into areas (politics, science, education) where they do absolutely no good, and indeed can often cause harm?

And one obvious set of answers presents itself - because they really don't want to. They don't really buy into the separation between church and state, they don't really believe that their magisteria don't overlap; and they don't really accept that non-belief is as valid as other-belief.

And I'm supposed to feel like some sort of a whack-job conspiracy nut if I feel threatened by that attitude?

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 11:10 AM

I can oppose torture on religious grounds - Uppity

You should get together with "Piltdown Man" and, er, thrash this out. Preferably somewhere else.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 11:21 AM

@194,

Oh, OK, I remember him.

It's that dude who argues that only an idiot would suggest that a worldview that adopts an optimistic outlook to what humanity can offer and accomplish could possibly be healthier than one that assumes that humans are dirty profane scum who must show obsequiousness to the great invisible Sky Daddy in order to be redeemed.

Good times!

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 11:33 AM

Joe Bleau,

I can't help but to see it as pure projection of authoritarian longing.

Absolutely.

***

Yeah, I think a panel with (global) atheists, agnostics, and religious people talking about (global) public policy and how - ethically and pragmatically - different groups who ultimately share "progressive" goals can work together,* and the tensions involved, could be really fruitful.

*Maybe focusing on one or more specific issues like global warming or immigration or prisons or the food industry or...

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | June 19, 2009 11:37 AM

I will translate:

It really makes it easier to manipulate the peasants into voting your way. It works for the Republicans doesn't it. Whatever works, right?

Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 11:52 AM

Progressive Witness @198 says:

But in the arena of public discourse, in discussing why we pursue the policies we pursue, a left/progressive movement that insisted only on purely secular or non-spiritual motivation among its proponents would be one that relegated itself to being a permanent minority in American politics. I for one want to build a progressive majority--and we're not there yet.

This is not a discussion about motivation. It is a discussion about whether it is salutary to tolerate religious symbolism, language, and imagery in the language and arguments contained in legislation. Please re-read the panel blurb, particularly the last sentence, until you get this.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 12:05 PM

Uppity @200,

Where did the Declaration say those rights came from? Note one discussion of King's Christian influences here.

I figured that you (or someone) would bring up the Declaration.

The Declaration of Independence != the U.S. Constitution. It was polemical in nature, and in no way shape or form sought to define or establish any particular instantiation of government. It is irrelevant to the current conversation.

Here I disagree. From an historical perspective, MLK's religious images, symbols and language did a world of good. His speeches are chock-full of them. For a more current example, Evangelicals are starting to warm up to environmental concerns in large measure due to "God-talk" on the issue -- stewardship of the earth.

Again, irrelevant. As a preacher, Dr. King was free to use whatever language, symbolism, and imagery he wanted to try to make his point. The argument put forth in the panel blurb is specifically and unambiguously about government policy:

But, when government speaks and acts, messages must be universal. {emphasis mine}

Clearly, as has been repeatedly pointed out, 'universal' here is meant to be distinct from 'secular'. It's is baffling to me why you don't seem to get this.

Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 12:17 PM

Uppity @200,

Why the Bloody Hell is the second option so damn hard for the Religious folk to swallow?

If it's good policy, why should you care if somebody else is in your corner because of the little Baby Jesus?

I don't. In fact, I specifically endorsed the second option, Baby Jesus and all. In boldface and everything.

Seriously, (gender-agnostic) dude, I sincerely hope that you are just tired or something, and that your reading comprehension skills are just in a down period. Otherwise, as has been suggested earlier, you are not covering either yourself or your alma mater in Glory here...

Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 12:26 PM

@206

Wrong. See @205. Look for the boldface. That's taken right from the blurb.

I get that you, as a Christian, want to see this as a bunch of mean old atheists trying to repress religious expression "in the public sphere". But that ain't it, at all.

You are right in that the term 'legislation' is too narrow. I'll happily stipulate to your term, 'actions of the State', and stand by everything I've written.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 12:37 PM

Ugh. Catastrophic blockquote FAIL. Please try to make sense of it, as I'm too lazy and busy to fix it. Sorry.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 12:50 PM

The point of the panel, as I understand it from my viewpoint as a Progressive Christian [Ooh, CAPS!], is that believers on the left should not be expected to pretend that their faith does not inform their expressions of advocacy on policy.

Who said they should? On the other hand, who said their positions shouldn't be criticized on secular grounds? Do you agree that they should be, or not? How specifically do you defend your positions on secular grounds? (Pick any issue.)

It certainly informs mine, and the more I contemplate the connection, the farther to the left it drives me.

*snort* Quite a selective (or ill-informed) faith.

Posted by: Progressive Witness | June 19, 2009 12:56 PM

@213

"*snort* Quite a selective (or ill-informed) faith."

You don't know nearly enough about me (read: just this side of nothing as we've only just encountered each other) to make that assessment. Sorry, I don't play the argument-by-ridicule game. Have fun playing it by yourself.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 1:07 PM

believers on the left

Believers on the left:

1) Worship - bowing down to - a deity for which there is no evidence.

2) Reject scientific epistemology by arguing that the claims in an old book trump empirical evidence.

3) Promote subordination to people who claim to have special relationships with the so-called divine.

4) Ignore the history of believers on the right and their own accomodation thereof.

5) Ignore the historicity of and the contradictions in their "sacred" texts, preferring to pick and choose those parts they believe to be supportive of their views.

And the nonbelievers on the left are supposed to take you seriously and encourage you because...?

You're fucking ridiculous.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 1:15 PM

You don't know nearly enough about me (read: just this side of nothing as we've only just encountered each other) to make that assessment. Sorry, I don't play the argument-by-ridicule game. Have fun playing it by yourself.

Make a substantive argument about a political issue based on your faith or STFU.

Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | June 19, 2009 1:25 PM

@215

"Sorry, I don't play the argument-by-ridicule game."

That's too bad, because ridicule is the only rational means to approach superstitious notions as ridiculous as "religion," "spirituality," or "God."

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | June 19, 2009 1:27 PM

My proglem with this initiative is that people tend to jump from a policy being justified by faith (or God) to that end justifying any and all means. It would be hard to argue that John Brown's outrage against slavery was right. However, by sewing fear in the hearts of slave owners, he probably helped make Civil War inevitable. Lincoln's Second Inaugural is inspiring in its use of Biblical allegory--even to an agnostic--but those very sentiments probably inspired some attrocities by the troops.

Religious sentiments tend to be strong. They can motivate people to do amazing things--for good or ill.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 19, 2009 1:31 PM

Life is to short to deal with angrily hectoring and insulting you about how you are what you aren't

Ain't it the truth?

Live is two short. To...do that.

Posted by: Progressive Witness | June 19, 2009 1:43 PM

@225

Well, crap. Uh, yeah, that tew. Me rite reel pretty un day.

Proofing will ever be my downfall.... :-) (Or, more properly, a lack thereof)

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 19, 2009 1:47 PM

@Progressive Witness, then according to your own words here, I am puzzled as to how you define yourself a xian. For all the things you have been 'accused' of here are either standard for the majority of US xians or you really are cherry picking what it means to be a xian. Either way, it still means that you believe in something without evidence and if that is not worthy of ridicule I don't know what is.

@SC, ain't it so :)

Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 2:01 PM

Erm, It is more accurate if my last sentence were to read:

Well, no one here thinks that religious people shouldn't be allowed to participate in politics, so if that were really what the panel is about, then it's a frackin' waste of time and floor space.

Also, I really do know the difference between its and it's, even if I'm apparently incapable of recognizing it when I've typed it wrong.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 19, 2009 2:12 PM

@Progressive Witness, why don't you belive it ridiculous to believe in something without evidence. Seriously, I am genuinely curious.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 19, 2009 2:26 PM

If one thinks it is not ridiculous to believe in a god without evidence, do you also have to think belief in astrology, homeopathy and UFOs is not ridiculous, or are you allowed to discriminate ?

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 2:38 PM

OTOH, let's be perfectly honest here - Progressive Witness

Yes, why don't you try it. You never know, you might enjoy it.

Posted by: Uppity | June 19, 2009 2:59 PM

I'm off to Wyoming for vacation in about 20 minutes so I'll quickly summarize and leave the last word to others. The first part of the blub, standing alone, in my view makes perfect sense. It appears to me that PZ wrongly conflated "religion and politics" with "church and state." The second part of the blurb, in my view, is poorly drafted. I read the "under God" portion as an attempted example of "universal" language, with such universals supposed to be language virtually everyone (from among the progressive target audience) ought to be able to accept. If my reading is correct, the author of the blurb ought to have recognized that the example offered would be rightly objectionable by a fair number of people, religious and secular alike. If, on the other hand and as some here seem to think, the author of the blub truly expected that essentially all of the target audience ought to accept that kind of language as an appropriate universal and that a "universal" in that sense should mean a generic religious varnish to policy questions rather than a universal (secular) basis that all could accept (and, again, I don't read it that way), I agree that it's foolish and wrong. My view in this area is similar to the President's. Religious motivation and language is appropriate when speaking to policy issues, but any policy enactments, irrespective of motivation, must have a good secular basis.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 6:19 PM

OK - my weekend trip was canceled and I have a moment.

Just wanted to apologize to Progressive Witness for some statements that were over the top. I disagree with PW, and think his/her arguments are fuzzy, but PW was generally civil and I was disproportionately harsh in my responses for some reason. Sorry.

Posted by: Dan L. | June 19, 2009 6:47 PM

@Uppity:

"The first part of the blub, standing alone, in my view makes perfect sense."

Does it?

The old liberal vision of a total separation of religion from politics has been discredited.

Was this ever a liberal vision? Which liberals? Presumably not the religious ones. Is this vision prescriptive or descriptive, i.e. is the vision in is or an ought? If it's supposed to be an is then it's blatantly false, because religion and politics have never been separated in this country. If it's an ought, then again, who actually thinks that? Of course, "separation of religion from politics" is so vague that I can't at all be certain what has been discredited, and the author doesn't think to inform us of how, why, or by whom it was discredited.

Despite growing secularization, a secular progressive majority is still impossible, and a new two-part approach is needed--one that first admits that there is no political wall of separation.

This makes no sense at all. In what way is secularization growing, i.e. what does it mean for secularization to grow? More and more people are less and less religious? Then why is a new approach needed? Sounds like everything is working fine. And what sort of "secular progressive majority" are we looking for? Congressional? Just the senate? Or the U.S. population? Why a two-part approach and what are the parts? The blurb doesn't even begin to tell us anything about the approach (though it does imply that it's quite friendly to religious claims).

Voters must be allowed, without criticism, to propose policies based on religious belief. But, when government speaks and acts, messages must be universal.

Voters are allowed to propose policies based on religious belief. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing that. But why without criticism? Shouldn't we criticize any proposed policies that are vulnerable to criticism?

You seem to assume that this means that we shouldn't criticize proposed policies on the basis of being religiously inspired. That is not at all clear from the text. Furthermore, to what extent can we truly differentiate inspiration from rationale? For instance, most opposition to gay marriage seems to have an overtly religious inspiration, but the rationales offered are often secular -- at least overtly. Can we not criticize such arguments as disingenuous given the true motivations of gay marriage opponents? Can we not criticize the policies on the basis of the fact that they were inspired by a bizarre and self-contradictory text assembled a few thousand years ago by a gang of genocidal cattle herders? Or must we only address the secular arguments that are advanced?

This issue is actually even more complex due to issues about morality. Religious folk often think that they have a monopoly on morality, that atheists are incapable of being moral (or can only do so by accident, or through osmosis). Clearly, those of us who frequent this blog disagree -- we think morality can be secular. So if a religiously-inspired policy has a secular rationale that the policy merely enforces a moral proscription, can we not point out that the rationale is informed by the inspiration? That ultimately, the policy is completely religious in justification? Or do we have to give the religious the benefit of the doubt here?

I simply don't understand the "without criticism" part. No one and nothing is immune to criticism. If you don't like it, join the Church of Scientology -- you may find their views on free speech complement your own.

The burden is on religious believers, therefore, to explain public references like "under God" in universal terms. For example, the word "God" can refer to the ceaseless creativity of the universe and the objective validity of human rights. Promoting and accepting religious images as universal will help heal culture-war divisions and promote the formation of a broad-based progressive coalition.

You explicitly declined to defend this, but I feel I must still bring it up. I've pointed out that the rest of the blurb is so vague, self-contradictory, or absurd that it's impossible to tell what the argument really is. This is clearly supposed to provide an example of the sort of debate this "approach" is supposed to resolve, but by your own admission it is a bad one. But it is the only one we have. It is the only way I can even begin to make sense of the rest of the blurb.

Given the fact that the one part of the blurb that could determine whether your interpretation or PZ's interpretation is correct is -- by your own admission -- not a good example, I don't know that there's a whole lot to argue about here. I would say, however, that "inane" quite accurately describes the blurb. It's either vague or self-contradictory. It carries no content. It doesn't clarify anything.

So what are you even arguing about at this point? Are you just trying to accuse so-called new atheists of being a bunch of jack-booted thugs waiting in the wings for their chance to oppress the religious? Or do you actually have a point to make?

Posted by: Progressive Witness | June 20, 2009 11:32 AM

@241

Gladly and readily accepted. Thank you!

It's easy enough to get heated over trivialities, let alone issues like this that are important. Accusations of fuzzy thinking I can deal with and respect, and sometimes even cop to. :-)

Posted by: Lee | September 11, 2009 2:47 PM

How are you. To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Theresa fernald golden west college. I found only this - golden west college human. Features it eliminate the released infections? The open state of small influx you can bury toward your annual fight is 10 city. :-( Thanks in advance. Lee from Portugal.